None can question whether the Doctrin be Diuine when the Person who declared it to the world was so Diuine and extraordinary à Person holy in his conuersation wrought vnparalled miracles rose from death to life conuersed with his Disciples and gaue euidence of their fidelity by laying down The question Still begged their liues to attest the Truth c. Contra. 1. Replies the Heathen Here is again the same Petitio principii for either you belieue these particulars because Scripture record's them and then you suppose Scripture to be true and Diuine which he denies or because fallible men report them you own no infallible tradition and this aduances not your cause at all for the Turks and those of China talk as much of their Mahomet and Confusius vpon fallible and perhaps false reports also for yet the Heathen knowes not what Religion is true And next wonders why you speak of miracles of power ouer euil spirits of men laying down their liues c. when you Sectaries either deny or slight all the miracles euidently done in the Catholick Church as also the power She manifest's in casting out Diuels c. And if we mention Martyrs Catholicks haue more who layd down their liues in defense of the Doctrin of this one Church than suffered for Christ whilst the Apostles preach't to the world You hint some thing at miracles like one half affraid to meddle with such Motiues and say these wonders proue the truth of Apostolical Doctrin Pray you Sr Answer When you plead by miracles Doe you only allow those which Scripture relates or others By what miracles Sectaries plead also known by History and humane Authority If you rely on the first you suppose what now is in Question Viz. That Scripture is infallible and of Diuine inspiration If you own miracles registred in Ecclesiastical history and the liues of Saints you haue as I now said of Martyrs à greater number wrought in the Roman Catholick Church in the ages after Christ than were done whilst he and his Apostles liued Slight such à Cloud of witnesses as attest these later wonders and speak no more as you doe of any certainty grounded vpon the report of honest men Own them vpon humane authority as morally indubitable and you proue by virtue of these Miracles that the Doctrin of the Catholick Church is still Apostolical and Orthodox 12. Now here by the way I must lay open your fallacy A dilemma which forceth Sectaries to à vicious Circle when you recurr to miracles recounted in Scripture only and reiect others wrought by the Church Thus I argue Either you suppose and belieue the Doctrin of Scripture to be Diuine because you find the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles recorded there and propose these as the first Motiue and inducement of your belieuing Scripture or independently of Scripture Miracles you proue the Doctrin to be Diuine yea and the very miracles recounted there to be indited by the Holy Ghost If you belieue the Diuinity of Scripture induced therevnto by Miracles related in that Holy book you aduance nothing for all you say is that you proue Scripture Diuine because it recounts these wonders which are as obscure to à Heathen as the Diuinity or the sacred Doctrin of Scripture is Therefore you make à most vicious Circle for you proue the Diuinity of Scripture by Miracles internal to the book and the Miracles themselues not otherwise known by the Diuinity of Scripture Now if you say you know the Scriptures Diuinity antecedently or before you recurr to Miracles related there Scripture-Miracles are vseles to your purpose for if the supposition stand They are yet no more but obiects of Faith and therefore cannot serue you as motiues and inducements to belieue that very Diuinity which is now supposed known aliunde and most sufficiently without them 13. One may ask if God had neuer done any other Miracles but such as Scripture relates whether these are not sufficient to work belief in all The Heathen answers negatiuely and makes them insufficient because Scripture is not proued Miracles related in Scripture Conuince not à Heathen Diuine by them And all may answer so if Scripture be not otherwise first proued Diuine before we haue recourse to miracles internal to the book Howeuer admit gratis they were sufficient the most you can inferr is That the Primitiue Church which shewed them was Orthodox but whether any other Church yet preserues the same pure Doctrin may bee well questioned by à Heathen And here in passing you may note à singular Prouidence of God who age after age has illustrated his Church with most manifest and vndoubted miracles whereof more largely hereafter Disc 2. C. 8. 14. You say lastly That which God chiefly requires from à Heathen is the belief of the Truth and Diuinity of his Doctrin He answers he is ready to do so when you proue the Doctrin to be Diuinely inspired and infallible But hitherto you handle things so faintly that though the matter you treat be excellent in it self yet your proofs most disatisfactory come not home to conuince it Your mishap is iust like that of an ill lawyer who has à good cause in hand but knowes not how to handle it Your whole Method is vnmethodical your proofs prooflesse your iumbling most intolerable In à word you giue no rational A Good Cause ill handled by Mr Stillingfleet account of the reasonableness of the Truth of the Diuinity or of the infallibility of Christs Doctrin Therefore saith the Heathen I 'le suspend my iudgement till I meet with à more knowing Aduersary who I hope will not proue Truth by simply saying he speaks it but Conuince it vpon vndeniable Principles 15. But our Heathen hath not yet done with Mr Stilling for he saith plainly Though all the proofs hitherto hinted at might pass or were supposed valid yet there is not one word spoken to the purpose in behalf of Protestancy If you wonder at the bold Assertion ponder well his reason You Mr Stilling haue treated all this while of the excellency and reasonablenes of Christian Religion considered no man knowes how Pray you lurk not in such General terms but tell me particularly what Christian Religion is thus good excellent and reasonable If good and excellent it must be now found in the world Is it Arianism Pelagianism Donatism Quakerism These sects profess Christianity Are they all excellent and reasonable Affirm it openly if you dare Perhaps you will say no. Is it Popery By no means For may your word be taken it mantains false Our Aduersary Cannot say which à mong so many Religions is excellent and reasonable and erroneous Doctrin and that 's neither excellent nor reasonable Is it Protestancy Yes surely This is the excellent and reasonable Religion And is it possible Can you perswade your self without further proof than your own prooflesse word that the perfect draught or Idea of Christianity lies so fair
à most sâ—uere Examination and finally to make the Glorious vvorks of God knovvn Sentence vvas Iuridically pronounced by à vvorthy Arch-Bishop as is novv said Quod si rei tam notae contradicere ausint And if Sectaries yet dare contradict so manifest à Verity Quis illos c. who is there that vvill not look on them As impudent and list them among incredulous Iewes 21. Yet our Mr Stillingfleet forsooth Shifts all off with à Ieer. It is an easy thing for à Stump to grovv à leg in its passage from Spain hither What will not this man write to his petty purpose if 't come in his way What will he not pare away Mr Stillingfleets cheat and open fraud and add to à Story remote from the knowledge of the vulgar His book is full of such fraud Will he not think ye say any thing before the illiterate and ignorant in the high Mysteries of Faith whilst he blushes not to cheat and deceiue his Reader in à matter of Fact Notorioussly known to the world If he thinks I haue forged this Relation Hee shall haue the very indiuidual Copy I made vse of sent him the Bulk is not big If he doubt's of the Authority of these witnesses already produced and say yet all is à Fourb I 'll say as easily I am fooled in belieuing there is such à man in the world as Mr Stillingfleet whom I neuer saw And next will force him to exchange Principles with me à little You Sir say its à fourb à pretended no real Cure What 's required of Him I say Contrary The Cure was real and à great Miracle Proue now you Your Assertion vpon as good Humane Authority as I haue proued mine And we come to Principles fit to decide in the present Matter Fail to do this your Assertion hath not so much as one leg to stand on besides fancy or something worse CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signes peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church proue her Orthodox And make Her Doctrin euidently credible These laid forth to Sense and Reason distinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies Inferences drawn from the Doctrin Here deliuered 1. VEry little may suffice concerning the first part of the Title our Catholick Authors hauing done the work to my hands whilst they treat most largely and learnedly of the Amplitude and Vniuersallity of the Roman Catholick Church of the continued and Succession of Her Bishops Pastors and people of Her Vnity in one and the same Faith of Her Sanctity of the efficacy of Her Doctrin in conuerting whole Nations to Christ which S. Austin justly hold's miraculous The Largeness of this great moral Body rightly called by Sectaries à growing Religion which no persecution of Tyrants could hitherto suppres For time extends it self without dispute to all pass'd Ages since Christ And The Largeness of the Catholicks Church if we speak of place the growth successiuely was so great That In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum it hath been preach'd with immense fruit to all Nations Answerable to that of the Royal Prophet Psalm 2. where the eternal Father speaking to Christ our Lord as man giues him an ample Kingdome spread all ouer for his Possession Ask of me and I will giue the Gentils for thy Inheritance and thy possâ—ssion the last ends of the earth 2. Hence we first distinguish the Church of Christ from the lewish Synagouge limitated to one time till the comming of our true Messias And to one place also For the Sacrifice essential to that Religion could not be offered but in the Temple of Hierusalem only We distinguish both Church and Doctrin likewise from Mahumatism Nestorianism Eutychianism and other Heresies in Distinguishes Her from all false Sects the East which neuer got any considerable footing in these Western parts of Europe Finally we distinguish it from Lutheranism Calvtanism and Protestanism à confused Mixture of both and other late Doctrins These and their dissenting Heads stay in our Northin Climats without fruit or Progress made into Asia Affrica Greece or the like remote Countries wherefore some doubt not to auerr and most truely That the Holy Orders of S. Dominick of S. Francis and of the Society of Jesus are further spread more diffused through the world at this day â— than all the Sects or Subdiuisions of Protestants euer yet were or I think will be But the Kingdome of Christ's Church as Tertullian Cited aboue Chap. 1. n. 6. well obserues Vbique regnat reignes euery where and is The Amptitude of Christ's Keingdome euery where belieued Nor can these latter Sectaries now in an aged world hope to Propagate further For if S. Austin De Vnit. Eccle. C. 14. Thought it enormously improbable that Donatism then so early could diffuse it selfe the whole world ouer much less can our confined Protestants very late Teachers after so many Centuries when Heresy euery where lyes à gasping Hope to draw forreign Nations to à Belief of their Nouelties 3. The reason à Priori is A greater extent à further increase seem's inconsistent with the very Nature of those who professe this Religion For once liuing in the Vine and drawing Nutriment from thence they wilfully cut them selves off and separated from the Church Therefore as S. Austin saith they lie where they are Withering and dying without Lustre or any Enlargement Again as they began this new learning without Gommission to teach So they can send none hereafter Authoritatiuely to spread it further Hence I Argue That Church only is Christ's true Spouse which euer Protestancy increases not And why was from the first Rise of Christianity and successiuely got Possesin the four Parts of the world But thus the Roman Catholick Church was and is Still diffused here is Christ's promised Inheritance Therefore She is the only true Church Contrarywise the narrow confined and iarring multitudes of Sectaries scattered vp and down in à few corners in Europe All late Beginners and shameful Desertors of this Ancient Society neuer had so ample an inheritance and Consequently Their pretence of being the true Church of Christ is more than improbable 4. VVe may yet subioyn to the Amplitude of our Religion the euer visible and neuer interrupted Succession of Bishops and Pastors in the Roman Catholick Church from Christs time A Mark no less euident to sense than openly destructiue of Heresy This succession long since Prophesied by Daniel Cap. 2. Christ Kingdom shall neuer be dissipated and foretold by the Apostle Ephes 4. 11 He gaue some Apostles c. Sett's forth the Glory of it VVe need not in this place to weary the Reader with the known Authority of S. Austin positiuely Asserting Contra Epist fundam The succession of Lawful Pastors vrged C. 4. That the Succession of Pastors from S. Peters time held him in the Catholick Church and the Argument is more fully urged again Lib. de utilit Credendi C. 17. VVee need not tell any with
induced by such Signes belieued Christ and the Apostles vpon their own Testimony to be infallible Teachers So we hauing euer had the very like Works Signes and Miracles manifest in the Church are prudently induced to belieue Her as an Infallible Oracle vpon her own Infallible Testimony 2. To solue this plain and pressing Argument one of these What 's required to solue the Difficulty two things must be done Either à Disparity is to be giuen between Those first Signes and Miracles of the Apostles and the latter of the Church or it must be shown wherin the Inference made is Defectiue or vnconcluding Viz. That the Church euidenced by Her Signes is not proued God's infallible Oracle as the Apostles were proued by their Signes to be infallible Teachers I heartily wish any would read Mr Stillingfleet through all his long Pages of this Subiect And afterwards Gratify me so far as to Say where or in what Paragraph the direct Answer lies to either of these Difficulties I would Own it as à Singular fauour in the Interim Nothing is or can be Answered giue me leaue to Speak truth He Shuffles all along Waues the main Matter and Answers nothing 3. Thus he trifles The Church of Rome is infinitly obliged to vs could we make all good we Say Our Attempt is Heroical and generous What must men be as much obliged now to belieue your Church infallible as that Moses and Christ were so He wonders nothing at the Seuerity in our Censures of all out of our Church if to deny our Churches infallibility be an Offence of so high à nature Then he Asks. P. 129. Meer Trifles returned Whether the same Motiues of credibility belong to our Church by which Christ and his Apostles shewed their Testimony to be infallible We haue Answered Yea and proued the Assertion largely Disc 1. C. 7. 8. 9. And here press him to refute our Probations Or if he hold's them not refutable to giue à Disparity betwixt the Apostolical and our Churches Motiues 4. But he run's on headlong and to slight the Deuotion and Charity manifest in the Church talk's of our Superstitious Ceremonies and burning of Heretiques To what purpose are these More Parergons in Lieu of à Solid Answer Parergons when à Categorical Answer to the main Business is expected Is it only to giue à vulgar Reader Entertainment or to withdraw all who peruse his Book from minding where and how he would Shift off the Difficulty He shall not do it for we will follow him closely and therefore take notice of one great folly P. 130. Where he pleases to Say How much we haue befooled our selues in attempting to proue the infallibility of our Church in the same manner as Christ and the Apostles proued their Infallibility And Mark his Proof expressed in this proofles Proposition Insisting Saith he on that of Miracles as the greatest Euidence of their infallibility he means the Apostles our Church cannot with any face pretend to it Is not this Heroical and generous only to Say we are befooled and Faceles When we haue conuinced in the Chapters To say we are befooled is no Proof already cited that the Church has wrought Miracles euery way equal with those which the Apostles wrought What Doings are these May men vapour thus with their bare Assertions whilst we Proue and stiâ—l expect to haue the Arguments solued either by Reason or Authority 5. Page 130. As if one still sought to diuert à Reader with à deep piece of Learning He tells vs Mans vnderstanding because More Shifting yet finite cannot be in it self infallible without receiuing à participated Infallibility from an infinite Power aboue it And à tedious Discourse followes herevpon known to euery one but what is all this Said ouer and ouer to our Difficulty Haue we yet any Disparity giuen between the Apostles Miracles and those which the Church Euidences Or is our Inference already made any way infringed hitherto Not à word is yet returned to either and therefore the Argument stand's in its vigour without reply 6. Page 131. He saith first The Apostles deliuered not their Doctrin from Themselues but immediatly from God and consequently their Testimony must be owned infallible Answ Neither can the Church The Apostles Diuinely inspired the Church infallibly Assisted without Diuine Assistance deliuer her Doctrin as from Herselfe but from God As therefore the Apostles were immediatly Inspired to teach as they did so the Church is immediatly Assisted by the same Holy Ghost to define as she doth and vpon this account her Testimony must be owned infallible For what euer reason or Authority ascertains the one ascertains also the other And here we may come to Principles if our Aduersaries please The Proofs are equal Let them euince and t' is à Truth that the Apostles were so â—â—inently priuiledged I will lay down my Proofs by Theirs and Shew by as great Authority that the Church has her Priuiledge also of Diuine Assistance 7. He Adds. It being most vnreasonable to think that God would fauour such persons the Apostles with so extraordinary à power who A paradox should falsify their Message and deceiue the world Gentle Reader consider à little The Apostles taught the world for à few years only The Roman Catholick hath stood inuincible and taught Millions of Christians for sixteen Ages If then it be vnreasonable The Apostles taught for à Short time and Erred not yea impious to think that God could permit those first Blessed men to falsify their message and deceiue with errour for that short time Is it not I beseech you as highly vnreasonable and impious to Iudge that an Infinite Goodnes could permit the very Church he founded made glorious by Her Miracles and other Signal Motiues all which Proue her fauoured with à Power extraordinary to falsifie her Message to betray Her Trust and lead Millions of souls into damnable errour during the vast circuit of à The Church longer and grosly erred thousand yeares Consider I Say And blush at his boldnes who dare impeach this purest Spouse of falshood 8. Page 132. He goes on These Motiues of credibility were wont to be esteemed only the notes of Distinction of the true Church Church Motiues both distinguish and proue from all others and not rational Proofs of her infallibility Answ They both distinguish and proue The Apostles were distinguished from all false Teachers and proued also Oracles sent from God by their Signs and Miracles The like we say of the Church whose Marks and Miracles are not inferiour to those the Apostles manifested and far more Numerous Shew vs à disparity if you can or be silent hereafter 9. Page 132. I find nothing but first leaue giuen Bellarmine to multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hundred A sting at Bellarmine to no purpose How comes this to the Purpose Or what need is there of multiplying when One of those
the Vulgar let him read Gretser now Cited Bib. Max. sect 19. C. 4. and Serrarius C. 19. quest 143. And thus much of à digression CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 1. LEt vs if you please suppose that wee and Sectaries had now in our hands the very Autograph's of the whole Bible as it was once writ by the Prophets and Apostles or if you would rather Imagin the book drop't down from Heauen pure and euery way incorrupt I say the Sectary has not probable assurance of Scripture much less such à certainty as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting The ground of my Assertion is this vndeniable Principle owned as well by Protestants as Catholicks Viz Scripture solely considered according to the exteriour letter vnless the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost be had is no Scripture to the Reader For example Because the Arian read's that sacred truth My Father is greater then I and stand's meerly vpon the bare sound of words without the sense intended by the Holy Ghost Hee hath no true Scripture Whence it is that S. Austin serm 70. Temp. hold 's Hereticks most vnhappy because they take the words without the sense haue à body without Words without the true sense no Scripture à Soul the bark without the sap the shell without à kernel c. S. Hierom also in cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 11. speak's to this purpose Ne putemus c. Let vs not think that the Gospel lyes in the words of Scripture but in the sense of those words we read not in the out-syde but in the pith and marrow of it There is no need of quoting more Fathers The Principle is agreed on by all and most indubitable 2. Hence I argue Nothing is more essential to scripture than the sense deliuered by the Holy Ghost but the Protestant where he is most concerned has not so much assurance of the sense intended by the Holy Ghost as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting and I proue it He is most concerned when he opposes our Catholick Doctrin and stand's vp in defense of his own opinions but in neither has he such an indubitable assurance of the Scriptures sense as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting and this I say is euident For he cannot haue so much assurance if as weighty yea à far more weighty authority contradict's his sense But it is clear that not only the present Roman Church but other particular Churches in former ages reputed Orthodox contradict that sense the Protestant drawes from Scripture But Sectaries haue no Certainty of the sense when he opposeth Catholick Doctrin or defends his own singular opinions Therefore he has not so much certainty of the Scriptures sense as excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting Now that the sole iudgement of our present Catholick Church to dispute the thing no higher is as great vpon all accounts as the iudgement of Protestants seem's vndeniable And that the Testimony of our Church weakens the assurance of that sense of Scripture which Protestants lay claim to is most euident as wee see in school opinions when contrary to one an other for no man whether Philosopher or Diuine can prudently hold his opinion so certain as excludes à Possibility of doubting when as many wholly as learned yea more learned and numerous after à full knowledge had of it and long Study also deny that certainty Thus much I say is euident Now if the Protestant tells ' vs the Authority of his party weakens as much that sense wee make of Scripture as the contrary iudgement of our Church lessens his I answer The reply here is to no purpose For all I proue at present is that he want's this certainty whether we haue it or not is an other quaestion and clearly decided for the Catholik cause in the other Treatise Disc 2. c. 9. per totum Again were all granted the obiection would haue Thus much which is most fals only followes that neither of vs know assuredly the sense of Scripture which touches not the difficulty now in controuersy 3. My 2. Argument is so demonstratiue that if the Protestant A 2 Argument most Conuincing will please to solue it I 'le neuer trouble him more with difficulties To propose it clearly know only thus much That when the sectary read's Scripture and would haue it to his purpose He either ouer reaches the Text or fall's short of its meaning For example To those words of S. Math. This is my body he adds this as good sense This is à signe or figure only of my body Mark well We both read the same words but Catholicks deny that to be Scripture not because we deny the words but his sense we say is no scripture To that of our Sauiour I am with you alwaies to the end of the world He adds I am with you alwaies by à fitting but no infallible assistance We say this is no Scripture To that of S. Iames. A man is iustified by works and not by Faith only He adds he is iustified not before God but before men we still deny this to be Scripture And thus sectaries proceed with vs in all other controuerted Texts of Holy writ Whence I argue These Additions of à sign only of à fitting Assistance of iustification before men c are either the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost or Sectaries fancy but most euidently they are not the sense intended by the Holy Ghost for this must either be gathered out of Sectaries glosses and additions not scripture so many express words of Holy writ which is prodigiously false or must arise from the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance whereby Protestants as people Illuminated aboue all others giue vs the true meaning of Scripture and this besides the Paradox when à whole learned Church contradict's the assertion is most destructiue of the Protestants own Principle For they say the Holy Ghost interpret's by none enlightens none teaches none to deliuer the true sense of Scripture but such as do it infallibly which Truth is most vndoubted They say again when they giue the sense of Scripture or interpret God's word they do it so fallibly that it may be false or if they interpret infallibly and cannot err Eo ipso they are so farr infallible which they vtterly deny See Disc 2. c. 9. n. 8. what then remains but that the sense of Scripture proposed to vs by such fallible Teachers is only the thought of their own fancy 5. Some may reply Protestants after long perusing Scripture and comparing seueral Texts together iudge the sense of these and No more are their deductions other controuerted places by à lawful deduction to be as they declare I answer first They shall neuer come to so much as à probable deduction and I earnestly press them to
The iudgement of Credibility not attained by examining the Mysteries of Faith he come to this setled iudgement All I read not euidently true ex terminis is yet indubitably so Now this iudgement is not first got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the Church teaches No. There is à farr easier way whereby reason after à further discourse concludes that either God hath cheated the world by the Miracles the sanctity The blood shedding of Martyrs and all those conuersions wrought by the Church or we must grant That what the Church teaches is true And this general iudgement arising immediatly from à due Ponderation of the motiues of Faith which is Science disposeth an vnderstanding to belieue this great Truth God speaks his eternal verities by that Church be it yet where you will which Christ Iesus founded And in this sense we say à general Notion or knowledge of the Church manifested by supernatural signes is vsually necessary to the belief of euery particular Doctrin deliuered by it and consequently particular Doctrins can be no first mark or sign of this Oracle Thus much is here briefly hinted at to solue the obiection Hereafter the whole Analysis shall be most particularly discussed in its due place 4. A. 2. inference True Religion is first found by its marks The true Church is known before we can know the books of scripture and cognisances before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture can be owned as Diuine We come therefore to à knowledge of these incorrupt books by the help of that Christian Society where true Religion is taught and cannot first know where true Religion is by the books of scripture only I say First know For without all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the sense is once admitted vpon the authority of Christs Church we argue and forceably as the Fathers anciently did against Sectaries by Scripture But all such arguments presuppose the Books proued Diuine and sacred The reason of the inference is These Books only contain à simple narration of our Christian verities which both Iewes and Gentils slight therefore though we cry neuer so loud Scripture is Diuine and written by the Holy Ghost we effect nothing with these Aliens from Christ vnless we first conuince the truth by proofs distinct from Scripture it self And as little is No disputing by Scripture only without the Canon and sense be agreed on done if Christians of à different belief dispute by Scripture when neither the Canon nor the sense is agreed on For example Marcion produceth his Bible The Arian his and his sense A third à Scripture without S. Iames Epistle or that to the Hebrewes Our Sectaries Crowd in with their book whilst others as learned reiect their Canon and much more that sense they force from it in à hundred passages What is to be done in this Confusion Must wee admit of Marcions Bible or submit to our Sectaries Canon and new sense also No certainly it Cannot be expected Perhaps they will say we are to dispute the question and rigidly examin who hath the true Canon and sense of Scripture They or wee This ends the difference Very good But say on I beseech you And first giue vs à sure Principle à doubtful one in so weighty à matter help 's little which may bear vp the controuersy and at last end it for vnless this principle be agreed on the result of our dispute will be nothing but à fruitles wrangling O the Fathers and Antiquity well pondered cannot but decide the debate I answer may we iudge by the effect the assertion is most vntrue The ancient Fathers peruerted by sectaries end not Controuersies For haue not we and Sectaries now read and pondered the Fathers and Antiquity for one whole age what can be alleged on both sides as well for the Canon as the sense hath been said and after all are we not still as much at variance as farr off from ending the controuersy as when we began it Say Now but vpon à solid Principle who is in fault The Sectary thinks wee vnderstand not the Fathers and we are sure he abuseth them with farr fetch 't glosses He saith their words are clear for his sence and we profess the Contrary Hitherto we come to nothing like à Principle The Controuersy therefore driuen on no further but to the sectaries bare Yea and our No hangs yet in the ayre wholly vndecided The reason is Though the Fathers words be neuer so plain for our Catholick verities yet after the Sectary hath laid his glosses vpon them they are most vnworthily made by him as doubtful and à matter of as great contest as the very sense of Scripture is which both of vs would haue cleared by the Fathers testimony That is There is as much adoe may Sectaries glosses haue place to vnderstand what à Father teaches concerning the sense of scripture as to vnderstand Scripture it self before we haue recourse to the Fathers To recurre therefore to their interpretation in Controuerted matters whilst Sectaries as much darken that by their glosses as they obscure the Scripture we dispute about is The matter in Dispute no meet Principle to end it euidently à most vnfit way to end any Controuersy vnless that which is the very matter of Dispute between vs can be supposed à meet and sufficient means to end it which is impossible Now if the sectary blames vs because we reiect that sense he drawes from either Scripture or the Fathers and he also reiect ours what haue we but wrangling Both parties hitherto only word it and stand chafing at one an other without Principles God therefore hath prouided vs à surer and easier way to end debates about Religion whereof more in the sequele Chapters CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 1. NOte first If God as I said aboue once established true Religion among Christians He made it so discernable from all false sects that it may be found out by prudent reason Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertull. lib. 1. de Testimonio animae It s more known then any other learning For to say on the one side That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the world which shall not perish and on the other to assert it cannot be proued or found out is first to cast à blemish on Prouidence and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it because none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reason or rational arguments Note 2. The Doctrin of Christ which essentially constitutes true Religion stand's most firm vpon
into blood as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine Consequently they renounce both the parity and open sense of the words And which is euer to be noted wilfully do so when they haue nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on Contrariwise the Catholick in this debate denies no express sense of any Fathers Testimony but only makes Inquiry into the Signification of words which are confessedly dubious Take here one instance Gelasius saith The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be First I make no account of this Gelasius Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi Contra Eutich He was not that holy Pope so called but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl Howeuer these two particles substance and nature may ex placito indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massinesse of bread and wine for natural qualities which flow from an Essence haue or often sustain as was noted aboue the name of that Essence they come from Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious sense but only contends that Nature and substance may signify as is most Of Gelasius How much his authority is worth vsual the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be And he giues this signification to these two words because Scripture Church and the Fathers wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends forceth him to it And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine Thus much may be said if that authority were worth any thing Read I beseech you Brereley In his Lyturgy of the Masse cited aboue pag 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined and that in very truth this Gelasius who euer he was speaking against the Eutichians as Theoderet did vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also Open the book and read you will be satisfyed I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Obiections 18. There is yet an other Reply Sectaries may say we suppose all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin The Supposition is denied because they quote t' is true not many but some Fathers and Scripture also to countenance their new opinion By the way here is occasion again to reflect on what is often noted viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers and they explicate all They cite also and we do the like and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other we are as much iarring as we were before without hope of ending Controuersies this way Now my Answer to the first part of the Obiection is We Catholicks suppose nothing but only The answer to an other reply take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church which was neuer censured by any Orthodox society of Christians Vpon these Principles therefore Scripture Church and Fathers we stand immoueable To that which followes I Answer Sectaries haue not one syllable of Scripture in fauour of their Nouelty and to omit à rehearsal of those triuial Arguments drawn from certain passages where they conceiue the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine c. I conuince my Assertion by the positiue ground abready established which none shall ouerthrow If this be the true sense of Scripture when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solue it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament Christ who is aboue in heauen is not really present on the Altar but in his sign only Or that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread only deputed to à holy vse If this I say be the true sense of Gods word Christs Orthodox Church expresly deliuered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luthers Reuolt for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth But no Orthodox Church then taught so or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture or Malicious and concealed it from Christians our Sectaries sense is not Scripture To confirm this Reason All know that the Roman Catholick Church then as well as now absolutly renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture and for that cause was not say they Orthodox in this particular Doctrin but no other Church confessedly Orthodox taught it at that time Therefore it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning All I would say is briefly laid forth thus 19. The true Church of Christs euer deliuers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters so much Protestants grant But No true Church deliuered this their sense three or four ages before Luthers reuolt Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost but à whimsy lately inuented This Argument I hold demonstratiue You will perhaps ask What is that these men can pretend to hauing neither Scripture nor Orthodox Church to rely on I 'le tell you in à word They allege How Sectaries endeauour te solue it first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers which the Catholick admit's not in the sense of Nouellists yet according to the clear plain and obuious signification of words as is now declared and He prudently giues this signification to ambiguous words because the Doctrin he owns stand's firm vpon other indubitable Principles Scripture Church and Fathers The Sectary euidently wants such Principles and therefore vapors as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities The next thing relyed on is much worse and purely nothing but fancy He reads Scripture and those euident Testimonies of Fathers as manifest for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it and these forsooth he endeauours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses without the least shadow of any distinct Principle which giues so much as à Colour to his fancied interpretations You shall see this truth most manifestly proued in the ensuing Chapter CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubious and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as vnwilling to catch flies as Mr Stilling is to kill them T' is his own phrase yet I must do so in some measure or permit à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort wauing many of lesser moment and I doe thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores For I am well assured If our
Answ what need of this when Protestants say there is no great difference between vs in Fundamentals But suppose this done which yet cannot be done whilst Sectaries remain in their wonted Labyrinth concerning Fundamentals what light haue we from these Fathers to try controuersies now in Agitation when they grant that Popery is made vp of the Fathers Errours The final sentence is past the iust Censure already giuen The Fathers were as we are now plain Papists I easily grant all 4. Shall I yet say more concerning the trial of Protestants Opinions or the supposed errours of Catholicks by Fathers and tell you Sectaries haue no Gusto to it at all And because it mainly import's first to discouer their want of Euidence and next their fallacious proceeding in this particular I will briefly do both and remit all here noted to the prudent Censure of euery Iudicious Reader Thus it is There is not one controuersy now Protestants neuer offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers disputed in which our Protestants do so much as offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers and Mr Stillingf likes not to be fob'd off with Two or three Testimonies Read their writings of the Real presence of Prayers for the Dead Inuocation of Saints of à Sacrifice vpon the Altar of the infallibility of the Church and tell me after you haue perused all How many Fathers you find clear and express for Protestancy A sight of four or fiue would help much But hereof there is no danger for you haue not one clear and expres I say more not one so much as probable against the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Against praying for the Dead c. And therefore wonder not that Mr Stilling Part. 3. C. 6. P. 641. where he treat's of Purgatory talk's much of the Fathers Fancies and Imaginations And of an itching Curiosity some haue to know more concerning the future state of souls than God has reuealed But after all produceth not one Testimony either clear or probable against our Catholick Doctrin 5. Do you desire to see more of this want in behalf of Protestancy And how little there is to countenance the Nouelty Turn again to Mr Stillinf Part. 2. C. 1. P. 293. Where you find à Title threatning ruin to vs all The Roman Church not the Catholick Church Say I beseech you who would not haue expected after such à clap of Thunder à whole Torrent of Fathers to haue followed for his purpose But in lieu of these Imptij words giuen in lieue of â—athers what haue we Marry He tell 's vs First His Bishop makes à great deal of difference between The Church And A Church and some difference also between à True Church and à right Church next he fall's foul on his Aduersary for his not well considering what the Primate had said Lastly to pass by à few ieers he speak's much of the Vniuersal spreading of the Churches Doctrin and Vnity thereof which is due to the Roman Catholick Church only But after his long Discourse and the rapping Title with it you haue neither sentence nor syllable of any Father which so much as meanly insinuates That that ancient Moral body as it comprehend's all Christians vnited in one Belief is not the only True and Orthodox Church in the world Yet herâ— had been à most fit place to haue pleaded by plain express Authorities I mean such as directly proue the Roman not to be the Catholick Church Belieue it were there any such in the Fathers Volumes Mr Stilling to make his margents glorious would haue brought them to light with à witness But of this main point he is vtterly silent because he had nothing to say And therefore wisely Slip's aside to other By-Matters and leaues his Title to shift for it self 6. Hence you may well conclude that our Sectaries are driuen into strange Straits when we vrge them to proue their Protestancy Of the straites sectaries are Cast into We first call them to plain Scripture for à Final decision in this particular but wanting where with all they fit vs right with à return of Antiscriptural glosses We press them again to name any orthodox Church which fiue or Six ages since professed their Nouelties Not à word is Answered We make Inquiry after Councils held by Protestants before Luther for the Protestant Religion Silence deep Silence not one is found Mention only Oral Tradition they storm at you because they know Protestancy has none We appeal to the authority of the most ancient Fathers you see how we are serued with words and empty Titles Nothing is or can be alleged clear Nothing expres Nothing probable Finally to leaue them without all excuse We call them again to an account and Ask whether they will haue their cause tryed and iudged by their own Doctors Luther Caluin Zuinglius and the like No satisfaction is found here Luther condemn's Caluin more violently than the Prelatick Party in England doth the Quakers and Send 's the Associates Protestants irreconciably Contradict Protestants of Caluin to Hell for denying the Real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament And Caluin is as fierce against Luther in this particular And thus all Sectaries haue opposed one another from the very beginning of this woful Reformation Some plead for our Catholick Doctrin Others are contrary as you may read at large almost in euery Page of the Protestants Apology We therefore know not what these Nouellists would or can belieue whilst these endles differences about Belief thus turn their heads and make them to belieue iust nothing but what euery fancy pleaseth What à Religion haue we here View well it 's exteriour you haue only Horrour and confusion to look on Altars pulled down Cloisters demolished Bious places prophaned Stately Churches turned into sluttish barns by à barbarous Reformation Enter into the Interiour or cast à serious thought on that which should essentially constitute Religion you find this Protestancy à meer new Nothing as Scripture Neither Interiour nor exteriour valuable in protestancy lesse as Churchles without Tradition without the consent of Fathers or any Christian Principle to vphold it yea and this vtterly ruin's all without any Agreement in Doctrin amongst themselues May we not Therefore iustly deplore the sad condition of Thousands now within our once most Catholick England to see à Thing which stand's on no Principles but fancy most earnestly stood for by men of excellent natural parts and these English too whose Progenitors the world knowes it fully as wise as They were all Roman Catholicks But what will ye Good Reuenues A merry life à hansom wife and Self Interest will haue it so And thus much of the want of clear Authorities in behalf of Protestants 7. We are now to speak à word of their fallacious or rather open iniurious Proceeding with the Fathers And to make good what I am about to Say you may please to reflect vpon the
vpon no surer grounds then meer doubtful And vncertain Glosses are added to Scripture and the Fathers which An assertion clearly laid forth seem contrary to his Doctrin most euidently stand's vnprincipl'd proceed's weakly and proues nothing But the Protestant makes his weak and doubtful Glosses charged on such Authorities as are produced for our Catholick Tenets the sole Support the only Proof of his contrary Doctrin Therefore He proceeds vnreasonably and proues nothing You shall see this euidenced in the present Matter now briefly hinted at of the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Mr Stilling Asserts She is fallible I ask how He proues the Assertion What By express Scripture vniuersal Tradition the vnanimous Consent of Fathers the Definitions of any ancient Church or Council These are excellent Principles Could He settle How Sectaries proceed to weaken it his opinion vpon all or vpon any one of them we haue done and must yeild But he proceed's strangely and I must needs tell you How The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn from the Fathers in behalfe of the Churches infallibility And thereby to establish his Position She is fallible I demand how can our Proofs be weakned His Answer must be for he has no other I will so tamper with these your alleged Texts that at last I 'le make them proue nothing for your Churches Infallibility And consequently I may hold my Contrary Position of her Fallibility very well established The inference is worth nothing but let it pass I Ask. 3. What is it he will tamper withall or how can he make null those manifest Texts which clearly lye open to euery eye east on the Fathers And euince as we shall see hereafter that the Church is infallible Mr Stillinfleets strain through his whole book For Facta loquuntur return's the best Answer My Guesses saith he And Glosses laid on the Fathers when seemingly contrary to Protestant Doctrin Shall make them speak another language no way fauouring the Churches infallibility 2. Here we come to the point And demand in the last place Whether these Glosses are so clearly their Own Selfe-Euidence that by their very light they lay à Truth before an vnderstanding Their Gloâ—ses no selfe Euidence not to be contradicted For example Whether S. Cyprian in the Passage now cited gaue only as Mr Stilling saith à tast of his old office of à Rhetorician And spake not dogmatically Is this I say an vndeniable Truth Most euidently no. For stretch it to the furthest it can be no more but à most doubtful and vncertain Gloss I say t' is highly improbable Now be pleased to reflect The Assertion concerning the Churches fallibility is no Self-euidenced Truth nor clear Ex terminis no more is our contrary Doctrin of the Churches infallibility To giue it Therefore proof and weight these Glosses are cast vpon the Fathers who seemingly at least fauour infallibility But these very Glosses which should do that seruice are as vneuident as vncertain And doubtful as the very Doctrin is They should enlighten and lend proof too Ergo they aduance not at all the Doctrin concerning the Churches fallibility For proofs which are as vncertain as the very Doctrin is which should be proued can neuer raise that to à greater measure of certainty than it had before such proofs were thought of Please to mark what I say The Doctrin of the Churches fallibility here supposed by Sectaries is vncertain and for that reason lies in it's Vneuidence vntil solid Proofs clear it or expel both the vneuidence and vncertainty But these Glosses when they appear are as vneuident and vncertain as the Doctrin is Therefore they cannot raise the Doctrin to any higher degree of certainty than to meer vneuidence and vncertainty I would haue this noted For it is à ground whereby I shal show hereafter Protestancy to be à most improbable Religion And Therefore will deliuer it once more in these plainer Terms If the Sectary has no surer Principle whereon to found his yet vneuidenced opinion of the Churches fallibility then Doubtful Glosses laid on Scripture The force of our Argument more significantly expressed and Fathers as euidently he has not And These Glosses which should proue that Doctrin be as deuoid of strength as remote from Principles as vncertain or doubtful as that very yet vneuidenced Doctrin is It followes clearly That both the Doctrin and the Glosses fall to nothing but only subsist by fancy which is à real Truth From all now said I inferr that whoeuer interpret's must haue his Doctrin firmly grounded vpon certain Principles distinct from his own interpretations as the Catholick euer hath or nothing is proued 3. Mr Stilling may reply His intention whilst he interpret's these Fathers is not to proue immediatly his own Opinion of the Churches fallibility but only to show our alleged Testimonies come not home or want force to proue Her infallible Now to shew our proofs forceles in order to what we hold is not to make good his contrary Assertion For these two things are very different Our Aduersaries reply refuted To make null our proofs And to establish his own Doctrin Answ I grant they are different But neither is nor can be done Not the first Because these Glosses are no Sâ—lf-euident prouing That the Fathers sense is rightly hit on And Principles distinct from these Glosses whereby it may be shown what Doctrin the Fathers deliuered in this particular Mr Stilling hath not any so much as meanly probable To the second I Answer If He offer 's not to proue his Tenet of the Churches fallibility by the little strength these glosses haue I auouch it boldly All further Probations fail him and for that reason he is either forced to make vse of such poor stuff to proue withall or must sit down silent And grant his Tenet cannot be proued He may perhaps tell vs our Church has erred de facto Ergo it is fallible And here is his Principle I Answer it s no Principle to me but an Heresy And as Asserted by him 't is as much yea more doubtful than all his glosses are laid together He may reply 3. His Glosses may at least be thought probable I vtterly deny that And here is my ground Solely considered they euidence not their own probability But need further proof and probable Principles to rely on But such proofs are wanting to found Probability vpon Therefore these glosses are supposed only not proued probable Had Mr Stilling plain Scripture any Orthodox Church or Fathers clear for the Doctrin maintained by him He might well talk of the strength Of his Glosses but to make Glosses probable The Sectaries Glosses not so much as Probable when no probable ground supports the Doctrin for Whose sake he Glosses is not only lost labour but share 's much of Non-sense Again Were these Glosses probable which I shall neuer grant our Answers to them are at least as probable And what gain 's
any firm Belief or to ground so much Moral certainty of à Christian Truth as excludes à possibility of doubting 10. You will Ask what then is there which may raise these two Aduersaries from that low degree of meer Opining to à higher degree of certainty I shall fully Answer the Question in the next Discourse Here I say in à word No Principle can do this But one only which the Sectary want's And the Catholick has to rely on which is the Tradition the Voice and open declared Iudgement of Christs Catholick Church here on earth This faithful Oracle raises vs from the supposed State of our guessing Probably to the highest degree of not only Moral but also of Infallible certainty Though now we press not that against our Aduersaries The Sectary Therefore who disdain's to learn of this Oracle what Christian Truths are shall neuer come to his Moral certainty though the Supposition already made of Authorities equal stood in vigour Iudge then I beseech you How desperate his Cause is now How remote from all such certainty De facto whether he impugn's our Doctrin or plead's for his own opinions when he hath nothing to rely on but only à few dark and dubious Passages of some ancient Fathers 11. I say dubious Passages for in Truth if so much they are no more And Therefore though we haue hitherto supposed Authorities euenly laid on both sides To Show that nothing What the Sectary can Plead help 's the Sectary out of his labyrinth yet now I must tell the Story as t' is All he has in this world to plead comes only to à few misinterpreted Authorities And with such poor Gleanings Churchless man as He is he thinks to Out-braue à whole Church To decry Tradition to vnsense the Fathers to rob vs of our right And finally to throw vs out of the Possession of those ancient Christian Truths which both we and our Ancestors haue professed age after age without Alteration What think ye Haue à few rack't and tortured Sentences Add to them as many Cauils as many Criticisms as you please force enough to do such wonders Can these gleanings misinterpreted as you haue seen better inform vs of the ancient Primitiue Truths than the General voice or vniuersal consent of à whole Church now in being It is improbable Grant therefore which I do On what Principle the Catholick Stand's not That we know not too well the sense of one Theoderet or of à Tertullian c. The Catholick cleares his Doctrin And drawes it from surer Principles viz. From the voice and open declared Iudgement of his Church And most deseruedly look's on the Sectaries attempt as highly improbable who will needs know what Doctrin we are to hold now or was anciently held amongst Christians by à Fathers Testimony when the very sense is supposed doubtful And lies in obscurity That is He will know more than can be known He will force light out of darkness And deriâ—â— the moral certainty of his Doctrin from meer doubtful Principles which is impossible And thus these men proceed in all other Controuersies though Conscious that à whole ample Church decries their Doctrin as false And the open abuse of Fathers also O saith the Sectary I little regard what the Church decries Ansâ— And much less do I regard what you cry against it When the whole strength of your Clamours vltimatly resolued comes to no more but to fancied Glosses laid vpon ambiguous Authorities What in God's name would you be at What can you pretend The Church opposed to Sectaries Clamours or intend Shall clamours Think ye and your few clouded Testimonies force me to leaue my ancient Faith when I euidently know That the Church I liue in call's louder on me and more rationally command's me to Belieue as I doe This audible known voice of Christ's Church dull's your clamours infinitly Outweigh's your Glosses your guesses And the doubtful Sentiment of any priuate Father 12. The Sectary may reply I haue now supposed without Proof the Fathers abused by him whereas if the Supposition hold's it s only doubtful whether it be so or no. Answ Thus much is only supposed doubtful That neither of vs can learn by words precisely obscure what Doctrin to embrace or what to reiect Before à surer Oracle speak's and decide the Controuersy Catholicks say this Oracle is the Church The Protestant who has no Church to recurr to stand's trifling with his obscure Passages hoping at last to make something of nothing to hammer out of dark sentences the Clear Moral certainty of his new Doctrin Though contrary to the whole Church And thus He abuseth both Fathers and reason also Because as I said iust now A doubtful Principle yeilds not so much certainty If He say 3. His quoted Authorities are sufficiently clear to ground the Moral certainty of his Doctrin against the Church it is à desperate improbable Speech For Moral certainty which should pass as an vncontradicted truth most euidently loseth that force when à whole Church manifestly contradict's it But hereof enough is Said in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 6. n. 3. 13. You will ask perhaps What is to be done if we meet with à Father so clear and express against Church-Doctrin that he cannot possibly be brought to à Catholick sense I Answer A doubt proposed and solued Suppose thus much which I think was neuer yet heard of in any Contest betwixt the Protestant and Catholick I 'le absolutly deny the Authority and adhere to Church-Doctrin For as the whole body is greater than à part so the iudgement of à whole Church is the stronger Principle here and ought in reason to regulate and bear sway before the sentiment of any priuate man who by weaknes or inaduertancy may slip aside into Errour I say through weaknes or incogitancy for if he obstinately oppose the Church He is no Father in that But an Heretick 14. Whoeuer reflects well on what is noted already will see I hope How neer we are to an End of disputes with Protestants if the Contest arise from the Authority of Fathers Here is the Ground of what I am to Say All the Authorities which can What Authorities can be quoted be quoted in Points now Controuerted are either plain or esteemed plain for Catholick Doctrin both by the learned of our Church and Sectaries also As is amply proued aboue Or Contrariwise are at most supposed doubtful I Assert it boldly the Sectary has not one plain Testimony for him in this debated Matter of Transubstantiation And if one or two were granted plain that 's nothing to contrast with à whole Church and innumerable other Fathers 15. Hence I Discourse In case Authorities be Clear for Catholick Doctrin the Sectary opposes vs improbably if he seek to establish his Nouelties vpon à Principle which plainly teaches what we teach And quite ruin's his contrary Opinions If the Authority be doubtful I haue said enough already
without Progenitors successors without à Pedegree New Teachers without commâ—ssion Protestants indeed but without Principles 15. Hence I argue and it is à demonstration against Sectaries If neither Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christians in forgoing Ages euer owned or so much as heard of Protestancy before one vnfortunate Fatherles Luther broached it If no Antiquity so much as once mentioned one Professor of that Religion if no Tradition handed to Luther the new Faith he taught all which is without dispute manifest Protestancy most enidently is vpon this very account both an Vnwitnessed and an Vnprincipled Religion And not only improbable but in the highest degree improbable But no Authority can release an vnprincipled Nouelty from its own intrinsick miserable and â—ssâ—ntial state of improbability Therefore our Sectaries votes of no weight at all cannot make it probable And thus Controuersies are ended because an improbable Religion And for this reason improbable because vnprincipled is not defensible 16. To add more to this Discourse I Ask whether one Arius opposing the whole Church represented in the Nicene Council Protestancy as improbable as Arianism defended probable Doctrin or no You will answer No. Very good Yet he quoted Scripture and might one insist vpon the exteriour letter or sound of words more plain and express in the behalf of his Heresy than all the Protestants on earth can produce Fathers plain and Expresss for their Nouelty of Protestanism I would say Neither Theoderet nor any other Father speak's half so clearly to the Doctrin of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass c. As these words to omit others My Father is greater then I may the exteriour letter regulate here seemingly express an inequality between the Father and the Son Now if the seeming clear sound of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrin probable against the Church Then much less can the more obscure Testimonies of some Fathers make the Doctrin of Protestants probable against the Church Now. And if we speak of followers that Arius gained in his time There is no comparison He had more than euer England had Protestants in it 17. One may yet reply The Nicene Fathers cited plain Scripture against Arius Very true And so do Catholicks against Protestants For Christs Sacred words This is my body are as significantly plain against Protestanism as any Text those Fathers then vrged or yet can be vrged against Arianism The Arians not Conuinced by Scripture only But this you see did not the deed nor was then the last conuiction And why Here is the reason Because as Protestants now wilfully Gloss this plain Passage of Scripture and many others So the Arians then wilfully Glossed all those Scriptures alleged by the Nicene Fathers And yet hold on in that strain to our very dayes as you may read in Crellius and Volkâ—lius Yet more As the Arian Party then only Glossed but without the help of any antecedent Church Doctrin known to the world or vniuersal Tradition to settle their Glosses on So our Protestants now do the very same There is no disparity betwixt them They Gloss 't is true but giue vs Churchles Glosses Finally as those Fathers at that time did not only reiect the Arians Glosses but established also their own Definitions vpon Scripture How Conuicted interpreted by the known deliuered Doctrin of the then present and the more Ancient Church for they represented both And thus ended that Controuersy So we Catholicks proceed against Protestants And bring all debates to the like last period The Church or nothing must end them Without recourse had to the known and owned Doctrin both of this present and precedent faithful Oracle They and we may interpret Scripture long enough They may Cauil And we may hold on in our Answers to the end of an other Age without hope of ending so much as one Controuersy But of This enough is said already CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 1. SEctaries may obiect first We Suppose all this while But proue not The Orthodox world to haue hitherto maintained the Doctrin now taught by the Roman Catholick Church concerning Transubstantiation Inuocation of Saints c. Therefore our Discourse seem's vngrounded I answer 1. The Reply is not to the Purpose in this place whilst we only press Sectaries to giue in Proofs for their Contrary Positions This wee say They Cannot doe Now if wee bee as farr of From Proofes or Cannot ground our Tenets vpon vndubitable Principles Controuersies are ended without more Adoe Because The first Obiection answered both of vs if the Supposition hold's haue no Articles of Religion to Propugn But weak opinions which whether true or false import not Saluation Nay the Truth of them could it be known is scarse worth any mans Knowledge I Answer 2. Our Proofs to say no more now Stand firm vpon Church Authority once at least owned Orthodox on our Councils and ancient Tradition neuer yet repealed nor excepted against But by Hereticks only May it please our Aduersaries to come Closely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets by the Authority of any like or better Church than ours is We haue done and must yeild But this they know is impossible And therefore neither will nor can Answer our Discourse If they say our Church where its contrary to Protestancy has erred Vrge them to proue the Assertion by any Principle either equal to or stronger than our Church Authority is And you will haue them driuen again to their Glosses or to some few gleanings of Fathers In à word to no Principles 2. They may obiect 2. We haue took much pains to proue Nothing against Protestancy For we know some late Professors namely Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet stifly maintain A second Obiection Proposed these Negatiues of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass No Inuocation of Saints c. To be only pious Opinions or inferiour Truths Neither reuealed by God nor Essential to Protestant Religion Therefore whilst we vrge them to ground such Negatiues vpon plain Scripture vpon the Authority of an Orthodox Church Councils Tradition c. They tell vs we meddle not at all with the Essentials of Protestancy But only dispute against Opinions And Contrary to iustice force them to proue meer opinions by Scripture Church c. wich is more then we can press vpon them or doe our selues For haue not wee Catholicks many Opinions in Schools which none pretend to ground vpon so strong Principles as we settle our Articles of Faith on Yes most assuredly Opinions then and Articles of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled And thus Point's at à distinâ—tion between Faith and Opinion the Protestant discourses in the present Matters Here saith He is the only difference That Catholicks lay Claim to more Articles
bread This is our Doctrin concerning your miscalled Eucharist we allow you no more and Therefore vtterly dissent from you 26. You add presently à great vntruth And I wonder you could speak it without blushing The greatest men of our Perswasion as Suarez and Bellarmin say you assert the belief of Transubstantiation not to be simply necessary to Saluation Ignorance or Malice or both had certainly à hand here For they say no such thing I Ascribe much to the first moued thereunto by your following words And that the Manner of it is secret and ineffable Dear Sr were Christ really present without Transubstantiation as Luther held The manner of his existing with bread might yet be secret and ineffable But would this inferr à denial of his ineffable Presence All that Catholick Authors say is That the modus existâ—ndi or Our Aduersaries Mistake Manner of his existing in the Sacrament is secret and ineffable euen with Transubstantiation do they Therefore hold the verity not simply necessary to Saluation or boggle at the Doctrin of Transubstantiation You belieue à Trinity of Persons in one Diuine Essence it 's hard for you to express the Manner how God is one and three distinct Persons yet you belieue the Mystery And hold that belief necessary to Saluation Diuines eudeauour to explicate the Manner of Christs ineffable Presence in the Eucharist but when all is done you haue no more from Then but Opinions And so it fall's out in the other Mystery of the Trinity where Schoolmen vary in their explicating Quomodo How God can be one in Essence And three distinct Persons Yet they hold the belief of the Mystery after à due Proposal absolutly necessary to Saluation And thus they discourse of Christs ineffable Presence in the Eucharist The Quomodo or Manner of his being there is difficult And cannot be clearly laid forth to weak Reason yet that perplexeth not our Faith whereby wee submissively yeild to what God speakes without further curiosity 27. Your other instances Page 620. are quite besides the business Christ you say instituted the Sacrament in both kinds The Primitiue Christians receiued in both What then Ergo Other instances refuted Christ commanded both to laicks is no Consequence nor agreed on by Catholicks 2. Both Churches say you Agree that the Eucharist is à Sacrifice of duty of Praise of Commemoration c. You know we absolutly deny your Supposition and say you haue no true Sacrifice consequently neither praise God nor Commemorate Christs Passion but grievously offend him in your taking à bare piece of bread Here is no Agreement And thus we speak of your Mass or Liturgy For there was neuer Mass in the without à true Sacrifice you haue no Sacrifice Ergo no Mass Church The grossest errour therefore is that you haue rased out the Sacrifice most essential to à Liturgy 28. Page 621. You say His Lordship Answers truly that the Agreement of differing parties is no Metaphysical Principle The Contingent proposition but à bare contingent Proposition which may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applyed Answ A contingent Proposition What 's this Sr If you mean that the Protestant party vented it by chance I 'le not quarrel with you But out it is in print And applied to the Possibility of Saluation which you allow Catholicks Let this concession stand it cannot but be true vnless you say Both parties err in the Assertion And then we are not only out of the Question but highly blame you vpon this account That all your pains in discussing sc largely the matter hitherto has been to no purpose For one line might haue ended All had you plainly Said We Protestants fouly erred when we granted Saluation to Catholicks in their own Religion Be it how you will I say this Proposition Saluation may be had in Catholick Religion is So true that it cannot be false because the greatest Authority on earth the vniuersal Church of Christ own 's it as an vndoubted verity and could this possibly be à falshood neither we nor Protestants can belieue any thing which the Church teaches as is amply proued in the second Discourse c. For to what purpose should I belieue the Trinity the Incarnation the Creed or any thing els when Is so true that is cannot be false that Church which proclaims these as Truths may after all damn me The very uglines of such à thought carries horrour with it And stark shame decries it as Abominable Your Lord and you say next The consent of disagreeing parties is neither Rule nor proof of truth No man can resolue his Faith into it but Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force Agreement Answ All this is very right Therefore we neuer make your consent either Rule or proof of any Catholick Verity much less do wee resolue our Faith into your Agreement Church Doctrin Stands firm without you it was true before you were in being And the euidence of it forced you to consent with vs. Now à word to your other two or three instances And. 29. In real truth Sr I much wonder you saw not their Lameness before you thrust them into your Page 621. And that you would fain allow them Strength to weaken this Truth Wâ—e Other Instances proved weight less and Protestants Agree thus far that Catholick Religion can saue vs c. I say Contrary The instances are so remote from your design That they proue just nothing One is The Orthodox Christians agreed with the Arians that Christ was of like nature with his Father But added Hee was of the same nature Ergo Say you it is safest to hold with the Arians To hold what I beseech you You Answer that Christ was of the like nature Very good That Likeness either excluded the same nature or included it Grant the first you make the Fathers Hereticks which is impossible For they held the same nature common and Consubstantial to the Father and Son If their concession which is true included the same nature The Orthodox party and Arians agreed not in the same hypothesis consequently your instance is to no purpose at all In à word this euer and vnexceptionably holds good The Doctrin which Hereticks Iewes and Turks agree in with Catholicks is most true so you and we agree about saluation now discussed but it doth not follow that so much only or that no more is true Your want of reflecting vpon this Only or no More makes That 's truth wherein Catholicks and Hereticks agree all your instances impertinent And your inferences Ergo It is safest holding with the Arians most vnconcluding For though the Doctrin be true when the Arian side with the Church yet it deriues no absolute safety from that consent of Hereticks 30. Vpon these grounds all the rest which followes fall's to nothing Some dissenting parties Say you agree that there ought to be à Resurrection from Sin
Tabernacle placed iâ— the sun Ipsa est Ecclesia saith S. Austin Epist 166. In sole posita The Church is placed in the sun Hoc est in manifestatione omnibus noâ—a vsque ad terminos terrae That is She is known by Her own apparent and manifest Euidence all the whole world ouer And because no one Father touches this point with greater Energy than S. Austin Hear yet more Tract 1. m. 1. Ioan Possumus digito c. S. Austins Iudgement concerning The Churches Euidence we can point at the Church and demonstrate it with à finger and They are blind who see it not Lib. 2. contra Crescon Cap. 36. Extat Ecclesia The Church is in Being apparently clear and conspicuous to all Again Lib 2. Contra Petil C. 32. Neminem latet verae Ecclesia The Church of Christ lies hid to none And Lib Contra crescon C. 63. The Church so clearly presents it self to all sort of men euen to Infidels that it stopp's the mouths of Pagans c. See also this great Doctor pondering those words of the. 30. Psalm Qui videbant me foras fugerunt c. Obscurius faith Hee dixerunt Prophetae de Christo quam de Ecclesiâ c. The Prophets haue spoken more darkly of Christ than of the Church And I think this was done because they saw in spirit that men would make Parties against the Church and not contend so much concerning Christ ready to contend about the Church Christ almost euery where was preached by the Prophets in some hidden or couered Mystery Ecclesia apertè but the Church was pointed at so clearly that all might see it and those also who were to bee against it I waue other Authorities for t' is tedious to proue à Manifest Truth or here to transcribe plainer Testimonies relating to this subiect Thus much premised 7. I say first Though Church Doctrin be more clearly expressed by the Church chiefly in all Matters of Controuersy than in Scripture For example you know the Church deliuers the An Assertion concerning Church Doctrin Consubstantiallity of the eternal Son with greater clarity than Scripture expresseth that Truth Yet no man can proue to reason this clearer Doctrin to be immediatly true vpon this sole ground Mark my precise words that the Church teaches it My meaning is The Church yet not manifested to bee God's Oracle by marks extrinsecal to its Doctrin leaues Reason so in suspence that it Cannot say This is the Oracle which teaches Truth or that the Doctrin of this not yet euidenced Society is Diuine and Orthodox The Assertion is so amply proued aboue that it is needles to press the Arguments further in this place All I say now is that we discourse in like manner of Scripture and Church Doctrin precisely considered as Essential Doctrin not yet made Credible by The Doctrin of Scripture or The Church not Proued true by Saying its true signes and Motiues As therefore the Verities of Scripture are not known to be Diuine Ex terminis because I read them in that Holy book But must haue them proued Diuine vpon à certain Principle distinct from Scripture So the Verities of the Church are not known Ex terminis to be certain before I proue the Church by Clear Motiues to be the Oracle of Truth whereby God speaks to Christians what I Assert is euident in Christ our Lord and his Apostles when they first began to preach For neither Iew nor Gentil belieued that Sacred Doctrin vpon their bare preaching Nay It scandalized the one and seemed à foolery to the other But when they saw it confirmed by Euident Signes and Wonders by eminent Sanctity of life by vndeniable Miracles and other Signal marks which the Author of Religion laid open to Reason Both Iewes and Gentils were gained moued to belieue by Such Inducements no less prudent than forceably perswasiue 8. The reason of all à Priori giuen aboue euinces thus much None can indubitably and immediatly own the Doctrin of either Church or Scripture as true and Orthodox but by one of these two means Either the light of natural Reason discouers that Truth Or it must be known by Faith Reason alone too weak to comprehend the Sublime Mysteries reuealed in Holy writ or taught by the Church boggles at all And left to it self reiects The reason of our Assertion at least the harder Mysteries as is manifest in both Iewes and Gentils Now to know them by obscure Faith is wholly impossible vnless one haue sufficient Assurance before hand grounded on other prudent extrinsecal Principles That both Scripture and the Church teach Diuine and certain Doctrin To know thus much the Rational man must discourse And in this present state of things first find out the Church by her Marks and Signes visible to all If reason complies not with this duty the Faith we draw from thence is no Faith but à precipitous foolish Credulity For who can prudently assent to the high Mysteries of Christianity vnlesse Reason first see it is prudent to do so This is what the Apostle deliuer's in few but most pithy words Scio cui credidi certus sum That is I first know why I am to belieue by Reason and then stedfastly belieue without further reasoning But enough of this in the Chapter cited aboue 9. The. 2. Proposition If the Doctrin of Christ's Church precisely considered according to its Essence bee not ex exterminis manifestly true or proues not immediatly that the Church is Orthodox vpon Her own meer saying that She teaches Truth It is euident She must be proued Gods Oracle by Motiues extrinsecal to Her Doctrin Now these Motiues purely considered as Inducements to belieue are not Articles of Faith but sensible reasonable and of such weight that they powerfully incline euery The Church first proued Orthodox by rational Motiues well disposed vnderstanding to this rational assent As God anciently spake by Moses by Christ and his Apostles So he now also speak's by his own true Church And lead's men vnder her safe Conduct to Saluation 10. The ground of my Assertion is no less euident than the very Position it selfe First Christ himself neuer proued his Doctrin true by meerly saying it was so but confirmed it by signes and wonders which made it immediatly credible as is sayd already So also did his Apostles And so doth the true Church to this day 2. Vnless Christians haue those prudent Inducements preuiously applied to reason before they belieue the Holy Catholick Church The wise prouidence of God must be supposed so neglectiue as not to let men know after à prudent and diligent search which or where his true Church is Though Scripture Compares it to à glorious Sun most visible to all And the Fathers say they are blind that see it not 3. All those Millions of Christians who belieued the true Church who liued and dyed happily in it innumerable shed their blood for the verities of it were not
our Church hath erred but in one only Matter of Christian belief She is Traiterous disloyal to Christ and can be belieued in nothing To proue The Church is traiterous if false in one Article the Assertion Suppose an Embassadour sent to à forraign state with this deep Charge that he vtter nothing in his Princes name but so much only as he is commissioned to speak Suppose again the man declares some few truths to the state as his Lord commanded But withall forges twenty other vntruths on his own head and stifly affirm's his order is to deliuer all he saith in his Masters name Would not such à man think ye be à Traitour vpon à double account First because he exceed's the bounds of his Commission and deliuers that he had no order for But chiefly because he speaks vast falsities wholly Contrary to his iudgement who sent him 2. The Application in easy The first Teachers of the Gospel were legates sent from God to à great State the whole world For in omnem terram exâ—uit sonus eorum They taught euery where and well for some short time our Christian Verities as the Prince who sent them Commanded But their Successors the Pastors and Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church in after Ages had Say Sectaries the ill luck to miscarry to turn Traitours for besides à few fundamental Truths vpheld no man knowes how They did not only exceed their commission in deliuering Doctrin to all Nations which Christ their Master neuer allowed of but more ouer forged of their own heads twenty vntruths Purgatory Praying to Saints Transubslantiation c. And spake all in their Princes name Said also they had Commission from Christ to teach so This fact if the Charge be true is Treasonable they iniured Christ And consequently not Orthodox and his Verities and betrayed their trust But à Church so perfidious cannot be Orthodox Therefore if Sectaries do not Calumniate Christ had no Orthodox Church in the world before Luther which I intended to proue and Consequently Protestants are yet no true Church at all 3. I say moreouer If the Roman Catholick Church hath taught false Doctrin but in one onely Matter of Christian belief She can be belieued in nothing yea I may rationally suspect her false in all She teaches Iust so it is If the book of Scripture deliuer's one Doctrin false which Christians now belieue I cannot credit it in any thing The reason is One and the same Motiue of my belief duely and equally applied euer moues to an equal Assent or to None at all For example I belieue Christ dyed for vs because Gods word saies so Here is the Motiue of my Assent I belieue also that he ascended into Heauen because the same word of God speaks it here is the same Motiue Imagin now by à supposed impossibility that this latter Article A Church false in one Article merits no beliefe is Gods word but false I cannot belieue our Sauiours Death vpon the Motiue of God's word For if this word be false and once deceiue it may as easily be false and deceiue me twice And there is no possible means to quit me of my errour Because whoeuer endeauours to do that is of less Authority than God's word which is now supposed to deceiue me If therefore the First Verity can reueal an vntruth none can belieue either man or Angel speaking of the high Mysteries of our Faith and Consequently All must still remain in Errour 4. Apply this Discourse to the Roman Catholick Church which pretend's at least I say no more yet to be Gods Oracle and to speak in His name She speaking in his name assures me that Infants are to be Baptized I belieue Her vpon her word She also tells me there is à Purgatory but we must now suppose with Sectaries it is à great vntruth if so I cannot possibly belieue Her in the other Doctrin of Infant Baptism For if she deceiues me once She may well do it again and which is to be noted There is no means left vnder Heauen to vnbeguile me or to draw me out of my supposed Errour for who euer attempts to do that is of less Authority than my Church which is supposed to teach to err in Her teaching and stifly to maintain the Errour Scripture cannot help here vnless it be clear vpon an indubitable Principle that the sense of it and Doctrin of my Church can differ in points of Faith which must be proued and not Supposed If Fathers be alleaged Seemingly contrary to this known Doctrin my duty is to explicate them and rather to draw the Fathers to what the Church teaches than to renounce Her Authority and adhere to the dubious and yet vnknown Sense of any Father 5. Now here is à short consideration For Sectaries I said whoeuer supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred A Reflection for Sectaries must ioyntly own it so remediless an Euil that all the men on earth cannot help or remoue the supposed errour from this Church The reason is All the Proofs and Principles setting plain Scripture aside whereof there is no danger which may be thought pertinent to impeach Her of errour will fall infinitly short and proue less ponderous less substantial to perswade that She has erred than her sole Vote and own Authority whilst she anathematizes the falshood is to perswade the contrary Viz. That She neuer erred Hence Sectaries confessedly fallible men who Sectaries Attempt desperate and why may easily spoil all they goe about to mend aduenture desperatly to reform the Church when the very Principles they should reform by were there any such in being are incomparably of less weight strength and force than the Authority of this Church is which saith She cannot erre Howeuer She must be reformed and here is the wonder before they know whether She has erred or haue the least assurance of their own half accomplish't reformation Who then see 's not euery attempt made against our Church this way to bee as really it is à folly an vnaduiced Enterprise no less impossible than in the highest manner improbable Mark what à task lies on them 6. First they are to proue She has erred which was neuer yet done 2. To giue in Principles whereby they will reform 3. To VVhat they are to proue Shew themselues well setled in à perfect Reformation 4. To euince that all those innumerable learned men of our Church from the Fourth to the present Age haue been stupidly blind bereaued of iudgement and besotted with Errour 5. Wheras other Christians both more aged and most learned espyed none of these Errours They are to proue that God made choise of such vncommissioned men to perform à work so long neglected by the Orthodox world But of these particulars enough is said in the other Treatise 7. Hence two things follow First that Sectaries only lose time when by alleging à few dark Testimonies of the Fathers they offer to
neuer censured Church be Supposed guilty after the whole world held her blamless and has iudged well of Her condemnations pas't vpon Hereticks Compare I say the Authority of the Church time out of mind proued Innocent with the Authority of Hereticks known most guilty There can be no Parallel may we precisely respect Authority Wherefore if the Opposition of Hereticks hath any force Their charge against the Church must stand vpon Strong proofs and sound Principles distinct from Their own voting Her Delinquent These Principles we seek for in all our Disputes with Protestants yet hitherto neuer heard of Any and belieue it Wee hold their own Authority of no greater weight than that of Arians or of any other condemned Hereticks 8. Others quite driuen off all ground of rational Arguing will needs fasten Errours vpon our Church because forsooth in such an Age the 9 th For example after Christ or There about some Popes were less good and People much debauched An other simple Plea Then most likely was the Nick of time Say these to bring in Transubstantiation the Popes Supremacy and what other Errour you will Answ A most pitiful Plea not worth the paper it blot's I shall not so much refute it for it merit 's not the labour As Shew how it destroyes the Belief of all Christian Religion 9. Pray you consider Christianity in the greatest Latitude Imaginable Call Arians Donatists Protestants And Catholicks also Christians Grant which is true that there haue been very wicked men amongst these different Professors I say if this Argument haue weight Some few Popes and many People were not good for one Age chiefly Ergo debauchery in manners more then probably brought in false Doctrins vnder the Notion of Christian Truths A Iew or Gentil may Argue as well and infer that Viciousness of life hath destroyed all Truth among Christians if euer They had any For why should lewdness haue less force to Subuert all Truth taught by the Church of Rome than some only It hath say Sectaries brought in much Errour Therefore saith the Iew it may as well haue corrupted all Christ Doctrin 10. To reinforce this Argument I told you aboue if the Church of Rome had but once proposed one Article to be belieued by Diuine Faith which is false She is not to be reiected and proued unreasonable credited in any thing If you Reply it is euident That though false in many Tenets She yet taught some Articles true As that Christ is our Redeemer The Iew Answers and so do I too She Taught and teaches so still but that This is Truth if debauchery of life bee ineuitably connexed with false Doctrin shall neuer be made Probable For this Church is either entierly sound in Doctrin or Entirely deluded One may Say Scripture is euidently plain for some Primary Articles of Christian belief Answ The Iew scorn's the Reply and maintain's this Truth as I also do If it be once proued that the Church of Rome imposed on the Christian world Falshood in place of Truth Transubstantiation The Sacrifice on the Altar c. She may as easily haue corrupted the whole Bible and made that Book false in à hundred important Passages whereof enough is said in the other Treatise No true Church Therefore no Probability of true Scripture 11. Let vs now proceed to others called Christians the most known Arch-hereticks you will haue the same Conclusion Arius for example à stubborn proud Fellow had many Associates like Himself yea and certainly taught some Doctrins false Therefore Saith the Iew All He deliuered was false also The Diuel learned Luther to broach His new Gospel and the mans enormous Viciousness is known to the world by as credible Authors as Platina or Nico de Clemangijs who make Popes and People so impious Therefore all that Luther taught cannot but bee vpon the Argument proposed most iustly excepted against An other Simple Argument reiected as pernicious Doctrin For gross Errours like à Torrent follow Deprauation in manners Caluins Pride Deceipt and Cousenage to say nothing of that hidious Sin for which he was branded are vpon Record And all know what Rebellion what tragical Doings ensued vpon the wicked mans Apostasy Who then can harbour so much as à good thought of any Doctrin He taught euen that Christ dyed for vs Hence saith the Iew if Wickednes of life and Errours in Doctrin be such inseparable Companions And all Sects or Religions nameable haue had Professors wicked Farewel Christianity yea and Christ Himself also For if the Impiety of some lead's Erroneous Doctrins into à whole Moral Body that one crying Sin of Iudas might more easily haue corrupted the First Apostolical Colledge smal in Number Than the incomparable lesse defects of Popes depraue the great Moral Body of the Church O but Christ secured the other Apostles from Errour Answ So he doth his Church And the Iew will as soon belieue the one as the other who Argues thus 12. Christianity was neuer without Sin Ergo neuer without Errour if the Argumâ—nt haue force When Therefore these new men Say Wickedness of life Compared with the losse of Faith Gods Prouidence seem's equally concerned to preserue the Church from things equally Pernicious But viciousnes of life is as pernicious to Christianity and as destructâ—ue to the End of it as Errours in Doctrin They know not what they Say The Argument is euery way defectiue 13. First it s vtterly False that Wickednes is so pernicious as Errours against Christian Doctrin For Errours destroies Faith the ground of Saluation and immedeatly opposeth Gods Infinite Veracity Wickednes in Manners destroies Grace and other Supernatural virtues yet leaues the Foundation vnshaken Again By what law do these men Suppose that God preserued not his Church Holy in those dayes Doth it follow because some were wicked that She lost all Sanctity Will they Say if the English Church had euer Sanctity in it All vanished into Smoak in the late dissentions and deplorable Tumults There were neuer such Doings at Rome in the worst of daies as England then Shewed to the world O but there were then many Holy and Godly men that suffered Be it so at present I loue not to recriminate For one of yours Holy we had Thousands in that Particular Abuse can not unhallow the Church Age you except against the whole world ouer in England Germany Spain France Denmark c. most humble pious virtuous and profoundly learned What do you think that à few Abuses in Italy not half so bad as you make them can Vnhallow an ample Church Yet here lies the Strength of your weak Argument The iniquity of some chiefly of Popes and Prelates ruins not sanctity only But moreouer induceth Errour into the whole Moral Body of Christ You iust proceed as if One should atattempt to proue that à goodly Building which yet visibly stands fair to the Eye and firm on Sure foundations is all shattered and pulled down
c. so far Eclipses the false lustre of Heathens Iewes and Hereticks that reason concludes In this one manifested Oracle it is that Eternal Wisdom deliuers his Diuine Truths Or there is no such thing as à reuealed Truth taught in the world This iudgement most rational once well setled in an vnderstanding without further debate ends all controuersies of Religion So forceable and perswasiue is the language of God's own glorious works 17. Imagin I beseech you that God should now lay the Heauens open and euidently declare to the whole world in most significant and clear words That the Roman Catholick Church is Gods works speak no less plainly to reason then His vvords his own faithful Oracle and exactly teaches those truths he reuealed All whether Heathens Iewes or Hereticks would submit and if reasonable yeild Assent to so great an Euidence manifested by words And what shall his own glorious works of Miracles the known language of Heauen euer spoken since Christianity began proue less perswasiue than words but once only deliuered Interrogemus Miracula saith S. Austin cited aboue Quid nobis loquantur c. Ask of Miracles what they speak of Christ demand also what they say of his Church Habent enim 〈…〉 guam suam They are neither dumbe nor silent Orators Works therefore speak and can Answer both for Christ and his Church S. Paul Rom. 1. 20. drawes euidence of Gods inâ—isible Perfections of his Power and Diuinity from the Creation of the visible effects in Nature And shall not Christians think ye find euidence enough in the works of grace I mean in Miracles and other most Signal Marks manifest in the Catholick Church which make it highly Credible That he speak's his eternal verities by this one Oracle The Euidence in both cases well penetrated seem's much à like call it moral physical or what you please whereof more presently 18. From this Discourse it followes That à Church demonstrating Gods own Seal and manifest Caracters of Truth so exactly All walk in Darkness without an Euidenced Church teaches Truth that none can rationally contradict Her Doctrin though often difficult to weak Reason The ground of my Assertion is Renounce once such an Oracle we are cast into confusion and haue no other Master to teach Christians but the obscure Mysteries of Faith far enough God knowes from any Self-euidence and the yet not sensed words of holy Scripture because the Church which only can and must interpret is vpon the Supposition reiected In this two fold Darkness of obscure Mysteries and vnsensed Words weak Reason toyls as our Sectaries haue done à whole Age But with what success think ye S. Peters night labour return's the true Answer Totá nocte laborantes nihil cepimus All night long vve haue took much pains yet got nothing Such is the Fate and Folly of our modern Sectaries that will vvalk in the dark without the Guidance of à Church And Her infallible Tradition Here also we haue The true Cause of our Sectaries endles Diuisions the true cause of their endles Dissentions and multiplicity of Religions which almost euery year are coyned nevv All Pulpits saith Mr Thorndicke P. 5. so ring of this multiplicity That novv no Religion stand's to be the Religion of that Kingdom 19. A fifth Truth The Sectary that Professeth himself à Christian and seriously ponder's the Marks the Signes of Diuine Authority openly seen in the Roman Catholick Church stand's so conuicted of wilful Errour that practically he is either to renounce Christianity or obliged to belieue this euidenced Church I proue him First conuinced of wilful Errour vpon these grounds The Sectary confesseth or he is no Christian That this Argument is efficacious against the Iewes Christ our Lord did greater wonders shewed more manifest Miracles than all other Prophets wrought in the time of Iudaism and from hence He inferrs or shall neuer proue it that Christ is the true Messias Therefore this Argument is equally pressing against Protestants What euer Argument Proues Christ to bee the true Mosâ—ias proues also the Catholick Church true The Roman Catholick Church only has euidently done greater Wonders chiefly in the Conuersion of Nations She has shewn more manifest vndoubted Miracles than all Protestant Professors in the world Ergo She is the only true Church because She beares the Marks doth the works and wonders of that great Lord that laid Her foundations firm Whereas Contrarywise this naked Protestancy has no resemblance of à Church But lies in Obscurity vneuidenced only known by its own Monstruâ— firy vpon this Account That two hideous Rebells begot it in Pride and brought it forth in Diuision to no other purpose but to fright all that look on it Again the Sectary if he be Christian must hold this Argument Valid against the Iewes All the Prophesies in Scripture speaking of the true Messias exactly agree to and were amply fulfilled in the Person of Christ our Sauiour and in no other But the like Argument hold's as strongly in our case For all the Ancient Prophesies of the true Christian Church whereof we read in the old Testament As of Her Continuance Visibility and Nations flocking to Her only agree and are exactly fulfilled in the Roman Catholick Church And not so much as one appeares in this naked Nouelty of Protestancy Ergo the Roman Catholick Church and not that Fatherles Progeny of Protestants is the only true Catholick Oracle of Iesus Christ 20. Lastly this Argument is stronge against the Iewes and Proues them deserted by Almighty God Since Christ came to Redeeme vs This abandoned people lie vnder contempt and are A visible Mark of Gods wrath Set vpon Ievves and Sectaries best known vpon the Account of their open iniustice Wherefore God to set à visible Mark of his wrath vpon them has not only scattered them vp and down some few corners of the world but also permitted them to Deuide and Subdiuide into seueral Sects and Factions But the same Argument is as forceable against Protestants For first the whole Christian world abroad slights the men as Innouators and their Doctrin also as Nouelties Arians Semiarians Graecians Abyssins detest Protestancy and as highly contemn the Authors of it as the far extended Church of Rome condemn's both the one and other 21. 2. No Iniustice euer done by Iew except that one wicked fact of crucifying Christ our Lord is comparable to the open The open iniustice of Protestants clamorous wronge of Protestants who without law or right yea contrary to all conscience violently vsurpe the Ecclesiastical goods in England and worse than Robbers on the high way appropriate all to Them selues which neither God nor man intended for them These Reueneues were giuen by Catholicks for the Orthodox Pastors and Teachers of our Ancient Religion that lawfully and quietly possessed them for à thousand years And now behold à Robbery done but one age since turn's the true Owners out à doores And serues forsooth
à little how we proceed 2. I proue my Catholick Doctrin by the Publick Authority of an euidenced Church That 's my Principle And our Aduersaries to Oppose me come armed with two or three maim'd The Sectaries opposition against the Church is null And why dark Sentences of the Holy Fathers and think this enough to cast Popery out of the world No such Matter my good Countrymen There is yet much more to do before you speak probably You explode Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saints We Ask whether you euer had à Church as Euidenced as Ancient as vniuersal as Commissioned to teach as ours which publickly maintained your Tenets and censured The Roman Catholick Doctrin Show vs such à Church vpon solid Principles the work is done you giue weight For weight Euidence for Euidence and may Speak boldly Nay I say more you may well triumph For vpon the Supposition we are vanquished But Fail to do this and fail you must you are silenced yea impossibilitated to write more Controuersies Se more of this Subiect aboue Disc 1. C. 19. 3. A second inference The Atheist and Protestant plead alike That is As the one Argues against God iust so the other doth against Christ's Church All know the more ancient Atheists offer'd not positiuely to Demonstrate the Non-existence of God for there is no Principle to ground that Sensless Assertion vpon But chiefly excepted against the Proofs The Atheists way of arguing parall'd with that of Sectaries drawn from the visible works in Nature and thought these so weak to Euince à Deity that there might well be none Thus our Sectaries proceed For stark shame they dare not deny à Church of Christ Yet their whole labour is so to obscure Her Euidence that no man can possibly find out the Oracle by Signes Miracles Conuersions and Antiquity Therefore as the Atheist in effect denies God or at least stand's doubtfull of his Being So the Sectary to parallel him because He denies the Churches glorious Euidence cannot but remaine doubtful whether there be any such Oracle or no. Again as the Atheist bewrayes his folly in giuing the Lie to the vniuersal Iudgement of mankind when he Saies the works of Nature proue not à Deity So the Sectary run's the same Carreer betrayes his folly and giues the Lie to the whole Christian world when he saies the Manifest works of Grace visible in the Catholick Church conuince Her not to be God's Oracle 4. A third inference The sole Euidence of the Roman Catholick Church visible by Her Marks so clearly conuinces and carries on the whole Catholick Cause without exception A Church clearly euidenced cannot be excepted against So utterly vanquishes the Protestants Plea of Errours entring into this great moral Body that it is highly improbable yea à flat Calumny to impeach Her of any Here is my reason Meer doubts or crasy Topicks can not reuerse Euidence But the Churches Antiquity Her vast extent Her Progress Her Miracles Her Conuersions and the other like Signes are â—x sensatis sensibly and vndeniably euident Therefore all impleading Her of Errour is more than improbable vnless She has erred in shewing such Marks as haue made the world Christian Now further If this Euidence stand's firm Her Doctrin is made euidently Credible by it that is so worthy of Acceptance by diuine Faith That Reason after so much Light seen is obliged vnder pain of damnation to yeild Assent to the Doctrin For as none can prudently belieue before this Euidence be attained Qui cito credit levis est corde Eccles 19. 44. One too quick in belieuing is not wise So none after t' is had can without damnable sin Disbelieue 5. Hence I Argue The Doctrin of the Primitiue Church was made euidently credible to reason That is worthy of all Acceptation in the three or four first Centuries or was not The Primitiue euidence of Credibility If not none could then belieue with diuine Faith For the Euidence of credibility necessarily preceed's Faith And as Faith in it self is strong most certain and victorious ouer Incredulity Iohn 1. 5. 4. This is the victory which ouercom's the world our Faith So this preuious Euidence answerably brings Reason to so firm à State of belieuing certainly that nothing Proposable can Eclipse that clear and manifest light 6. Contrarywise if those Primitiue Christians had the Euidence we speak of and were thereby obliged to belieue We Catholicks Is yet manifest in the Roman Catholick Church are Most secure for the very same Euidence still continues to this Age in the Roman Catholick Church Miracles go on Conuersions of Nations go on the Succession of Pastors goes on The fulfilling of Prophesies goes on Sanctity of life in Thousands and Thousands is manifest to our eyes and senses Euery day the Church growes older and which is enough to conuince the most obdurate Heretick the louely vnion the vnanimous Consent of so many Nations though different in tongues in manners in Education conspiring and openly Professing one and the same faith hath not only gained our Church à publick Reputation the whole world ouer but moreouer proues this great Truth That she and none but she is Gods Sacred Oracle 7. If then and here lies the force of my Inference it had been à flat calumny and more than vastly improbable to haue taxed the Apostolical Primitiue Church of Ertour after so great The force of the Inference Euidence laid forth to Reason in Her Marks and Signs it is no less sinful in the Protestant now no less vngodly at this day to accuse the present Church of corrupted Dectrin whilst She frees her self from the Calumny by giuing in the very same Euidence of Credibility For here is my irrefragable Principle The like full euidence of motiues lead's reason to draw Thence à most firm and certain Faith Destroy this Euidence in any that proues Himself to be Gods Oracle you must deny it to Christ our Lord when he preached To the Primitiue Church also and finally to the Modern Catholick Church Do so All Faith perishes Grant it to both the Ancient Church and this now in being All pleading against our Catholick Doctrin is meer Vanity 8. The Sectary may reply Though the Euidence we insist on hath some weight Yet it followes not that all the Doctrin An Obiection Proposed our Church teaches is made euidently Credible For he can iustly except against the Doctrin relying vpon other solid Grounds and most approued Principles Scripture for example the Authority of holy Fathers the Records of Antiquity the Form of the Primitiue Church are his Principle and by these he hopes to proue our Churches Doctrin False which done the Euidence we build vpon signifies nothing 9. I am very willing to solue this Obiection the Answer I hope will show vpon what vnsteedy foundations Protestancy stand's To proceed with all clarity This is Questionable whether we or Protestants teach the Doctrin of Iesus Christ
eminent Sanctity and Holines of life our Lord working with and confirming their Doctrin by manifest Signes proued them Gods Oracles True and faithful commissioned Teachers And thus Is Our way also we discourse of the Church Whose vndeniable Miracles Sanctity and Conuersions wrought by Her conuince reason of this great Truth that She only is Gods Oracle All this is said supposing the Canon of Scripture already compleat For if we goe higher and consider à Church whether it be that of the ancient Patriarchs of the Israelits or finally of the Christians before Scripture was written Faith must be resolued into Diuine Reuelation by the means of some liuing Oracle Whether One or more it imports not who manifested themselues God's commissioned Teachers by Signes and Miracles Whereof more afterward 8. This much premised And it is Very easily vnderstood you shall Se Mr Stillingfleets verbose Obiections brought to Three Mistakes chiefly pointed at nothing but to meer Cauils and Mistakes Three Mistakes chiefly run through his whole 5. Chapter First he strangely confound's the Iudgement of credibility necessarily prerequired to true Belief with the very Act of Faith it Self whereas the Resolution of these two haue indeed à due Subordination to one The first breeds Confusion â—â—other yet depend vpon quite different Principles The Iudgement of Credibility whereby the will moues and command's the intellectual Faculty to elicite Faith relies not vpon that Obiect which finally Terminates Faith it self But vpon extrinsecal Motiues wihch perswade and Powerfully induce to belieue â—uper omnia 9. Here is the Reason The high Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Original Sin and the like Transcend our natural Capacities or to speak with some great Diuines are naturally Incredible Therefore Prouidence hath by the force and efficacy of extrinsecal motiues raised them from that degree of natural Incredibility and made all most credible to humane Reason And this no Sectary can deny For before that Doctrin be belieued which he embraces and before he reiect's the contrary not belieued by him He will tell you He hath Motiues and reasons as well for the one as the other Here is all we require at present 10. Mr Stillingfleets second errour is that he distinguishes not between the nature of Science and Faith Science is worth In the second Science and Faith are not nothing vnless it proue and Faith purely considered as Faith mark well my words is worthles if it proue For as innumerable Fathers affirm Fides non quaerit quomodo Faith reason 's not nor Ask's how these Mysteries can be but simply belieues Science makes vse of Principles Per se nota known by themselues And then discourses Assuming nothing but what is proued wherefore no virtue no validity can be in the progress or Sufficiently distinguished end of à rational Discourse which was not precontained in the first assumed Principles Faith t' is true has its Preambulatory Motiues as we haue seen already yet Scientifically drawes no Conclusion from them and herein Mr Stillingfleet all along beguiles himself and the reader The Motiues inducing to belieue this Truth God has reuealed à Mysterious Trinity are morally certain yet there is à more firm Adhesion to the infallibility of that Diuine Testimony for which we belieue than the extrinsecal Motiues inducing to belief either do or can draw from vs And in this sense Faith contrary to Science goes farr beyond the certainty of all extrinsecal Inducements as shall be presently declared 11. Our Aduersaries third Mistake lies here That he distinguishes not between the humane and Diuine Authority of the The third also wants à Distinction Church S. Austin Lib. con Epist Fundam C. 4. Speaking of the first Saith The profound wisdom of so many Doctors the consent of Nations the Antiquity the continued Succession of Pastors c. held him within the Pale of the Church Catholick yet this Authority precisely considered as humane and therefore fallible is not sufficient to ground Diuine Faith I say as humane for though I belieue that the Church has euer been Visible with à continued Succession of Commissioned Pastors to teach Orthodox Doctrin yet my Act of Faith no more relies vpon such motiues considered meerly as Motiues inducing to belieue Than the Primitiue Christians Faith relied vpon the visible Miracles which Christ or his Apostles wrought 12. As therefore that first Act of Faith whereby they belieued our Sauiour to be the true Messias was built vpon his infallible Diuine Authority manifested by Miracles Sanctity of life c. So that first Act of Faith whereby euery one belieues the Church to be God's own Sacred Oracle is built vpon Her infallible Diuine Authority manifested by Miracles and other signal Marks of truth whereof Scripture plainly Speak's Hell gates shall not preuail against the Church She is the Pillar and ground of truth And so much is said aboue C. 16. 17. that I know well Sectaries What caused our Aduersaries Errour cannot Answer The not reflecting vpon this twofold Authority which Mr Stillingfleet knowes Catholicks do distinguish makes his Circle charged on vs so irregular à Figure that it look's rather like à Rhomboides than à round Circle as shall appear presently with à further Discouery of his other mistakes One thing I cannot but admire and t' is That though his 5 th Chapter be tediously long yet the main and most real difficulty concerning the Resoluing of Faith is scarcely so much â—â— hinted at After à few Pages I will propose the Difficulty and endeauour to solue it CHAP. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5 th Chapter Part. 1. examined is found VVeightles The weaknes of his Arguments discouered His First and chiefest Argument retorted and solued 1. I Must and will waue all this Centlemans Parergons all friuolous excursions with his vnciuil language and if I touch in à word vpon his pretty conceipted Ieers scattered here and there it shall only be Pertransennam as if I little minded them 2. Thus he begins Page 112. The Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation for Diuine Faith and this Infallibility Our Aduersaries first Argument can only be known by the Motiues of Credibility He means in this present State Therefore this way of resoluing Faith is vnreasonable because it requires an infallible Assent vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of Euidence which is as much as requiring infallibility in the Conclusion where the Premises are only probable Answ Our Aduersary Spoil's à good Difficulty by proposing it lamely He would fain say some thing like that which Catholick The difficulty not fully proposed Diuines learnedly propose whilst they handle the Resolution of Faith But so fumbles and doth it by halfes that He â—eaches not home to the main Business 3. I Say therefore first The Argument proposed if of any force destroies all Faith euen the most Primitiue To proue the Assertion I Ask whether the first Christians belieued
which only induce to belieue So the Primitiue Christians belieued vpon Christ's A Mistake in the Obiection infallible Testimony and built not their Faith vpon the exteriour Motiues Euident to Sense which meerly considered as Motiues only made his Testimony highly credible to Reason Viz. One Instance which none can boggle at That it was Diuine and infallible For example Some saw Others heard of our sauiours great Miracles of his admirable Sanctity And then discoursed The Man that doth these wonders cannot but be one sent from God It is true he preaches both new and difficult Doctrin to our eares But if he be sent from God we are obliged to Belieue him vpon his word And vpon that Word Their Faith relyed 9. Apply this Instance to the Church you haue all I would Say The Church is euidenced by Miracles Sanctity of life in Millions by Conuersions and the like signal Motiues Here are the Inducements which proue Her Gods Oracle and Clears all the Doctrin highly credible aboue what euer all other Societies called Christians haue Taught Yet our Faith is not built vpon these Motiues considered as Inducements but vpon Her infallible Testimony The Instance now giuen Concerning the most Primitiue Belieuers is so clear That our Aduersaries shall neuer weaken the force of it or shew the least Disparity 10. And thus you se all Mr Stillingfleets talk P. 113 Comes to nothing I desire Saith he to know whether an infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motiues of Credibility Answ And I desire to know whether an A Question answered and retorted Infallible Assent to the Apostles Preaching was grounded on those Motiues which the Primitiue Christians saw or heard of before they belieued what you say I 'll say Briefly Many learned Diuines hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphysically connexed with Gods diuine Testimony speaking by the Church and if that opinion be true the Motiues ground an Infallible Shewed also impertinent Assent but that 's Euidence and no Faith And therefore most impertinent to your following Inference If say you we affirm the Motiues ground an Infallible Assent there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of our Church infallible in order to Diuine faith For we Catholicks you hope will not deny but that there are at least equal Motiues of Credibility to proue the Diuine Authority of the Scriptures as the infallibility of our Church And if so why may not an Infallible assent be giuen to the Scriptures vpon those Motiues of Credibility as well as to our Churches infallibility Answ A strange kind of Argument 11. First Sir you know or should know Catholicks hold with S. Austin That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority How then do you say You hope we will not deny c No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other Treatise also immediatly make Scripture Credible independently of the Churches Tradition No Miracles were euer heard of No Motiues make Scripture euidently credible which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you more Canonical Scripture than that of Iudith which you reiect Did any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of Salomons Canticle that 's Scripture say you and refuse to dye for the Book of Wsdom cast out of your Canon Or was euer any soul sooner conuerted by reading the One than the other These Miracles Sr these Martyrdoms these Conuersions immediatly illustrate the Church and proue not à Part only but Her whole Doctrin to be Independently of Church Authority most Euidently Credible and worthy of belief whilst you se your Signs of Diuinity and no man knowes what imagined motiues in behalf of Scripture as little Euidence the Books you admit as those you reiect That is neither indeed haue any Self-Euidence in them abstracting from Church Authority Your Euidence therefore is à strong fancy and nothing els 12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole Canon or bare letter of Scripture you haue not any so much as probable for the Sense chiefly in Controuerted matters which properly is God's Reuelation without the Churches infallible Interpretation Speak Sr your Conscience plainly What can it auaile you or me to know that the Book we read is God's No Motiues for the Scriptures Sense word Seing innumerable false Religions by peruerse Misinterpretations are drawn from thence if that other Principle Deus â—â— dixit God or Truth it self speaks This and this particular Sense lies in darkness concealed from vs. This Principle then God speak's this Sense being the very vltimate Resoluent and last foundation of Christian Faith must when that Sense is Obscure borrow light from no dark mistaken fallible or doubtful Orade But the bare letter of Scripture is dark and grosly mistaken by Heretiques mans priuate Iudgement is fallible our comparing the Scriptures Passages together is meerly Coniectural and dubious Therefore if the certitude of Faith must rely vpon VVithout the Churches Infallible interpretation what God has spoken I mean the infallible Sense of his sacred word The Oracle which interpret's can be no other but an Infallible Church And here I both Petition and vrge Sectaries to assign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can be built seing all confess we are obliged to belieue that Infallible sense chiefly in matters they call Fundamental This Argument alone could we say no more forceth euery rational man to own à Church absolutely infallible in Her exposition of Scripture 13. From whence also it followes first that Mr Stillingfleet much mistakes Himself when he Saith Both sides I hope agree Our Aduersary mistaken that there are sufficient Motiues of Credibility as to the belief of Scriptures I answer There is not one firm Motiue for the true reuealed Sense and this only is Scripture if we exclude Tradition and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church Bring to light but one and I am satisfyed 14. It followes 2. That that half Tradition owned by Sectaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books of Scripture leaues them wholly Scriptureles and as Faithles The halfe Tradition for the barc letter as if they had no Bible For it neither grounds faith immediatly because it is not God's Reuelation but the fallible Consent of men Nor can it induce as à Motiue to belieue any one particular Article of Christian Religion without further certitude had from the same Churches infallible Tradition and interpretation Not sufficient concerning that most weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning Reiect therefore this infallible Interpreter All of vs iust like Arians Macedonians Donatists desperatly rely vpon the worst Guides Imaginable our own fallacious and vngouernable fancies and will needs learn of such giddy Teachers the pure interpretation of God's Word These we make our Oracles in lieu of Christs Church and in doing so may easily ascribe to God à Doctrin he disdain's to own and
both Ascertains him of the Canon and the Sense also Hence That other Obiection fall's to nothing How can there be an infallible Assent to the truth of this Proposition Scriptures are The third retorted and answered the word of God when that Infallibility at the highest is but euidently Credible I Answer and retort the Argument How could the Primitiue Christians Assent to the Apostles preaching as infallible when that infallibility at the highest was but Euidently Credible before they belieued 3. The whole Confusion lies as is said in not Distinguishing between Faith and the Iudgement of Credibility Infallibility therefore whether we Assent to Christ to his Apostles or to the Church all taught one and the same Doctrin is the Obiect of Diuine Faith but none euer assented to any Doctrin these Oracles taught infallibly without sufficient Euidence preuiously had A Discouery of the whole Fallacy of its Credibility And thus I belieue by Faith Scripture to be God's word because the Church Saith so But if you Ask why I hold all the Church Teaches to be Euidently Credible I Euince not this truth by the Infallibility I belleue But recurr to those Motiues whereby She is proued an Oracle as euidently Credible as euer any Apostle was And consequently I belieue Her Infallibility with the same Diuine Faith as I belieue the Words of Scripture 4. Page 114. He Obiect 's 3. We Catholicks make by this way of resoluing Faith euery man's reason the only Iudge in the Choise of his Religion Why doe we more so I beseech you than the Primitiue Christians who certainly had the very like rational Motiues with ours and no other before they belieued But of this Subiect we shall treat largely towards the End of this Discourse 5. Page 115. He Saith If the Infallibility of the Church of Rome be à sure foundation of Faith what will become of the Faith of all those who receiued Diuine Reuelations without the Infallibility of any Obiections grounded on Instance Church at all And he brings in these Instances First of the Apostles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament when Christ suffered which certainly was not Grounded on the infallible Testimony of the Iewish Church for at that time it consented to the Death of the â—essias 2. Of all that belieued the woman of Samaria no infallible Oracle when She declared the Discourse between Christ our Lord and her self 3. Of such as belieued our Sauiours Doctrin and Miracles related by men honest and faithful These Saith â—e had no infallible Testimony but only à rational Euidence to build Faith non and consequently an Infallible Testimony of the Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation is Vnnecessary to Diuine Faith which seem's vndoubted For very few in the first Ages of the Christian Church receiued the Doctrin of the Gospel from the mouths of persons infallible 6. By the way I much wonder Why Mr Stillingfleet omitted to touch here vpon an other Instance farr more difficult which both he and all other must solue concerning rude and illiterate Persons chiefly if of no great maturity who are induced to belieue by the Testimony or Instruction of their Parents or of Another Instance more difficult some other simple Teachers These certainly may haue Faith without acquiring that full Euidence of Credibility whereunto the learned reach yea and without any Discouery of the Scriptures rational Euidence neuer perhaps heard of much less vnderstood by them 7. Now I Answer to the Obiection None makes the Roman Catholick Church in all Circumstances the only sure foundation of Diuine Faith For the first man that belieued in The Church in all Cireumstances was not the only Foundation of Faith Christ our Lord before the Compleat Establishment of His Church had Perfect Faith resting on that great Master of Truth without dependance on the Christian Church For Christ alone was not the Church But the supreme Head of it Faith therefore in General requires no more but only to rely vpon God the first Veriâ—y speaking by this or that Oracle by one or more men lawfully sent to teach who proue their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed by them Euidently Credible In like manner the Apostles preached no Doctrin in the name of the new Christian Church whilst our Sauiour liued here on earth But Testified that he was the true Messias by virtue of those Signs and Miracles which had been already wrought aboue the force of nature Thus much Supposed 8. It is hard I think for any to Say where the force lies in The Mistake of the first Instance that Instance of the Apostles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament which innumerable Iewes then dispersed all Iury ouer and the other parts of the world not at all conscious of Christ's Passion most firmly belieued Why therefore might not the Apostles belieue the Diuinity of the old Scripture vpon the Authority of that Church whereof there were at that time many and very many Professors in other places distant from Hierusalem Hence I say the Belief of that Article neuer failed But was alwayes preserued entire in both Churches of the Iewes and Christians for we all yet belieue the Authority of the old Testament And Consequently its hard to Conceiue what this Obiection aymes at 9. Again admit à total Subuersion of the Iewish Church Had not the Apostles our Blessed Lord present who could well Ascertain them that he came not to Cancel any Diuine Supposed true its forceles Authority of Scripture for this was impossible vnless God be contrary to God but to fulfil to perfect and change the old Law into à better State O but the High Priest and the Elders also erred in consenting to Christs death Very true and the Reason is because their Priuiledge of not erring lasted only to Christ's comming and not longer But hence it followes not that then there was no Iewish Church which belieued the Diuine Verities of the old Scripture I verily think Mr Stillingfleet mistook one Obiection for another Perhaps he would haue said that the Apostles lost faith of our Sauiours Resurrection at the time of his Passion But this Difficulty is solued ouer The Apostles failed not in Faith and ouer First it is Answered that Article was not sufficiently Proposed to them Therefore we read Luke 18. 34. They vnderstood none of these things This Word was hid from them Again Had they failed in Faith ar that time They were then as Bellarmin obserues Lib 3. de Ecclesia C. 17. neither the whole Church but only material Parts of it nor could that improbable Supposed Errour haue preiudiced one whit the Faith of others who firmly belieued in Christ 10. That other Instance of the Samaritan woman is soon cleared if we distinguish between the Motiue or the natural Proposition The other Instance cleared by one 〈…〉 tion of Faith which comes by hearing and the infallible Oracle wherevpon it relies And T' is
Lord and the Apostles taught these Doctrins Infallibly The Orthodox Church Disclaim's this petty way of conueying and teaching Christian Doctrin fallibly Therefore No Authority can be conceiued which deliuered such Verities owned euen by Sectaries essential Doctrins vpon Moral Certainly only or Conueyed them fallibly to Any 4. Hence you se first This Dilemma cannot be Answered Either we belieue That our Sauiour is the true Messias the like is of all other Mysteries because God reuealed it And because A Dilemma Christ himselfe His Apostles and the Vniuersal Church euer since taught the Doctrin Or Contrarywise we belieue it vpon some other Authority Inferiour to and distinct from the Infallible Testimony of these Oracles Grant the first our Faith stand's firm vpon à Testimony both Diuine and Infallible and therefore Cannot but be Infallible Say 2. We belieue vpon another Authority distinct from the Testimony of the Oracles now named that misplaced Assent because not resoluable into the first Verity is no Faith at all 5. You se 2. Whoeuer attempt's to turn these high reuealed A 2. Inference Verities out of their onw nature of being Infallible Or rashly presumes to conuey that Doctrin to vs vpon Moral certainty only which God by Diuine Reuelation Christ our Lord The Apostles also deliuered and Conueyed as most infallible certain Doctrin Becomes thereby à publick Corrupter of Diuine Truths vpon this account that He transfigures what the first Verity has spoken Infallibly into weak Topicks and vncertain Moralities The Offence is Criminal and the wrong done to God not pardonable without à serious Repentance 6. You se 3. That No Authority Imaginable vphold's this pretended Moral Certainty of Sectaries in Matters of Faith And here I desire Mr Stillingfleet to Answer Will he belieue that Christ our Lord is the true Messias God and man because No Authority conceiuable vpheloâ—'s All Orthodox Christians assent to the Verity I Answer first All these belieue the truth with infallible Faith and why dare not he do so also 2. If he Assent's because they Vniversally consent to the Mystery He build's his Faith not vpon God's Infallible Reuelation but vpon the Assent of Others which He saith Should only be moral and fallible 3. Will This pretended moral Certainty he belieue the Verity because Heteredox Christians Iudge it true That 's neither God's Reuelation nor Christ's Doctrin And Consequently his Faith has no foundation 4. Will he belieue for the Motiues of Credibility preuious to Faith These considered as Motiues are nor God's Reuelation Nor so much as Apostolical Doctrin Besides as we Shall se presently Protestants haue no Motiues at all to rely on Finally will He tell vs He belieues that Christ was in the world and dyed on à Cross with the same Moral assent as He yeilds to the being of Caesar and Pompey I haue Answered that 's nothing to the Purpose For Gentils assent to such Matters of Fact once Visible and Sensible by Moral where the main difficulty lies Certainty And yet are Infidels That therefore which vrgeth at present Concern's the hidden and obscure Mysteries of Faith In these Moral Certainty hath no place at all The reason is manifest For if as reuealed they stand firm vpon God's infallible Testimony No Power vnder Heauen can alter their own intrinsick Infallibility Or Conuey them vnto vs vpon weak Moral Certainty yet Mr Stillingfleet boldly Assert's There can be no greater Certainty then Moral of the Main foundations of all Religion Iudge good Reader whether this be not à gross Mistake And whether I wrong'd the man when I told you his Discourse is vndigested and highly erroneous 7. Yet we haue not said all Wherefore because Mr Stillingfleet seem's highly to value This late inuented Nouelty of Moral Certainty we will examin the Doctrin most rigidly till at las't the Moral certainty more rigidly examined whole fallacy be discouered To do this my first demand is to what Obiect will He apply his Moral Certainty in this Matter of Fact Christ is the Messias truly God and man These four things and no more can only be thought of 1. The Matter belieued 2. The Diuine Testimony which reueal's that Truth 3. The Faith of those who belieue vpon Reuelation And. 4. The Motiues whereby we are induced to belieue the Truth reuealed Four things to be Considered because God speak's it Now all know first that in Material Obiects purely considered in themselues there neither is nor can be moral Certainty For euery thing is or is not independently of our Iudgements where only Moral certainty is founded therefore God and all those who se things intuitiuely are exempted from this imperfect degree of Knowledge 2. There can be no moral certainty in the Diuine Reuelation which proceed's from an infinite Verity for this without Question is most Supereminently Infallible 3. If that infallible Testimony or Reuelation be infallibly The efficacy of Diuine Reuelation applyed to Belieuers and hath influence vpon their Faith it cannot but transfuse into it infallible Certainty if God Speak's infallibly for this end that we belieue him infallibly And if Faith rest not vpon that Perfection of his infallible Testimony it is no Faith at all Thus we Argued in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 5. n. 7. 8. It remain's that we now Say à word of the Motiues which what Influence The Motiues haue vpon Faith induce to Faith and examin what Influence they haue ouer it when we either belieue the Doctrin in Scripture or the Churches Definitions Mr Stillingfleet P. 203. Hauing first told vs that the Reuelation which was communicated to one was obligatory to all concerned in it though they could haue nothing but moral certainty for it Concludes thus By this it appears that when we now Speak of the resolution of Faith though the vtmost reason of our Assent be that Infallibility which is supposed in the Diuine Testimony yet the nearest and most proper Resolution of it is into the Grounds inducing vs to belieue That such Our Aduersaries Doctrin à testimony is truely Diuine and the resolution of this cannot be into any Diuine Testimony without à process in Infinitum He would Say That à true act of Faith relies vpon two foundations one remote the supposed Diuine Testimony The other most proper and nearest To wit the Grounds which induce to belieue that fuch à Testimony is in being or truely Diuine And his reason if he has any must be because these grounds immediatly Apply or Conuey vnto vs the supposed Diuine Testimony Now this Conueyance or Application of the Testimony being made by grounds only Morally certain It followes that the Faith we elicit Answer 's not to the strength of the Testimonies Infallibility considered in it self But to the weaknes of the Conueyance and consequently can be no more but only à Moral certain Faith not at all Infallible And thus you remoues Faith from its own Obiect se
and all the particular Sentences contained in them are not God's written word He could not yet for such à peruerse Denial be accounted an Heretique I Proue it None can incurr the guilt of Heresy but he who denies à Truth which God has reuealed or which stand's firm vpon à Diuine Testimony But he that denies the Books of Scripture to contain Heresy not incurred though one denyed the Books of Scripture to be Diuine God's Word in them renounceth no Truth reuealed by Almighty God For Saith our Aduersary this is no reuealed Truth nor stand's firm vpon any Diuine Testimony Therefore he is no Heretique Now further if he may without the sin of Heresy deny these Books to be Diuine Seing God neuer said so It is impossible to belieue the Doctrin therein contained to be Diuine vpon any Diuine Testimony yet Mr Stillingfleet thinks he may 35. My Reason is No man vnderstand's by the Books of Scripture which contain the Principles or Doctrin of the Iewish and Christian Religion to be meerly the Paper or Couer of the Books but he must vnderstand if he rightly conceiues VVhat is to be vnderstood by the Books of Scripture what Scripture is the very Principles and Doctrin contained in those writings For example Here is one Principle in the old Testament Gen. 17. 4. God made à Conuenant with Abraham and his seed for euer Another in the New Ioan. 1. 14. The Word is made Flesh. Answer I beseech you Can any man truly affirm that these two Principles the like is of innumerable others contained in Scripture stand not firm vpon God's infallible Testimony when T' is manifest the whole Christian world is obliged to belieue them with à Faith grounded vpon the same infallible Testimony that reuealed them Principles of Religion denyed It was Therefore no little Ouersight in Mr Stillingfleet to Speak here of the Principles of the Iewish and Christian Religion contained in à Book called Scripture And positiuely to Assert these cannot be belieued vpon à Diuine Testimony This certainly is not Defensible 36. Some may yet Reply Two things are here to be considered First the bare letter or outward words of Scripture and these we belieue not vpon Diuine Reuelation but haue them from vniuersal Tradition or the consent of Nations An Answerto such as here diflinguish The second is the Sense or Diuine Doctrine which these outward Signes or exteriour words Conuey to vs. Now this Sense or the interiour Doctrin of Scripture as contradistinct from the bare outward letter we purely belieue vpon the Diuine Testimony casting the Assent giuen to the Words vpon Between the bare words and the sense other forrain Principles I belieue Mr Stillingfleet elswhere Saies some such thing as this or must say it Contra. 1. The meer outward words though pure are no Books of Scripture And as separated from the Sense and interiour Doctrin are neither Principles of the Iewish or Christian Religion nor in rigour God's word For God neuer spake nor inspired others to write words but he iointly conueyed with them his own Sense and Doctrin also And Methinks its very hard to belieue this Doctrin This is my beloued Son as God's sacred words and not to belieue those very words to come from God vpon the same Diuine Motiue which Support's the Doctrin Moses saith our Sauiour Iohn 5. 47. Has written of VVords are Diuine me And if you will not belieue his Writings how will you belieue my Words These outward Signes therefore the very words of truth called by the Apostle 1. Thess 2. 13. Verbum auditus Dei words of hearing or heard are in very deed the VVords of God and consequently may well where none can rationally doubt of their Purity be assented to vpon the same Diuine Testimony with the Doctrine contained in them 37. The Reason is God would haue been the same Verity he now is although he had reuealed nothing that therefore which moues or determin's Belieuers to assent to the truths reuealed is not only his increated Authority but the sincere external Reuelation with it also These Two iointly The First Veritas Speaking is the Obiect of Faith concurr as one Motiue whence it is that the First Verity as Speaking or Reuealing may be rightly called the Formal Obiect of Faith I know Diuines vary about this Question Whether the external Proposition be à partial Motiue with Gods internal Verity or only à necessary condition whereby that Verity the vltimate ground of faith is applyed to Belieuers herein much may be de Nomine But none of them all Say The exteriour Reuelation is assented to vpon one Principle which is not Diuine and that the Doctrine conueyed by it is belieued vpon another most Diuine and infallible This is à nouelty VVhat Sectaries should grand Neither do I see how Sectaries can find that Lustre that Maiesty and Diuinity so often talk'd of in the purest words of holy Writ if they be not owned as God's true words vpon his Diuine Testimony 38. Let vs now briefly examin Mr Stillingfleet's Proposition without depending on what he teaches or must teach concerning the belief of words separated from the Doctrin VVe belieue Saith he the Doctrin contained in the Books of The Doctrin in it selfe examined Scripture vpon à Diuine Testimony because God has giuen abundant Euidence that this Doctrin was or is of Diuine Reuelation Here are three things Distinguishable The Doctrin Belieued The Incarnation for example The Testimony reuealing the matter bebelieued and finally the Euidence whereby that Testimony is brought to light Now all our difficulty is concerning the Euidence of this Diuine Testimony wherevpon we belieue any Mystery and we Ask from whence Mr Stillingfleet takes his Euidence He has you se abundance of it wherewith to proue that God euer Said The Diuine word was made flesh 39. The Question seem's reasonable because this Testimony which all ought to belieue and consequently doth Exist is not it's own Selfe euidence nor can it be euidenced by another Testimony of Scripture wholly as obscure to vs that God spake The Diuine Testimony not its own Self euidence that Truth For so we should goe in insinitum and Proue one dark Testimony by another equally as dark Infallible Tradition not written and the infallible Authority of the Church our Aduersaries reiect And may Say Both though admitted are Obiects of faith and consequently vnder tâ—at Notion appear as little Euident to vs as the Scriptures Testimony is we desire to proue Therefore whateuer is rightly called Euidence in this matter whereby all would discouer an obscure Testimony not yet proued God's word must of necessity be extrinsecal to the Testimony it selfe and if extrinsick no other Euidence can Therefore the Euidence of its Credibility must be taken from extrinfick Motiues Possibly be had but that which arises from the known Motiues of Credibility For by these the Church is proued an Oracle no lesse
as à true Prophet sent from God before they belieued many other Verities which afterward were taught by that great Master and learned by them 14. Note 3. In the Resolution of Faith into Church Authority we vnderstand not in the first place the Church Representatiue VVe vnderstand by the Church the whâ—le moral body of â—hristians vnited in one Faith VVhat the Beliefe of Councils presupposeth consisting of the Head and Members conuened in General Councils but rather this whole large diffused Body of Christians vnited in one Beliefe all ouer the world Wherein the way to Saluation is laid forth to all The Reason of my assertion is first Because that more explicite and distinct Faith had of General Councils Connaturally as wee now said presupposes the other General Truth assented to Viz. This manifested Society of Christians is God's Church and the only way to Saluation and the truth is assented to by Faith antecedently to the beliefe of the Churches Representatiues 2. Because all Catholicks asfert that the whole Moral Catholick Body consisting The promises in Scripture belong Properly to the vniuersal Church of Pastors and Hearers cannot totally err or Swerue from Christ's Sacred Doctrin Whence it is That those Promises of the Gospel Hell gates cannot preuaile against the Church The Spirit of truth abides with it for euer most Properly and Primarily belong to this one diffused and vnited Society of Chtistians To the Pastors as Teachers to the Hearers as Schollers or Learâ—ers And if the First according to Christ's promise teach infallibly the instructed must learn also infallibly And thus the whole Moral body guided and directed by the Spirit of Truth is that stronge Fortress wherevpon all must rely at last if à â—ight account be giuen of Faith or the true Analysis be made Neither can what is now said Preiudice in the least the infallible Authority of the Church Teaching I mean of the Pope and Council assembled together for this notwithstanding is most properly called the Church has and hold's the keyes whilst it vnlock's the Mysteries of Faith and laies open Explicitly A lawful Representatiue properly the Church also our Christian Verities Children teach not Layicks teach not weomen teach not Therefore the Church Representatiue properly teaches although it be not first known viâ Analyticâ that is when faith is brought to its last Principles 15. Note 4. When Sectaries demand where doth the Church taken vniuersally as one diffused Body teach that She is Infallible or that She deliuer's Gods truths Whilst yet neither Scripture nor Councils which teach so are reflected vpon or known in All Oracles sent by God to teach were first made Credible by Motiues that Priority of nature when we belieue that great Moral Body is an infallible Oracle If this I Say be demanded I Answer by proposing à like Question Where did Moyses where did the Prophets or Apostles explicitly and signally Say at their first Appearance VVe are Infallible wee are the sure Rule of Faith and because we say it you Hearers are obliged to belieue Not à word to this Purpose What then was done God Honoured And so the Church was and iâ— yet and priuiledged such Persons with Miracles and other visible supernatural Wonders These Euidenced They actually taught the truth and were credited vpon their Teaching not because they Said in Actu Signato They taught it but because really they did so in Actu exercito and confirmed all by Signs from Heauen And thus the Church teaches to this present Day and gain's Beliefe CHAP. XIII Protestants haue no Faith to resolue And vpon that account are freed from à vicious Circle Some yet are in à Circle Two Sorts of Sectaries refuted 1. I Proue the first part of the Assertion The Protestants supposed Faith is either reduced to the Beliefe VVhat the supposed Faith of Protestants is of their own Negatiue Articles No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Altar No Purgatory c. Or to à Faith common to all called Christians which consists in belieuing One God and one Iesus Christ as à Redeemer This or something like it must be called Faith common to all For to belieue the Sacred Trinity the Incarnation with other great Mysteries is no common Faith because many deny these Articles Now my Assertion is What euer can be conceiued out of the The Obiect of this Faith must either be their Negatiues List of these Negatiues or is not inuolued in that Common Faith ceaseth to be an Article of Protestancy as Protestancy For example To belieue one God is à Tenet common to Iewes Turks and Christians That 's no Article peculiar to Protestants To belieue the Sacred Trinity and the Incarnation is common to Catholicks Protestants and other Heteredox Christians therefore no singular no Special Protestant Doctrin Besides these imagin whateuer can be Imagined you must either Or à Doctrin Common to all Christans pitch vpon things which no Christian has obligation to belieue or finally vpon such Doctrins as Catholicks own and are disowned by Protestants 2. Thus much Supposed it is demonstrable That the Protestant has no Faith to resolue who first doth himselfe so Their Negatiues no reuealed Verities much Iustice as to Cashiere all his own Negatiue Articles from being truths spoken by Almighty God which therefore are not resoluable into the Diuine Testimony because God neuer reuealed any of them Again his Articles common to all Christians without more cannot be resolued into Diuine Reuelation vnless he first excludes with the Arians The beliefe of The Trinity and Incarnation as not necessary to Saluation And afterwards proues by plain Scripture or the Authority of an Orthodox Church that such an Abstract Doctrin wherein Catholicks and all Heretiques agree is sufficient to saue Souls But to Euince either by Scripture or any Church Authority will be wholly as impossible as to proue that the Negatiue Articles are Doctrins reuealed by God 3. Vpon these grounds my Proposition stand's so firm that none can contradict it For if whateuer they doe or can belieue A Doctrin Common to all as Vnsound aâ— their Negatiues as Protestants be euidently such Doctrins as God neuer reuealed it 's manifest they haue no Faith to resolue and consequently are easily freed from all danger of à vicious Circle But this is so For cast away Their Negatiues All that remains as matter of Beliefe to them can be no other but the Common faith now mentioned Or if they require more as necessary to Saluation That More will either be Confessedly no Their particular Doctrins no reuealed Truths Doctrin reuealed by God Or not peculiar to Protestants For example Suppose the Protestant layes Claim to these two Articles Scripture Contain's all things necessary to Saluation Or thus VVhat Scripture speak's plainly is the Protestants Doctrin and no morâ— I say first Neither of these Articles are Confessedly truths reuealed by God And this I assert not only because
haue neither Inference nor Principle In very reallity neither true Consequence nor Consequentia No Inference because it s à meer Tautology or à bare repetition of what the Doctor had formerly asserted without Proof or Probability And Consequently far enough from the Nature of either Principle or Inference Had the Doctor brought in any thing like an Inference He Should haue Said Vpon such and such grounds already established It followes that these and what Should be proued these particular Doctrins of Protestants are true and immediatly deduced from this or that Principle But he totally abandon's the Protestants Faith and leaues his Fellow-sectaries as faithless as they were before he wrote these Principles The True Inference therefore or all that followes is that he hath lost his whole Labour 2. The. 2. Inference The Infallibility of that Society of men yet no Inference who call themselues the Catholick Church must be examined by the same Faculties in Man the same Rules of trial the same Motiues c. Answ Here is no Inference but the same thing repeated again which for the substance lies in his 6th Principle what Reason is to examin Now if we Speak of this Doctrin considered in it Selfe we easily grant that the rational faculties in men both may and ought to examin by the Light of prudent Motiues what Society of Christians is Infallible as also what Diuine Reuelation is made euidently Credible to Reason But herein à double Caution seem's necessary The first That Sectaries assume not to themselues the sole Faculty of examining and iudging but leaue to others à share of it also The second A twofold Caution to be obserued Prouiso is that Reason in this Search go not beyond its Bounds but pitch vpon that which is Reasons proper Obiect I mean vpon those Signatures of God's own Visible Wonders already explained These two Conditions obserued All is well Sectaries will soon Se their Errour 3. The. 3. Inference deduced out of no Principle falsly No want of Motiues and Miracles in the Church Supposes but proues not the want of Miracles and other conuincing Motiues in Roman Catholick Church It is largely refuted vpon seueral Occasions in euery one of these three Discourses 4. The fourth Inference From whence it comes I know not is thus The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and reason which any Church obtrudes vpon the Faith of men The greater reason men will haue to reiect the A Speech like that of Iewes and Arians Pretence of Infallibility in that Church as à grand imposture Answ Had à Iew who hold's it against Sense and Reason to belieue that God became an Infant Or had an Arian that denyes the Trinity because the Mystery seem's repugnant to his weak Reason Spoken after this manner None would haue much wondred But that à Doctor who pretend's to belieue these Fundamentals of Christian Religion Cannot find roome enough in his head for reason and Faith in euery particular the Church Teaches argues some little want both of the One and Other But say on what is it he boggles at O à Consecrated Wafer appear's to be bread and is not bread this is repugnant Sense beguiled to sense and reason Contra. Those two Angels that came to Lot Gen. 19. appeared to the Sodomits like mortal men but were not so Was not Reason here vpon the suggestion of Sense How rectifyed beguiled And are not both these faculties now rectifyed in vs by what we read in Holy Writ which ascertain's vs they were not men but Angels Thus it fall's out in the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament Wherefore I Say Were it not that God Speaking by Scripture and the Church assures vs that what we se is not substantianly bread the whole world would guided by outward Appearances hold it bread as those wicked Citizens iudged Lots entertained Guests to be men and not Angels But when eternal Truth interposes his Authority and tell 's vs by his own Oracles what is here contained vnder the Forms of bread is God in this Mystery interposes his Auâ—hâ—rity and vnbeguils reason not bread but Christ's Sacred body Reason yeilds vpon this most prudent Ground It is the highest reason in the world to belieue God though by reason we know not how things are Here is our Principle not possibly to be reuersed vnless the Doctor proues his Contrary Doctrin by the Authority of another Scripture or some other Church more euidenced by Supernatural Wonders and Consequently more Orthodox than the Roman Catholick Church is You may read the First Discourse C. 12. n. 4. where its Proued that the immediate Obiect of Sense Ceases not to be in this Mystery 5. Wherefore I Infer that if the Doctor would haue the Infallibility of that Church reiected as à grand Imposture because A hint giued to Iewes and Arians to reiect the Scriptures Infallibility it obtrudes vpon vs Doctrins in his Opinion repugnant to Sense and reason He ought also by good Consequence to Inuite both Iewes and Arians to reiect the Infallibility of Scripture as à grand Imposture where it Speak's of the Incarnation and the Sacred Trinity for certainly these Mysteries are far more aboue all Mens weak Reason then this other of the Blessed Sacrament is 6. The Doctors 5th and 6th Inferences deserue no such names because they are not deducible from any Principles being Vntrue Assertions in place of Inferences only his own plain Assertions and most vntrue Say I beseech you From what Principles can He infer That to disown à Church which teaches Doctrin aboue the reach of weak Reason is not to Question the Veracity of God but to adhere to that in what he hath reuealed in Scripture How can this be done Whilst the whole No knowing what Scriptâ—re Speaks without an Infallible Church world see 's the holy Book of Scripture so variously Sensed by dissenting men called Christians that none can conclude vpon any clear Principle which sense is true which false without owing à Church Infallible I Say aboue the reach of weak reason But not repugnant as the Doctor supposes For no Catholick Verity can be repugnant to Euident reason though much aboue it In à word That Doctrin is repugnant to Reason from whence two Contradictions clearly follow now I vrge the Doctor to giue vs any thing like à Contradiction in the Mystery already What 's Contrary to Reason mentioned of the blessed Sacrament That Doctrin is aboue Reason which cannot be known by the ayde of natural Principles only And thus the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity of the Incarnation of Original sin and Transubstantiation also are so far remoued from our natural faculties that none but God only can discouer them by his Supernatural Reuelation The 6th Inference And What 's aboue it where the Doctor tell 's vs That the Church of Rome neither is the Catholick Church nor any sound
Apostle writes Ephes. 14. 11. of the Continuance of Pastors and The Apostles words also and Doctors in the work of the Ministery for the edifying of Christ's Mystical body till we meete in one Vnity of Faith most Certainly he Spake not of any deluded or Idolatrous Pastors are likewise vtterly false Nay more that Article of our Creed The Creed falsifyed I belieue the Holy Catholick Church ceased to be true in those dismal dayes when the whole Roman Catholick Church made Idolatrous went to wrack and the res't of Christians if not Idolatrous were all Professed Heretiques 19. Contrarywise if there was at that time another Orthodox Church in Being when Luther Separated from the Roman Catholick What followes if then there was à true Church Society One of these two Consequences necessarily followes Viz. That Luther and his Associates the Protestants either made themselues Members of that Imagined pure Spotles and Orthodox Church Or founded à new One vpon their own Authority neuer before heard of in the Christian world Now further It is most impossible to nominate any such Christians as Luther and Protestants made à new Church Constituted à pure Orthodox Church distinct from the Roman Catholick Therefore Luther and Protestants haue by their own Authority made à new One neuer before known to the world 20. There is yet à third Inference which methinks pinches such Protestants as Say They and we make but one Church Orthodox in fundamentals How can this Doctrin stand if the The Church if Idolatrous err's in the fundamentals of Faith Roman Catholick Church teaches flat Idolatry For vpon this Supposition She err's grosly in that fundamental Point of Idolatry And consequently Protestants must either leaue her as horridly erroneous or maintain Idolatry with Her If it be replyed though thus tainted She yet teaches some few Truths and Sectaries can exactly tell vs which and how many they are They Sectaries improbable Supposition first argue vpon an improbable Supposition and secondly make the louely Spouse of Christ beautiful and vgly treacherous and loyal false and true together whereof enough is sayd in the former Discourses 21. The last question proposed is that the Doctor giue Satisfaction concerning the Mission of Protestants In à word we demand who sent them to teach as they doe that the Roman Catholic◠Church is fallible and Idolatrous That man hath no free will That the Body and blood of our Sauiour are not really in the blessed Sacrament with à number of other Nouelties Our demand A difficult Question Concerning the Mission of Sectaries is grounded vpon the Apostles words Rom. 10. 15. How Shall they preach vnless they be sent Say therefore who commissioned these men who countenanced them to preach such Doctrins Dare they tell vs that as their English Bishops receiued Orders from the Supposed Idolatrous Catholick Prelares So also they had Commission from them Idolatrous as they were to teach Idolatry They neuer had nor can haue Commission to teach Protestancy Grant this and they make their Mission not only ridiculous but null also and vtterly void of Credit Whither will they run next think ye Can they pretend to haue had their Mission from the Arians from the Hussits or Waldenses c No certainly For they teach not in all things as these Hereticks taught And besides neuer receiued Commission from them or The Assertion proued from any men called Christians to teach at all Therefore they are vnsent Preachers and consequently in the Apostles Iudgement ought no more to be heard than the Arians or Pelagians 22. Some Sectaries tell vs its needles to Question their A reply answered Mission whilst the Testimony of the Spirit assures them that they teach the true Doctrin of Iesus Christ. Here is first à Supposition for à Proof because The whole world excepting themselues deny what is now assumed of their teaching truth Howeuer admit gratis this false Supposition The meer speaking truth giues them no Commission to teach it For Children Vagabonds and Diuels also may Speak eternal truths yet are not therefore authorized to preach or made Christ's lawful authorized Ministers The Reason hereof seem's manifest To teach truth argues no Lawful Mission To preach truth is an effect of à lawful Mission and not the cause of it Wherefore this Causal or Inference is good I teach truth because I am lawfully Commissioned to teach it and exactly Comply with my Duty Not the Contrary I teach truth therefore I am Authoritiuely sent to teach it 23. By what is hitherto briefly noted you se in what The desperate condition of Sectaries case Sectaries are who first suppose à long interruption of Orthodox Pastors in the Roman Catholick Church and consequently neuer receiued Commission from them to teach and though which is true they continued Orthodox yet these Catholick Pastors neuer gaue them any Authority Again They No Church Orthodox or Heretical sent them to teach scorn to receiue their Commission from known Hereticks nor can they pretend it because being in most Essential points opposite to Protestants Such Hereticks could not impower them to teach Protestancy For these Reasons Sectaries are obliged to renounce all claim to that Mission which is called Ordinary because No Church No Society of Christians whether Orthodox or Heretical sent these Nouellists abroad to teach as they do their reformed Gospel 24. Now if with Luther they challenge to themselues à Calling Some with Luther plead à Mission Extraordinary and Mission extraordinary Not by men or from men but by the Reuelation of Christ Iesus Their Plea no less Proofles then Presumptuous is highly improbable vpon this ground that neuer any since the beginning of Christianity was sent as extraordinary by Almighty God to preach who made not his Doctrin Credible by manifest Supernatural wonders So Christ our Lord did and the Apostles also Others that followed in the after Ages laid forth the Miracles and signal Marks of the Church whereof they were Members and euinced by Signs the They haue neither extraordinary nor Ordinary Mission Authority of that Oracle which sent them But Sectaries who began with Luther to teach extraordinary Doctrin neither plead by extraordinary wonders hauing none to produce nor can so much as hint at any Church false or true which commissioned them to publish Protestancy Therefore they are vnlawful Ministers neuer sent to preach Christ's true Doctrin nor so much as their own false Nouelties of Protestanism CHAP. XIX The supposed grounds of our Protestants Reformation manifestly ouerthrown Protestancy no Religion but an improhable Nouelty The conclusion of this whole Treatise 1. I Say the Supposed Grounds for in very truth Protestancy What Sectaries pretend to hath not any real Ground to Stand on as is amply proued in the forecited Chapters Howeuer because Pretences are not wanting to such as Oppose God's verities and our Aduersaries seem to build the whole Machin of their
thoughts before they pass your pen. Haue alwaies this one reflexion in mind It s easy to Cauil easy to talk much but most laborious to make sure what you say by sound Principles And Principles your Aduersaries euer haue an Eye to Had you complyed with this Aduice the greatest part of your Account if not all might well have been spared Never rely on the vain prayses of your vulgar Readers all is not gold that glisters in their Eyes nor do they alwayes speak as they think For as much as concern's your selfe shew sr rather the strength of à Father in louing your works then the weaknes of à fond Mother that hugg's her Brats though most deformed I am told you imagin it à great Acchieuement and your selfe the conquerour in hauing gain'd onc priuate man T. C. to follow your triumphant Chariot Abuse not your Iudgement there is no such matter for in good sober earnest by what I haue perused in T. C. his book rather seem's to be an answer to yours then yours to his Abstain hereafter from opprobrious Language lest you meet with some ruffing Adversary that will pay you in your own Coyn. Please to vse your Buckler better in behalfe of Protestancy and tell me when your Negatiue Articles are thrown away as not reuealed what essential Truth remain's vvithin the Compasse of Protestancy reuealed by Almighty God and necessary to Saluation If you think it the wisest Course not to take notice of what is proposed against you in this Treatise vouchsafe to clear your selfe of the Contradictions charged vpon you And because I find you much intangled in your Resolution of Faith and haue laid your mistakes open to publick view when the Spirit of answering fall's vpon you again Answer I beseech you to the difficulties Obiected in the third Discourse But aboue all Answer to God with à hearty repentance for the wrong you haue done his Church and own me Sr Your friendly Adversary THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER THE RVLE OF FAITH Wherein the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Religion is established against Atheists Heathens Iewes Turks and all Sectaries CHAP. I. VVhether true Religion be in the world The Affirmatiue proued Against Atheists Atheism euidently Shewd'improbable 1 CHAP. II. Reason reiects all sects or Religions not Christian VVhether Gentilism Iudaism or Turkcism bee erroneous and improbable 13 CHAP. III. Christianity as it stands in opposition to Iewes Turcks Infidels and Heretickes is the only true Religion 21 CHAP. IV. Whether Christian Religion since its first Propagation hath not been in like manner preserued pure and further spread by Diuine Prouidence aboue the Power of Nature 25 CHAP. V. VVhether all called Christians Belieue intirely Christ's sacred Doctrin And whether meanes be afforded to arriue to the knowledge of true Christian Religion 29 CHAP. VI. Of our Sectaries errour in their search after true Religion As also of Mr Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing 32 CHAP. VII More of this subiect Doubts concerning the seueral editions of scripture None extant more pure then the Vulgar Latin Abstract from Church Authority there is no Certainty of the best Edition Sectaries Comparing the Present Copies with the more ancient giues no assurance A word with Mr Stillingfleet 42 CHAP. VIII How necessary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in the Church A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles Of Mr Stillingfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 55 CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 67 A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian 71 CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only though all Christians had moral certainty of the right Canon and sense also which is to say the meer owning Christs Doctrin is insufficient to proue it to all sort of People 80 CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 85 Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 94 CHAP. XII A Digressian concerning the Real Presence The Fathers plainly assert it Sectaries glosses friuolous The agreement of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrin indubitable The Catholick's certain Principle A word with Mr Stillingfleet 102 CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubions and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 119 CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 138 CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate faith 152 CHAP. XVI One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses and his vnexcusable abuse of other Fathers 159 CHAP. XVII VVhy the Glosses of Sectaries are impertinent and weightles Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers Of his vnskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry charged on Catholicks CHAP. XVIII The Protestant after all his Glosses can not ascertain any of true Religion He would make Controuersies an endles work 180 CHAP. XIX The last designe of Sectaries Glosses discouered They end nothing The clear way to end Controuersies of Religion A distinction between Authority and Principl'd Authority Of the improbability of Protestancy 192 CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 205 CHAP. XXI Protestants granting Saluation to Catholicks by à clear Inference drawn from their Concession end Controuersies of Religion VVhat force their concession hath VVhy they granted so much The Argument is clearly proposed Mr Stillingfleet return's no probable Answer A full discouery of his fallacies 217 THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 241 CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned The properties of à Rule VVhat is meant by the Church Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out Her marks more clear than Her Essential Doctrin 248 CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church euidented by Marks of Truth nor true Doctrin made credible to reason His whole Faith is built vpon Fancy 256 CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ was is and shall euer be the Holy Apostolical and Catholick Roman Church Her Antiquity and Constant Perseuerance in the Ancient primitiue Doctrin without Alteration
totally pure and incorrupt though S. Hierom obserues in his praeface to the Gospels Tot sunt Exemplaria quot Codices there are many of them Therefore He must haue recourse to the Greek which is vsual 9. Hence I argue If God shewed not particular Prouidence in preseruing our latin Edition from notable errour so diligently reuiewed by S. Hierom and approued also not only by many learned Writers in after ages but by à whole Church it is no lesse then temerarious to allow greater security to any Greek Copy for can the Sectary An Argument in behalfe of our Latin Edition say that Gods peculiar hand of prouidence alwais so attended the Transcriber or Printers of the Greek Copies that nothing could be written but pure Apostolical Scripture and with any countenance own à want à defect à subtraction of this peculiar prouidence to à Scripture approued of by à whole Church Obserue well the difficulty Where Gods special Prouidence is there we haue infallible assurance you grant God's special Authentick records had not come safe to our hands therefore you cannot rationally deny it to that Scripture which the Church approues CHAP. VII More of this subiect Doubts concerning the seueral editions ☞ If this digression Concerning the different Editions of Scripture seem tedious to the Reader he may passe to the 9. Chapter where he will find our Discourse Continued against Sectaries of scripture None extant more pure then the Vulgar La-Latin Abstract from Church Authority there is no Certainty of the best Edition Sectaries Comparing the Present Copies with the more ancient giues no assurance A word with Mr. Stillingfleet 1. THe first proposition If the Protestant reiect's our Vulgar Edition as not Authentick or as viciated in any material point touching Faith and manners He improbably pretend's to haue so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting To proue the Assertion I will here giue you à few Postulata vsually held indubitable by most learned men who haue writ large preludes called Prolegomena to holy Scripture Neither Catholick nor protestant shall rationally except against my suppositions First it is Certain that the greatest part of the old The first supposition Testament was Originally writ in Hebrew but whether that ancient Copy hath been euer since preserued pure chiefly after S. Hieroms time or notably corrupted by negligence or malice is very doubtful Learned men stand for the Affirmatiue and none I think can deny some lesser errours when greater are pretended You may see these different opinions of Authors in Prolegomen Ad Biblia Maxima And the particular supposed errours largely noted by Salmeron Prolegom 4. It would be too long à work to insist on this subiect and not for me to determine what is true All I contend for here is an vncertainty whilst great Authors are opposite and this is done to conclude what I intend against Sectaries 2. It is again certain that the greatest part of the new Testament was writ in Greek but here we meet with the same difficulty and inquire Whether the Greek by chance or inaduertancy has been corrupted since the Apostles time This at least if not more is The second supposition doubtful Graue Authors hold the Affirmatiue See Serarius in Prolegom Cap. 13. and Bonfrer c. 14. and the errours noted If Protestants deny them or think their own authority weighty enough to Contradict our Doctors the matter in Controuersy is still doubtful So much I plead and no more 3. It is certain that all other Bibles are only Translations or Transcriptions of The third the Original Hebrew and Greek The Greek version of the 72. interpreters out of the Hebrew or as wee vsually 〈…〉 ak the 70. is only à Translation wherin many doubts occurr One is whether that Translation be the first For Clement Alex and Euseb cited Bibl Max sect 18. c. 2. seem to hold an other more ancient before the time of Alexander the great How euer admit which is perhaps true the 70. version to be the most ancient we haue yet matter enough of Dispute concerning it and one great Question is whether at this day that version be yet preserued pure The ancient Archetyps wherof more probably are not now extant but when or where lost remains vncertain See Bib Max sect 18. c. 10. Authors say it is corrupted through the ignorance or negligence of the Librarians or the Printers See Bib t Max. c. 8. 9. Restat ergo Whence it was that those Laborious Doctors of Alcala at the perswasion of Cardinal Franciscus Ximeno The version of the Septuagint Archbishop of Toledo and afterward the Doctors of Louain making à diligent search after many Greek Copies corrected no few faults in the then extant transcribed Copy of the Septuagint yet this very correction was far from the purity of that ancient version which the Father 's vsed See Bib Max now cited where vpon that other version of the 70. taken out of an Ancient Manuscript of the Vatican Library Anno Dom. 1585. Came forth by the industry of Cardinal Anton Caraffa wherin most learned men laboured nine whole years and it was perfected about the beginning of Sixtus 5. Raign The greatest difficulty yet remains It is most certain the version of the 70. Interpreters differ's so notably from the Hebrew Text chiefly in the computation of years or point of Cronology that our venerable Bede though à great Scholler and one as humble as learned ingenuously confesseth Venerable Bedes Iudgement he cannot reconcile those Antilogies See Bib Max c. 8. fine Who then can tell me when we find these lections of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint opposite to one an other which is to be preferred Most learned men stand for the Hebrew as many for the 70. You may see these dissenting Authors quoted in Proleg Bib Max Sect 18. c. 11. and how some to accord them say That the Holy Ghost would haue the Septuagint now to add to the Hebrew now to diminish according to his good pleasure See Bib Max cap 8. fine 3. But let vs proceed to à further matter of doubting Long after the Edition of the Septuagint came forth three other Translations made by three vngodly men Aquila Symmachus and Theodotio Aquila Pontinus once à Gentil became Christian but denying Christ soon turned Iew learned the Hebrew language Of other three Translations and too critically translated the Hebrew into Greek almost word for word His spleen against the 70. Interpreters was so great that contrary to the verity of Scripture He rendred some places speaking of our Sauiour most perfidiously and wrested all to à confused and sinister sense Symmachus one of Samaria twise circumcised became at last à Professor of the Ebion Heresy and Translated the Hebrew into Greek not as Aquila did Verâ—atâ—m but rendred the sense more perspicuously Theodotion first Baptized then à Sectary of Marcions and Ebions errours lastly à Prosylite
of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer now alleged Therefore if we be in errour the wit of man cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles And here I vrge Mr Silling to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and significant that is Scripture as clear Fathers as clear Tradition as clear the Iudgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted for the opinion he hold's as we now allege in the defense of our Catholick verity Belieue it if he suppose as he certainly doth the Church to haue erred so grosly for à thousand years The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subiect when they meant no such thing He ought to fasten vpon sound Principles indeed before we yeild and must not think to ouerthrow What sectaries are obliged to our Doctrin or foile vs with à few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff which comes no neerer to Principles than improbability to Euidence Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities If à man saith he P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be false which sense iudges to be true he means which weak reason vpon the discouery of sense iudges true for our outward senses make no iudgement What assurance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrin A word to our Aduersaries strange demand Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christs resurrection if their sight might be deceiued about its proper obiect c I am astonished to read this and answer briefly Christ's Resurrection the like I say of Miracles was most vndoubted vpon the discouery which sense and reason made in the presence of such obiects because no contrary Principle so much as weakly stood against that euidence and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was obiected to sense then I now doubt of writing these lines But all is contrary in the present Mystery For here the vnanswerable words of Scripture the Authority of my Church the Clear Testimonies of Fathers the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to belieue the Diuine Reuelation which is either certainly known vpon these grounds or we boldly say no Christian verity was euer yet known vpon any sure Principle What if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling may roundly grant that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real presence for many ages and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been besotted them selues but moreouer haue basely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of belieuing that to be Christs body which really is not Howeuer he will honour the Fathers so far as to afford them the fauour of his glosses Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrin Mr Stilling is obliged to name some Churh reputed Orthodox 3. or 4. hundred years past for then there was à true Church in the world which held his opinion or as expresly denyed the real Presence as our Church both then and now mantains it and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy for I am sure there was neuer any such Church on earth Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery Fathers He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin and make all belieue that we Catholicks hold not yet the real presence Obserue the same language in all That wich in seen is not bread though it seem's so to the tast But the body of Christ Our sense may be deceiued Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed â— made the flesh of Christ and the wine his blood c. Thus the Fathers deliuer their sense and it is the Churches language also If therefore Mr Stilling can so gloss these words of the Fathers as to make them speak Protestancy or not to deliuer our Catholick Doctrin I should not wonder if in the next book set forth he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence If he did so I am sure his attempt would proue as vnsuccesful in the one case â— in the other 11. Well But permit him to interpret the Fathers and to fall foule as he is wont to do vpon our supposed Church errours what is the vtmost that followes Thus much only Meer talk without Principles For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know that his glosses which striue to dead the very obuious sense of the Fathers plain words implie not altogether as little satisfaction as little assurance as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it If so and so it is most euidently as his Doctrin before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians so his interpretations goe no higher but are euery whit as improbable 12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling that vnless his explanation Sectaries glosses vnprincipled worth Nothing of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distiâ—ct from and extrinsick to his glosses they are worth nothing For what auail's it me to read his glosses when no receiued Principle vp hold's them but fancy Reflect à little I read in Scripture This is my body My Church tell 's me the literal sense is true The Fathers as you haue heard and the Tradition of two Churcheâ— confirm this sense Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiect's my Churches authority then begins to strain the Fathers Testimonies with his glosses Stay Sr say I. I except against your glosses and iustly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coynâ— If true they stand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at Proue this and I 'le reuerence your glosses but if you fail and fail you must your Doctrin and glosses are both alike Counterfeit and thoughts of fancy only 13. Hee may reply When Protestants cite the Fathers against the Real presence For example That of S. Austin or Theoderet mentioned aboue we Catholicks explicate them and now which seem's foul play we except against his Glosses For If we interpret An Obiection why may not Hee doe so also A word only in passing conformable to what is noted aboue If to decide this one Controuersy of Christ's Real Presence recourse be had to the Fathers and the two aduerse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations the Dispute will neuer be ended Because priuate glosses leaue the two Dissenters as much at iarrs as they were before God therefore as I haue often said affords an easier means to know his reuealed Truths Now my Answer to the obiection is The Catholick then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation when it sham fully out-faces the
clear words of à Father and when the Glosser has no vndubitable Principle distinct from his gloss wheron to settle his Doctrin as he has not in our present Controuersy Obserue well The Fathers say What wee see is not bread but Christs very body The Sectary interpret's That wee see is not common bread indeed but Christs body Figuratiuely or Sacramentally The Fathers say it is not figuratiuely only but really his body So Theophilact Answered and the reason giuen and S. Iohn Damascen cited aboue Had the Sectary who interpret's thus an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss deliuered by any Oracle of Truth Scripture Traditions or Orthodox Church there would be good reason to giue him hearing But when we euidently see that the best and only proof of his Doctrin is no more but the very gloss he makes without Further Principles we iustly except against him and hold such glosses improbable 14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer interpret's any Authority but when t' is dubious and if it be so it neither help 's the Sectary nor hurts the Catholick and therefore ought In reason to be cast aside as either impertinent or as weak and forcelesse in all disputes of Controuersies The fundamental Christ's Doctrin not proued by glosses or any ambiguous Testimony Reason already hinted at is The true Doctrin of Christ is not proued by Glosses or any doubtful Testimony but stand's most firm vpon known and indubitable Principles or if in order to Christians it want's such supports it cannot pass for Christ's Doctrin An ambiguous Testimony therefore which seemingly opposes this true Doctrin Certainly Principled is most impertinently alleged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick Faith 15. Vpon this one sole ground now clearly laid forth I confidently Affirm all Controuersies in Religion might be easily ended would Sectaries please to lay Preiudice aside and follow manifest reason I 'le shew you how Write down first the two contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Protestants Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist Christ is not really and substantially present Next examin well the Principles wheron these Contrary Doctrins rely or are supposed to rely The Catholick vrgeth first Christ's plain words 2. The Authority of his Church and saith his Churches Doctrin is the very same that Christ words literally taken express 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of The Catholick Principles Fathers and discourses thus When I find the most significant expressions of Fathers consonant to our Sauiour's plain words and to the owned Doctrin of my Church I must assuredly rest on these as indubitable grounds or Confess that There neither is or was euer any Principle for the soundest Article of Christian Faith Examin next the Sectaries Principles Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine or to this sense This is not my body b◠à Sign only of it Euidently No. Has he any Church esteemed Orthodox by the Christian world which without Controuersy taught this Doctrin of à sign only three or 4. ages since Name Sectaries haue none such such à Church He will speak's to the purpose Has he Fathers so numerous so express and clear for his Signe and figure only as the few Testimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Doctrin If he haue let him please to produce them I 'le doe no more but lay my Testimonies by them and if after the perusal or à iust Parallel made of both All the world iudges not those I quote to be most conuincing may the literal sense stand and his both dark and ambiguous I will vndergoe any Censure You haue heard how loud and express the Testimonies briefly hinted at and innumerable more are for our Catholick Verity I challenge Mr Stilling to Confront them with others as openly significant for his opinion I verily think he will neuer goe about to doe what is desired but fob vs off with killing flies and no man knowes what 16. In the interim I Argue I am either obliged to renounce An Argument drawn from our Catholick Principles the obuious sence of these Authorities which I see euidently Consonant to the words of Scripture and to the Doctrin of my Church or by force of these Proofs am still to belieue as I doe Grant this second I stand on secure ground But if I am obliged to renounce the obuious sense of Christs words my Church Doctrin and the expressions of these Fathers c. Our Aduersaries are bound if à spark of Charity liues in their Hearts to plead by stronger Principles which may settle me in an absolute Renuntiation of my Doctrin and withdraw me from the supposed errour I liue in Is not this iustice and Charity think ye And is not the Compliance most easy For if their Doctrin be Christ's Doctrin and mine not Theirs stand's as I now told you vpon clear and indubitable Principles And Principles of that nature are easily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderstanding Now I subsume But it is euident the Sectary hath no such conuincing Principles which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal sense of Christs words and the Fathers already cited And this I proue What euer Principle obliges me to renounce or to deny the plain literal sense of such words must giue assurance that those expressions literally Why none can remoue me from our Catholick Tenet vnderstood are dangerous and apt to induce Christans into gross errour for if literally taken they do no mischief or be not apt to induce into dangerous errour why should I Deny their obuious sense because Ptotestants will haue me do so But there is no Principle so much as meanly probable whereby these expressions are proued false or inductiue into dangerous Errour for were this really so some Church or Author of Credit would long sincé haue noted their ouer much vehemency in sayng more then was true concerning this Mystery which none euer yet did Therefore I may still and without Reproof hold where I am and adhere to their literal Doctrin which my Church teaches 17. Some may teply Sectaries vrge vs not so crudely to reiect the Fathers Testimonies as only to moderate or rectify their sense by the help of our Modern mens glosses which is à blamles proceeding for we do so with Gelafius and other Authors when they seemingly make against our Doctrin and Protestants do no more Answ Protestants do more for their interpretations euer imply à peremptory and absolute denial of that very literal sense which the Father words express For example S. Cyril saith Catech. Mystag 4. He that changed water into wine by his sole will hath also A reply of sectaries answered changed wine into blood The expression inuolues à parity and implies thus much That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee so wine was really and substantially changed into Christs blood Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and substantial change of wine
it If no Councils nor Tradition support it It has no Principled Doctrin If no Principled Doctrin No Moral certainty If no Moral certainty for meer groundles Glosses cannot giue Any against all the Powerful Motiues of our Church there is no Probability in it If no Probability The whole Reformation must be reduced to fancy only There we found it And there leaue it 11. Now if any except against our casting off Protestancy from the meanest degree of Probability induced to Iudge otherwise vpon this ground That many learned men defend it I haue Answered aboue Meer Probability is insufficient to support Christian Truths Here I both answer and Ask. 2. where were the many learned Defenders of this new Faith when one Luther stood vp alone against the whole Christian world And first broached his Protestancy If at that time there was no Authority nor reason for the Nouelty Process of time hath gained it neither Look then into its Rise or First beginning you 'l find it vnsound at the bottom yea vtterly improbable vpon this certain Principle That the Singular Doctrin of one disgusted Rebel against à whole Church and Thousands more pious and learned then Himselfe can merit no Belief but deserues what it has to be Anathematized 12. We must yet insist à little vpon this Point And lay forth the Vanity of our Aduersaries pretence to Probability which done you shall see controuersies are ended Sectaries May say Protestancy improbable If their own Authority makes not Protestancy Morally certain it cannot but raise it to à high degree of Probability We deny this And shall presently Ask why their Authority more aduanceth this Religion to Probability than the meer Authority of Arians bring 's Arianism to Probability At present we do not only oppose the voice and vote of the Roman Catholick Church against this Plea But the Authority also of Graecians Abyssins and all other called Christians who with one vnanimous Consent decry Protestancy as improbable Compare therefore votes with votes Authority with Authority There is no Parallel For for one that defend's it you haue hundreds yea Thousands that Contradict the Nouelty Thus much is indisputably Euident if we precisely Consider Authority as it were in Abstracto or oppose the Votes of dissenting Parties against it But here is not all We must goe further And distinguish well between à bare Authority and a rational grounded Authority For this is an vndeniable Truth Reasonable Principles euer precede or are presupposed when Religion is pleaded for To the consequent Authority of those whether many or few that Teach or Profess it Hence all say If the first conuerted Iewes to Christianity Had not had most weighty Inducements proposed to reason before they deserted Iudaism and belieued in Christ The change had been most imprudent Nay all had been obliged as is proued in the 4. Chapter To hold on in that Profession still without Alteration So necessary it is to haue rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Religion before the Professors allow it either Moral certainty or so much as Probability Thus much premised 13. We draw Sectaries from all Self-Voting or further pleading by their own Authority And force them in this Contest if Sectaries drawn off their own Selfe voting Protestancy be defensible not to say but to proue by Principles distinct from their own bare votes These two Propositions 1. That God who is Truth it self And once laid his Truths the foundation of the Roman Catholick Church permitted that faithful Oracle to become Traiterous to teach Idolatry to tell the world loud Lies for à thousand yeares together And that all this happened when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to vnbeguile Those poor deluded Christians The second Proposition to be proued is That these Millions of souls learned and vnlearned who firmly belieued this Church And dyed happily in it were All mad All Idolaters All besotted and seduced What the Sectary is to Prou◠by Fooleries And which is à Paradox aboue Expression That à knot of late vnknown Nouellists pretending to Reformation dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themselues To make these supposed mad wise The Idolatrous Orthodox the besotted Reasonable The Seduced right in Faith again And that this was and is yet done vpon à meer proofles Supposition that we are mad and besotted which stand's on no Principles And for that reason is contradicted by the vast number of most knowing Catholicks And the whole Multitude of Christians Besides 14. When these two Propositions are made probable vpon good Principles Wee shall listen to our Sectaries Authority But if they fumble herein Only talk and proue nothing Wee reiect their vngrounded Authority And say The more votes they multiply without Proofs the less weight they haue You shall yet see how weightles Their Authority is might we here insist longer vpon one Matter of fact which ends all Controuersies In à word All know the great Controuersy between Protestants and Catholicks comes to this Whether they or we teach The difficulty proposed between Catholicks and Protestants Apostolical Doctrin Whether they or we lay forth the genuine sense of holy Scripture Neither Party saw or heard the Apostles Preach Neither pretend's now to Enthusiasms or priuate Reuelations concerning that Doctrin The whole cause therefore is to be tried and decided by Witnesses of foregoing Ages such Testimonies and Tradition must clear this Matter of fact A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Pastors without Doctors without Witnesses teaching that sense and Doctrin which the one or other Party stand's for is here both vseles and impertinent If then The Protestant makes his Doctrin Apostolical His sense of Scripture Orthodox The Catholick replies Be pleased to giue in your last Euidence produce your Witnesses your Pastors And Doctors Four Ages since That taught as you teach And sensed Scripture as you sense it My Church add's the Catholick euidently demonstrates à continued succession of Her Pastors that taught as I belieue as shall be proued hereafter And shewes as clearly à Succesion of the same Doctrin and Faith with these Pastors Her Antiquity is vndoubted and her pleading Possession in preseruing the true Sense of Scripture and Apostolical Doctrin is as great as any King on earth can shew for the Possession of the Crown he weares Now saith the Catholick Wee examin your pedegree of Pastors and Doctors And after some few Ascents by à The first plead by Principles the others not Retrogradation come at last to the year 1517. There we find and most euidently à Luther or Caluin To be the first men in the world that professed Protestanism that interpreted Scripture as you interpret or owned your Religion With these late Runagates you must stop No man on earth can aduance or bring your Genealogy further Therefore to speak in the words of the Ancient Optatus Meliuitan Lib. 2. Contra Parmen At that time you were sons
it self deriues from that Oracle of Truth I say Contrary As such Opinions when true Add no more weight or certainty to that Doctrin than it had antecedently from the The Fundamental ground of our Answer Church So if false They make not the Doctrin less certain Take one instance God reueals this Truth The Diuine word assumed Humane nature One preaches the Truth but Adds no degree of certainty to the Doctrin in it self which in the highest degree was most certain before his Preaching An other falsly as Arius did opposes the verity it is not Therefore less certain in it self because He contradicts it And thus we discourse of our Church Tenets indubitably most certain vpon Church Authority whether Hereticks deny or grant That Matters not the Doctrin stand's firm still as before And as we see by daily experience neither riseth higher in certainty nor fall's lower in the iudgement of Catholicks because Sectaries side with it or bend against it 22. Thus much proued The Paralogism is at an end The Catholicks held The Donatists Baptism valid so they would haue done had these Hereticks duely Ministred it and with all which is possible afterward denied it valid So independent Church Doctrin is of dissenting mens opinions The Donatists again slighted our Catholick Baptism the Church regards it not For as the Opinions of the Goodnes of their own Baptism heightned not the Churches certainty concerning it So their Contrary Opinion of its insufficiency made not the Truth less certain to the Catholick Apply what is here noted to our present case and you will see the like Conclusion Protestants Say we may be Sectaries Siding with vs neither Lessens nor increases our Certainty saued in Catholick Religion The Opinion is true But as asserted by them is no more but an Opinion which therefore Add's not one grain of more Certainty to Catholick Doctrin For had they denied vs à possibility of Saluation as now by meer Chance they grant it Catholicks would haue giuen as little eare to That as They now doe to their many other false Opinions So it is Church Doctrin as I now said neither fall's nor riseth in certainty vpon the account of our Sectaries Opinions 23. You will Ask what then gain we by the Concession of Protestants when it giues vs no more Assurance in this particular than we had before from the Church I haue answered aboue We gain thus much That they cannot rationally impugn any Catholick Doctrin without contradicting Them selues For if confessedly This bring 's men to Heauen the Religion is sound And implies no essential Errour The concession then as I said serues well as an Argument ad Hominem to stop the mouths of Sectaries And showes withall That they end controuersies For its What their Excession Serues for horridly vniust to dispute against à Faith which all grant saues souls We pretend no more nor can pretend it And here is the Reason 23. No Catholick nor indeed any other doth or can belieue à Christian Verity vpon this ground or Motiue that Sectaries say its true for their saying so is neither Gods Reuelation nor the Churches Doctrin But à meer Opinion as taught by them But an opinion chiefly theirs is to weak to ground any faith vpon Therefore if I belieue as I do Saluation most safe in the Roman Catholick Church I belieue it vpon à Motiue totally distinct from the Protestants Assertion It is true their Assertion or siding with vs may induce one to reflect on the great power Truth has in working vpon men most refractory Though it Adds no new degree of certainty to Catholick Doctrin I haue insisted longer vpon this point because it vtterly destroies what euer Mr. Stillingfleet can say against vs vnless he will quarrel vpon this score that I here suppose my Church Doctrin most certain which is not the Question now But may well be supposed in all good law of disputation And shall God willing be proued in the next Discourse 24. Page 619. you proceed to à second Answer of his Lordship And Argue thus If that be the safest which both Parties agree in the Principle makes much for the Aduantage of Protestants And why We Catholicks are bound Say you to belieue with you in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree The Sectaries Argument taken from the Eucharist in the faith of the Church of England That in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and Real body and blood of Christ truly and really c. Answ 1o. If we belieued As you do The motiue of our Faith would be As is now said quite different from the Motiue of your Opinion And so it is de facto in the belief of euery Catholick Mystery But I waue this And say Your Principle is ill applyed For you and we agree in iust nothing concerning the Eucharist but thus far only That what we see look's like bread We say that very Christ who was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross is really and substantially present vnder the form's of bread after true Consecration You by à strange fancy lay hold of Christs Presence existing in Heauen And think thereby to make your selues partaker of his real body We say Christ is rruly Worth nothing and why and really in two and more places at once you make this vtterly impossible We put the real Presence or local being of Christ in the very Obiect before our eyes vpon the Altar you put it in your faith or Fancy rather Hence your question afterward viz. Whether we do not allow any real and Spiritual presence of Christ besides the Corporal you mean the Real manducation is soon answered For we distinguish what you confound together And say if by these Terms Spiritual Presence you would exclude the real obiectiue Presence of Christs sacred body we dissent from you And absolutly hold that Real obiectiue Presence which may be rightly called Spiritual because by it Christ is placed Totus in toto totally in the whole host and totally in euery part of it Contrariwise if you make it only à fancied Presence of Christ or say Hee is not really vnder the Forms or Accidents of bread wee leaue that lean Sacramentarie Doctrin to you vtterly disanow it and still dissent from you 25. The whole cheat lies hudled vp in those vnexplicated words The worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body c. As if forsooth your two terms The fallacy discouered Faith and Spiritual could make vs agree in one Tenet whereas we most vary about this very Faith and the obiect of it And also disclaime your fancied Spiritual Presence Hence we say you haue neither true Sacrament nor true Faith nor receiue worthily nor really partake of Christs true body nor of any benefit of his Passion We say you feed not spiritually but only tast natural
Perswasiuely by the vertue of Miracles Goe and preach saying the Kingdome of God is at hand Cure the sick raise vp the dead cleanse the Lepers Cast out Diuels c. And they did so Mark 16. 20. They Went abroad preached euery where God Cooperating with them and confirming their Doctrin by Signes wich followed Or to speak in the words of S. Paul Heb. 2. God withall Testifying by Signes and wonders and diuers Miracles c. A third sequele If the Iewes had not sinned by reiecting Christ Why sectaries are blameable and his Doctrin which then was new in case he had not wrought greater Miracles amongst them than euer Any did before him How highly imprudent think ye How notoriously culpable are our Sectaries who belieue the new opinions of one wretched Luther or Caluin without so much as one Miracle wrought to make them probable 7. A fourth Principle True Real Miracles are Still necessary in the Church and fortold to be so by Truth it self Ioan 12. Amen Amen I say vnto you he that belieues in me the works which I doe he shall doe and greater works than these shall he doe I say purposely True real Miracles mindful of S. Chrisostoms profound Discourse vpon these very words in his Book against the Gentils There haue been saith the Saint certain Masters you may call them Impostors who had their Disciples and talk't much of Wonders whilst they liued but none of them euer came to the impudency S. Chrisosloms excellent Reflection as truely to Prophesy of Miracles to be done by them after death No A Iugler may do something strange whilst he is on the Stage But take him off the Theater Throwe him out of this life The cheat appeares He is worth nothing 8. All is contrary in our Sauiour who here foretold of greater Wonders to be wrought in after Ages by his true Belieuers Than He had done in this Mortal life And if we Speak of great Conuersions which all most iustly account Miraculous the Truth is Euident For our Blessed Lord conuerted but few in Comparison of those who followed in the Church after his Death A parallel of other Miracles we shall see presently Yet more The Apostles wrought the greatest Miracles after Christ's Ascension And t' is worth Reflection whilst Christs Disciples conuersed with Him the Gospel record's little of their Miracles But after his leauing this world Signes followed them They cast out Diuels raised the dead spake with new tongues conuerted Nations laid hand on the Sick c. And the like Supernatural effects haue been visible in the Church through all Ages after the Apostles So true are the words of Christ Greater Things shall be done And the meaning is not that euery true Belieuer should work Miracles For so Christs promise would not bee truly fulfilled because All do them not But that some choise elected of his Church as it happened in the Primitiue times Members of this Mystical Body should haue the Priuiledge 9. One Reason of my Assertion is If Miracles Gods own Seals and Characters were Necessary at the first preaching of the Gospel to induce all to belieue Christs Doctrin or to distinguish his Truths from the Errours of Iewes and Pagans The like Necessity is for their Continuance in after Ages not only in respect of Infidels but erring Christians also For no sooner had Christ founded his Church But the Diuel raised vp his Chappel by it Pestiferous Hereticks from Simon Magus haue Why Miracles are now Necessary been in euery Age his Chaplins All of them Pretended to Truth with an Ecce hic est Christus Loe we preach Christ In this Confusion of Sects it was absolutly needful to Mark out that happy Christian Society which taught sauing Faith and Shewed where God was adored in Spirit and Truth Now no Mark can be more Palpable or more attractiue than the Glory of indubitable Miracles Christs own Cognisances and the Clearest Euidences of Apostolical Doctrin 10. 2. Miracles are necessary in the Church to stirr vp Christian Faith and Deuotion with it which would soon grow cold Two other Reasons alleged were it not that Diuine Prouidence frequently quickens both by these exteriour Signes and wonders Wherefore as His Goodnes works inwardly and plyes our hearts with Grace so outwardly also to Testify that nothing is wanting He moues vs to Belieue by no less visible Inducements than Those were which first made the world Christian 11. 3. The Continuation of Miracles Clearly appeared in the first fiue Centuries after Christ And as Authority makes them indubitable So reason also proues them necessary vpon this very Account that the Conuersion of Infidels strangers to Christ was not wrought on à suddain or all at once But successiuely Age after Age If then Miracles were necessary to conuince our Christian Verities when Christ and his Apostles first preached to vnbelieuing Iewes and Gentils no man can probably iudge them Vseless in after Ages when the like Barbarous the like Ignorant and vnciuilized Nations who neuer heard of Christ or Scripture became Christians Induced to so happy à change not because they heard truths Taught But because they saw all confirmed by Euident Signes and Wonders 12. Reflect I beseech you à little Were not the Natiues of those vast and remote Regions we call the Indies whether Orient or Occident à People as ignorant of our Christian verities and as much auerted from Christs Doctrin when S. Francis Xauerius and other laborious Missioners first preached There as any Nations One Reason further illustrated were to whom the Apostles preached Christ Yes most certainly In both cases the disdain and ignorance may well be paralled Imagin now that S. Xauerius had only opened his Bible And told the ruder People of the high Mysteries of Christian Faith would this think ye though neuer so speciously laid forth haue gained credit No. But when their eyes beheld Miracles and glorious Miracles accompaning His laborious Preaching The By an Instance of Missioners sent to preach deaf dumb blind and sick instantly cured When they saw the Sanctity the Austerity and Innocency of His virtuous Life When they heard him indued with the Gists of tongues When they knew that after à noble contempt of the world The blessed man sought nothing but God And fearing neither death nor dangers Couragiously trauelled from one end of the world to the other c. Then it was they began to look about them to open their eyes more to Renounce Idolatry and submit to Gods truths most manifestly euidenced by glorious Miracles Then it was that the Saint Gods grace concurring conuerted Thousands and Thousands All which is vpon certain Record and witnessed by those who haue written the wonders Howeuer grant that S. Xauerius wrought but one or two Miracles when many more cannot without impudency be denyed him our Assertion subsists that Miracles are necessary for the reclaiming of Infidels And if he did none at
Reflect GeÌ„tle Reader vpon these Consequences the Legardemaine the Imposture of this supposed Deceiuer It followes 2. That the Iewes who crucified our Blessed Lord iustly deserued vpon that Account Renown and Honour yea the highest Recompence For it was à laudable fact to comdemn à Counterfeit sâ— openly wicked as dared to call Himself the Son of God when Hâ—e was not Perkin Warbecks disguise was but à Peccadilio compared to this shameful cousenage The sin of Mahomet who neuer made Himselfe God but à Prophet only came not neer the Malice of this one supposed abhominable loud Vntruth It followes 3. That our supposed Impostor I haue à horror to pronounce the word deseruedly merited And yet merit 's for His vnexcusable Hypocrisy eternal Reproach contempt and ignominy in the just judgement of God men and Angels Hence I Argue 5. God is just and hath Prouidence ouer the world But our just and wise God neuer since Christianity began Seâ— Mark or Sign of Ignominy vpon our Blessed Sauiour as he hath done vpon other Impostors Our just and wise God euer since that wicked People nailed him to à Cross hath been so far from honouring them or rewarding Their impious Fact That most visible and seuere Punishments haue proued the only Recompence and best Reward The Temple ruined their Dispersion followed Christ honoured the Iewes contemned vp and down the world where they liue contemptible chiefly infamous for Hypocrisy and Auarice Se also this Argument more enlarged aboue Chap. 2. n. 4. Our most just God hath not only taken of all Marks of Ignominy but euidently to our Senses declared by real Effects His innocent Lamb our louely Sauiour worthy of Honour Benediction and Glory So true it is We read Apocal. 5. 13. Dignus est Agnus qui occisus est c. The iust Tribute of Prayse and Glory is visibly paid him so Prouidence hath ordained not only by Kings Princes Learned and vnlearned by all Nations far and neer But by the very Turks also 6. And is it possible reflect I beseech you that God who is no Exceptor of Persons could haue punished so dreadfully these abandoned Iewes had they done well in crucifying our Lord Jesus Is it possible that his iust and wise Prouidence could euer haue crowned à Counterfeit with so much Honour God's iust Iudgement and renown as our Sauiour hath gained or permitted A cheâ— not only to be Reuerenced as the true Son of God so long though he was not but moreouer to draw so many Millions and Millions of Souls into errour as belieued in him for sixteen Ages and more The Paradox is so desperate so highly improbable That one would as soon deny both God and Prouidence As once seriously harbour it in his thoughts Obserue my Reason 7. The Light of nature dictates abstracting from Authority Rom. 2. 9. That as on the one side Shame Ignominy and Confusion pursue horrid Workers of iniquity So on the other Proue ouâ— Sauiour Innocent Glory Honour and renown inseparably follow the manifestly declared just and innocent But Shame Confusion and Ignominy Gods Iust Signes of indignation yet visibly follow that wicked race of People the Authors of our dear Sauiours death contrarywise Glory and renown euer since he dyed haue been his due reward and own inheritance Therefore if God speak's And the Iewes Criminal as He doth by these Signal Effects of Iustice The Iewes so long seuerely punished stand like guilty Criminals in that high Tribunal of Heauen There sentenced answerable to their Desert as Workers of iniquity And our Holy Lord Iesus so long honoured the whole world ouer receiues the contrary Sentence And is by visible effects there proclaimed just and Innocent A Domino factum est istud c. It was not chance but à Signal work of Prouidence that the Stone these Builders reiected became so glorious as to support the noblest Fabrik God euer made 8. Apply what is is now said to the Roman Catholick A true Application of this whole Doctrin Church We shall se an exact Parallel of proofs deliuered in the same Terms Christ our Lord called Himself Eternal Truth in all he taught Our Church stil's Herself Gods own Oracle in all She teaches Now whilst so high à Prerogatiue is claimed She either speakes Truth or lies most impudently Grant the first Viz. That this Church speaks Truth she is to be belieued in all she teaches Say secondly she falsly makes Herself Gods own Oracle when she is not Diuine Prouidence which cannot dissemble nor Design to ruin Souls by the false Doctrin of an infatuated Oracle would long before this day haue either destroyed Her or marked Her out as à Cheat by some euident Sign of Justice as he hath marked other false Oracles Iewes To the Roman Catholick Church Turks Infidels and Hereticks with Contempt ignominy and Disgrace The sin is so hideous that it well deserued à greater Punishment and would haue been inflicted vpon this Church also if the Supposition stand Vnless as is now said we Assert which is abominable that Gods express Will was that She should poyson whole Nations for so many Ages with corrupted Doctrin But All is contrary To our vnspeakable comfort the Roman Catholick Church fail's not She keep 's her Posture still She flourishes euery where euen amongst thousands and thousands She flourishes that dare not interest will haue it so Profess Her Doctrin And without any least Note of infamy proceding from God what Diuels or Malice inuent or vent against Her we heed not Teaches not only the most pious and learned in this neerer world But the wisest also of the whole Vniuerse Thus we discoursed of Christ our Lord and the Argument hold's as strongly in behalf of our Church 9. Again Hath God whose Counsels are just Crowned our Sauiour with Glory and Renown Has he also who knowes well where to inflict Punishment manifested his Wrath vpon an vngracious People that condemned Him Ponder I beseech you first How visibly Prouidence has made his own Spouse the Roman Catholick Church Renowned And wonder not the Made renowned Son of God paid dear for the Renown and gave his life for it Vt exhiberet ipse sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit and present to Himself and the whole world à most glorious Church All this I say visibly Appears to oâ— eyes and senses 10. Ponder 2. Where and vpon whom God hath Set Marks of ignominy and inflicted most rigorous Punishments Whâ—â— vpon Iewes only that opposed and condemned Christ Are Iewes and Heretiques these only Marked and Chastised No. Those rebellious Spirits also Those first Renegados I mean the chief Arch-hereticks that opposed and condemned his Church Vile and abiect in life dying felt Gods heauy hand of Iustice Manichaeus was stead à liue Montanus hanged Himself Arius voided out his bowels and filthy soul together in à Priuie God strook Iulian the Apostate dead
publick Dissention Answ These men certainly neuer say their Creed I belieue the holy Catholick Church that is in mind interiourly I giue Assent to all the Catholick Church teaches Now if this Doctrin stand They may well not yeild Assent at all to any Doctrin the Church teaches but like Hypocrits may outwardly be fair Catholicks and inwardly foul Hereticks And this is to Profess one thing and belieue another Christ is ashamed of them Luke 9. 26. and so is the Apostle also Rom. 1. 16. VVho blushed not to preach as he belieued And to belieue as he preached But enough hereof is said in the other Treatise CHAP. XV. Diuine Faith in this present State of things necessarily requir's à Church infallible The Reason hereof The Church neither Defin's nor can Define by Humane Authority only Her Definitions more than morally certain are Infallible Sectaries Recourse to Moral certainty in Matters of Faith à most frigid Plea Their Fallacy is discouered Obiections Answered 1. ONe Principle established aboue N. 6. Proues the first part of my Assertion Diuine Faith which is à firm Assent to what euer God speak's So vltimatly rest's vpon his Infallible Veracity One Principle premised That if à true Belieuer yeild Assent to him as He speaks and because He speaks All the power in Heauen cannot Separate Infallibility from that Belief Herein consist's the Perfection of all Diuine Faith That without sweruing it tend's vpon a Verity Infallible and without Hesitancy hold's that infallibly true which the infallible Verity Reueal's A lesser Perfection than this is not Faith And à greater the Apostles had not if we precisely respect The perfection of Faith the Motiue of their Assent Hence all must Distinguish à twofold Infallibility One intrinsick and infinit proper to Gods Verity The Other answerable to à creatures Capacity finit t' is true yet Infallible and such the Apostles Faith was 2. Thus much Supposed not easily gainsaid by Sectaries the infallibility of one Church which we say is the Roman Catholick Stand's firm And here is the Reason As Faith relies vpon an infallible Verity that reueal's Truth So it also rest's vpon an infallible Oracle which without danger of Errour Applies and Proposes that very Truth yet obscure to Belieuers For it little auail's to haue à Verity infallibly Reuealed if à fallible Oracle which may both Miss and Mislead be our best One ground of the Churches Insallibility and only Guide or Proponent The Church therefore which Saith Indubitably I Propose what God Reueals must be infallible answerable to the Infallibility of Diuine Reuelation Ruin the One or Other Infallibility Faith can be no more but an vncertain Assent And consequently no Faith at all 3. To Reinforce this Reason Please only to cast à serious The reason reinforced Thought vpon such as haue been iustly reputed Hereticks and vpon their Procedure The Arians after the reading Scripture denyed the high Godhead in Christ His Eternal Consubstantiality also to the Father And erred The Pelagians reiecting Original Sin swerued likewise from the Verities of Christian Religion so did the Monothelits that impiously bereaued Christ of his two Sacred Wills Diuine and Humane The true Church All know condemned and yet condemns these Tenets as Heretical Right say modern Sectaries And it was well done Very Good If well done herevpon ensues another troubleson Question and it is Whether that true Church whilst She condemned these Errours and defined the contrary Truths proceeded Doubtfully Probably vpon Moral Certainty only or Spake as Gods Oracle ought If the Church defines doubtful to speak Infallibly If She Defined doubtfully it is yet also doubtful whether Christ be the high God and Consubstantial to his Father Vnless Scripture now supposed God's word in express Terms clear the doubt and raise the Doctrin to absolute Certainty which most euidently is not done 4. The whole Contest then is VVhether the Church or Arians Interpret Scripture better For the Obiect of my Assent when I belieue the eternal VVord Consubstantial being not Express Scripture but an Interpretation only it followes if the Interpretation which the Church giues be supposed doubtful She wrong 's the Arians and all other Christians whilst She obliges them to belieue the Mystery otherwise than only Sub dubio or doubfully which is not to belieue at all Again If the Churches She wrongs both Arians and All Christians Definition get à Step higher to à degree of Probability and no more The Arians Opinion for ought we know yet may be as tenable as the Contrary Doctrin now supposed Orthodox And Consequently the real Consubstantiality of the Son to his Father is no more any Obiect of Faith but meerly à disputable Matter like this or that Opinion in Schools earnestly tossed to and fro But neuer ended Doubts therefore And meer probabilities reiected too weightles for Church Definitions 5. We are next to look à little into one only Refuge left The Sectaries Plea of Moral Certainty examined Sectaries called Moral Certainty T' is à dark cloud they are lately got into our Endeauour shall be to dissipate it They may say When the Church condemned Arianism the like is of any other Heresy and defined the Eternal Word Consubstantial The Definition much aboue Probability though not absolutely Infallible was yet so morally Certain that no man can but most vnreasonably doubt of its Verity In passing I may without Offence take notice of Sectaries Inconsequences and Ask if Moral Certainty be at least had from Church Definitions when She interpret's Scripture though the Doctrin be not formally expressed There Why are not Her Definitions euery whit as Morally certain against Luther and Caluin though what She Defin's be not in express Terms Gods word I would also as willingly learn why Protestant Doctrin is not esteemed ouer all the world so Morally certain as thefe Ancient Catholick Definitions are But let these Queries not easily Answered pass We come to the main difficulty and demand 6. Whether this Positiue Doctrin Christ is the Highest God and Consubstantial to his Father be à Fundamental Article of Christian Faith finally resoluable into the Diuine Reuelation And admitted A question Proposed to Sectaries as most Fundamental by Protestants I verily perswade my self they will Say it is If not This followes ineuitably that there is no fundamental Article in our Christian faith Vpon the supposed Concession I Argue But If the Church be fallible this Positiue Doctrin Christ is Consubstantial is no Article of Faith because it cannot be resolued into an infinite Verity infallibly Reuealing Truth Therefore it is only à Moral humane Perswasion at most which may be false 7. The Proof of the Minor will best appear if we Ask why Sectaries belieue that positiue Doctrin They cannot Answer Scripture expresly Teaches it For most euidently that 's not so Will they say the Mystery may by good Discourse be deduced The true Answer proues Faith Certain from
to induce it an Infallible Oracle to teach it and finally to rely on 20. Hence we easily Answer Mr Stillingfleets Question P. 118. What Saith he cannot men haue vnquestionable Assurance that there was such à Person as Christ in the world who dyed for vs if the present Church be not infallible Answ You might Sr haue proposed à wiser Question Know I beseech you That in the forenamed Proposition There was such à Man as Christ who liued in the world and An vnlearned Obiection answered dyed for vs Two things may be Considered First That the man called Christ dyed on à Cross And this Verity as we sayd aboue Once visible both Iewes and Gentils yet Assent to vpon Moral Certainty but therefore do not belieue in Christ The Reason is Manifest and it vtterly destroyes your Doctrin because that Common report or Moral Certainty is not God's infallible Reuelation which only can support Faith 21. The second thing to be considered is That the man called Christ dying for vs was the only Messias truly God the Redeemer of Mankind Here you haue the hidden Verities of Christian Religion the Certain Obiects of Faith Conueyed vnto vs by no Moral Assurance but solely vpon God's Infallible Reuelation whereof more presently 22. Page 119. He tell 's vs first We cannot say what or where that Church is which we suppose infallible Nor. 2. What is that Church is the proper Subiect of infallibility Nor. 3. What kind of Infallibility this is Nor. 4. How we can know when the Church Defin's infallibly Here is very slight Matter to work on To the first we Answer The Church which we do not barely Suppose The true Church denoted but haue already proued Infallible is that diffused Society of Christians vnited in one Faith vnder one Head which is most discernable from all Societies by the same euident Marks of truth that Christ and his Apostles manifested to the world To the. 2. We haue both Answered and retorted the Argument in the other Treatise where it is Said The Church may The subiect of Infallibility be considered First as it is Docens or Teaching And thus Her Representatiue moral Body the Pope I mean and Council assembled together for the Reasons alleged Chap. 17. is the proper Subiect of Infallibility Again if we consider the Church as it is Discens learning or taught All those diffused multitudes of Christians that are vnited in one belief and own due Submission to their lawful Pastors because they belieue as the Church Representatiue teaches may be rightly styled vpon the Account From whence Infallibility Proceâ—d's of their infallible Faith the proper Subiect of Infallibility And must not our Aduersaries who hold à Society of men infallible in Fundamentals solue this Difficulty and Declare in what Subiect that half Infallibility is lodged To the. 3. we haue Answered Chap. 16. This infallibility which proceed's from the Special Assistance of the Holy Ghost is of such à Nature That that Blessed Spirit will neuer permit the Church instructing to Define à falshood nor the instructed Vniuersally to fail in faith To the. 4. I Answer Then we know the Church Defin's infallibly when She obliges all vnder Anathema to belieue her Doctrin and when the Doctrin is so sufficiently proposed to her Subiects that it cannot be morally doubted of But enough of these Strengthles difficulties examined and solued à hundred times ouer May better be expected hereafter We shall se that in the following Chapter CHAP. IV. More of Mr Stillingfleets Errours Of that odd kind of Faith he seem's to maintain grounded on Moral Certainty VVhat Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue vpon Faith Other Parcels of his Doctrin Examined and refuted Obiections Solued 1. AFter Mr Stillingfleet had said All may haue vnquestionable Assurance of our Sauiours once being in the Mr Stillingfleets Doctrin world though the present Church were fallible He tells vs again that the Assurance of the matters of fact which are the foundations of Faith is necessary in order to the obligation to belieue And then add's I mean such an assurance as matters of fact are capable of for no higher can be required than the nature of the things will bear He goes on in his Ignorance Cannot we haue vnquestionable Assurance that there were such persons as Câ—sar and Pompey without some infallible Testimony If we may in such things VVhy not in other Matters of fact which infinitly more concern vs though the Church stamp not her Infallibility vpon them The man you see would say That these verities Christ dyed for vs is our only Redeemer truly God and man being Matters of fact and foundations of Faith are conueyed to vs vpon no higher certainty than Moral only For the nature of them iust like that Assurance we haue of à Caesar and Pompey bear 's no greater Hence he also tell 's vs. P. 206. that Moral certainty may be as great as Mathematical Explained by himselfe and Physical Supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their Nature as in Mathematical and Physical as to theirs And afterward There can be no greater than this Moral Certainty of the main foundations of all Religion Reflect Christian Reader But The Doctrin is dangerous the Verities now mentioned Christ is our Redeemer The only Messias truly God and Man are the main foundations of Christian Religion And Conueyed to vs by moral certainty Therefore Mr Stillingfleet laies the whole weight of Christian Religion hitherto held infallibly true vpon à certainty which may be false By this confused and vndigested Discourse I hope all will perceiue what it is to write Controuersies with half an Insight into Difficulties 2. I proue it first both indigested and erroneous by this vndeniable Principle No Authority in Heauen or earth deliuered And Proued Most erroneous these Verities Christ is the true Messias Christ is God and Man vpon Moral Certainty only Ergo None can belieue them with so weak an Assent as is only Moral The Consequence is clear For if no Authority conueyed or deliuered the Verities as Morally A two fold Probation certain only And I Assent to them with à Belieue only Morally Certain my Assent is giuen to some Authority which hath no Being either in Heauen or earth Or Argue thus and you Conuince If all Authority Imaginable wherevpon Faith can depend Conueyed or deliuered these Verities both as Infallible Truths and infallibly And I Assent to the Doctrin with à Beliefe not infallible but only morally Certain I leaue by my fallible moral Assent the true Infallible teaching and Conueying Oracles of Christian Doctrin and belieue vpon à meer fancied Authority which was neuer impowred to Conuey God's Verities to any 3. Now that all Authority wherevpon Faith can depend deliuered the forementioned Verities Infallibly is Manifest All Teachers of Christian Doctrin conueyed it Infallibly God's Reuelation was and is infallible Christ our
infallible Oracles And it is very true But we proue the like Signs accompanied and followed the Church in all Ages therefore her Hearers are also bound to acknowledge Her an infallible Oracle also In this place you should haue spoken to the Cause and Shewed Why or vpon what Account those first Signs were so powerful to Proue the Apostles infallible And these latter of the Church lesse pregnant to proue Her infallible This and t' is the main Point you wisely waue For it is vnanswerable and most frigidly tell vs The main point pressed again P. 153. You must be excused as to what followes viz. That those same Motiues moued the Primitiue Christians and vs in our respectiue Times to belieue the Church And why not dear Sr Giue vs the Disparity and we haue done but you cannot If therefore it which cannot be Answered be à bold Attempt to deny the Euidence of the Church we plead for which S. Austin Epist 166. compares with the Sun manifest to all vsque ad terminos ad terrae To the last bounds of the earth it is impossible to weaken the force of our Inference when we Say The Church is proued by her Motiues an infallible Oracle You next Terme this Expression The formal Obiect of faith à Coccysm whereby it appear's how little you are versed in School-Diuinity 29. It seem's in the Page now cited your Aduersary vrges this Argument Ad hominem If à Church be acknowledged An Argument vrged ad hominem infallible in Fundamentals The last reason why you belieue it infallible must rest vpon this Principle That the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much by her Tradition To this you return à most dissatisfactory Answer in these words VVhen you Ask â—s Protestants why we belieue such an Article to be fundamental As fâ—r an Instance Christ will giue Eternal life to them that belieue him The Sectaries Answer â—e Answer not because the Church which is infallible in fundamentals Delieuers it to be so For that were to Answer Idem per Idem But we â—peal to that Common Reason which is in Mankind whether if the Doctrin of Christ be true This can be any other than à fundamental Article of it it being that without which the whole Design of Christian Religion comes to nothing 30. Good Reader ioyn here two things together Mr Stillingfleet believes and Mark the word such an Article to be Fundamental not vpon Scripture or Church Authority for neither makes the Distinction between fundamentals and not fundamentals highly dissatisfactory and why And again before he has proued by any infallible Authority that such à Distinction in his Sense ought to be made He brings in the common Reason of mankind to Iudge in à matter which Catholicks Say is de Subiecto non supponente not capable of Iudicature Because there are no Things in being as he call's fundamentals distinguisable from others of à lower Rank Moreouer And take notice of this He belieues such an Article to be à truth because God reueal's it and belieues it to be à Fundamental Faith stand's not vpon two disserent Motiue Diuine and humane Truth vpon this Motiue that Common reason hold's it so Doth not therefore this one act of Faith rely vpon two heterogeneal Formal Obiect As Faith it is built vpon God's Veraâ—ity as Fundamental Faith it stand's tottering vpon mans fallible reason 31. What followes is as bad or worse It is sufficient Say you That the Church doth deliuer from the Consent of vniuersal Tradition the infallible Rule of Faith which to be sure contain's all things Fundamental in it though She neuer meddles with the deciding what Points are fundamental and what not Pray you Sr Answer Who shall dare to meddle with those fundamentals were they Supposable in Worse Doctrin yet your sense if the Church doth not What must your priuate Iudgement or mine decide here Quo iure by what law or Authority whilst Scripture saies nothing and you will not permit the Church to meddle in the Business were there any such thing to be meddled with Therefore you leaue all to mens priuate Opinions to make what they please fundamental and exclude from Fundamentals euery thing which likes them not And here is your fumbling way of Belieuing no man knows what whilst Their broken kind of Faith the Church tells you that euery thing She Proposes as an Article of faith is Fundamental This impregnable Principle we establish in Lieu of your loose Faith and broken way of Arguing also Lastly you are out in the main Supposition that Scripture only is the Rule of faith But hereof enough is said in the first Discourse 32. The next Thing I meet with worth any Notice is P. 158. Wherevnto we also ioyn his 170. Page It seem's D. Lawd before Mr Stillingfleet wrote his Account was vrged to giue à The main Point concerning Scripture and its sense examined satisfactory Reply to the Question VVhy or vpon what ground Protestants belieue the Books of Scripture to be the VVord of God Scripture alone Sayes not which Books are Canonical much lesse declares their Sense in matters controuerted Sectaries reiect the Churches Infallible Authority And say She is not to tell vs which Books are Scripture or what their sense is though admitted as God's word Is it not very reasonable think ye to A reasonable Demand demand vpon what Ground these men stand when either they belieue Scripture to be the word of God or giue an Assent to the particular doctrins contained in the book For clearing these difficulties you shall haue Mr Stillingfleets own word's P. 170. 33. This Question Saith he how we know Scripture to be Scripture may import tvvo things First how we know that all those books contain God's word in them Or secondly how we know the The substance of Mr Stillingfleets Answer Doctrin Contained in these Books to be Diuine If you then ask me whether it be necessary that I belieue with such à Faith as is built vpon Diuine Testimony that these Books called Scripture contain the Principles of the Iewish and Christian Religion in them which we call God's word I do and shall deny it viz. That This belief is built on any Diuine Testimony and my reason is because I haue sufficient ground for such an Assent without any Diuine Testimony But if you ask me â—â— what ground I belieue the Doctrin to be Diuine which is contained in those books I then Answer affirmatiuely on à Diuine Testimony because God hath giuen abundant Euidence that this Doctrin was of Diuine Reuelation 34. Here are two Assertions The first is That the Books of Scripture contain God's word in them And this cannot belieued vpon any Diuine Testimony Thus much granted It followes ineuitably Though one should pertinaciously reiect the whole Drewes an ill Consequence after it Canon of the old and new Testament or absolutely affirm These Bookt
Article proposed by the Church speaking in the name of God If which is already proued the same God deliuers Truth as well by this Oracle as he did anciently by the Prophets and Apostles No disparity can be giuen 9. Hence I Say whoeuer will make à full Proposition of Diuine Faith and giue à Satisfactory Resolution thereof must both Propose and Resolue it into God's Authority speaking by this one Signalized and euidenced Oracle And here in few words is the vltimate reason of our Assertion If we exclude the infallible Authority of an euidenced Church neither the Canon of Scripture nor any verity in it nor its true sense which Heretiques depraue can be admitted as Gods infallible word Therefore S. Austin Spake most profoundly where He The reason why faith must be resolued into Gods Testimony Speaking by the Church professes He would not belieue the Gospel without Church Authority Hence it followes That though one might belieue the Mystery of the Trinity or the Incarnation for the truths reuealed in Scripture yet if à further Question be moued concerning the Authenticalness of these very Scriptural Expressions All if they will finally resolue their Faith must rely on Gods Testimony speaking by the Church and belieue that very Doctrin to be Diuine because She own 's it as Diuine 10. Thus we said Chap. 20. n. 11. That the infallible Authority of the present Church consummates the ancient Reuelation which long since past and remote from vs cannot moue to belieue vnlesse Her Testimony conuey's it to vs and in this sense compleat's it And what way of belieuing or resoluing Faith can be more easy then to Say I belieue the This way of belieuing most easy Incarnation both because S. Iohn wrote it and because God speaking by the Church saith he wrote it These two Indiuisibly taken may as well make vp one total Motiue of belieuing as the Royal Prophets Testimony and. S. Peters infallible declaration added to it Act. 2. V. 25. became one entire total Motiue to those first belieuing Christians I say Indiuisibly And The Churches Testimony not meerly à Condition therefore the Churches Testimony concurres not meerly as an extrinsecal condition preuiously assented to but iointly terminates Faith together with the ancient Reuelation as shall be Presently declared Herein also there is nothing like confusion but the greatest Clarity free from all danger of any vicious Circle 11. A. 4. Obiection The Motiues inducing to belieue that God speak's by the Church or that all ar called to seek their Saluation in this one Euidenced Oracle are Church Doctrins For we all belieue that the true Spouse of Christ is Holy How the Motiues inducing to belieue vnited in Faith vniuersally spread the whole world ouer c. Therefore they can no more rationally induce to belieue that first necessary Truth Viz. All are called to one Communion of Faith Than one Article of faith obscure in it selfe rationally induce to belieue another wholly as obscure We haue Answered aboue These Motiues may be considered two wayes First as they are euidently perceptible by sense and so naturally they precede Faith and induce to belieue 2. As attested Are Doctrinâ— of the Church also vpon Gods own Authority speaking by the Church And in this Sense they precede not Faith but are Articles belieued wherein there is no Mystery at all if which is certain The same thing can be both known and belieued by different Assents vpon distinct Motiues A. 5. Obiection Scripture when newly written and proposed by the Euangelists or Apostles to the Primitiue Christians In what sense Scripture was Compleat to the Primitiue belieuers was to them so total and compleat à Formal Obiect to ground faith vpon that they needed no Authority of the Church to compleat it more Therefore it 's still à full and perfect Motiue of belieuing in order to all this very Age independently of Church Authority The Obiection brings with it its own Solution For if those Holy Writers of Scripture were Infallible whereof no man doubt's and proposed all they wrote as Gods Diuine word That very Proposition was fully as certain to them as any Church Authority whether past or present can be to vs. Hence I say though Scripture was then That infallible Publication supposed à full and compleat Motiue to ground faith vpon yet now it Cannot be so Quâ—ad nos or in order to Belieuers in this present State without more not because there is any want in Scripture considered in it self But vpon another account that Circumstances are very Why not so now to vs without Church authority different and notably changed since those first dayes For now we haue neither Apostle nor Prophet at hand to Testify or publish the Scriptures Diuinity The ancient signes of Credibility which adorned those first blessed men and made Scripture most acceptable are out of our sight Therefore God's Church succeed's with her Lustre and Supplies as it were that want or takes the place of those deceased Prophets and Apostles 13. By what is here Said you may easily vnderstand the Two Terms explicated sense of those two Terms Quoad se and Quoad nos frequently vsed in this matter though not free from Sectaries Cauils Who say Whateuer is Quoad se considered in it selfe à Formal Obiect must be so in order to others because it is à Relatiue and cannot but haue respect to our vnderstanding Answ All this is true after à full and infallible Proposition A Reuelation may be in it selfe Diuine made of the Obiect Otherwise most certainly à Reuelation may be in it Selfe both Diuine and infallible though it appear's not so to all for want of à due application to Belieuers Again It may be in some Circumstances à compleat Motiue to ground faith vpon and in another State cease to be so Many Verities in Scripture when first written and proposed by Apostolical men were compleat Obiects of faith to the Primitiue Christians yet are not by virtue of that Proposition Thought it appears not so to all now so to vs Because They neither write in this State nor immediatly Propose the truths contained in Scripture Hence it is that the Church as wee said Supplies that defect and compleat's by her Proposition those ancient Reuelations which issued from Christ and his Apostles And for The Churches Testimony Clear this reason Her Testimony Quoad nos is more clear more known and more immediatly Credible than Scripture can bee 14. 3. Difficulties may arise concerning the Scriptures Canon and sense also which none can decide but the Church only and vpon that Account Shee is more Credible and more And necessary for other Reasons immediatly known to vs than the Scriptures abstruse Sense which is very often remote from vs before God speaking by this Oracle laies the truth open in clearer Terms And what wonder is here Whilst Sectaries confess to vnderstand the true sense of God's word
your Proof in Calling That à Reasonable Religion which the greatest Part of Christians reiects as both false and Improbable 4. What Scripture I beseech you what Orthodox Church Why improbable what receiued Authority Nay what Reason euer yet made à few owned Verities and the fewer the better of Christian Religion The whole the full and only Essentials of it If this once passe for sound Learning I se not why à Turk that Own 's one God and Christ our Lord as à Very great Prophet May not as well account those two Articles the Essentials of Christianity as our Sectaries do their Few Fundamentals For if we once begin to Diuide Christs sacred Doctrin Nothing lesse and more valuable in Christ's Doctrin into different Shreds More and Iesse Valuable Say I beseech you where shall we stop in the Diuision And thus your own Question is retorted 5. You tell vs indeed you take some few Fundamentals to be Religion and can proue so much Reasonable I Answer The ground of our Assertion you Mislake For no halfe Pieces of Religion can be proued reasonable without the whole entirely taken and Assented to Here is the Ground of my Assertion and it is amply Proued in this Treatise Either All that Doctrin which Christ our Lord taught And the Church euer since deliuered as Faith is Fundamental Or Nothing at all can be Fundamental 6. Other Flawes I find in this Gentlemans Discourse but haue not time to pursue halfe of them Here is One and of main Importance also He neuer rightly distinguisheth between that Obiect wherevpon Reason rest's And the Obiect of Faith Considered in it self Reason euer precedes Faith A want of Distinguishing between the Obiect of Beason and Faith and is grounded vpon those rational Motiues which Induce to Belieue Faith precisely Considered as Faith relies vpon à quite Different Obiect God's pure Reuelation and Cannot Discourse For the Reasons giuen aboue not here to be repeated Only know thus Much in passing That the wrong done by this Author to the Learned Perron Veron and Others hath its Origen from this Ouersight of not distinguishing between the Obiect of Reason and Faith These Saith He loudly declaim against Reason All know it very well I Answer they declaim Perron and Others Causlesly blamed against Reasoning or Arguing in the very intrinsick Act or Tendency of Faith For Fides non quaerit cur aut quomodo is most true and So you and the whole world must do if you Belieue They declaim against Reason or all rational Discourse built vpon Manifest Motiues Inductiue to Faith is à Calumny and most vntrue 7. Another Mistake The Diuine Authority of Scripture is to be proued by Reason and only by it Yet more The great Argument Another errour for the truth of Scripture is the Testimony of the Spirit in the Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles Sr I thought ye all pretended to belieue the great Miracles of Christ and of his Apostles by Diuine Faith founded vpon God's Reuelation in Scripture This granted the rational ground why you belieue such Miracles Cannot be your very Act of belieuing them But must be extrinsecal both to your Faith and its Immediate Obiect also What I Say is Manifest For Questioned by à Iew vpon what rational ground I say rational you belieue the Incarnation or any Miracle in Scripture you will not answer the reason of our belieuing is your Beliefe but must fall vpon prudent Motiues extrinsecal to Faith Otherwise you Confound again the Obiect of Faith with that of Reason 8. You Say moreouer Though Reason Cannot of it Selfe immediatly proue the truths of pure Reuelation Concerning the Trinity for example or the Incarnation Yet it Demonstrates the Diuine Authority of the Testimony that declares them And that way Viz. by demonstrating the Testimony proues euen these Articles Euidence of the Diuine Testimony infer's euidence in the thing attested This Certainly is à Mistake First because great Diuines teach That if the Diuine Testimony be demonstrated Or euidently proued to exist The Verity attested by it is also euidently known Therefore who euer has euidence of this Truth God that Cannot err Reueals the Trinity must euidently infer The Trinity is And So Faith would be euident both in respect of its Formal Obiect and Material also But here lies not my greatest exception 9. I say in à word There is no Principle in Nature or Grace which has force to demonstrate and mark my word That No Principle giues Euidence of the Diuine Testimony God euer said The Mystery of the Trinity Exist s. And first the Doctrin in Scripture no Selfe-Euidence demonstrates not its own Verities The Beliefe of Orthodox Christians terminated vpon the Diuine Testimony is Faith and vnder that Notion obscure Infallible Tradition you own not and Though you did it would Lay no Euidence of the Diuine Testimony before Reason Nothing then remain's if you seek for Rational Euidence but that you recurr to the known Motiues of Credibility which Induce to belieue Now Sr These Motiues demonstrate not the Truth of the Diuine Testimony Euidence of Credibility and Euidence of truth But only make it euidently Ctedible And here by the way I must needs reflect vpon another Mistake You seem not to distinguish between Credibility and Truth Nor between Truth and Infallible Truth A thing may be Credible which is false◠Are to be distinguished As if three or four of good reputation for ought I know Should Conspire to inform me of the death of à Friend in England who yet liues The Relation to me would be prudently Credible yet false Truth implyes à Conformity with its Obiect and Cannot be false Infallible truth in the present matter of Faith requires moreouer the Influence of Supernatural Principles whereby the Act of Faith is determined to rest vpon its own Obiect the First Verity All these Particulars are largely explain'd in this Treatise 10. Thus much briefly noted Though more might be said we Shall Examin by the help of Good Principles How far Reason can proceed in Matters of Faith And whether by prudent reason all may Come to know where true Religion is taught and professed 11. Cardinal de Richelieu Traitte pour Conuertir ceux c. Lib. 1. C. 11. well obserues with the best Philosophers That when à Verity stand's sure vpon one clear rational and indubitable Principle its needless though sometimes not amiss to bring in more Proofs For frustra fit per plura c. One solid Ground is equivalent to many 12. I am you se engaged to answer the Question proposed All debates concerning Religion may be decided by Reason Viz. How far reason is to meddle in matters of Religion And Say in à word All debates in this most weightly Affaire may be decided and easily by Reason only But to clear the Assertion from Mistake we are first To distinguish between à nicknamed or miscalled Reason
after our priuate perusing those few ancient Records left vs end our debate whilst you 'l turn them to one Sense and I to another Nouel Reason shall end all Catho That I wish for But quit me yet of one Scruple What if your priuate Reason be byassed one way and mine another Or what if you Iudge that Reasonable which I doe not Here the Nouellist like one struck dumb spake not à word 13. Yet the Discourse might well haue gone on for I would haue further inquired whether to do as all the Christians what is to be Iudged reasonable in the world learned and vnlearned haue done be not reasonable None can deny it Then I would haue inferred But all these Innumerable Christians The very Apostles themselues and others haue vpon prudent Motiues Constantly iudged it reasonable to submit to Mysteries aboue the reach of humane Reason Ergo that must pass as à reasonable Principle But the Reason cannot be taken from the very Act The Euidence of Credibility not taken from Faith of submission For that is Faith nor from any Euidence in the Mystery belieued or obscurely proposed nor finally from Scripture alone for that Book Considered in it selfe is not its own Euidence Therefore the Euidence of Credibility Or the Euidence Proposed to Reason is extrinsecal to what euer I belieue and fundamentally lies in the Marks and Signatures of Christs own manifested Church 14. Hence I Conclude with this Dilemma and hold it vnanswerable Either God has set before all Mens Eyes An Oracle which now teaches truth most discernable by clear Marks and Motiues from all false erring Societies Or omitted to do so Grant the first Reason is as much obliged to belieue A Conuincing Dilemma that Signalized Oracle now As the Primitiue Christians were anciently bound to belieue the Apostles Say Contrary There is no such Marked Oracle distinguishable from erring Sectaries Reason is left in à Labyrinth and shall neuer find out true Religion Wherefore Protestants who seemingly stand for Reason and slight the Doctrin of our Euidenced Sectaries vnreasonable Church are the men amongst all other most vnreasonable and as dayly experience teaches meer Scepticks in matter of Religion 15. A 5th Inference The readiest way to conuince à Sectary How they are easily Conuinced and one though no great Clerk may easily do it is in the first place at least to waue that long tedious work of handling particular Controuersies which depend vpon Authority and to plead by Reason Thus I would Argue and haue often done so with good Success You as à Protestant lay claim to à reasonable Reformation and consequently to à Reasonable Religion Say I beseech you from whence haue you the Moral Euidence which makes this Reformation Credible to Reason I speak not yet of it's Truth for Euidence of Credibility e 〈…〉 preced's the anouching of it true We Catholicks proceed candidly Euidence of Credibility is first to be laid forth and propose to the reason of euery one learned and vnlearned the very Marks and Signs of truth manifest in our Church which Christ our Lord and the Apostles euidenced to the sirst Conuerted Christians You set vp à new faced Religion and when that 's done put it out of Countenance because Reason sees nothing in it which has appearance of Credibility You auouch it true before you make it Credible which Sectaries auouch their reformation true before it be made Credible is to put the Conclusion before the Premises 16. One perhaps will Say first The reason of your Reformation stand's vpon this rational Ground that wee Catholicks were deformed or out of all right fashion in our Religion Lamentable And are you the doughty Doctors that must mend what was marred and prescribe à new Model of Religion Can you Say what is or what is not Catholicism It is too much Boldnes not only to teach more learned then They make à false supposition their Proof you Selues But à high Iniury also to make à meer Supposition and very false too to pass for à rational Proof You know wee deny your improbable Supposition And you vpon no Principle call it reasonable Howeuer Suppose the falshood that wee are out of Fashion doth it therefore follow that you are got into the right Mode of Religion No truly If the Supposition stand's wee are both out And both need à new Reformation 17. Some may yet Reply Sectaries regard not that new coyned word of Euident Credibility à Term wholly Popish They endeauour to proue the Truth of Protestancy by Scripture and Fathers And to do so much is more than to make it Credible Contra. 1. Were it possible as it is not to proue the truth of Protestancy That 's besides the matter here in hand They are still besides the matter now agitated whilst wee only Treat of ending Controuersies by Reason Now all know that Authority whose Credibility must first be Euidenced before it haue weight precisely considered as Authority is not the Reason here spoken of For Example I Assent to the Mystery of the Incarnation vpon Gods own Authority that 's Faith but no rational Inducement to belieue What we demand of Sectaries is to haue the rational Motiues which induce to belieue this Protestancy laid open before the Eyes of rational men Herein we require Satisfaction but haue none 18. Contra. 2. Could these men proue their Protestancy by If the Reformation could be proued true Scripture and Fathers it should Methinks be very easy to point at an Orthodox Church which Six Ages since publickly owned the particular Tenets of it Here is my Reason Whateuer Doctrin the Scripture and Fathers teach the Orthodox Church conceal's not but openly Professeth She is not ashamed if Orthodox to teach what God has reuealed Now further Some Orthodox Church must haue owned it Had such à Church euer owned this Reformation it must either haue been like an inuisible Ghost not perceptible which our Newer Sectaries Disclaim or contrarywise discernable by the like Marks and Signatures of the Apostolical Church And if their Doctrin was euer taught by it They are to talk no more of its Truth before Its Credibility be euidenced to Reason by the Marks and Signs of that Church which is now supposed to haue taught pure Protestancy That is in à word They are first obliged to Say plainly what Articles of Faith Protestants as Protestants hold Essential to their Religion And then to make so much Doctrin and no more first Credible then true by the known Authority of an Orthodox Church But This is impossible Hence 19. And it is the last Inference whereby one grand Cheat of our Sectaries is discouered Long haue we inquired but without Satifaction Where their Church was before Luther The Common Answer returned by some latter Protestants making little Account of an inuisible Church is much to this Sense Our Church was there where it now is and where it alwayes
Both I suppose are not guilty The Iudge speaks once and no more but these two at discord agree not Their vnreasonable proceeding declared by one Instance about the main point which â— the true meaning of his Sentence may not Both return home as wise as they came and contend till Dooms Day vnless some other Iudge break 's off the quarrel and sayes plainly Thou art the Traitour 22 This is our very case either we or Protestants betray This Discourse driuen home and applyed to these two dissenting Parties Gods truths The one or other Party Contradict's the first Verity and boldly auerres he Speak's what he never Spake We appeal to Holy Scripture and would haue our Debates decided by that Oracle Two or three Passages He that hear's you hears me The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth He that hears not the Church let him be as à Heathen c. literally taken denote the guilty Party But our Sectaries tell vs we mistake the Scriptures meaning They Sectaries cast themselues into in extricable difficulties vary from vs in the main Point concerning the very Sense of our Iudges Sentence Is it not therefore euident that they must either recurre to some other Tribunal for à final decision or Secondly ingenuously Confesse they are the men who will not haue the traiterous Party discouered Or lastly acknowledge Controuersies can haue no End and that God has not left any means on earth whereby the notorious Deprauers of his reuealed Truths may be known One only Instance will giue more light to what I haue sayd 23. We and Sectaries appeal to Christs sacred words This is my Body We vnderstand them literally and strongly plead our cause what different senses are made of Christs own words alleging for vs not only the Authority of the western and eastern Churches but if need were of the Lutherans also They reiect all yea Say we grosly mistake the sense of Christ's words and therefore hold vs the Traitours that commit grosse Idolatry in the sight of God and Angels Consider good Reader are not such Aduersaries obliged to plead their Cause before How the Catholick plead's this Iudge of Scripture by à Church as vniversal by witnesses as Faithful by an Authority as great as we produce against them or to confesse ingeniously This Controuersy cannot be decided They may 'T is true Oppose the Caluinists to Lutherans but to Sectaries allege nothing for their Sense denote à Church either Latin or Greek that maintained their Opinion of the Eucharist Shall neuer be made so much as meanly Probable O yes the Primitiue Church taught as they teach Contra. It s vtterly vntrue as is largely proued in the first Discourse Again that 's à thlng yet in Controuersy and therefore far from being à manifest sentence against vs yet their Clamours against our Idolatry are manifest and as iniurious as manifest 24. These and yet far more forceable Arguments proposed by Catholick Authors against Protestancy our Aduersaries call Flies Small Grains gnawing of Rats c. We wholly Contrary hold them conuincing and the cause we defend most iust Here both Parties Stick in the hight of their heats Stiffe in their wayes without yeilding to one another Is it not therefore full time and reasonable think A Iudge distinct from Scripture proued absolutly necessary ye to appeal to some Iudge distinct from Scriptureâ— by whose just Sentence it may appear whether we old Papists or our young Nouellists are the guilty men that impiously oppose God's truths 25. You se whilst the sense of Scripture and Fathers is not agreed on we are aduanced no further but only to quarrel as if Contention is not the last end of writing Controuersies Contention were the final end of writing Controuersies Or as if an eternal Debate were desired and after that to haue nothing decided For this sole Reason A Iudge is absolutely necessary though our Aduersaries will hear of none hauing an horrour to admit of any Churches Iudgement whereby the cause now in debate may be happily ended Yet if we follow the Rule of Catholicks appeal to one Iudge Reason what can be more Satisfactory then to appeal to Church Authority in this weighty matter We Catholicks stand to the Sentence of our own euidenced vniuersal Church She is our Protestants are forced to appeal to another of equal Authority or their Cause is lost Iudge Are not Sectaries therefore obliged if their Arguments against vs be thought solid and their cause good to appeal to the Iudgement of some other Church as euidenced by Miracles and as vniuersal as ours is which once taught as they teach and publickly decryed our supposed Errours 26. What we now propose seem's reasonable because Protestants most certainly aâ— they defend Protestanism will not pretend to publish à Doctrin with à strict obligation laid on their They cannot pretend to teaâ—h à Doctrin which no ancient Church euer taught Partizans to acquiese in it which no Orthodox Church euer taught or if any Church euer taught so This must be as clearly euidenced as it is euident that the Roman Catholick Church taught Popery seuen or eight Ages since Here in à word is the true trial of their whole Cause Denote Point out or name an Orthodox Church which owned this Protestancy fiue or six Centuries since Controuersies are ended But if it be as it is most impossible to name such à Church The Abetters of Protestancy Sectaries proue themselues heretiques only follow the strain and Method of all Condemned Hereticks and proue themselues by their own procedure Heretiques That is They plead against Catholick Doctrin by false Calumnies weak Cauils lame coniectures vnsensed Scriptures and Calumnies their only Defensâ— abused Fathers without any Church Authority to rely on And thus all your ancient Heretiques haue Proceeded 27. Wherefore to conclude I Say in à word Protestancy Protestancy proued an Improbable Religion as Protestancy is à most improbable Religion or to speak more plainly no Religion at all The ground of my Assertion will be best laid forth in these few words No ancient vniuersal Church no Orthodox Christians in any part of the world euer taught Protestancy Ergo its improbable Nay more no Heretical Society The ground of our Assertion of men euer taught that whole Doctrin Therefore it is an vnpatronized Nouelty reiected by the Vniuersal Christian world whether Orthodox or others And Hence it is that whateuer Protestants can Say in behalfe of their own Tenets or Contrary to Catholick Doctrin comes to no more but to improbable and vnproued Suppositions Obserue I beseech you 28. They tell vs the Roman Catholick Church once true deserted Improbable Suppositions the only Proofs of Sectaries the Ancient Faith we vrge them to proue the Assertion and with good reason because neither ancient Church nor any sound Christian euer said so before themselues And what Answer haue we The
Her Motiues Ascertain's vs that such Books are Diuine I Answer 2. Grant such Motiues may in some weak manner and particular Circumstances conduce to belieue the Scriptures Diuinity yet in this present State when we haue à Church most clearly manifested which both Ascertain's vs of Scripture and the Sense also it would be no less than an vndiscreet rashness to cast off her Authority being the most facile and plainest Rule and in Lieu of Her to rely on another forrain vnfit way of Belieuing by Motiues not half fo clear and far less conuincing 2. Thus some Diuines Teach though à Heathen after à due Consideration of the works in Nature may come to belieue that God will reward Good and punish Euil yet none do Assert That when our Christian Articles are clearly proposed to An Instance him by the Pastors and Teachers of the Church For example That Christ dyed for vs. The dead shall rise again God will reward the iust c. That then if he reiect Church Authority he can belieue the forenamed Articles with Diuine Faith This I Deny And the reason is because that way of belieuing when à It is imprudent to reiect we easiest was of Belieuing more ordinary and facile is proposed Seem's temerarious and imprudent And so it would be should any now when the Church giues vs full Assurance of the Scriptures Diuinity lay aside Her Authority and Say I will alsolutely belieue this or that Truth to be God's word because I Discouer apparent Signs of Diuinity in what I read 3. In the next place Mr Stillingfleet Quarrel 's with à word The Roman Catholick Church which in his opinion is iust as much as to Say The German vniuersal Emperour That is particular and vniuersal together for Roman restrain's or marks out one Church vniuersal includes all Answ It is à meer Quibble exploded by A meer quibble exploded by Fathers the Fathers particularly S. Hierome Apolog. 1. aduersus Ruffin not far from the beginning who call's the Roman Faith the Catholick Faith VVhat Saith he is Ruffinus his Faith It is that there with the Roman Church preuail's or another founded in Origens Writings Si Romanam responderit Ergo Catholici sumus If he Answer 's it is the Roman Faith This Inference is good we both profess the vniuersal Faith Therefore Roman and Vniuersal are here synomimal or words of one Signification which the Apostle clearly Insinuates Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world ouer Again Epist 16. ad Principiam Virg circa medium He showes that the most ancient Saints addressed themselues to to the Roman Church Quasi ad tutissimum communionis suâ— S. Hierom's express Testimonies portum as to à place of refuge or of mutual Communion which was General Publick and belonged to all Yet more When Epist 57. ad Damasum This great Doctor positiuely teaches That he was ioyned in Communion with no other Society of men then such as adhered to Damasus S. Peters Successor where vpon the Church was built And that those who eate the lambe out of this House were prophane Did he think ye speak of any one particular Roman Diocess and not of the vniuersal Catholick Church It is contrary to his Discourse and reason also 4. Se more of this subiect in the Epistle of S. Athanasius to two Popes Iulius and Marcus Read also S. Cyprians Epistle 52. n. 1. Other Fathers Speak with S. Hierome And S. Ambrose De obitu fratris about the middle and know withall The word Roman added to Catholick is not to limit the vniuersal Iurisdiction of that See But to distinguish Orthodox Belieuers from Hereticks who were professed Enemies of the Roman Faith If therefore we may rightly comprise vnder this word Roman all other Christian Societies past or present vnited in Why the Roman Church was called Vniuersal belief with this one Mother Church There is neither Bull nor Solaecism in speech to call the Roman euer One and the same in Faith the vniuersal Church of Christ 5. Page 127. To catch Carholicks in à Circle Mr Stillingfleet Ask's why we belieue Scriptures to be the Word of God If we Affirm vpon this Ground That the Church which is infallible Mr Stilling endeauour more then weak deliuers them so to vs He demand's again and bidd's vs Answer if we can whether t' is possible to belieue the Churches infallibility any other way than because infallible Scriptures Say She is infallible which implies à plain Circle Answ It is very possible For seing Scripture demonstrat's not ex terminis its own Diuinity nor can be made euidently credible by any light internal to catch Catholicks in à Circle to the Book some other infallible Oracle distinct from it must necessarily ascertain vs that the Book is Diuine And the Doctrin there preserued is yet pure as the Apostles wrote it But this Oracle can be no other but the Church which proues Her selfe by Signs and Miracles to speak in Gods name independently of Scripture therefore the first act of Faith whereby we belieue in à General way the Churches infallibility relies not as this Gentleman weakly supposes on Scripture But vpon the Church it Selfe as the most known manifested Oracle And thus the Circle is easily auoyded 6. You will se more clearly what I aime at by one Instance taken from the Primitiue Christians Ask what induced them to belieue the Apostles Infallibility when they Preached All No Circle in the Primitiue Christians Faith Answer They belieued so because those blessed men immediatly proued themselues commissioned Oracles sent from God and made their Doctrin euidently Credible by sensible Signs and Wonders which surpassed the force of Nature Very true Iâ— like manner we belieue the Churches infallibility hauing preuious Motiues as Stronge to belieue that Truth vpon her Authority as euer Christians had to belieue that S. Paul was infallible when he preached If then there was no Vicious Therefore none in our Resolution Circle in those first Christians Faith there can be none in Ours vhilst all of vs haue infallible Oracles manifested by Supernatural Signs to rely on And Those first now mentioned had them before Scripture was written You will say this Discourse seem's to proue we cannot belieue the Churches Infallibility vpon the Scriptures Testimony It has been Answered ouer and ouer supposing Scripture be one admitted as God's sacred Word â—e proue the Churches infallibility so strongly by it against all Aduersaries who own the Book as Diuine that none of them shall euer return à probable answer to our alleged Testimonies 7. But what Saith Mr Stillingfleet Is there no difference between the way of prouing à thing to an Aduersary and resoluing ones own Faith Answer yes But we both resolue and proâ—â— We Resolue the first Act of Faith concerning Scripture How we both resolue and proue the Churches Infallibility into the Churches infallible Authority and belieue that Book to be
of Diuine Inspiration because this Otacle saith so Then we Argue vpon à Principle proued by vs and supposed though not proued by Sectaries The Principle is Scripture is God's word We read the book which all Christians Say is Diuine And proue also from it the Churches infallibility against our Aduersaries Ex probatis concessis That the book is Diuine Here is no danger of à Circle nor any fault in this way of Arguing 8. Yet Mr Stillingfleet makes his Exceptions and will needs haue the Circle goe on against vs. You proue Saith he the Churches infallibility from such Passages Super hanc Petram Pasce oues c. But how come you to know infallibly A reply retorâ—ed that the Sense of those places is as you belieue For your Aduersaries deny any such thing as infallibility proued out of them I may Answer first by proposing the like Question How do these Aduersaries know that their contrary sense is exactly the true Meaning of the Holy Ghost Will they tell vs they think so here is all we haue from them what am I better for that When the Donatists Pelagians and all Heretiques can think as boldly as any Protestant And by their deluded thoughts vnsense as we se by experience the most choise and sacred Passages in holy writ To whom then shall we recurr in case the Sense be doubtful I Answer to the Church O saith Mr Stillingfleet Here we are got into à Circle again and though his own words see them in the page cited fine giue no force to his Probation yet I 'le help them on to all the Strength his meaning is capable of He should therefore Another Reply Answered Argue thus We belieue the Churches infallibility because the true sense of Scripture sayes she is infallible Again We belieue this very Sense of Scripture to be infallibly true because the infallible Church saith so I haue Answered The first Act of Faith wherwith we belieue the Churches infallibility is not at all founded vpon the true Sense of Scripture as yet not known in illo signo to be so much as Diuine but vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediatly credible 9. Now if we Speak of another Distinct consequent and more explicite act of Faith when we belieue the Churches infallibility vpon this ground That She declares the Scriptures geâ—â—in Sense which proues Her an infallible Oracle There is no difficulty at all Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is vltimatly resolued into and therefore again belieued vpon the same infallible Authority The sense of Scripture resolued and belieued of the Church or rather vpon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus iointly taken They ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles As if we first belieued the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation And then Vpon Scripture and Church Authority ioyntly again belieued the Churches Interpretation to be infallible because the Sense of Scripture known aliunde or without Depending on Church Authority Saith she is infallible This cannot be if Scripture and the Churches Interpretation Indiuisibly concurr to this lotter act of Faith whereof we now speak 10. Here then is à Dilemma that clear's all and free 's vs from the least Shadow of à Circle We either know or belieue the Scriptures Sense independently of the Churches infallible The Assertion Clearâ—d Interpretation or receiue it vpon her infallible Authority Grant the first There is no danger of à Circle for in case that Truth were know vpon à sure Principle distinct from the Church it would be another new and as strong à Probation of her Infallibility as if an Angel sent from Heauen should interpret Scripture to the Catholick Sense And then we might Assent to the Churches Infallibility vpon two disparate Principles which proue not one another The one Ordinary the Churches own Interpretation The other independent and extraordinary Should an Angel or Prophet sent from God interpret Say 2. We belieue the Sense of Scripture vpon the This way no two Propositions to make à Circle of Churches own infallible Authority There are no two imaginable Propositions to make à Circle of whilst that Sense internal to the letter can not be infallibly propounded otherwise then by the Church 11. Page 128. I find an vnlearned Obiection much to this Sense We Catholicks destroy all Possibility of auoiding à Circle if we proue by the Motiues of credibilty no new Reuelations Distinct from the old And this we Pretend not to For A weak Obiection in effect solued we only seek to euince by these Motiues à Diuine Assistance with the Church in euery thing She Defines but this Assistance cannot be proued from any other ground but only from the Promises made in Scripture Therefore we are still in à Circle For we belieue the Scriptures infallible because of the Churches Testimony and we belieue the Church infallible because of the Promises in Repeated Again Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church so as to secure Her from all Errour Here in Effect is the same Obiection repeated again Therefore I Answer We belieue not in the first place the Churches infallible Assistance moued therevnto by the Promises in Scripture For this first General Act of Faith wholly relies vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture because Her Testimony One Instance clear's all is made most Credible to reason by conuincing Motiues before we belieue that She is insallibly Assisted All must Say what I now Assert For before Scripture was written The Primitiue Christians belieued infallible Assistance granted the Apostles in euery Doctrin they taught being induced to belieue so by the Signes and Miracles which those blessed men Euidenced In like manner we in this present State answerable to the Procedure of these Christians hauing the same Motiues manifest in the Church may well be induced to belieue That She both now is and euer was no lesse Assisted by the Holy Ghost to speak Truth then the Apostles were for as much as concern's the Substance and Verity of her Doctrin CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffling The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communities and proue Her Infallible The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin no Mark of the Church More Mistakes and Errours discouered Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Belieues but not vpon Diuine the Testimony That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books to be Diuine 1. IN the next place Mr Stillingfleet labours to solue his Aduersaries main Argument the Substance whereof The substance of the Argument is As Christ and his Apostles proued themselues Oracles sent from God by their works Signes and Miracles Again as the Primitiue Christians
Euangelists 6. Whoeuer read's these and the like Authorities cannot but Say the Voice of the Church as it Proceeds from that Oracle is the Voice of God And therefore Diuine certain and infallible Or contrarywise must grant it 's only Humane fallible and may â—r Speake so And it followes first that if the whole Church should err in the most essential Points of Faith God would not be yet Said to deceiue any because his increated Authority Speak's not by it nor is engaged to rescue this his own Spoufe from errour It followes 2. If any one denied either Purgatory or Transubstantiation explicitly defined by the Church and not so clearly expressed in Scripture He would not be guilty of Heresy though he peruersly refused to belieue these Articles precisely vpon this account That the Church Defines them The Inference is Reason also proues the Assertion clear for in doing so He denies not Gods Reuelation because the Churches Definitions no Diuine Testimony are in à lower ranck and much inferiour to all that God has spoken It followes 3. We belieue the Churches Definitions by à very different infused Habit from that whereby we Assent to the Truths reuealed in Scripture and to find such à supernatural and Infallible Habit distinct from Faith when we Assent to the Churches Definitions seem's to me à new learning vnknown to Antiquity 7. Thus much and more well considered which might be Said in behalfe of Christ's glorious Oracle And this one Principle added which all Catholicks grant viz. That the Church and Scripture Speak alwaies the same truths and can neuer be at Variance 8. Why may we not in this present State resolue Diuine Faith into the first Verity Speaking by the Scripture or Infallible Faith may be resolued into Scripture and the Church together Tradition and by his own Oracle the Church also For example We belieue the Sacred Trinity the Incarnation Original Sin c. because God reuealed them in Scripture or first conueyed them by Apostolical Tradition But these Verities which the Apostles and Euangelists long since made Credible are now remote from vs without the Churches reflâ—x Testimony whereby God ascertain's all in this State that both Scripture is Diuine The reason and that his Church speak's the very same Verities in Scripture And consequently we Assent to euery particular vpon à Twofold Motiue or rather vpon this one Formal Obiect ioyntly and indiuisibly Scripture and the Church make but one ioynt indiuisible Motiue taken because Scripture and the Church Assert's them Neither is there the least Difficulty in ioyning one reflex Testimony with another former or anciently deliuered whereof we haue examples in Holy Writ For we all belieue God made à Couenant with Abraham of multiplying his Seed because Eternal Truth said so some Ages before Moses Again we belieue that Verity because the reflex Testimony of Moses reiterat's the same Verity anciently spoken to Abraham Gen. 17. 4. An instance Other Instances of the same nature you haue aboue and more are found in Holy Writ 9. Thus much supposed It 's Methinks easy to Say if all be not de Nomine how the Churches Testimony may in one Sense be called the Formal Obiect of Faith and not in another Consider it as Diuine infallible and God's own Voice proceeding from no humane Authority but from the First Verity speaking by How the Church yeild's to Scripture this Oracle it well merit 's the name of à Formal Obiect Compare it again with the Primary Reuelation which it only compleat's in order to vs and consequently presupposes more Ancient more excellent and all things considered more worthy it must yeild to Scripture And may be called an intrinsecal condition whilst it Declares what anciently was Reuealed 10. Now if any Ask wherein the Excellence and Dignity of Scripture consists when you compare it with the Churches Definitions Diuines answer 1. Euery word and reason in Holy writ is de Fide but not so in the Churches Definitions where the Sense only of the Definitiue sentence has weight as comming from the Holy Ghost's Assistance 2. The Church The excellence and dignity of Scripture has her limits and Defines nothing but what was long since reuealed or necessarily connexed with the ancient Doctrin And vpon this account the Hagiogrophers are deseruedly called our first great Teachers who made first euery Truth they wrote à matter of Faith 3. When she Church Defines or interpret's Compared with the Church Gods word All is done for Scripture and look'd vpon as the end of Her labours But what is performed for another yeild's in worth and weight to that other it is done for as S. Austin obserues Lib. de Magist c. 9. Whoeuer desires more of this Subiect may read Bellar. Lib. 1. de verbo Dei C. 15. and Serrarius in Proleg 6. 7. 9. 12. 11. To solue other difficulties proposed by Sectaries please to Note first This Primary Act of Faith All are called into the Communion of one infallible Church whereby God teaches the true way to Saluation is grounded immediatly vpon the Authority One Primary act of Faith is grounded on Church Authority of this Oracle manifested by her Marks and Supernatural Signes Although yet the Book of Scripture be not admitted as God's word Notwithstanding when it is once owned as Diuine vpon Church Authority I can belieue this Oracles Infallibility with another Act of Faith grounded on Scripture How Scripture also terminates that Faith yet if we make à search into the vltimate Principle or final Resoluent of that very Belief We must as is said aboue come at last to Church Authority whereby Assurance is giuen that such à truth is Scripture 12. Note 2. This General truth supposed of the Church being immediatly Crediblâ— or known by her Motiues as an Oracle which teaches the right way to Saluation it therefore followes not that euery other particular Verity for example the â—â—pes Supremacy the Infallibility of Councils c. can in like manner be first and immediatly Credible or belieued explicitly when I Assent to that General Truth For it is enough that such Particulars be consequently or afterward assented to vpon the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture and the Churches own Proposition as is already declared 13. The Reason is because the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church immediatly induce to belieue that She is How other particular Truths are belieued afterward God's Oracle constituted by Prouidence to guide all in the way of Truth But how or in what manner this Duty is complyed with must be learned by the Practise and Doctrin of the same Church by Scripture and Tradition also Now that it is most Connatural to know first in à General way The Churches Infallibility before we descend to belieue euery Doctrin She teaches in Particular you may well conceiue by the Instance giuen aboue of the blessed Apostles who first acknowledged Christ our Lord