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
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
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
Tertullian reiect's and hold's insufficient to end disputes And so doth S. Austin also Epistola 49. Ad Deo gratias The other named Pars reflexa and the clearer which speak's of the Foundation of Christian Religion of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world ouer of its marks and Signes of its Perpetuity and infallible Assistance of Nations flocking to it c. This part I say the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word is so perspicuous and clear that it silences all Sectaries and euidently subuert's their Errours But to tell me it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Transubstantiation the number of Sacraments c. And the very sense of Scripture which should end all is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties To assert this I say is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience And therefore I will extort this confession from our Aduersaries may they please to answer that as they shall neuer proue one of their Protestant Opinions so they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin by clear and express Scripture 11. Some obiect S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian S. Austin's Discourse with an Arian who faith Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum c. Bâ—rnob neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou to the Authority of the other Let vs contend by the Authorities of scripture which are common witnesses to vs both Here two things seem clear First That S. Austin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council as Sectaries do now the Church 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to conuince an Arian A word only in passing Dare the Sectary offer thus much or dispute with the Catholick for the supposed Obserue the question here proposed Truths of pure Protestancy or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus I would willingly see some attempt made this way but am sure He will not dare to do it Because he saith His Protestancy or these Negatiues are not reuealed but only à number of inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controuersies when the Protestant ingenuously grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the sufficiency of Scripture help not the Sectary at all Irenaeus for example call's it the Rule of Faith S. Austin A Diuine Sectaries quote Fathers to no purpose Balance Theophilus Alex A firm foundation Gerson A Sufficient and infallible Rule Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part yea and of the obscurer also when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle But what makes all this for pure Protestancy or for its Negatiue Opinions Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith whereof it is vtterly silent Doth it weigh such Negatiues or tell vs what they are worth Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures vs out No Sacrifice on the Altar No purgatory No Transubstantiation Toyes trifles There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposit Verities of Catholick Religion or in behalf of Protestancy Therefore though S. Austin appeald to Scripture against an Arian and had his reasons for it yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent when after their Appeal they find not one sentence for Protestancy or against Catholick Doctrin Now to S. Austin 12. I say first The Saint reiected not the Authority of the Why S. Austin waued the Nicene Council Nicene Council which he euer honourd but only waued that as an vnmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus who no more regarded the Nicene Definitions than Sectaries now do the Council of Trent Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions Thus our Catholick Witers haue answered à hundred times yet we must haue this Crambe recocta serued vp again as à new vnsauory Obiection I say 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter which he Saith is à body without à Soul but to the true genuine Sense Thereof which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuersal consent of Christ's vnerring Church For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin to belieue the Churches sense of Scripture and to belieue Scripture it self which most manifestly commend's vnto vs Church Authority Had then the Saint argued thus against his Aduersary He had conuinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conuiction Council yet thou cans't not deny but that Scripture commend's à Church founded by Christ diffused the whole world ouer what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the sense of Scripture That is the sense of the Holy Ghost And can be no other for à Church which swerues from the true sense of Gods word is no Church founded by Christ But the Vniuersael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy errour Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers stand's opposit to thee also And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it self 13. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture God in Essence and three distinct Persons not so plainly expressed there He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduersary of errour None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself Lib. contra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith viz. of Baptism conferred by Hereticks which though not clearly expressed in Scripture is yet held à true and valid Sacrament His words are Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum c. Although no example of this thing the validity of Baptism by Hereticks can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by vs in this particular Cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesia when we now do that which pleases or is agreable to the Vniuersal Church which Church the Authority of Scripture it self commend's Vt quoniam As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue whilst it commend's the Church and euery one fear 's to be deceiued in the obscurity of this Question Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat Let him consult the Vniuersal Church
of this particular Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate Thus S. Austin himselfe Answers most profoundly S. Austin And he giues an Answer to the present difficulty viz. That if the Obscurer Part of Scripture speak not plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick the Heretick is to address himself to the Church and learn by Her what the sense of Scripture is Without light borrowed from the Church we haue only words about these high Mysteries but not fully sensed words chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries whose glosses depraue the plainest Passages in Holy writ as the Protestant doth Christ's clear Proposition This is my body If therefore we go on in such à contest with words not fully sensed we may well end our liues as S. Austin notes before we end one Controuersy 14. And thus you see as the One Part of Scripture is à body without à soul before it be receiued by the Church so the Other Part is also before it be both receiued and sensed by this Oracle of Truth Vpon this ground all those other Testimonies vsually alleged by Sectaries out of S. Austin against the Donatists Of Optatus Meleuitanus and S. Chrysostom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly solued for here is S. Austins Principle The sense of Scripture intended The sense of Scripture and the Church alwaies the same by the Holy Ghost and the sense of Christs true Church concerning Scripture can neuer clash but is one and the same If therefore I know the sense of the Church I haue with it the sense of Scripture also but with this difference That what Scripture often expresses less clearly Christ's Church deliuers more fully and Explicitly Whence it followes that if the Churches sense conclude against these Sectaries the Scriptures sense where it is obscure is in like manner concluding 15. You may obiect Scripture is in the noblest manner infallible For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly and may well be à distinct Rule or Principle from that sense which the Church giues of it Why therefore should not Sectaries haue recourse to that first and noblest Principle without relying on the Churches interpretation I haue answered because they know not guess they may and miss what Scripture saies in à hundred difficult Passages Therefore they are to recurr to the Church or must make vse of their own fancies to sense it The Argument purely fallacious is much to this sense Christ our Lord when he taught his Disciples was in the noblest manner infallible being Truth it self the Apostles were only infallible in their teaching and An Obiection answered further Explanation of those Verities they learn'd by à Singular Grace or participation of Infallibility Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the first sure Principle Christ's own words flowing from the Fountain of infallibility without depending on the Apostles Doctrin not so eminently infallible Now be pleased to hear S. Austin pondering those words Psal 57. Alienati sunt peccatores c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Christ and the Church and solues the Difficulty Ex veritatis ore ag 〈…〉 Christum ipsam veritatem Taught by the mouth of Truth I acknowledge Christ Truth it self ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam participem veritatis And by the same mouth of Truth I acknowledge the Church partaking also of Verity That is I own the Church to be not Truth it self not Scripture it self but à Copartner of Truth with Christ and Scripture I own it to be not Infallibility it self yet so eminently infallible by à singular grace or participated Infallibility That to dispute against it is most insolent madness Witness the same S. Austin Epist. 118. C. 5. ad Ian If he dare to do so Saith the Saint Serm 14. de verbis Apost C. 18. or rus◠violently against this impregnable wall of the Church let him know his doom ipse confringitur He is shattered in pieces Hence you see first that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary to the Churches sense giuen of Scripture without thwarting Scripture it self You see 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles looking as it were different waies but one and the same in order to our direction and regulating Faith whereof Scripture and the Church in order to all is one Principle more Hereafter 16. In the mean while you may ask why our Sectaries keep such à Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things necessary It is hard to say what they driue at For if all this pretended clarity diffused it self through euery passage of Holy writ worse it is for them and to their vtter confusion Obserue My reason The more clear Scripture is made by Nouellists the greater is their shame whilst they cannot proue by it's supposed clarity so much as one Protestant Doctrin nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholick Faith Therefore nothing is gained this way Nay all is los t by Their casting off Church Authority when after that wicked Fact clear Scripture leaues them as Scripturelesse as Their own malice has made them Churchlesse It is true I see some Colour for their Pretence to Scripture and thus it is Like men lawlesse they haue shaken of all other receiued Principles of Christian Religion Speak of à Church She is fallible and has actually erred Cite Fathers some pitifully gloss them others roundly reiect them as men meerly Fallible Mention Tradition the very word is odious Now for stark shame whilst they bear the name of Christians it is hard to throw away all Christian Principles What 's done therefore Why Sectaries take recourse to the bare letter of Scripture I 'le tell you They lay hold of à body without à Soul I mean the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Sense and this is all that 's left them I say without the sense whereof you haue seen enough already for when the sense of God's word is controuerted between them and vs and their sense run's contrary to the receiued Church Doctrin no probable Principle can make it defensible and vpon this Ground I said right They are as Scripturelesse as Churchlesse All this is most true and I well vnderstand it But why these men labour so earnestly to make the Bible plain when not so much as one plain passage is found there for Protestancy or against our Catholick Doctrin is à Riddle aboue my reach I vnderstand it not Let then as much as you will of the book be clear whilst the Clarity fauour 's not one of our Sectaries forged Nouelties nor Contradict's one of our Catholick Tenets it neither help 's the Protestant nor hurt 's the Catholick In the next Discourse we shall treat of the Church and more oportunely solue there à few obiections of Sectaries CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate Faith 1. THe next Principle after Scripture we named the
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
viz That that giues no Moral certainty but leaues you where you were before in à state of doubting Obserue now All you get from the Protestant when the Fathers plainly teach Catholick Doctrin is either to deny the Authority as the Elder And perhaps wiser Protestants haue done or after Mr Stillingfleets new Mode How Sectaries Shift off Authorities to Gloss them All you get when à passage seem's dubious is to squise more out of it than it has Whence it is That you euer find the Sectaries Doctrin when He tampers with à Te◠seemingly doubtful to ouerreach or to goe beyond the strength of his Quotation That is He speak's plainly what he would haue you belieue And the more plainly he speak's the further he run's from his Authority which Therefore check's his Boldness And Tell 's him I say no such thing as you Teach Take for example those words of Theoderet The Mystical Symbols remain after Consecration c. O saith the Sectary the meaning is the inward Substance of bread remain's Hold Sir there That 's more then the words allow of Mystical Symbols may as well yea far better signify the exteriour Accidents than the inward Substance of bread Therefore you ouerreach the Text And abuse your Author 12. Thus much premised We shall come to our last intended Demonstration And by the grace of God Euidence How Controuersies may be ended Though indeed the Sectaries intricate way of handling Matters makes them seem to à vulgar Reader à work without end For say I beseech you What can be more slight or more remote from Reason than after à long Profession and quiet Possession had of our Catholick Verities To see à few Sectaries late Strangers to Christianity step in amongst vs And after so many Ages strutt vp and down in à corner of the world As if They forsooth By their bringing to light again The procedure of Sectaries Slight nothing but à list of old absolete worn-out Heresies could now Ascertain Papists How much of their Doctrin is Orthodox And How much not And this ò strange Boldnes is done vpon no other Principle than vpon à few misconstrued words of some few ancient Fathers without alleging plain Scripture or the Authority of any Church for this most vncouth and strange Proceeding What can be more slight than to follow the lesser Light or rather no Light at all And to preferr That before the Luminare maius which hitherto has illuminated the whole world What can be more slight than to stand guessing at the sense of Fathers To Gloss their plainest Testimonies when these guesses and Glosses are vnprincipled and haue no more Support than the fancy of him who makes them You shall now see whither these Glosses tend And an End put to Controuersies 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 1. NOte When Sectaries Gloss Scripture or Fathers clear for Catholick Religion and after much tugging violently force some piece of their new Doctrin from Passages lesse clear Their aym is to keep vs off from the last sound Principles of ending What Sectaries aym at ◠by their Glosses Controuersies Mr Stillingfleet like one haunted with two contrary Spirits has à rare Talent this way Now He charm's à darker Passage out of all obscurity And makes it speak Protestancy So he giues light to Theoderets Mystical Symbols Now He does the contrary feat And cast's as clear words as euer Father vttered into so much darknes That it is hard to know what is said Take here one instance You haue it in his Page 217. Where he Interpret's that plain passage of S. Austin Tom. 6. co 〈…〉 Epist Fund C. 5. I would not belieue the Gospel vnless the Authority of the Church moued me therunto And to obscure this most manifest and profoundly well expressed Truth The Gentleman spend 's three whole pages in Guesses and coniectures And all is to Vnsay what the Saint had most euidently Asserted First forsooth he tell 's vs What the Controuersy was which S. Austin then discussed 2. What Church that was which moued hi◠to belieue the Gospel Here He Guesses and Misses 3. In what way and manner the Churches Authority did moue him And in this particular Mr Stillingfleet err's grosly who will needs perswade S. Austin very clear made obscure vs That S. Austin belieued not the Diuinity of Scripture vpon the Churches Authority But only the Authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists As if to belieue the Authenticalness of the Gospel could be separated from belieuing that very Gospel to be Diuine It s à whimsy As shall appear afterward In the mean while you see How all these Coniectures laid together I medle not with them at present are incomparably lesse clear than S. Austin's plain words Yet I must so far put out my eyes as to esteem them the only light to regulate my iudgement by and Consequently make Non-sense of S. Austins clear Expression Is it not reasonable think you Before I do so To ask first by what Principle I may know That these Coniectures hit right 2. Now here you haue what I wish the iudicious Reader seriously To reflect vpon Suppose one should follow Mr Stillingfleet through all those windings and Turnings wherewith he encumber's this one short Sentence of S. Austin And Answer step What the Reader is desired to reflect on by step to euery Paragraph in order Suppose Hee that vndertakes such à Task should in like manner proceed through all The Gentlemans Rational Account as 'T is Called And attend to his discourses reply to euery particular of his endles Glosses laid on Scripture and other Fathers Suppose Thirdly He should rigidly Examin euery circumstance related in the Stories of that voluminous Book Doe only thus much and you draw the book dry For besides cauils you haue no more How many volumes think ye would This way of Answering bring forth to the world before the whole Account were Answered And when all is done Much God knowes is not done to end Controuersies with Satisfaction Thus the contest goes on 3. Mr Stillingfleet like one affraid to meddle with sound Principles begins to Glosse His supposed Aduersary because no better stuff is giuen to work vpon goes not yet deeper into difficulties But turn's to the Scripture and Fathers Read's and Iudges by His own Reading That much is interpreted amiss in this Rational Account Therefore Vnglosses as fast as Mr Stillingfleet Glossed And hopes He doth very well Mr Stillingfleet discourses This Aduersary doth so also But finds or pretends to find I say no more yet His discourses vnsound at the bottom Much Confusion sollowes this way And too weak to bring in à good Conclusion Mr Stillingfleet relates his Stories set forth with à number of circumstances Our supposed Aduersary discouer's
As he thinks many à Flaw many à Mistake much iumbling much disorder in the Narration of his Circumstances Reflect well good Reader Doe you not see here à strange Confusion When after the vtmost done by these two Aduersaries You haue two quite different Doctrins raised from the same Authorities of Scripture and Fathers And that after the recourse of both to History You haue two as different Stories told you as Yea and No. In like manner after Their long discourses You haue two contradictory Conclusions drawn out And laid before your eyes to read Vpon what Principle if no more be Said can the yet perplexed Reader come to so much certainty of our Christian Truths as is necessary to Saluation By what means shall He know whether of these Two relates the truer Story Glosses or discourses better O He must peruse Ecclesiastical History Scripture also And the Volumes of Fathers And then iudge Pitiful More than half the world want's means to doe this And He who is able to comply with that laborious Task must at last trust to his own Iudgement Howeuer giue me one who will conform Himselfe to what he Reads and not draw all to à preiudicated Iudgement That man will find out Catholick Religion 4. Be it how you will The Catholick has à better And far more easy Principle to rely on in so weighty à Matter whereof The Catholicks Principle far more easy and plain we shall Treat largely in the next Discourse The Sectary has no other Ground to set footing on But his own priuate Fancy And here is the true Reason why he loues à life to stand dallying with you vpon Authority and History Goe no further He is sure to haue some Reply at hand For it is easy to trifle à long time whilst you only giue him this Authority And that Parcel of History to quarrel with The one as we haue seen He wrest's to what Sense he pleases On the other He can put so fair à Varnish by concealing some Circumstances and iumbling others together That the eyes of à vulgar Reader are easily dazled In the mean time He warily waues And is well content to doe so The last sound Principles which only can end Controuersies Wherefore Methinks one cannot fit the Sectaries Humour better than to attaque him with Authorities And next leaue the Glossing them to his fancy To recurr to Antiquity And permit him to put an other face on the whole Story Thanks be to God the Catholick Writers of our own Nation to say nothing of others who handle Matters most profoundly And in real truth haue already brought these debates to à Period giue no such Aduantage to Sectaries But relying What Sectaries would be at on sound Principles as learnedly reiect these Glosses as our new men wilfully make them without Principles Yet this is Truth As nouellists can do no more But Gloss without Principles So as I said now They are well enough content if the Catholick will doe something like them And only interpret or discourse vpon Authorities And this I call the less or not the last plain way of Ending debates Goe no further they think Themselues safe For example Read S. Austin in the place now cited I would not belieue the Gospel c. Ponder His whole Context attend to his learned Discourse Mark well how He both disputes and proues That he would not belieue the Gospel as Gods Diuine Word but vpon This solid ground That the Authority of the Church then when he wrote moued him to belieue so Descend yet to other particulars taken from his most Connexed way of Arguing Allege all plainly against the Sectary which hath been done and most landably again and again by Catholick Authors Yet after all you see Mr Stillingfleet begins new Quarrels as fiercely as if nothing had been said And if one should vnrauel what he hath wouen in his three pages would not â—e think ye to prolong these vnfortunate Strifes possibly find something to except against you And must not you to vnbeguile the Reader once more reply And except against all his new Exceptions How long may controuersies not yet brought to the last plain Principles run on without ending A shorter way Therefore must be thought of And thus it is 5. Take only that Positiue Doctrin which the Protestant plainly makes his own dogmatical Assertion when he either Adds his The clearest way of ending controuersies new Gloss to an obscure Authority or cast's one clear for Catholick Religion into darknes If you will haue Scripture Quote that Passage of the Apostle The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith This is my body or what els you like best If Fathers Cite S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Iustin Martyr or any other quoted aboue in defense of the Real Conuersion of bread into Christs Sacred Body This done First consider well what Church speak's most Conformably to the obuious Sense of these Authorities 2. Distinguish exactly between the Sectaries Gloss which contain's his Doctrin And the plain words of that Authority which he Interpret's Withall Ponder how little these two look like one another How little their Gloss. This is à Sign of my Body hath to doe with our Sauiours clear Expression This is my body 3. Stay not too long vpon the Energy of à Testimony Though plain in your behalf nor weigh ouer much the Circumstances wherein it was spoken For though both be well done yet This fitt's the Sectaries Humour Who waits for such By-Matters And in his Answers as I haue often obserued To shift off what mainly vrgeth will giue you work enough with his Suppositions his May-bâ—â—s And endles Windingâ— What is then to be done when he supposes his coniectures or Glosses to be true Doctrin This way I am sure is very solid 6. Propose with all moderation These following Questions Haue you Sir any Orthodox Church euer since Christianity began The Sectary is vrged I am sure you haue no express Scripture which without dispute as plainly deliuered the Doctrin contained in your Gloss as you now plainly Teach it Haue you any Orthodox Council which without Exception as Clearly defined it as you now Assert it Haue you any Tradition which by à continued Succession Age after age conueyed vnto you the Tenets you pretend to find in some few Fathers And now publish to the world as Christian Truths If you ground your Glosses or Doctrin on such excellent Principles we Catholicks are certainly in Errour And ought to conform to your reformed Gospel But if you fail and fail you must to doe thus much if you only giue vs empty Glosses without further Proofs we look on them as slight things cast off by the Orthodox world as both vnprincipled and vnpatronized Therefore Scriptureless as they are Churchless as they are they fall of Themselues to nothing And bring vtter ruin to your new Machin of Protestancy 7. I doe you no wrong when I draw you off
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
ouerthrow any Doctrin of our Church Alas what this Oracle positiuely defin's is à stronger Principle than twenty dubious Authorities of Fathers if any such were in appearance contrary It followes 2. That the Roman Catholick Church must of necessity be either owned Orthodox in all She teaches or cannot be belieued in any thing 8. Wherefore I say à great word If this Church hath deceiued the world in teaching à Purgatory for example neither we nor Sectaries can certainly belieue that Christ was here on earth or Redeemed vs. For Ask why belieue wee this great Mystery If you Answer Scripture reueal's it you are Questioned again How One Errour in the Church Destroyes all Faith know you that Scripture is Gods word which Ex terminis euidences not it self You must Answer Vniuersal Tradition and all the Churches in the world haue owned the Book for Gods word Very good But The Church hitherto supposed most Orthodox among so many Heretical Societies and Her Tradition likewise haue actually deceiued all For She is now Imagined to haue taught the false Doctrins of Purgatory Transubstantiation c. Therefore you cannot belieue Her or any Tradition for erring in one point of Faith She is not belieuable in any This principle stand's firm Much less can you trust to the Doctrin or Tradition of known Heretical Churches whether Arians Pelagians or others For all these haue erred and most grosly Therefore you haue no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture nor can you belieue this one Prime Article Christ dyed for vs by Diuine Faith 9. Let therefore the Sectary labour all that 's possible to contract the fundamentals of Faith into the shortest room Imaginable let him mince them almost to nothing let this one Article Iesus is the Christ be Faith enough for all I say if the Roman Catholick Church speaking in the name of God as She pretends to speak hath taught but one false Article and obliged Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation Purgatory for example none can now vpon any Motiue known to the world firmly belieue That Iesus is the Christ So pernicious is one known errour of the Church that it ruins's all belief of other Articles nor can such à Church be more trusted in any thing She speaks than Scripture relied on were it false in that Article Iesus is the Christ 10. The reason à Priori is All Faith is at last reduced or finally resolued into Gods Diuine Reuelation whether he speaks by this or that Instrument by this or that Oracle imports nothing The Vltimate reason of the Assertion The difference of the Oracle he speaks by diuersifies not faith which alwaies tend's to one Center and rests on one sure Ground Gods Veracity If he speaks by à Prophet that 's his Oracle If by an Apostle he is made an Oracle If by the exteriour words of Scripture they are Oracles if by the Church She is his Oracle Now further Suppose any of these assumed Oracles speaking in the name of God declare à false Doctrin to Christians the Falsity Vltimatly redound's to God who own 's them as Oracles yet by them teaches the world Falsities It fall's out here As if à Prince should send à Legate to à State who speak's in his name and cheat the whole State by his Embassy would not all deseruedly vpon the Supposition more impute the Cheat to the Prince than to the Legate that speaks in his name The parity is exact and proues if either Scripture Prophet Apostle or Church speaking in the name of God deliuers false Doctrin God himself deceiues vs and therefore Rich. de S. Vict. Said well in this sense also Si error est quem credimus c. If we belieue an errour T' is you Great God who haue deceiued vs But if God can once deceiue either immediatly By Himselfe or mediatly by his Oracle The whole Systeme of Christian Faith is desstroyed What I say would bee true Although He should make à solemn protestation of Speaking Truth For euen then he cannot oblige me to belieue because he may deceiue in that very Protestation and deliuer à falsity if the supposition hold 11. Here then is the final Conclusion As subiectiue Faith in à Belieuer is Indiuisible That is it is either wholly good or wolly naught None can haue à piece of Faith without the whole vertue an Could the Church propose one false Article She can bee belieued in nothing Arian cannot belieue Christ to be à Redeemer if He denies the Trinity So if one Matter of Faith proposed by the Church be really Contrary to what She defines None can belieue any thing She teaches For the meer Possibility of deceiuing Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all She proposeth And this proues the Church absolutly infallible not in some points only but in all and euery Doctrin whereof you haue more in the 15 16 and 17 Chapters following 12. Some may reply I suppose all this while the Church made so stedfastly God's Oracle as not to err in any Doctrin She proposes which is Petitio Principy or à begging of the Question Contra. And Ye Gentlemen whilst you impeach Her of Errour Suppose Her Instrumentum diuulsum an Oracle tom as it were from Gods Sspecial Assistance iust as if I shoâ—ld Suppose the words of Scripture separated from the Spirit of truth You suppose Her à fair spouse yet make Her à harlot when and as Often as you please You acknowledge some Church or other find that out where you can to teach Truth yet you like petulant Schollers will forsooth be so wise as to tell her where she misseth in Her Lesson and correct Her for it And you haue done it to the purpose For you haue destroied Her Monasteries rob'd Her Altars prophaned Her Temples abused Her Children banished some and hang'd vp other Are not these fine God deceiues if the Church câ—n Err. Doings Contra. 2. I suppose nothing but what is manifest that Christ euer had à Church on earth once more find it where you can and that God speaks to Christians by this Oracle which he will be with to the end of the world And against which Hell gates shall neuer preuail Now I say if this Church which God not I makes his own Oracle and promises to teach Truth by it can deceiue but in one Matter of Faith God himself deceiues vs And this Church ceaseth Eo ipâ—o to be Catholick yea and God to be the Eternal Truth For it Matters nothing if he can deceiue whether he do it by Scripture or the Church Solue this Argument if you can 13. You may say 2. The whole ground of this Discourse à Fallacy and comes only to thus much If à man once tell à lie he must be thought à lyar in all he speaks So it is The Church speaks an vntruth in some things Ergo it doth so or may do so in all seemes no good consequence Contra.
no For this we believe by Faith And know not Scientifically Yet they plainly Mark out the great Oracle whereby God speaks to the world And therefore wonder not that Sectaries striue so earnestly to Obscure the euidence Their design is to take from vs the clearest Principle which must end Controversies Why Sectaries endoauour to obs 〈…〉 â—he Churches Lustre For cast oncâ— off à Church manifested by Antiquity Miracles Conuersions c. Nothing remains to regulate Faith but the dark and yet vnsensed Letter of Scripture which is most grosly abused by the one or other dissenting Party who force vpon it quite contrary Senses And by what means can any one come to the knowledge of Him or these that abuse it if Church Authority be excluded or decide not in this most weighty matter VVe need not saith Mr Thorndicke in his Book of Forbearance P. 2. The Heresies of the Primitiue times to tell vs what Irreligious pretenses may be set forth in Scripture Phrase Our own Fanatiks would furnish sport enough with the Foolâ—riâ—s they pretend as from Gods Spirit because they can dâ—liuer their Nonsense in the Phrase of Scripture Again This two edged sword of holy Scripture may proue an edged tool to cut their sâ—ins with who take vpon them and haue not skill to handle it Much better were it say I were the Abuse or ill handling of the Book only found among à few Fanaticks But the euil is spread further you Gentlemen are all alike whether Fanaticks or Protestants that handle gloss and interpret Scripture by Priuate reason conttary to the Iudgement of an uniuersal euidenced Church 13. A third Truth The Church thus manifested by Her Marks which are Obiects of Sense and induce reason to iudge that She only is Gods Oracle Catholicks neuer call into doubt Her Essential owned Doctrin nor seek for further Euidence thereof because there is none in this present State But humbly submit to all she Teaches This Euidence then once attained which ariseth from the Churches Marks And hath drawn Millions to belieâ—e her Doctrin We next turn to our Bible and learn there that the Language of these Motiues for etiam factâ— What these Motiues Speak loquitur Deus saith S. Austin aboue God speaks by his works and the Language of his own written word is one and the same That is what these Inducements point at God expresly deliuers in holy Scripture Obserue an exact parallel 14. The Antiquity of our Church and here is one sensible Mark we plead by giues Assurance that the first Founder was our Lord Iesus Christ No Sectary call's this truth into Question and the Gospel confirms it Luc. 24. 48. Beginning from Hierusalem c. Her Constant Perseuerance visible in all Ages God reueals in Scripture proues Her indeficiency And this is manifest in Scripture A Citty placed on à Mountain Hell gates shall not preuail against Her Om 〈…〉 m etiam infidelium oculis exhibetur saith S. Austin Lib. Con. Crescon C. 63. The Church is so well seen by all that the very Pagans cannot contradict Her She showes you à continued Succession of her Popes Bishops and Pastors from the beginning and Scripture also Ephes 4. 11. And he gaue some Apostles c. long since foretold it She giues in à clear Euidence of Her Miracles through euery age Our Blessed Sauiour prophesied it should be so Iohn 14. 12. Maiora horum facient They shall work greater wonders None can deny most Miraculous Conuersions of Kingdomes and Nations to Her Faith and the Prophesies of Christ's Church fulfilled Prophets euery where Proclaim the truth Many Nations shall flock to Her Zachar. 2. 11. She Shewes how Her Doctrin was propagated through the whole world And therefore is called the Visible Catholick or Vniuersal Church Scripture also Confirm's it Doâ—ete omnes gentes Teach all Nations Dominabitur à mari vsque ad mare She shall raign from sea to sea Finally to say much in few words which might be further amplifyed Is it true which the Church demonstrates that Hereticks as Arians Nestorians Pelagians Eutichyans Lutherans and Caluinists once Professed Catholicks shamefully abandoned Her Vnion and for that Cause iustly deserued the reproachful name of Hereticks and Separatists Scripture Foretell's vs of the Breach and Apostacy Iohn 1. 2. 19. Ex nobis prodierunt They left vs went out from vs. for had they been of vs they would haue remained And thus both Church and Heresy are visibly pointed at by clear Marks and Gods written word also Videndum it is the Expression of Optat. Mileuit Lib. 1. à little after the middle Quis in radice â—um toto orbe â—aâ—serit quis foras exierit We are to see who They were that continued in the root with the whole world and who parted from it We are to see who erected another Chair distinct from that which was before Call these and boldly Hereticks straglers from the Church and the Verities of Christs Gospel And here by the way we vrge our Nouellists to point at à visible Sectaries Vrged to Answer Orthodox Society which the Supposed erring Church of Rome abandoned as clearly as we lay forth to them the time the place the circumstances not only of their own impious Reuolt But of all other more ancient Hereticks from this Catholick Society Could the Sectary do thus much Hee might speak more confidently 15. To end the matter now in hand You see by what is said already If Christs words haue weight Math. 18. 16. In ore duorum vel trium Stet omne verbum That Truth stand's firm vpon the Testimony of two or three vnexceptionable Witnessess Wee here introduce two Testimonies in behalf of our Church which none can except against Gods own voice speaking to reason by Miracles and the Motiues now mentioned is the One And his own sacred reuealed word which most significantly teaches what these Motiues speak is the Other Hence I say Sectaries cannot dispute against this Church without proofs drawn from Motiues as strong and Scriptures as clear as are now alleged in our behalf We press them again and again to giue in their Euidence and seriously demand whether Protestancy was confessedly founded by Christ Or but once owned Orthodox by any sound Christians Sectaries Grauelled at Euery Question As all acknowledge the foundation of the Roman Catholick and the Orthodoxism of it to haue been established by Christ our Lord. We further enquire after à visible Succession of their Pastors after their visible Miracles their visible Conuersions made in foregoing Ages Nothing is answered nothing is or can be pleaded nothing in à word is returned probable Therefore Protestancy is an vneuidenced Religion no Motiues countenance the Nouelty no Scripture speaks for it and Consequently cannot but be in the highest degree improbable 16. A fourth Truth A Church which weares as it were Gods own Liuery and beares the Signatures of Divine Authority in Her Miracles Prodigious Conuersions
Council either break vp and Define nothing Or if à Definition issues forth that only shall be defined which is certain and infallible Thus much is granted Yet I deny the Consequence and Say The Argument drawn from Hostility Conuinces Here is my reason That Imagined Râ—presentatiue consist's as we now suppose of Arians Protestants Catholicks Socinians and all other called Christians For these as some think Collectiuely taken make vp the diffused Church of Christ more ample than the Roman Or if so many The Argument taken From Hostility Conuinces Constitute it not Let Sectaries please to tell vs what Christians are to be excluded or precisely how many are the Members of this diffused Catholick Body In the mean while vouchsafe to Consider the force of my Argument grounded vpon an implacable Hostility 17. This whole diffused Moral Body euidently maintain's Contradictions For example Christ is the highest God Christ is not the highest God Our Lords Sacred Body is substantially present in the Eucharist That Body is not substantially present As therefore this large Society of Christians now supposed but one great Church holds contradictions So it must be granted that the Representatiue of it also hold's the same Contradictions Or ceaseth â—o ipsâ— to Represent the whole Diffused Moral Body 18. Hence one of these three Sequels ineuitably followes The first If this Representatiue still continues to Represent which is euer to be noted and proceed's to à Definition answerable to the Sentiment of the large Moral Body in Diuision it necessarily Defines the contradictions of those Churches to The Reasons and Proofs of my Assertion be Orthodox Doctrin and were this done There is More then Hostility enough For thus impossible Contradictions are both Definable and Belieuable Or it followes 2. that our imagined Representatiue break 's vp and leaues all points in Controuersy as Wholly vndecided as they were before And this which implies an endles Hostility would I think be the Result of that Council And vpon that Account appear à ridiculons Representatiue Or. 3. This followes That some one Part or other in the Representatiue must lay down Arms and acknowledge one Church of One Denomination absolutly infallible in whose Sentence all are to rest VVithout this Acquiescency in one Orthodox and Infallible Church Errours in Faith goe on as S. Austin Speak's what we Assert we see hitherto in à remedilesse condition This truth S. Austin Lib. de symb ad Catecâ—um C. 6. Saw well where He speak's profoundly to my present purpose Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta Ecclesia vna c. She and she only is the holy the one Church the Catholick Church which fights against all Heresies She may fight but cannot be foiled And Might I here Digress à little I could Demonstrate That neuer Heresy yet of any Fame in the world appeared since Christs time but it was Crushed censured and condemned by one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church to whose Sentence the very best of Christians dutifully Submitted relying on our Sauiours secure Promise Hell gates cannot preuail against that Oracle 19. A. 3. Obiection Scripture alone though all Churches were fallible is sufficient to teach infallible Faith necessary to Saluation Answ Of all Obiections proposable this is least worth For had Scripture that sufficiency it may I hope be yet Enquired VVhether the Church also which cannot clash with Scripture has the like Prerogatiue of infallibility Scripture was infallible when the Apostles preached and yet their Preaching was as infallible as The words they wrote But here is not my greatest Exception I say Scripture and all the Verities in it goe to wrack if the Church be fabllible For grant this we haue no infallible Certainty of the Scriptures Canon of it's substantial Purity or Immunity from corruption of it's true Scripture with out the Churches infallible Testimony loseth force Sense in à hundred controuerted passages VVe cannot belieue that Christ is God or That his Ascent into Heauen was real and not à vain Vision We Cannot belieue what Sacraments are nor know the number of them without the Church Therefore vnless this Principle stand vnshaken It is immediatly more certain that the Church manifested by Her Marks is Gods own Oracle Than That Scripture setting Church Authority aside is Gods word we can belieue nothing For who see 's not but that very Book would soon haue been out of credit had not God by special Assistance preserued as well it 's Doctrin pure in Mens hearts as He preserued the words in Velume or parchment And this by the means of à watchful liuing Oracle his infallible Church 20. Again and this Reason conuinceth Were Scripture iudged sufficient to teach Saluifical Faith compleatly independently of the Church Or were the Church when that Iudgement is held not only errable but actually erroneous How can any hauing The Assertion is proued these two iudgements Scripture Infallibly â—eaches Faith compleatly The Church because erroneous fail's in this Duty Account himself à Heathen or Publican as our Lord Saith though he absolutely refuse to hear the Church His refusal Certainly is prudent and defensible vpon this ground That Scripture doth all learns him enough Therefore none can oblige him to hear the Church which may mislead and Propound false Doctrins For no man in his wits will listen to à Fallible Oracle whilst he has another at hand that teaches all Truths infallibly 21. If you reply Such an one is at least obliged to hear the Church in Fundamentals but not in others The Intelligent Person Asks whether Protestants who lay that obligation A Reply answered vpon him of belieuing fundamentals only own that Assertion sâ— infallible that to belieue the Distinction is an Article of their Faith If they say it is à fundamental Article and that he is obliged to belieue so Protestants doe not only maintain one infallible fundamental Point peculiar to themselues disowned by the Roman Catholick Church for She certainly reiect's the Distinction The Sectary Câ—nuicted of Errour but moreouer now become infallible Oracles in à Matter of greatest Importance which cannot pass because they are Professedly fallible in all they teach Therefore may truth haue place the Dictinction giuen between fundamentals is both Vnfundamental and fallible Doctrin And so without More we are freed from all Obligation of belieuing the Church for that Distinction failing to be à fundamental truth The Church is absolutly fallible in fundamental Doctrin Well then may we not hear Her at all without any Note of being looked on as Heathens and Publicans 22. Some perhaps great Patrons of Christian Liberty and freedom of mind in matters of Faith may obiect 4. The Church cannot exercise Her Authority ouer mens Iudgements or oblige any to an internal Assent Her power being limited and to thus much only as to order and regulate the Exteriour A Reflection made vpon Christian Libertins for this end that Vnity and peace May be preserued without
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
become Heretiques by it The very hazard men run in this wilful Course is an open Iniury to the Supremest Verity vnauoidable in out Sectaries Principles 15. And here by the way you se the Vanity of that pernicious Doctrin published by them wherewith the world is Sectaries pernicious Doctrin cheated Viz. The Sense of Scripture is plain enough euen to the vnlearned in things necessary to Saluation in other matters not necessary à right Faith an vnerring Guide an infallible Interpreter See◠vseles and superfluous As if forsooth the Arians Pelagians Nestorians had not grosly erred in Points most necessary though Concerning the Clearness of Scripture they read the same plain Scripture which we all read Did the◠that supposed Clearness nothing secure them from Heresy in Necessaries Why should it I beseech you rescue Sectaries wholly as fallible from gross errours in other matters when the words of Scripture are more express against them than against the worst of Arians But hereof enough is said aboue 16. It followes 3. That no Christian has stability in Faith but the Roman Catholick for the most which others no members of this Church can know if yet they know so much is That the Books of Scripture are Gods word but with this half piece of imperfect Learning they neither know nor can belieue one particular Article of Christian Faith because that other The Roman Catholick only has Stability in Faith Principle the last Resoluent of all Belief God speaks infallibly this very Sense has no influence ouer their Assent and therefore is reiected by them as impertinent to ground Faith vpon One instance will giue you more light 17. The Arian and Protestant agree thus farr That those words Iohn 1. 5. 9. Three giue Testimony in heauen c. are Diuine Both Arians and Protestestants want à Stability Scripture yet so vary about the meaning and the difference is in à matter most fundamental that the One Assent's to the sacred Trinity for these words which yet the Other impiously denies Say now vpon what infallible Principle doth the Protestants faith stand more firm than that of the Arian Will Mr Stillingfleet say the Scripture is Clear The Arian takes him off that Plea and endeauours to obscure the passage by adding to it no small number of his Arian Glosses Next And why he Argues thus ad hominem and thinks no wrong at all done Can yee Sectaries belieue that your glosses laid vpon those Scriptures which Catholicks produce against you are strong enough to diuert and peruert the Sense or Interpretation of their Vniuersal Church and shall my glosses opposite to your Doctrin haue no force to diuert or weaken the late priuate inuented Sense of à few Lutherans What law is there for this I call it late and priuate as it comes from you for you How the Arian argues against Sectaries disdain to ground it vpon any Church Authority absolutly infallible in all She teaches Therefore it is your own Priuate Sense and not the Churches O but the Church of Rome in this particular interpret's Scripture faithfully though She err's in other matters Pitiful That is She hitt's right when You 'l giue leaue and misses when you think otherwise 18. One may Say again The whole Orthodox world euer proued the Mysterious Trinity from that alleged Passage of Scripture Contra Replies the Arian I and my Adherents who deny the Mystery hold our Selues as precious à Part of the His Argument Conuinces Orthodox world as you Protestants doe And hope we expound Scripture by the help of our priuate Reasoning and comparing Texts together as well as you Why not I beseech you Or giue à Disparity But say on And the contest is ended Haue you any Oracle which more infallibly Ascertain's you of that Sense of Scripture to be as you gloss then we haue who giue it à quite contrary Interpretation For hitherto we are both alike and expound all by our priuate Iudgements Grant such an Oracle Distinct from Scripture whereby you haue Assurance of God's meaning darkly expressed in those words you become plane Papists Own not Any Infallible you cast your Selues vpon as great Vncertainties as we Arians are thrown who expound Scripture by our own natural Discourse No infallible Church therefore no Stability No Orthodox world without an Infallible Church in faith no Stability in faith that specious word of an Orthodox VVorld Signifies nothing For this I Defend and haue Proued it if all Churches be fallible in their Definitions there neither is nor euer was since Christs time any such thing in being as an Orthodox VVorld 19. It followes 4. That as it has euer been the proper Mark or Character of all faithful Belieuers to yeild Submission The distinct Marks of true Belieuers and All Hereticks to the Churches Doctrin though weak reason conceiues it difficult so Contrarywise stubbornly to resist Church Authority has euer been inseparably the Mark and Badge of all Heretiques whether ancient or modern With this virulent Spirit they began to Oppose God's Oracle and held on for à time But as S. Austin obserues at last ended in shame Conterentur saith the Saint the battered Rock of the Catholick hitherto stand's firm maugre that Violence And their Scattered forces routed and broken as experience tells vs are brought to nothing CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 1. WHat followes in Mr Stillingfleets 3. or 4 next Pages seem's so slight that the very most is refuted by the grounds already established Yet to Comply with the mans humour we must follow him further How Saith He can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be Infallible when The sirst Argument retorted that infallibility is attempted to be proued only by the motiues of Credibility I Answer Iust as you make the Assent of the Primitiue Christians giuen to the Apostles preaching infallible So I make the Assent to the Churches Testimony infallible The Motiues are alike in both Cases if not greater for the Church 2. He Obiects 2. If Diuine Faith cannot be built vpon the Motiues prouing the Doctrin of Christ what sense is there that it should be built vpon those Motiues which proue our Churches infallibility Here is the old Mistake again I Answer therefore Diuine Faith is not built vpon the Motiues inducing to belieue but vpon the Infallible Testimony of Christ and his Church The Motiues ground the Iudgement of Credibility The Infallible Testimony Support's The second is à gross Mistake Diuine Faith Now if by this word Built you mean no more but rationally To induce I say none in this present State can be induced to belieue Christ's Doctrin reuealed in Scripture in case he reiect's the Authority of that euidenced Church which
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
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
belieued S. Iohns Testimony or that our Sauiour Spake those words Here is our solution God long since said the dead shall rise but this Ancient Reuelation being remote from vs if solely considered cannot moue vs to belieue the truth vnless an Infallible Oracle Ascertain vs that God once spake it iust as S. Iohn assures all that Christ said I am the Messias Ask now â—hy Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour vttered those â—ords He will Answer God speaking by S. Iohn an Infallible An Application of the Instance clear in Scripture Oracle Affirms it So I say God speaking by the Church an Infallible Oracle affirm's the Resurrection of the dead O but independently of Church Authority we know the resurrection is reuealed in Scripture Contrariwise we know nothing of our Sauiours words but from S. Iohns Testimony Answ we know indeed the Resurrection is asserted in à Book called Scripture But that the Assertion is Diuine or vttered by Eternal Truth we haue no more Infallible certainty without the Churches Testimony Then if any vulgar Samaritan without Diuine Assistance had said Christ spake those words I am the Messias 23. By what is now briefly touched you se first That as our Sauiours own words and S. Iohns reflex Testimony vpon them concurr Indiuisibly to the Faith of these Aduersaries So the reuealed Verity of the Resurrection in Scripture And the The ancient Reuelation and the Churches reflex Testimony Churches reflex Testimony which infallibly Ascertains vs that it is reuealed may well indiuisibly concurr as one compleat Motiue to our faith whereof more hereafter I say indiuisibly And therefore this Faith vltimatly resolued relies not first vpon Scripture only as our Aduersary conceiues without any relation to the Church and then rest's vpon the Churches Concurr indiuisibly to Faith Testimony as vpon à distinct Formal Obiect but by one simple Tendency it pitches on both together 24. You se 2. It s hard to Say what Mr Stillingfleet would haue when he tells vs. This Principle The Church is infallible must be more credible then the Resurrection of the Dead If We clearly distinguisâ— what our Aduersary Confound's he mean's the Churches Testimony is to vs in this present State the more known and nearest Motiue wherevpon the Faith of that Article is grounded we easily Assent But if he think 's we must first Assent to Scripture which asserts the Resurrection and own that as Diuine or the only Motiue of Faith without all Church Authority attesting it to be Diuine He err's not knowing our Doctrin For we Say no Scripture can be infallible An improper Speech assented to as Diuine independently of the Churches Testimony Again those words More Credible are improper if applyed to the Formal Obiect of Faith For the Formal Obiect terminates Belief the Credibility whereof goes before and is grounded on the preuious Motiues inducing to belieue VVhether we Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Title of the Chapter discussed Vpon what ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 25. In many following Pages we haue little but that the Churches Infallible Testimony must be called the Formal Obiect of Faith whereof something is said aboue And you shall haue more hereafter 26. P. 149. He thinks we Argue like men squaring Circles when on the one side we make Scripture obscure yet on the other giue it light enough to proue the Churches infallibility And then he talk's of an Apocalyptical key hanging at the Churches Scripture Proued Diuine Conuinces the Churches Infallibility girdle able to vnlock all the Secrets in it To the first I haue Answered Thus much Supposed that Scripture is proued Diuine we haue so great light from the seueral Passages thereof to conuince the Churches Infallibility that no glosses of Sectaries shall euer obscure them To the Ieer of the Clauis Apocalyptica I Answer Some one or other must vnlock those high secrets when t' is euident innumerable Heretiques by à wrong key wrest Gods word to most pernicious Senses The Question is whether you Sr or the Church must rurn the key 27. Page 152. After thanks giuen for our Coleworts so often serued â—y Those mute Persons the good Motiues of credibility He is Brisque Ieâ—rs and empty words and in earnest resolute to solue our Argument Asking before hand Whether it be not enâ—ugh to be in à Circle our selues but must â—eed's bring the Apostles into it also Reflect I beseech you We said aboue that the Apostles induced by the Signal works and Miracles of our Sauiour Assented to his sacred Doctrin as most infallible In like manner The Primitiue Christians induced by the works and Miracles of the Apostles belieued them to be infallible The force of our Argument Oracles Therefore we also in this present State hauing Motiues and Miracles of the same weight and Euidence in the Roman Catholick Church Belieue with à firm Assent of Faith that She is God's Oracle and her Doctrin most infallible The short Answer to all this saith Mr Stillingfleet is That the ground why the Christians did Assent to the Apostles Doctrin as true was because God Wholly waued gaue sufficient Euidence that their Testimony was infallible in such things where such infallibility was requisite Pray Consider well whether this be not à gliding or rather à plain running away from the Difficulty We haue vrged all this while the Parity between the Churches Motiues and those of the Apostles We haue proued and yet plead That the Euidence is à like in both The Churches most manifest Signes are The blind se The lame walk The dead rise Diuels are dispossesed c. And these termed by you vnsauory Coleworts and mute good Things were the Apostles Signs also Are not you therefore obliged in all law of Disputation What all law of Disputing requireâ— either to proue and vpon sound Principles indeed That we falsly appropriate such Motiues and Miracles to the Church Or if you cannot disparage so illustrious an Euidence to shew à fault in this Inference The Church is known as well by her Signs to be an infallible Oracle 28. Now mark how we are put off with half an Answer God â—y you gaue sufficient Euidence that the Apostles Testimony was infallible None doubt's it But Say on what want do you find of the very like Euidence in the Church Her Miracles are as manifest Her Conuersions as Numerous and more Her fame as renowned Her name as Catholick finally might we vse your scornful language Her Motiues no mute Persons speak Nothing like an Answer giuen aloud and Her Colewarts are euery whit as good as those were the Apostles serued vp To this you Answer not à word but first tell vs with your Aduersary that the Apostles confirmed their Doctrin with Signs that followed by which Signes all their Heares were bound to aknowledge them for
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
those first great Masters vpheld the Primitiue Faith without any further ground or Process in Infinitum So his own Speaking Our resolution the same with that of the Primitiue Christians by this Oracle of the Church vphold's mine And I can go no further For the last formal Obiect of Faith has none latter That One word of Truth is enough to belieue vpon Again as those first pious Christians had any moued à doubt concerning their Inducements to Faith would haue answered The blind see The lame walk strange Miracles are wrought by ehese blessed men And therefore we both must in Prudence and will belieue that God speak's by them So I likewise bring to light the same Signal Motiues Euident in the Church and The Motiues alike Say I both must if prudence guides me and Will belieue that God speak's by this Oracle known as well by Her Miracles and supernatural Signatures as euer any Apostle was known 20. And thus you see first as I noted aboue How we passe from the Formal Obiect of Faith God's own Testimony proposed by the Church to the Prudent Inducements of belieuing wherevpon the Iudgement of Credibility not Faith it felfe is vltimatly Why we belieue And how vve proue by rational Motiues grounded Now these Inducements being laid forth to reason The Will command's an absolute Assent which rest's vpon God's word spoken by this Oracle You see 2. All danger of à vicious Circle auoyded in this way of resoluing Faith For when I belieue that God speak s by the Church I resolue not the Belief of that Truth into another antecedent Reuelation taken from Scripture yet wholly obscure and no way so immediatly Credible as the Church is for if I did so a Process in Infinitum would necessarily follow But I belieue that word of Truth for it selfe immediatly and rest there As the ancient Christians The word of truth belieued for it Selfe relyed vpon the very words spoken by the Apostles without recurring to any former or surer Reuelation If therefore those happy Belieuers made no vicious Circle in their Faith hauing no tâ—o Propositions prouing one another to make à Circle of We in our belief are altogether as free from that faulty Circular way in our Resolution It is true All of vs if The primitiue Motiues and ours the same Questioned about the Euidence of Credibility most bring to light Motiues inducing to Faith They theirs We ours both are à like significant both Supernatural as is already explained 21. You may gather 3. out of what is here and formerly noted how easy it is after à full Sight had of those signal The illustrious Signs apparent in the Church Motiues and they more set forth the Churches Glory than any Traine of attendants can illustrate the greatest Monarch That the first connatural Language which God speak's by the Church is this general Truth There only his Special Prouidence are God's own Voice Directs and gouâ—rn's where the illustrious Signes of his own Soueraignity manifest That he teaches by à Voice peculiar to Himselfe But these Signes most euidently are seen in one only Society of Christians the Roman Catholick Church Therefore he teaches by this One only Oracle And the necessary Lesson he will haue all to learn is That he has called all to one Communion what we learn by them of Faith in one Church Euidenced by Supernatural wonders This fundamental Verity we belieue And it is the first Act of faith we elicite Or that Primigenial Assent which connaturally arises from God's own voice deliuered to vs by this Oracle without depending on Scripture if we make à right Analysis This General truth once established and none can rationally contradict it We now proceed to solue à few Obiections CHAP. XI Sectaries Ohiections solued The fallible Agreement of all Concerning the Canon of Scripture no Proof at all No vniuersal Consent for the Sectaries Scripture or the Sense of it How the Church is both the Verity belieued and the Motiue why we believe Other Difficulties Examined 1. I Speak here of Sectaries Obiections knowing well some Diuines who make the Churches Proposition most infallible Sectaries Obiections only answered and herein all Catholicks agree yet hold it insufficient to be the last Principle Whereinto Faith is resolued For say these it is only à necessary Condition by virtue whereof the ancient Reuelation is infallibly applied to vs. In this Strife purely Theological and some what as I thinke de Nomine I shall not long busy my Selfe being chiefly to attend to what Sectaries do or can propose against our Doctrin 2. The first Obiection If the Catholick after à prudent Consideration had of the known Motiues already specified can belieue what euer the Church teaches and Consequently resolue why Sectaries cannot resolue their Faith into Scriptures his faith into the Authority of God speaking by that Oracle Why may not the Sectary as well vpon this one Iudgement viz. All acknowledge Scripture to bee God's word as easily belieue and resolue his faith into pure Scripture independently of Church Authority Answ Such à Beliefe and Resolution is impossible because as we said aboue none can in this As Catholicks Doe into the Church present State assent to this general Truth Scripture is God's word or belieue so much as any Verity in it if the Authority of an Infallible Church be reiected To the pretended ground taken from the Consent of all Christians owning Scripture for God's word I haue partly answered That consent alone induces not any to belieue one reuealed Article by an Infallible act of Faith if those whole Consenting multitudes be all supposed fallible First euery one knowes the multitudes of Turks agree thus far that their Alcoran is God's word yet such an agreement though very Vniuersal induces no wise man to belieue any Diuinity in the Book or to own its Doctrin as Diuine and sacred 2. And this reason hinted at aboue is more à Priori 3. The Agreement of all Christians is truely an effect of Faith or rather of the Obiects Credibility antecedently presupposed The agreement of all Concerning Scripture is an effect Credible vpon other grounds before men agreed so vniversally in that Christian truth For this Causal is good Therefore Christians agreed in that Truth because it was preuiously made Credible vpon other sound Motiues And not the contrary It is credible because all conspired in à Consent so vniuersal Wherefore if very many who now own Scripture to be Diuine should leaue off to iudge So and reiect the Book or any Part in it as fabulous That would not diminish its ancient Credibility And no more Not the Original Proof of the Scriptures Credibility Say I would the Addition of any new Consenters who now reiect it should they agree with vs highten one whit our Beliefe or make the Truth we Assent to more Credible than it was before And this proues That the Original
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
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
infallible no aduantage by them The Substance of all is thus If Diuine Faith cannot be without an Infallible Assent all other Infallibility He means in the Proponent is rendred vseles Answ Why so I beseech you The Apostles Faith was certainly Infallible That therefore an Infallible Proponent of Faith is vnnecessary did that render our Sauiours Infallible Doctrin Infallibly proposed vseles In like manner the Church teaches Infallibly The Faithful Man elicites Infallible Faith grounded vpon Her Doctrin Doth this make Her Teaching Vseles When the internal faith of euery Belieuer so necessarily depend's vpon an Infallible Oracle that none euer belieued without some one or other absolutely Infallible 25. But now Ad rem Make hauocke of Faith as much as may be Destroy Christian Religion Say boldly and falsly Were all Proponents of Faith faâ—lible the Roman Catholick Church both is and euer was fallible Say also Protestants Arians Pelagians and all the rest are fallible Speak once to the Purpose and tell me For here is the only doubt Why should the Protestant with his fallible Faith be in à The Protestant yet would not be in à better Condition then the Arion better and à more Secure condition than the fallible Papist or the fallible Arian with that faith they lay claim to This the Doctor neuer meddles with nor can the difficulty be solued by him 26. And Hence To rid my Selfe of the rest which followes for really I am more weary of this Sport then the Dr euer was at killing flies you shall Se with what Candor I Proceed I freely permit the Doctor to make vse of all his following Principles yea of the whole Thirty in Number And say notwithstanding this ample Concession He shall neuer Proue or infer from any of them So much as One true Tenet Though all were granted which the Doctor can rationally desire peculiar to Protestants which can be owned by these very men that pretend to belieue Protestancy an Article of Faith necessary for saluation Here is my Reason The General owned Truths as that à rational creature may antecedently to any External Reuelation certainly know the Being of God c no more belong to Protestants than to others The Doctors false Principles as Nothing yet proued his 16. and 17. are though Supposed true euince nothing for Protestancy as is already Proued No more do his other Controuerted Principles denyed by innumerable Christians proue any thing His obscure Ones and his 27 and 29. appear to The reason hereof briefly giuen me of the darker sort must be further explained For truly I vnderstand not what is meant by those obscure words Which reiection is no making Negatiue Articles of Faith with the rest that followes Be it how you will thus much I defend that whether the fore mentioned Principles be True False Controuerted or Obscure no Verity peculiar to Protestants can be deduced from them absolutely necessary to Saluation 27. I Say deduced either by lawful Consequences or by the Addition of any receiued Principle And I Speak thus because Perhaps the Doctor may Answer He intended no more at present but only to set down some general Grounds wherevpon Protestancy by the ayde of further Proofs adioynable though not as yet not made vse of Can be established If this be his Reply I Answer First He has gone most lamely to work The Doctors whole work hitherto most imperfect leauing the whole Matter vndertaken halfe done halfe vndone in à word incompleat I Answer 2. There are neither Proofs nor Principles to goe forward withall I mean whereby to Euince the truth of one Pure Protestant Tenet held by Sectaries themselues necessary to Saluation And I coniure the Doctor who must hold his abstract Principles hitherto laid forth very imperfect He cannot goe on and Compleat it to aduance further That is to euince by some other more immediate Proofs the absolute necessity of Belieuing one Protestant Article This cannot be done 28. The Reason why I Speak thus boldly is the Verity hinted The vltimate ground of my Assertion at in the beginning and proued aboue Protestancy as Protestancy has no truth in it No Essence of Religion No One Article Conducing to Saluation And Hence it is that the Doctor keep 's off at distance Or rather run's on as you se partly by assuming false Principles against the Catholick Church Partly with Generalities which relate no more to Protestancy then to Arianism 29. Now here in passing you may well obserue The different Procedure of Catholicks from Sectaries The first tell you plainly what their Faith is Besides the common Doctrin admitted by all Called Christians They giue you in particular à list of theer Credends The Real Presence Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saints and in the first place of the Infallibility of their Church peculiar to Catholicks only They moreouer How differently the Catholick and Sectaries Proceed Assert without the Beliefe of these Articles after à due Proposal made none can be saued And here to omit other Probations taken from Scripture Councils and Fathers They ground their Beliefe vpon the Authority of God's own vniuersal euidenced Oracle which hath taught the world from the Apostles Age. 30. The Sectary on the other side neither dares nor Can name one Article Singular to Protestants Mark my words Or Preach this Doctrin to any of his Hearers Such and such particular Articles you are as Protestants Obliged to belieue as most essential Tenents of our Religion or will be damned if you reiect them The Sectary cannot name one Protestant Article iudged by him necessary to Saluation He cannot build one peculiar Protestant Article vpon plain Scripture vpon ancient Tradition or any other receiued Principle much lesse Proue its Truth by the Authority of à Church which euer Shewed the Marks and Signatures of God's Infinite Power and Wisdom It may be Some Sectary will here Cauil at our Articles and Say indeed we plainly deliuer them but needlesly multiply too many If this be Obiected I Answer first The Assertion is no Principle but à meer vnproued Supposition I Answer 2. in this place it is an Impertinency where we only vrge the Sectary to name but one A possible Cauil answered Article Iudged by him Essential to Protestancy and necessary for Saluation As we plainly giue in our Seueral necessary Articles Thus much Comply'd with We are as ready to Proue the Truth of our Catholick Positions as to Euince vpon sound Principles the Sectaries false and Improbable CHAP. XVIII The Doctors Inferences proued no Inferences but vntrue Assertions Hauing answer'd his Principles and Inferences Satisfaction is required to some few Questions hereafter proposed 1. IT followes Saith the Dr 1. There is no necessity at all of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth The first Inference is à meer Tautology of those things which they may be certain without c. Answ Here you
I boldly Assert you The reason hereof may iustly cast away that Class of Orthodox Believers and call all rhe Christians in the world according to Sectaries Idolaters or known professed Heretiques Catholicks you se are listed amongst Idolaters because they Adore Christ in the holy Eucharist as the ancient Orthodox Graecians did Those Graecians yet of the Schism pray to Saints that 's plain Idolatry Say Sectaries The ancient and modern Graâ—cians supposed Idolaters The rest of Christians nameable the whole world ouer from Luther to the third or fourth Age whether Macedonians Pelagians or Arians were all professed Heretiques These and none but these Imagined Idolaters and known Heretiques à Monstruous heteroclite Progeny of men essentially constituted Christ's Orthodox Church Therefore he who proues Euidently that Catholicks The rest were Hereticks are Idolaters and rightly supposes All others called Christians to haue been Heretiques Proues and rightly Supposes Christ The Inference clear against Sectaries to haue had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thousand years which is à desperate Improbability deduced from our Sectaries Principle who blush not to charge an ancient Church with that Shameful crime of Idolatry though no Proof meanly probable as we shall se hereafter much lesse Euident vphold's the Calumny 11. Some may here demand why we require to haue these Why Euidence is required supposed Errours and Idolatry of our Church euidently proued against vs Is it not enough to euince this vpon moral Certainty The First Question is easily answered by proposing another of the like nature Would not these Protestants iustly require An Instance taken from Scripture proues what is required Euidence from à new Sect of men should it now start vp and pretend on the one side to belieue in Christ yet on the other as boldly impute errour and Idolatry to the holy Book of Scripture as Sectaries do to the Church They would certainly not be satisfied with lesser proofs then euident Hence it is that we in like manner exact neither Topicks nor guesses but clear Euidence against the supposed errours of our Church and reasonably do so First because She by God's Special Prouidence hath hitherto preserued Scriptures pure without Corruptions in Doctrin 2. Because all must own Scripture as both Diuine and pure vpon the Authority of Christ's Church Therefore It as highly concern's all to defend the purity of Christ's Church as the purity of God's written word it as highly concern's Christians to maintain the purity of Christ's Church as to maintain the purity of Scripture And Consequently if nothing lesse then Euidence can bring that Sacred Book into contempt or Euince it of errour Nothing lesse then Euidence can cast à blemish on the Church which giues vs Scripture and ascertain's all that it is Diuine 12. That other Pretence to moral Certainty is à meer whymsy reiected aboue in the second Discourse The Reason there hinted at much to this sense Conuinceth A Doctrin in Matters of Religion Contrary to the Publick Iudgement of the whole Christian world cannot be morally Certain But what Sectaries The pretence to Moral Certainty refuted Assert Concerning the Errours and Idolatry of the Church is à Doctrin Contrary to the publick Iudgement of the whole Christian world Ergo. I proue the Minor One great part of the Christian world is the Roman Catholick Church She stifly opposes this loud Calumny of Idolatry and errours laid to Her Charge Add herevnto the Sentiment of the Chiefest and the most A Doctrin Contrary to the publick Iudgement of the world known Arch-heretiques Who whilst they were in their wits that is before their wicked Apostasy Iudged as the Church Iudged and belieued as she belieued This Vniuersal Consent of an Euidenced Church together with the Sentiment of Her once Orthodox Members though afterward wilful Reuolters I call Cannot be Morally certain à Iudgement of Christians so publick and vndoubted that nothing Contrary to it can be morally Certain Giue me but one Instance of any Truth reputed Morally certain amongst men which euer What may well be called this publick Iudgement merited that name when witnesses so vniuersal so numerous and well qualified opposed it and I shall acquiesce But this is Impossible 13. Here again fitly comes in what we now Sayd of Holy Scripture Suppose which is true that your Chiefest Arch-hereticks once reuerenced that sacred Book as God's Diuine The Instance concerning Scripture introduced again word with the same high respect as the Roman Catholick Church euer did and yet doth Suppose 2. That Some Abetters of those first wicked men whether Arians Socinians or Others should begin to charge the Book with false Doctrin would such à supposed Calumny thinke ye euer arriue to so high Moral That Sacred Book cannot be iustly calumniated Certainty as to bring Scripture into open Contempt whilst à whole learned Church defend's its purity No the Calumny would not be meanly probable vpon this Ground that neither Probability much less Moral Certainty can stand in force when whilst à whole Church defend's its purity Witnesses of so great worth so vniuersal and numerous oppose it Apply what is here noted to the Church and you will find an exact Parity Both She and her own Arch-aduersaries once maintained Her Doctrin as Sacred and Orthodox Now rise vp à Company of iarring Sectaries who will forsooth haue their Charge of Idolatry and notorious Errours against Her passe for No more can à few iarring Adversaries iustly Calumniate the Church à Moral certain Truth The Assertion cannot arriue to moral certainty before the whole Body of Christians becomes mad and makes Scripture it selfe no lesse an erroneous Book than the Church Idolatrous For here is my Principle With one most certain Assent I hold the Church inerrable and the Scriptures Diuine Destroy the Churches infallibility or Say she hath erred you make Scripture eo ipso à Book of no credit 14. A. second Argument Those who exactly follow the A second Argument taken from the procedure of old Condemned Hereticks strain of all old condemned Heretiques and as wickedly implead the Roman Catholick Church of errour are vpon that account like them that is guilty of horrid Sin and Heresy But Protestants do so Ergo they are guilty of horrid Sin and Heresy The Maior is vnquestionable For if our Modern Sectaries exactly close with the mode of all condemned Heretiques it followes thas as those first Apostates for their malice were guilty of Heresy so also these latter are 15. The Minor is easily proued Your ancient Heretiques Our Sectaries accuse like them rebel and would reform as they did accused as boldly the Roman Church then in Being of errour as our modern Sectaries do the present Church They rebelled against it and deserted it so do our Protestants They sought to reform it so would our Protestants For example The Arians were as earnest to reform the Churches Doctrin
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
propose an Argument for the Vulgar Latin which Mr stilling shall not answer In what euer Society of Christians we find faith intirely true we haue there Authentick Scripture But from Luthers time vpward to the 4. or 5. age faith intirely true was only found in the Roman Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians Therefore the Roman Catholick Church which read so many ages the Vulgar Latin as Authentick had true Scripture I proue An argument prouing the Vulgar Latin Authentick the Minor wherin only is difficulty If the Roman Church erred for so vast à time in any point of Diuine Faith there was no faith intirely true the whole Christian world ouer because all other Societies denominated Christians were known condemned Hereticks and consequently had not true faith Therefore either the Catholick Roman Church enioy'd that blessing or we must grant à want of faith for ten ages the whole world ouer But if this Church had Faith intirely true it preserued also Authentick Scripture for where true faith is there you haue true Scripture If not it followes that wee haue no assurance at all either of the one or other Therefore if all Churches vniuersally erred in points of faith no Church can giue so much assurance of authentick Scripture as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting See more here of in the other Treatise Discours 2. c. 2. n. 8. 13. Now we are to solue à difficulty which may arise from our former discourse where 't is said If one rely on humane authority which is fallible and may be false so much mistrust so A difficulty proposed and solued many doubts occurr concening the Originals and various Lections that none can haue indubitable assurance of Scripture How therfore could the Church without moral certainty and greater too had of the Authentick books antecedently to the Councils declaration determin so peremptorily this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick yea and to preferr it before other Latin Copies I might here first by the way demand vpon what certainty can the Sectary prefer his Edition take which hee will before the Vulgar Latin What euer moral assurance he has independently of the Churche's Testimony for his Bible the Church has greater for Hers. But to solue the difficulty positiuely I say the Church after all moral diligence proceeded in this particular vpon an The Catholike Principle ascertaining Scripture vndeniable Principle which is that God by special Prouidence preserued as well Scripture free from Material corruption as Church Doctrin pure and orthodox in both wee Catholiks rely on peculiar Prouidence and all must do so vnless they will rob Christ's Sponse of all the treasure she has and violently take from her not only Orthodox Faith but Scripture also The Church therefore in her Declaration depended not on à meer Moral fallible certainty which may be false but vpon infallible Tradition This gaue indubitable assurance of the Scriptures purity free from all material errour Here is her last Principle And thus you see à vast difference between the Church and Sectaries The Church plead's possession of Authentick Scripture vpon Gods gracious Prouidence and hath it warranted by indubitable Tradition the Sectary reiect's this infallible ground and run's away with no man knowes what Certainty and in doing so cast's himself vpon the greatest doubts imaginable concerning scripture 14. Perhaps you will say Mr Stilling p. 213. relies in this matter on the vniuersal consent of all Christians and Therefore includes the Testimony of the Roman Catholick Church I answer first Hee hath not the consent of this Church for all those Editions He approues and Consequently the greatest part of à vniuersal consent fail's I answer 2. He Sectaries Cannot rely on the Churches infallible Testimony neither doth nor can remaining Protestant admit of the Catholiks surest Testimony or Tradition for our Church own 's in this most weighty matter an infallible certain Tradition Mr Stilling reiect's that therefore he hath nothing from our Church which fauours his Assertion drawn from the most assured consent of all Christians concerning Authentick Scripture And here by the way I cannot but take notice of this Gentlemans weightles obiection Pag. 216. who grants there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from Tradition But think not to fob vs off saith he with the Tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages with the Tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick c. with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Answ I verily perswade my selfe He The surest principle to know ancient tradition speak's not as he think 's for tell me vpon what surer Principle can men now possibly be better informed of Church-tradition in all ages then by the tradition of the present Church You see He slights the Testimony of two or three Fathers needed we relief from them and I am sure the vnanimous agreement of all Fathers makes no where the consent of the Church in all antecedent ages contrary to our present Churches Tradition From whom therefore shall we learn On what vndubitable Principle can we rest or say such was the Tradition concerning Scripture in pas't ages but from the present Churches Testimony It is impossible to pitch on any other Proof which is surer or half so sure 15. What followes is yet worse Fob vs not off with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick Good Sr. designe you or name plainly that Catholick Church distinct from the Roman Catholick in all ages and to vse your own words we shall extol you for the only person that euer did any thing memorable on your side but if you do not this as I know you cannot for all other before Luther were professed Hereticks 't is you that iuggles and fob's vs off with meer empty words He still goes on thus worse and worse If I should once see you proue the A weak Argument reâ—orted infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints the Sacrifice of the mass c. by as an vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is wherby we receiue Scriptures I shall yeild my self vp as à Trophey to your braue attempts Contra 1. ad Hominem If I should once see you proue all Churches fallible the Pope no supream head No Inuocation of Saints no veneration of Images no Sacrifice of the Mass c. and the rest of your negatiue Articles If I could once see you proue two Sacraments only Iustification by faith only Christs not real presence in the Holy Eucharist by as vnquestionable and vniuersal Tradition as that is whereby Scripture is receiued we would yeild also to your braue attempts Answer this if you can or for bear hereafter to weary à reader with euident improbabilities And mark well why I call them so 16. Haue we not à more vnquestionable
for many hold both these Editions may yet be corrected in some less and slighter errata's occasioned by the Librarians or Printers Nay perhaps it is not yet in euery particular most perfect Therefore Clements pains was to no purpose or amended little in the Sixtine Bible That these lesser errata's are found in both Copies and may if the Church please be yet corrected is granted by great Authors Read the Proleg ad Bib Max sect 19. C. 8. Gretser Tom. 1. lib. 2. Defens Cap. 11. Bell. Salmeron Vega. And others quoted in Bib. Max. Answ The Preface before the Sixtine Bible reuiewed by Clement and Sixtus his own Bull giue ground enough to solue this difficulty The preface declares the Edition of Sixtus and Clement to be corrected Quantâ fieri potuit diligentiâ with as great diligence as could be then vsed yet to say it is absolutely perfect euery way respecting humane weaknes is difficult Howeuer it is to be preferred before all other Latin Copies set forth to this day as the more pure and better amended Copy Again 't is said In hac peruulgatâ lectione sicut nounulla consultò mutata sunt c. In this Vulgar Lection a there are many things purposely changed so there are others which seemed to be changed left on set purpose without alteration And you may see four reasons hereof in the following words of the Preface Pope Sixtus his Bull speak's as clearly Neque enim ignoramus saith He c. We are not ignorant but that there are many who thought no few words and locutions of this latin Edition might haue been translated by the latin interpreter more properly more Elegantly more perspicuously or more Copiously measuring as it were words with words Verum de his minuta nimium angusta concertatio ridetur But to insist on these seems à strife too minute or worth little Neque enim taâ—ti sunt c. Neither are they of such consequence but that the Religion of the ancient Church and the Authority of most holy Fathers ought to be preferred before such Niceties it being vnmeet and vnworthy as S. Gregory faith Vt sub Do 〈…〉 regulis verba Caelestis oraculi restringantur That the words of à Heauenly Oracle be tyed to the lawes or rules of à Grammariâ—â— Thus and much more Pope Sixtus And hereby you see the The difficulty solued weaknes of the obiection proposed Sixtus corrected many faults in the old Vulgar Latin anciently vsed in the Church Sixtus neuer said He corrected all the lesser errata's Clement purged it of more and restored that ancient Copy so farr as diligence could do to à greater integrity Was not this work laudable and praise worthy in these two worthy Prelates Neither of them can be taxed of any errour introduced contrary to faith or the purity of Religion And we vrge Sectaries to speak à probable word against our Assertion 11. By this and the precedent discours you may learn first that Mr Stillingf speaks at random when he tell 's vs p. 213. of an abundance of Corruptions in the Vulgar Latin and yet cannot find so much as one Contrary to Faith and Religion You see 2. Not one Corruption in the Vulgar Contrary to Faith Hee amuses and abuseth an ignorant Reader whilst he asserts there are some thousand of places wherin Sixtus and Clement differ There is no difference at all in any one point that 's essential or material other differences which arise either from the Printers errours or diuersity of Lections as long as we read what 's true and the Church approues is neither lyable to Mr Stillingfleets Censure nor can be iustly blamed You see 3. That when Mr Still talk's of Thomas Iames his comparing the Sixtine Clementine Bibles with the Louain Annotations and then mentions ten thousand differences from the Vulgar Latin which differences arise from the comparing it with the Hebrew Greek and Chaldee He vnderstand's not Matters too well Because neither Sixtus nor Clement were obliged to regulate themselues by the Hebrew Greeck or Chaldee What these two Popes chiefly intended Their industry only being to correct the old Latin Italae Lection called by S. Gregory the ancient Translation most Authentick Scripture which howeuer was done both after à diligent search into the Hebrew and Greek and à careful inspection also into other Copies And here by the way you may perhaps discouer à piece of Mr Stillingfleets cheat about the ten thousand differences menâ—ioned aboue Be pleased only to peruse the first words of Geneâ—s where you will find à different sound of words The Vulgar read's In principio creauit Deus Caelum terram and so it is in the Chaldee and Samaritan Copies The Roman septuagint In principio fecit Deus Others ascribe this Lection to the 70. Deus creauit in principio Some out of the Hebrew read Creauit Iudices Aquila read's In Capitulo fecit Caelum The Syriack Creauit Deus esse Caeli esse terra An other Syriack In sapientia Creavit The Arabick Primum quod creauit Deus fecit Caelum c. Others Creauit Elohim Caelos Others Lections seeming different are not alwaies disferent for in Principio read cum Principio All which imply no more but meer triuial verbal differences and these perhaps with many like them through the whole Bible made Thomas Iames number swell vp to then thousand Most petty and pittiful doings whilst nothing appear's of greater consequence If any desire à litteral exposition and reconciliation of these and other lections through the whole Scripture He may peruse the Author of Bibl Max Comprehending ninteen great volumes You see 4. If the Church had true authentick Scripture before the corrections of Sixtus and Clement wherof no man euer doubted shee has it still after the Council of Trents approbation much more free from lesser faults than formerly You see 5. If the Sectary reiect's the Vulgar Latin now corrected he has no such assurance of any true Bible in the world as excludes à possibility of doubting the Scriptures integrity and consequently that Scripture serues him not to find out true Religion or build true Faith vpon with security You see 6. that all the exceptions sectaries make against the Correction of Sixtus and Clement vltimately examined empty themselues into no more but only into flight torpid and insipid Calumnies vnworthy men of iudgement and literature You see 7. the Sectaries Carping at euery thing is iust like him who said Quicquid Our sectaries Spirit dixeris impugnabitur Had the Church not at all corrected these lesser faults the sectary would haue blamed it as negligent and looking to nothing now it has done that good Seruice it is found fault with so it is Quicquid dixeris impugnabitur Help it who can I say God help them who find fault where there is none If any desire to haue à solution to some other Silly difficulties against the pretended solaecisms and Barbarisms of
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
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
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
indubitable Principles appliable to the Belieuers reason If therefore à Want be found of such proofs and doubts arise whether Christ's Doctrin be taught or no None can by doubtful or ambiguous Proofs of true Religion easy and Conuincing Principles only absolutly say This is Christs Doctrin and Consequently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightines of the matter that is they are clear conuincing and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting Thus much supposed 2. I say first who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox when the matter is of Controuersy and cannot The sectaries proofs as dark as his Doctrin bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle then the particular assertion is which should be proued argues improbably The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so that is he neuer goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is which should be proued therefore he Argues improbably 3. To proue the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies Take à veiw of all our Protestant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask what Protestant dare appear and venture to proue That Faith only iustifies The like I say of his other negatiue Articles Of no real Presence of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass c. I absolutly affirm He cannot make one of these Articles good by any vndoubted Principle or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer than that dark article is which should be proued One reason is These Doctrins opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also are not euidently known as truths by the light of One reason of our Assertion nature or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years agone and Consequently no vniuersal tradition is for them The only difficulty is whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers generally patronize such Doctrins And to fauour Sectaries all that 's possible we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible but withall assure them it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book and the impossibility will be thus manifested As long as these men cannot proue their new Doctrin to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted but vpon less sure grounds or less assured tradition so long their doctrin is naught and stands vnprincipled But this is so as we shall see presently And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick The difference beween the proofs of Catholiks and Protestants and Protestant The first proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine the Church assures him of both but the Sectary euer fall's short in this and cannot giue you so strong à proof for his particular Doctrin as he doth for the very letter of his book which he supposes teaches that Doctrin 4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth and take one particular Controuersy we cannot insist on all and ask the Protestant How he proues that the real presence of Christs sacred body as Catholicks assert is not expressed in the literal sense of those words This is my body His negatiue assertion most euidently is not there in plain terms We therefore vrge him to make it good by à proof that 's clear or more conuincing than his own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is And is he not obliged think yee to produce à strong proof indeed when he hath so many powerful Aduersaries to contrast with 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers vsually cited by Authors opposite to him 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church for both Churches mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day 4. The express Doctrin of general Councils which define our Doctrin positiuely and The grounds of our Catholick Tenets condemn the figuratiue presence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery related by authors of most indubitable credit These are no slight grounds of our Doctrin Let vs see by what strong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them or which is immediatly to my purpose proues his new negatiue Position Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist Not one word in the whole Bible is like it much contrary Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him No. What euer sense he drawes from thence seemingly to his purpose will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle as his own improbable position is and therefore most vnfit to perswade it Has he as vniuersal Tradition or the vnanimous consent of Fathers for his negatiue or for that sense he would force out of Scripture as he and we haue for the letter of the Text now cited Nothing at all And to show you how iustly I propose this question call to mind what Mr The Sectary answers not to any Stilling exact's of his Aduersary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should saith he once see you proue the infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints c. by as vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is whereby we receiue the Scriptures I would extoll you for the only person that euer did any thing considerable on your side Thus he speakes after this precaution giuen Think not to fob vs off with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catholik with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Your own words Mr Stilling shall here condemn you The Question is whether your Negatiue Christ is not really present in the Eucharist as Catholiks affirm be Orthodox Doctrin We exact as rigid à proof from you as you demand of vs but fob vs not off with your own talk Tradition you haue none nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers but giue vs the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time as What we iustly require of Sectaries clear for your negatiue as you demand of vs for the articles now mentioned Or if this be too much giue vs but only the indubitable sentiment of any Church reputed Orthodox four or fiue hundred years past for this your sense and assertion and I will applaud you as à most singular person But this you shall doe when you haue turned all faith out of the world that is neuer I say therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
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
belief of Christ's real Presence in the Eucharist be an errour Christ and his Church and innumerable Fathers also haue deceiued vs. 2. One Authority alleged against Mr. Stillingfleet you haue in his own page 568. And t' is à known passage of S. Cyprian de Caena Dmi or of some other Author not much inferiour to him if we belieue Mr Fulk against the Rhem's Testament In 1. Cor. 11. and Erasmus his Annotations vpon S. Cyprian Basil print anno S. Cyprians Authority examined 1558. fol. 287. Mr Stilling contend's it is of à later Date yet is pleased by an Addition of his glosses to vnsense the words as well as he can and at last make them to speak Protestancy 3. The Authors words are These This common bread changed into flesh and blood giues life The bread which our lord gaue to his Disciples being Changed Non effigie sed naturâ not in outward form or semblance but in its inward nature or substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 4. Mr Stilling Asserts all this proues not Transubstantiation first because the Author Saith Christs words Vnless ye eate the flesh Mr stillingfleets reasoning not solid and drink the blood of the son of God you shall haue no life in you are not to be vnderstood after à Carnal sense Answ That 's true yet your Inference Sir is most improbable The Principle you must rely on is None are to think as the Capharnits did witness S. Austin that they were to cut into pieces Christs Sacred flesh and eate that as we do Common meats And your inference ill deduced run's thus Therefore the inward substance of bread is not changed into his body This inference I say is null for both these are eternal truths and well consist together Bread is changed into Christs body yet we neither cut that body à pieces or eate it as the Capharnits grossly imagined 5. He argues again and more improbably This Author saith he by the effects attributed to the Sacrament calling it His second Argument more slight food which nourished to immortallity cannot possibly be conceiued to speak if Christ's Corporal presence because we Catholicks confess Christs body remain's no longer in our body then the Accidents of bread and wine are there I verily think the man was busied with other thoughts when he wrot these lines For what sense haue we here Christ's Sacred body really present giues grace and is no longer present then the Accidents of bread and wine remain Ergo bread and wine are not Really changed into his body This I say is à most improbable inference For the effects of the Sacrament which imply the production of Grace may and must stand with Christ's real Presence though that production of grace Sacramentally giuen last's no longer then his Blessed body is vnder the forms of bread and wine 6. But an other doughty Argument is drawn out of S. Cyprian's words which Mr. Stilling cites in his Margent Sed immortalitatis alimonia datur à Communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens speciem sed virtutis diuinae inuisibili efficientiâ probans adâ—sse presentiam His third Argument proues nothing And He vnworthyly renders them thus in English That immortal Nourishment is giuen vs which differs from common food that it retain's the Nature of à Corporeal substance but prouing the presence of à Diuine power by its inuisible efficiency So that saith he what presence of Diuine power is there is shewed in regard of the effects of it not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ Sr I vtterly deny your prooflesse So That and say your deduction is more then improbable This Author saith expresly common bread changed into flesh by the omnipotency of the word giueth life and immortal nourishment which is Diuine grace and therefore the Diuine power appeares in both first in the substantial change of bread into Christs body next in the effect or production of grace in à worthy Receiuer and you improbably conclude it shewes it self in regard of the effects only 7. Like one half guilty of iugling you goe on I know you will quarrel with me for rendring Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem By retaining the Nature of à Corporeal substance Answ I do so indeed and will proue you à cheat for your pains First because you make this Author speak nonsense for if Corporalis substantiae The fallacy discouered retinens Speciem may be Englished By retaining the nature of à Corporeal substance you may as well render it by retaining the substance of à corporeal substance because nature and substance are here synomima's And if this be sense we haue à pretty Tautology or rather non-sense with it thus It differ's from Common food yet retains the substance of Corporeal substance or common food and in real truth is still natural bread or Common food Wheras if we read It differ's from common food yet retain's the outward forms or external Accidents of à Corporeal substance or common food the sense is good clear and open to euery Reader But we must go on You contend that the word Species in this place Signifies Nature or à solid body and not the external Accidents because Species anâ—nariae Species largitionales Curator Specierum whereof we read in the Ciuil law express the substance of things not the Accidents and so S. Ambrose must be vnderstood when speaking of our Sauiours changing water into wine he faith Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae substanâ—â—am in vini speciem commutaret Now no man will say that he changed the substance of water into the external Accidents of wine but into the nature of wine Therefore Species may sometimes signify substance Answ All this is true yet nothing to the purpose What the word Species signifies for can you or any man proue because Species signisies sometimes kind or substance that it alwaies doth so We read in Scripture Daniel 13. Species decepit te Isa 53. non est ei Species neque decor Daniel 10. Species mea immutata 1. Tim. 3. Habentes Speciem pietatis c. Will you translate Nature or substance hath deceiued thee There was no nature or substance in Christ of whom the Prophet speaks My nature or substance is changed Hauing piety in nature or substance All is ridiculous and therefore though Species may sometimes signify substance or kind vnless that signification hold vniuersally these instances of Species annonariae and Species vini proue nothing You will ask perhaps because the word is ambiguous how we may know whether in our present Controuersy Species signifies shape form Accidents or substance Answ This rule is certain when the word Species stand's in opposition or is distinguished from an inuisible Nature or essence it must of necessity signify the external shape or form of à thing and not the substance So when the Apostle exhorts vs. 1. Thess 5. The
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
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
is an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God But how far In à few simple Truths called fundamentals in others it may err and profess as much falshood as you please against the Verities of Scripture So that the true Church not defined at all is made by these à fair and foul Spouse at once fair in à few vnalterable necessary Truths but foul vgly and deformed because erroneous in à hundred other matters Mark the Paradox and call it à flat Heresy which separat's him who assert's it from the Catholick body Thus it is Christs Church is true and falfe pure and vnpure right and wrong louely and hateful together The Inhabitants of this Citty of God of this Temple and safe dwelling place are in it by belieuing à few simple Truths And at the same time out of it by belieuing more Falsities This is Mr Stillingfleets strange Doctrin who think 's there is no Church now in the world of one Denomination free from Errour To what desperate improbabilities doth Heresy driue men 6. The 4. Principle The receiued Doctrin of Christs Church chiefly in all points of Controuersy is euer as clear and often more clear by what She teaches than it is in any express words of Scripture The Assertion is vndubitable For Church Doctrin clear in the Churches Definitions who see 's not but that the whole Catholick Doctrin of the sacred Trinity of one God and three distinct Persons of the Father improduced the eternal Son begotten and of the Holy Ghost proceeding from both is more plainly deliuered in Church Doctrin than in any sentence or sentences of Holy Writ The like I say of the high Godhead in Christ which the Arians deny Of Original sin reiected by the Pelagians and other Articles of our Christian faith And thus much is euident against Secctaries for do not they make their own Doctrin of their Caen◠Not alwaies so inscripture as Sectaries grant or Sacrament when they call it à Sign à Figure c. more plain than any words are for it in Holy writ And will they not also grant T' is an Argument ad hominem that our Catholick Tenet of this sacred Mystery laid forth in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. is more express and plain Popery than lies couched in Christs own words This is my body Though the Popery is there clear enough to euery Reader Yes most assuredly For if our Doctrin stand as plain in Christs words as in the Churches Definition drawn from thence Sectaries cannot as they do admit of the one and scornfully reiect the other Therefore they must suppose Scripture more dark and obscure than either their own or our Churches Doctrin is And hence it followes that the very Arians were not so much Hereticks vpon the account that they opposed any most clear and express sentence in Holy writ for really it 's hard to find one manifestly express against them as for contradicting plain Church Doctrin or the true sense of Scripture deliuered by this Oracle of truth Their Heresy then proceeded first from some words in Scripture seemingly clear in their behalf as My Father is greater than 1. 2. From no Text so manifest but that still place was left them to Why the Arians were accounted Heretiques Glosse as they haue done and in their Iudgements with some appearrance of truth yet Hereticks they were and so deseruedly accounted of for contradicting the Church's clear Doctrin Be it how you will thus much I am sure of They neuer mangled or misused any passage in holy Writ when contrary to their Heresy more shamfully than our Protestants now mangle and abuse our Sauiours Proposition This is my body 7. By all you see this Principle well grounded Whateuer Clarity Scripture hath chiefly in Matters of controuersy and clarity helps much in the Rule of Faith Gods true Church which cannot but speak the Scriptures sense in euery particular deliuers it most clearly Wherefore S. Austin told Manicheus Tom 6. contra Epist Fundam C. 14. That if hee was to belieue the obscure Mysteries of Christianity Hee would assent to them vpon the weighty Authority of People and Nations celebrated and spread abroad By the consent of all learned and vnlearned which consent implies the vniuersal Agreement of the Catholick Church And to establish this Doctrin more firmly He assures vs. Tract 18. in Ioan That all Heresy which intangles souls and cast's them into Hell S. Austins Iudgement concerning Scripture proceed's from this one misery that Good Scripture is not rightly vnderstood by them Hence also Hee told vs aboue Lib. 1. contra Crescon C. 32. That if any doubt arise concerning the obscurity of Scripture we are to haue recourse to Christs holy Church and receiue from Her satisfaction To which purpose S. Cyprian speaks most piously Lib. de Vnit Ecclesiae illius lacté nutrimur Spiritu eius animamur adulterari non potest sponsa Christi We are nourished by the milk we are animated by the Spirit of this faithful Spouse of Christ which cannot play the Harlot or become an Adulteress 8. The last Principle The Rule of Faith is plain or its own Self-euidence apt of its own nature to conuince the most obstinate Aduersary whether Iew Gentil or Heretick And for this reason must be immediatly credible by it Self and for it self otherwise it must suppose an other distinct Rule yet more plain more euident more conuincing and more immediatly credible And that Rule à third à fourth And so in infinitum which is impossible Again the Obiectiue Rule we Shall now speak of Answer 's to the thing regulated by it which is true certain and Diuine Faith This Rule then must not only be true and certain in it self but also certainly applyed to Belieuers For à certain What the Rule of Faith implies Rule in it self dubiously applyed to an vnderstanding auail's only to leaue all in Suspence and lead's none to any further Acquiescency but to à wauering and vncertain Opinion And this is neither suitable to firm Belief nor to the Rule it self which ought to establish vs in Gods reuealed truths without doubt and hesitancy Grant this Notion of à Rule to be exact and none shall iustly except against it All we haue said aboue of the Scriptures Insufficiency to regulate Faith or to decide controuersies is no less than à Demonstration against Sectaries Whereof see more in the other Treatise Disc 2. per totum Scripture Certainly is not plain in all things necessary to be belieued for were the true sense of it which indeed is only Scripture as plain and indisputably clear for the Arians or Protestants in euery particular controuersy as their Doctrin is plainly deliuered by them Or contrariwise were the sense of it as plain and indisputably clear for the Catholick Doctrin in Matters of debate as the very Doctrin is taught by the Church All Contention would soon cease because either They vpon the Supposition
à People mad nor besotted vpon this Account because As the Primitiue Christians more induced to belieue so are wee They proceeded iust as the Primitiue Christians did that alwaies belieued vpon Rational Motiues These Motiues then first enlightned the reason of the most ancient Christians And reason afterward preuented by grace submitted to all the Church teaches But much more of this hereafter because of greatest Consequence though it seem's Sectaries haue little regard to the Euidence of Christianity Drawn from rational Motiues 11. The. 3. Proposition The Marks of Christs Church manifest to all are more sensible and clear than the essential Doctrin is marked by them They are peculiar to the true Church only and distinguish Her from all Heretical Communities Finally taken all together and not by Piece-meal conuince this truth That God speaks to Christians by this Church Euery part of the Proposition proues it self First à Mark is more clear and sensible than the thing marked by it For who euer had seen our Blessed Sauiour walking here on earth and obserued his holy life whoeuer had heard his sacred words and seen his Miracles would haue said his Sanctity words and Miracles were more clear and euident to all than his Doctrin was of being God and man Therefore the first Christians belieued that great Mystery induced by euident works and wonders 2. These Marks are peculiar and proper to the true Church only You haue the reason hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 8. 1â—3 The force of prudent Motiues Because it is not possible if à true Church be now on earth that God can permit à false Society to equalize it much less to surpass it in the lustre of such Motiues as forcibly perswade to discern between That and all heretical Communities For were this done Falshood would be made as credible to reason as truth And God would be guilty of Arguing less efficaciously in behalf of his own Church against Iewes Gentils and obstinate Hereticks 12. Obserue well the Strength of this Argument I say in à word If an Arian could truly Assert I haue as many forceable Motiues And marks of truth belonging to my followers and Doctrin As the now supposed true Church of Christ can shew for it self could he say with truth I will euidence the like Antiquity the like Perpetuity the like lawful Mission of my Pastors the like vnity in Faith the like conuersions of Heathens wrought in and by my Church The like succession of Bishops preaching my Doctrin from Christs time to this day The like sanctity the like miracles as any Church on earth can demonstrate They distinguish the true Church from false Communities Could an Arian I say or Iew either speak all this with truth no Orthodox Christian could argue the one or other of Falshood in Doctrin For grant thus much These very men might much better handle and interpret Scripture than Protestants do vtterly destitute of all such Marks The Iew if the false supposition stand would draw the old Testament to his sense and so would the Arian the new And who could reproue them could they shew you à Church bearing these signes of diuine Authority Hence Sectaries that only Gloss Scripture and neuer had any thing like an euidenced Church which taught the Doctrin they now maintain and so earnestly Gloss for are most reproueable And vainly attempt to draw any prudent man to à belief of their Nouelties 13. By all you see how important it is to haue à Christian Society clearly marked and distinguished from false Communities with euident Signes and rational Motiues before we recurr to Scripture All faith depends on this greater Euidence laid forth to reason as Shall be demonstrated towards the end of this Discourse 14. I would haue euery one seriously to reflect on what is now said and once more to know That Christs Church like à glorious Sun euidenceth Her selfe by the Lustre of signal Marks though her essential Doctrin belieued by obscure Faith appear's not Euident Find me then out à Church euer in being since Christs time vnited in one Faith glorious in Miracles and conuersions of Heathens wherein Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent haue preached Christs Doctrin age after age Giue me à Church which was neuer censured or taxed of Errour by any Society of known Orthodox Christians She and She only is Christ's true Spouse All other late risen Assemblies are Conuenticles of Satan And these Marks do not only distinguish Her from all One only Church Shewes these Marks such Conuenticles as is now noted but Collectiuely taken conuince this Truth That God speak's to Christians by this Oracle whereof you haue more in the following Chapters 15. In the Interim we must enter vpon à further difficulty and next enquire which among so many Congregations as now are and haue been in the world is the only manifested true Spouse of Christ For all as I said aboue make not one Church vnless Christ hath composed this mystical Body of such members as rightly belieue and of others that iniuriously oppose his sacred Doctrin Now because the chief controuersy is between the Protestant and Catholick The first pretend's to à Church which teaches Christs Doctrin The Catholick vtterly denies the Pretence and pleads for his Own Oracle euidenced by prudent Motiues This I say being the Contest we are in the first place to vnchurch the Protestant and then proue by vndeniable Arguments where and with whom the true Church of Christ is CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church euidenced by Marks of Truth nor true Doctrin made credible to reason His whole Faith is built vpon Fancy 1. THe Marks of the Church as is now said are so clear to reason that they make the Oracle manifest to all sort of people to the learned and vnlearned to Iewes to Infidels and much more to Hereticks who pretend to belieue in Christ All of them are alike concerned and obliged to make à search after the true Church and when t' is found to belieue it 2. Now to find it out I Ask whether our English Protestants with these we chiefly dispute like well of the marks Questions Proposed to Sectaries already hinted at or will reiect them I propose my doubt with all candor Will they dare to say That their Church as it deliuers Protestants Doctrin or as it is now reformed in England was euer since Christ time In Being and visible to the world Can they produce à Succession of Bishops or Pastors that taught Protestancy Age after Age without intermission Can they show what Conuersions these Protestant Pastors wrought vpon Heathens to their faith fiue or six Centuries since Can they produce indubitable Miracles done by such Pastors Most euidently No. Therefore our later Protestants reiect these and the other like Motiues as slight and impertinent to euidence their Church which yet say they teaches Christs Doctrin and Wilily do so because they haue none of them Well To
an Oracle of truth whilst all it teaches now is fallible and may be false 7. Hence I argue What Scripture saith is true Scripture here speaks of à Church founded by Christ of an Ancient Visible An Argument drawn from what is now said Society of Her perpetual Pastors without interruption of à Church conuerting Nations c. Therefore it speak's Truth and points at à sure Oracle marked with the notes we plead for who euer then admit's Scripture must ioyntly own these Marks and Signatures of the true Church But yee Sectaries admit Scripture and haue no such Marked Church with Antiquity continuance of Pastors c. Ergo you are not members of the true Church which must necessarily be found in some other Society of Christians 8. Here by the way we must preuent à triuial Obiection For some less knowing Aduersary may reply Wee destroy our own Ground and now proue the Marks of the Church by Scripture whereas we suppose the Scripture first proued to be of Diuine Inspiration because the Church manifested by her Marks and Motiues saith so 9. I Answer we proue the Marks of the Church and the Form of her essential Doctrin also by Scripture But how Vpon à Supposition that the Book be first proued Diuine by Church Authority Thus much done it is an excellent Principle But not Primum indemonstrabile it s own Self-Euidence Or first indemonstrable Principle This Truth is clear For no man goes about to conuert à Iew by alleging Passages out of the new Testament or to draw à Heathen to Christianity by any thing written either in the old or new Scripture As therefore that Scripture not the first in demonstrable Principle man would not be well in his wits who hopes to conuert à Protestant by meerly alleging the Definitions of the Council of Trent which he slights so he would be as sensles did he hope to conuert à Heathen by Scripture only as much vnderualued by him as the present Definitions of the Church are by Protestants Hence you see how Scripture is à Principle against Sectaries who admit it and reiect an infallible Church By Scripture we Argue and conuince them of errour might the words Thereof bear their proper sense without fancied Glosses Yet if we make à right Analysis it is not the first indemonstrable Principle but Per Modum suppositionis only that is it must be either supposed or proued Diuine 10. I say yet more Though both the Iew and Heathen owned Scripture as it truly is à Book indited by the Holy Ghost Though it were so there yet remains à difficulty not to bee solued yet they haue but made one step as it were towards Christianity For when such men look well about them and find Scripture differently sensed by so many iarring Heads as haue it in their hands by Arians Socinians Quakers Protestants c. Catholicks dissent from them all where can I beseech you these half Christians whether Iewes or Heathens securely rest With whom can they rationally vnite Themselues whose sense must they belieue and own as the vndoubted meaning of the Holy Ghost To doe any thing prudently in so weighty à Matter is impossible Vnless they first come to the knowledge of Christs true Church which as well Ascertain's them of the Scriptures sense in all Controuerted points of Faith as it doth of the Book 's Diuinity Now further It is not possible to know the true sense of Scripture but by the Church it is not possible to know the Church but by her Marks the essential Doctrin Thereof no more mark 's it self as true than Scripture Doctrin denotes its own Diuinity The Sectary therefore that rob's the Church of her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles Conuersions Perpetuity c. is guilty of three hainous crimes at once 11. First he makes the Conuersion of à Iew to Christianity Sectaries make the Conuersion of Iewes impossible most impossible I 'le show you how The Iew Admit's of the old Testament and drawes from euery passage which speak's of Christ and the Church à Sense quite different from that which Christians own The Protestant admit's both the Old and New Scripture And as we may Suppose is at à hot dispute with à Iew concerning Christian Religion First saith the Iew Lay Sir your New Testament aside which is no Principle with me Because it neither euidences it Self immediatly to be Gods word nor can you proue it Diuine vpon any sure ground extrinsecal to the Book Therefore we must Argue by à Principle common to vs both The old Testament only You read There I read also You know the Original language so do I You compare Text with Text I doe the like You Gloss and I Gloss against you Yet after all is done you draw one sense out of this very Scripture and would proue Christ to be the true Messias I draw from thence an other quite Contrary And say He is not My demand is whether Christ The Assertion proued whom you Adore hath prouided men of better means Than your Glosses and mine are whereby we may certainly know what the sense of this Scripture is If he haue done so it can be nothing but à Church manifested by Supernatural Signes and miracles for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthusiasms if the guidance of à Church be wanting we are all left in darkness And know not what Sense to make of Scripture and this ill beseems the Goodnes of à Sauiour who as you say came to enlighten the world and teach all truth which is not done For he leaues Reason in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church is It may well be the Protestant will except against his Aduersaries Glosses but He is soon silenced for Saith the Iew you good man when you treat with Papists interpret Scripture as you please and why may not I proceed so with you And vse the like liberty 12. The second crime committed by the Protestant who depriues the Church of Her external Signes is that he Eclipses that great light of the world which as Origen saith shines to all And make it as Obscure as some Protestants make their Church inuisible before Luther What I say is certain For no man can find the Church by reason when all rational Motiues are What Sectaries are guilty of taken from it And held impertinent to illustrate that great moral Body Hence you see the third sin of Sectaries relating to Scripture This Book also loseth all credit with Christians because it Euidenceth not its own Diuinity nor can any Signalised Church tell vs it is Diuine or certainly declare the true sense thereof to either learned or vnlearned 13. My last argument against the Protestant is no Topick nor bare Probability but à plain Demonstration The Title saith This reformed man has no Christian Doctrin made credible to The last conuincing Argument Reason whilst he belieues as Protestant To proue the Assertion Three
the Iewes also for they neuer had any after our Sauiours Comming T' is Sectaries Iewes and Turks disclaim Miracles true that Pond vpon Probatica Ioan. 5. Or as many will haue it the Pond it self so called because the Sheep ordained to Sacrifice were washed there continued Miraculous whilst Christ our Lord preached But soon after ceased And so do all other wonders amongst that abandoned People The Turks who say God gaue Mahomet the sword and Christ the Power of working Miracles pretend to no such supernatural effects at all No more in Iustice can Heathens or the Donatists lay Claim to any whose wonders were but trifles compared with the Glorious works of Christ and His Church None of them all conuerted whole Nations to Christian Religion none of them raised vp the dead None of them after death wrought any Miracles See Tertullian writing of the Heathens In Apolog C. 22. 23. And S. Austin against the Donatists Homil. 13. in Ioan. De Vtilit Credent C. 16. As also Lib. 10. de Ciuit. C. 16. 13. I say 2. If the Miracles of Christ and the Apostles rationally proued against Iewes and Gentils the Credibility of Apostolical The ancient and modern Miracles compared together Doctrin The very like Signes and supernatural effects most euident in the Roman Catholick Church as rationally proue against Sectaries the Credibility of our now professed Catholick Doctrin I would say Church Miracles constantly wrought in all Ages since Christianity began are no less efficacious to draw Sectaries to the Belief of our Church Doctrin than those the Apostles wrought were to induce Iewes and Gentils to the belief of Apostolical Doctrin Here is one Proof The same Signes and Marks of Truth when equal in Maiesty Worth Quality and Number euer discouer to Reason the same Truth For God can no more deceiue by such works of Grace than by his own Diuine word Interrogemus ipsa Miracula saith S. Austin Tract 24. in Ioan Quid nobis loquantur de Christo. Let vs ask of Miracles what they say of Christ Habent enim si intelligaâ—tur linguam suam They want no tongue to speak with their Language is plain for Christ Iust so Say I and proue it Church Miracles Speak as planly for the Church Wherefore if the Roman Catholick Church most clearly giues in euidence of Her Miracles equal in worth quality and number with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles it followes that as those first Apostolical wonders were sufficient to conuince Iewes and Gentils of the Truth of Christianity So these latter also wrought in the Church are of like force and no less efficacious to conuince Sectaries of what euer Doctrin She teaches Now ponder What the Apostles did the Church doth well what the Apostles did They cured the sick dispossed Diuels raised the Dead conuerted Nations c. But these very Miracles haue been done in the Roman Catholick Church yea and greater too Ergo we haue the like Euidence of Truth in both the primitiue Age and this Consequently with it the same Truth The Euidence hath been partly laid forth already and shall be further proued presently The Sequel is vndeniable 14. I say 3. No otherwise nor vpon any better ground can the Sectary Oppose the Miracles of our Church than Iewes and Gentils haue opposed and yet doe oppose those of Christ and his Apostles Obserue well Will the Sectary Say our Miracles are wrought by the Diuels power So the Iewes Calumniated Christ own Glorious works Will he Say they are only fained by poor deluded or bold-lying Catholicks So the Iewes speak of Christ's own Miracles to this day Will he Say that some Miracles auouched true haue been afterward euidently The like opposition made against Christ's Miracles and the Churches Counterfeit and why may not those the Church glories in be rancked with such Contra. And why may not Christs own wonders be also listed with them The Argument if of any force equally concludes against both For if the Forgery of some proue all forged Christ's own Miracles no more escape the Censure than if one should say t' is S. Austins instance all women are naught because some haue been so Let then the Sectary show vpon good Principles That Church Miracles haue been forged and he speak's to the purpose In the interim he may well think his bold incredulous Humour makes none forged 15. One may reply There is à vast disparity between our Sauiours Miracles registred in Scripture and those we plead for only attested vpon humane Faith I Answer in order to Christians there is à Disparity in the Testimony But that fall's from the purpose now First because Christs Miracles were known and admitted vpon humane Authority before Scripture was written 2. And chiefly because both Iewes and Gentils as much slight our Scripture testifying those wonders as the Miracles themselues And make little account of either 16. But when they read these things in Scripture and moreouer both Iewes and Hereticks conuinced hear what Miracles God hath Constantly wrought in euery age yea almost euery year in his Church and yet continues that fauour to our present dayes When they hear and read of the Miracles which that one sacred house of Loreto Euidences the publick Monuments and Testimonies whereof are vndeniably Authentick and able to conuince the most obdurate Gentile When they read or hear of the continual Miracles done at the Reliques of S. Iames at Compostella in Spain the infinite number of Pelgrims resorting thither from all parts of Christendom besides Records bear witness of those great Benefits When they read or hear of that perpetual Miracle seen in France exhibited to all mens eyes in the Sacred Viall of S. Mary Magdalen wherein the precious Blood gathered by that penitent Saint at our Sauiours Passion is yet perserued and Visibly boyl's vp on the very day he suffered after the reading of the Passion A whole Nation testifies this thousands and thousands haue seen it and Spondanus ad An 1147. Saith he beheld the viole in the Church of S. Maximin 17. When again they hear or read of the vndoubted Miraculous Cures wrought vpon the blind the lame and all sort of diseased Persons by the Intercession of our Blessed Lady at Montaigu By what particular Miracles they are Conuinced English vsually call the place Sichem The euidence whereof is so vndeniable without dispute that Iustus Lipsius in suâ— Aspricolli to the Reader most iustly saith They are not men but rather beasts or purposely shut their eyes that See not those Miracles as clear as the Sun For Saith He many of them haue been manifest to our eyes and senses And Erycius Puteanus speak's as fully the sense of his Predecessor See his Praeface ad Aspricol Hâ—c ista c. These very Miracles which the Mother of God began to work at Montaigu this very Age we liue in are so manifest so many and most stupendious that if any doubt of them
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
few Sectaries Though when they haue it it becomes The Author of Moral certainly wholly vseles to end Controuersies Obserue my reason If these men Dispute with à Iew will they say that Christian Religion taken in what latitude you please is not absolutely infallible but only à little More morally certain than Iudaism Or if they Argue against vs can they be so shameless as to allow Moral certainty to Protestancy and deny it to Catholick Religion They must do so and here is the reason Moral certainty is neuer appliable to two Parts of à Contradiction The One must It is vseles to Sectaries in all Disputes of necessity be made morally Improbable so if all iudge in this Instant that Constantinople is à Citty in being the Contrary iâ— Morally improbable if therefore Sectaries hold Protestancy Morally certain and the Roman Catholick Doctrin not This becomes in their Opinion Morally improbable Dare they say so much with any Countenance If they doe our Dispute begins à fresh we come to the Trial of their Assertion and will show when it pleases them to hear that their high challenge to Moral certainty is far from being probable At least this is Evident That whilst we most rationally except against it it s only an vnproued Supposition and ends no Controuersies 14. To discouer yet more the Vnweightines of this weak An Instance certitude in Matters of Faith Imagin if you please First it is in this present State an impossible Supposition yet giues light to what I would say that the Church had not Proposed at all the abstâ—use Mystery of the Sacred Trinity As it is already significantly Defined Suppose again that twenty learned men but fallible after à perusal of Scripture had endeauored to bring Themselues and others to belieue it viz. The Father of himself Prouing Moral Certainty insufficient Eternal and vnbegotten the Son Coequal and Eternal begotten The holy â—hâ—st Eternal also and proceeding from Father and Son All three Consubstantial one in Essence in Power in Wisdom in Omnipotency only distinguished by their Relatiue Oppositions I say notwithstanding This their Assent would only haue been à weak Opinion not morally certain and though hundreds more had Sided with these Twenty vpon the like Ground none could haue belieued the Trinity with Diuine Faith The reason is Because whilst men meerly fallible and as fallible Propose an incomprehensible Mystery far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding The Proposal relying vpon à deceiuable Or an vnassisted Power cannot bring Faith to it's own Obiect Gods infallible veracity The Resolution of this supposed Faith clear's all For Ask why They belieue the Trinity It is Answered they verily think and perswade Themselues that the Mystery lies couched in Holy Writ But Ask again whether that Thought or Perswasion be not fallible they Answer affirmitiuely Ergo Say I their Faith which cannot goe beyond the strength of that weak Proposition is also fallible and consequently not Diuine 15. Here you see first the absolute Necessity of an infallible Proponent in Points of Faith which Sectaries haue not And therefore can belieue nothing Diuinely And truly Catholicks would be in as bad à Condition yea really no Catholicks An Infallible proponent necessary could the Church only guess at these high Mysteries could She propose them vpon à humane errable Authority only Or in à word Define Fallibly You see 2. Vpon what ground the â—aith of à Catholick is infallible For being demanded why He belieues this or any other Mystery his Answer is God reueal's them Questioned again who giues him so much Assurance A satisfactory Reply is at hand He belieues so because an Assisted Church which cannot Err Proposes all Her Mysteries infallibly Take away Diuine Assistance She is errable and may deceiue euery one She teaches 16. One may here demand whether the Protestants Belief of the Trinity or of any other high Mystery growes vp to so much Certainty with them as is Moral Answ 1. It import's little whether it do or no So long as their Faith is meerly fallible I Answer 2. If we Speak rigorously Their Belief is not Sectaries haue no faith morally certain morally certain Here is my reason Their own Diuining in so abstruse à Matter cannot raise the Assent so high And if they would borrow as it were Certainty from the Catholick Church and Apply that to Themselues They know well this Oracle Ownes no other Certainty in the Belief of reuealed Truths but what is infallible and cannot be False 17. By what is said already we easily Solue à common Obiection Moral certainty seems often equiualent yea wholly as Satisfactory An Obiection to reason as that is we call Physical For one that neuer saw Constantinople can no more Question the Being of such à Citty than doubt of the sun's shining at Noon day Answ All is most true but nothing to the purpose For that certainty Therefore equalizes physical because Originally grounded vpon à sensible visible Euidence it is taken from innumerable Witnesses Moral Certainty grounded on Sensible Euidence giues not Faith any Assurance who haue seen the place This makes the common Report indubitable and conueyes vnto vs à certainty as firm as if we saw Constantinople with our Eyes But the Mysteries of Faith lie as is now noted in à higher Region and are neither proposed nor conueyed to vs by the help of any visible or sensible Euidence And were they in some low degree morally certain vpon humane Reports that would neither match nor be so strong as natural Euidence is Wherefore God interposes his own Assistance and raises the Proposition of these Mysteries and our Belief of them to à yet higher Degree of certitude far aboue either Moral or Physical For whether we consider them as Truths reuealed by an infinit Verity or proposed by the Church Diuinely Assisâ—ed They stand firm vpon infallible Principles And thus we haue their Truth indubitably conueyed And the Conueyance you se admits of nothing but Infallibility I say the Truth For without doubt there is à strong visible and sensible Euidence in the Marks and Motiues which Denote Christs Church and make Her Doctrin in the highest manner indubitably Credible But hereof you shall hear more partly in the Obiections But most amply in the third Discourse 18. To end this point concerning Moral Certainty I Ask Moral Certainty in Faith à most frigid Plea And why and for Answer appeal to the Iudgement of euery rational man what cold comfort would it haue been to the Primitiue Christians had the Nicene Fathers after à resolute Definition issued forth whereby the Consubstantiallity of the Diuine Word was Asserred and à Peremptory Anathema Pronounced against all that belieued it not Declared themselues and Sense in this frigid manner It is so indeed Defined But we only mean thus much That the Doctrin is morally certain and may be false Would not Arius think ye haue slighted
read and ponder Scripture but if you moue à further Question concerning the Sense of what he reads he returns you his own fancy as the best light he has and makes that his Iudge This and no other is the Protestants Principle and the chief if not the only support of all Heresy in the world 17. I Argue 2. And hold it à Demonstration To make Religion à Scepticism eternally debatable without hope of attaining truth at last is wholly as ridiculous as if two men should goe to law meerly to wrangle hopeles of euer hauing their cause determined But this Protestant Principle VVe read Pray and ponder makes Religion à meer Scepticism without hope of euer knowing it or hauing truth finally decided Semper discentes they Another Conuincing Argument are alwaies learning but neuer well taught Ergo it is more than ridiculous 18. To proue the Minor let vs first suppose that either we Catholicks or Protestants teach and profess true Religion both certainly do not for we hold Contradictions Suppose 2. This falsity which our Aduersaries will haue supposed Viz. That the Roman Catholick Church after all Her reading and perusing Scripture is as fallible in all She teaches as Protestants confessedly are in what they deliuer after their reading Both teach as they doe contrary Doctrin Yea and fallible Doctrin yet both tell you they teach true Doctrin Say I beseech you what man in his wits To teach Contrary Doctrin and true Doctrin can belieue Either vpon their bare Assertions chiefly if we Suppose them of equal Authority when he find's the Result of their reading and perusing Scripture to end in nothing but in open Contradictions and sees plainly that the opposit Doctrin of the One Church so much abates the Credit of the other teaching contrary that in real truth both become Contemptible And hence I Said that which we call Christian Religion would iustly deserue Scorn if no Church teach it infallibly But is impossible here is not all To discouer more the gross errour of Sectaries in this particular 19. We are yet to Demand vpon whom this iarring Doctrin of the two dissenting Churches now supposed Fallible is to be laid Or whence it proceeds Can it come from Gods special A Doctrin taught fallibly Assistance think ye It is impossible Because God teaches no contradictions Nay if we consider it as contradictory no Spirit of truth can teach it Therefore we must part the Doctrins and Ascribe to each Church its own particular Opinion And then were that possible Examin which is true 20. But here lies the Misery I say boldly There neither is nor can be any appearance of certain reuealed truth in either Proceed's not from God Church not only because all Principles fail whereby to discern à certain Christian truth from Errour but most vpon this ground That we must now remoue the fallible taught Doctrins of both these Churches from Gods Infallible Verity and his Special assistance also and make them lean vpon mans weak and shallow vnderstanding We haue no other Principle to rest on if once infallible Assistance be excluded But it is manifest mans shallow But relies vpon mans weak Vnderstanding capacity communicat's no Certainty to Any concerning the high Mysteries of Faith remoued from their Center The first infallible Verity Therefore all we can learn from such Teachers is no more but doubtful Doctrin at most or if it reach to an Opinion meanly probable there is all Yet you haue often No ground less then infallible Supports true Religion heard and it is à Truth that no Principle less then one which is infallible Can vphold our Christian Doctrin Wherefore an vtter ruin of true Religion ineuitably followes vpon this Ground As Duine Doctrin infallibly taught begets infallible Faith So if taught doubtfully it begets only à doubtful Assent which is no Faith at all Now were these Doctrins respectiuely to each Church probable as I think neither would be if the Supposition of their fallibillty stand's we are only brought to the old Scepticism again and may dispute of Religion as we doe of Probabilities in Schools and so if men please They may as often change Religion as they change Opinions or apparel 21. Some perhaps will reply Protestants can certainly Say more for themselues then only to tell you They read Scripture and compare the Passages of it together by the light of their own weak reasons Could so much indeed make them accomplished Sectaries can pretend to no other Principle Doctors able to lay forth Gods eternal truths it would seem strange mighty bare and dissatisfactory to Reason Answ Here is all you haue from them For they neither do nor can pretend to more Wherefore I challenge them again and again to Say plainly what other Principle can be relyed on not wholly as doubtful and as much controuerted as their very Religion is when they either teach or interpret Scripture contrary to But to their own Comparing Scripture the Roman Catholick Church Obserue their Procedure If à contest arises betwixt them and condemned Hereticks The Arians for example All ends in à meer throwing Texts at one another And the sense must be iust so as each Party conceiues And do they not follow the same strain in euery Controuersy with Catholicks One Instance will giue you sufficient light and may well serue for all 22. They Protestants I mean read those words of our Sauiour This is my Body So do Catholicks also They compare Text with Text and Sense all as they please Catholicks as wise and learned compare also yet hold contrary Doctrin and discouer no little fraud in these new mens Deductions and Criticisms Say now plainly Who is He that acts the Sectaries seek to quarrel but to End nothing Sceptick's part Who is He that would endlesly quarrel about the Sense of Gods word Is it the Catholick No certainly He is willing to haue the cause vltimately decided He Petitions to haue these endles strifes remitted to the censure of one Supreme Iudge to à Church which manifesteth it self by euident glorious Miracles neuer yet censured by any Christians but known Hereticks and which finally has taught the world euer since Christ left it Dare Sectaries do thus much Dare they appeal to any Orthodox Church by whose iust Sentence these debates may haue an End No. They recoyle and without listening to any Iudge but Them selues would stil continue these Debates Therefore they are the Sceptists And to proue this giue me leaue to propose one Question to the Protestant He is the man we now treat A Conuincing Proof of our Assertion with Has he any Church so free from Censure of so long Continuance so glorious in Miracles as the Roman Catholick is Has He any Council as generally receiued the whole world ouer as either the Lateran or Florentine which euer interpreted Christs words or Sensed them as he doth Most euidently no. Therefore
principio In the beginning What is that Word saith another which was with God or how was it with God Was it One real thing Essential to him or meerly à breath à Word terminated vpon creatures without which nothing was made All know though the Arians had à Church to teach yet with that sure Rule of faith they mangled and misvsed this very passage of the Gospel Therefore difficulties much more would molest these Philosophers hauing no Oracle to interpret And as many would arise concerning other Scriptures relating to the sacred Trinity Original Sin and the like Mysteries 9. Now here is my reflection and I think euery Intelligent An application made to Sectaries person will speak as I doe Iust so much as these Philosophers haue to gloss with and descant vpon So much Sectaries may challenge but no more if we seuer Scripture from the Churches Interpretation Both haue à Body without life words without sense difficulties proposable concerning their reading but none to Answer them 10. The only difference between them is That the Philosophers yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no Schoole to go to Sectaries haue both yet run as it were from Schoole with half à Lesson with one part and t' is The difference between them and the Philophers much the obscurer part of Diuine Learning only the bare Texts I mean of holy Scripture shutting out the Churches infallible Sense And what haue you in lieu of this light which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Christians The weak and errable Sentiments of a few disvnited Sectaries And is this all we can rely on Do we belieue the Trinity the Incarnation and other high Mysteries so obscurely expressed in Gods word that innumerable haue mistaken the true Sense because à Luther à Caluin or their followers expound Whether Luthers followers or an Ancient Church is to teach it Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches Interpretation which has euer taught the world The One or Other must haue influence vpon Faith if we will belieue But most manifestly the first men only of yesterday and fallible are not our Doctors Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Ascertains vs of the Scriptures Sense of its Truth and infallible Doctrin also 11. Two things necessarily follow from this Discourse The one That Protestants Shew themselues strangely vngrateful because Sectaries manifestly vngrateful And why they slight an Oracle which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Christian Faith for in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scripture vpholds that true Assent they yeild to the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity So much is granted Or not Grant it I Ask. Why disdain they to hear this Church in other matters If you deny Their Submission to this and the like Mysteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible dissatisfactory thoughts and glosses Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitiue Churches interpretation and ground their Assent vpon Her Doctrin Nothing is got this way For the most Primitiue Recourse to the Primitiue Church friuolous exposition of Scripture was no more infallible than what the latter Church or Councils haue Defined But enough is said aboue of this Chasing all Controuersies vp to the Primitiue Ages 12. The second Inference is If God has not made Religion à matter of eternal Debate If all are obliged to belieue by diuine Faith the very truths yea the same infallible truths which God has reuealed and no other of à lower or slighter Rank If he has reuealed them for this end that all may be Ascertain'd A second Inference of their intrinsecal Worth That is of being both Diuine and infallible If the whole Christian world remain's not at this day in Errour or is not cast vpon vncertainties what to belieue If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed Doctrin stand's and subsist's firmly ioyned together in God the first Verity impossible to be separated there And if Finally as T' is there true and infallible all are obliged to learn it Nothing can be more manifest then that diuine Prouidence has established and impowred Some Oracle to teach and propose that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and Nâ—tion as it is both true and infallible 13. Thus much Supposed and proued All further Questions The Oracle teaching truth cannot be questioned concerning the Oracle ceases For it neither is nor can be another but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to interpret Scripture faithfully to rescue Gods truths from the lewd misusage of Hereticks Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abuse Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches our Faith is sound Catholick and Apostolical But if Scripture by reason of its Obscurity deceiues any or the Church could deuiate from the sincere interpretation of Gods truths there registred The Very life of true Religion is lost Faith vanishes into errour 14. Who euer seriously Consider's what is already said in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets scattered Mr Stillingfleets Obiections weightles Obiections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils vtterly void of strength Some worthy person of our Nation who he is I know not in his Guide of Controuersies Disc 3. has so broken and vanquished the little force they haue that I may well supersede all further labour herein There is not one Obiection proposed but T' is either first euidently retorted vpon Mr Stillingfleet Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Question Or 3. Impugn's all Councils Or 4. Appears so slight at the very first view that it deserues no Answer What can be more slight then to tell vs as he doth P. 508. That we He Speak's not truth are absolutely auerse from free Councils because we condemn all other Bishops but those of our Church without suffering them to plead for themselues in any Indifferent Council It is hard to say what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent Councils for he fetters all with so many Conditions that neuer any was yet found in the Church so qualified as he would haue it Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter as also P. 557. You will se what I assert Manifest It is true we condemn A Calumny for à Proof all heteredox Bishops and doth not Mr Stillingsleet recriminate and condemn ours But to say we suffer none to plead for Themselues in à free Council is à flat Calumny vnless that only be free which some bodies fancy makes free and no other A word now to one or two Obiections 15. If you saith Mr Stillingsleet require an Assent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible There must be an antecedent Assent to this Proposition That whatsoeuer Councils decree is infallible I first retort the Argument If you require an Assent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting Or hold That the conuened there deliuered true Doctrin There must be an The first Argument retorted
antecedent Assent to this Proposition That what soeuer those Dort-men taught is true Doctrin before you own it as true Ascertain vs of thus much And you solue your own difficulty If this Instance please not make vse of another Your Ministers in England pretend to teach true Doctrin though not infallibly Say only vpon what antecedent Proposition the Truth of their Doctrin is assented to by all before it be belieued as true and we shall without labour Answer in behalf of our infallible Doctrin 16. In à word thus Catholicks plead This generall Proposition is to be assented to as both true and infallible Viz. All And clearly solued are obliged to Hear and Belieue the Pastors of God's Church when Lawsully Commissioned to teach in God's name and as the Orthodox Church teaches Here is the Thesis or the vniuersal receiued Proposition But these Pastors and Doctors when assembled in Council are still Pastors of the Church and lawfully commissioned to teach in God's name both true and infallible Doctrin Therefore they are to be heard and belieued in all and euery Definition proceeding from that Assembly lawfully conuened Here you haue the Hypothâ—sis as indubitably certain as the Thesis 17. A second Obiection you meet with in his Page 509. Another Obiection retorted and Solued What infallible Testimony haue you he means Catholicks for this that Councils are Infallible It is not enough for you to say That the Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it For that were to make the Scripture the sole Iudge of this great Controuersy which you deny to be the sole Iudge of any I first retort the Argument and Ask. What Testimony haue you Sectaries I do not say Infallible But so much as seemingly probable taken from Scripture whereby Councils the greatest Representatiues in God's Church are made fallible Not one can be alleged 18. Now my Answer briefly is Scripture once admitted for God's word which our Aduersaries will not reflect on manifestly The Catholick Principles for Infallibility conuinceth the Churches infallibility To those express and significant Passages of holy Writ known to euery one The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth you haue them already We add the iudgement of Fathers cited aboue The guide of Controuersies C. 3. P. 147. Produces more Besides Gods Church which we hold an Infallible Oracle interpret's Scripture to this sense and here are our aboundantly full Principles for Her Infallibility Come you Sr now closely to the point confront vs if you can with as many Passages of Scripture as many Testimonies of Fathers Or and this we alwayes vrge with the Authority of any Orthodox Church which fauours your contrary Tenet of Fallibility The Strife is ended But hereof there is no fear at all And thus you se how Scripture is the Iudge Sectaries haue none for their Tenet when once admitted as Diuine and faithfully interpreted not otherwise 19. A. 3. Obiection Page 509. The Decree or Definition of à Council receiues Infallibility from the Council before the A third weak obiection retorted Pope confirm's it or not If not The whole infallibility resides in the Pope and this some Say is not de Fide vniuersali If it arise from the Council before the Pope confirm's it for that act of confirmation followes the Definition the Council is infallible antecedently to the Popes Confirmation I first retort the Argument An Act of Parlament or à law made for all receiues its force from the Conuened Members before his Maiesty Confirm's it or not If not The whole Power of making such à Law resides in His Maiesty which some will say is not so If it arise ftom the Parlament before His Maiesty Confirm's it and that Confirmation followes the Act The Parlament is impowr'd to make such Lawes before His Royal. Assent Confirm's them Here is the very same Form of arguing though in à different matter and you se the weaknes of it 20. The true Answer to the Obiection is as followes Euery Doctrin definable may be considered two wayes first as it Proceed's from God the most supreme Verity and vnder that Notion it is both true and infallible in it self before the pope and Council Define it And note they can Define no other Doctrin And solued on earth but what God ratifies in Heauen 2. It may be considered as the Doctrin of the Representatiue Church infallibly Assisted to teach Diuine truths And vnder that Notion it is called Church Doctrin proceeding from the Head and Members of one mystical Body The Head therefore Separated or solely taken Defines not in Councils The Members diuided from the Head define not But one and the same Definition proceed's ioyntly from both Head and members vnited together The Instance already hinted at giues light enough If any reply The Definition when the Council proposed it was both true and infallible Doctrin I distinguish the Proposition It might be then Certain Euery Doctrin true in it selfe is not therefore Church Doctrin and infallible Doctrin in it self that 's true but as yet it is neither known or owned as such or called Church Doctrin It was then the whole Councils or Churches true and infallible Doctrin I deny it This is founded vpon both Pope and Council infallibly assisted as is now supposed and already proued 21. I find no more in Mr Stillingfleet worth any notice That which followes in his Page 510. ouerthrowes all councils Other Obiections waued as impertinent or proues nothing What certainty haue you Saith he that this or that Council proceeded lawfully That the Bishops were lawful Bishops That the Pope who confirm's them was à lawful Pope That some By-ends or Interest swayed not many That all conditions were exactly performed c. I Answer first and Ask. What certainty haue you of any illegal Bishops of vnlawful Popes of Interest Swaying all Here because you accuse we put you to the Proof I Answer 2. That Certainty which you or any has of no By ends in the four first general Councils of their lawful Bishops of no interest swayng c. The same we haue of all the approued Councils in Gods Church To insist further vpon such saint Obiections is only to lose time or might one retaliate in Mr Stillingfleets own language meerly to kill flies to run after them and make sport with them And thus much of the Churches Infallibility I mean the Roman Apostolical Catholick Church to whose Censure and infallible Iudgement I do most willingly submit my Selfe and euery particular in this Treatise THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith THe subiect here hinted at is as all Shollers know very Speculatiue Terms according to my little Skill in the English Tongue often Fail to express what is necessary Wonder not therefore if now and then you meet with that which may seem Obscure to à Vulgar Reader My Endeauour Shall be to giue the Discourse so much Light as
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
in matters most Fundamental other Rules and means must be vsed The Original Languages are to be examined seueral Passages compared together daily Reading and pondering the different places with much Prayer also seem What Sectaries acknowledge necessary What is this to Say but that their reading pondering and comparing are in order to them means and Rules more immediatly known then the hidden Sense of Scripture Herein then lies the difference that we in Lieu of their fallible reading recurr to an Infallible Church and Say her Testimony is more perspicuous easy and clear to vs than the dark Verities in Scripture are to them after all their pondering and comparing CHAP. XII The last Obiection Proposed VVhether the Churches Testimony may be called the Formal Obiect of Faith Other Notes and Considerations Concerning The Resolution of Faith 1. A 6 th Obiection If God whereof no man doubt's once said in Scripture The Word was made flesh its needless to speak the same Truth again by the Church Nay this God has spoken the Same Verity by different Oracles seem's impossible vnless the Churches Testimony be properly the Formal Obiect of Faith Answ The first part of the Obiection contains no difficulty for it is certain God has spoken the same Verities by distinct and different Oracles by different Euangelists for example And why cannot he as well speak them again by an Euangelist and the Church If the Church be absolutely infallible for the Diuersity of the Organs or Oracles He speak's by diuersifies not at all his Sacred word 2. Now to what is hinted at concerning the formal Obiect A question proposed I Ask whether this Assertion in Catholick Principles be not de Fide and reuealed by Almighty God Euery Doctrin proposed by the Church is true The Catholick Answer 's affirmatiuely And here is one Verity as an Instance for many The Church is infallible or cannot err I Ask again whether this very Proposition made by the Church may not be belieued vpon Her own Authority What somâ— Diuines answer by an Act of Diuine Faith Some Diuines Answer negatiuely and Discourse thus The Assent giuen to the Authority or Proposition of the Church is not Faith but rather an extrinsecal disposition to Faith So that by one Assent we first Say The Churches Proposition is infallible and afterward by à true Act of Faith belieue the Truth proposed by Her vpon God's pure Reuelation contained in Scripture or vpon Apostolical Tradition 3. Though this Discourse which defend's the Churches absolute Infallibility giues no aduantage to Sectaries yet it seem's Their Answer Seem's difficult difficult for two reasons chiefly First if à firm and infallible Iudgement terminated vpon the Churches neuer erring Proposition which fully declares Christ real Presence in the Eucharist for example Precedes the true belief of that Mystery grounded on Scripture or Apostolical Tradition That very faith as grounded on Scripture would be à necessary obscure act generated by the Discourse or ineuitably inferred from the Connexion between the Churches infallible Proposition not assented to by Faith and the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture The Inference is clear For the Church Saies infallibly Christ is really present And I Assent to that Truth but by no Act of Faith say these Yet from thence I euidently inferr That He is really present and this is done before I belieue the Verity by Supernatural Faith I think this cannot What is necessarily inferred vpon that Iudgement be granted Some Answer that preuious Iudgement is only à condition disposing to belieue and not the Cause or Motiue why I belieue Contra. Call it cause call it condition or what you please by virtue of that Iudgement I Assent to the truth of the Mystery in it selfe and from thence must necessarily infer that God has reuealed it before I belieue it by supernatural Faith And this is to Discourse not from the formal Obiect of Faith to the material which may be probably defended but from one Principle purely extrinsecal to Faith viz. The Churches Proposition obscurely known to the Diuine Testimony and the matter reuealed 4. A second Reason God truely speak's by the Church which is as well known by its own lustre and Miracles to be à Diuine Oracle as euer Prophet or Apostle were known to be so The Church immediatly Credible by their Signatures and Miracles No Disparity can be giuen But these Prophets and Apostles were made by their Marks and Wonders immediately Credible therefore the Church hold 's Parallel and is also by it Selfe and for it Selfe immediatly credible And hence it followes That the Churches Infallibility may and must in à General way be belieued before we come to an infallible Belief of Scripture For to Say I must first belieue by true Faith the Churches Infallibility vpon Scripture And to Say again I cannot first belieue that very Scripture to be Diuine This way of belieuing implâ—x and intricate or to speak truth But vpon the Churches Testimony seem's if not impossible at least à very implex intricate and à difficult way of Belieuing I say first belieue For none in this present state can know the Scriptures Diuinity without Church Authority 5. For these and many other Reasons I Conclude that this Proposition made by the Church She is an Oracle teaching all The Church can ground an act of Diuine Faith truth whereby men may attain Saluation is à sufficient Motiue to ground an Act of Diuine Faith vpon The learned Suarez to omit many other Diuines Disp 9. de Fidâ— Sect. 9. n. 14. Speak's most profoundly and pertinently to my purpose Ipsa Ecclesia seipsam proponit vt veram quia c. The Church proposes Herselfe as true and because she is sufficiently and euidently proposed therefore she obliges all to belieue such à Verity no less then other things appertaining Diuines teach So. to Faith Iust after that manner as à true Prophet who sufficiently proposes truths reuealed to him by God Consequently Sufficiently proposes himselfe to be à true Prophet Moreouer Disp 3. de Fide Sect. 11. n. 11. Quod Ecclesia definit Deus per Ecclesiam testificatur VVhat the Church Defines God testifies the same Verity by the Church Scripture accord's Scripture is Consonant where the Church is called the Pillar and ground of truth The Fathers accord so vniuersally that à Volume would not set forth their expressions Take only these two in place of many S. Cyril in Conc. Ephes Tom. 1. de Nicaenis Ancient Fathers Speak most significently Patribus They the Fathers there were inspired by the Holy Ghost â—ot to recede from Truth Non enim iâ—si loquebantur c. For they spake â—â—t but Christ our Sauiour witnessing â—t was the Spirit of God and the Eternal Father that spaâ—e in them S. Greg. Lib. 1. Regist Epist 24 Is yet more significant where he professes no less Reuerence to the four General Councils then to the four
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
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
Se more hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 5. n. 12. 13. 26. By all hitherto Said you se How the Priuate Reason Particular Controuersies examined by this and that particular Authority not easily ended of this or that Man may more easily swerue or lose the right way of Arguing when à Dispute is held vpon particular Controuersies then when it s brought to the Censure and easy Tryal of an euidenced Church This Oracle Speak's clearly Whereas if the debate be of particular Points examined by Scripture or Authority We find by experience that two Aduersaries seldom or neuer agree vpon the Sense of those very Authorities they would haue Matters decided by 27. You se 2. The Summ of all handled in this Chapter The summ of all hitherto handled to be as followes The Catholick hold's his Faith infallible which essentially relies vpon à Reuelation Diuine and Infallible Now because God proposes not by Himselfe or immediatly His own sacred Doctrin to Euery faithful Belieuer in particular He hath established à Church and made Her an Oracle briefly hinted at to speak in His name She comes as it were between God and Belieuers And conueyes vnto vs the true Diuine Doctrin of the first reuealing Verity Now because She is an Oracle immediatly Credible by supernatural Signs which an Infinite Power and Wisdom Demonstrates We Iustly call Her the Infallible Rule Though Scripture faithfully interpreted be our Rule also but not so immediatly Credible The Church once discouered by the Euidence of an Assent grounded on conuincing Motiues Regulates Faith plain Reason preuiously resting vpon those Motiues tell 's vs God speak's by Her Here we rest by this Rule we are guided 28. Hence you se 3. Whoeuer depriues the Church of her Lustre and Signal Wonders manifest to Reason makes her Doctrin and the very Scriptures also not worthy Beliefe Ill ' Consequences follow the Denial of Church Motiues dead 's Faith Eclipses Gods reuealed Truths and doth the vtmost to bring in Atheism In à word He makes Christian Religion vnreasonable which is vtterly to Destroy it what I say seem's manifest For Suppose we had had no Miracles since the Apostles times no Succession of Commissioned Pastors no further Conuersions of Nations No more eminent Sanctity in this great Moral Body after that first Age No Martyrdoms no Generous contempt of the world Who I beseech you would or Could haue certainly belieued either the Sacred Trinity or the great Mystery of the Word Incarnate vpon the bare report of à few fallible vncommissioned Men or woemen that might Perhaps haue Spoken and Perhaps not of these and other sublime Mysteries but without The world not with standing most glorious Motiues Shewn is much incredulous rational Motiues Appeal now boldly to the Tribunal of Reason and Ask whether such à Doctrin appears not to all Prudent men more than improbable Whilst experience teaches that à great Part of the world both now and in former Ages also though the Church euer shewed Her Selfe the only glorious euidenced Oracle remain's notwithstanding in à State of Incredulity What then would so many Nations haue done without them would haue not belieued any thing How cold would Their Faith haue been Who would haue belieued had all the After-Motiues of Faith perished and nothing been heard of but high Mysteries mentioned without supernatural Signs Confirming the Doctrin In à word without all Euidence of Credibility Hence 29. You Se. 4. The hideous sin of Sectaries who do not only rob the Church of her Glorious Marks manifed to Reason and so make Her Doctrin and whateuer Scripture teaches The sin of Sectaries incredible But to ruin all They will haue the Mysteries of our Faith talk't of but not one Taught Infallibly And thereby destroy Faith it Selfe Thus Reason and Religion go to wrack at once 30. You Se. 5. It is impossible without subuerting Christianity to Seperate the euidence of Credibility grounded on Conuincing Motiues from true Christian Religion Wherefore Euidence of Credibility not Separable from true Religion I conclude That as God has euer hitherto assisted the Orthodox Church to Teach Truth So also he has and will preserue in Her the euidence of Credibility whereby all Rational men may find truth And indubitably Assert This and no other is the only Society of Christians which teaches God's reuealed Verities and can best inform vs of euery Doctrin the Church taught in foregoing Ages CHAP. XVII A Digression Concerning Doctor Stillingfleets Discourse VVhere he treat's of the Protestants Faith reduced to Principles He is all à long quite besides the matter handled and Sayes no more for Protestancy than for Arianism or any other Heresy 1. KNow Courteous Reader that when this Treatise The Occasion of writing this Chapter was vnder the Press and towards an end there came now very lately to my hands A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome A stale worn-out Cauil by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Doctor as I interpret of Diuinity though in his Account he was only B. D. and therefore hitherto named by me plain Mr Stillingfleet The fault if any is easily amended He shall haue his due hereafter and be called Doctor In this Discourse which very candidly I haue not read nor I belieue euer shall For the matter appear's very triuial and look's like à Rapsodie I find towards The Doctors quick Dispatch the end of it à Flurt and no more at à Book Intituled Protestants without Principles I know Saith he no other Answer Like one Loath to engage necessary not only to this present demand but to à Book called Protestants without Principles the falsity of which will appear by what followes 2. You may well imagin I hasten'd to this What Followes And saw in the next Page Six Principles agreed on by â—oth Sides 1. That there is à God from whom Man and all other Creatures had their Being 2. That the Notion of God doth imply that he is à Being absolutely perfect 3. That man receiuing his Six Principles remote from Protestancy Being from God is thereby bound to obey his will and so on to the Sixt which Methought seem'd as remote from Principling the Protestants Faith as if he had told vs. Adam was tempted by Eue. 3. The next Leaf turned ouer I found this Title Contrary to Protestancy without Principles The Faith of Protestants reduced to Principles with this Addition These things viz. The six Principles being agreed on both Sides we are now to inquire into the particular wayes which God has made choise of for reuealing his will to Mankind He should also haue said And Coâ—cerning the Faith of Protestants here lies the main Business if mankind be concerned in it but this is waued 4. Nay more is waued whereon all depend's Obserue I A promising Title But the main matter is waued beseech you We haue here à fair Title The Protestants faith reduced
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
the Moral Body of Christians and Consequently that Opposition was à thing as notoriously known as loudly noised some Centuries since as it is Notoriously known and noised that our Sectaries haue now espied those false Doctrins VVe vrge them to bring to light that publick known Opposition of their Imagined Church against the Roman Catholick Society fancied à Changling And what haue we Deep silence from some and from such as dare speak false Suppositions for Proofs vnworthy Calumnies for an Answer Please to se this Argument fully handled Disc 2. C. 6. Time was the world knowes well when our Aduersaries auouched they could prove their Protestancy and refute our Catholick Doctrin by plain and express-Scripture we come to the true Trial in this Treatise and in lieu of God's word find their Books full fraught with meer far-fetcht Glosses Not one Passage I boldly assert and put Sectaries to the Proof fauours this Protestancy as it is distinguished from Popery and the known Heresies of former Ages Now that nothing from Scripture can be alleged Contrary to our Catholick Doctrin is manifest vpon this one Principle which none shall overthrow VVhat Scripture faithfully interpreted teaches in these weighty matters of Religion some Orthodox Church delivered in foregoing Ages For example If Scripture deny Adoration to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament or Transubstantiation an Orthodox Church which cannot clash with the verities of God's word in some Age or other maintained these Protestant Tenets and published them to Christians But no Orthodox Church euer sided with Sectaries or taught such Doctrins Therefore their pretence to Scripture against our Catholick Tenets is friuolous and implies no more but à false supposition for à Proof And this strain of turning bare Suppositions into proofs which never go beyond the strength of their own vnproued Assertions so vniuersally trancends all their Polemicks that I stand astonished to se men who will be accounted learned wholly busied in doing Nothing Reflect I beseech you à little They haue been told and I remind them of it again in this Treatise that whoeuer makes the Roman Church Idolatrous or Erroneous must hold the supposed Idolatry and errour so remediles an Euil that none on earth can redress either because all the Proofs or Principles whereby the Reformation should be made will euidently appear less ponderous to Euince this Church guilty of errour then Her sole Authority is to perswade the Contrary viz. That she neuer erred VVherefore Sectaries Confessedly fallible men desperatly adventure to reform vs and cannot but spoile all they go about to mend whilst they Euidence not whilst they plead not by the Authority of an Antient Orthodox Church which taught that very Protestancy they teach now and decryed these Supposed Popish errours as loudly as they decry them But to do thus much is impossible as manifestly appears by their own writings For tell me I beseech you whoever yet heard Protestant in all those weak skirmishes made against Catholick Religion Say plainly and prove it Such à Church reputed Orthodox fiue or Six Ages since taught as we teach sensed Scriptures as we sense them Christians then vniuersally belieued no Real Presence No sacrifice of the Masse c. Has euer Protestant I say gon thus groundedly to work No Most euidently No. I shall highly extoll the man that will dare to proceed so ingenuously but find none engaged in this right way of Arguing It s true some who leap over the heads of all their more Immediate Ancestors between Luther and the three or four first Centuries tell vs those Primitiue Christians were good Protestants like them Ill luck Say I that Protestancy had not to be intailed vpon some Successors in following Ages for most certainly since those dayes the world neuer saw Protestant before Luther In à word the Assertion is à loud vntruth an vnworthy begging of Question and besides implies à fancied supposition for à Proof To show this we reduce these ranging Spirits to a lesser compass and oblige them to name but one Protestant neerer their shameful Reuolt from our Catholick Society Here they stand grauelled as mute as fishes and are highly angry because we touch them where they are most weak This want of à Church to ground Protestancy vpon makes their Polemicks to be as they appear rambling faint shallow and so dissatisfactory that great patience is requisite to peruse them VVonder nothing they can do no better Rebells they are against an antient Church and their handling Controuersies may well be compared with the proceeding of Rebells in à Common wealth who curiously mark and diligently attend to what euer may seem welcome to your ignorant seduced and disgusted Multitudes That be it what you will is fomented that 's laid forth and inculcated It is no newes to tell you that our Ministers in England now for à long time haue had à number of seduced People bread in their own rebellious bosomes and brought vp in à spirit of Schism who God knowes haue heard little but of the Idolatry of the Superstitions and wickednes of some Professed Catholicks O say these Incendiaries we will nourish this Popular humour with food suitable to its palate we will write Books of this Popish Idolatry we haue tongues and can poyson with delight we will lay forth in folio what we conceiue of the Roman Superstitiâ—ns and the wickednes of Popes VVe know well to Cauil and how to ensnare the vulgar on vvhom we depend when our Cauils are once out though neither reducible to Principles nor subiect to the Censure of any Iudge for we own none let them shift for themselves Our only care is to talk on though we prove nothing And chiefly to be vvary in one particular It is never to mention any thing of à Church which taught Protestancy before Luther meddle vvith that Mischiuous difficulty vve are vndon for really vve have no such Church This in à word and much vvorse is Protestancy as is amply declared in the following Treatise vvhere you also haue the distinctiue Cognisances of Christ's true Church the Rule of Faith and the Properties of à Rule explained vvithall an easy vvay vvhereby to put an end to these vnfortunate Controversies You haue moreover the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church asserted Faith resolued into its true Principles Mr Stillingfleets grosser Errours discouered The Reasonableness of Catholick Religion laid forth to euery rational man And to omit other Questions all cannot be hinted at in the narrow compasse of à Preface you haue this great Truth proved viz. That if the Roman Catholick Church hath taught but one false Article and obliged all Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation there neither is at this day nor was before Luther any true faith in the world VVherefore Sectaries who haue made it their chiefe busines to impeach our Church of Idolatry and Heresy and the louder they cryed the more they thought to destroy vs haue done their vtmost to ruin all the
proue The Assertion 266 CHAP. V. A second Reason showing That if rhe Roman Catholick Church erred but in one Article of Faith thère is now no Fundamental Faith in the world VVere Errour in this Church it is à remediless Euil and cannot be amended by any least of all by Protestants 276 CHAP. VI. Other Euidences of the. Roman Churches Perseuerance in the Primitiue Faith without change or Alteration VVhether wickednes of life necessarily induceth Errour into the Church The Donatists and Protestants Argue and Err alike 285 CHAP. VII Manifest and most vndeniable Miracles peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church only proue Her Orthodox withall show that She still retain's the Primitiue Doctrin 296 CHAP. VIII Miracles euident in the Roman Catholick Church No less induce All now to belieue Her Doctrin Than Apostolical Miracles Anciently Perswaded to belieue that Primitiue Doctrin The Denial of Miracles Impossibilitat's The Conuersion of Iewes and Infidels 302 The Admirable cure wrought by Blessed S. Xauerius in the Famous Citty of Naples vpon à worthy Religious Person called F. Marcellus Mastrilli à Noble man by birth and by Profession of the Society of Iesus The Proof hinted at aboue reassumed 312 CHAP. IX A word to à few Obiections as also to Mr stillingfleets vnworthy Exceptions against that euident Miracle wrought at Zaragosa in Spain 321 CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signes peculiar to the Roman Cathollick 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 333 CHAP. XI Christ and his Church made manifest to à Heathen No Prophet comparable to Christ no Church comparable to the Roman Catholick Our glorious Christ Iesus Exhibits à glorious Church Hee is proued the Only true Messias And the Roman Catholick Church His only true Sponse How the Heathen Discourses if rational And Prudent 349 CHAP. XII The Aduersaries of the Roman Catholick Church plead vnreasonably A Discouery of their fallacies The cause of all Errour concerning Religion The only means to remedy Errour 363 Arguments drawn from what is said Reflections made vpon the premised Doctrin 377 CHAP. XIII Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrin Atheists and Hereticks Argue alike The Motiues of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what euer the true Church Proposes A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church 181 A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 387 CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith 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 certainly in Matters of Faith à most frigid Plea Their Fallacy is discouered Obiections Answered 408 Other Obiections proposed by Sectaries Solued More of Moral certainty 419 CHAP. XVI Principles premised to the following Doctrin The Roman Catholick Church is à Church of One Denomination She and no other Society of Christians is Infallible Othet Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth The Infallibility of Councils maintained against Mr Stillingfleets Supposed Truth and Reason There are no Principles whereby Approued Councils can be proued fallible Sectaries Conuinced by their own Doctrin 423 CHAP. XVII More of this subiect A further Search made into Errours called intolerable VVhether the Roman Catholick Church must be supposed by Sectaries to haue already Committed intolerable Errours Or only whether She may for the future Err Intolerably The Doctrin of Protestants proued False And most inconsequent 443 CHAP. XVIII Two Aduersaries mainly Opposit to True Religion The last and most vrgent Proof of the Churches Infallibility taken from the Necessity the Notion and Nature of true Religion Mr Stillingfleets Obiections found weak and weightles Most of them already Proposed and Dissolued by others A short Reflection made vpon some few 452 CHAP. XIX Certain Principles where vpon the Churches Infallibility stand's firm The End of Diuine Reuelation is to teach all Infallibly Euery Doctrin reuealed by the fiast Verity is no less infallible then true It s one thing to teach Truth another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth Sectaries Strangely vngrateful A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Obiections 465 THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith CHAP. I. Some chiefe Contents in this Discourse briefly declared Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Churches infallibility and the Resolution of Faith The Catholick way of resoluing Faith the very same with that of the Primitiue Christians Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse 477 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 483 CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 493 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 505 CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauour to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnlearned Cauil 516 CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffing The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communitier 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 523 Whether vve Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Tittle of the Chapter discussed Vpon vvhat ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 534 CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 545 CHAP. VIII The main Difficulty in the Resolution of Faith Proposed VVhat Connexion the Motiues haue vvith the Diuine Reuelation Of their vveight and efficacy God's own Language not imitable by his Enemies Faith transcend's the certainty of all Motiues The main Difficulty solued Of our great Security in Belieuing God Though vve haue not
sacred Doctrin hath been à Diuine vvork aboue the force of nature Thus much performed vve Shevv hovv Sectaries erre it their Search after Religion and euince that it is not found by their priuate pondering Scripture alone much lesse by any vnprincipl'd Glosses Lastly in this Discourse vve lay forth an easy vvay vvhereby all these vnfortunate Debates concerning Religion may come to à happy period THE RVLE OF FAITH Wherin 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 Affirmative proved Against Atheists Atheism evidently Shewd'improbable 1. THe question may perhaps seem doubtful to many upon Different judgements Concerning true Religion these grounds First Who euer admit's of Religion must either hold it true upon the Authority of others or because he is perswaded it can be found out by his own search and industry If he relies on Authority He meet 's with as many Pretenders to truth as there are different Professors of Religions on earth The The most of men pretend to it Iew pleads for his as the most ancient the Christian for his the Turk for his the Heathen for following the light of nature and every one thinks well of his own way and votes his own Religion best If therfore à searcher after truth relies on Authority He can no more say these take the Christians word than the Heathens the Heathens then the Jewes the Jewes then the Turks the The diffically about the choise Arians then the Catholicks the Catholicks than the Protestants and Consequently ought in prudence to reject all Religion 2. On the other side if He chuse à Religion by the force of his private judgement only or own industry He is cast into à Labyrinth and shall never find an exit He is obliged in prudence to make à diligent search into all the different Sects which are or have bin since the first creation of things He is carefully to examin the causes of them the grounds they rely on the connexion or coherence they have with one an other He is to converse with the learned of these different Religions or read their books and then to pitch by his own erring judgement on what likes him best which perhaps may be worst of all This task you see is immense and no lesse unsuccesful than laborious mans life is spent before halfe the work be done Therfore it seems none can come to the certain knowledge of true Religion either by Authority or reason Ergo saith the Opponent there is no such thing as true Religion in Being 3. Contrariwise I say True Religion most evidently is in the True Religion is in being The reason of the Assertion world The Assertion is grounded on this certain verity God eternally existing by himself without cause and infinite in all perfection is in Being therfore true Religion cannot but bee also For Grant such à Being as God is necessary of himself without any superiour cause it followes He is to be adored by all rational creatures essentially inferiour to him and not by any false or mock-worship but in Spirit and Truth for such an adoration only suites his Divine nature Of the adoration due to God This reason is reinforced by the light of one indubitable Maxim Quod universis videtur est verum What appeares to all or at least to the most Civillized Nations to be à Truth is so for such à universal consent of nature is the Dictamen and voice of God the Author of nature But all Nations ever owned some Religion therfore this agreement of God and nature is à Truth The minor is evident All civillized Nations own à Numen to say nothing of Christians out of the very writings of Heathens who assure us though people are found so barbarous as to live without lawes learning or civil goverment yet no whole nation was ever yet heard of but owned some kind of Numen some sacrifice some homage some worship due to à power either falsly or truely judged worthy of Reverence and honour Neither is the One difficulty removed force of the Argument infringed by saying many and very many Nations erred in the Truth of Religion which may seem as great an Evil as to have none for thus much is only proved at present that the voice of nature more easily ownes Religion then it professes one true That therfore being the universal Testimony or General consent of all cannot be false Haec testimonia animae its Tertullians Doctrin which S. Cyprian borrowed from him quanto vera tanto simplicia quanto simplicia tanto vulgaria c. This general Truth by how much more pure and simple by so much it 's more vulgarly known by how much more vulgarly known by so much its more common by how much more common by so much it 's more natural by how much more natural by so much it 's more Divine Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertullian omni Doctrinâ agitatius omni homine Majus 'T is à learning more known and resolved in mans mind than all other learning greater then man is and therfore à certain truth setled in all by the Author of nature God himself Now that many err in the truth of The cause of Mistaking true Religion Religion proceeds without doubt too often from want of instruction sometimes from pride ignorance or Malice in the Teacher which is the deplorable case of condemned Hereticks Sometimes and this is most usual it comes from an obdurance of heart begot by à custome of sinning and transgressing against the very light of nature For this custome bring 's à punishment with it that it darken's the mind notoriously and makes reason à stranger not only to weighty rational motives which forceably draw us to good but more over it so stupifies so dulls and indisposeth à soul that the impressions of grace not wanting to the most barbarous touch as it were on flintly rocks and produce either â weak barren fruit or rather no penitential fruit at all Would therfore the most obdurate Scythians or any other uncivilized People yeild to the ordinary grace allowed them for the avoiding of sin known contrary to nature God who illuminates every man in the world would give more light until they came to the knowledge of truths necessary necessitate medij to attain saluation For this is an undoubted Maxim of Divines God is not wanting in necessaries and Facienti quod in se est non denegat gratiam He denies not grace to such as endeavour by the ordinary means afforded them to avoid sin contrary to nature but if careles of that duty which nature obliges to they voluntarily plunge themselves into an Abiss of horrid transgressions the obdurance now mentioned followes The powerful operation of grace lies stifled and much deaded in such hardned hearts and Consequently sense and love of pleasures bear greatest sway
embraced Iudaism and therefore S. Hierome in 3. Habacuc call's these three now named Semi-Christianos half Christians followed à middle way between Aquila and Symmachus and translated Scripture with greater Simplicity more agreable to the 70. version 4. An other Edition ascribed to Origen not because he made Origens great industry à new version but with an immense labour to conserue the 70. Greek pure first composed his Tetrapla or à Bible branched into 4. Columns The first contained the 70. version the 2. Aquilas The 3. Symmachus his Translation The 4. that of Theodotion Afterward this great Doctor learning the Hebrew language made his Hexapla that is à bible with 6. Columns The first contained the Hebrew Text the 2. the Hebrew in Greek Characters the other 4. the Version of the 70. of Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion Now because there were two more Greek Versions called the fift and Sixt Editions Origen composed his Octopla or Bible distinguished into 8. Columns If you will haue more of the 5. Edition called by some Hierecuntina or of the Sixt named Nicopolitana as also of the Lucian and Hesychian Lections read Bib Max in Proleg Sect. 18. Cap 9. and Bonfrer in Prol c. 17. These two later were only corrections Doubts relating to these versions of the 70. no new Translations Concerning all these versions many doubts occurr as you may see in the Authors now cited and you will meet with no fewer concerning the Caldee Paraphras of the new Testament called Targum The Syriack version or interpretation of the new Testament extant in that noble laborious work of Arias Montanus called Biblia Regia is not without blemish Se Serrar c. 15. nor the Author of it well known and I belieue our Sectaries will not approue seueral Titles or inscriptions mentioning what was wont to be read on certain feast dayes as on the veneration of the Holy Cross and in certain fasts and the Commemoration of faithful souls departed this life c. 5. To speak here of the many latin Editions and seueral doubts concerning them would be too long work for my designe which is only to point at difficulties concerning both Originals and Translations That ancient one called by S. Austin Itala highly commended lib 2. de Doctr Christi and read in the Church before S. Hieroms time hath no known Author The The Itala version commended by S. Austin more late amongst Catholicks are Santis Pagninus his version of the old Testament out of the Hebrew first corrected by Arias Montanus though the Correction pleaseth not Bonfrerius and it was most pittifully corrupted by that Runnagate Printer Robert Stephen wherof see more in Bib. Max Sect. 20. Cap 2. and Bonfrer Cap. 18 Sect. 1. An other you haue of Isidore Clarius which neither Canus nor others approue A third of Francis Vatablus Doctor of Paris and à sound Catholick but the vngodly Robert Stephen corrupted that version as you may read in Bonfrer and Bib. Max. now cited I mention nothing in this place of the Armenian and Gothick Bibles Se Bib. Max. Sect. 20. cap. 3. And am as silent of the Tygurin version printed anno 1539. by Christopher Froschonerus à most corrupted Translation by Hereticks wherof you may see more in Bib. Max now cited cap. 3. Read also if you please Serrarius cap. 18. 9. 1. Of Sebastian Munsters of Bliblianders of Castalions and the Geneua Translations c. You will find none of them of any account but with Sectaries only 6 Thus much briefly premised for we haue not said half of what might be alleged concerning the doubts and vncertainty of various editions I here appeal to euery distinteressed iudgement Reflection made vpon these doubts and ask whether it be not mighty difficult or rather impossible to say absolutely by the force of our priuate fallible knowledge by witt or humane industry only This book This Edition is Gods true sincere word as it was writ by the Hagiographers And here I must mind Mr Stilling of his not well considered Doctrin who P. 196. seems to own so great certainty of Scripture as excludes the possibility of all reasonable doubting and pag 215. asserts We may be sufficiently assured that there are no Material Corruptions in the books of Scripture without your Churches Testimony Good Sr. leaue of these generalities and tell vs plainly of what Edition you speak What particular version haue you which must be supposed so authentick or so free from all errour as may exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting before you haue the Churches Testimony or toleration for it Name one and much A question proposed to Sectaries is done Will you follow the Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant You see most learned men whose knowledge and Authority is not inferiour to yours say both are corrupted and thus much alone weakens the certainty you pretend to Will you admit of the 70. Translation as pure and Authentick Be pleased to reconcile the Antilogies between that and the Hebrew Text or say that the Septuagint though euer of great veneration in the Church hath its errours Will you plead for what Aquila or Symmachus haue done These are euidently corrupted and in points most Material touching Christ our Lord. Will you say that all Copies none excepted all Translations whether Greek or Latin now extant are pure Scripture in the Materials of Faith and manners It is highly improbable and therefore hitherto we come to no Solid Principle to no certainty which excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting O saith Mr Stilling to proue that no Material Corruptions stained the Scripture now extant We that is Sectaries diligently compare the present Copies with the most ancient M S S. we obserue the citations of Of sectaries Comparing Scripture with the more ancient Copies those ancient Fathers who liued when some Autograph's were extant and then most likely we haue the pure word of God You compare Pray you answer were there not others in the Catholick Church before Sectaries troubled the world as industrious in comparing Copies and Manuscripts together as you haue lately been Was S. Hierom think you negligent in this particular Or did the Primitiue Church before S. Hierom when it read that ancient Edition called Itala and preferred it before all other Lections fail to examin which Copy was best Yet more If we come to later times and ponder well what diligence what vigilancy what industry attended the Correction of the Sixtin and Clementine Bibles Sectaries may blush at their Oscitancy and too sleight Cauils at our Vulgar latin Read the preface to Sixtus 5. Edition Antwerp print 1599. with other reflections made in Bib Max Sect 20. c. 4. and you will see so great à care and industry vsed in this correction that humanly speaking more could not be desired 7. Many Copies and old M S S. were at the Popes command sought for and brought to Rome Not only some chief and selected Cardinals in the time of Pope
so high as to giue fall satisfaction herein though he is pleased to plead euidence drawn from sense and reason against the B. Sacrament as if forsooth the full portion of both were like à legacy Mr stillingfleet argues Improbably bequeathed him and à few Sectaries whilst so many Fathers so many Schoolmen soo many profound Doctors of our renowned Church must haue no small share allowed in either but are as you see censured like men sensless and vnreasonable 2. Say I beseech you Who can perswade himself that those three worthy eminent Cardinals Bellarmin Perron and Richelieu all haue writ on this subiect and are famous the whole world ouer for their great wisdom and learning who dare I say without à measureless audacity cast these could we vrge no more into the Catalogue of dull sensles and vnreasonable men None would haue ventured on such à vast improbability but one who either knowes not or cares not what he saies Now add to these the consent and acknowledgment of the whole Orthodox world you may iustly say it is much harder or there is more violence offered to mans vnderstanding in conceiuing that God who is essential Verity and therefore inclined to preserue the Church he founded in truth should permit all those millions of Christians who haue belieued the Real presence to be so long deceiued in their Faith than to submit vpon so great authority to the very mystery we belieue Reason more rack'd by denying then belieuing the Mistery For by submitting to the mystery we proceed rationally and prudently iudge that an infinite power can do more than our weak capacities reach vnto but if we say his Goodnes hath permitted the Church to be seduced by à gross errour age after age or that so many Christians haue been cheated into à false belief of so high à Mystery we force our vnderstandings more we clash with an euident Principle and must assert that God has no care of his Church or of mans saluation The blame therefore if we be in errour would at last redound to God as I shall amply proue in the next Discourse 3. Thus much noted Let vs look à little into the strength of Mr Stillingf weak argument which must run thus What I see seem's or is bread to the Eye and tast yet t' is not bread but Christs sacred body therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense One distinction ouerthrowes this lame discourse I answer in à word What I see seems or is the inward substance of bread I deny it What I see seems yea really is the outward accidents or species of bread I grant that Therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense I deny the consequence The Argument purely fallacious supposeth Our Aduersaries fallacy solued the immediate obiect of our sense to be the inward substance of bread which yet as euery Puny knowes is not so in common Philosophy for the immediate obiect of the Eye is colour or light and so much remain's after consecration as well as other accidents doe but these sensible obiects are in known Philosophy distinct from the inward substance of bread which is not immediatly visible tangible or tastable Mr Stilling therefore gain's little by this dreaming way of arguing Now à word to his plea of Reason 4. He may say Reason tell 's me there is bread still after consecration Why so surely the answer must be because sense vpon the discouery of its immediate obiects colour quantity c. induceth reason to conclude there is bread vnder these accidents I answer Reason thus far would well conclude were it not that à stronger Principle enters here which ouerawes as it were weak reason and bids it yeild Pray you tell me Did not sense and reason also assure Christs Disciples Matth 14. before S. Peter was seen walking on the water that that liquid substance could not bear vp à weighty body without sinking yes most assuredly yet they saw him walk and reason following the guidance of their eyes checked that other natural discourse and acknowledged à Miracle And thus weak reason must yeild in the present Mystery when à Stronge Principles where vpon our Faith relies stronger Principle interuen's and forceth it to submit Thanks be to God Habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem 1. Petr. 2. we haue yet à stronger Principle to vp hold our cause than weak discourse is The spirit of eternal truth The express words of Christ which the wit of man shall neuer draw to any other sense but what we Catholicks own 2. The constant professed Doctrin of the two Churches Greek and Latin yea and I say more of all other called Christians as is now declared 3. Might we here introduce the known Testimonies of most ancient Fathers They are so numerous and so fully significant that would à Catholick study to set down the truth of this Doctrin he cannot do it in clearer language 5. Good God saith S. Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerd Cap. 4. What à wonderful miracle is this how great is Gods loue towards mankind Behold who sitreth aboue with his Father in one and the same moment of time is touched by the hands of vs all and giueth himself to such as are desirous to receiue and imbrace him Theophilact c. 4. in 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation The ancient Fathers speak in our behalfe although to vs it seem's bread Because we are weak and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appears but in the essence and substance it is not bread Again Christ said not this is à figure but this is my body for by an ineffable operation bread is changed c. Indeed it appears Bread but it is really flesh Yet more How often do the Fathers S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Chrisostome and others exhort vs not to come vnto the Eucharist as vnto simple bread and wine for say they it is the body and blood of Christ according to our Lords affirmation Although sense suggest the Contrary yet let faith confirm thee Iudge not of the thing by thy tast c. Again know this and with full certitude belieue that the bread seen is not bread though it seems so to the tast but the body of Christ and that wine seen is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the blood of Christ Though saith S. Chrisostome what we see seem's to our sense and thinking to be bread Let Gods saying This is my body Master our sense and reason Let vs doe this in all things especially in the Mysteries not regarding alone the things which lie before vs but holding fast to his words For by his words we cannot be-cousened our senses may be deceiued his words cannot be vntrue our sense is often time beguiled c. Thus these Fathers known to euery one to omit in numerable others speak and belieue thus the Church of Christ speaks and belieues also
and both as you see stand opposite to Mr Stilling weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason 6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome In. 1. Cor hom 24. Other Authorities Chrisostom Pachasius Damascan who saith The kingly body in heauen is set before vs on earth We touch it and do not only touch it but eate it This body the barbarous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling Thou add's the Saint See'st him not now in the manger but on the Altar not held in à womans arms but by à Priest present c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg he explain's himself further Truly this table supplies the place of the manger for here also is our Lords body laid Paschasius à latin author who liued about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence à nd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. Sanguine Dm'i that the Centurist's Cent. 9. C. 4. Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen Pag 288. and other Sectaries charge him with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christs body No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. whose discours on this subiect though long is most significant As bread saith he naturally meat and wine and water by drink are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drink 's So this bread proposed the wine and water also by the inuocation and comming of the Holy Ghost are in à miraculous manner conuerted into Christs body and blood neither are they two but one and the same Our Lord himself hath said This is not à sign of my body but my body This is not à sign of my blood but my blood Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. reiects the Doctrin and call's this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. Iohn Damascen slight and fabulous sodo other Sectaries with him also 7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr clear noted First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who liued with our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn seem's to me vnanswerable Epist ad Smirnen not far from the beginning They saith he that is certain Sacramentarians admit not Eucharists and oblations because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins and his Father graciously raised from the dead So Theoderet 12. ages since Tom. 4. Dialogo 3. reads And Iaac Vossius who followes the Florentine Copy differs little or rather nothing at all None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear 8. The second authority as pregnant is taken out of S. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for Christians vsually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant Apology Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour by the word of God was made flesh and haed for our saluation flesh and blood so also after the same manner we are taught that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with thanksgiuing of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ which was Incarnate And for proof hereof he allegeth Christs own words This is my body This is my blood Thus S. Iustin speak's who liued not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin I know some Sectaries Cauil at the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by transmutation The sectaries Cauil answered and think Iustin held the Eucharist to be food for the body but his sense is clear for he saith only That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation is made after consecration the very body of Christ and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus Pag 368. translates Iustins S. Iustin's true sense words out of the Greek thus Sumimus autem hunc panem hunc potum non vt Communem sed eo modo quo edocti sumus Iesum Christum seruatorem nostrum habuisse pro salute nostra carnem sanguinem sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro sanguis aluntur post benedictionem ipsius esse carnem sanguinem Domini That is in plain English The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incarnate Sauiour Conformable hereunto Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenaeus aduersus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. Iustins words Sic per verbum precationis gratiarum actionis sacratam ab ipso alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes sanguinem Illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse didicimus The Interpreter also I follow significantly renders the same sense Alimoniam vnde c. The food from whence from which or where with we are nourished this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate Iesus Well but admit that Iustine call's the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies How some Fathers call the Eucharist Nourishment to the body he makes it not therefore Corporal food but Spiritual which nourishes them to à ioyful resurrection or to immortality and thus the other Fathers chiefly S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus finem speakes Quomodo saith he rursus dicunt c How do these Hereticks plead again that our flesh shall come to corruption and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord where with it is nourished Again Sic corpora nostra c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are not corruptible hauing hope of à ioyful resurrection But enough of these authorities Whoeuer desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his 2. book of the Holy Eucharist Out of what is said already I argue 9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also haue most impiously betrayed Christs cause in deliuering false Doctrin contrary to sense and reason or worthily defended à Christian verity Grant this second we haue our intent But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief and impiously erred in their expressions Ponder first what à frontles impudence accompanies the reply Next make this true inference It is impossible that such à supposed vniuersal errour should euer be rased out of A Conuincing Argument the minds of men by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à receiued Principle For what proofs or vndoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture our Tradition the sentiment of the Church and the iudgement
is here changed wat not interiour substance be changed this interiour substance of bread as distinguished from accidents is not changed and if which is true this interiour substance be changed the form and accidents of bread are not changed Take which you please and talk no more of your Accidental Sacramental change made after consecration For I ask again what is thus Sacramentally changed Are the outward Accidents only changed or made à Sacrament Grant this and it followes you haue but à very lean Lords supper consisting only of à few Accidents after your wordy Consecration which reaches not to the inward substance of bread Consequently this inward substance is not so much as Sacramentally changed For the Author saith one thing is here changed and not an other Imagin therefore He speak's of your extrinsick Sacramental change you will neuer force sense out of his words whilst he laies à change on one thing and excludes it from an other For if he saies the inward substance of bread is Sacramentally changed he denies that to the outward accidents and if he say these Accidents are Sacramentally changed he denies that Sacramental change to the inward substance of bread Let then nature and Substance signify either the accidents or substance of bread as you please let vs also falsly suppose the Author speaks of your Sacramental change only you can neuer make sense of his words One thing is changed but not a◠other By all now said you see Sir how slight your obiection A briefe Answer to à weak obiection is when you Argue Either nature and substance in the Fathers are alwaies taken properly or some times not so but improperly for accidents if alwaies properly we haue three Fathers say you against Transubstantiation If sometimes improperly Nature in this place though we read Non effigie sed natura mutatus may well signify not substance but the outward form or accidents of bread I haue now Answered though Nature or Substance may sometimes haue that signification yet here it cannot because of the euident opposition betwixt that and Accidents and the ineuitable nonsense which followes if nature in this place signifies Accidents But what à loss of time is it to follow these vast improbabilities I must make shorter work with the ensuing Authorities 11. The. 2. Testimony cited P. 572. is that of S. Gregory Nyss Tom. 3. Orati Catech C. 37. and stand's thus in Mr Stilling With good reason do we belieue that the bread being sanctified by Gods word is changed into the body of the word S. Gregory Nyssene abused of God Again The nature of the things we see being changed Or Transelemented into him c. And Mr Stilling Assert's those expressions are vtterly insignificant for Transubstantiation for saith he We Protestants deny not à change in the elements after Consecration but say it is Sacramental and you Papists say it is à Substantial change Answ And we follow the Energy of the plain grammatical sense Bread is changed into the body of the word of God Bread is Transelemented You insist only on an extrinsecal and Sacramental change which you admit in the water of Baptism cast vpon an Infant yet you dare not say that water is Transelemented or changed into an other Substance This to your Confusion S. Gregory assert's in our present Mystery and you say it still remain's to be proued that the substance of bread is changed What trifles are these I proue it by the very words thus Bread is à substance the Saint tell 's you into what it is changed into the very body of the word of God Ergo he saith one substance is changed into an other Here is the proof You yet goe on The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently vsed by the Fathers and S. Gregory himself for an Accidental change when T' is not capable of any other sense So S. Gregory speaking of the shining of Moses face saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instances impertinently applyed à Change into that which was more glorious Again affirming the soules of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be changed into that which is more Diuine by the Doctrin of Christ he can surely intend no other but an Accidental change Answer Had I no more against Mr Stilling but the manifest trifling I here See in à serious matter that alone might most iustly displease Pray Sir reflect Doth S. Gregory by these Instances of Moses face changed into Glory or by the Souls of men changed into that which is Diuine so much as seemingly fauour the meer extrinsecal change which you ascribe to the Sacrament Euidently No. For these changes were Real and intrinsecal in their respectiue Subiects And proued impertinent Glory was really in Moses face as light is now in the sun This fained Sacramental change in the Sacrament is only Moral and extrinsecal Therefore such instances are to no purpose For can you make this probable inference Moses face was intrinsecally changed as the ayr is when it receiues light ergo we haue the like intrinsecal Physical change in the Sacrament when by your Consecration bread is made an outward Sign only of Christ's body Doth that bread really shine like the face of Moses Or will any say when à Counter is set for à Crown as bread with you stand's for Christ's body that it is intrinsecally changed as Moses face was 12. In à word the whole cheat is plain You lay hold of the word Accidental which is ambiguous and may either signify à Real intrinsecal change made in Subiects as is now declared and this with you has no place in the Sacrament or meerly an extrinsecal accidental Denomination whereby bread is made à Sign or Sacrament And this you own which God knowes has no similitude with the Real changes where of S. Gregory speaks Could you make à right Parity you should say That as Moses face was really changed by à glorious light and à Soule by Regeneration so bread after consecration made in trinsecally more glorious is really changed either in its accidents or substance or both But this you cannot pretend to O but it is made à Sacrament and now is what it was not before And you Sr are made à Bachelour of Diuinity and are not as you were before is your face your substance or Accidents so really changed in you that they appear intrinsecally more glorious to men and Angels Well but perhaps the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be accommodated to à meer extrinsecal Accidental A reply answered change as when one of à common Citizen is made à Magistrate Answ Whether so or no it imports little for in the instances now alleged and in this Testimony of S. Gregory such à signification has no place where the Terminus à quo and ad que◠Bread is changed into Christs body are Real not only Moral intrinsecal not extrinsecal Yet one word more I wonder extremly with what face you
can cite Snares as if he fauored your late inuented Accidental mutation for you say he affirms these expressions of Fathers are more accommodated to that Sr. I haue read this learned Author in the place you quote 3. part Disp 50. sect 3. and perused also his 4 th Section where he Snares abused treat's largely of the Conuersion of bread into Christs body and expresly mantain's à Real action necessary in this Conuersion and calls the change Real and Substantial and it must be called so when the Terminus à quo and ad quem are as they are in this Mystery Real and Substantial T' is true he cites Diuines who say the Adduction of Christs body vnder the formes of bread is sufficient to verify à Real change Bread ceasing to be because of Christs body present without à new action or production terminated vpon that body and it is à probable opinion in Schools but as remote from your Accidental extrinsecal mutation as Heauen is from earth and to as Little purpose as an other wise question is when you Ask whether those who are changed by Regeneration A quaestion answered may be said to be Transubstantiated by it Friuolous Sr. when the Terminus ad quem in conuersions is substance it beares properly the denomination of Transubstantiation or Transelementation when it s meerly an Accident or quality as in Regeneration the denomination followes the nature of the quality produced and is rightly called an intrinsecal accidental change but not Transubstantiation Had you reflected on what is here said your pretty Criticism where you torture à poor Greek word and learnedly examin whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Gregory comes from the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might well haue been spared I giue you your Choise take whether you will your cause lies where it was nothing at all aduanced But really I am weary of this sport which is more irksome to me then to kill the flies you so often talk of Howeuer I must haue patience and briefly say à word to one or two authorities more pitifully abused by you 13. That known passage of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Catech The Testimony of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 4. occurr's next in your 573. page The words are He Christ our Lord changed water into wine at cana in Galilee by his sole will and is he not worthy to be belieued that he changed wine into blood For if inuited to à marriage he wrought then that stupendious Miracle viz of changing water into wine shall we not Confess that much more he has giuen his body and blood to the Sons of the Spouse wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let vs take with all certainty the body and blood of Christ And he giues this reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For vnder the Type or Species of bread his body is giuen thee and vnder the type or species of wine his blood is giuen thee that by taking this body and blood of Christ thou mayst be made partaker of his body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so we shall be Christophori Carrying Christ when we receiue his body and blood into our members Soon after he saith Do not therefore consider this as meer bread and meer wine for it is the body and blood All along most clear and significant of Câ—rist according to his own words for although sense suggest that it is bread and wine yet let faith Confirm thee and do not iudge of the thing by thy tast but hold this most certain by thy Faith that the body and blood of our Lord are giuen thee so that there arise no doubt at all in thee Again towards the end of this 4. Catechesis he repeat's and most energetically the verity he would haue vs learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Knowing and holding it most certain that the bread which is seen by vs is not bread but the body of Christ and the wine which is seen by vs although it seem to the sense of our tast to be wine The Church Speak's not in clearer terms yet is it not wine but the blood of Christ Thus this ancient Father and worthy Bishop speaks so significantly that the witt of man shall neuer force on him any other sense but that which the Roman Catholick Church taught in the Council of Trent and teaches to this day 14. Now listen à little to Mr Stilling glosses and say in Conscience whether they haue so much as à seeming probability Mr stilling glosses improbable First he tells vs it is euident and it was for his purpose to cry Euidence at the begining that Cyrills design here is to perswade the Catechumens from whom the Mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed that the bread and wine were not meer common Elements but designed for à higher vse to â—xhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Is this Sr your Euidence Is it euident that Cyril here intended to instruct the Catechumens only We read that the Saint was à laborious Preacher and complyed with that Charitable duty euery Sunday and day in Lent Surely all who heard him were not Catechumens and why may not these instructions contain part of that Doctrin he publickly deliuered to his Auditors All you can proue is that his first Catechesis was to the lately Baptized but that this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only is not probable Turn to the Edition of S. Cyril Paris print 1609. You will find after the Dedicatory Epistle vnder this Title De scriptis Cyrill That in his last fiue Mystagogical institutions he gaue solid food and explicated the Diuine Mysteries of our Faith of Baptism Chrism the Eucharist and that great Sacrifice of the Mass which Certainly belong to Christians of riper knowledge than Catechumens were Again I' ft be euident that S Cyrill is made to mâ—sse of his ayme the Saint in this Catechesis concealed the Mysterious presence of Christ in the Sacrament He missed extreamly of his intent for no Catholick can speak now with greater clearity of the Mystery or more fully express the Churches sense then S. Cyril did aboue thirteen ages since Yet one word Say I beseech you what need was there then of concealing this Mysterious presence i' ft be no more but as you say à piece of bread deputed to à holy vse or à meer sign of Christs body present Such à Mystery requires no secrecy at all Catechumens might as well haue heard of it without torturing their vnderstandings as now they hear of the Sacrament of Baptism Lastly is it euident that S. Cyril aimed at nothing but to show that bread and wine were not meer common Elements but things designed for à higher vse or as you say to Exhibiâ— the body of Christ to Belieuers T is improbable First because you add that to the Text which
neither the words nor the sense bear S. Cyril saith Do not consider them as meer bread and wine Then he tell 's you positiuely what they are For they are the body and blood of Christ Now your Gloss designed for à higher vse to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers first Deads the very life of Cyrills words and then run's into nonsense I therefore Ask whether What is bread and wine to exhibit the body and blood of Christ this gloss Bread and wine exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers saies Bread and wine really changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee are after that change as really Christs body and blood as that water was really wine after Christs Miracle If your gloss say thus much you are à plain Papist if lesse it s none of S. Cyrills Doctrin for the Saint deliuers this as significantly yea and more fully then I now express it I well vnderstand S. Cyrills sense by his words but for my life I know not what you mean by your particle Exhibit Tell us I beseech you How do bread and wine Exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Do they only mind vs of his body and blood A Crucifix representing our Lord bleeding on à Crosse can well serue for so much Do they shew or point vs out à Real presence of the same body and blood vpon the Altar which are now in heauen If so Belieuers haue an obiect of Faith and that truth to fasten on which the Church teaches but if your word Exhibit saies or signifies less then this or only expresses your euer yet concealed Sacramental presence you cheat the world with ambiguous dark Term's and in good earnest know not what you say 15. Answer therefore What is Christs body and blood to be Sacramentally present when really they are not vpon the Altar but absent in Heauen only The question deserues an Answer For you Sr distinguish between à Sacramental and à Corporeal Presence you grant the first and deny the second That which you grant is à Presence of Christs body and biood distinguished from the Catholick Real or as you call it Corporeal Presence Vouchsafe to enlighten vs à little concerning it which you page 574. seem to Our Aduersary is vrged to declare his sense make real There is say you à Real presence of Christ in and with them that is in and with bread and wine to the souls of Belieuers Very good Giue vs I beseech you the total Obiect which these Souls haue before them when they belieue à Real presence of Christ in and with bread and wine vpon the Altar Is this obiect Christ himself whom they pull as it were by Faith out of Heauen at the time they receiue your piece of Bread No. Christ still in Heauen is yet Locally distant and therefore not really present in and with bread and wine Vnless he be in two places at once And Consequently the Faith of these Belieuers has no real Obiect present to fasten vpon Is it that Christ is present in the Signes of bread and wine as Caesar is in his Image Pitiful He is thus present in euery Crucifix though really distant millions of Miles This no way makes him actually there in and with bread and wine as you Assert Doth finally this your Obiectiue presence imply only thus much that Christ by his power though really absent work 's the same effects in à worthy Receiuer as if he were actually there No. For he works the same effects and though absent produceth grace by the Sacrament of Baptism as if he were present dare you Therefore say he is in as peculiar à manner Really present in and with the water of Baptism as he is in this Sacrament in and with bread and wine Yet more Such à Moral The Sectaries Sacramental Presence contradict's all Authority Presence directly contradict's Christ's words This is my body It directly contradict's S. Cyrills words Though it seem to the tast to be bread it is not bread but the Body of Christs It directly contradict's that vnanswerable Truth As water was changed into wine so wine is changed into blood c. 16. And thus Sr you see how impossible it is to giue your poor Belieuers any thing like à Real obiect which may be called à true Real Presence though I hold you obliged to help both them and me to à clear Notion of it Because Christ's Sacred body and blood are Real things you attribute to these two Real things à true real Presence in and with bread and wine which cannot but denominate them really present with these two Substances vpon the Altar Therefore you are obliged to tell me what that is A parte rei which I once more say is impossible For as your Sacramental presence in your sense is à word no man vnderstand's so your Doctrin is as wholy vnintelligible Yet I haue not said all In this your discourse of à Sacramental and Real presence you would fain take some aduantage against vs by other words of S. Cyril Do not consider them as meer bread and wine for they are the body and blood of No aduantage giuen Sectaries by any other words of S. Cyril Christ according to his own word Hence you infer it is plain He speaks of à Sacramental presence for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine but to meer bread id est That they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signes but as Signa efficacia or efficacious signes Answ First The Saint has not à Syllable of either Signes or Signae efficacia Next your Speculation about meer bread is à meer nothing For meer bread is bread without Consecration S. Cyril opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to meer bread Ergo He opposeth them to bread without Consecration but bread without Consecration or meer bread is the very Substance of bread Therefore he opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to the substance of bread vnless you can find the Meerness might one speak so or nakednes of bread distinct from its substance which is not only improbable but impossible 17. Vpon this solid and vndeniable Ground it imports your A meer quibble about à word cause nothing whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Cyril signifies Species as it is commonly rendred by Interpreters or as you say that which doth figure or represent for as long as this verity stand's vndoubted that vnder the Type or Species of bread Christ gaue his own body and That that body is opposed to the very Substance of bread the expression is so clear and the same with our Catholick Doctrin that were à hundred Glosses more laid vpon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All would not do nor rack it to any contrary meaning You Reply S. Cyril speak's of such à presence as hath relation
Mysteries of Christian Religion which certainly cannot regulate Faith or determine Controuersies concerning Religion For à Rule is the measure whereby we iudge what is true and what is falâ—â— but no man iudges this by the Mysteries themselues Belieued because these proposed without further light are not only obscure but highly Transcend all natural discourse And therefore Reason would reiect them were it not curb'd and rectified by an other Superiour most certain and infallible Rule distinct from the Mysteries I further ground and more à Priori is That man who Iudges of Religion by the Mysteries belieued makes in real truth his own fancy or weak reason to regulate Faith and is sure to erre â—le shew you how Giue me one as yet not setled in any Faith that cast's his thoughts vpon all the different Religions now Professed in the world Iudaism Mahometism and Christianity He call's them all to the Tribunal of his Reason which is guided by the Mysteries of each Profession And is resolued to pitch on so What weak Reason would embraceâ— If left to it selfe much as seem's suitable to his Iudgement Reason certainly if it proceed Reasonably will only pick out of euery one such Mysteries as are Facile and no way torture an Vnderstanding Much may displease this Seeker after Truth in Iudaism yet perhaps not all The filth and Fooleries in Turcism like him not yet something he may approue Finally he fall's vpon Christianity and there find's those insuperable difficulties of à Trinity the Incarnation Original sin c. These suite not with his Reason and consequently are reiected Therefore if Christianity be true à false Religion cannot but haue more sway with him than the vndoubted reuealed Verities of Iesus Christ Thus much seem's clear Perhaps you will ask why I instance in an Vnbelieuer who is yet to chuse his Religion When I should show that Christians euen those we call Sectaries ought not to end Controuersies or to regulate their Faith by the apparent easines or difficulty of Mysteries within the bounds of Christianity whereof many are in dispute between them and Catholicks Answ I haue instanced thus on set purpose to lay open the great Errour of all Sectaries who leauing the These who yet belieue nothing and Sectaries are alike in their Choise Of Religion Conduct of Christ's Church run along with this supposed Vnbelieuer For as he after à consideration had of seueral Mysteries found in the Religions now named takes out of each what is easiest and best likes his Fancy or weak reason So Sectaries ptoceed Though they walk in à lesser compass and for the most part limit Themselues to something taught by men called Christians whether true or false imports not Within such bounds they take and leaue as freely what pleaseth as any Vnbelieuer doth and vsually throw off Mysteries most difficult to sense and Reason Thus the Arian reiect's à Trinity because it is à hard Mystery and not plainly expressed in Scripture The Pelagian denies Original sin vpon the same ground and Protestants thunder against Transubstantiation because the word is not in Holy Writ and the Mystery seem's repugnant to their Reason All therefore are alike as ill Self-chusers with in such à compass as any Vnbelieuer who makes à new Religion on his own head guided by no other Rule but fancy or what seem's to him reasonable The sole cause of this Self-chusing is the Sectaries falling off from the conduct of Christs vnerring Oracle The Church which tell 's them what God speak's This vnfortunately slighted They make him speak iust so much as they think fit or seem's good to their weak and fallible Reason 2. The next Principle Sectaries may lay hold on for à sufficient or at least à Subordinate and concurrent means to decide Controuersies and regulate Faith is the Authority of the ancient Fathers Though Catholiks highly honour these great Lights of the Church And no way decline the tryal yet they Protestants doe and must except against the Authority of Fathers think an easier Rule can be assigned for all and know well that Protestants doe and must except against this very Rule One exception is The labour is immense to peruse exactly the large volumes of Fathers the like is of Councils which can only be done by the more learned of different Religions Howeuer suppose the work performed by à learned Catholick and à learned Protestant and that both diligently read the Fathers The satisfaction giuen to the Generality of other Christians is very little or nothing who first must Hear what These two men report and next credit their dissenting Iudgements And can such iudgement think ye thus at variance as they haue been for à hundred years certainly regulate Diuine Faith in à Seeker after truth or end debates wheron Saluation depend's It is impossible Again These Fathers with Sectaries euen all of them put together are fallible and may teach False Doctrin Nay more They haue actually taught it say Protestants and grosly erred whilst they openly mantained à true Sacrifice vpon the Altar prayers for the dead Inuocation of Saints Translation of Saints Reliqâ—es and their worship Pilgrimages because the Fathers are fallible and teach Popery to Holy places Auricular Confession to à Priest vn written Tradition vowed Chastity the Hallowing of Altars of Churches of water bread oyle candles And the great virtue of the sign of the Holy Cross c. These say Protestants and innumerable others haue been the foule mistakes of Fathers and Therefore Mr whitaker plainly affirm's Popish Religion to be à Patched couerlet of the Fathers Errours sowed together And D. Humfrey highly blames Mr Iewell for his so bold Appeal to the Fathers saying herein he gaue the Papists too large à Scope was iniurious to himself And after à manner spoiled himself and the Church c. The words of these two Sectaries are cited as I relate them in the Protestants Apology Tract 1. Sect. 3. subd 14. Page with me 128. And neuer Aduersary could yet Tax that Author of à false Quotation who also through the Seueral passages of his book showes how Sectaries ascribe the now named and supposed errours to the Fathers It would be tedious to expose all his laborious Collections on this subiect to common view again Who euer desiers further Satisfaction need 's only to bring eyes to open the book and read his Marginal notes Thus much premised 3. I say The Fathers that are not only fallible but also supposed by Sectaries to haue actually wronged Truth can be no Appendant or subordinate much less any sufficient Rule of faith for them when these conceited Errours are so numerous Recourse to Fathers in Fundamentals most insignificant That all along they stick most Close to our Catholick Doctrin as is largely proued in the Protestants Apology Some perhaps will say we must haue recourse to such passages of Fathers as only treat of Fundamentals and so farr are vnexceptionably plain
worse than à Paralogism or any captious way of reasoning for it tend's to non-sense vnless the main Supposition be proued to wit That the Roman Apostolical Catholick Church once certainly pure in Doctrin has or Can decline from her Purity in afrer ages Mr Stilling knowes well that Catholicks who hold their Church infallible make the receding from its Purity à thing impossible How sensles then is it in this place where that Question of Infallibility is not handled first to suppose our Church fallen off from its old Doctrin and then to tell vs the Fathers Encomiums haue Still that 's Supposed which should be Proued nothing to do with it in this present state I argue thus and Mr Stilling P. 314. seem's to approue it Vpon the Supposition that the Roman Catholick Church has not swerued nor can swerue from it's first pure Doctrin The Fathers Elogiums are in this age as due to it as in any other But the Supposition must stand firmly built as you shall see hereafter vpon sure grounds and Principles But contrariwise this way of arguing is Non-sense I 'le suppose vpon no grounds the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred and then I 'le do an open iniustice and deny it the due Commendations giuen by the Fathers It is iust as if one should say I 'le suppose à man hitherto reputed honest to be à thief and then I 'le deny him iustice and hang him vp 4. I say vpon no Grounds And to proue my Assertion ask With what Church then visible in the world were Christians obliged to Communicate when all see S. Hierome will haue them to Communicate with some Church Mr Stilling Answers with the Catholick Church Very Good I Ask again whether the Roman Church and all other Churches vnited in Faith with it were rightly called the true Catholick Church Grant this you yeild the cause And Confess that Christians were then obliged to be in vnion with the Roman Catholick Church Contrariwise if you deny that to haue been then the true Church you are cast vpon No other Church Catholick but the Roman endless difficulties and here is one which cannot be solued Vpon the denial you Sr are obliged to denote or name an other Catholick Church distinct from the Roman more pure in Doctrin at that time than She was And that not only the Romans but all others were Aliens and Prophane who eate not the lambe or communicated not in faith with your new found fancied Church in the aire I say fancied for to point at such à Church on earth is as impossible as to proue known condemned Hereticks to be good Catholicks whereof see more in the other Treatise Disc 3. c. 1. 5. Mr Stilling to shift off the difficuIty will perhaps say When S. Hierome wrote This The Roman Church was truly Orthodox and that He accounted all Aliens and Prophane who communicated not with it Most true Doctrin But see what followes Be pleased to fall lower to the third or fourth Age after S. Hierome There was then I hope à Catholick Church in the world wherwith Christians Communicated in Faith but most euidently there was not any Tâ—en reputed Orthodox if we exclude the Roman from being so For all other Societies nameable In the ages after S. Hierome no Church Orthodox but the Roman though called Christians were professed Hereticks With these no man was obliged to communicate Therefore all were either bound to Communicate with the Roman Catholick Church or with no Church at all Hence I infer that the Fathers Elogium's giuen to the Roman Catholick Church were euer most iustly due not once only during the Primitiue times but now also and in all Ages Withall I assert That Mr Stilling denying this Truth speak's his own fancy without proof or the least appearance of any probable Principle And he will be as wholly vnprincipled if I first suppose as I may if my Creed be true That there is now at this very houre à true Catholick Church on earth and should next demand where that Church is in whose vnion I must liue and dye Will He pitch think ye vpon an vnion with the Arians Graecians Abyssins Anabaptists Protestants or Quakers Light where he pleaseth he can only vent his fancy without Proof or Principle Now cast as it were this fancy into à ballance with those most weighty significant Testimonies of ancient Fathers who positiuely press for communion with the Roman Catholick Church and you will see à strange vneauen Parallel conceited whimsyes And strong reasonable Arguments laid together Yet wonder nothing for weak fancy is the strongest Aduersary Catholick Religion hath S. Cyprians Testimony proposed 6. You haue yet an other Authority grosly misvsed by Mr Stilling Page 315. And t' is à known Passage of S. Cyprian in his 55. Epistle to Cornelius where he complain's of certain factious Schismaticks who dared to sail to the chair of S. Peter and the Principal Church from whence Priestly vnity had its Origen and carry letters from Prophane and Schismatical persons Nec cogitare eos esse Remons c. not thinking them to be the Romans whose Faith the Apostle commended ad quos perfidiae haebere non possit accessum to whom falshood vntruth vnfaithfulnes cannot haue Access Thus S. Cyprian And I put much force in those words Eos esse Romanos Those who then liued to be the Romans prophetically commended by the Apostle which words taken in an obuious sense argue that true Faith should neuer part from the See of Rome But Mr Stilling conceal's this force and translates Not considering that the Romans c. No less energy lies in the other following words To whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no Access which seem to exclude à possibility of falshood from the Roman Church 7. Now listen à little to four strange Glosses laid vpon this one Text. Three of them are the Bishops and one Mr Stilling Vain Glosses Laid vpon The Testimony laies claim to The Bishops saies first Perfidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith And why not my Lord He Answers It properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of Trust or in fact against the Discipline And gouerment of the Church And I say it as properly signifies Vnfaithfulnes or Vntruth And therefore excludes errour in Faith from the Romans yea it must haue this sense here because it s opposed to the Faith of the Romans so much commended by the Apostle which was true Christian Faith Perfidia therefore fignifies the quite contrary that is errour in Faith But grant the sense to be as the Bishop glosseth it excludes at least from the Romans to whom S. Cyprian wrote à Possibility of doing any thing against the Discipline and Gouerment of the Church or of being maliciously false in Matter of Trust If this be so much more are they secured by virtue of these words Ad quos persidia non possit habere accessum from à possibility of erring in Faith for
ours Contrary to him is an Errour Ergo. The first part of my Assertion seem's euident For you know what hauock the Sectary makes of all infallible Principles Scripture only excepted which I am sure speak's not à word in his behalf nor against vs All Churches with him All Tradition All Councils All Fathers also are fallible and may deceiue Therefore thus much is indisputably clear He cannot proue infallibly I say no more yet that his Tenets are Christian Truths or infallibly That ours contrary are Errours For no man can more deriue an infallible proof from à meer fallible Principle than fetch gold out of dross or light out of Darknes Whateuer Therefore he plead's by next is vnder the degree of infallible certainty And what is it think ye O He has Moral Assurance and here is the Principle that his Tenets are Christian Truths and Ours false or erroneous Very Fallible Principles ground not infallible Doctrin good I ask Though moral certainty auail's nothings as we Shall see hereafter How he proues no Transubstantiation to be à Doctrin morally certain When the Contrary is expresly defined in three General Councils And held by à learned Church Has he any Council so renowned as either the Latheran or Tridentine which euer owned his Negatiue as à Christian Truth Has he any Church as Vniuersally spread the whole whorld ouer as the Roman Catholick is which maintained his Doctrin three or four Ages since Euidently No. Vpon what then ground 's He his Moral certainty I 'le tell you in à word All he can pretend to or plead in This Controuersy comes to no more if it reach so far But to two or three dubious Authorities taken from those Fathers who were Professed members of the Roman Catholick Church And this little slender part He makes not only to striue against the whole Church but moreouer giues it so much strength as to Impeach That great Moral body of errour And vtterly to ruin the Doctrin which hath been taught age after age That is to A part Compared with the whole say The lesser Part or rather à meer supposed part must be thought so powerful as to make à happy war Offensiue and Defensiue against that whole Moral body whereof it was à member Is not this à strange Simplicity 4. Be pleased to take here one Instance from Ciuil affaires only Suppose you haue à Parlament consisting of three hundred and three iust vpright graue and most intelligent Persons who first treat of some weighty Matter relating to the good of à Kingdom or Common wealth And after long deliberation Enact what in prudence is thought best in order to its Setlement Suppose withall that two or three of à different iudgement withstand the Act and hold what is concluded not well done Will any one think ye not only ascribe à greater moral Certainty to those three dissenting votes Than to the other three hundred But more ouer decry the far more numerous votes though of Persons equally wise as vniust impertinent and remote from the meanest degree of moral Certainty And this is done reflect An Instance seriously vpon no other ground for no other reason but because Three are wilfully supposed by à third Party looking o◠strong enough to oppose the greater Part. If this instance like you better make vse of it Imagin that à Synode Consisting of 303. Protestant Ministers define as they think What 's b◠to hold within the Compass of Protestant Religion Imagin also that three oppose Them Can any of that Religion allow more Moral certainty to the three votes than to the other three hundred if we respect Authority meerly Certainly ◠5. Our very case is here sufficiently expressed and the instances Applyed to our present purpose easily applyed to our present purpose The Roman Catholick Church is you know à great Moral body comprehending not hundreds but thousands and thousands whereof innumerable are now and in past Ages haue been most iust vpright prudent and without Controuersy most eminently-learned These vnanimously Enact as it were whether in the Representatiue of Councils or by the vniuersal voice and vote of the whole Church That Praying to Saints prayers for the Dead or which we now insist on the Doctrin of Transubstantiation are not only Tenets morally Authorities not clear impertinently alleged certain But more ouer Articles of Diuine Faith Our Aduersaries to oppose this vnquestionable certainty produce three or four Authorities not clear as is supposed done in Parlament but weak and strained and hope hereby to reuerse to vnuote what these thousands haue decreed contrary Three or four witnesses And these at most dubious are here brought in against Transubstantiation to make our new mens opinion Morally certain and yet These thousands most wise and learned though they clearly vote and profess against it cannot forsooth gain so much credit with à few Sectaries as to aduance the Doctrin to moral Certainty For here we waue the question of infallible Assurance What Doings are these What daies do we liue in The whole Catholick Church teaches as She euer taught that the very Substance of bread is really changed into Christs Sacred body And now o strange times one Theoderet though no way opposit is haled in to reuerse the Doctrin One must striue against and conquer Thousands It is we say à pretty feat to kill two Birds with one bolt But here we haue à greater exploit Theodoret is supposed to leuel so right with à darker expressions if yet dark That he destroies the Faith of two Churches at Once the Greeck and Latin Councils and eminent A parallel of Authorities learned councils haue defined in our behalf and one Tertullian Though herein he speak's most Catholickly is pick't out to plead against them What 's one against innumerable Tradition both Ancient and modern deliuers the Truth we Propugn And an vnknown Gelasius set vp by Sectaries must be thought powerful enough to repeal and contradict our fore Fathers Tradition What Doings are these Can the Sectary hope to beate down that stronge Fortress which Hell gates could neuer yet shake by such slight and forceless Armour Alas goe to single votes we oppose our Iustins our Cyrills our Cyprians our Chrisostoms clear and express against one Theoderet were he doubtful Now with an Addition adde to these The weight and graue Authority of our Church and Councils There is no Parallel no Comparison betwixt vs. Yet more Suppose these few Authorities were clearly contrary to vs the Protestant only has at most three votes as it were in Parlament against Millions and what gain's he by this His pretended Moral certainty stand's not firm like an vncontradicted Truth against such à Cloud of opposit witnesses And. 6. Here you haue à further reason of my Assertion As long as this Principle stand's sure in nature A whole body is greater than à Part and à Part thereof lesse extended than the whole So long it will
be indisputably euident That the vote or voice of à whole moral body I mean of à Vniuersal Church far and neer extended A further proof of our Assertion carries with it greater Moral certainty For all this while we touch not vpon Infallibility than à small and slender Part can haue were such à part found so inuincibly ignorant as to contradict the whole All I would say is No more can à few particular members Though Angels for knowledge contest with the contrary iudgement of our ample Church Than three votes in Parlament with the Contrary iudgement of à whole Kingdom No more can the Authority of particular men equalize much less surmount in weight and worth the Sentiment of à whole Moral body than à hand For example surpass in bigness the whole man As the one exceed's in quantity and Extension so the other doth in weight and Intenfion 7. Hence you see first How poorly Sectaries play at small Game when hauing no ancient Church of their own to recurr to They are fain to run for refuge to à Few Fathers professed members of our Church And here like people picking Salads gather vp some small fragments which now they clip now mangle now peruert now Gloss now dress after their new fashion And at last serue all The new mode of Sectaries arguing fairly vp in the larger Margents of their little English Books With these they flourish and vapour as if forsooth à small parcel were able to contrast with the far greater Moral body or à few stolen gleaning were all true they say sufficient to Vnuote what euer this Oracle of Truth hath defined contrary Leaue of I besecch you Gentlemen this Trifling giue vs weight for weight measure for measure Please to plead by sound Principles or you lose the cause Doge not with vs we deal nobly with you 8. Wee giue you plain and express Scripture The Church is à Pillar and ground of Truth She is founded vpon à Rock c. And you Scriptureless men return vs your fancied Glosses We quote innumerable Fathers most significant for our Catholick Positions And you fob vs off with obscurities with Criticisms and such simple stuff We appeal to Tradition you haue none We And this mainly import's show you à Church à Visible and à most glorious Church which time out of mind Belieued as we belieue And would gladly know where your Orthodox Church was The Sectaries Pleading impertinent which four Centuries since approued or published your Nouelties And you like men losing your way go wandring about till at last you fall vpon Theoderet's Dialogues And with one single Passage ill espied and worse applyed hope to vndoe the whole Catholick cause It is not one nor ten Theoderets though they speak far more clearly than is done That can preiudice our Doctrin whilst you haue neither Church nor Councils for yours These Principles we demand of you but you haue them not Therefore you are cast into an impossibility of writing Controuersies hereafter For the few Shreds of Fathers vnluckily cut out by you are too slight to obscure the greater Lights of our Christianity of our Church of our Councils of our Tradition and innumerable Fathers Belieue it had the Fathers you Quote so much Strength as you imagin others would haue read them before your eyes were open better Iudgements would haue weighed what force they had before your Luthers and Caluins were in Being But That wiser world now gone to Eternity waued such Cauils And knew well That what à Titius or à Caâ—us saies may be right And may be wrong But what the Church of Christ Defines and teaches cannot but be sound and Orthodox if God speak's Truth Here is the Principle whereon Christians securely relied in past Ages before our later Sectaries troubled the world 9. You see 2. in what à pitifull case Sectaries are when no more is alleged against our Catholick Doctrin And rest assured They haue no more but à few scattered Authorities now taken Doubtful Authorities of no weight at all from one now from another ancient Father Therefore I discourse thus The Authority is either expresly plain against vs which I neuer yet saw in any Doctrinal Contest between the Catholick and Protestant or Contrariwise doubtful and ambiguous If doubtful it decides nothing nor can the Protestant though He Vow 's it Clear make it soe whilst the learned Catholick auouches the Contrary Hitherto both of them stand vpon Opinions and end nothing Neither can the one or other yet absolutly Say by virtue of such à Passage only Your Doctrin is False And mine is True For à Principle rationally apprehended dubious determin's none to an absolute true iudgement one way or other Let vs therefore suppose contrary to Truth That the Sectary produceth à Father indubitably clear against Catholick Doctrin Thanks be to God These great lights of the Church are not so scarce with vs But that we are able to confront that one Authority with the plain Testimonies of other Fathers far more numerous And thus much I here engage to do may it please Sectaries to come to à iust Tryal and fully examin with me this one point of Transubstantiation now hinted at And if after the Contest we do not only match our Aduersary but quite outvie him with many more Testimonies fully as clear and clearer We may then rationally ask what 's one clear Authority worth I say yet more Though we falsly suppose these particular contrary Authorities to lie euen or equal on both Sides I mean as pregnant for the Sectary as for the Catholick yet I neither lose my cause nor he gain 's his Because neither of vs can absolutly say vpon what if authorities were equal on both sides Moral certainty which Doctrin is à Christian Truth And which not For in this conflict of Authorities Supposed equal both iudgements are left in suspence The one saith I quote clear Authorities for my Tenet The other answers Hee doth so too And Therefore hitherto stand so equally poised That neither may cry Victory Neither can yet pretend to so much Moral certainty as excludes All reasonable doubting because both Parties must doubt whilst the Authorities of the one abate the force of the other What then followes from the Fathers Testimonies were they thus equally diuided That is if as many clearly stood for the Negatiue of no Transubstantiation And iust as many clearly for the Contrary Positiue I Answer This followes That we and Sectaries must of necessity will we know Truth either appeal to à third certain concluding Principle or stand doubtfully opining as is often done in what followes vpon arguing out of doubtful Principles schools without à final Decision For to Belieue any thing certainly as Catholicks belieue if that Principle be excluded or to know any thing yet morally certain as Sectaries pretend to know is vtterly impossible Because à Principle purely probable is euidently too weak either to Support
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
your Glosses To point at his Church and Councils which taught Protestancy to an Orthodox Church The world was neuer without one Say therefore in Gods name where or when was such an Orthodox Christian Society in Being that positiuely taught no Transubstantiation No sacrifice of the Mass No inuocation of Saints c Where or when were your Councils which positiuely defined these Doctrins c You may Answer and truely You haue indeed neither Church nor Councils Nor Tradition Express for these your Negatiues Very right Therefore I wrong you not in saying your whole Cause subsist's vpon Coniectures cauils And Glosses Because now you cast your selues into an Impossibility of pleading by any better Principles than meer guesses are Thus much supposed Say I beseech you What auail's it if when an Authority is plain for Popery that you can by à nimble gloss darken it Or if obscure You haue A Fiat lux at hand and can charm it into so much Clarity as may suffice to dazle the eyes of à vulgar Reader What Satisfaction haue I here or what gain you by this Proceeding when you know we haue more witnesses ready to attest yea to dye for our Catholick Verities than you haue hairs on your head or Glosses in your book What gain you to your cause could you missinterpret all the Fathers that euer wrote when you without the warrant of any Orthodox Society haue yet à whole learned Church Her Councils and Tradition against you And all the store of Ammunition left you to attaque this great Oracle of Truth is very small no more God knowes but à without them no satisfaction is giuen flash of lightning borrowed from the Ignis fatuus of your far-fetcht Glosses Gloss on Cauil on coniecture on to the worlds end As long as no known or Owned Principle distinct from Glosses and coniectures Support's them You only beat the aire or to vse à pretty late phrase amongst you lapwing-like Pew most when furthest from the nest I mean you are most fierce to end Controuersies when you are furthest off from Principles which only can end them 8. Thus then you should proceed had not God and Truth silenced you I E. S. B. D. declare to you honest Papists That in the Sixth or seauenth age after Christ His true Orthodox Church positiuely taught no Transubstantiation Such à Council either in former or later Ages expresly defined so Then and before also Church Tradition was vniuersally for my Doctrin And thus much I can make good to the learnedest Romanist among you Wonder not Therefore when you quote your Iustins your Cyprians your Chrisostoms seemingly contrary to my Church Doctrin That I interpret all I am forced to doe so or against conscience must desert my old Mother Church Her Councils How Sectaries ought to plead and Tradition likewise From which You haue too licentiously swerued to side with your Iustins and I know not who els Could the Sectary plead after this manner His Glosses would haue force But he neuer meddles with the First main Business That is neuer ground 's his Doctrin vpon any thing like à satisfactory Principle But as if He minded to tire Ones patience run's on headlong with Glosses When he has no Principled Doctrin to Gloss for Iust as if One should tell his neighbour Sir you lye And this I auerr to your face Though I want where withall to proue my Saying true In all these Controuersies Sectaries are so pertly vnciuil as to giue the Lie to à whole Church And what supports the Boldnes Haue they any other Church more Orthodox Councils more learned Tradition more vniuersal to proue we lye than our Church our Tradition And Councils are which say we speak truth Nothing at all like them We here challenge them to speak to the cause and controuersies are ended What then remain's to plead with Plain Scripture Not à word Fathers plain Not one O yes Tertullian is drawn in to help at à dead lift so is Theoderet And one or two more Very true But he is à glossed Tertullian à glossed Theoderet c. Separate then these Glosses from the Fathers genuin Doctrin giue them the Sectary to manage you see him in open field compleatly armed ready to encounter Church Councils Tradition And all the other Principles of the Catholick world Are not Glosses think Glosses strangely powerful with Sectaries ye strong and prodigiously powerful which haue not only force to plead against à whole Church But more ouer to implead her of palpable errour This Church is supposed to haue changed Her ancient Doctrin And Sectaries will reform it not by recurring to any other more Orthodox Society of Christians But by meer guesses and Glosses That is The Fallible Glosses and gueses of men confessedly fallible must reform à Church which hold's Her selfe infallible And proues it also 9. Thus it is Christian Reader I speak plainly And can defend my Assertion Besides meer begging the Question in all Disputes besides Cauils And weak coniectures The Sectary hath no more left him to oppose our Catholick Tenets but meer vnprincipled Glosses I neither word it nor wrong Protestants in saying thus much Peruse if you please their writings chiefly Mr Stillingfleets Account you will find when the Churches Infallibility or Transubstantiation c. Happen to be handled That Glosses laid on the Authorities vsually quoted for Catholick Doctrin euer take vp the most room And which is worse yea pitiful in à Rational Defender of Protestancy You shall neuer find through this whole Book waue Cauils coniectures and Glosses one sound Principle laid plainly forth nor so much as hinted at in behalf of any Protestant Article What think ye Shall Yet Most weak and feeble Christians who would fain haue à Church to liue in see the old House of God pulled down by vnhandy Glossers before They haue à better built vp And well setled on good Foundations Pulled down What say I Alas our Glossers haue not strengh to vntile it much less force to demolish that long slanding Fortress Yet Glosses chiefly And t' is à sad thought for the Sectary support his vndefensible Schism made in the desperate quarrel against that Church which gaue his Ancestors Baptism These only there is no more must plead in behalf of his inhuman and barbarous Reformation These finally must answer before an Impartial Iudge at that great day of Doom for all his merciless cruelty practised vpon the deceased and some yet liuing Catholicks Sad thoughts I say they are to goe to bed with to rise with to banquet with which like Ghosts will haunt him to his dying day And lay Torment at his restles hart in his greatest iollities And more in the houre of death 10. After all you see the Conclusion and an end put to Controuersies The Conclusion against Sectaries If no Orthodox Church vphold's this Protestancy or any article of it which is euident No Councils nor Tradition can support
granted so much The Argument is clearly proposed Mr Stillingfleet return's no probable Answer A full discouery of his fallacies 1. SOme may think the particular Matter now hinted at too largely handled being scarce worth halfe the labour here spent vpon it And They iudge right Should I once so much as offer to proue as Mr Stillingfleet fondly Imagin's the Roman Catholick Church à safe way to saluation because Protestants Say so Far bee it from mee to entertain such à Thought For whether They side with vs or not Wee haue absolute Absolute Certainty of Faith without dependence of Sectaries Certainty of our Faith independently of Their suffrages or Voting vs in à Secure way to Heauen Wherefore Should Sectaries recoile And say wee are all damned as some haue done wee regard it not That would no more Lessen the Certainty wee now haue of sound Faith than Their Casual Granting vs Saluation in the way wee are in Heightens it 2. 'T is true were it doubtful or no more but Probable whether Catholicks Could bee saued in their Religion The agreeing of Sectaries with vs might serue for something But now when the Certainty of our Doctrin Stand's as wee here Suppose most secure vpon an Infallible Principle which is Church Authority The Proof taken from the Agreement of both Parties is an Impertinency And in real Truth De subiecto non supponente That is Not to bee supposed if which is euer to bee noted wee should goe about to strengthen our Catholick Doctrin because Heretiques Agree with vs. 3. Howeuer though the Agreement Considered in it selfe beâ— no more but à fallible Protestant Opinion yet laid by the other indubitable Doctrin of the Catholick Church 'T is à Truth as asserted by them And ties their tongues so fast that They shall Neuer hereafter speak à probable word against our Catholick Faith Again the Concession presses Sectaries Ad hominem who admit Scripture vpon the General Agreement of all Called Christians If therefore They argue well Both you Catholicks and wee Protestants hold these books Diuine Ergo They are so Wee Argue as strongly Both Parties also grant saluation to Catholicks An Argument against them vpon their Concession ergo They are so secure that it is impossible to plead against the Truth Though as I said now The Sectaries Concession heightens not one whit our Certainty whereof you may see more n. 20. In the Interim please to know The only reason why I discuss this Controuersy more at Large is first to discouer Mr Stillingfleets gross fallacies Next to Show that Protestants are forced at last to Put an End to Controuersies Seeing the most Learned that euer wrote ingenuously acknowledge the Roman Catholick Faith to bee à safe secure and abundantly sufficient Means to attain Saluation which is to say A true belieuing Catholick Cannot bee Damned vpon the Account of Wanting Faith if other Christian Duties bee Complyed with 4. Now if you Ask what forced Sectaries to grant thus much to Catholicks I answer it was no kindness God knowes But stark shame to touch here on no other Motiue which extorted the Concession from them For would not both Heauen and earth haue Clamour'd had They damned all their own Ancestors all the learned and ignorant of the Roman Catholick Church far and neer extended for want of Diuine Faith Yet this followes Because without Faith it is impossible to please God And thus they stand perplexed Allow sauing faith to the Roman Catholick Their Plea is ended Deny it They send millions and millions of Souls to Hell Thus much premised I Argue 5. That Faith which the Roman Catholick Church and Protestants The Ground of our Doctrin also iointly own as sufficient to bring à man to Heauen is intirely perfect And cannot be rationally opposed by either Party But the Faith of à true belieuing Catholick is such à Faith Therefore it is entirely perfect And cannot be more rationally Opposed Now further If it stand's thus firm vpon Church Authority That 's the certain Principle And the Concâ—ssion of Aduersaries As an ouer-measure though weightles it cannot be rationally excepted against by either both Parties owning it sufficient to Saluation Therefore All controuersies concerning Faith are clearly ended in behalf of Catholicks Vnless meer Cauils may pass for rational Arguments 6. It is truly Pitiful to see how vainly Mr Stillingfleet Part. 3. C. 4. Page 611. striues to Euert the force of this short Discourse Sometimes The difficulty is not so much as touched by him Sometimes Hee mistakes the Question And euer beggs it Now He run's away with half à Principle which lead's in à lame Conclusion Now false Suppositions pass for Proofs Now Protestant Opinions enter in as sound Doctrin Here he wrong's our Catholick Authors There He contradict's himselfe In à word you haue nothing through His whole fourth Chapter But I know not what strange Confusion Thus He Begins 7. Protestants confess there is à Pissibility for some to escape Damnation The Aduersaries discourse in the Communion of the Roman Church But it is as men may escape with their liues in Shipwrack But they Protestants vndertake to make it euident There can be no danger if they obserue the Principles of Protestant Religion Mark first How strait hearted The man is in granting as little as may be viz. A meer Possibility And of some only to be saued in the Roman Faith hoping Thereby to remoue his own Ancestors and Millions of Pious Christians as far from Heauen as à Possibility conceiued by Him is from an Actual Being I know other Protestants speak more roundly And say absolutely Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick Church because it is à true Church in Fundamentals And that the differences betweem them And vs are about lesser Matters or meer Opinions c. See Mr. Thorndicke in his Book of Forbearance page 19. Therefore Mr. Stillingfleets lean bare and remote Possibility of Saluation is only his own particular Opinion Proved weak and vnconcluding Howeuer though he see 's not the Consequence Wee haue enough to conclude against him I 'le s'hew you how 8. There is Saith he A posibility of being Saved in the Romam Catholick Faith That is Catholick Religion has in it à Possibility of bringing men to Heauen if there be nothing wanting on Their parts Very Good This Possibility intrinsecal To the Religion is now as actually in Being as the Religion it Selfe But the Religion is actually in being Therefore this Possibility inseparable from it is also Actual And lies not in the Series of things yet producible as Creatures doe which God if he please may Create to morrow And thus you see Possibility stand's here not opposite to non-Existency but to an Actual impossibility Therefore when I say Catholick Religion now existing can possibly saue All I say with the same breath it cannot possibly damn Any Unless you 'l Grant it can saue All and damn some which is
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
and that this Resurrection is meant in divers passages of Scripture But they deny the Resurrection of the body after Death Ergo it will be the Safest to deny the article of the Resurrection Again Dissenting parties as Iewes Turcks and Sectaries agree with Catholicks that there is but one God Ergo by virtue of this Principle men will be bound to deny the Trinity Lastly Dissenting parties Agree fully with vs That Christ is man but Hereticks deny His Godhead Therefore it will be safest belieuing that Christ is meer man And not God Answer With much wearisomness do I read these more than pitiful improbable inferences Not one of them arises from Premises which lead in any thing like your Conclusion Reduce but Premises put which infer no Conclusion one to right Form one serues for all and you will see your folly Thus it is That Doctrin in which Catholicks and Hereticks agree is safe and true Doctrin Catholicks and Hereticks agree in this Doctrin that Christ is man but not man only ergo that is safe and true Doctrin Here is the utmost your Premises can infer And I grant all Christ is truly man So I grant the Doctrin of à Resurrection from sin of one God only to be most sound and Catholick But here is your grand mistake and open fallacy with it You seem to perswade the Reader that because Hereticks agree so far with the Church Therefore it is safe to deny what euer other Doctrin She maintains Sr She maintains the Truths now mentioned yet not only Those But many more And herein there is no Agreement consequently no good conclusion for you vpon any agreed Principle For thus much only followes from thence That so far as we Agree so far true Doctrin is taught Apply this to our present matter and all is plain You and we agree thus far that Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick Religion Most true We dissent from you concerning the Charge of Superstitions An ather fallacy discouered and gross Errours imposed on vs from this you can infer no Conclusion against vs vpon the Principle of Agreement now Supposed in the other Doctrin of Saluation which goes on roundly without all contradiction I would say We agree about Saluation and that 's à Truth we differ in other points here we must dispute vpon other Grounds And lay that agreed on Principle aside for immediatly it lead's in no conclusion in such matters 31. Shall I now tell you where your whole Fallacy lies It lurk's in that pretty Term Safest For you thought to infuse into it this Sense So much Doctrin as we and Hereticks agree in is only the Safest But no more As if we Catholicks held what euer other Tenet is out of the compass of that agreed-on Doctrin implies both Vnsafety and Vncertainty You grosly mistake We hold euery other Point of Catholick Religion wherin you and we dissent wholly as Safe and certain as That is we both agree in For I tell you once more our Safety and certainty depend not vpon any Hereticks consent If then you would rack That Principle we and Arians agree to this unto ward sense So much Doctrin The Principle of Agreement abused precisely is the safest we agree in And no more Or That our maintaining that agreed-on Doctrin to be safe excludes other Catholick verities from being So Wee neither agree with the Arian nor any other Heterodox But utterly disclaim The Principle and consequently say you can draw no Conclusion at all from it against vs. Sense the Principle and all is clear Hereticks and we agree That Christ is man That sense contains certain Doctrin O but the meaning may be He is so purely man that he is not God Giue it this sense we agree not but reject the Principle as Heretical which therefore inferr's nothing like à conclusion against vs. All is contrary in the other agreed on Principle Concerning the Saluation of Catholicks For that as I said now Though it serue not immediatly to end other debates touching Purgatory Praâ—ing to Saints c. yet it drawes with it à long train of notable consequences For if we may be saued we haue true Faith in our Church true Hope true Chatity true Repentance And what euer is necessary to attain saluation More of Mr. Stillingfleets Mistakes briefly discouered 32. I 'le only briefly hint all the rest which followes from your Page 623. to the end of the Chapter To touch them is enough to take off the little strength they haue You ask first Why you ought to belieue that which both Parties agree in I Answer because you must belieue in some Church which is either your own or Two questions answered the Roman Catholick Or Both Both grant the Catholick may be saued what would you haue more You Ask again If the consenting parties may agree in à falshood what euidence haue you but that the agreed on Principle is one of those Falshoods I haue answered 1. If the Principle bee supposed false you might haue roundly said so at the beginning and spared all your superfluous labour spent to no purpose in this fourth Chapter I Answered 2. The true Church euen when Protestants consent to it cannot Agree in à falshood for the true Church speaks truth And He or They who side with it cannot swerue from truth in that You say 3. It ought to be à safe Principle indeed and no vncertain Topical Argument which men should venture their souls vpon Answ If men must be saued in the true Church be it yet where you will And in this we All agree none can in conscience call the Doctrin of it Topical or vncertain as shall be proued afterward In the mean while Say I beseech you Church Doctrin Miscalled Topical what safer Principle haue you to rely on in this weightly matter of Saluation which will not be more Topical Than that is which the true Church teaches And you approue You know or should know there was neuer any true Church since Christianity began which denied Saluation to the Romam Catholick Nay all Orthodox Christians euer granted it You side with all these Orthodox Christians and what greater Authority can there be on earth Yet this Principle must be called by you Topical and vncertain Say then what 's more certain Will you leave the voice and vote of all Orthodox Professors and run to Scripture Alas The whole book Saith no where so much as seemingly That you Protestants are in the Safe way of Saluation And we Catholicks not What euer Argument therefore is drawn from Scripture will be à lesse satisfactory Principle yea none at all And infinitly more Topical in order to saue you Than what the church teaches and you hold with it is to save vs. Now if you let goe this Principle of plain Scripture as you must or I 'le vrge you lo produce that plain Text which saues you and Damn's Catholicks you haue nothing left
Set once more pen paper and proue vs guilty of damnable Errour and you 'l damn so many that very few of your Protestants will be left in à state of Saluation I 'le make the Assertion good hereafter In the interim you Tell vs Wee palpably beg the Question whilst we suppose the whole Church is on our side and against you which is à notorious falshood Sr words are but wind I shall by the Grace of God Euidence this Truth so notoriously in the next Discourse that you if reason may haue place must confess Catholicks are the only Orthodox Church And Consequently grant that Controuersies are ended between vs. THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith HEre wee come to handle à main Matter in Controuersies And first Euidence the true Church by Her Marks and Glorious Miracles The Roman Catholick Church is proued the only Orthodox Society of Christians and Rule of Faith also VVee Euince Her absolute Infallibility and shew by Reason That if She hath taught but one false Doctrin and obliged Christians to belieue it there is now no true Faith in the world CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 1. THE first Principle God whose eternal designe is to bring man to true Faith in this short pilgrimage and after to endles Happines afford's means to acquire both And hath as Principles presupposed well laid open the means whereby true Faith may be attained As made our final End known 2. The second Principle Those want the means leading to the last happy End who are Aliens from the true Church of Christ or Separated from that Catholick Society The Assertion is so plainly deliuered not only by most Ancient Fathers But by the more learned Sectaries also That it is needless to produce many Testimonies S. Cyprian Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae Saith Quisquis ab Ecclesia separatus est c. Who euer is separated from the Church is ioyned to an Adulteress And diuorced from all the Promisses of the Church He comes not to the reward which Christ has promised who leaues the Church of Christ He is an Alien Prophane an Enemy and cannot haue God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother S. Austin lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13. Speaks fully this sense Citing those last words of Cyprian And Lib. 4. de Baptis C. 17. Saith Out of the Church there is no Saluation Yet more Epist 152. Whoeuer is or shall be separated from The Fathers Testimonies preduced this Catholick Church although he thinks himself to liue most laudably For this one wickednes alone that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ shall haue no life Sed ira Dei manet super eum But the wrath of God remains vpon him S. Fulgentius Lib. de fide ad Petrum C. 39. Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it That an Heretick or Schismatick baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and Holy Ghost if he be not in Vnion with the Catholick Church Although he giues neuer so great Alms And shed his blood for Christ yet he cannot be saued I waue other excellent Authorities known to euery one versed in the Fathers And need not to take more pains when Protestants themselues own the Doctrin The Ark was à type of the Church saith Perkins in Symb. Colum with me 785. extra quam omnes interibant out of which Ark All dyed and all are damned who are out of the Church Again In Caput 9. ad Sectaries Consent Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church are not members of the Catholick Church Humfred Ad Ration 3. Campiani We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible Church of God Finally Caluin the Master of Sectaries Lib. 4. Institu C. 1. 4. makes it absolutly necessary to be in vnion with Christs visible Church 3. The ground of this Truth is so solidly laid down in Scripture that none can contradict it For here the Church is called the Kingdom the Body the Inheritance of Christ purchased at à dear The Ground of our Catholick Truth rare the effusion of his sacred blood A Citty built vpon à Mountain The House the Temple of God the Hierusalem the Pillar and firmament of Faith c. Whereby it appears That whoeuer is out of this Kingdom out of this Citty out of this house and Temple of God whoeuer is not à member of this Mystical body or shares not in this purchased Inheritance or in à word out of the true Church be it where you will I yet define nothing is in à damnable condition A sad thought for all Sectaries because it is certain that Christ has not composed his Church of such Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the true Church and of such as oppose it Vnity and Diuision in Vnity and Diuision in Faith haue no place in the true Church points of Faith ase inconsistent in the same Orthodox Church and destroy the essential forme of it which is one Faith Now if our Aduersaries talk of à vnity in Fundamentals they are not only euidently conuinced of Errour in the other Treatise But vpon this very Account become Separaters from the Church and without Principles Assert that which neither Church nor Scripture teaches Who euer hold's not the Catholick faith entire shall Perish eternally saith S. Athanasius in his Creed but an entire Belief excludes all distinction between fundamentals and others as is manifest I little value some Protestants Glosses made vpon this Text for Glosses with me are weightles when they stand vnprincipled 4. The 3. Principle What the true Church of Christ teaches concerning the sense of Scripture That 's the sense intended by the Holy Ghost and Consequently most true The reason is Truth cannot be contrary to truth The Church and Scripture neuer Clash But alwaies speak one and the same verity This Sectaries must grant who define the Church to be an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God Therefore it cannot deceiue or teach an Errour contrary to that pure word Or if it doth so it ceaseth eo ipso to be God's Oracle And the true Church of Christ 5. If these men still go on trifling with their wonted distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals And allow à Perfect vnity of Doctrin between the Church and Scripture in The Distinction between Fundamentals and others friuolous things absolutly necessary to Saluation but not in others This is to define and not to define to build and destroy to teach and cheat in one breath For à definition which makes known the nature of à Thing must stand in its open sense without restraint and exactly agree to the thing defined Mark now Christs true Church is the Thing defined and the Definition charged with endless restrictiue Terms is drawn to Non-sense fot it tells vs the Church
must become Papists or wee turn Arians and Protestants Or finally be forced to deny plain Scripture A most conuincing Argument 9. The difficulty therefore is not and Sectaries seldom touchit whether Scripture be true were the sense known or out of Controuersy but what that true sense is which lies in obscurity and cannot be known without à certain Interpreter Here is the only Question debated between vs and Sectaries One may The only difficulty concerning Scripture Reply It is no good obiection to say learned men differ about the sense of Scripture Ergo it is not sufficiently plain because à great wit may wrest the plainest words God euer spake to à sinister sense Contra. 1. But who knowes when two learned Parties contest in this Matter which of them is the sinister Wrester Contra 2. When à whole Society of men as the Arians were and Protestants are now Tamper with à Text which touches an essential point of Faith And dissent from others as learned as Themselues about the meaning The sense cannot be supposed more clear for the one than the other without an other Rule certain and Definitiue Pray you say Is the sense of those words My Father is greater than I indisputably clear for the Arian Or the sense of Christs words This is my Body without controuersy clear for the Protestants Doctrin concerning the Sacrament when à whole learned Church opposeth both Euidently No. Therefore Sectaries must acknowledge an Obscurity in Scripture our Nouellists must grant that Scripture is not only obscure in these two places But more That à Iudge is necessary to ascertain all of its true meaning as well in these as in à hundred other Passages Again if Scripture want this clarity it cannot be its own Self-euidence much less conuince an obdurate Aduersary Nay I say though it were clear and the sense thereof agreed on by all called Christians yet both Iewes and Gentils scorn the Diuinity of the book And say if 't be of Diuine inspiration That must be proued by à certain Rule extrinsecal to Scripture Therefore it is not immediatly credible by it self or for it self Lastly were Scripture plain in it self yet And this vtterly ruin's Sectaries The certain Doctrin of it can neuer be applyed indubitably to any vnderstanding For our Nouellists say because all Teachers of Christian Doctrin are fallible none can make an infallible Application of it to any or teaeh that Doctrin infallibly which is in it self infallible See more hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. and C. 4. N. S. 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 1. THe true Church of Christ in this present State manifestly demonstrable by signal Marks and Motiues is the only plain certain Self-euident Rule of Faith apt to conuince the most obdurate Vnbelieuer It is immediatly credible and the Doctrin of it certainly applyed to à Seeker after truth These Assertions stand firm vpon 3. Principles 2. 1. Christ Iesus has prouided Christians of à clear and easy Rule otherwise All are left in darknes and know not what or how to belieue 3. 2. Nothing assigned by Sectaries Bee it Scripture solely or what els Imaginable Carries so much as à weak probability of being à Rule so plain easy and satisfactory as the true Church is 4. 3. All the properties of à Rule exactly agree to the Church of Christ and to Her only 1. The Rule of Faith is plain Christs Church is the Rule of Faith so is Church Doctrin and much more plain than Scripture I mean we easily vnderstand what the Church teaches though the Doctrin in it self be difficult 2. A Rule is its own Self-euidence so the Church is taken with the Marks and Motiues whereby She is demonstrated 3. A Rule is apt to conuince the most obstinate Aduersaries Christs Church has euidently don so witness the innumerable Conuersions wrought by Her vpon Iewes Gentils and most obdurate Hereticks 4. A Rule must be certain and certainly applyed to Belieuers what Christs true Church teaches is so for She is Gods own Oracle as shall be proued hereafter and teaches her Children infallibly The Truth of these particulars will be more fully laid forth in the sequele of this Discourse In the mean while two things are to be cleared The first what we vnderstand by the Church of Christ 2. How and by what means She may be known Thus much done we shall easily find out those Christians who are Members of this happy Society or essentially constitute that visible moral Body called the Holy Catholick Church What is meant by the Church 5. Concerning the first We speak plainly and vnderstand by the Church à visible Society of true Belieuers vnited in one profession of Christian Faith and the communication of Sacraments vnder the Conduct and Gouerment of Christ's lawful Commissioned Pastors I say no more yet hoping no Sectary can iustly quarrel with the Notion of à Church expressed in such general Terms And therefore waue at present that other worn-out controuersy agitated by Protestants viz. Whether the Predestinate only make vp the true Church or great Sinners also may be included That is not at all to our purpose now when we only seek after à Society of Christians vnited in the true Faith of Jesus Christ who owne à due submission to lawful Commissioned Pastors whether those who teach or are taught be Saints or sinners concerns them t' is true but not our present Question Of such Belieuers there cannot be two or more Churches but one only And to auoid all confusion or the mingling of different Questions together we here moue no doubt concerning the Head The meaning of the question proposed or chief Authority of this Church but immediattly Ask whether there is now and has euer been since Christs time à visible diffused Society of Christians who haue faithfully belieued the Orthodox Doctrin of Christ and vpon that Account well merit to be called the Professors of the true Catholick Church Of this Vniuersal spread Society our Sauiour spake most clearly or of none Hell gates Can not preuail against it The Spirit of Truth abides with it to the end of the world c. I think no Sectary will deny such à Church 6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and large diffused Body of Christians vnited in one true Faith and the sincere Worship of God And nothing is more consonant to reason more express in Holy Writ or more clearly asserted by the ancient Fathers than that the true Church laies forth Her own euidence or clear Discernibility whereby She is distinguished from all Heretical Sects That is She lies manifestly open to all eyes and Cannot but bee most easily known She is à Ciâ—â—y built vpon à mountain The light of the world A
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
Church of Christ the only Rule of Faith which decides all Controuersies Concerning Religion CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ was is and shall euer be the Holy Apostolical and Catbolick Roman Church Her Antiquity and Constant Perseuerance in the Ancient primitiue Doctrin without Alteration proues The Assertion 1. IT is hard to illustrate à manifest Truth because what euer reasons are brought to light for it surpass not much the Euidence of the thing you would make clear Who euer goes about to proue by Arguments that the Sun is the most luminous Body in the Heauens will haue much to do because that 's euidents to our senses and so is the true Church of Christ saith S. Austin digito demonstrari potest She can be pointed at with your finger Origen adds Hom. 33. in Matth. She is like à sun casting her beams from one part of the world to the other Howeuer because we now treat with men who either see not or pretend not to see I will giue them all the Euidence gathered from demonstratiue Signes which à heart can wish for 2. I say first before we come to more conuincing Arguments Antiquity is à certain Note of Christ Church The reason is As God was before the Diuel and Truth before falshood So the Orthodox Church whether you take it from Adam or Antiquity denotes the true Church from the first preaching of Christian Doctrin was before all Sects and Heresies The Roman Catholick Church only which Christ founded and is so much extolled by the Apostle has this Precedency It was when the Arians were not we know their first Rise it was when the Pelagians were not we know their Beginning it was when rhe Donatists were not their Origen is as well known as that of Protestants which first peeped out with one unfortunate Luther something aboue an age since Might not then the Roman Catholick Church more ancient than all these Sectaries haue most justly questioned each of them at their first appearance as the learned Tertullian Lib de Prescrip did those of His time Qui estis vos who are you new men Vnde quando venistis From whence came you Vbi tam diu latuistis Where haue ye been hid so long No body yet saw you or heard of you I waue the Testimonies of other Fathers chiefly of S. Austin and S. Hierome though none presses this Argument drawn from Antiquity with greater efficacy than Optatus Meliuitan Lib 2. contra Parmeâ—an They are known to euery one But this Mark must not goe alone 3. I say 2. Antiquity and à neuer interrupted Continuance The Church once true neuer Changed her Doctrin of the same Visible Society Age after Age and the same Doctrin vpheld without change or Alteration clearly euidences Christs Church This Scripture strongly Asserts Osee 2. where the Church is said to be espoused to Christ in Sempiternum for euer Math 16. Hell gates shall neuer preuail against it Math. 28. Christ will be with it to the end of the world vpon which Passage S. Hierome speaks most clearly Qui vsque ad consummationeâ— sae 〈…〉 c. He who promised to be with his own Disciples to the end â—f Authority â—nd the world both showes that these blessed men shall euer liue in their successors And that he will not depart from the true Belieuers Videtur sicut luna c. They are words of S. Ambrose lib 4. Hexam The Church may be seen like the moon eclipsed but neuer perisheâ— She may be clouded and ouer cast with darknes but cannot fail The reason is If Christs Church could fail not only all memory Reason proue the Assertion of his sacred Passion with the other Mysteries of our Faith but the whole Scripture also would for that time of her supposed Deficiency haue been no obiects of Belief None could then haue said with truth I belieue the Holy Catholick Church or haue had Access to it because it was not then in Being Now further As the Church cannot fail so She cannot Alter from her self or change Christs Doctrin For if She did so She were no more Orthodox Christ could not own Her for his Spouse Ponder S. Austins Discourse on this subiect in Psal 101. Existâ—â—t qui dicunt c. There are some who say This is not the Church of all nations which once was No. That 's gone and thus they Speak saith the Saint because they are not of the true Church O impudentem S. Austins Iudgement vocem illa non est quia tu in illa non es O impudent speech it is not the same Church it was because thou art not in it Vide ne tu ideo non Sis. look to thy self least thou be not for the Church will be although thou were not in the world Then he decries this Doctrin of the Churches failure as most abominable detestable and pernicious And in Psalm 60. positiuely Asserts the permanency of it to the end of the world 4. Hence I argue But the Roman Catholick Church only hath euer continued in being without interruption and neuer The probation vrged changed or Altered the Doctrin which She first learned of Christ Protestancy which began one only Age since most euidently wants this continuance and euery year put 's on à new countenance Therefore the Roman Catholick Church and not that of Protestants is the Spouse of Christ That the Roman Catholick Church stood permanently in being euer since Christ is as demonstrable as that Protestants were not before Luther The Visible perpetual Succession of our Popes of our Bishops of our Pastors and of our Catholick People in all ages is an irrefragable Proof Neither do Sectaries much cauil at this Personal Succession or the exteriour Permanency of our Church for What Sectaries obiect that 's euident But here is their Plea This Church say they once Orthodox changed from her selfe forged new Articles of faith Contrary to the primitiue Doctrin Herein lies the great Charge Now if I demonstrate that the Roman Catholick Church once confessedly Orthodox hath euer since been Visible in the world and neuer swerued from the pure Primitiue Doctrin in after Ages She is certainly the Church of Christ still without Alteration You will Ask how can this be euinced 5. Some may think 't is best done by Paralleling our present known Church Doctrin with that of the Primitiue Times Very good But by what means shall we come to à right Parallel One may Say Make A diligent Inspection into the Records and Writings of those worthy Fathers who liued in the first Ages And all is done I Answer This Rule precisely considered help 's nothing For what if those Fathers neuer medled with most of the Controuersies now agitated between vs and Sectaries And t' is no wonder at all if they did not For may not à new Sort of Hereticks rise vp to morrow whose Errours neuer entred into the thoughts either of the
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
to life And for three you haue more reuiued by an other of His holy Order I mean that admirable Saint Vincentius Ferrerius So the pious and learned S. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence Recounts in his Histpry 3. Part lib. 23. And who dares say that so great à Doctor And most modest Prelate was so Frontless as to write that we read not long after the death of S. Vincentius without Assurance and Certainty The whole world would haue decryed the Folly Had it been à Fourb an Imposture or à fabulous Story 7. By what is now said of These and other infinit Operations of grace which I am forced to omit you may inferr first That the Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church are not inferiour to those done by the Apostles And consequently if our Our Sauiours Prophesy falfilled in the Churches Miracles Sauiours Prophesy was seen manifestly fulfilled in those first Apostolical Wonders it hath been also as effectually accomplished in these latter of the Church I say in the Roman Catholick Church For all those now named whom God priuiledged with the Grace of working Miracles were of the same vnion in Faith with this Church and no other It followes 2. That Humane Faith when no iust Exception comes against it But the fool-hardy Spirit of vnbelieuing Heathens and Hereticks giues Mortal Assurance of Miracles The Miracles of our Sauiour euidence this Truth He raised Lazarus from death Iohn 11. A Touch of his garment cured the infirm woman Matt. 9. He restored sight to à blind man Iohn 9. Obserue I beseech you All Iewry beheld not these Wonders But some only Yet they were wrought for the good of All and without doubt proued conuincing Arguments of Christ's great power to innumerable who actually saw them not But only heard of them and Assented to what they heard vpon Miracles made Credible vpon humane Authority humane Authority prudently credible Therefore our Sauiour Supposed That humane Faith and this before the writing of Scripture was à Sufficient Means to conuey to others à Moral certainty of his Miracles I say yet more If God euer efficaciously intended to worck à true Miracle since the Creation of the world by any of his creatures Humane Faith was and yet is the First and most Connatural way of Conueying it to the knowledge of others Who therefore excepts against this vsual course of Prouidence destroies à Principle of Nature and can belieue nothing of Supernatural Effects but what he either sees with his own eyes or find's registred in Holy Writ 8. Ask now How many Austins How many Chrysostoms how many Cyrills how many Bedes and Bernards haue vpon their Credit and Reputation assured vs of Miracles wrought in the Roman Church only like to those in the Primitiue Age They are numberless Did Christ our Lord restore life to the dead sight to the blind health to the sick The Professors of our Catholick Church by his virtue haue done the very same and the Miracles are more numerous But now and here is the chief demand Were our Sauiours glorious Works made Credible to Authority alleged thousands no Eye-witnesses vpon Humane faith and Authority before Scripture registred them So it is Behold we haue our Austins our Iustins our Basils our Bernards vnexceptionably plain for the Churches Miracles and none can without Impudency and the violation of all humane Credit probably Cauil at what these haue written None can without making very Saints Impostors and guilty of that enormous sin of grosly deceiuing Posterity pare away so much as any substantial parcel of what is Recorded Therefore vnless all humane Faith perish its desperate rashness to deny most glorious Miracles to haue been in the Roman Catholick Church which was my Assertion 9. And to confirm it more I Ask why do Sectaries to disgrace our Miracles introduce I know not what Stories of the Heathens wonders Are these credible or no If not reiect them boldly as Impertinences If Credible it seems humane Faith is of some weight with Sectaries when they read of the Heathens fopperies though of no Account for true Miracles wrought by the Church of Christ Again this Faith is much worth with these men when to lay à foul Aspersion on à Pope Sectaries in Consequences or Prelate they fill their Books with à hundred petty Stories whether true or false imports little Herein their easy Beliefe swallowes all But if à Father or Choise Historian mention à Miracle its à Fourb à dream à fiction and what not 10. One word more and I end A meer pretended Humane Authority which really is not And therefore nothing worth is shamefully made vse of to patronize that crying Sin of Sectaries Schism Our Church Say they Changed Her ancient Faith the Charge at most relies on History or Humane Faith God neuer told them so For example The Lateran Council first brought in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation some Pope or other first inuented Purgatory c. Suppose all this were as true as t' is hideously false History or nothing must make it good and yet in our present case it is no warrant for known Miracles Thus Faith riseth and fall's in value as our New mens fancy pleases Belieue it had blessed S. Ambrose cited aboue in lieu of that Miraculous Cure wrought on à blind man at Millan when Himself was present and innumerable of that Citty saw the wonder related à stroy preiudicial to either Pope or Clergy How often think you would that haue been told and reiterated in the Writings os Sectaries But now when Hee speaks of à supernatural Work of grace done at the Reliques of the holy Martyrs Geruasius Humane Faith now Valuable now not with Sectaries and Protasius not à word is said No all passes in Silence as if Christs own Marks and the Churches glory vndoubted Miracles deserued no Memory but Contrarywise Scorn and contempt 11. I said in the Assertion that the grace of true Miracles meaning such as exactly Answer to our Sauiours glorious works is proper and peculiar to the Roman Church only The proof hereof is easy First Sectaries pretend not to work Miracles For they say that power ceased long since though I might here mind them of Caluins great wonder and really it was à strange one For whereas God's Saints restored life to the dead this great Sinner hauing perswaded one Bruleus of Ostun to fain himself dead depriued the poor wretch of his life Or rather God Caluins Miracle to lay open the fraud and Hypocrisy of both the one and other turned the Fiction into à Verity for really Bruleus who Counterfeited himself dead to get Caluin the renown of working Miracles was after all the Ministers long prayer found dead indeed The story is known and writ not only by Hierome Bolsec in Vita Calvini C. 13. But by others also And here I wish Sectaries to giue some credit to humane Authority 12. Now as Protestants disclaim Miracles so do
S. Cyprian Epist 76. That that man is not in the Church nor can be thought à Bishop who succeeds to none but hath his Authority and Origen from himself These and other forceable Testimonies we waue and urge Sectaries as the ancient Tertullian did the Hereticks of his time Lib. de praesc Evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum c. Let them vnfold the Catalogue of their Bishopr from this day to Luther and from Luther vpward and here we call not for Hussits VValdenses or such like men but for à continued descent of Bishops and Pastors Lawfully ordained and commissioned by Authority to preach Protestancy VVe Protestants haue none call indeed but hear of none before the daies of that vnfortunate Luther Therefore as I said aboue they are sons without Fathers they would be thought spiritual Children but are so vnbegotten that no body own 's them 5. Reflect à little Gentle Reader and cease not to wonder at the greatest Paradox I think that euer entred into the thought of man Holy Scripture Ascertains vs that Prouidence hath appointed Bishops to gouern his Church Pastors and Doctors to teach till the Consummation of Saints for the edifying A Paradox maintened by Sectaries of Christs Mystical body The Roman Catholick Church gives in Her Catalogue of Bishops and Pastors euer since Christ The first Apostolical Pastors receiued their learning from an Infallible Master God and man These conueyed it to their Successors They to others till this very age And to proue that They both kept and faithfully conueyed the same Doctrin without Change or Alteration you haue not only Church Authority the greatest on earth but more Gods own seal set to this Doctrin Christ's owne signes and Marks Miracles vndeniable Miracles Conuersions of nations c. Now start vp à knot of late vnknown strangers called Protestants without Bishops without Pastors for 1â— Ages These pretend to haue receiued new letters new learning from Jesus Christ That is an other sense of Scripture than was formerly deliuered This Letter is read This learning is published to the world VVe Ask what lawful Pastors taught it four Centuries since VVhat ancient Church owned it They Answer none VVe demand again To haue at least à Demands proposed to Sectaries sight of God's Seal set to this Letter some visible Marks of Christ Miracles for example to make the doctrin accepted They haue not any Ergo say wee The letter is forged the Doctrin is false uneuidenced improbable 6. All that 's pleadable against this Discourse is That our Doctrin once confessedly Orthodox was changed by the Church in after Ages Answ VVe are both willing and ready to discuss and that most rigidly this particular with Protestants but before hand giue them one Caueat Viz. That no Topicks but sound Principles enter here or bethe last Probation If then wee produce and most euidently à list of our Bishops and Pastors euer No Answer giuen since Christ as Witnesses of our Faith They are to do as much and produce as many for Protestancy If we as we do euer force Sectaries to name some known Orthodox Society of Christians that condemned our Doctrin in any Age they are obliged to vnbeguile vs and show vs where or when or by whom we were condemned If finally we vnexceptionably euidence most glorious Miracles to haue illustrated our Church euen after Her fancied Falling from the Primitiue truth after she became What sectaries are forced to grant the whore of Babylon our new men must either deny her such Miracles if so we vrge them to ground the denial on Principles equal to our contrary Probations or will certainly be forced to confess That God wrought Miracles in à Church which had brought in shameful Errours and quite forsaken the Primitiue Doctrin Obserue well the force of our Argument It s improbable to say That God fauoured this Church with the Glory of Miracles Had She falsifyed His reuealed truths And it is as wholly improbable to deny Her the Glory of Supernatural wonders Sectaries worn-out Obiections are not worth taking notice of Some oppose the Greeks though now not of the Church pretending to à Succession We answer if the Pretext be true Their cause vpon that Account is better than Protestants But withall say though Succession bee euer necessary to demonstrate the Church yet it followes not where we haue it There is the Church For Other Errours may vndoe all And de facto Vnchurch the Greeks guilty and condemned in three General Councils See Bellarmine de Notis Ecclesia Lib. 4. Cap. 8. 6. secundo 7. Enough is said aboue and in the other Treatise also Disc 1. C. 10. n. 4. 12. of the Vnion and Sanctity of our Church Vnity à Mark of the Church Vnion in Faith the greatest Blessing hearts can desire asserted by S. Hierome Epist. 57. ad Damasum Those are prophane who â—ate not the lambe in the Roman Catholick Church And innumerable other Fathers knit's together this whole Moral Body amongst so many different Nations different judgements different manners different Education different times different places from one end of the world to the other All belieue as the Pope himself belieues or is no Member of this Church And here is our Glory Wheras if on the other side we cast à sorrowful Vtterly destroyed by Sectaries thought vpon all the Hereticks who from the beginning rent themselues from the Roman Church we shall find Diuisions and subdiuisions Foreruners of Ruin endlesly following which at last destroyed them From one Luther as Bellarmin now cited obserues Cap. 10. à hundred Heresies sprouted vp And since his time there are more added to that number in our Mr. Thorndicke true Obseruation once most Catholick England He that can take measure saith Mr. Thorndicke in his late little Book of Forbearance P. 33. how much of common Christianity is lost by these Divisions in thirty years time since our troubles began euen among them that call them selues Godly and Saints will easily belieue that it he means Christianity hath not long to liue in that Isâ—and vnless Diuision be put to death 8. A iust iudgement of God vpon them pointed at by the Prophet Isay Cap. 19. 2. I will make the Aegyptians to run against Aegyptians and à man shall fight against his Brother euery man against his friend Citty against Citty and Kingdom against Kingdom Such confusion such an Abomination of desolation we Englands Diuision remediless vvithout returning to the Roman Catholick Church see now standing in that once holy Nation Hee that reads let him vnderstand which might iustly draw teares of blood from Compassionate Eyes Were it not that as S. Hilary notes Bellum haereticorum pax est Ecclesiae The Dissensions of Hereticks brings peace to the Church This some what asswages our Grief and stint's our teares But the Euil is desperate and incurable do what Sectaries can without returning to the Church of Rome which causelesly
and his Church though sublime and difficult was miraculously Spread the whole world ouer when you Demonstrate how manifestly Diuine prouidence hath Age after Age Honoured Christ and his Church and seuerely Chastised the professed Enemies of both When finally you make it manifest that there is no Vnion no Form no fashion of Religion in any Society now on earth but in How the Heathen is Conuinced the Roman Catholick Church only Then the Heathen if reasonable and desirous to learn Truth must confess that God speaks Truth by this one Catholick Oracle only Or there is no such thing as à reuealed Verity taught in the world 16. Out of what is said already I infer first If that Maxim of Philosophy he vndoubted Frustra sit per plura c. It is needles to multiply many proofs in behalf of à Verity when one most clearly conuinceth it This Argument alone drawn from the glorious Marks of our Catholick Church which cannot but proceed from God proues Her his own faithful Oracle With these Signes we haue the thing signified These in à General way settle in euery reasonable vnderstanding this fundamental Truth God speak's to the world by his euidenced Church I say in à General way For as the visible works in nature proue this General Truth Ipse fecit nos c. A mighty power made vs we made The efficacy of Church Motiues not our Selues though as yet none comes thereby to an explicit knowledge of many Perfections in God So the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church conuince this General Truth also That the same Power which made Nature giues being to these the same Power which preserues nature preserues these glorious Signes for our instruction And Consequently it followes That as the visible world is proued Gods own work so this visible glorious marked Church is proued his own Oracle Though yet neither the Heathen nor any knowes euery particular Doctrin which God teaches by the Church In like manner great Diuines assert that Christs own Disciples owned first our blessed Lord as the true Messias and à great Prophet Ioan. 1. 41. Inuenimus Messiam We haue found the Messias before they learned the other high Mysteries of his being the natural Son of God the second Person of the Blessed Trinity the Redeemer of Israel c. see Suares 3. Part. Tom. 2. Dispu 31. Sest 4. 17. A second Inference The General Truth now spoken of well established God teaches the world by à Church Signed with Supernatural wonders All further disputes cease concerning the particular Doctrins She teaches though sublime and aboue the reach of our weak Capacities For none whether Heathen Iew or Heretick can boggle at à Doctrin which God reueal's How reason discourses vpon these Euident Motiues But God saith prudent Reason reueal's such and such Truths The Incarnation of the Diuine word the Trinity Original sin c. by à Church which most pressing Motiues euince to be His own Oracle Therefore it is my duty to Submit and belieue euery Doctrin She proposes 18. The Ground hereof seem's clear For as there can be no endles Progress or going on in Infinitum in the intrinsecal formal Obiect of Faith because Faith at last rest's vpon one sure Principle An infinite Verity So we can haue no endles Process in the extrinsick Lights and Motiues whereby we are induced to fix à firm Belief vpon that one sure Principle Therefore in what euer Society of men Reason finds these Motiues it rest's without further Enquiry after stronger which cannot be found But most euidently reason finds them in one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church as is now proued and prudently resteth there as vpon lights which immediatly manifest the Church Scripture not so immediatly Credible as the Church and make Her Doctrin euidently credible Scripture t' is true is the obiect of Faith but not so immediatly credible as the Church for independently of Scripture I can belieue the Church as the first Christians did before the Book was written but men generally in this present State cannot belieue Scripture without the Churches Testimony As is already and shall hereafter be proued more at large 19. A third Inference Who euer pretend's to à Doctrin reuealed in Scripture and hold's it of Faith has either à Church which teaches it euidenced by the Marks of our Lord Iesus Christ or He publisheth à falshood Which is to say in other Terms If the euidenced Church of Christ positiuely own 's not or reiects such à Doctrin that Doctrin Eo ipso is spurious forged and not de Fide Hence it is that when our Blessed Lord Commissoned the Disciples to Preach his sacred Verities Math. 28. 19. Goe and teach all Nations Hee sent them abroad with the Characters Marks and Ensigns of his own Preaching Mark 16. 2. Our Lord working with all and confirming the word with Signs that followed And here by the way I can neuer sufficiently admire the open folly of Sectaries that wholly Churchless A lawful Mission required to teach our Christian truths will yet needs perswade vs into new opinions vpon their own bare word That they teach truth It is impossible Nay I say more Although which is false they should speak Truth they ought not Churchless as they are to be listned vnto For suppose one should present himself as an Embassadour from à Prince to à forreign State but without Credentials or Authentick letters iustifying his Embassage no State can or will admit him though he speaks truth He must not only do so but show his Authentick Commission that he speaks truth deliuered by the Princes own order or he is sent back vnreceiued in the quality of an Embassadour In like manner I say No more can any one essentially vncommissioned pretend to teach Christs Doctrin whilst he is not sent to teach by Christs own euidenced Oracle than this vncommissioned An Instance Legate to speak in his Princes name Many à man knowes the law well and is fit enough to pronounce à iust Sentence yet sitt's not on the Bench nor giues it because he is not Authorised to do so And thus we discours of all Hereticks no members of the euidenced Church though as I said they deliuer truth by chance they yet deserue not the hearing wanting power and Authority to teach it 20. S. Cyprian Epist. 2. Speak's very pertinently to our present purpose Quod vero ad Nauatiani personam pertinent c. For as much as concerns Nouatians Person I would dear Brother haue you know in the first place we are not to be curious concerning what he saies when he teaches out of the Church S. Cyprian Confirm's the Doctrin Quisquis ille est qualiscunque est Christianus non est qui in Christi Ecclesiâ non est Whoeuer or of what condition soeuer he be is no Christian that is not in the Church of Christ And hence S. Austin in his frequent Disputes with the Donatists
can probably oppose the receiued Doctrin of our Catholick Oracle or defend his own contrary to it whilst he is Churchless I mean so long as he giues in no Euidence The true reason why no Heretick can oppose the Church of an other Church distinct from the Roman Catholick as Ancient as vniuersal as She is as glorious in Miracles as She is as famous for Conuersions as She is as Vncensured as She is as commissioned to preach and teach the world as She is I say whils't no such qualified Church can be euidenced which contradicted our present Catholick Doctrin and maintained that of Sectaries so long the Protestant cannot defend his own opinions nor rationally oppose our Catholick Tenents For here as S. Austin anciently obserued disputing with the Donatists lies the main Business and it decides all Difficulties Vtrum vestra an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei Whether yours or ours be the Church of God Let then this one point worthy Debate be rigidly examined And 't is easily done may the euer acknowledged Marks and Signes of the true Church haue weight with Prudent reason We are all without more Dispute reunited in one Ancient Faith 24. And who can if his cause be good decline this modest Offer When t' is known that these publick Signs haue fix'd Sectaries Euer decline the Sentence of an Euidenced Church and established this publick Iudgement in all through the Christian world That à Church so vndeniably Ancient so Miraculous and drawing Souls to Her cannot but be Gods Sacred Oracle But Sectaries in all their Polemicks waue this worthy Question concerning an euidenced Church and vnworthily to the great Wearisomnes of euery Reader stand pitifully trifling with à few long since defeated and worn-out Controuersies I say trifling For is it not more then slight and friuolous now to flurt at the worshiping of Images now to pelt the Pope now to quote à half sensed Sentence against Purgatory now to misrelate And trifle time away à Story now if à wickednes lie in à Corner to rifle that Now to talk as if men were mad of the Roman Churches Idolatry Here to iibe at our Ceremonies there to attaint the Spotles Reputation of Christs Spouse Say for Gods sake to what purpose is this when the Knowledge of that Vnum necessarium which cannot but be known viz. Here is Gods euidenced Oracle so clearly ends all Debates so iustly determin's what 's true and what 's false in these and the like particulars that none can vnlesse led on with à Spirit of Contradiction withstand the iust Sentence of this One euidenced Oracle 25. If the Sectary reply notwithstanding the Churches Euidence many things She teaches appear doubtful to him I haue Answered Disc 1. C. 18. Proofs only doubtful yea though Probable also which is not want pith to gainsay an Euidence What the most ancient Christians owned owned by the publick Wisdom of the Christian world But the greatest Part of the Christian world Alwayes owned these Truths First That God has and euer had à Church Visible on earth 2. That his Church may be known by Her Marks Signes and Motiues and that the most meet Signes to Distinguish Her by are answerable to those manifested in Christ our Lord. 3. That rhe Roman Catholick Church only Euidently shewes these Signs and by Virtue of them demonstrat's Her self to be Gods own Oracle Here you haue my Principles already laid forth And à Petition with them to Protestants to infringe or weaken but One of them vpon Scripture-Proof vpon the irrefragable Testimony of Fathers or by Virtue of any Principle which may appear probable to the vniuersal Sense or rational Consent of such as haue been owned Orthodox since Christ liued on earth But to do this is vtterly impossible 26. Descend now if you please to particular Controuersies you shall euer find that nothing but the twilight of weak Reason meer Doubtfulness I mean support's Protestant Religion It is doubtful say these Aduersaries whether Purgatory be or Doubts and Cauils are the only Support of Protestancy no. It is doubtful whether Praying to Saints be Orthodox Doctrin The Popes Supremacy ouer the whole Church is Doubtful and Questionable Very Good let these Propositions pass yet as doubtful Perhaps Purgatory is not Perhaps it is Perhaps inuocation of Saints is Orthodox Doctrin Perhaps no For neither the one nor other considered in Themselves is à Truth Euident Ex terminis or so much as Morally certain Now here is the iust Trial. The Protestant positiuely denyes Purgatory I positiuely Assert it Both Propositions are hitherto supposed doubtful Therefore He who maintains truth is obliged to raise his Proposition from that low State of à poor Perhaps or doubting to à higher Degree of certainty The Catholick speaks plainly and Argues thus Gods euidenced Oracle which beares the Marks the Ensigns of Christ Iesus and taught the world from the Beginning obliges all as well to belieue à Purgatory as à Trinity of Persons I cannot therefore Saith he without à Forfeiture of all Reason and striuing against the Publick wisdom of the Christian world Own this à faithful Oracle in the Proposal of the one Mystery and hold it Perfidious or Traiterous in the other Here is the Catholicks Euidence Now Mark well The proofs of the Protestants Proposition There is no Purgatory are euer as remote The Assertion declared and proued from Certainty as miserably dubious as his very Assertion is I say no Proof goes aboue the Strength of one poor deficient and weak Perhaps If he allege Fathers Contrary to Purgatory or any other Catholick Tenet His own reason yet in à cloud tell 's him Perhaps He hitt's on the true Sense Perhaps not If he plead by Scripture he neuer get's aboue the degree of doubting If he take recourse to History or any other Principle what euer He shal find himself at the end of his labour where he was at the Beginning as doubtful in his Proofs as in his Assertion And why He hath no euidenced Church to rely on But more of this hereafter See also Disc 1. C. 11. CHAP. XIII Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrin Atheists and Heretick Argue alike The Motiues of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what euer the true Church Proposeth A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church 1. THe first Inference All that 's pleadable in Behalf of Protestancy or any particular Tenet thereof is not only doubtful but highly improbable vpon These two Principles First that à Church euidenced by the very same Marks and Motiues which Christ our Lord Shewed to the world reiect's the Two Principles Nouelty And no Authority on earth can Contest with an Oracle so clearly Manifest The other Principle No Society of Christians signalized with the like Motiues as the Roman Catholick Church Demonstrat's euer maintained so much as one Tenet of the Protestants Doctrin Here the ingenuous Reader is desired to reflect
done which will neuer be I am confident His Extract or what is required of Mr Thorndick Draught would appear so imperfect and mishapen à Business in the iudgement of Catholicks and Protestants also That as the one Party cannot but look on it with disdain so the other would reiect it as vnworthy Acceptance 22. Besides would it not seem à new wonder to Strangers abroad Yea and as ridiculous as wonderful were rhey told that after so much labour spent about reforming Religion in England we haue yet at present à thoughtful Gentleman there that 's very busy in Setting forth the last and best Edition of Protestancy Reformed which perhaps may proue worse than any other gon before Naught it must needs be for this Reason That the means he would reform by has no Proportion with the designed End For by A New◠Reformer of Religion in these old dayes of the world the light of à few dead Manuscripts written 14. or 15. Ages Since He offer 's now to amend all the Churches in the world though the very sense of these Writings which must be the Rule of his Reformation is neither well known to Himselfe nor yet agreed on by those dissenting Churches he would reform What think ye Were this sense yet to be learned the want whereof causes endles Errours among Sectaries would not common Prudence rather take it from à liuing Oracle which has taught the world time out of mind than from à late Nouellist that Professes himself fallible and Therefore may most easily Misinterpret would appear ridiculous to all the best Records This liuing Oracle at least promises infallibility Which Shall be proued presently And therefore is à Surer Principle to rely on Then The Fathers Sentences long Since Written whilst Sectaries make Their sense and true meaning à Matter of Contest 23. Yet one word more and I end Mr Thorndick will Reform the present Roman Church Corrupted by the Primitiue supposed pure for the first 4. or 5. Ages I must needs demand first whether that Primitiue Church the Rule of his Reformation Questions proposed to our Aduersary was infallible and pure in those pretended fundamentals only necessary to Saluation though not in other Doctrins of lesser Moment Or. 2. Whether She because fallible as much needed Reformation in smaller Matters not called fundamental as this present Church is supposed to need Or. 3. Whether She was so entirely pure in euery doctrin little and great that She could not be brought to more Purity or be better Reformed Grant the first viz. That the Primitiue Church was vnerrable and pure in fundamentals only not in others The present Roman Church is as good as She was For our Aduersary own 's Her à true Church wherein Saluation may be had and thus far She needs no reforming Grant 2. that both these Churches because fallible might erre and perhaps haue erred in lesser Matters not named fundamental The Primitiue can be no Rule of Reformation to the present Church because that Primitiue is alike err 〈…〉 alike reformable And for ought men know as much out of the way of truth in Non-fundamentals as the present Church is Therefore I said aboue if the blind cannot lead the blind à Church wanting Reformation cannot reform another sick of the same malady 24. If finally it be Said the Primitiue Church was so infallible so pure euery way both in great and little Matters that She could not be more reformed in the first 5. Centuries for example We haue à Church once entirely pure And then vrge our Herein Satisfaction is most required Aduersary not barely to say it But to proue vpon indubitable Principles Scriptures Fathers or the General Consent of Christians that She continued not wholly as pure in the sixt seuenth or eight Age and so downward to our dayes as She was before To shew à Deficiency in this Church once confessedly true in after Ages will be more than an Herculian labour when it is demonstratiuely euidenced aboue That nothing but à Church equally as Ancient as Vniuersal and glorious in Miracles as the Roman is can probably impeach Her of the least Corruption Mr Thorndicks Mistake is that he makes as Sectaries vsually do à false Supposition his Proof He supposes A supposition made à Proof our Church corrupted in Doctrin and then will amend it according to his fancy by the Primitiue whereas he knowes or ought to know that we Catholicks deny His Supposition and say both are vnerrable and withall Assert that no Authority on earth can better inform vs of the Primitiue Doctrin than the present Roman Church which hath successiuely handed it to vs Age after Age. Howeuer to take away all ambiguity and further Dispute in this Matter you haue next three following Chapters which I hope will giue Satisfaction to the rational Reader More shall be added hereafter CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith 1. AS the Answer to the Question aym's at à clear and easy way of ending Controuersies Concerning Religion So the following Discourse tend's to settle one great truth in the minds of euery one viz. That both the Ancient and present Roman Catholick Church is not only infallible But that the what we intend to proue Aduersaries of Her infallibility destroy the very Essence of Christian Religion And deseruedly merit vpon that Account The name of Schismaticks and Heretiques also 2. To make good what 's now Asserted à few Postulata or Principles must be premised One is That Church which Promises and proues Herselfe infallible in Doctrin doth not only Vpon these following Principles facilitate but giues also absolute Security to Faith For such à Church Participat's most and comes neerest to that first Diuine Apostolical Spirit which confessedly was infallible 3. A. ◠Principle Whereas nothing hath or ought to haue à stronger Influence ouer the minds of men than Religion So nothing can discountenance it more than à stedfast Perswasion of its Fallibility and Consequently of it 's easily being False This Perswasion Cut's of all Christian Assurance and driues men to so cold an Indifference of embracing this or that Religion That it much import's not which to take to any or none 4. A. 3. Principle The means or influence whereby Christ preserues his Church infallible needs not to be explicated by any Supernatural quality personally inhering in the Teaching Representatiue or intrinsecally eleuating the conuened Prelates to à State of Infallibility for t' is enough that the safe Conduct of Almighty God who is alwaies vigilant and Assists by his exteriour Protection so secures the Church from errour that She neither What the Churches Infallibility requires can be misled when She teaches nor mislead others Yet I deny not but that an interiour Motion of Grace may be yea and often
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
Scripture I Could wish to see à clear Deduction yet fear it Howeuer Suppose that done new Doubts arise concerning the certainty of the Deduction which can be no more but morally certain most insufficient to ground Diuine Faith The true Answer therefore must be or none The Nicene Council The both pas't and Present Church faithfully interpreting Scripture Definitiuely deliuered the Doctrin and vpon this ground we belieue the Mystery 8. Now here we come to the main Business and Ask again whether God speaking by this Church as his own Oracle Proposes that Doctrin and obliges all to belieue it Or Contrarywise whether the Church diuorced as it were from Diuine Assistance teaches vpon Her own humane fallible Authority And The Churches Infallibility further euinced obliges all to belieue the Mystery Grant the first The Definitions of the Church are infallible because an Eternal Verity speaks infallibly by Her Say secondly That the Church wholly Vnassisted teaches and Defines vpon Her own fallible humane Authority the Doctrin we learn from Her of the Incarnation of the highest Godhead in Christ of his being Consubstantial of the Blessed Trinity of Original Sin beget's no Faith Because if the Supposition hold's that Assent relies not at all vpon an Infallible Verity speaking by the Church Assisted but vpon à weak and fallible Human Authority which cannot support any certain Beliefe For it is most preposterous to Say that men meerly fallible as all are left to Themselues can Assure vs what that Doctrin is which God Reueal's Infallibly Now we Come to this Moral Certainty 9. And one Perhaps will say Such men though fallible may at least giue Moral Assurance of the truth of the Doctrin and that 's enough Contra. 1. Moral assurance which euer implies some weak Degree of fear of the contrary may in rigour be false But the Church which obliges all to belieue Her Doctrin vnder pain of Damnation speak's without fear and Saith boldly God reueal's as I teach Therefore her Doctrin if false is the Diuels Doctrin But none can say That the Nicene Definition against Arius was the Doctrin of Diuels But Contrarywise à Truth reuealed by God and Belieuable Fide Diuina Ergo it was infallible and more than Morally certain Contra. 2. God The Churches Definitions More then Morally Certain Speaking by the Church giues greater Certainty than Moral And if he do not speak at all by Her the Definition now remoued from Infallible Assistance Vphold's not Faith as we shall se presently nor can it be prudently iudged morally certain 10. Though much be said in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 4. 6. against this Pretence to Moral certainty Sectaries casually light on it because forsooth they brook not the word Infallibility yet here we must wholly weaken that Plea I say Therefore could the Church as She cannot Define or teach without Gods special Assistance Christians would either not attain to so great certainty of Her Doctrin as is Moral Or if no greater could be had That certainty would not be Diuine Faith Euery one knowes Moral certainty to be à kind of knowledge whereby men iudge such things are or are not without great Hesitancy or any reasonable cause of Doubting It is vsually grounded vpon some vulgar Perswasion or common half owned Euidence which the most of men trust to prudently When no surer can be had Thus we say All People in Common Conuersation speak not alwayes contrary to their thoughts Some mean well in their Priceeding The Nature of Moral certainly briefly hinted at Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in being These and the like Assertions may in rigour be false Yet our Iudicatiue faculty without Violence readily yeild's to all induced thereunto by à Perswasion vulgarly receiued whereby we say That as such things are Commonly reported So they also are vsually belieued and Commonly true In à word the greatest part of Moral certainty may be rightly stiled à kind of half Supposed Euidence current in the world which may Deceiue yet easily deceiues not 11. Now be pleased to reflect The sublime Mysteries of A reflection Faith remote from all vulgar Apprehensions and half owned Euidences are neither visible like Constantinople seen by innumerable Eye-wittnesses Nor assured vpon any either Fallible or deceiuable Authority nor finally belieued vpon à meer humane prudential Discourse only No. They lie in à higher Region aboue our natural knowledge in the Abyss of Gods inscrutable Wisdom and the more remote they are from Sense Or any Half-euidences the more they stand in need of an infallible Proponent No Power deceiuable can ground Faith Whereby All rest Ascertained of their being Eternal Truths Hence I Argue None but God aboue who Reueal's and an infallible Church which Proposes the Mysteries can giue Assurance of their being Diuine Truths or say absolut'ly They ought to be belieued answerably to their Dignity as Diuine Now further But if God reueal's them as his own Truths for this End that all belieue them infallibly the Church cannot but Speak in the name of God and independently of this Vulgar The insufficiency of Moral Certainty humane knowledge Propose them also infallibly as Diuine Or if She could turn vs off with no more but à Moral Perswasion of their seeming Gods truths yet may not be so The Strength of Faith vanishes into à dissatisfactory Topick into à meer Perhaps thus It may be we Belieue Truth it may be not In à word we belieue not as the Apostles did infallibly 12. Hence none I think shall euer comprehend how this Whimsy of Moral Certainty got into our Protestants thoughts For had Christians agreed in that Certainty or had they said Because the Mysteries of faith are proposed so weakly We can belieue with no Stronger assurance but Moral They must haue receiued and learn'd that Doctrin not from their own fancy but from some Superiour Power some known Oracle that taught so which either reuealed or proposed the Mysteries as only Morally certain and no more But to point at any such Oracle is impossible And here is the reason All know that God Faith only Morally certain reiected by all that taught Christianity an infallible Verity cannot Reueal any Truth only Morally Certain Christ our Lord taught his own Verities infallibly so also did the Apostles who were Strangers to this low and half lame Assurance No ancient Christians nameable professed à less certainty of Faith than infallible in the Church which taught them The Roman Catholick Church you see for conuincing Reasons laies claim to diuine Assistance when She Teaches and disclaims this petty kind of Certainty which may be false From whence then came the Perswasion of that certainty into mens Heads when neither God nor Christ nor Apostles nor Ancient Christians nor any Orthodox Church euer fauoured it 13. The true Answer is Inimcus homo hoc fecit An old Enemy to decry the Infallibility of Gods own Oracle conueyed the fancy into Ã
Endles 26. The Determination of à Council erring say our Aduersaries is to stand in force and to haue external Obedience at least yeilded to The Sectaries Doctrin breed's Confusion it till euidence of Scripture or à Demonstation to the Contrary make the Errour appear and vntil therevpon another Council of equal Authority reuerse the Errour Here is their Position which breed's nothing but Confusion among Christians and licenseth euery vnquiet Spirit interiourly at least to Censure Church Doctrin as abominable if He iudges it Erroneous or Contrary to Christ's Verities I say Interiourly And T' is hard to Silence and oblige men to external Obedience if this full Perswasion remain's And necessarily brings in Diuision stedfast in their minds Gods truths are Ouerthrown by an Erring Church or à misled Council There is no law humane or Diuine wich can bind to Hypocrisy But to iudge one thing Euidently fals and to Profess it as true is pain Hypocrisy To auoide therefore this Sin all are in points of faith not to Speak Contrary to Truth or hostility will of Necessity follow Between the Profession of priuate men and their interiour Iudgements which cannot but foment Rebellion in the Church whilst People generally liue in such à Perswasion that God's Truths are wronged 27. But here is not my greatest Exception Please to mark those other words Till Euidence of Scripture or à Demonstration makes the Errour appear Or another Council reuerses the Errour of the Former And say I beseech you to whom must this Euidence of Scripture appear To whom must the Councils Errour be Demonstrable What to Priuate men and these It can not be said to whom the supposed Errours of Fallible If so the Contest will be whether these Priuate Erring men or the Supposed Erring Council has the greater Euidence of Scripture Or on which Side the Demonstration against the Errour lies I say if the Church and Councils be fallible There neither is nor can be any thing like Euidence or à Demonstration in either of the Contenders Therefore an Councils must appear endles Dispute vpon meer Vncertainties must ensue vnless Mr. Stillingfleet laies the Errour vpon whom he pleases and makes Himself Vmpire in the cause You will say he supposes the Councils Errours euidently known Pitiful To whom I bescech you must they be known It s impossible to return an Answer Again if Suppositions may once pass for Proofs I 'll goe the Contrary way and either Suppose all Councils infallible or maintain this Truth Errours cannot be euidently known And why should not my Supposition be as good as his What then remain's but that we bring these Suppositions to the Test and Examin which is better And here the Dispute begins again in behalf of what is Supposed which can neuer be ended without an infallible Iudge 28. It may be replyed These Aduersaries proue not Councils fallible vpon any bare Supposition but only Say thus much If they were Fallible the Peace of the Church may yet be Preserued Contra 1. Peace is infinitly better vpheld were Councils as they truly are owned Infallible For so euery one would Acquiese in their Decrees as the Christian world has done hitherto Contra 2. The Churches Peace is torn in pieces Sedition Sedition reign 's if Councils be fallible necessarily reign 's Debates are endles if Councils be fallible To proue this 29. Call once more to mind the Assertion Viz. The Determination of an erring Council is to stand in force vntil there vpon an other Council of equal Authority Reuerse the Errour Obserue I beseech you Both these Councils are Supposed fallible and of equal Authority The Second therefore cannot reuerse the One Proof of the Assertion Errour of the First being as weak as fallible and of no more Authority than That first was Or if thus by Turns one may Annull the Decrees of the other A third may be conuened which recall's the Decrees of both and à Fourth which Cashieres all the precedent Definitions And so in Infinitum without Stop or Stint Hence arise endles Quarrels not only between Council and Council For euery one will Stand for its own Right But also among Christians Who seing the Discord are thrown into à remediles Perplexity and can neuer know what to Belieue or whom to Obey You will see clearly what I would expres by one or two Instances The Nicene Council Defined Further declared by an Instance the Consubstantiality of the Son to his Eternal Father So much is vndoubted Imagin now that an other like Assembly as fallible as the Nicene for that with Sectaries was fallible and of equal Authority had Defined the quite Contrary Doctrin And let this be also supposed for in Protestant Principles iâ— is Supposable that this Second corrected the Errour of the First What tumults think ye what an endles Rebellion would haue ensued there vpon in Christendom had the One Council thus clashed with the other No man in Prudence could haue Belieued or Obeyed either because both are Supposed fallible and of equal Authority 30. There is yet one Instance more Suitable to à Sectarian Humour Imagin only another Council Conuened as Learned Another Instance Shewing as General and as fallible as Protestants Suppose the Council of Trent to haue been And that this reuerses all the Doctrin contained in the Tridentine Offenfiue to our Nouellists Would not this destroy the Vnity of the present Church Would Ths horrid Inconuenience of Iarring Councils not some Side with the first some with the second or rather would not All vpon the Supposition scorn and contemn the Authority of both Church and Councils The like Inconuenience followes were the Catholick Church as large as some Sectaries make it or embraced all called Christians If in that case Two Councils representing the whole Moral Body should meet and the later Tear in pieces the Decrees of the former Would not Dissentions Grow as high and as odious vpon these Voting and Vnuoting Councils as they are now in England whilst Prelatiks Preach One kind of Doctrin and Fanaticks another quite contrary And is it Possible Do all Eyes se the Horrour of this contrary Preaching in One Island and are they shut vpon à greater more Terrible were it true That two of the highest Tribunals in the Church could stand in open Hostility and the One band against the other Thus much of Dissentions and Tumults necessary Appendants to iarring Representatiues 31. But all is not yet Satisfyed Our Aduersaries Say There can be no cause of Tumults in the Church if an Errour be euidently Discouered For euery One ought to thank God not to grumble when they se themselues freed from so great Sectaries â—â— destroy their own Principles à Mischief On the other side if the Errour be not Euident All are to submit to the Councils vntil à Publick Declaration makes the contrary truth manifest And thus the Peace of Christendom seem's well secured Answ And
we will first begin with these last words If the Errour be not Euident or intolerable all are obliged to submit to the Council vntil some publick declaration c. Hence I Argue But there neither is nor euer was any Euidence of Errour produced against one of our Catholick Councils the Lateran Florentine or Tridentine for example there neither is nor euer was any Legal Declaration more against these than against the First most ancient and purest Councils in Gods Church Therefore Sectaries by their own Principle are obliged to Submit to the Lateran Florentine and Tridentine as well as to others That there has not been any Publick Legal Declaration made against them is manifest And here is my proof 32. The clamours and Calumnies of Arians Cast vpon the The Assertion proued Nicene Council were no Legal Declaration against That but most Vncanonical Ergo the clamours and calumnies of Protestants cast vpon the now named Representatiues are fully as Illegal and Vncanonical yea and more forceles if more can be to Declare Clamours no Proofs them Inualid And besides clamours we neuer yet had nor shall haue hereafter any Thing from Sectaries The true Reason is Go groundedly to work There is not one Imaginable Principle whereby the Nicene can be proued à more lawful Council then the great Council of Lateran was so much decryed by Nouellists And if 't were Possible as it is not to Ouerthrow the One by any solid proof the Other Eo ipso loses all Credit and Authority 33. Hence These and the like calumnies vented by Sectaries The Arians and Protestants Clamour and Calumniate alike iâ— Corners The Lateran and Tridentine were vnlawful Councils 〈…〉 ed by the Pope they had not freedom Their Votes ought to be 〈…〉 ted Surreptitious The Conuened were not men of vnquestionable Integrity Some few by fair Pretences brought ouer the greater number wanting Iudgement to side with their Designs c. Such corner-Calumnies I say and I read them in our Aduersaries As easily â—â—attered out by Arians against the Nicene Fathers can neuer pass for legal Declarations against Catholick Councils whilst euery Proposition want's proof and euery word its due Weight That iâ— what euer can be said to this Sense stand's Vnprincipled Therefore vnless all must be iust so as Sectaries will haue it Vnless fals Suppositions become conuincing Arguments and à pure begging the Question proue it Or be able to decide our Differences We haue Right to cry as loud They. Audiatur altera Pars. A Iudge is to decide all and not Clamours Let Catholicks be heard also And when they are heard and return their Answers before à lawful Iudge to euery particular these Calumnies will vanish or rather appear like Themselues Forged and far-fetch't Improbabilities Exclude à Iudge and à iust Sentence Sectaries are where they would be in the old Labyrinth of Quarrelling without Principles or giuing any hope of ending One Question in Controuersy 34. Now to implead our Councils of Errours and to pretend Sectaries neuer legally assembled Euidence for it is more than à desperate Attempt vnless as I say the Corner-votes of à few iarring dispersed Sectaries neuer legally Assembled haue Power to create à new kind of Euidence vnknown to the world Please to reflect à little It must Forsooth be Euident That the Doctrin of Transubstantiation or Praying to Saints are Errours whilst à whole vnited learned Church Opposes these vain Pretences and Defend's the Articles as Catholick Create à new Kind of Euidence Verities It was neuer yet heard that Sectaries Scattered here an there had Authority to impose such foule disgraceful Names of Euident Errours or Errours morally Certain vpon Doctrins so vniuersally receiued when as I say The most learned Body of Christians that euer was Vnuotes all they blow into the eares of others as meer Impertinences Euidence Good Reader and Moral certainty lose force and neuer yet stood in the Sight or presence of so strong an Opposition I will yet say more Though we abstract from Church Authority we Catholicks are able to maintain our Doctrin against Sectaries vpon Tradition the Authority of Fathers ancient Records c. But still we require A last Iudge to giue Sentence whether they or we abuse the Principles we plead by For certainly the one or other Party doth so But this Nouellists euer Decline and Sectaries decline both Iudge and final Sentence will haue vs to Dispute without either Iudge or indubitable Principles and so make as is now said all Controuersies endles which indeed is the only Thing they ayme at and I haue vndertaken to proue against them 35. Mr Stillingfleet P. 539. speak's so fully to my purpose that more cannot be desired from an Aduersary He Demands how it can be known when Errours in Councils or the Church are manifest or intolerable and when not And Answers thus We appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Concurrent Sense of the primitiue Church the common reason of mankind the consent of wise and learned men Supposing Scripture to be the Rule of Faith And à little after Our Aduersaries Doctrin If you Ask further Who shall be Iudge what à necessary Reason or Demonstration is His Lordship tell 's you plainly enough from Hooker It is such as being Proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it Here you haue the Gentlemans last Principles And euery one when applyed to our present Matter is as much Controuerted between Catholicks and Protestants as the very Question now in Dispute Obserue well 36. The Question is whether the Lateran Florentine and Tridentiue Councils haue erred in their Definitions the like may be moued of all others Protestants say they haue erred Catholicks Lead's still â—n to dispute but to make no end of Controuersies Deny it Both Parties Appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Sense of the Primitiue Church So far as that Oracle learns vs. And if any Passage be found there seemingly fauorable to Sectaries Catholicks after the Contest of one whole Age haue been more ready to clear all Doubts To take of any thing like Imagined Errours Than Protestants were euer yet able to lay such foul Aspertions vpon either Church or Councils What then is to be done Must we eternally Dispute concerning that Sense and end nothing Must we Commence new Quarrels Sectaries who began the quarrel about Matters so often debated Must the old Actum agere come ouer and ouer again Sectaries like that Sport well but no Progress is made this way As yet we only skirmish in the dark Wherefore recourse at last is to be had to à lawful Iulge to some known Oracle or other in whose final Sentence all are to acquiese If any lawful Iudge or owned Oracle Primitiue or latter Condemn our Councils of Errour and we licence Sectaries Like well â—â— hear themselues talk without Principles to name either Prouided they make not
Themselues Iudges nor their long since defeated Arguments Euidences We are indeed the guilty Persons and They the wise Reformers But if All of vs Decline this last Iudicature and do nothing but hear our Selues talk vpon Principles grosly misinterpreted by the one or other Party Dissentions will goe on remedilesly to the great Scandal of Iewes and Gentils and controuersies of Religion cannot but proue endles CHAP. XVII More of this subiect A further Search made into Errours called intolerable VVhether the Roman Catholick Church must be supposed by Sectaries to haue already Committed intolerable Errours Or only whether She may for the future Err Intolerably The Doctrin of Protestants proued False And Most inconsequent 1. MR Stillingfleet to find out Euident and intolerable Errours in Councils Appeal's as you Se in the next place to the Common Reason of mankind and to the Consent of wise and learned men None could haue more ruined his own cause For this Dilemma is vnanswerable The forementioned Councils haue either erred intolerably in Defining the Doctrins A Dilemma of Transubstantiation and of Purgatory Or haue not erred intolerably If not Protestants as is now said are obliged by their own Law to yeild at least external Obedience to them which is not done For herein they haue made à Publick Reformation and call such Doctrins Errours On the other side if these Errours be intolerable you se by their own words We must haue the Common Reason of mankind the Consent also of wise and learned men both ready to Oppose and Condemn them But this is enormously improbable vpon à clear Ground Do no more but Deuide the Moral Body of Christians now at Debate into two Classes Catholicks and Protestants For one that Or à clear Conuiction of Protestants makes these Councils Illegal or their Doctrins intolerable you haue hundreds yea I think thousands who auouch the Contrary and clear Both from that vnworthy Imputation Therefore vnless Protestants engross the Gift of common Reason and Wisdom to themselues and allow no little parcel of it either to the Greek or Latin Church They are to recal what is Said And if they will haue Reason so fast intailed vpon à few Sectaries That no body els can share in it There is no further Dispute All we say is God help Them 2. But what say we to Mr Hooker who tells vs necessary Reason or à Demonstration is that which being proposed to any man and vnderstood The mind cannot chuse but inwardly Assent to it I answer the Principle though good is most impertinently Applied to the controuersy now in hand For haue not we As is already noted Thousands and Thousands in the Roman Church most learned and pious who hear the Doctrins of the fore named Councils proposed and in Iudgement so inwardly Assent to all without scruple that they would dye for the verities there A Principle ill applyed defined The Truth is manifest Therefore Mr Hookers necessary Reason or Demonstration has no place in these far more numerous than all the Protestants are in England and consequently euery man Stand's not euidently conuicted of our Councils Errours Now if you say so many Thousands are fool'd Know Sr That no few of these fools are wise enough to dispute with you and to Show you Speak at random without Principles 3. Thus much is said of our Catholick Councils hitherto conuened in the Chureh now if we return to the old Supposition and First imagin all Councils fallible and Secondly thinke that the latter of equal Authority amends the First or à Third the Errours of the Second and so in Infinitum I Say it is Impossible either clearly to Discouer the pretended Errours or to redress them and this I Assert vpon these grounds 4. One already hinted at is that none can by an inward Assent aud Mr Hooker requires that own any such Euidence An Assertion proued whilst the Council which makes them Errours is as weak and fallible as the other was that Defined the contrary and Published all vnder the Notion of Christian Truths No more can I were I yet to Learn rest Satisfyed in what either of these two iarring Councils Define for the One is as bad as the Other than I am able to trust to two Ministers Talk if I heard them Preach quite contrary Doctrin at Pauls Church That is no man can belieue either vpon their fallible Authority This Principle therefore Stands firm An errable Council A fallible Council most vn meet to teach the high Mysteries of Faith i◠as vnfit to Teach or Vnteach another likewise Erring in the high and yet vnknown Mysteries of Faith as One Wholly ignorant of an vncouth Path is to direct à Stranger into it For as Both these are to learn the way from à third Guide more skilful So both these Councils must take their Instructions from some third certain Oracle Or remain as they are Ignorant But Sectaries remit none to any liuing certain Oracle Therefore they cannot but still Sit in Darkness T' is Gods iust Iudgement vpon them and blind as They are lead the blind they know not whither 5. Again and here is my second Reason Before the Discouery of these intolerable Errours we ought to haue à List of them and know How many or few they are And who can Ascertain vs of this Are we to diuine at their Intolerableness by our own priuate Iudgements Or is some wiser body to instruct vs when there is no Council at hand to do it Must all Christians dispersed vp and down the world write letters to one another Or inform themselues whether the Errours be intolerable These Supposed Errours in Councils And if so whether it be yet high time to cry out against them Or is it enough to Ask our next Neighbours what they think of the Business and rest there Perhaps some will hold them inconsiderable Others of à violent temper hainous not longer to be born with And can such Iumbling and Confusion which teares the Vnity of the Church in pieces Preserue Her in peace think ye Must we first Suppose à learned Cannot be discouered by larring Multitudes Council to haue erred and next rely on vnlearned iarring Multitudes to Proclaim Censure and Reuerse the Errour If this way be not more than Vncanonical in matters of Religion there was neuer any 6. You will Say the next Council is to mend all the failings of the former Answ Were this as it is not Possible what is to be done in the mean time whilst there is no Council in Being Must the Church which Belieues the Definitions of What if à Council be not in Being the former erring Councils and all Christians with it Err on so long till this other Council Appears Or is euery priuate man to resolue for himself what 's best to do in such Exigences Reflect I beseech you How far easier were it to quiet all might Councils once be owned infallible Yet here is my
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
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
of faith void For suppose I belieue Euery Resolution made null by this Obiection the Trinity because God hath reuealed the Mystery plainly in Holy Scripture I Ask whether God's Testimony supposed the Principle of belieuing be more infallible then the Trinity which is belieued vpon it here called the Conclusion Say The Diuine Testimony is more Infallible I 'll Affirm the very same of the Churches Proposition For what the Church speak's God speak's Answer No. And giue this reason Because we belieue the Testimony and the Mystery attested by one Indiuisible certain Act of Faith which tend's infallibly vpon both these Obiects at once without making Conclusions The difficulty ceases And hereby you se How the Churches Testimony is the Clearer Principle first How the Churches Testimony is à Principle to the thing belieued For euery one knowes that à Formal Obiect compared with its Materialâ— which lies in darkness is the greater Light and has the preheminence to be immediatly known For it Self and not for another Whereas the material Obiect would still remain in à State of obscurity and neuer be yeilded to but by the Energy of its formal Motiue In this sense therefore the vltima ratio assentiendi or formal Obiect may be well called the more certain Principle Though as I now said the Assent be indiuisibly terminated vpon both Obiects infallibly 18. You se 2. Where the mistake of our Aduersarie lies He Supposes faith generated by Discourse First that we belieue The Mistake discouerd the Trinity for example vpon one Principle Viz. The Churches Tradition or Testimony and then descend lower to belieue the same Mystery vpon God's Reuelation distinct from the Churches Testimony As if forsooth the Churches Testimony were an â—xtrinsecal condition preparing all to belieue vpon the Diuine Reuelation This must be intended or nothing is said to the Purpose now we vtterly deny the Supposition and Say when we belieue the Trinity or any other particular Mystery vpon the Churches Testimony or rather vpon this reuealed truth God speaks so by the Church We then elicite not two distinct Acts one depending on the other but with one One Indiuisible tendency in Faith indiuisible tendency of Faith belieue at once the Formal and Material Obiect together That is we belieue God speaks the truth by the Church which is to say we Assent to it because he speak's it by his own infallible Oracle 19. This one syllogâ—sm clear's all What the Church Saies is true The Church Saies God has reuealed the Trinity Ergo that 's true We resolue the Maior or first Proposition thus What the Church saies iâ— true That is What God speaking by the Church saith is true But God speaking by the Church Saies the Mystery of the Trinity is Ergo That 's true Where you see we only Discourse could Faith be so generated which some Diuines Assert from the Formal obiect or from Gods Reuelation to the Material belieued Now Mr Stillingfleet makes this Sense of the Maior Proposition and here lies his Errour that the Church Saies of Her self not including Gods Reuelation is The Errour more Clearly pointed at an act of Faith and true But the Church of her own sole Authority saith God reuealed the Trinity Ergo I must first belieue the Mystery by one act of Faith vpon the Churches Testimony as à Preparatiue to belieue it better vpon Gods pure Reuelation which is another distinct Formal Obiect from the Churches Testimony This Discourse is implicatory First because the Churches Testimony if separated from the Diuine Reuelation can ground no act of Faith 2. If which is true it only cooperates with or consummates the ancient Reuelation in order to the Belief of any Mystery it can help nothing to bring in à Conclusion wholly as obscure as it self is That word Conueyance beguiled Mr Stillingfleet for he thought if the Churches Testimony conueyes vnto vs the ancient Reuelation What beguiled thy Aduersary it must be excluded from being infallible and much more from being à ioynt Motiue with it Herein lies his Errour 20. It is difficult enough To Say what He would be at in his two next pages Some times he will haue no want of Euidence in faith as to the Reason inducing to belieue And if he means That what we Assent to by faith must be euidently Credible before we belieue it s à Truth but if he will haue the very act of Faith elicited to be euident the Apostle Heb. 11. 1. Faith implies Obscurity contradict's him For Faith is an Argument of things not appearing Sometimes again he saith the Assent is not requried to what is obscure and Vneuident And then to mollify the Proposition add's But what is euident to vs And theresore credible In à word Obscure Doctrin if he intend's thus much only That the euâ—dence of credibility precedes the inâ—â—dent act of Faith all is well But by one Instance we may guess where he err's The manner of the Hypostatical vnion Saith he is to vs ineuident wherevnto God requires not our Assent but to the truth of the thing it selfe Answer good Sr Is the truth of the Hypostatical vnion in it selfe or of the Trinity euident to vs Where lies that Euidence The truth of the Trinity euident to no Belieuer Or vpon what Principle is it grounded Hereticks are found that for the very difficulty of these ineuident Mysteries deny both And the best Orthodox Christians ingenuously Profess they so far Surpass all natural capacities That ther is no assenting to either but only by an humble submissiue Faith which essentially implies Obscurity If therefore what you say bo true We may lawfully suspend our Assent where God giues not euidence of the thing Assented to you may Consequently suspend your Assent and neither belieue the Trinity nor the Incarnation 21. Page 140. He demands why we belieue the Resurrection of the dead We Answer because God reueal's it An Obiection Proposed But Questioned again why we belieue that God hath reuealed it We Answer because the infallible Church saies God did speak it whereby it is plain that though our first Reply be from God's Authority yet the last Resolution of our faith is made into the infallibility of the Churches Testimony For though God had reuealed it yet if this Reuelation were not attested by the Church'es infallible Testimony we should not haue sufficient ground to belieue it Therefore the Churches infallibility must be more credible then the Resurrection of the dead 22. To giue à Satisfactory Answer please to hear what I demand also Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour is Answered by Scripture it selfe the true Messias because Christ spake the Truth with his own sacred mouth Iohn 4. 26. And if he belieues Scripture He Assents again to that truth vpon S. Iohns Testimony And so firmly belieues it that if the Euangelist or some other of like authority had not wrote it he could not haue
Infallible then those first Masters of Christianity were Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is constrained whether he will or no if he giues in any thing like Euidence to make vse of these good mute things the Motiues of Credibility which he scornfully call's Coleworts too often serued vp or shall neuer proue that God once said The Diuine word is made flesh Which is to Say He must first euidence à Church before he Proues those words Diuine 40. It may be replyed His Euidence for the whole Book of Scripture and euery particular sentence in it is taken from the fallible Tradition of all called Christians and others also no Christians I Say fallible For he owns none Diuine or Infallible Tallible Tradition no sufficient Euidence Contra. 1. The Scripture was acknowledged Diuine before men agreed so vniuersally that it was Diuine Tradition therefore which is rather an Effect of our Christian Beliefe concerning Scripture then à proof of it presupposes some other more clear foregoing Euidence whereby the Book was anciently owned as Diuine This we enquire after and very reasonably because the Chineses haue à vniuersal Tradition for their Bible and the Turks for their Alcoran one also general yet such à humane fallible and weak Tradition proues not those Books to be Diuine Contra. 2. And here is an An Argument ad hominem Argument ad Hominem If Mr Stillingfleet belieues the Testimonies of Scripture Infallible vpon fallible Tradition which may be false he makes his Conclusion concerning the belief of euery Passage in Holy Writ far more sure then the Premises are which lead in the Conclusion And this Doctrin he reiect's aboue as improbable Contra. 3. He has neither vniuersal Sectaries haue no vniuersal fallible tradition for their Seripture Tradition for the Protestants Canon of Scripture disowned by more then half of the Christian world much lesse for its true Sense wherein dissenting Christians so much vary that none of them all can Say vpon humane or fallible Tradition what the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is and consequently this very Tradition as also Mr Stillingfleets double Resolution of Faith into the Books of Scripture and into the Doctrin or Sense come iust to nothing 41. Page 158. He Argues the whole Church consist's of men subiect to errour That is All the Parts are liable to mistake Ergo the whole Church cannot possibly be infallible A faslacious Obiection Solued in and of it selfe Answ Lay open these couered Terms In and Of it selfe The Argument loses force I Say therefore Men meerly considered as nature has made them fallible in order to belieue Supernaturally haue In and Of themselues no immunity from errour yet taken vnder another Notion as they constitute à Church they are infallible That is There was is and will euer be à Church Teaching and à Church Taught Infallible So that all shall neuer err in Faith You may easily reioyn This or that man these or those Multitudes may wilfully abandon Christ's Doctrin Too true God knows And if so They are no more members of the Church but Heretiques or Infidels Again If you run Some may err All the Church cannot ouer the rest of Christians remaining Orthodox whether Pastors or People and Say these may also fall from Faith I Answer Some may All cannot because God has promised euer to preserue à Church in Being I mean faithful Teachers and faithful Belieuers to the end of the world And must not Sectaries acknowledge thus much who hold à Church infallible in Fundamentals which vpon that account cannot wholly err 42. Mr Stillingfleet Answer 's Though the Authority of the whole Church be not Diuine yet she cannot err in Fundamentals because she is tyed to the vse of means Say Good Sir who tyes Her to this infa 〈…〉 ble vse of Mean's if the whole Moral Body and euery Member of it be fallible Grant that God by his special Assistance ties Her fast She is for that reason infallible and must Vse the means Take from Her diuine Assistance and Say She is only guided by the erring Conceptions of fallible men She may easily swerue from the Means and reuolt from Christ And thus the fallacy is cleared You The fallacy discouerid Sr Suppose the Infallibility must be taken from the right vse of means whercas the contrary is true Viz. Therefore Sâ—e rightly vses the means because She is antecedently preserued infallible by Diuine Assistance You suppose again that all the Parts of this They rightly vse the Means because antecedently made Infallible Assisted Church are fallible And we Say no For as long as they continue members of it So long as the Pastors lawfully commissioned teach in Christ's name and the faithful belieue their infallible Doctrin There will be euer such à Church on earth So long they are all infallible If any fall from Faith whether few or many These eo ipso cease to be Members of this Mystical Body yet the Church fail's not for the failing of some infer's not à possible Failure in all The want of this Distinction caused your errour 43. And thus hauing remoued such weak difficulties out of the way thought great ones in that 5th chapter which to an Difficulties remoued we proceed to the Resolution an vnwary Reader may seem to Obstruct the Catholick Resolution of Faith We will in the following Discourse first Premise some Principles much auailing to conceiue the easiest Resolution and next declare where the chiefest difficulty lies which Mr Stillingf has not done and finally endeauour to solue it without the least danger of any vicious Circle Afterward we shall proue that Protestants haue no Faith at all to resolue CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 1. THe first Principle God who is an Infinite verity and speak's not to stones can by à Diuine Language proper to himselfe so make his interiour mind and sincere God's proper language meaning known to rational creatures that all vpon hearing His voyce may without hesitation indubitably Say Thus God Iudges this be Speak's which granted All are obliged both readily and firmly to yeild assent to so great à Maiesty for his own Authority Known to all The reason hereof is clear If God can speak to Mortals and for this end that he be vnderstood there arises an obligation in euery one to belieue him without fear or doubt Or in case it be impossible after all humane industry vsed to learn what he speak's none can absolutely belieue him 2. A. 2. Principle Then and not otherwise this external Language is certainly known to come from God when it is spoken in his name and so fairely appear's by its own Signatures Lustre and Wonders to proceed from him That all must confess
One only Society Proposeth Faith which is rational which is rational and consequently obliges all to belieue her Doctrin 12. Hence you see that euery one in the Choise of Religion is to ponder in the first place those weightly Arguments which make an Election prudent And then it is prudent not otherwise when Signes from Heauen Gods own Marks heighten What makes an Election Prudent the Religions Credibility so far aboue all other false and forged Sects That these at the first full Sight appear as they are horrid gastly and contemptible 13. If you will Discouer more clearly what I would haue reflected on in this Particular Be pleased to compare Heathenism Iudaism Turcism and finally Aeresy with one glorious Roman Catholick Church Speak plainly Can you find in these any thing like the Miracles the Conuersions the large Extent the Vnity and Sanctity of this one most Euidenced Oracle I need not proue the Negatiue You cannot for its Demonstrable to sense Heathenism and Heresy are now things of Scorn the whole world ouer Iudaism t' is true once had its No Society Comparable to the Roman Catholick Church in this rational Euidence Signes and Miracles wherein it far surpassed Heresy which neuer had nor will haue any like it Howeuer Christ's Illustrious Kingdom his Church Militant vastly surmount's that Ancient and now decayed Lustre of Iudaism And thus much briefly of the Euidence of Credibility which once had Faith most firm easily followes and without it none can belieue 14. A second Proposition Faith in this present State is resolued into the Authority of God the first Verity speaking by the Church This way of resoluing Faith is both plain and easy The Plainest resolution of Faith and very suitable to the common Apprehension of euery one learned and vnlearned who if Questioned why they belieue any Diuine Mystery readily Answer Sic docet Sancta mater Ecclesia So our Holy Mother the Catholick Church teaches And they Answer well For the First Instrumental Principle where into Faith is resolued must be so clear and Conspicuous à Rule that all may easily learn the Doctrin deliuered by it 15. The Assertion is plainly laid forth Deut. 30. V. 11. The Assertion Proued by Scripture The Commandment I command this day is not aboue thee nor farr off nor situated in Heauen that thou mays't Say Who of vs is able to ascend into Heauen to bring it to vs That is To know where true Faith is taught we need not to weary our selues with much Speculation or expect that God in Heauen lay open the sense of Scripture by Enthusianisms or any Priuate Reuelation Nor placed beyond the Sâ—a that thou may'st pretend which of vs can passe ouer the sea and bring it to vs. And hereby That endless Labour that euerlasting Inquisition Sectaries endles Labour made after Truth proper to Sectaries seem's reiected Originals must be examined Passages of Scripture compared History sought into Libraries turned ouer Languages learned Yea and the very particular Mysteries of Diuine Faith must be weighed by humane Reason and thus they descend into the Abyss of God's secrets before they come to Satisfaction in Religion All is toylsome all dissatisfactory all endless A more short and easy way is at hand For saith the Scripture Iuxta est sermâ— valde in ore tuo The word is very neere thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart to doe it And the Apostle Rom. 10. 8. Applyes this very Passage to the Word of our Christian Faith Hence I argue 16. But the Church is that first Instrumental Principle The Church is the first Instrumental Principle and most easy Rule which teaches our Christian Verities Scripture teaches them not so plainly Therefore Faith may well bee resolued into the first Verity speaking by the Church and whoeuer resolues it without all dependance of this liuing Oracle put 's the Conclusion before the Premises as we shall see afterward 17. I proue the first part of my Assertion 1. It is as euidently credible that God speak's to all by the Church as that he anciently spake by the Prophets and Apostles For we haue the same supernatural Signes manifested in all these Oracles à The Churches Euident Credibility parallel with that of the Apostles like as is largely shown aboue and Consequently haue with them the same Grounds of an Euident Credibility But Euident Credibility induced the Faithful to belieue those manifested Prophets and Apostles Ergo the Churches Euident Credibility euery way Parallel induces all in this present State to belieue this Oracle 2. God is equally infallible Yea one and the A second reason same Verity whether He speak's by one single Person or many and must be heard with all profound Submission Prouided that the Oracle He speak's by bee made immediatly Credible A third and by the lustre of Supernatural wonders as most euidently the Church is 3. The Church Answerable to the Prophets and Apostles is à Liuing Oracle and vpon that Account able to Solue all doubts which may occurr in controuerted Matters but the Clarity of à liuing euidenced Oracle ready to decide all such difficulties makes the Rule of Faith easy and much auail's to à clear Resolution 4. Our Analysis into God's Veracity Speaking fourth reason by the Church Stand's firm vpon that first Principal and infallible Motiue the Diuine Tâ—stimony it Selfe I call it Principal because the Church is only Instrumental as we now said whereby God speak's And this Resolution is made without any danger of à Process in Infinitum or the least Shadow of à vicious Circle as Shall presently appear by giuing the last Analysis 18. In the Interim know thus much To proue the second The other part of the Assertion it manifest part of our Assertion viz. That Scripture is not à Rule so perspicuous and clear in deliuering the very Chiefe Articles of Faith as the Church is in controuerted Matters were to proue à plain Euidence For what can be more manifes't then that wee and all Hereticks pas't and present are at endless debates concerning the true Sense and meaning of those very words we read in Scripture Yet the Ruel of Faith Sectaries confess it ought to bee clear open and manifest to all I waue all further discourse vpon this Subiect and here adioyn our last Analysis 19. One demand's why I belieue that great Mystery of the Incarnation I may well Answer first God's own sacred The last Resolution giuen Word which we call Scripture Asserts it The next Question will be Why I belieue this to be Scripture I answer The same God speaking by his own Oracle the Church affirm's it A third Question followes Why doe I belieue that God speak's thus by the Church I Answer the Ground of my Faith in All Demands answered this particular is God's own speaking and the very same with that hee spake by the Apostles As therefore his Own word vttered by
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
it No more can these men if you set aside A selfe-wilful Perswasion satisfy Reason why they belieue as they doe then the worst of Arians tell you why they belieue Arianism 20. It would bee ridiculous in this contest to bring in Scripture as à Rule of their Faith For first we here enquire not after the Obiect of their Belief But call for rational Motiues whereby they are induced to belieue Protestancy 2. We Say Though Scripture were in à General way owned Scripture here not pleadable The most immediate Rule and the Sense of it could bee known by the priuate Reason of some men in the world yet The Sectary gain's nothing vpon the Concession because He knowes not nor shall euer know vpon any sure Principle That his The Reason Reason hath the singular Priuiledge to hit right on the Scriptures true Sense whilst all His Aduersaries and they are very many openly oppose it as improbable 21. One may yet reply For as much as The Sectary Belieues which is not much For it lies in à few Fundamentals If the protestant abstract's from what Doctrin he likes not He has the same Euidence of Credibility as we Catholicks haue And so far ioyn's with vs in Beliefe In other Matters of Contest He neither Belieues nor Disbelieues but Abstract's from all Contra. 1. Thus the Arians and all Heretiques proceed who first chuse and lay claim to so many Tenets of Christian Doctrin as pleases Fancy and then tell vs They haue Reason to chuse to Diuide and separate from the rest We why may not the Arian do the like demand and here is the main Point what rational Euidence haue they to do so Who made Beggars For all they haue they took from the Church such bold Chusers Again if they prescind or abstract They are obliged to Design an No Church fauours this Doctrin euidenced Orthodox Church which abstracted like them and positiuely taught so much Doctrin is precisely necessary to Saluation And no more This is impossible O yes The Primitiue Church seem's to haue abstracted from many Doctrins now taught by the Roman Catholick Contra. Who tell 's you so Your lame Negatiue way of Arguing Wee read not of Purgatory nor of Transubstantiation c. Pitiful The euidenced Roman Catholick Church by Her Constant Tradition speak's of both and also positiuely auouches that all now taught was then Anciently deliuered Here is our Principle and wee Sectaries vrged to name the Orthodox Church which abstracted as they do now vrge Sectaries to oppose it by producing the Authority of another more ancient Church which Spake then as they speak now Or which abstracted from such Particular Doctrins as they would abstract from But this is Impossible Out of all I Conclude Sectaries haue no Euidence of Credibility for any Doctrin belieued by them and Consequently no true Faith at all but Opinions only and those false too Now we must solue two or three difficulties of another Nature 22. A. 6. Obiection Reason Assures the Catholick that God speak's by the Oracle of the Church Ergo his Another Obiection Faith is vltimatly resolued into Reason I Deny the Consequence For if wee make à right Analysis The Act of Faith is not yet in Being in that Sign or Priority of Nature when Prudence tell 's Him God speak's by the Church The nature of that Iudgement serues only to induce the vnderstanding to Faith or to fix it vpon an vnuariable state of Belieuing And Consequently must be resolued into its own clear Principles Preuiously penetrated before the Catholick belieues Faith followes and relies immediatly vpon its own Obiect which is God's Reuelation proposed by the Church or by Scripture infallibly interpreted Now 23. If you Obiect 7. It is my priuate Reason which The equiuccation discouered makes me to belieue the Church I Answer The Proposition is equiuocal For it may either signify what I call Reason independently of all known Obiectiue Euidence makes mee to belieue the Church And that Sense is very false Nay its impossible One sense false to hold euery internal Act not resoluable into Obiectiue Euidence in à matter of such Consequence Reasonable This as I said aboue Patronises the worst of Heresies and Atheism also 24. Or Contrarywise the Sense may be The Church The other true when the Iudgement is grounded on rational Euidence glorioussly marked by clear and Conuincing Motiues known and applyed by my formal Act of Reason makes it Reasonable and that 's most true Wherefore euery rational Iudgement in the â—resent matter must be fixed vpon rational prudent Motiues distinct from the Act we iudge by The Iudgement is no more but Conditio applicans à Condition whereby the Obiectiue â—uidence is laid hold on and set before an Vnderstanding The Ground hereof is clear For we know not by Obiects extrinsick to our Knowledge but by vital Acts which interuene between the Intellectual Power and Obiects Now if any Ask why may not this Iudgement mistake and erre I Answer first by Proposing the like Question Why might not the Iudgement of the Primitiue Christians when they saw or heard of the Apostles great Wonders haue also been à Mistake or Errour Solue Why this Iudgement cannot be erroneous the one you solue the other I Answer 2. The Iudgement cannot if it pitch vpon what really is the Obiectiue Euidence be Erroneous For no fundation of Errour as wee now Suppose Lies there Therefore none can be deriued from thence into any vnderstanding A pure fountain yeilds no pudled water 25. A. 8. Obiection Faith is an Act of à reasonable power and consequently Conformable to Reason Therefore Faith Considered two wayes Reason regulates Faith or is its immediate Rule Answ The Act of Faith may be Considered two wayes First as it is à prudent reasonable Submission to Gods Reuelation 2. As it s terminated vpon the Reuelation proposed by the Church or As prudent how it is resolued any other infallible euidenced Oracle Consider it vnder the First Notion of à prudent Submission it euer Implies or rather presupposeth the rational prudent Iudgement now mentioned And this Iudgement preuiously set fast vpon such Motiues The resolution otherwise if considered as it relies vpon the Diuine Testimony as conuerted the world may well be Said to denominate the Act of elicite Faith à rational Obsequiousness Yea and its extrinsecal Rule also as will appear to euery one that makes à right Analysis or brings Faith to its last Principles But consider again the very Act it Selfe or precisely as it tend's vpon the Diuine Reuelation proposed by an Infallible Oracle it reason 's not at all nor more proues or Scientifically knowes its Obiect as Faith Than Science as Science belieues This Proues that submissiuely Belieues Not can Faith which euer presupposes its Obiect and Rule proued to Reason Scientifically proue either without lossing what is Essential to it I mean Obscurity
it is manifest and granted by Sectaries that the Roman Catholick Church once was confessedly Orthodox at least for the first three or four Centuries yet A third Question grounded on what Sectaries grant as our Aduerfaries assert failed afterward and brought in strange new Doctrins yea flat Idolatry We vrge the Doctor to satisfy Reason in this one particular viz. Why Protestants deal not as Candidly with vs as we do with them I would say We accuse them for deserting à Church wherein their Progenitors had liued for à thousand years and as à little Method lately published obserues excellently well Speak open and acknowledged Euidence We tell How plainly we deal with them them who began this new Mode of Reformation we exactly Point at the time of its first Rise we Shew how it was Propagated what Abetters it had and omit no Circumstance which may Conduce And how darkly they with vs to à plain discouery of the whole Nouelty Sectaries on the other side accuse the Church of heretical yea of Idolatrous Innouations and yet as the Method notes their charge is so obscure so vtterly vnknown that the very Accusers cannot say who first publish'd them Or where they began from what occasion they had their Origen who patronized them Or who opposed them 14. Please now to mark what my demand is in this place The Doctor and his Partizans suppose these and the like wicked Innouations of an vnbloodly Sacrifice of Adoring the Sacred Host what the Doctor is obliged to to haue been euidently brought into the Church Contrary to the Primitiue Doctrin For that publick act of Adoration came not in by night but was à thing notoriously known notoriously practized Is not therefore the Dr obliged either to tell vs plainly when where and how this visible worship first began That is to proue by Euidence what He supposes euidently innouated we accuse and giue in Euidence Or to giue à reason Why when Catholiks euidently proue the Sectaries reuolt from the Roman Church Protestants cannot vpon the like Euidence Proue that the Roman Church in latter Ages receded from any former Roman Church pure and Orthodox Obserue well the difference We accuse them of an actual Reuolt from our Church whether they had reason for it or no is not here disputed The ground wherevpon our Accusation relies is euident and notoriously known They accuse as boldly as we do But when their Proofs come to the Test all of them dwindle into lame guesses false Suppositions in à word into Sectaries accuse vpon guesses and false Suppositions à meer Nothing as will better appear in the next Chapter 15. Now here is à Point I would haue euery prudent Reader to reflect on for I hold it à manifest Conuiction of our Sectaries open Injustice If whoeuer accuses à whole Kingdome euer known loyal of Treason against the Soueraign Power in it ought A Point worthy Reflection to Produce no less then Euident Proofs in so weighty à Matter Much more ought he or they who impeach à whole ample Church of high Treason plead by Euidence or sit down Silent The The Loyalty of the Church euidenced Loyalty of this Church to the most Supreme Soueragn Christ Iesus is manifest She hath as is noted in the Other Treatise dilated his Empire defeated his Enemies perfidious Heathens gain'd him Friends and innumerable Seruants Her repute was neuer yet stained by any nor Fame blemished but only by Infidels Iewes or known Hereticks Now Start's vp à little late Knot of inconsiderable Sectaries who both Cauil and accuse boldly Of what poor Condition her Accusers are They impeach this Church of high Treason For She hath changed the true Doctrin of Christ and in place of it taught and yet teaches Plain Idolatry She is therefore à Rebel against that King whom She hath serued so long and most faithfully Here is à loud and euident Impeachment an abhominable Treason The impeachment loud and criminal laid to the charge of à Spouse most euidently Loyal But where are the Euident Proofs answerable to this euident Accusation against the already Loyal Euidenced Church There are But Proofs answer not none so much as Probable as shall be euinced in the following Chapter where I positiuely proue that Sectaries most iniuriously Calumniate the Church without Law without Authority or any rational Argument 16. If Doctor Stillingf Shall please to return à plain Answer to How the Doctor may gain applause what is here briefly proposed as also to the rest which followes Concerning â—his very point in the next Chapter he will certainly gain the applause of à singular great Doctor but if he Fob's vs off with his old Raillery of killing Flies of Small Grains Woolsacks and such like stuffe the world will iudge as to my knowledge many do already That He cannot Answer For thus they Discourse and Methinks reasonably Had he not found himselfe more then à little in the briars that is in plain language vnable to Answer such Arguments as are pressed vpon him by thole two Authors he Slights He would most indubitably before this day haue replyed to what is Obiected The Dr bewrayes his weaknes in wauing difficulties which vrge without mispending time in publishing à triuial thread-bare Cauil as is now done Concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Catholick Church which destroyes not only Catholick Religion but Protestancy also as is amply Proued in the 2. Disc C. 4th and 5.th In this wauing of difficulties and he is told aboue which they are he bewrayes too much weaknes 17. The fourth Demand is and it will giue the Doctor some trouble Suppose falsly the Roman Catholick Church to what Church Succeded in place of the Roman Supposed I dolatrous haue brought in that abominable Sin of Idolatry many Ages before Luther It is euident that when Luther and Protestants deserted Her She was far if Idolatrous from being the pure Spouse of Christ or any thing like an Orthodox Church in the very Fundamentals of Faith Herevpon à great doubt Occurr's which ought to be cleared It is What other Church neither Idolatrous nor notably erroneous succeded in the Place of this supposed Pestiferous erring Roman Society Such à Church distinct from the Roman free from Idolatry and gross Errour must be Pointed out and plainly named or it followes ineuitably that the world was then without à true Church 18. Perhaps the difficulty may yet be more significantly Proposed Christ's Promises made voyd if then there was no Orthodox Church in Being after this manner When Luther reuolted from the Roman Catholick Church infected as is now imagined with Idolatry and false Doctrin There was then another Church in the world pure and Orthodox Or not If not All our Sauiours Promises of being with the Church to the End of the world He made no Promise of being with an Idolatrous or any notorious erring Church are false Again All that the
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
very Calumny without more and their own vnproued Suppositions serue both for proof and Answer We demand Again Questions proposed â— when the Church failed when or in what Age the Church became thus accursed and traiterous to Christ They fob vs off with fooleries of beards growing Gray and weeds peeping vp in à garden inperceptibly Is not thy ridiculous We Ask. 3. Seing the world was neuer Since the Apostles preached without an Orthodox Christian what other pure Church succeded in place of Roman supposed Idolatrous How many different Churches will Sectaries own why Should the Protestants Reformation be better then that of the Arians Society what other pure Church succeeded in place of the Roman now supposed Idolatrous and heretical None hitherto has offerred to answer this Question nor can it be Answered vnless Sectaries admit two or three distinct different Churches The first Primitiue and pure the second corrupted which came in when the Roman Catholick began her supposed Idolatry The third again pure and spotless which closely followed the Roman fallen into Errour And this is à meer chimera We lastly demand why this Protestant Reformation should be more lik'd more look'd on or held any wayes better then those precedent Reformations of their elder Brethern the Donatists or Others Will it be said Protestants came after the rest or in the last place and therefore think themselues more skilful the only gifted men in this business of mending Religion Plead thus I answer They speak improbably and are worse then all their Predecessors vpon this very account that hauing For one weighty reason it is far worse seen the Malice the weak Attempts the vnlucky successe of defeated Heretiques in former Ages will not learn by such woful examples to be more wise and wary then to run the Risque with them and thereby to incurr God's heauy Indignation 29. Whoeuer desires to make à further inspection into that The improbability of Protestanism further declared in à very vnequal Parallel The first reuerenced the other scorn'd The one hath à head the other is headles Tradition teaches the one fancy the other The one far and neer diffused the other hid in corners Councils and no Councils Vnity and Diuisions visible Pastors and inuisible Compared together high improbability which other Christians Charge Protestancy with may please to compare à little our Catholick Religion with this other late risen Nouelty If things be well weighed without Controuersy so euident that they need no Proof The first will be found alwayes reuerenced and neuer opposed by Orthodox Christians Contrarywise the other will appear an obiect of scorn not only to the wisest of the world but also to innumerable that professe it against their own Consciences The One hath an Ecclesiastical Head for its Guide The other is an vngouernable Body without head or ioynts to tye its iarring parts together The One shewes you manifest and most euident Miracles The other if euer nature wrought Miracles à Miraculous boldnes to deny the greatest wonders God hath wrought by the Church The One teaches what it anciently receiued by à neuer interrupted Tradition The other what is suggested by euery Priuate Phansy The one is diffused the whole world ouer The other only Creeps vp and down in à few Corners of these Northern parts in so much that some Religious Orders are further extended than Protestancy The One hath had seueral Oëcumenical learned Councils The other neuer any learned or vnlearned The one still retain's à strict vnity in Faith the other manifestly is torn in pieces with Diuisions The one giues you à large Catologue of its ancient visible Pastors and visible professors for full Sixteen Ages The other cannot name one Protestant Village nor one Protestant man before the dayes of the vnfortunate Luther 30. The one hold's its Catholick deceased Ancestors worthy respect and veneration The other makes them all besotted Idolaters Respect and à high dishonour and worse then mad men The one Religion Stand's firmly built vpon plain Scripture and the Authority of an euidenced vniuersal Church The other vtterly vnprincipl'd has not one word of Holy writ for it nor either vniuersal or particular Church which euer taught Protestancy The one has Principles and no Principles An Interpreter and no Interpreter Faith and no faith Infallibility and fallibility à An ancient Possession an open vrong Diuine Assistance and no Diuine Assistance à Mysterious Bible and à certain Interpreter the other à meer body without à Soul the bare letter without life words without sense and Phansy to Interpret The one resolues its faith into God's infallible Reuelation the other has nothing like Faith to resolue The one Religion Proues its truths Infallible The other seek's for fallible Doctrin and has found enough of what is both fallible and false also An Ancient Possession vphold's the One and à publick iniurious rebellion against the Mother Church giues the other all the Right it hath The Professors of the one proue God to haue been the Author of it who yet preserues it vnalterable and pure by Diuine Assistance The Professors of the other say plainly that God neuer reuealed one Article of their reformed Protestancy and therefore need no Diuine Assistance to preserue it The Professors of the One shew you à Church gloriously marked with Signes and Wonders peculiar effects of God's Infinite Power and Wisdome which make the Religion euidently Credible to Reason The Professors of the other in lieu of such Marks Shew you A glorious euidenced Church and a meer Naked Nothing parallel'd à bare Naked Nothing without Miracles without Conuersions without austerity or any thing that appear's like à work of God in it and therefore is most euidently incredible 31. Thus much for an Essay only which might be further enlarged but its needles for you haue euery particular proued in the Treatise here in your hands If our Aduersaries hold themselues or cause iniured whilst we so highly extol the one What 's required if our Aduersaries hold their Cause wronged Religion and extenuate the other to Improbability it will methinks be very easy to right Both by shewing plainly vpon sound and very sound Principles wherein our mistakes lie or in what substantial Matter we haue erred But still remember Principles 32. What I here propose Seem's reasonable and 't is done for this sole end Almighty God knowes that after our long The sole End why we propose this Debates it may at last appear to euery one on which side Truth stand's Now if vpon so faire an Offer we haue nothing return'd but Sectaries wonted strain of Cauils trim'd vp with pretty ieers I for my part haue done and shall in place of Arguing further mildly exhort as Blessed S. Austin once did in We exhort with Blessed S. Austin à like Occasion De Vnit. Ecclesiae C. 19. fine Sâ— auâ—em non potestes quod tam iuste à vobis flagitamus ostendere Credite veritati Conticescite Obdormiscite à furore expergiscimini ad salutem If you Sectaries cannot Conuince our Church guilty of errour by vndeniable Principles this we iustly require Belieue Truth Let your weak Attempts and fury sleep Surcease from this friuolous And appeal to their own guilty Consciences charging vs with Heresy and Idolatry You know Gentlemen you know full well we are no Idolaters your own Consciences tell you your Plea is naught your Cause vndefensible Expergisâ—imini ad Salutem Wake open your drowsy eyes and look about you 33. You se our Noble England set on fire by your vnfortunate dissentions concerning Religion bring your teares to After â— long drawsy sleep its time to wake quench the flames You se your Selues vpon your different Engagements some brain-sick with Fanaticism some with no man knowes what worrying one another Wonder nothing it must needs be so whilst you are out of the peaceable Fold of Christ's vnited Church You haue been too long Prodigal Children straying from the house of God return with à hearty Peccaui A tender Mother the Catholick Church is willing to receiue you and à good old Father Christs Vicar vpon earth as ready to embrace you with open armes You se Atheism enters and is rife among you pernicious Leuiathans and other like Monsters range vp and down and poyson innumerable How Should it be otherwise Atheism followes vpon what you haue done For those who Separate from the true Church soon Separate from Christ also and cannot after that double Diuorce long Continue Friends to God Wherefore once more Expergisâ—imini ad salutem be The Authors hearty wish vigilant Hora est iam nos de somno surgere it now high time to wake Your Concern is no less à Matter then eternal Saluation My earnest prayer is that Christ our Lord the Light of the world may break through the thick cloudes of all darken'd hearts and with the radiant beams of Diuine Grace illuminate euery one Ad salutem to endles Bliss and Happines FINIS