wayes either by disordering euery wheel in it à part or by breaking the Spring The fairest Palace ever was is ruine'd if either you separate euery stone from stone or if you vndermine the fundation and blow vp the whole Fabrick though many of the stones strongly Cimented cling yet together The first way of answering by piece-meal is tedious and obscure and as things are with vs by reason of the difficulty in Printing and transmitting Bookes into England almost impossible The other is clear and easy both are satisfactory to euery rational man and I hold the second most necessary For in all our Discourses there must be some firm Principles laid wherevnto we reduce and from whence wè draw what we Assert which seueral wayes of discoursing Compose the two different Methods Analytical and Synthetical obserucd by Philosophers and Divines Neither is the Foundation more necessary to à house or the weight to a clock then Principles are to a Discourse which then is good when the grounds stand firm and the Deductions of the particular Conclusion from them clear But if either the Principles be false and alien or the Deductions not Coherent the whole Discourse fall's to nothing Apply what is here sayd to your Account or rather to the Religion it Asserts and you have all I would Say Your Account Sr was writ to vindicate Protestancy and must stand vpon the same Principles with that Nouelty therefore whatever shak's and ruin's the Principles of Protestancy necessarily shak's and ruin's the Principles of your Account But your Supposed Principles or Grounds of Protestancy are broken yea demonstrated no Grounds at all in the Book intitl'd Protestancy without Principles where they arc proued either false or no Principles peculiar to your Religion as it is distinct from the Doctrin of other Societies called Non-Protestants And consequently when true they haue no Connexion with Protestancy nor can lead in any conclusion for you And where they are false their falsity is laid before your eyes and an vtter subuersion of your Cause and Account with it because neither can stand when your supposed Principles are destroyed or rather found never to have had Being And thus your Book is solidly Answered If you desire to se more ruin yet fallen vpon you read this Treatise and be pleased to reflect vpon these three things in your Account The length of it The Obiections against Catholick Religion and finally your Principles for Protestancy We find two of them but misse the third The length mighty tedious and too often without substance wearies à Reader God help him say I that vndergoes the druggery to turn ouer all the vneuen stuff which lies heap't vp there Your Obiections vsually borrowed from Mr Chillingworth and some other Protestant Writers are for the most part common and such as haue been answered ouer and ouer Where you think them peculiar to your selfe as they lay in my way I haue reioyned and if some be omitted that 's only to Say euery stone in your Fabrick is not touched or medled with But for as much as concerns your Principles in behalfe of Protestancy I Assert Confidently you haue none and vpon this ground I say once more your Account is answered Goe on therefore and vilify the works published against you as you please call them Wool sacks Rats or Flies add more opprobrious language to gain you credit among your simple and too credulous Vulgar with Intelligent Readers you preuail nothing who well perceiue it Matters not to your Intent if those VVool sacks receiue and break the force of your greatest shot against our Church if the Rats gnaw the best ligaments woven in your Account if but one of these flies enter your throat and bereaue you of breath some report of à great man stifled by à Fly And truly it seem's by your deep silence or not answering since these Books came forth that some of the greater sort haue halfe chok'd you But enough To say more after this strain were to rallie like you and to offend the learned world which requires substance in these serious matters without contempt flowting and empty words Had you Sr gone the right way to work you should either haue kept in your disdainful language or taken Protestancy without Principles in hand Shewing where the Author mistook your Principles Or whether his exceptions were blamable because he thought them either Common and not belonging to you that is wholly alien from your cause wholly impertinent to Maintain Protestancy This proceeding had been Satisfactory but difficult and aboue your force Therefore you wisely waued it knowing well it was easier to giâ—e sharp words and snarle at your Aduersaries than to come neer and bite with pinching Arguments My proceeding with you Sr is quite contrary I slight nor your person but say plainly where your great mistake lies in handling Controuersies You run head-long into the deep Mysteries of Faith by the ill conduct of your weak or not well sighted reason and after à few stagg ring thoughts spent in weighing and musing vpon the difficulties which appear to you in the Mysteries you will needs tell vs what 's true what 's false and therefore boldly take and reiect as you like best It is à perplexed way Sr which will neuer make you either Good Christian good Diuine or so much as à mean Proficient in Christ's School In following it you are just like one as I tell you in the Treatise that takes wholsome Pills into his Mouth chewes them find's them bitter and spitt's all out Hence it is you spit at the Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Purgatory c. because forsooth they are distastful to sense and shallow reason And truly Sr it is wonderful that you haue not long since by this procedure cast off the Doctrin of the sacred Trinity For most certainly might sense and weak reason plead the Cause here far greater difficulties would occur against that sublime Mystery then euer Protestants yet proposed against our other Catholick Tenents In a word Sr if you desire satisfaction in matters of Religion busy not your head with the examination of the Diuine Mysteries Considered in themselues they are aboue your reach but contrarywise consider well how and by what means they are made Credible to reason which is done as S. Austin cited afterward tell 's you by first finding out that clear marked and signalized Church whereby God speaks This Oracle once discouered and the Discouery grounded vpon Euidence is easy Hear and Believe Her She is wiser then you and never think to shake so strong à Fortress by devising pcrty Arguments against Her Doctrin no sooner seen then solued because forsooth you cannot Comprehend it But it is high time to end and I shall do so with one word more of good aduice Fooles they say may sometimes give à wise man Counsel Sr if you intend to write any more Consider for your own sake what you write weigh things well in your
Iudaism or Turcism bee erroneous and improbable 1. WEE here exclude professed Atheists vowed enemies of all Religion And now treat with other Aduersaries but very briefly they are either Heathens Turks or Iewes list if you please with These all condemned Hereticks as Arians Pelagians Donatists and the like rabble of Aliens from truth who really deserue not the name of Christians Heathens now of no account 2. The Gentils or Heathens that adored many Gods as Mars Iupiter Apollo and therfore plain Idolaters because they make deceased men Gods are now of no account in the world Turks Iewes Christians and all other decry their vanity or to speak in S. Chrisostoms worts ipsius Christi virtute dissipati sunt They are wasted dissolued and brought to nothing by the virtue of Christ our Sauiours preaching Diuturnitate temporum perierunt Time has worn them out we need say no more 3. Turkcism which hath gained à great part of the world and à far greater then euer any particular Heresy gained is euidently no more but an open Tyranny The sword no word of God doth all Power and carnal pleasures which corrupted nature easily embraceth vphold this Religion More cruelty followes the Professors of it then Iustice fidelity or any moral virtue yet moral virtue grounded in nature euer accompanies true Religion Again and here is à Demonstration against Turkeism Mahomet who held himself à Prophet only and no God appeared some centuries after Christ yea and owned both A demonstration against Turkeism Christ and Moyses to haue been great Prophets sent from God Hence I argue If sent from God the Doctrin they deliuered was true Therfore Mahomets Alcoran is false which contradict's not only Christs Doctrin but that also of Moses and the Prophets The contradiction is euident by the Alcoran and the inference Ergo The Alcoran contradict's God himself speaking truth by these Prophets is as clear Therfore either God contradict's him self saying one thing by these Prophets and reuoking it by Mahomet which is impossible or Mahomet is à lyar Yet more Let Mahomet iudge as he pleaseth of Christ and the Prophets He and his are obliged to satisfy one Demand viz. What Doctrin that was wherby men were saued before his preaching And I speak of Doctrin not of Ceremonies or temporal positiue Lawes He will not say all from Adam to his dayes were damned for want of true Doctrin nor can he haue recours to the Multiplicity of Gods owned by Heathens these He reiects Therfore he must acknowledge true Doctrin taught before his being in the world but this Doctrin Moses Christ and the Prophets truely deliuered or there was none taught in the world This saued souls anciently therfore if belieued it saues them still once it was true therfore it is now and will be euer so But Mahomet opposeth him self to this true reuealed Doctrin therfore He opposeth God speaking by these Oracles Hence I argue Mahomets errour Very late opposite to ancient truth A Religion which began fifty ages after truth was taught in the world and expresly contradict's that taught truth is false Mahomets Religion is euidently such ergo it is false I say that contradict's the ancient true Doctrin to preuent an obiection which may arise out of ignorance For some may say Christ our Lord long after Moses and the Prophets deliuered Doctrin contrary to them therfore the Argument against Mahomet conuinceth not I answer It is one thing to reueal Truth à new not anciently belieued and an other to abrogate ancient receiued verities Christ besides cancelling the Ceremonial law deliuered more truths then were explicitly declared by the Prophets but neuer contradicted any Doctrin proceeding from God by the mouth of his Prophets as Mahomet did Hence S. Austin and other Fathers Affirm that Christs Church reuerences the Doctrin of Moses and the Prophets and that faith hath euer been the same from the beginning of the world 4. The Iewes who make their Religion most ancient are notwithstanding clearly conuinced of errour and here is my first The Iewes à dispersed People without essence or form of Religion Argument A People dispersed vp and down the world that haue had now for 16. ages neither Essence nor Form of true Religion nor the effects or fruits of it cannot profess true Religion and consequently are not the lawful heires of the Prophets ancient Faith But the Iewes are thus euidently dispersed and want the Essence the Form and effects of Religion Ergo. I proue the Minor A sacrifice essential to Religion which could not according to their law be offered but in Hierusalem only A Temple and Priests also euidently fail them for no Sacrifice no Priest Iudges Prophets and miracles cognisances also of true Religion which neuer failed in their greatest Captiuities now by the iust iudgement of God leaue them therfore the very Form and order of Religion wholy reuersed manifest this people once Populum iam non populum heretofore blessed now accursed for their obstinacy And if we speak of other effects or fruits of Religion their Thalmudick Fables their vnsatiable auarice their cheating and Cozening others their open Hypocricy for gain They exteriourly profess any Religion now Catholicks now Protestants now Arians or what you will These effects I say demonstrate à want of the very Soul of the life of virtue and Religion in them All which is manifest to our eyes and senses 5. To add force to this most weighty Argument S. Cyprian chiefly in his first book Aduers Iudaeos shewes all along how Their dereliction foretold in scripture they were fortold by the very law and ancient Prophets of their losing Religion and future dereliction after Christs comming viz. That Their first lawes and carnal circumcision were to cease and à new law with spiritual circumcision to succeed Isay 8. Mich. 4. That an other order and à new Testament should be giuen Ier. 31. That the old Pastors were to leaue of their teaching and new Doctors come in their place Ier. 3. and. 31. That no other but Christ himself was to be the true Temple and house of God 2. Reg. 7. That the old sacrifices of lambes and beasts should not be offered Isay 1. That the old Priesthood was 〈◊〉 and à new Priest and king raign for euer Ps 109. 1. Reg ◠That the greater People the Iewes should become the lesse and the Gentils far lesser become greater Gen. 15. Osee 2. That à Church once barren should haue more Children than the Synogogue euer had Isa 5. 4. vpon those words Iucundare sterilis Thus S. Cyprian through those seueral short chapters of his first book And we see all these prophesies literally fulfilled after the comming of our Sauiour and the establishment of the Christian Church Those hearts are stupid and eyes blind that perceiue not the Iewish synogogue vtterly abandoned Yet more If you will see this Christian verity amply laid forth read the 9. chapter of Daniel where the
books of Scripture hee hath not yet so much as moral certainty of that precise Canon he receiues excluding other books which he denies as Scripture For no Orthodox Church no vniuersal Tradition no consent of Fathers no definition of any Council approues his Canon or explodes those books reiected by him therfore the sectaries Canon wherof there is so Much doubt can giue no moral assurance of Gods reuealed verities vnles it were without dispute à liquid truth that their Canon only is Gods word which cannot be supposed whilst so learned and numerous à multitude of Christians oppose it as defectiue and imperfect Yet more Suppose he giues you the exact number of Canonical books hee gain's nothing because the very Doctrin of these books is no more but à Translation and therefore vnlesse the Translator or Printer haue faithfully complyed with their duty and preserued the books in their ancient purity no Protestant can assure himself or any that what we now read is without change or corruption pure in the very necessary points of Faith If you say you compare them with the ancient Original Copies of the Hebrew and Greek I answer the very best Originals men can light on now are no more but meer Transcriptions and consequently may haue been corrupted by the Transcriber The best Originals now extant are only transcriptions the Printer or Librarian Therefore the Sectary hath no Moral certainty of the bare letter in Scripture if he cannot shew vs the hand writing or Autograph's of the Prophets and Apostles wherof there is no danger because he neuer saw any Hence I argue He who hath not infallible certainty of the very letter of Scripture want's infallible certainty of the Doctrin contained in Scripture but the Protestant hath no infallible certainty of the letter of Scripture Therefore he want's infallible certainty of the Doctrin contained in Scripture for no certainty of the letter no An argument against sectaries certainty of the Doctrin drawn from thence But if he has not certainty of the Doctrin he can haue no infallible faith grounded on it Therefore Scripture alone is an unmeet means to teach him what either true Faith or Religion is 2. Mr. Stillingfleet to solve this vnanswerable Argument Part. 1. c. 6. p. 196. saies we beg the Question when we require an infallible Testimony for our belieuing the Canon of scripture yet grants such à certainty as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting and Chap. 7. p. 211. declares himself further thus Giue me leaue to make this supposition that God might not haue giuen this supernatural Assistance to your Church which you pretend makes it infallible whether men through the vniuersal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages might not haue been vndoubtedly certain that the Scripture we haue was the same deliuered by the Apostles I answer if you take leaue to make that supposition licence me to tell you you haue not that certainty of Scripture which Diuine Faith both supposeth and requires And here is one reason to omit others insisted on here after Deny this infallible assurance of the books of Scripture you haue no greater certainty that God endited those words we now read than you haue assurance that Aristotle wrote his Topicks or Caesar his Commentaries And dare you or any say that we receiue Mr. Stilling answer dissatisfactory our Bible vpon no surer ground Or can you Imagin if Christians accept these books vpon à Testimony lesse then vndubitable it may not be suspected that à thousand gross errours haue entred the Copies by the negligence or inaduertency of such as transcribed them Belieue it Were Aristotles Topicks matter of Diuine Faith none would dy after the fallible conueyance of them to our age vpon this perswasion that nothing substantially first writ by that Author hath been changed or altered Since and the same I assert of the Bible vnlesse you say that the words of Scripture were writ in some celestial and incorruptible Matter yet to be read by all or grant which is truth that as God by special Prouidence caused them to be writ pure so also he yet preserues them without blemish and now witnesseth the truth by the Testimony of his infallible Church wherof more largely hereafter At present I will only answer your difficulty about that fallible certainty which you affirm excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting and say first The vniuersal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages neuer approued the intire Canon of your Scripture for not only the present Roman Catholick Church but the ancient councils also receiued books which you reiect This truth is so manifest that it need 's no further proof therefore your Canon want's the approbation of the whole Christian world and consequently you haue not so high à certainty of Scripture as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting I answer 2. And it is à demonstration against Protestants who say the whole Christian world for à thousand years at least erred in Doctrin contrary to the verities of Holy Scriptures for if we goe up from Luther to the 4 th or 5 th age after Christ you 'l find none but condemned erring Hereticks and Roman Catholiks no lesse actually guilty say Sectaries of these professed errours Of praying to Sainâ—s of an vnbloody Sacrifice of the the A further Argument taken from the papists supposed errours real presence c. Thus much supposed I both answer and Argue against you If the whole Christian world was for that vast time so strangely infatuated as to mantain errours contrary to Scripture when the true Doctrin therof no lesse concerned their eternal Saluation then the true letter it cannot possibly be supposed vpon any weak Probability much lesse on such à certainty as excludes all reasonable doubt that these besotted Christians preserued the letter of Scripture pure and intire whose errours are now imagined most gross against the Doctrin contained in God's word Obserue my reason It is much more easy to conceiue if all held corrupted Doctrin that the very letter of Scrtpture was by negligence or ignorance of these Corrupters of Doctrin also corrupted then to imagin the records preserued pure and Millions of Christians to read them and after the reading grosly to mistake Gods verities registred in that book And here I must mind M. Stillingfleet of his proofless and inconsequent way in Arguing 3. You Sr. say first The whole erring multitudes of Christians before Luther preserued Scripture pure yet forsooth these silly men taught one Doctrin after an other contrary to Scripture They perused the book interpreted it yea preached it to their own confusion and condemnation You say 2. It is not possible that Mr. stillingfleets arguments retorted these writings could be extorted out of mens hands by fraud or violence vnder their eyes or suffered to be lost by negligence Yet you make it not only possible but grant the Doctrin therof to haue
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
Churches on earth and proue themselues thereby both Faithles and Churchles But enough for à Preface Open and read Approue or condemn as reason shall guide you In case you Condemn please to say VVhy and shew me where I erre in Principles Pardon the faults of the Printer which are many he is à stranger to our Language except against mine boldly if you find any but do it with Charity and still for this I must inculcate again and again Remember Principles Farewel AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR Mr STILLINGFLEET Sr. PLain dealing is the best you shall haue it in this short Advertisement from à friendly Aduersary no Enemy I assure you who desires to do you good against your will If I be rightly informed Both you and some others find your selves dissatisfied vpon this score that your Rational Account as t is called comprehending the Grounds of Protestant Religion remain's yet vntouch't or not answered Before I reply to these complaints I shall take the boldnes to request one fauour at your hands you will much oblige me by it which is to point out that Chapter or Paragraph through your whole Book wherein the hidden treasure of these Protestant Grounds lie and to giue me in à few lines one or two of them plainly set down in halfe à Sheet of paper I speak of Grounds for Protestancy as it is your peculiar Religion distinct from Popery and all known Condemned Hereties Fob me not off I beseech you with any general talk Tell me not I must seek better and shall find For Sr I assure you though I haue made à diligent Search after your Grounds they are yet so far remoued from my sight that I cannot find one Wherefore because you are more Conuersant in your own writings then others and Plus vident oculi quam oculus I beg to be enlightned by you If you fail to do this the world will iudge as I do that you haue abused the Reader with à Title wherevnto nothing in your voluminous Book answer's I mean you haue no more touched vpon Grounds for Protestancy as Protestancy and mark my words then for Arianism or any other false Religion In the perusal of your Book I se what beguiled you You Sr thought to throw that little dirt wherewith some haue furnished you in our faces was enough to make your bad cause Specious and to prop vp your Protestancy as if forsooth to Cavil at vs were to establish your Novelties Know good Sr that both Arians and all other gone Heretiques were as fierce in their Cauils against the Church as you are but did they therefore either ground or establish their false Doctrins contrary to Gods Truths It is à gross errour to think so For as it is one thing foolishly to brandish à Sword and another fitly to vse à Buckler so it is à quite different busines slightly to impugn Catholick Religion and another to defend Protestancy Tht first you haue attempted like your old Heretiques and with as ill success But the second which is to maintain Protestancy or to settle that vpon solid Grounds neither is nor was nor euer shall be done by any wherefore I tell you in this Treatise read it if you please This Protestancy is wholly vngrounded God never revealed one Article of it as Protestancy nor did ever antient or modern Orthodox Church teach so much as one of your Particular Tenets And for this reason I say it s falsly called the reformed Religion hauing neither Essence nor the Properties of Religion belonging to it Now for as much as Concern's your Clamours because you think your Book neglected or not yet Answered First give me leave to tell you it is a great Vanity to rise to so high à conceipt of your selfe or of your Book as if you were the only Defender of your Faith and à greater to publish it to the world what think you Cannot Protestancy be impugned without taking you or your work in hand It s little wisdom to iudge so A Souldier good Sir who intend's to inuade an enemy takes no directions from him how to enter his Country much less busies his thoughts about remouing euery straw or euery little block that lies in his way but marches on as he thinks best to compass his Design To ouerthrow your Protestancy is our Design and you most vnreasonably prescribe what we are to do That is we must either attaque your Fort and meddle with your Account or you think nothing is done Why so I beseech you Grant which is not true that those who haue written since your Account saw light passed by it without much notice they might well do so looking on it as à Block not worth remouing vnless as I say you will haue them to obey your Commands and assault what Outwork you please It is Sr your Cause we more mind then your Account 2. Why do you or some body for you not only shamefully stopp all the Presses in so much that scarse a sheet of paper can appear in publick But moreover why haue you when all liberty is granted to scrible and print what you please omitted to Answer those Bookes which directly impugn your Doctrin That excellent Guide of Controuersies is the One and Protestancy without Principles the other And you haue done this with much vncivil scornful Language with a meer forced Pish from the teeth outward at the end of a Preface as if forsooth you would be thought to Say You Could Answer but vvill not vvbereas the naked truth is at least wise men Iudge so you would Answer but Cannot Sr believe me it would have been much to the purpose and far more satisfactory to your Protestant Brethren had you when you saw your Protestancy to speak moderatly well shaken in those two Books replyed to some particulars and shewed where either the Principles were false or their Discourses failed But you Cowardly quitted the field sate down silent busying your selfe with reprinting a few Sermons whereof the world had no need at all And this t' is thought was done to cloak your Lazines your ignorance or both because you could not Answer yet we are called on to quarrel with you whilst you like a Priuiledged Person exempt your selfe from medling with vs. That is we must speak and you say nothing But Sr let vs come neerer the point and tell you truth Whatever you account substantial in your Book hath been answered by your two scorned Aduersaries and if any thing be yet wanting it is amply supplyed in this Treatise To conceiue what I would proue please to Note There are two wayes in answering a Booke The one is to follow an Author step after step by examining severally each piece of the VVhole The other is to Consider the Principles wherevpon the VVhole relyes shewing them either false in themselues or not connex't with those Conclusions which should follow from them Destroy Principles you destroy all Thus the Motion of à Watch may be spoiled two
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
Notes in the other Treatise Chiefly Disc 4. C. 2. n. 23. 24. Where you are told That the great work of Protestants is not so much to proue Their own Religion as to spend time in cauilling at ours And by superficial Glosses to driue sense out of the Fathers most significant Doctrin and then to tell the world they are not for Popery And thus may their glosses haue place no Religion neither their 's not ours can be proued by the Fathers This most vnworthy Sectaries proceed vnworthily with the Fathers Procedure with these great Lights of the Church lenghthens Protestants books And makes Mr Stillingfleets Account to swell into the bulk you see Might I here by the way speak my thoughts concerning it I verily belieue there was neuer Book set forth which lesse deserued it's Title than this He call's it A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion yet if any one after à diligent perusal of the whole Work can show me but one Article of Protestancy proued by plain Scripture by à General consent of Fathers by any ancient Church Doctrin or vniuersal Tradition I do at this present engage to euince by my Answer That he is grosly mistaken The fairest Occasion Mr Stillingfleet had to speak home for Protestancy was Part. 1. C. 7. Where he treat's of their way of resoluing Faith yet euen here he fall's so vtterly from the Cause that he saies no more for Protestancy than Arianism See the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 9. You will ask perhaps wherein then lies the Substance of his book I Answer in two things chiefly First in à tedious wordy quarrel Two impertinences Constitute the subslanet of Mr Stilling Account with Catholick Religion His flurting at it is endlesse 2. In à gross Abuse of the Fathers by his intolerable Glosses Of neither shall he giue à rational Account to God at the day of Iudgement To proue what is here hinted at Read I beseech you the following Chapter which I place here on set purpose to lead in à further discourse concerning the Glosses of Sectaries Withall to lay forth their emptiness and fraud And finally to show whither these Vnprincipled life-less Whimseys tend at last Thus much performed you shall see Protestancy appear like it self à meer Nothing CHAP. XVI One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses and his vnexusable abuse of other Fathers 1. THough much is said of this subiect already yet because here is Occasion again I shall briefly point at two or three of Mr Stillingfleet's notorious Abuses To prosecute all or the half he has would make this Treatise as big as his volume We begin with that known Passage of S. Hierome Epist 57. Ad Damasum where the Saint saith The Church is built vpon S. Peters See and whosoeuer is out of the Communion of that Church whereof Pope Damasus was then head is Prophane an Alien and belongs to Antichrist c. This in brief is the Substance of S. Hieroms Doctrin Mr Stilling Part 2. C. 1. P. 311. Imputes not plainly these Expressions to heat or flattery although S. Hierome abused Saith he it look's the more suspicious because at that time S. Hierome had à great picque against the Eastern Bishops And then tell 's vs to no purpose what occasioned the Quarrel Reflect good Reader Is this hansom to make à Saint and most profound Doctor to Speak in so weighty à Matter against Truth and his own conscience moued therunto by flattery and no man knowes what Imagined Picques Suppose he earnestly stood for Truth against those Bishops must He Therefore be thought either to flatter or to deny truth now when he writ's to à Pope his lawful Superiour Vpon what Principle doth this vngrounded calumny Stand Pray you Answer 2. After some Parergons not worth the mentioning Mr Stilling Saies When S. Hierome Pronounces those Aliens and Prophane who are out of the Communion of the Church it either belongs not to the particular Church of Rome or if it doth it makes not to our purpose What mean these words The particular Church of Rome The sole Diocess of that Citty No. S. Hierome speak's of the Church built vpon S. Peter or of all Churches vnited in Faith with that See where Damasus then sate which only excluding Aliens That is all heretical Societies make vp the true Vniuersal Orthodox Church as shall be demonstrated hereafter Well saith Mr Stilling Suppose I grant that S. Hierome spake of the particular Church of Rome he means or t' is Nonsense of all Churches of the same Faith with the Roman yet this comes not home to the purpose vnless we Catholicks proue our Church to be as Orthodox now as She was in those Primitiue times We proue Good Sr. Proue you on God's name to Mr Stilling demand impertinent whom prouing belong's That this Church is less Orthodox now than formerly Who euer stand's in à known old path as we Doe ought not to proue he stand's there Olim possideo prior possider is his proof but one that start's aside and takes to à new way as you haue done should tell vs why he left the other high Road wherein his Ancestors walked No prince proues his Right and Title to à Rebel but if any be so vngracious as to rebel that man must show why he did so or suffer for it But of this subiect so much is said in the other Treatise that I hold it vnanswerable More shall be added in its due place In the mean while you see à pretty way of arguing which run's vpon an idle Supposition viz. That the Roman Church is altered from it self since S. Hieroms time The improbable Supposition is first to be proued before the Argument haue any force till then we may lawfully iudge that S. Hierom's Testimony concludes against this Aduersary Pray tell me If I vpon à bare Supposition should assert that Mr Stilling is no good Diuine and thence infer he is His false supposition not proued vnfit to write Controuersies might he not most iustly be angry and well deny my Assertion because the Supposition whereon the Assertion stand's is not proued No more say is t' is proued in the present Matter viz. That our Church Doctrin is altered from it self since the primitiue times Proue that vpon sound Principles and you will doe more then Euer Protestant did hitherto 3. Hence all Mr Stilling following talk of Paralogisms fall's to nothing It is he saith our perpetual Paralogism when the Fathers are cited in praise of the Church of Rome although sometimes their Rhetorick swell'd too high in their Encomiasticks They are his words That we will needs haue these praises to be vnderstood as well of that Church in our present age as in the Fathers time when it better deserued them And he add's As though it were not possible for à Church to be eminent for purity of Doctrin in one age and to decline from it in another Answer All this is
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.
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
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
REASON AND RELIGION OR THE CERTAIN RVLE OF FAITH Where the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church is asserted against Atheists Heathens Iewes Turks and all Sectaries WITH A REFVTATION OF Mr STILLINGFLEETS Many gross Errours By E. W. Author of the Book called PROTESTANCY WITHOVT PRINCIPLES Poteram ..... Omnes Propositionum rivulos vno Ecclesiae sole siccare Hier. contra Lucifer c. vlt. fine PRINTED AT ANTWERP By MICHAEL CNOBBAERT in the Year 1672. Permissu Su 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE PREFACE TO THE READER REligion that choise Evangelical Pearle Matth 13. the best Inheritance and richest Treasure God hath bequeathed to Christians though found and strongly guarded meet 's yet with many who long since had their weak attempts preuailed would haue thrown it out of the world Atheist's deny à Deity the only fundation of Religion Iewes oppose Christ the great Master of Truth and Heretiques band against an euidenced vniversal Church that large field wherein this precious Iewel is found These Aduersaries we encounter and our design is both to vnbeguile and silence them In the first place we attaque those grosser Enemies Atheists Iewes Turks and Infidels This done we enter vpon the main matter and freindly treat with our Modern Sectaries by the force of plain and vndeniable Principles If these stand which none can shake Protestancy fall's to nothing I call this Treatise the Rule of Faith where you haue the Inducements which lead to the knowledge of true Religion clearly proposed and strongly Maintained against all Opposers whose cauils and Calumnies repugnant to truth will appear as they are vain and forceles after due ponderation of the Principles we rely on The prudent search after Religion is euer made and first begun with Reason or à rational discourse for I hold this Principle indubitable None can assent to the high reuealed Mysteries of Faith without preuious euidence had of their Credibility laid forth to reason Now because Atheists Arians and all Heretiques hold what they teach reasonable it is necessary to distinguish between false and true Reason as also rigidly to Examin what euer belongs to that whole Matter which is amply done in the 14 th 15 th and 16 th Chapters of the third Discourse where we prove that Religion is only Reasonable which Heaven it selfe declares reasonable by such visible sensible and illustrious Marks as haue gained Millions to believe in Christ and no other but God's Infinite Power and wisdom can produce Herevpon we lay forth the signal Marks of the Roman Catholick Church clear Cognisances of an Infinite Power and VVisdom Miracles most euident Conversions of Nations wrought by Her Succession of Pastors euer since the Apostles preached with à strict vnity of one Faith in all that Professed Her Doctrin VVe look next vpon this late risen Protestancy and find it naked vtterly strip't of all supernatural Motives No Miracles no Conuersions no vnity in Faith to countenance the Nouelty and therefore conclude that the Professors of it who seemingly stand for Reason and slight an euidenced Church are most vnreasonable and as dayly experience teaches meer Scepticks in Matters of Religion Clemens Rom. in Recog D. Petri. hereafter cited gives this wise Counsel to euery prudent seeker after Truth Before all things examin well by the light of rational Motiues whether one that pretend's to speak in the name of God and call's himselfe à Prophet sent to preach proues himselfe to be really so Thus much learned and the knowledge is easily gained because grounded vpon euidence belieue boldly all he teaches though his Doctrin be sublime and seem's difficult to weak reason The first conuerted Christians were thus induced by the Lustre of our Sauiours glorious Miracles and other Signal wonders to own him as he was à great Prophet or the true Messias sent from God and afterward belieued what euer Doctrin he taught vpon his own Infallible word Apply what is here said to the Roman Catholick Church you will find this great Truth made manifest in the following Discourses viz. That as no Prophet no Doctor ever came neer Christ our Lord in the wonders he wrought so no Society of men since thé world stood was or is Comparable in Miracles and other Cognizances of truth to the Roman Catholick Church She as I now said and no other Society shewes you à Continued Succession of Pastors of Princes and People since the first Plantation of the Gospel She and no other hath been always reverenced all Nations over and was neuer opposed by Orthodox Christians She giues you à large Catalogue of Innumerable Professors eminent in learning in wisdom and sanctity of life In Her the ancient Predictions of Prophets are literally fulfilled Her vniuersal extent far and neer is euident The Conuersions wrought by her Euident The Courage and Constancy of Martyrs who dyed for her Faith Euident Her ancient Possession of truth for Confessedly she was once Orthodox is vndeniable And this is the Church Gentle Reader our Sectaries would destroy This Oracle though signalized with so many Illustrious Marks and Indications proceeding from God inspite of Heaven they iniuriously Calumniate as Idolatrous and Heretical And Consequently make those Millions and Millions who both liuing and dying zealously sought to serve no other but the great God of Truth in this blessed Society Fools Madmen Idolaters and Heretiques I say Calumniate for all they haue done hitherto or can do for the future comes to no more but to à flat iniurious Calumny as is euidenced in the third Discourse C. 19. where you are told that whoever impeaches an ancient Church once acknowledged Orthodox of Idolatry and proves not his charge by clear and vndeniable Principles Calumniates must vniustly and sin 's damnably Protestants do so as is there largely proued and the truth is manifest in their own writings They tell vs the Roman Catholick Church though once right in Faith changed Her ancient Doctrin we iustly vrge them to prove the Assertion by some vnquestionable Principles more convincing or of greater weight and strength to perswade what they assert then the publick judgement of all sound Christians liuing at that time to perswade the Contrary And Mark à strange Proceeding the Calumny it selfe is returned vpon vs without either Proof or probable Principle to vphold it but their own bare and proofles word VVe are told again there was euer à Catholick Church without blemish at least in fundamentals for that Article of the Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church was true in all Ages VVe seriously demand where or in what part of Christendom that Orthodox Church distinct from the Roman Catholick had its being at that time when the Roman fell from Christ and became Idolatrous There was such à Church which censured and condemned the supposed Roman Errours or not If not the world vpon those supposed errours was wholly Churchles Grant an Orthodox Church distinct from the Roman She certainly opposed those Imagined false Roman Doctrins which then began to infect
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
been lost and peruerted by fraud negligence violence or all together You say 3. These ancient Christians were professed enemies to the corrupters of the Bible yet you hold them dear friends to the deprauers of Gods verities registred in the Bible You say 4. The interest of eternal Saluation made these Christians careful to preserue the Bible in its first integrity And yet you make them supinly careles in preseruing the verities contained in Scripture as highly necessary to saluation You say 5. The eternal concerns of all Christians so depended vpon the safe preseruation of these Sacred Records that if they were not true we are all most miserable And I reply The eternal concerns of all Christians as highly depend's on the pure Doctrin of Scripture as on the outward secured Records for what auails it to haue pure Records and draw poyson out of them You grant the whole world was miserably infatuated with false Doctrin for ten whole ages though it had the letter of Scripture pure and yet the purity of that book preuented not the misery of mischieuous errours You say 6. When once I see à whole Corporation content to burn the publick Charter and substitute à And further vrged against him new one in its place and this not to be suspected or discouered When I shall see à Magna Charta foisted and neither King nor People be sensible of such à cheat when all the world shall conspire to deceiue themselues and their Children I may then suspect such an imposture as to the Scripture but not before Answ Ex ore tuo te Iudico and retort the Argument in your own words When. I see not only à whole Corporation but à whole ample learned Church wast or depraue the old Legacy of Christ sacred Truths bequeathed to it and a new learning substituted in its place and this change not to be suspected and discouered when I shall see that Magnum Depositum of his Doctrin once committed to the Church escare to be foisted and neither King nor Prelate nor People found sensible of the cheat when all the world shall conspire to deceiue themselues and their children by teaching fals Doctrin in place of Christs verities Then I shall and must in prudence suspect an imposture à change an alteration in the very book of Scripture This later you shamfully grant to haue happened when vpon the pretence of hideous errours you abandoned all other Christian Societies in the world and vnfortunatly made à Schism with Luther from the true Roman Catholick Church therefore you may not only weakly suspect but must most iustly fear the first which is that you haue not true Scripture 4. Hence I say what euer Argument proues the book of Scripture hitherto preserued pure proues likewise the Doctrin of the present Church as faithfully transmitted and Conueyed pure from An inference from what is sayd age to age to our very dayes Contrariwise if there were any Principle as there is none whereby this Doctrin could be shew'd false or stained All might if reason haue place ioyntly acknowledge à non-assurance of the Scriptures purity For that Corrupters of Christs Doctrin may more Easily Corrupt the words of scripture Church which may lose true faith and Corrupt Christ's Doctrin may more easily lose or corrupt Christ's Scripture vnlesse you grant which is horridly impious that Gods special Prouidence had only care to keep à Bible incorrupt and at last like one careless permitted the Doctrin of that book wheron Saluation essentially depend's to be extorted out of the hearts of all Christians for à thousand yeares together Ponder these truths Mr Stilling and Confesse ingenuously if your Principles hold good you haue not so much as any probable certainty of your Bible 5. Perhaps one may say if the letter of Scripture be corrupted the very foundation of Faith is shaken but if supposed pure and vnaltered though all Christians Papists and Hereticks erred in the Doctrin therof yet they may be reclaimed from errour by the pure Euangelical preachers now swarming in England Pittiful what no help then for à besotted world before these late men appeared who here speak at random They first tell vs vpon à meer supposition without any semblance of proof that Scripture was euer preserued pure though all Christians abused its Doctrin wheras we contend vpon most grounded reasons that if all erred in the doctrin drawn from Scripture the letter cannot be supposed pure because à Church carelesly negligent in the preseruation of Christs Doctrin cannot be thought careful enough in preseruing the true Records of his Doctrin Now the Answer without proof is though all erred Doctrinally yet none of them maimed or marred the Bible which besides à Moral impossibility implies à pure begging of the Question See more of this particular in the other Treatise Disc 2. c. 2. n. 8. Again If these Euangelical men pretend to Conuince vs of our errours What sectaries are obliged to by à pure book of Scripture they are obliged to shew vs some one Copie at least wherof we may haue such certainty as excludes à Possibility of all doubting But this no Protestant can do who If God assisted the Transcribers of scripture much more he assist's the Church reiect's all editions now extant except perhaps his own The Vulgar latin which Mr Stillingfleet call's the great Diana of Rome of high credit in the Church for à thousand years pleaseth not The Clementine and Sixtine Bibles not different in any Material point touching Faith are vnderualued Set these aside I desire Mr Still or any Protestant to show me à Copy whose Authenticalness is so agreed on by the consent of all Christians as may exclude reasonable doubting of its purity It is vtterly impossible If these men answer we must haue recourse to the Autograph's or ancient Manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek I deny their supposition for these now extant are no first Originals in à word no more but Transcriptions What greater security therefore haue we of such copies then of the Vulgar latin vnlesse you say that the Transcriber who euer he was because he wrote Hebrew Caldee or Greek could not tell à lye or was determined to follow in euery Material point of Faith the Hagiographers Copy most faithfully Grant this and I Argue If God by special Prouidence so assisted the memory the will and hands of these Transcribers as to write nothing but what was exactly found in the first Original Scripture with much more reason will He euer assist his Church to admit or approue of no Scripture nor Doctrin but what is genuine pure and Orthodox 6. To reinforce this argument I licence Mr Stilling to chuse amongst so many lections of the new Testament as he saith are collected by Robert Stephen one or two he likes best and then I demand whether that lection agrees with the vulgar latin or differ's from it If 't agree there is no reason to quarrel with
the Vulgar if it be different in any material point we are cast vpon the greatest vncertainties immaginable for the dispute will then be whether that Copie which he followes ought to be preferred before the Vulgar Latin And here Sr. you and I must come to clear Principles Wee say first The Vulgar latin translated or at least Corrected at Pope Damasus Command by that learned and profound Doctor S. Hierom hath been read in the Church The vulgar latin of long vse in the Church without reproof for à thousand years and vpward None but one Rufinus and this only at the beginning whilst S. Hierom liued excepted against it S. Austin all know Lib. de ciuit 18. c. 4. 3. highly commend's S. Hieroms great labours and learning in the three tongues Not any in the ensuing ages found the work reprehensible innumerable worthy Authors haue approued it And now O strange time à few Nouellists whose whole industry is only to pull down to build nothing disdainfully call it Romes great Diana Be pleased Sr. to answer and giue me as strong à proof for the Authenticalness of that Copy you follow if any difference be as I giue you for our Latin Translation If you say the S. Hierom defended against Cauils Copy you follow is not the same which S. Hierom vsed it is more then you know He had as many lections and perhaps more than you haue seen and can you say which he followed and which he did not Well But suppose he made vse of an other Copy different from what pleaseth you the Question is whether that be of lesse credit then yours And this sole point cannot be decided in your fauour by any probable Principle If you say S. Hieroms Translation seem's contrary to the Authentick Greek Copies I answer first you do not only auouch more then you know but vtter an improbability for if there had been any Material difference between his Translation and the Greek he made vse of innumerable learned Doctors in the Catholick Church would haue espied the errour and discouered it before you were born Pray you remember your own discours P. 215. and. 216. where you say you may be sufficiently assured that no Material corruption is in the Books of Scripture without our Churches Testimony because Catholiks of old were alwayes as vigilant to preserue the Scriptures purity as Hereticks ready to depraue it For you say when Marcion began to clip the Text Irenaeus presently took notice and rebuked him and so did Tertullian and Epiphanius respectiuely to others who rescued Scripture from the violent hands of such as attempted to falsify it Lay then yours on your brest and once speak ingenuously can you perswade your self if any considerable errour had been in our Vulgar Edition either contrary Catholick authors would haue noted errours in the vulgar had there been any to Faith or Good manners that those many worthy learned Catholicks in the ages after S. Hierom would not haue noted it and released it from Corruption What For à thousand years was there no Irenaeus no Tertullian no Epiphanius no Ambrose c. that took notice of so important à matter whereon the saluation of souls depended Again And this Argument euer pinches was there no Irenaeus no Tertullian in all those ages when they saw the Doctrin of Scripture go to ruin by these supposed erring Papists that rescued the Doctrin from errour as they did the letter of scripture from corruption 7. You tell vs. 2. That among those multitudes of lections in the new Testament obserued by Robert Stephen which were perhaps occasioned in the general dispersion of Copies by the Multitudes of Transcriptions through the ignorance or carelesness of the Transcribers there are none which seem material or intrench vpon the integrity of Scripture as à rule of Faith and manners They are therefore say you but racings of the skin but no wounds of any vital part And is it possible Can you find more then such racings in the Vulgar Latin can you discouer à wound in any vital part therof I challenge you to speak to the cause in this particular but I know you cannot Why therefore may not the Vulgar bee admitted amongst the rest The reason of my assertion is You cannot find such à wound in the Vulgar vnless you produce à Copy of Scripture more genuine and pure without Dispute but this whether you haue recourse to the Greek or any Latin translation will be more doubted of by whole multitudes of learned men then the vulgar now read in the Church Therefore you cannot come to so much certainty of any Scripture as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting Which truth seem's so euident ad hominem that it needs no further proof but this only The Sectary saith our Vulgar translation is not pure we say and proue it his English Bibles different from the Greek in the new Testament are Corrupted see many of these errours noted before the Rhems Testament Therefore if the Protestant reiect's the now Authentick latin Edition he has no such certainty of any The vulgar Latin reiected Protestants haue not Certainty of any Translation Translation extant as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting vnless he makes his own parties opinion for what he saith vndubitable and our contrary assertion improbable which is foul play 8. Some sectary may reply He excepts not against the Vulgar Latin which is our Sixtine and Clementine Bible as guilty of any Material errour but of lesser faults only and with such charitable eyes hee look's on all other versions Thus much integrity I hope Sectaries must approue the Vulgar latin Bible Mr. Stilling allowes it p 216. where he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Diuine Prouidence in preseruing the Authentick Records of Scripture safe to our dayes By the way it 's pitty he omitted to note also the like prouidence in preseruing the Doctrin of Scripture pure so long But hereof we haue said enough already All therefore I note at present is 1. If God shewed à particular Prouidence in preseruing Scripture pure to our dayes the Vulgar Latin according to Mr Stilling Cannot be guilty of any material errour for were it guilty this peculiar Prouidence would haue failed in the great moral body of the Roman Catholick Church which hath read this Scripture and held it incorrupt for ten whole ages And Consequently Mr Stilling must acknowledge à want of special Prouidence in order to the preseruation of all authentick Records euery where Grant thus much and no Sectary can haue so great moral assurance of scripture as excludes all reasonable doubting for if God hath permitted à whole ample Church to be deluded with à Bible notably corrupted The Certainty of Scripture which excludes all reasonable doubting fail's the sectary who either must admit of an other latin Translation distinct from ours or haue recourse to the Greek Text but he approues of no latin Translation as
Pius the 4. but other great schollers also profoundy learned in the knowledge of Scripture and skilful in the Hebrew Syriack Chaldee and Greek began the Great diligence vsed in the Correcting the Vulgar Correction of the Vulgar Latin and to accomplish the work diligently examined these ancient books these M S S the best Originals of Hebrew and Greek and commentaries also of the most ancient Fathers c. Speak therefore of humane industry we may boldly say our Vulgar Latin hath been reuiewed and corrected with greater care than euer version was set forth by Sectaries But if these men will still pretend to find any Material errour in the Vulgar I only ask by what more Authentick Copy can they so much as probably hope to amend it By the Hebrew and Greek Toyes Dispute the Question rigidly there is lesse assurance of these supposed Originals integrity then of the Vulgar Latin so industriously examined not only by the best Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant but also by other ancient M S S. and commentaries of the Fathers 8. I cannot therefore imagin what Mr Stillingfleet aimes at when he tell 's vs page 215. that Doctor Iames who had taken the pains to compare not only the Sixtine Clementine Bibles but the Clementine Edition with the Louain Annotations makes it appear there are 10000. differences in the Louain Annotations from the Vulgar Latin and that these differences arise from Comparing it that is sure the Vulgar Latin with the Hebrew Doctor Iames opposed Greek and Chaldee What would the man haue think yee Will he suppose first that Thomas Iames hitt's right in euery thing he saies The learned Iames Gretser whose authority is euery whit as good the whole world over as that of Mr. Iames. Tom. 1. Ad lib. 2. Bell pag. 1060. denies all this with à Mentitur tertiò Thomas Iames Decem millia verborum c. Read Gretser I cannot transcribe all he hath Again will he say that the Vulgar Latin is to be corrected by the Louain Annotations or these by the Vulgar if any thing were amiss in either Or 3. If these pretended differences arise from the comparing all with the Hebrew Greek or Chaldee can Thomas Iames be supposed to know the last energy and force of euery Hebrew Greek or Chaldee Rational exceptions against Mr. Iames. word when there is controuersy better then the Authors of the Louain and Correctors of the Vulgar Latin Here we may come to an endles wrangling about the Genuine signification of words but decide Nothing God help vs if the knowledge of true Scripture depend's on such petty Nicities and fruitles quarrelling 4. And this is to be noted Were these differences more then are made by Mr. Iames The question would then be whether they imply any Material alteration concerning Faith or Manners or introduce notable errour contrary to God's reuealed verities or finally bee meer verbal differences grounded on the obscure signification of Original words If Mr Stilling only pretend's this later let him remember his own expression of racings of the skin and know that there was neuer Translation in the world which may not be thus Cauilled at If any Material alteration be pleaded he both speaks à lowd vntruth and contradict's himself when he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Diuine Prouidence in preseruing the Authentick records of Scripture safe to our dayes 2. He is to name that Authentick Copy either Original or translation by the indisputable integrity wherof these supposed errours may bee cancelled and Gods pure reuealed verities put in their place But to do this after so immense labour and diligence vsed in the correction of the Vulgar will proue no lesse than à vain attempt or rather à desperate impossibility Vpon this ground 9. I say first Who euer denies the Vulgar Latin to be Authentick true Scripture hath Eo ipso lesse assurance of any other Edition now extant and consequently not so great certainty of Scripture as excludes à Possibility of all reasonable doubting I An Assertion proued proue the Assertion That man may rationally doubt of Scripture who reiects the strongest assurance imaginable and makes choise of à weaker But this is done if he doubts of or denies the Authenticalness of the Vulgar The reason is first because He hath no other Edition as is now said examined with more care or greater industry and this ground 's the highest humane assurance conceiuable 2. Because the Vulgar is approued by God's Holy Church which giues infallible certainty if therefore the integrity of the Hebrew and Greek be not vnquestionably authentick he wants that certainty which excludes à Possibility of doubting And Much less assurance hath the Sectary of his own later iarring Editions of Scripture which breed nothing but confusion to the very Authors and all who read them 10. I say 2. If the Sectary hold's the Vulgar Latin Authentick Scripture yet makes it guilty of some lesser faults and therefore endeauours to correct it by à more authentick What if lesser faults be pretended in the Vulgar Copy he cast's himself vpon meer vncertainties and labours in vain The reason is To doe thus much he must suppose that other Copy he would correct by to be more pure than the Vulgar and this cannot be proued vpon any receiued Principle Now if you obiect Authors Commonly deny not some obscurities or lesser verbal faults to haue been in the Vulgar I answer that 's nothing to the purpose were all true for it doth not therefore follow it can be corrected by any other Copy which is more Authentick Scripture A lesse authentick Bible may help herein when other lections are accuratly examined yet may be faulty in greater matters 11. I say 3. No Tradition no Testimony which is fallible and may be fals can giue so great assurance of Authentick Scripture as Diuine Faith requires or that assurance which excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting which is to say in other words The infallible Testimony of the Church is absolutely A Testimony in fallible is necessary to ascertain Scripture necessary to ascertain vs of Authentick Scripture The conclusion is directly against Mr Stilling who page 226. makes the certainty Christians haue of the books of Scripture so fallible that it may be false yet enhaunses the certainty of the Doctrin there contained to à note higher of infallibility We shall see the leuity of this distinction fully discouered hereafter and our Assertion proued in à more proper place All I will say at present is No man can be certainly assured of true Scripture vnles he first come to à certainty of à true Church independently of Scripture Find out therefore the true Church and we haue all we seek for I mean true Scripture with it vnles one tend's to à high degree of madnesse and Assert's that the true Church of Christ cheated into an erroneous Bible was depriued of pure and authentick Scripture 12. And here I will
vniuersal Tradition for the books of Scripture if Tradition be drawn from the voice of all called Christians whether Catholicks or Hereticks then there is for the very primary Articles of true Catholick Faith A Trinity for example the Incarnation the necessity of Tradition more and Lesse vniuersal Grace Original sin c. Yes most assuredly for innumerable Sectaries admitted Scripture and yet denyed these essential Articles therefore as their Denial made the consent and tradition of all called Christians less vniuersal for such Doctrins so their admitting Scripture with others heightned that Tradition or made it more general Say now Sr. Had those Hereticks argued as you do how little would they haue gained If we should once see you proue à Trinity Or Original sin c. by as vniuersal à Tradition as that is whereby Scriptures are receiued we would acquiese but this is not possible for both you and wee admit Scripture and consequently make that tradition more vniuersal yet we deny your primary Doctrins and therefore all tradition is not so ample for your Doctrins as for the books of Scripture Here is your vnreasonable reasoning Mr. Stilling You know well Hereticks who owned Scripture with vs denied à Sacrifice of Mass An vnreasonable way of aryuing Inuocation of Saints and other Catholick Articles and you 'l haue vs to take à tradition from these men to vphold the Doctrins they denyed Iust as if an Arian should bid me proue à Trinity from all Tradition euen of his Church when he admit's Scripture and denies à Trinity If you reply you vrge vs not to bring in the tradition of all known Aduersaries of the Catholick Church for these now named Articles but only the vniuersal Tradition of the Catholick Church in all ages we haue already answerd that 's best known by the present Churches Testimony no other proof can parallel it And thus much of the Authenticalnesse of our Vulgar Edition free from all material Corruption A further difficulty may yet be moued concerning lesser faults and the preferring it before all other Latin Copies 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 Stillinfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 1. NOte first It was very meete to haue among so much confusion and various sections of Latin Copies one certain approued and set forth by the mother Church to the end her Children might be vnius labij of one tongue and speak one language in their reading preaching and publick expounding One lection of scripture necessary Holy Scripture Note 2. Though the Council of Trent sess 4. declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick and preferr's it before all other latin Editions Quae circumferuntur which are now abroad it doth not thereby detract any thing from the credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew and Greek Copies whereof Authors dispute whether they be pure or no whilst the Church is silent and defin's nothing Neither doth the Council reiect the Version of the Septuagint or that ancient Latin Copy called Itala read in the Church before S. Hierom as Vnauthentick in any material point for this Argument is conuincing to the contrary As it is madnes to say Christs Church had not true Scripture since S. Hieroms time so is it à desperate improbability The Church had in all ages true Scripture to assert She wanted that in the ages before S. Hierom which is to say The Church had euer authentick Scripture Moreouer shall we think yee iudge that God whose Prouidence neuer failed suffered his own spouse to be beguiled with false Scripture for 15. ages and that now towards the end of the world he will prouide vs of à purer book by the hands and help of à few scattered Sectaries 2. Note 3. Translations may be faulty three wayes chiefly 1. More ambiguity and darknes may lye in à translated word than in the Original and this fault if any is remediless because the latin or à Vulgar language reacheth not alwais to the full Energy and signification of an Hebrew or Greek expression wherof you haue some examples in that learned Preface to the English Rhems Testament anno 1600. 2. Corruptions How Transtations may be faulty may creep into à Version by the inaduertancy or ignorance of the Translator who is neither supposed prophet nor infallible and thus Authors say that S. Hierom though prodigiously learned was not euery way infallibly secured from lesser errours yet this Prouidence God hath for the good of his Church that he will nor permit any considerable deprauation to remain in all Copies If therefore one be faulty all cannot be thought so and the faults of one by carefully comparing it with many and à diligent inspection into other Copies may be corrected See Greg. de Valent lib. 8. Analy C. 5. puncto 4. 3 dly Lesser deprauations often enter à version through the mistakes of Printers Librarians c. Of these you had many in the Vulgar Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles and they are scarse auoidable chiefly after seueral reimpressions as we daily see in other books Thus much premised 3. Listen à little to Mr Stilling strange inconsequences and groundles exceptions against the Corrections of Sixtus and Clement He saith the one Bible differs from the other as Of Mr Stilling 〈◊〉 gâ—â—und 〈◊〉 exceptions appears by those who haue taken the pains to Compare them in some thousands of places A great number indeed But the first question will bee whether these Pain-takers ought to be belieued vpon their bare word without further examination This Sr. you suppose which cannot well pass before the particulars come to the test and bear the censure of your Aduersaries wholly as learned as you haue any But say on Are these supposed differences any more but like the racings of the skin or do they giue any mortal wound to the Vital part of Scripture If you only assert the first you may not only Cauil at your English Bibles but also at all the latin translations vsed in the Church both before and after S. Hieroms time for they haue some verbal differences which you may call petty and inconsiderable faults Now if you assert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are Materially corrupted in points of Faith and manners or to vse your phrase Vitally wounded what is become I beseech you of that peculiar hand of Prouidence you own in preseruing the authentick Copies of religion safe to our dayes Or which much imports you to answer by what other more authentick Copy can you without endles disputes and vncertainties correct the Vulgar This one particular will giue you work enough before you come to à certain decision of the difficulty In à word because I think many know not too well all that concern's these two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles I
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
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
Ponderation of my Replies is so far to iudge between vs. But here is not all I must Say more Though I am as fallible in excepting against His glosses as he is in making them yet my Faith depend's not vpon my Exceptions but vpon the Doctrin of my Church The express words of Scripture and Fathers These oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe But all that Mr Stilling hath for his Faith is only the vncertainty of his own No man builds faith vpon his own Glosses coniectures ancient Church he has none nor express Scripture nor one Clear sentence of any Ancient Father And will hee Dare to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his Glosses or the opinion he would mantain by them vpon no other Ground but his weak Coniectures I appeal to his own Conscience for an Answer Well Be it how you will thus much is euident and T' is the only thing I aime at in this whole Discourse if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Aduersaries of different Religions when no surer Principle is at hand to rely on but the fallible Glosses of the One and à contrary fallible combating with those Glosses in the Other they may both as the world goes now sit long at the sport before one Controuersy Other mean◠to end Controuersies then meer Glosses be ended Therefore God as I said aboue has Prouided vs of an easier way to end these weighty difficulties or we may All turn Scepticks Some may say The old mode of the World was to dispute by Scripture and Fathers dare we reiect this way of arguing as insufficient Answ No truely It is an excellent way amongst Christians though insignificant to Heathens when the Aduerse Parties can Clear the sense of Scripture and Fathers vpon certain Principles But if the very sense of Scripture and Fathers be called into Question As now à daies it is by Sectaries We must of necessity haue Recourse to an other more Clear easy and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vse among the Holy Fathers Whereof more afterward In the Interim the ensuing Chapter may giue you entertainment 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 1. THis Assertion not slightly proued in the other Treatise Disc 2. C. 4. I hold so certain That the wit of man shall not rationally contradict it And to giue yet more light to what is there said Be pleased to exclude or mentally only to cast aside All thought of an vnerring Church of her infallible Tradition al so of the Definitions of General Councils For all these which Sectaries hold fallible are Essential to an vnerring Church If any such thing be in the world whereof we shall Treat afterward Next look about you And consider well what remain's to end Controuersies withall or to regulate Diuine Faith You haue VVhat Principles Sectaries Can Pretend to distinct from an Infallible Church first Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à Iew partly reiects Yet with such Aliens from Christ à Christian can argue rationally yea and clearly conuince them as I shall proue in the second Discourse After Scripture you haue the sublime Mysteries of Faith the Fathers Doctrin laid forth in their Volumes and the History of the Church Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries besides their priuate Spirit which can be no more à sound Principle to them than the contrary Spirit is to Their Aduersaries 2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end any Controuersy by these Principles without an infallible Church And be pleased euer to attend to the Aduersary he Treat's with If he attempt's to do good on à Heathen by Scripture or bring 's in the Reasonableness of Christian Religion The Heathen and Iew also laugh at his Folly And wish him to proue his Book to be Diuine If he proues that by the Vniuersal Tradition of all Called Christians the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him as I may hereafter about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition but desires him to goe among the Chineses and lay his Bible down by That book which their supposed Prophet Confusius wrote full of excellent Moral Precepts Thus much done the Contest Begin's The Sectary saith his Bible is Authorized by à great Prophet called Christ A learned Bonzius Answer 's and his is also Authorized by à great Prophet called Confusius The Sectary saith all Christians own his book vpon à neuer interrupted The Protestants Contest with ◠Heathen Concerning the Bible Tradition to be indited by the Spirit of Truth The Bonzius replies All China of à mighty vast Extent age after age hath the like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible What followes but that These two Aduersaries peruse their Bibles The Bonzius read's ours and Reasonably ask's whether the Sectary can infallibly proue such strange Mysteries as are registred there for example à Trinity the Incarnation of the Diuine word to be Truths Reuealed by Almighty God The Sectary answers All the infallible certainty he hath of these particular Verities lastly Relies only vpon Scripture it selfe For what euer Principle can be imagined distinct from that written word whether Church or Tradition is Fallible and may deceiue If so saith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me Because you proue the Mysteries contained there by that which causes my doubt or is the matter in Question for you say all I read is of Diuine inspiration because your Bible relates them and therefore make that à proof of your Doctrin which is the Matter in question or causes my doubt O saith the Sectary read on with Humility and you will find that the very Maiesty of the style the Energy of the words will quit you of doubting And to ease you of too much pains know we Protestants hold That the Belief of à very few chief Articles or simple Truths as that Iesus is the Christ The Diuine Word is incarnated c is faith enough to gain Heauen Contra The Heathen except's against the Protestants plea. Replies the Heathen I see no other Maiesty in the Style of your Bible than in mine and other pious books The exteriour Syntax or ioyning of words together is common to all such Writings But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man knowes what splendor shining in the bare Letter when you say that shines not to Pagans but only to those who haue the Spirit of God and are the Elect amongst you Now to what you Add of à few chief Articles necessary to be belieued and no more I answer first Your Scripture saith no such Thing nor tell 's me or you which Articles are necessary which not and if it did so you are only where you were before in darkness
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
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
vpon no surer grounds then meer doubtful And vncertain Glosses are added to Scripture and the Fathers which An assertion clearly laid forth seem contrary to his Doctrin most euidently stand's vnprincipl'd proceed's weakly and proues nothing But the Protestant makes his weak and doubtful Glosses charged on such Authorities as are produced for our Catholick Tenets the sole Support the only Proof of his contrary Doctrin Therefore He proceeds vnreasonably and proues nothing You shall see this euidenced in the present Matter now briefly hinted at of the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Mr Stilling Asserts She is fallible I ask how He proues the Assertion What By express Scripture vniuersal Tradition the vnanimous Consent of Fathers the Definitions of any ancient Church or Council These are excellent Principles Could He settle How Sectaries proceed to weaken it his opinion vpon all or vpon any one of them we haue done and must yeild But he proceed's strangely and I must needs tell you How The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn from the Fathers in behalfe of the Churches infallibility And thereby to establish his Position She is fallible I demand how can our Proofs be weakned His Answer must be for he has no other I will so tamper with these your alleged Texts that at last I 'le make them proue nothing for your Churches Infallibility And consequently I may hold my Contrary Position of her Fallibility very well established The inference is worth nothing but let it pass I Ask. 3. What is it he will tamper withall or how can he make null those manifest Texts which clearly lye open to euery eye east on the Fathers And euince as we shall see hereafter that the Church is infallible Mr Stillinfleets strain through his whole book For Facta loquuntur return's the best Answer My Guesses saith he And Glosses laid on the Fathers when seemingly contrary to Protestant Doctrin Shall make them speak another language no way fauouring the Churches infallibility 2. Here we come to the point And demand in the last place Whether these Glosses are so clearly their Own Selfe-Euidence that by their very light they lay à Truth before an vnderstanding Their Gloâ—ses no selfe Euidence not to be contradicted For example Whether S. Cyprian in the Passage now cited gaue only as Mr Stilling saith à tast of his old office of à Rhetorician And spake not dogmatically Is this I say an vndeniable Truth Most euidently no. For stretch it to the furthest it can be no more but à most doubtful and vncertain Gloss I say t' is highly improbable Now be pleased to reflect The Assertion concerning the Churches fallibility is no Self-euidenced Truth nor clear Ex terminis no more is our contrary Doctrin of the Churches infallibility To giue it Therefore proof and weight these Glosses are cast vpon the Fathers who seemingly at least fauour infallibility But these very Glosses which should do that seruice are as vneuident as vncertain And doubtful as the very Doctrin is They should enlighten and lend proof too Ergo they aduance not at all the Doctrin concerning the Churches fallibility For proofs which are as vncertain as the very Doctrin is which should be proued can neuer raise that to à greater measure of certainty than it had before such proofs were thought of Please to mark what I say The Doctrin of the Churches fallibility here supposed by Sectaries is vncertain and for that reason lies in it's Vneuidence vntil solid Proofs clear it or expel both the vneuidence and vncertainty But these Glosses when they appear are as vneuident and vncertain as the Doctrin is Therefore they cannot raise the Doctrin to any higher degree of certainty than to meer vneuidence and vncertainty I would haue this noted For it is à ground whereby I shal show hereafter Protestancy to be à most improbable Religion And Therefore will deliuer it once more in these plainer Terms If the Sectary has no surer Principle whereon to found his yet vneuidenced opinion of the Churches fallibility then Doubtful Glosses laid on Scripture The force of our Argument more significantly expressed and Fathers as euidently he has not And These Glosses which should proue that Doctrin be as deuoid of strength as remote from Principles as vncertain or doubtful as that very yet vneuidenced Doctrin is It followes clearly That both the Doctrin and the Glosses fall to nothing but only subsist by fancy which is à real Truth From all now said I inferr that whoeuer interpret's must haue his Doctrin firmly grounded vpon certain Principles distinct from his own interpretations as the Catholick euer hath or nothing is proued 3. Mr Stilling may reply His intention whilst he interpret's these Fathers is not to proue immediatly his own Opinion of the Churches fallibility but only to show our alleged Testimonies come not home or want force to proue Her infallible Now to shew our proofs forceles in order to what we hold is not to make good his contrary Assertion For these two things are very different Our Aduersaries reply refuted To make null our proofs And to establish his own Doctrin Answ I grant they are different But neither is nor can be done Not the first Because these Glosses are no Sâ—lf-euident prouing That the Fathers sense is rightly hit on And Principles distinct from these Glosses whereby it may be shown what Doctrin the Fathers deliuered in this particular Mr Stilling hath not any so much as meanly probable To the second I Answer If He offer 's not to proue his Tenet of the Churches fallibility by the little strength these glosses haue I auouch it boldly All further Probations fail him and for that reason he is either forced to make vse of such poor stuff to proue withall or must sit down silent And grant his Tenet cannot be proued He may perhaps tell vs our Church has erred de facto Ergo it is fallible And here is his Principle I Answer it s no Principle to me but an Heresy And as Asserted by him 't is as much yea more doubtful than all his glosses are laid together He may reply 3. His Glosses may at least be thought probable I vtterly deny that And here is my ground Solely considered they euidence not their own probability But need further proof and probable Principles to rely on But such proofs are wanting to found Probability vpon Therefore these glosses are supposed only not proued probable Had Mr Stilling plain Scripture any Orthodox Church or Fathers clear for the Doctrin maintained by him He might well talk of the strength Of his Glosses but to make Glosses probable The Sectaries Glosses not so much as Probable when no probable ground supports the Doctrin for Whose sake he Glosses is not only lost labour but share 's much of Non-sense Again Were these Glosses probable which I shall neuer grant our Answers to them are at least as probable And what gain 's
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
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
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
Principles are here Supposed First that the Markes of the Protestant Church or of its Doctrin lie as these men will haue it in the Purity of Scripture only 2. That their Church Doctrin is either contained in the 39. Articles or implies so much as all called Christians Belieue and no more Though plain Hereticks in many particular Tenets 3. That this Protestant Community as it Teaches is either the whole Church of Christ excluding other Societies or only à Part of the vniuersal Church These Principles Supposed you haue my Demonstration 14. Scripture Marks the true Doctrin of Christs Church but it neither mentioneth nor marks out the Doctrin contained in the 39 Articles for our newer men call these inferiour Truths only And hold them not Registred in God's word Neither doth it Assert so much as darkly that à Mixture of Truth and Falshood such as all Hereticks haue owned and do own is the Doctrin of the true Catholick Church Least of all That à Doctrin common to Arians Protestants and Catholicks is sufficient Scripture disowns Protestancy to Saluation Lastly it saith no where that the Protestant Church containing that reformed Doctrin is by it Self the whole true Church of Christ excluding all other Societies nor so much as à Part of it And this I proue 15 If as reformed it be à Part of the true Catholick Church the Professors of it haue now and had before Luther some Partners who ioyn'd with them in the belief of their reformed Doctrin But before Luther they had not one sole man in the world that belieued as they belieue and so wanted fellowship because neither they nor their Partners were at all in Being Now at this instant they haue no Society of men called à Church run ouer all the world which side 's with them or hold's either the. 39. Articles or à Doctrin common to all Christians to be the true Doctrin of Christ or of his vniuersal Church All this I say is euident And. 16. Hence you see in what plight these men are who pretend to à Church marked and made euident by Scripture and A clear inference against Sectaries when they haue that sacred Book in their hands it is impossible to find so much as one Sentence or syllable in behalfe of Protestancy Those other exteriour Signes of Conuersions Miracles Antiquity c. are of no Account with them And were they otherwise most euidently they belong not to the reformed Doctrin of the English Church Here is à piece of sad newes for Sectaries who haue à Church neither Spoken of in Scripture nor manifested to Reason by one Supernatural wonder So vneuidenced à Thing it is And Consequently vpon à double Account no Church at all 17. The Sectary may reply When he Asserts Scripture Marks the true Church or Her Doctrin the meaning is not that it speak's expresly the Tenets of Protestants but only Saies it is à sufficient Repository of all things necessary to Saluation and deliuers so much plainly What euer therefore is not plainly taught in scripture ceaseth to be necessary Contra. 1. Protestants A Reply Answered granting thus much may seek long before they find Their particular Tenets because Scripture deliuers none of them either expresly or by any clear Deduction Contra. 2. The Iew and Heathen regard not the plainest Truths in Holy Writ before the book be proued Diuine The most plain Verities auaile nothing with them Yet God hath afforded means to draw them to Christianity But it seem's our Sectaries in all their talk of the Scriptures clarity neuer reflect on these Strangers from Christ nor point at the means whereby their Conuersion may bee wrought Contra. 3. The Arian and the Orthodox as highly differ about the sense of plain Scripture as the Protestant and Catholick about the sense of Christs own words This is my body And these differences either touch on fundamental Matters or there are none such in the whole Bible Contra. 4. The Protestant only tells vs what he saith of all things necessary contained in Scripture and speak's his own Sentiment boldly without either proof or Principle 18. Some obiect first God can endite à Book in as plain An Obiection solued words as any man can speak and t' is not supposed that he affected obscurity in his own Scripture already written Contra. 1. If Scripture be not obscure How is it That Christ told the Saduces they mistook the true meaning of it How is it that these Protestant Pillars Luther and Caluin so grosly contradict one an other in their Commentaries made vpon holy Scripture And this in points most material How is it that innumerable others called Christians Professe to reuerence to Read to spend the greatest labour vpon Scripture and when all is done draw out of it plain Contradictions in points as is nâ—w said most Fundamental Contra. 2. We question not what God can do but say he hath not endited Scripture plain de facto S. Peter Epist 2. 3. 16. Speaking of S. Pauls Epistles is my warrant In which saith he Certain things are hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue as also the rest of Scripture to their own perdition And the words relate not only to the Mysterious Matters whereof the Apostle wrote but to his Phrase and forme of writing also Therefore the Greeck Copies haue both in which things and in which Epistles And all Expositors hitherto euen S. Austin haue acknowledged an obscure way of speaking in S. Pauls Epistles chiefly in that to the Romans Yet we are not to say that Truth expressed without harshness God affects Obscurity the word is vnmeet but speak thus His prouidence purposely would haue Scripture deliuered in such à dark manner that all might haue recourse to à liuing Oracle His true Church which speaks more plainly and cannot swerue from any verity in Scripture No offence is giuen to pious ears In à word you haue à Verity expressed with out harshness See S. Austin lib. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 6. And S. Ambrose Epist 44. Again vote Scripture most plain what gain Sectaries by the Clarity when they neither haue plain nor obscure Text through the whole Bible for their Protestancy 19. Hence we Answer to an other petty obiection Scripture say some relates many Things not necessary to Saluation Therefore it cannot be supposed to omit things necessary Contra 1. Ergo it speak's some things of pure Protesstancy or nothing in that Religion as reformed is necessary to Saluation I would willingly haue an express Text for this reformed Nouelty and these few difficulties solued Contra. 2. Though the whole Bible were without dispute most plain or told vs all things necessary yet this neither moues Iew nor Gentil nor drawes any to Christianity without further light as is already proued We haue shown aboue how Scripture contain's all things necessary in the Reflex Part thereof It is now our Task and intent to Mark out the true
our Church hath erred but in one only Matter of Christian belief She is Traiterous disloyal to Christ and can be belieued in nothing To proue The Church is traiterous if false in one Article the Assertion Suppose an Embassadour sent to à forraign state with this deep Charge that he vtter nothing in his Princes name but so much only as he is commissioned to speak Suppose again the man declares some few truths to the state as his Lord commanded But withall forges twenty other vntruths on his own head and stifly affirm's his order is to deliuer all he saith in his Masters name Would not such à man think ye be à Traitour vpon à double account First because he exceed's the bounds of his Commission and deliuers that he had no order for But chiefly because he speaks vast falsities wholly Contrary to his iudgement who sent him 2. The Application in easy The first Teachers of the Gospel were legates sent from God to à great State the whole world For in omnem terram exâ—uit sonus eorum They taught euery where and well for some short time our Christian Verities as the Prince who sent them Commanded But their Successors the Pastors and Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church in after Ages had Say Sectaries the ill luck to miscarry to turn Traitours for besides à few fundamental Truths vpheld no man knowes how They did not only exceed their commission in deliuering Doctrin to all Nations which Christ their Master neuer allowed of but more ouer forged of their own heads twenty vntruths Purgatory Praying to Saints Transubslantiation c. And spake all in their Princes name Said also they had Commission from Christ to teach so This fact if the Charge be true is Treasonable they iniured Christ And consequently not Orthodox and his Verities and betrayed their trust But à Church so perfidious cannot be Orthodox Therefore if Sectaries do not Calumniate Christ had no Orthodox Church in the world before Luther which I intended to proue and Consequently Protestants are yet no true Church at all 3. I say moreouer If the Roman Catholick Church hath taught false Doctrin but in one onely Matter of Christian belief She can be belieued in nothing yea I may rationally suspect her false in all She teaches Iust so it is If the book of Scripture deliuer's one Doctrin false which Christians now belieue I cannot credit it in any thing The reason is One and the same Motiue of my belief duely and equally applied euer moues to an equal Assent or to None at all For example I belieue Christ dyed for vs because Gods word saies so Here is the Motiue of my Assent I belieue also that he ascended into Heauen because the same word of God speaks it here is the same Motiue Imagin now by à supposed impossibility that this latter Article A Church false in one Article merits no beliefe is Gods word but false I cannot belieue our Sauiours Death vpon the Motiue of God's word For if this word be false and once deceiue it may as easily be false and deceiue me twice And there is no possible means to quit me of my errour Because whoeuer endeauours to do that is of less Authority than God's word which is now supposed to deceiue me If therefore the First Verity can reueal an vntruth none can belieue either man or Angel speaking of the high Mysteries of our Faith and Consequently All must still remain in Errour 4. Apply this Discourse to the Roman Catholick Church which pretend's at least I say no more yet to be Gods Oracle and to speak in His name She speaking in his name assures me that Infants are to be Baptized I belieue Her vpon her word She also tells me there is à Purgatory but we must now suppose with Sectaries it is à great vntruth if so I cannot possibly belieue Her in the other Doctrin of Infant Baptism For if she deceiues me once She may well do it again and which is to be noted There is no means left vnder Heauen to vnbeguile me or to draw me out of my supposed Errour for who euer attempts to do that is of less Authority than my Church which is supposed to teach to err in Her teaching and stifly to maintain the Errour Scripture cannot help here vnless it be clear vpon an indubitable Principle that the sense of it and Doctrin of my Church can differ in points of Faith which must be proued and not Supposed If Fathers be alleaged Seemingly contrary to this known Doctrin my duty is to explicate them and rather to draw the Fathers to what the Church teaches than to renounce Her Authority and adhere to the dubious and yet vnknown Sense of any Father 5. Now here is à short consideration For Sectaries I said whoeuer supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred A Reflection for Sectaries must ioyntly own it so remediless an Euil that all the men on earth cannot help or remoue the supposed errour from this Church The reason is All the Proofs and Principles setting plain Scripture aside whereof there is no danger which may be thought pertinent to impeach Her of errour will fall infinitly short and proue less ponderous less substantial to perswade that She has erred than her sole Vote and own Authority whilst she anathematizes the falshood is to perswade the contrary Viz. That She neuer erred Hence Sectaries confessedly fallible men who Sectaries Attempt desperate and why may easily spoil all they goe about to mend aduenture desperatly to reform the Church when the very Principles they should reform by were there any such in being are incomparably of less weight strength and force than the Authority of this Church is which saith She cannot erre Howeuer She must be reformed and here is the wonder before they know whether She has erred or haue the least assurance of their own half accomplish't reformation Who then see 's not euery attempt made against our Church this way to bee as really it is à folly an vnaduiced Enterprise no less impossible than in the highest manner improbable Mark what à task lies on them 6. First they are to proue She has erred which was neuer yet done 2. To giue in Principles whereby they will reform 3. To VVhat they are to proue Shew themselues well setled in à perfect Reformation 4. To euince that all those innumerable learned men of our Church from the Fourth to the present Age haue been stupidly blind bereaued of iudgement and besotted with Errour 5. Wheras other Christians both more aged and most learned espyed none of these Errours They are to proue that God made choise of such vncommissioned men to perform à work so long neglected by the Orthodox world But of these particulars enough is said in the other Treatise 7. Hence two things follow First that Sectaries only lose time when by alleging à few dark Testimonies of the Fathers they offer to
neuer censured Church be Supposed guilty after the whole world held her blamless and has iudged well of Her condemnations pas't vpon Hereticks Compare I say the Authority of the Church time out of mind proued Innocent with the Authority of Hereticks known most guilty There can be no Parallel may we precisely respect Authority Wherefore if the Opposition of Hereticks hath any force Their charge against the Church must stand vpon Strong proofs and sound Principles distinct from Their own voting Her Delinquent These Principles we seek for in all our Disputes with Protestants yet hitherto neuer heard of Any and belieue it Wee hold their own Authority of no greater weight than that of Arians or of any other condemned Hereticks 8. Others quite driuen off all ground of rational Arguing will needs fasten Errours vpon our Church because forsooth in such an Age the 9 th For example after Christ or There about some Popes were less good and People much debauched An other simple Plea Then most likely was the Nick of time Say these to bring in Transubstantiation the Popes Supremacy and what other Errour you will Answ A most pitiful Plea not worth the paper it blot's I shall not so much refute it for it merit 's not the labour As Shew how it destroyes the Belief of all Christian Religion 9. Pray you consider Christianity in the greatest Latitude Imaginable Call Arians Donatists Protestants And Catholicks also Christians Grant which is true that there haue been very wicked men amongst these different Professors I say if this Argument haue weight Some few Popes and many People were not good for one Age chiefly Ergo debauchery in manners more then probably brought in false Doctrins vnder the Notion of Christian Truths A Iew or Gentil may Argue as well and infer that Viciousness of life hath destroyed all Truth among Christians if euer They had any For why should lewdness haue less force to Subuert all Truth taught by the Church of Rome than some only It hath say Sectaries brought in much Errour Therefore saith the Iew it may as well haue corrupted all Christ Doctrin 10. To reinforce this Argument I told you aboue if the Church of Rome had but once proposed one Article to be belieued by Diuine Faith which is false She is not to be reiected and proued unreasonable credited in any thing If you Reply it is euident That though false in many Tenets She yet taught some Articles true As that Christ is our Redeemer The Iew Answers and so do I too She Taught and teaches so still but that This is Truth if debauchery of life bee ineuitably connexed with false Doctrin shall neuer be made Probable For this Church is either entierly sound in Doctrin or Entirely deluded One may Say Scripture is euidently plain for some Primary Articles of Christian belief Answ The Iew scorn's the Reply and maintain's this Truth as I also do If it be once proued that the Church of Rome imposed on the Christian world Falshood in place of Truth Transubstantiation The Sacrifice on the Altar c. She may as easily haue corrupted the whole Bible and made that Book false in à hundred important Passages whereof enough is said in the other Treatise No true Church Therefore no Probability of true Scripture 11. Let vs now proceed to others called Christians the most known Arch-hereticks you will haue the same Conclusion Arius for example à stubborn proud Fellow had many Associates like Himself yea and certainly taught some Doctrins false Therefore Saith the Iew All He deliuered was false also The Diuel learned Luther to broach His new Gospel and the mans enormous Viciousness is known to the world by as credible Authors as Platina or Nico de Clemangijs who make Popes and People so impious Therefore all that Luther taught cannot but bee vpon the Argument proposed most iustly excepted against An other Simple Argument reiected as pernicious Doctrin For gross Errours like à Torrent follow Deprauation in manners Caluins Pride Deceipt and Cousenage to say nothing of that hidious Sin for which he was branded are vpon Record And all know what Rebellion what tragical Doings ensued vpon the wicked mans Apostasy Who then can harbour so much as à good thought of any Doctrin He taught euen that Christ dyed for vs Hence saith the Iew if Wickednes of life and Errours in Doctrin be such inseparable Companions And all Sects or Religions nameable haue had Professors wicked Farewel Christianity yea and Christ Himself also For if the Impiety of some lead's Erroneous Doctrins into à whole Moral Body that one crying Sin of Iudas might more easily haue corrupted the First Apostolical Colledge smal in Number Than the incomparable lesse defects of Popes depraue the great Moral Body of the Church O but Christ secured the other Apostles from Errour Answ So he doth his Church And the Iew will as soon belieue the one as the other who Argues thus 12. Christianity was neuer without Sin Ergo neuer without Errour if the Argumâ—nt haue force When Therefore these new men Say Wickedness of life Compared with the losse of Faith Gods Prouidence seem's equally concerned to preserue the Church from things equally Pernicious But viciousnes of life is as pernicious to Christianity and as destructâ—ue to the End of it as Errours in Doctrin They know not what they Say The Argument is euery way defectiue 13. First it s vtterly False that Wickednes is so pernicious as Errours against Christian Doctrin For Errours destroies Faith the ground of Saluation and immedeatly opposeth Gods Infinite Veracity Wickednes in Manners destroies Grace and other Supernatural virtues yet leaues the Foundation vnshaken Again By what law do these men Suppose that God preserued not his Church Holy in those dayes Doth it follow because some were wicked that She lost all Sanctity Will they Say if the English Church had euer Sanctity in it All vanished into Smoak in the late dissentions and deplorable Tumults There were neuer such Doings at Rome in the worst of daies as England then Shewed to the world O but there were then many Holy and Godly men that suffered Be it so at present I loue not to recriminate For one of yours Holy we had Thousands in that Particular Abuse can not unhallow the Church Age you except against the whole world ouer in England Germany Spain France Denmark c. most humble pious virtuous and profoundly learned What do you think that à few Abuses in Italy not half so bad as you make them can Vnhallow an ample Church Yet here lies the Strength of your weak Argument The iniquity of some chiefly of Popes and Prelates ruins not sanctity only But moreouer induceth Errour into the whole Moral Body of Christ You iust proceed as if One should atattempt to proue that à goodly Building which yet visibly stands fair to the Eye and firm on Sure foundations is all shattered and pulled down
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
7. To end this point between S. Austin and the Donatist as also between Catholicks and Protestants I say all Controuersies are fully tried and happily ended by Scripture only But how Not because any can pretend to find euery Tenet of Faith clearly set down in so many express Terms of holy Writ For the Protestant How Scripture decides all Controuersies pretend's not to so much in behalf of his Doctrin But thus the Orthodox discourses with S. Austin Scripture euidently points at the Church of IESVS Christ known by Her Marks and manifest Signes by Her Antiquity Her large Spread ouer the whole world by the Succession of Her Pastors and Doctors Miracles and the like Signal Motiues Thus much once clearly laid forth in the written Word that Holy Book remit's him to the Church Clearly marked commend's Her faith S. Austin and command's him to hear and learn what euer She teaches 8. Whence it is that our profound Doctor Disputing the Case whether the Baptized by Hereticks were to be rebaptized laboured not to decide the Question by any express words in holy Scripture wholly silent in this particular But contrarywise teaches that the Church which is diffused all ouer and no Party of Donatists shut vp in à corner of Afrique was to giue Sentence herein For She is that great Oracle which Scripture commend's Read Lib. 2. de Bapt. C. 4. And de Vnit Eccles. C. 22. Thus briefly you see the true difference between the Protestant and Catholick The first has not à word of Scripture for his Tenets much less any Orthodox euidenced Church The Catholick relies on à Church spread the whole world ouer known by The Catholicks stronge hold Miracles Conuersions c. And Scripture command's him firmly to belieue what euer She Proposes as Faith Qui vos audit me audit Whoeuer hears the Church hears Christ And in this Sense Scripture manifesting Gods own Oracle which cannot but propose truth end 's all Controuersies 9. A 4 th Obiection Iulian the Apostata as S. Gregory Nazian Orat. 1. in Iulian And Theoder Lib 3. Histo C. 3. attest droue away Diuels with the Sign of the Cross Therefore wicked men can doe Miracles And why may not Almighty God A fourth Obiection solued for Reasons best known to his infinite wisdom do strange wonders and permit an Arian to Say All are wrought to Confirm his false Doctrin Contra. Both Parts of the Obiection equally impugn the Primitiue Miracles of Christ and the Apostles To the first I answer An Heretick may work à Miracle to proue Catholick Doctrin but neuer to make his own False Opinion probable The Reason is God who is Truth and Goodnes it self can no more deceiue by his ovvn VVorks than by his ovvn VVords Sicut humana consuetudo saith S. Austin Epist 49. verbis Diuina potentia etiam factis loquitur As man speak's by words so God speak's by his works But the Works or Wonders now Spoken of because supernatural proceed from God And as is God can no more deceiue by his ovvn Works then by by Words supposed deceiue Therefore it ill beseem's an Infinit Truth and Goodnes to do them Vpon this Ground I say likewise Diuine Prouidence will neuer permit his own glorious Works Seals and Signes of Truth to be abused by wicked men But of this particular I intend to speak more largely hereafter 10. Wee now Come to Mr. Stillingfleets Cauils you haue some of them Part. 1. C. 5. p. 134. And 135. Where he doth not Mr Stillingfleets Cauils answered so much impugne Miracles as would haue them done by such Persons as he likes well of Popes for example that pretend to infallibility And if which is easy we produce many wrought by Holy Popes His next Querie perhaps may be Why all all of them are not Miraculous men alike In à word I like not to search into the depth of Gods secret Counsel And therefore briefly discourse of persons fauoured with such Graces as S. Austin doth of different Places Tom. 2. Epist 137 to his Clergy and people at Hippo where he proposeth this Question Quare in alijs locus haec miracula fiant non in alijs Why are Miracles done in some places and not in others VVe haue known some wrought at Millan â—n Africa though full of Saints Bodies not so He return's this wise Answer grounded on the Apostles wotds 1. Cor. 12. Non omnes Sancti c. All saints haue not the Gift of curing diseases all discern not spirits ita nec in omnibus memorijs Sanctorum c. So God And first why God works Miracles by some and not by others who divides his Graces according to his own best will doth not these wonders at the Memory of euery Saint And who dare enter into his secret Counsel or ask why he doth so Why raised he three dead men by S. Dominick and not one we know of by S. Austin Dividit propria unicuique prout vult He is Lord and distributes his own fauours as he pleaseth And thus we Answer Mr. Stillingfleet who next Saith some thing of Miracles done in Corners What can the man mean Are all the wonders wrought at Loreto Compostella Sichem and other places seen to innumerable and All vpon certain record to be callid Corner Miracles Be pleased to hear worse yet 11. Page 135. Think not saith Mr. Stillingfleet VVe are of such easy faith that the pretended growing out of à leg in Spain or any of your famous Miracles wrought by your Priests in Italie will persvvade vs Mr Stillingfleets vnjust exceptions against the Miracle wrought at Zaragosa to believe your Church infallible Again after his Talk of Diuels doing no feats when Opposers are by He utters this scornful language It is an easâ— thing for à Stump to grow à leg in its passage from Spain hither For fama crescit eundo And in despite of Truth cast's out too much bitter venom to obscure à Glorious work of God wrought by the Intercession of our Blessed Lady vpon à young man at Caesar Augusta or Zaragosa in Spain where you haue her miraculous Statua Set on à Marble Pillar And for that reason is called Neustra Sennora del Pilari It is one of the most euident and clearest Miracles vvhich I belieue hath been done in the memory of any man now liuing I haue the whole Printed Relation by me both Latin and Dutch vvritten by Peter Neurat Doctor of Phisick and dedicated to his Excellence Don Francisco Marquis of Caretto and Grana Embassador Extraordinary from the Emperour to His Catholick Maiesty The Substance whereof is thus 12. Ego ab Caesaraugusta Venio c. I come from Zaragosa and bring tydings of à Miracle not heard of in any age A young man had his leg cut of and buried which was Miraculously restored again by the Intercession of the most Sacred virgin My Lord I here present you with à Gift it is not mine but our
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
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
Church of Christ and consequently both the Romanists and English wanting fundamentals are People essentially Churchless Now vpon the Supposition of lesser corruptions only not fundamental you haue à dreadful Inference against Protestants And as true as dreadful Viz. That their first Separation from the Roman Catholick Church was damnably Sinful though She were here falsly supposed to haue erred in smaller matters This I A third Inference Say followes not only because the Ancient Fathers expresly teach No Reformation can be of such Importance as to counteruaile the danger of Diuisions And that all things should be rather tolerated than to consent to Schism in the Church But vpon this other account also that the Reuolt of Protestants from our Ancient Church hath laid such à visible disgrace vpon à noble Kingdom That none but the powerful hand of God with the wisdom of our Gracious Souereign and the States concurrence Touching vpon the doleful Diuisions in England can take it of The Nation we see with our eyes is strangely diuided hideously discomposed Religion is of the hinges and men generally are so transported into Extrauagancies that none can say what the Religion is which England Professes at this day There are so many Sects so many Diuisions so many Tub-Preachers so many woemen-Gospellers so many Quakers so many Fanaticks so many Leuiathan-Monsters that you may read and see without turning to the Bible à Babylonian Confusion amongst them Would Popery Sr. think ye you are as I vnderstand moderate and learned had that continued laid England vnder such à publick Disgrace as this Rabble of men and Fanaticks haue done Let the world iudge 19. Now if you Ask from whence came this fearful Disorder which to my sorrow makes our Country ridiculous to forrain Nations I answer The first Rent the first Rupture the first Schism of Protestants from the Catholick Church occasioned all Here is the Source and Sole Origen of these vnfortunate The Origen of all these lamentable Diuisions Reuolutions Wherefore this Argument proposed by à Fanatick against Protestants is vnanswerably conuincing Ad hominem I say ad hominem not that I approue Fanaticism As ye Protestants without recourse to any other iudge but your Selues vpon your own Authority quitted the Roman Catholick Church and thought your Fact reasonable So we Fanaticks without recourse to any but our own tender Consciences knowing you began à Reformation not yet compleat leaue Protestancy And hold our fact as reasonable as yours And thus others by your first Example The Fanaticks Argument against Protestants may reform Religion to the worlds end Yet all of vs may these men Say make but one true Church For if Mr. Thorndicke Page 9. Answer 's pertinently to that demand Where his Church was before Luther There it was saith he where it is The same Church reformed which was depraued afore If this Answer I say be good Pray you why should Fanaticks Nay why ought the Arians and worst of Heretickes be excluded from being of one and the same Catholick Church For the Church seems to Sectaries an ample field and embraceth all called Christians though differently reformed The only difficulty then is to find out him or se Those who among so many dissenting Reformers the whole world ouer haue happily made the best choise in All seclanes will reform and none can do it mending Religion The Protestant you see reform's the Catholick the Puritan the Protestant and the Quaquer will reform all at once vntil some new Sectary peep out that bring 's in à better Fashion And is it possible shall all these vnreformed People reform one another This difficulty cannot be solued in Protestant principles 20. I say in à word It is impossible to reform any erring Society of Christians but by the Rule Doctrin and Authority of The Church which reform's other erring Socoeties must not need any reformation some one Church which must be owned so pure that She cannot be reformed in what She teaches The reason is clear For à fallible and deformed Church can no more help to reform another like wise fallible or unreformed than the blind lead the blind Hence methinks Mr. Thorndick who hold's Protestancy as fallible and as much out of order as Popery Speak's little to the purpose Page 11. where he saith There is no Power in this Church and Kingdom he mean's England to reform it self in matter of Religion but only by that Form and to that Form which may appear to haue been held by the whole Primitiue Church before the Corruption came in which we pretend to reform I cannot but smile at this word Appear Pray you Sr Say to whom must it Appear What To you or me or to any priuate fallible man You talk as if forsooth the Primitiue Doctrin were so apparently Manifest to People that euery one by opening Books and reading Autiquity may with à wet singer clearly discouer the true and Orthodox Form of Religion Wheras the contrary is euident For haue not we and Protestants to omit others now for à whole Age perused Councils and Fathers and after all do we not see with our eyes that what seem's Orthodox Doctrin to one Party seem's not so to the other It appears manifestly to me that the Primitiue Fathers so openly maintained an vnbloody Sacrifice vpon the Altar that the wit of man cannot without violence wrest them to à contrary sense doth the Truth appear so to Protestants It appeared to S. Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. Dissentions arises after the perusal of the primitiue writings and to me also That Heresy and Schism take their Origen from this That the fraternity of Christians answerably to Gods command Obey not one Priest and one Iudge who is Christs Vice-gerent in the Militant Church on earth Will Sectaries read and vnderstand this as I doe It seemed clear to S. Hierome cited aboue That one out of the Roman Catholick Church wherof Pope Damasus was then Head really belonged not to Christ but to Antichrist and Therefore ought to be esteemed an Alien from the house of God à Person vnclean and prophane Will the Protestant after his reading these words own the Doctrin pure and Orthodox No he dares not 21. What then is the Result though we read these and à hundred other Passages in the ancient Records so Plain for Popery Experience tell 's vs nothing els ensues but an endles contest about their Sense and crossing one an other with contrary glosses This is all that can appear to Mr Thorndick Wherefore Vnless The plainest Authorities Conuince not Sectaries Recourse be had to better Principles then to meer Appearances Disputes may goe on till Dooms day without Satisfaction or fruit to any Be it how you will My hearty wish is that Mr Thorndick who hitherto Stayes in Generallities would please fully to set down that whole Plat-form of Religion which he conceiues exact and suitable to the Primitiue Church Were this
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
medled with it Which therefore can not make it Infallible By what is said you se our Sectaries Supposition of some Christian Doctrin acknowledged infallible is pure Sophistry for none can Assure them so much if All that teach it be fallible The very Apostolical Doctrin respectiuely to vs now liuing loses i'ts Infallibility if this Supposition stands That all Teachers are fallible Now we Proceed to à Second Argument and Discourse thus 15. If the whole Church the like is of any General approued The Churches Infallibility further proued Council can err She may not only traitorously betray Her Trust But moreouer doe so much Mischief to Christians by vniting all in Errour That they must remain in it without redress or remedy For if the Church may mistake whilst She Teaches No man on earth can be rationally Supposed wiser than She is nor goe about to Vnbeguile the deceiued by Her The Euil here hinted at is so Notoriously horrid the Perplerity it causes so Great that either Church Doctrin vnauoydably becomes despicable whilst euery one may iustly Quarrel with it Or this Principle must stand vnshaken that the Church cannot teach à Falshood 16. Some Sectaries seing the Force of this vnanswerable Argument hold the Church Diffusiue infallible in fundamentals Yet neither name nor can name those Christians who constitute an infallible Church larger than the Roman whereof enough Sectaries Oppose The Infallibility of Councils without reason is said both in this and the other Treatise In the next place their whole Strife is to Oppose the Infallibility of the Churches Representatiues in her General Councils But methinks inconsequently For what euer Reason proues Immunity from Errour in that diffused Moral Body Conuinces as forcibly the like Priuiledge in its Representatiues Which are not Conuened to deceiue But to teach God's reuealed Verities 17. Mr. Stillingfleet Part. 3. C. 1. 2. P. 506. After à larger Prologue to very little Substance Tell 's vs. It is not any high challenge of Infallâ—bility in any Person or council which must put an end to Controuersies For nothing but Truth and Reason can euer do it and the more men pretend to vnreasonable wayes of deciding them instead of ending One they beget many I say contrary If the Church and Her Councils be infallible Controuersies are ended without more Adoe For all know vpon that Supposition What to belieue and what to reiect And if they be not Owned infallible there is no such thing or things in being as Truth and Reason which can put an end to Controuersies To explicate the Assertion is to proue it 18. Doe then no more but cast away all thought of an Infallible The Infallibility of Councils asserted Church as also of Her infallible Councils It is clear that euery Doctrin Taught since the Apostles time has been deliuered Fallibly T is clear likewise All that teach it at this day highly dissenting among them selues Teach fallibly Imagin now that two aduerse Parties Ten learned Protestants on the one Side And as many learned Catholicks on the Other meet together and seriously Discuss this Point whether Protestancy or Catholick Doctrin as opposed to Protestancy be the true Religion the like is if any particular Controuersy fall vnder Debate I say the Attempt to decide any one controuerted matter is Vain and Impossible if both Church and Councils be Supposed fallible And consequently Mr. Stillingfleets Truth and Reason are no more but meer insignificant Words The Reason is Whilst fallible men pIead for Religion vpon Principles as fallible as they are that Argue the Result of that Dispute necessarily carried on by Arguments and reasoning purely fallible can end in nothing but in dissatisfactory Topicks if yet it come so far But this is so and obserue well The Protestant plead's The weaknes of two parties pleading fallibly for his Tenents or oppugn's our Doctrin and doth it fallibly The Catholick Answers and fallibly too The Protestant Replies but hath no infallible Principle to ground his Reply vpon no more hath the Catholick if the Supposition hold's any other Answer but what 's Vngrounded and Fallible Say I beseech you do not both Parties busied in this Contest vpon vncertainties run on in Darkness Haue we yet the least hope of Satisfaction Or so much as the Truth we all seek for yet discouered in this weak skirmish Whilst Fallible men and Fallible Arguments and Fallible Principles are the only Support of the whole Discourse Most euidently no. All are left where they were before in à deep Perplexity 19. I Said iust now If we we exclude an Infallible Church and her approued Councils Truth and Reason vanish to nothing and that no Principle remain's whereby these Contests of Religion can be ended To proue the Assertion further I first vrge the Protestant to name the last certain Principle or that vltimate Sectaries are vrged to name the last Iudge in these Debates Iudge in whose Sentence he dare Acquiese and Say positiuely vpon this Principle we must both rely This shall Define whether you my Aduersary or I yours defend Truth The man will not for stark shame name Himself nor any priuate Person on earth for Iudge He cannot recurr to an Inferiour Council and Oppose that against One Generally receiued the Whole world ouer He will not adhere to à Schismatical and Heretical Church and plead by Her in defence of his Doctrin against an Oracle neuer yet taxed or tainted of Errour Or if he doth so he gain 's nothing For all those are as fallible as the two Parties now in contest Where then is the Sectaries Sure Principle or last Iudge to stand to in these Debates Or whither will he goe to find out his yet Vndiscoured Truth and Reason Will his refuge be to Scripture It help 's nothing in this Case not only because Scripture omit's to speak either explicitly of the half of such And cannot pitch on any Controuersies as are now agitated But vpon this Account Chiefly That if the Church and Councils be fallible the Book it self becomes à most fallible Principle to all For neither Catholicks nor Protestants nor Arians nor any can Say with Assurance â—uch and Such is the vndoubted â—ense of Gods word in Controuerted Matters if the Churches Iudgement be set light by and look't on as fallible Yet I 'll Say thus much Were the Church fallible Sectaries may well blush first to decry Her Sense of Scripture and then to set vp the far inferiour and fallible interpretation of euery single Person against the Church 20. Some may Reply The grand Principle of Protestants The grand Principle of Protestants reiected is that Scripture in things necessary to Saluation appeares plain to all who vse ordinary Diligence to vnderstand it wherein certainly their Truth and Reason may be found Contra. And I Press not in this place the Vncertainty of the Principle which is as disputable as any other Protestant Tenet But Say more it is wholly
improbable Yea and destroies Protestancy It is And why improbable Because it cannot be Supposed that any priuate man or men haue vsed full Diligence to vnderstand the Scriptures Sense And that à Church of à thousand years standing hath neglected à Duty so necessary But these priuate men whether Arians Protestants or Socinians and the Church draw contradictory Senses from Scripture And all these iarring Sectaries with their different Senses defend not truth Therefore some of them let the fault yet light where you will haue not vsed Diligence nor righly vnderstood God's word The Question now is and some Oracle must decide it where or in whom this Misunderstanding lies Most willingly would I haue this one Difficulty folued and t' is worth the Labour whilft euery one See's it is no more certain that the Protestant hitt's on the Scriptures true Sense than it is certain that the whole Church after à thousand years Diligence mistakes it Can this think ye be euer cleared in behalf VVhy Should Sectaries his right on the Scriptures Sense of Protestants by any Proof so much as meanly Probable It is Impossible Wherefore I Conclude Their Grand Principle is rotten at the very root fail's all that Rely on it I will say it once more If the Protestant hath no greater Certainty of his Sense of Scripture than it is certain That he hitts right and the Church Err's in her Sense His Belief after all industry And the Church be deluded vsed stands vnprincipled rests on his own fancy and is not rectifiable while he iudges so Say the very vtmost it is no more but à meer hazard whether he belieues or no and this destroies Protestancy Thus much of Scripture 21. The next thing pleadable in behalf of Mr Stillingfleets Truth and Reason may perhaps be the Authority of Holy Fathers It is weightles if the Church be fallible or has Erred And first Protestants say all Fathers are liable to Errour I add more and Assert if that Church whereof They were Members taught or can teach false Doctrin it is à meer vanity to seek for certain Truth or any satisfactory Reason in the Fathers Writings What can Streams the Fathers were no other be Supposed pure and The Sectaries pretence to Fathers improbable the Head fountain Gods own Oracle Poysoned and infected Did they hit right vpon our Christian Verities when their only Guide Christ's sacred Spouse misled Posterity Could they Dedicate all their Labours to make an Oracle renowned that afterward whispered Errours into all mens ears These are Paradoxes I Say then it is à stronger and far more reasonable Principle to Assert That the Church neuer erred nor can erre Than first to Suppose Her erroneous And next to find truth in the Fathers who were no more but Schollers and suck't the milk of purest Doctrin from the Brests of this their Mother The Catholick Church If She therefore poysoned them with fals learning both She and They yet poyson vs And consequently neither the Church nor Fathers deserue credit nor can be prudently Belieued 22. And here by the way I cannot but reflect vpon à strange Procedure vsual with Sectaries in All their Polemicks First The procedure of Sectaries vnreasonable they Suppose the Church and Councils errable yea actually misled in Asserting Purgatory Transubstantiation c. And to Rectify what is thought Amiss Some few Gleaning of Fathers how little to the purpose is seen aboue are produced and these Forsooth must stand as it were in battail Array fight against à whole Church and ouerthrow Her Errours Is this think ye Reasonable Can it be imagined that God preserued his Reuealed truths in the Hearts thoughts and words of à few Fathers and suffered his Vniuersal Church with so many learned Councils conuened after the Four First to fall presently into so shameful à Dotage as Sectaries charge vpon Her Were the Fathers Then illuminated and was the Church afterward darkened and besotted There is none so blind But must needs se Himselfe out of Countenance by aduenturing to Defend à Tenet so highly Contrary to all Reason Wherefore I must earnestly petition the Reader once more to reflect vpon the greatest Folly which Methinks euer entred the Thoughts of men Thus it is The primitiue To say the Fathers taught truth and that che Church deserted Truth Fathers not many in number Who wrote in the First three or four Centuries in different Times and Places perused by few and vnderstood by Fewer are Supposed to Deliuer exactly the Catholick Verities What They sayd was True And an Ample Vniuersal Church together with Her Learned Councils known to All spread the whole world ouer for à Thousand yeares and vpward must be Supposed so Abominably sinful Is worse then a Paradox so Fearfully misled as to Desert the Ancient Faith of Those Fathers to Peruert God's Truths And Finally to Bring into the Vast Moral Body of Christians à Vniuersal Mischiefe à Deluge of Errour of Idolatry And no man knowes what If this be not pure Phrensy there was neuer any 23. The last Principle to ground Truth and Reason vpon or to bring Controuersies to an end is Vniuersal Tradition but this also Fail's to vphold Truth if the Church be fallible For who will or can with certainty trust the Tradition of à Church or so much as take the Book of Scripture from Her were she branded with this foul Note of hauing Publickly taught and wilfully imposed à hundred Doctrins vpon Christians contrary to Gods reuealed Reuealed Truths But more of this aboue C. 5. 6. 24. After all you se first Truth and Reason brought to Ruin Faith and Religion vnhinged if the Church and Councils be Fallible You se 2. These Inferences Setled vpon vndeniable Principles The Church is infallible Ergo Controuersies are without Perplexity ended Contrarywise The Church is Fallible Ergo Contentions Clear Inferences against Sectaries goe on without Redress endlesly Scripture as you haue heard because differently Sensed decides nothing No more do the Fathers Say Sectaries confessedly fallible Church and Councils are reiected as errable when and as often as Sectaries please Those that Dispute of Religion Yet more Fallible are not to be Iudges in their own Cause and without à Iudge Their best Arguments will be thought by all Prudent men no more but Vnconcluding Topicks And really they neither are nor can be better for want of Principles and some Oracle Infallible 25. Whoeuer desires to haue the Principle I Rely on further established by clear Inferences drawn from our Aduersaries needs only to read M. Stillingfleet from page 534. to the end of that 2. Chapter My Principle is There is no possibility of ending strife touching Religion if the Church and Councils be fallible yet Mr. Stillingfleet and his Lord Say they must haue some end or They 'l tear the Church à sunder My Task then is to show that these mens Doctrin Tears all in pieces and makes Controuersis
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
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
that another certainty which he call's Moral For if these two certainties be equally as strong it is Senless to establish the One and reiect the Other but the truth is in matters of beliefe moral certitude has no place as is largely proued aboue 15. Against this Discourse one may first Obiect God can An Obiection proposed oblige all either to belieue what is reuealed as infallible true to vs So that there can be no possible Deception in our Belief Or. 2. He may oblige vs to belieue His reuealed Verities meerly according to the efficacy of such Proofs as intimate to vs that God Speak's And why may not Mr Stillingf build his Faith vpon such Grounds or motiues as the nearest foundation though the vltimate Principle of belieuing be the Diuine Reuelation I haue partly Answered Either those Motiues conuince withall Of no force if the Motiues be infallible Metaphysical certitude that the Reuelation doth actually Exist and than the Difficulty ceaseth for the Assent yeilded to them is infallible Or contrarywise They are as Mr Stillingfleet supposes fallible And may stand with all their Lustre though the Reuelation really were not in Being Speak So It is most clear such Motiues cannot support Faith For all which right reason can draw from them if not absolutely infallible is thus much only That our Christian Verities according to Prudence If fallible they vphold not Faith are euidently credible But by virtue of that Iudgement we reach not as yet to the infallibility of the Diuine Testimony Therefore if God obliges all de facto to ground Faith vpon his infallible Testimony which cannot deceiue He iointly Obliges vs not to The reason hereof ground it vpon fallible Motiues which may deceiue and stand as Mr Stillingfleet will haue it although God had neuer reuealed any Christian Verity Again If we are obliged to free Christian Religion from all Possibility of falshood That is if God will haue vs to belieue it as absolutely infallible We cannot without wrong done to his infinite Verity Say he obliges vs to settle faith vpon Motiues only morally certain or absolutly fallible for thus He would oblige vs to belieue that as his own Truth which possibly may not be Truth but contrarywise à lie à falshood an Errour 16. 2. Obiect Now De facto in this present State there is no Difficulty For all iudge though the Motiues be fallible yet A second Obiection Solued God has reuealed our Christian verities Answ All do not iudge so But admit some do They iudge so by their infallible Assent of Faith terminated vpon the Verities as reuealed But antecedently to to beliefe none can iudge they are infallible reuealed truths whilst Motiues only fallible ground that Iudgement 17. A 3. Obiection Suppose Eternal truth had neuer reuealed A third proposed by no Sectary more difficult the sacred Trinity the like is of any other Mystery Suppose also that the whole System of Motiues had then stood in the same vigour and force as now they appear to vs Would not God and prudence haue obliged vs in that case to belieue as firmly the Trinity as we now belieue it I answer If the Supposition implies no Contradiction as I verily think it doth at least many hold so Prudence would then haue laid vpon vs an Obligation of firmly belieuing But what followes from hence Thus much only That poor Mortals not seing the depth of things would haue been invincibly deceiued But Deception is remote from God for his wisdom penetrat's all Truth and his Goodnes could not vpon the Supposition haue obliged any Solued The ground of the Solution to belieue à falshood or that to be which really is not Therefore he could not in the Case now supposed haue afforded Diuine Assistance to make Faith supernatural because the Obiect by errour apprehended belieuable really was not Thus much is true and God might haue obliged vs to judge That the Motiues would then haue made the Mysteries evidently credible though they were not yea and perhaps further to belieue Conditionally As is said aboue 18. A. 4 th Obiection This Proposition is true We belieue for the Motiues Or we proue that God Speak's because the Motiues apply and conuey the Diuine Testimony to vs. I distinguish the Proposition We belieue for the Motiues as Inducements to settle Faith vpon another Obiect Viz. God's Testimony I grant A fourth Obiestion solued it We belieue for the Motiues That is We ground our faith vpon them as either the nearest or more remote Obiect Why we belieue I Deny it Thus the will loues good because the vnderstanding apprehend's or conueyes good to it yet loues not the by à clear Instance knowledge which conueyes it Fire laid neer to fewel burn's the approximation burn's not but is only Conditio applicans à necessary condition applying heat which burn's So we say the Motiues auaile to make it most credible that God speak's But no more ground Faith than approximation burn's or the knowledge when we prosecute Good is the Obiect of loue 19. And here by the way you se Mr Stillingfleets constant Mr Stilling Constant Errour discouereds Errour who makes the Motiues inducing to Faith the foundation of it That is in other Terms He Confound's the Iudgement whereby we Assert the reuealed Mysteries are euidently Credible with the Assent of Faith it self And will needs haue the formal Obiect wherevpon Faith is built not only to be the Diuine Reuelation but the Motiues also though they can do no more but 〈…〉 ace the VVill guided by reason to settle belief vpon the infallibility of the first Reuealer CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauor to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnleaaned Cauil 1. FRom the Page last cited to P. 123. I find nothing in Mr Stillingfleet worth any larger Answer than is giuen already Here He tells vs That many things in Christian Religion are to be belieued before we can Imagin any such thing as an infallible Testimony of our Church It is hard to guess at his meaning for he names not one Article thus Assented to Perhaps he would His meaning obscure Say That the Verities reuealed in some books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper Signatures or Motiues as the Harmony Sanctity and Maiesty of the Style may be belieued without the Testimony of an Infallible Church If so I Answer first All this Harmony or Maiesty considered only as Obiects of Sense or as preuioussly known by their Natural Euidence thus far and not further they bear the name of Motiues auaile not to belieue any Verity in Scripture if the infallibility of the Church be reiected And therefore we said aboue this Sanctity and Harmony The Church reiected no Maiesty in Scripture can gain Beliefe are assented to by Faith only after the Church immediatly Euidenced by
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
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
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
Credibility of Scripture is not grounded vpon any vniuersal fallible Consent but stand's firm vpon other stronger antecedent Motiues Nay it cannot Originally depend therevpon Seing that Consent is an Effect of those other preuious Motiues as S. Austin often cited fully and most amply declares Be it how will 4. The greatest Difficulty yet remain's for if we enquire of The Sectarles Plea taken from any vniuersal fallible Consent is groundless Sectaries where we may find this common Consent we haue but à very slippery Foundation to stand vpon Because not only Heretiques of old denied the greatest part of Scripture But to come to chese neerer times the Machiauellians and Socinians also called Christians hold many things in that Sacred Book so far aboue all humane reach that they Say it is vnworthy God to require from any à firm beliefe of them Add herevnto the multitudes of Heathens Iewes and Turks who imcomparably whole Multitudes against Sectaries surpass Christians in number All these you know Vnanimously reiect our Scriptures How then can the far lesser number of Witnesses agreeing in one consent Plead so much as probably against such multitudes of Opponents If no other motiue be alleged in behalfe of the Scriptures Credibility but only the Consent of few against many 5. But to silence all Sectaries hereafter Who insist so much vpon this vniuersal Consent we will here gratis suppose the Argument drawn from thence to be most conuincing Yet withall Assert it so little aduantages the pretences of Protestants That Sectaries plainly Conuinced it vtterly ruin's their vndefensible Cause For where haue these men any vniuersal Agreement of Christians for their Canon of Scripture Where haue they it in behalf of their iarring Opinions Where for their Negatiue Articles Where for their particular Sense of Scripture which not only the Roman Catholick Church but others also reiect as false vngrounded and Heretical If therefore this Common consent for the Bible Obserue the Proofs were more Vniuersal then it is it help 's not Sectaries whils't their singular Opinions their Canon and Sense And in à word their whole Religion as Protestancy is so particular to Them selues That the rest of Christians ashamed to own it will be no Partners with them 6. And thus you see where the Weaknes of this whole Plea lies They will haue à vniuersal Consent for the bare letter of Scripture Let that be so It s nothing to the purpose if afterward without any thing like à Vniuersal agreement they misinterpret the Book and make it speak what God neuer meant But this is done and I proue it vpon an vndeniable ground thus The Book of Scripture misinterpreted Proues nothing Whilst these men cannot name or Design à Church reputed Orthodox fiue or six Ages since which as vniuersally maintained their new Doctrin as She then owned the old letter of the Bible They misinterpret the Book And gain no more But Sectaries do So and t is proued by vrging that vniuersal Consent for the meer letter then the Arians â—r worst of Heretiques gain But to name such à Church for their Nouelties is imposible and consequently no less impossible to resolue one Article of Protestancy into God's Diuine Testimony expressed in Scripture 7. A 2. Obiection Christians faith seem's not resoluable into the Diuine Testimony speaking by the Church because How the Chutch is both the Truth belieaed And the Motiue also why we belieue the Church is Res credita ot the Material Obiect belieued Witness that Article of our Creed I belieue the Holy Catholick Church Therefore it cannot be Ratio Credendi or the Formal Obiect which moues to belieue I Answer first Sectaries must solue this Difficulty For is not the very Doctrin contained in Scripture according to them the Res Credita or the Material Obiect belieued The Incarnation I hope whereof we read in Scripture the like may be said of euery other Mystery is the Truth belieued with such à faith as they haue And the Sectaries must solue this difficulty very same Word of God wherein thefe Truths are contained is also the Ratio Credendi or Formal Obiect mouing to belieue For demand why they Assent to the Incarnation T' is Answered because God has reuealed it in Scripture No other Motiue can be pretended Therefore the same Scripture differently considered is both the Material Obiect or Verity belieued and likewise the Formal which moues to belieue And thus we Say The Churches Proposition Or rather God speaking by the Church may well be the Truth belieued and à Motiue also why we belieue wherein there is no Difficulty at all Take here one Instance in known Philosophy which teaches that light both terminates our Vision and so considered is the Material Obiect seen withall it moues By two Instances we ciear what is asserted the Power to see it and vpon that Account is rightly called the Formal Obiect In Acts of Faith you haue the like Instance For example When the Iewes Assented to the ancient Prophets vttering these words Haec dicit Dominus c. Our Lord speak's thus They belieued that God spake by the mouth of those Prophets it was one of the Materal obiects Assented to by Faith and they belieued also for those Prophets words as God's own Voice and had respect to them as to à Formal obiect Why they belieued 8. A 3. Obiection If the Church be the Primum Credibile or the first Belieuable Oracle whereby God speak's to all How and in what Order we belieue the truths Proposed by the Church in this present State We are to declare how and in what order those Truths are deliuered by it which all are obliged to belieue And this cannot be done without Confusion and perhaps danger of à Circle also We haue partly Answered aboue where it is said That as the Apostles after the Knowledge had of our Sauiours Miracles belieued first in à General way He was the true Messias So we in this present State induced by all the Motiues of Credibility already laid forth belieue first in General That this Manifested Oracle is Christs own Spouse This general Assent first precedes which infallibly teaches the right way to Saluation And this truth we Assent to immediatly vpon the Churches Proposition or rather vpon God's Testimony speaking by the Church without depending on Scripture Iust as the Apostles belieued Christ our Lord to be the true Messias vpon his own Testimony proued Credible by Miracles and other Signal Wonders Thus far there is no Confusion at all nor any danger of à vicious Circle Now further This General truth admitted we proceed to the Beliefe of other particular Verities proposed and herein also follow the Apostles Steps and practise who assented to euery single Article which our Sauiour deliuered afterward vpon his own Word Why therefore may not we also Afterward we descend to other particulars belieue euery particular
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
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
Reformation Vpon what they would build their Reformation vpon one Principle Chiefly we will here in the first place Shew you what they pretend and vtterly destroy it 2. In à word The main ground of our Protestants late The Protestants pretence laid forth Reformation or the Chiefest cause why they deserted the Roman Catholick Church is best declared in their own language The Roman Catholick Church Say they though once sound and Orthodox yet in after Ages turned from God betrayed his truths brought in Idolatry and damnable Heresies Hence it is we boldly accuse her hence it is we write against her notorious Errours and out of loue to our Souls leaue Her Nos iussu diuino Babylone Egressi Saith Riuet in Sum. Trac 2. q. 2. n. 3. We by God's command are gone out of Babylon he mean's the Roman Catholick Church not so much for her vnpurities as for Her What Sectaries Assert Idols and Heresy More he hath in the following words often accusing this Church of Idolatry and Heresy Consonant to what Mr Stillingfleet teaches in the seueral passages of his Account 3. To overthrow this whole Plea I Argue thus Whoever The ground of their Doctrin ouerthrown euidently impeaches an ample Church of Idolatry or Heresy once vniuersally acknowledged Orthodox and proues not euidently the truth of his Accusation by clear and vnquestioned Principles but desert's that Society without Euidence alleged against her Doctrin by this one Syllogism Acts most vniustly Err's notoriously and Sin 's damnably Bâ—t Protestants do So. That is They euidently impeach à whole ample Church once vniuersally reputed Orthodox of Idolatry and Heresy and haue also most euidently deserted Her without Euidence alleged against her Doctrin which can be grounded vpon vnquestionable Principles Ergo They act most vniustly Err notoriously and Sin damnably 4. The Maior Proposition stand's firm vpon à Principle hinted at aboue Viz. That an euident Accusation in so weighty à Matter vtterly loses force vnless euident Proofs support it The Maior Proposition proued and confirmed This may be further Confirmed by one Ratiocinations in the like Form of Arguing Whoeuer should euidently impute to Holy Scripture once vniuersally receiued as God's Sacred word Idolatry and Heresy or so much as impeach it of flight and incredible Doctrin as the Machiauellians and Socinians do without What if one discoursed of Scripture as â—â—ctaries do of the Church clear and euident Proofs would be à most desperate Plaintife and Sin damnably because he endeauours to bring into publick disreputation God's own truths which the wisest of the world euer reuerenced as Sacred and Diuine And though he should plead as Sectaries Discourse of the Church or Assert that the Book indeed was once pure and Orthodox but afterwards falling into wicked hands notorious Corruptions false Doctrins when or how no body knowes clancularly got in and spoild its purity Though I say He Should plead after this manner without à clear demonstration or Euidence of Proofs He would yet be à most vniust Accuser and Sin damnably Ergo He or they that tax à whole Church once owned for God's Spouse and most certainly Orthodox of notorious corrupted Doctrin with an addition of Idolatry are guilty of the very same open Iniustice and Sin damnably The Parity holds exactly 5. The Minor Proposition viz. But Sectaries impeach c. Sayes two things First that they euidently accuse à whole Church The minor Proued and haue euidently derserted Her which is manifest Ad oculum Secondly that they haue done so without Euidence of Proofs against her Doctrin grounded on vnquestionable Principles And this we shall most easily demonstrate if our Adversaries will please to own with vs these following Principles or any of them as most vnquestionable 6. First the plain and express words of Holy Scripture without Mixture Indubitable Principles supposed where vpon proofs must stand of their particular Glosses or ours also 2. The vnanimous Consent of ancient Fathers but still without Glosses 3. The clear Iudgement of any Orthodox Church wherevnto we add the express Definitions of ancient approued Councils and vniuersal Tradition receiued by all 4. Manifest Reason No Principles can be better or equalize these in worth Proofs if solid must stand vpon One or more of them 7 Speak therefore its high time Let vs not eternally word Sectaries are vrged to follow closely the main point it but go closely to Work We are here in à main Matter Concerning Saluation can you Dr Stillingfleet or any Protestant in England as Euiduntly proue that such and such an Article of Catholick Religion is Contrary to all or any one of these mentioned Principles as euery Grammarian can euidently tell you that this or that Solaecism is euidently against the Rules of Grammer I here boldly challenge you vouchsafe to Answer without tergiuersation if you can reioyn you are worthy Doctors if not be pleased to surcease from writing Controuersies hereafter Yet one word more 8. You say Euidently we are Idolaters because we Adore Christ By Proofs drawn from ihe Principles already mentioned in the Blessed Sacrament Hold on I beseech you and proue your Euident Assertion Euidently by plain Scripture by the vnanimous consent of ancient Fathers by the known Iudgement of any Orthodox Church c. When you pretend to haue done thus much But begin you first I 'll boldly Confront you and demonstrate that the Scripture you allege is no Scripture your supposed Fathers are false Oracles your supposed Councils your Tradition and Sectaries Prooss meer Phaâ—sies lastly what you call Reason merit not so much as the very Names you giue them All this is to Say in other terms You grosly abuse these Oracles you either Corrupt their very words as is most vsual or violently force from them à new peruerse Sense which God neuer intended to speak by them And Consequently the Euidence you pretend to is nothing But à strong Illusion or an vngrounded Phansy not resolvable into the Clarity or Truth of any one of the forenamed Principles Thus much premised 9. I prove the Minor positiuely If it be à manifest Truth The minor Proposition proued that Christ our Lord had an Orthodox Church on earth for the last ten Centuries If it be also manifest that the Professors of this Church be it yet where you will were either Idolaters or damnable Hereticks it is most demonstrable that Sectaries cannot Euidently Euince the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry 10. The ground of my Assertion is Whoeuer euidently Whoeuer proues the Roman Church Idolatrous ruins Christ's true Church proues the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry euinces eo ipso That Christ had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thoufand years To make this manifest Please to diuide the whole Moral Body of men called Christians into three Classes into Orthodox Belieuers if yet there were any into Idolaters and known Heretiques This Diuision made
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
concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Eternal Father The Pelagians as busy to cancel Original sin The Donatists as Zealous to perswade men that the true Church was not vniuersally Therefore their sin and Apostasy the very same extended as euer Protestants were earnest busy and Zâ—alous to haue this present Church reformed in her Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Adoting the Sacred Host praying to Saints And what els you will Now I Subsume 16. But all these Accusers all these rebellious Reformers Because all tend to the destruction of Christ's true Church as like as like can be to one another are wicked and ayme at the Ruin of Christs true Church which is Manifest For had euery one of them done what they desired or reformed according to their Capricious humours There had not been at this day any Orthodox Church in the world Now here in my Question which certainly deserues à candid Answer If all Heretiques A difficult question proposed ancient and Modern reform the Church according to their particular Sentiments most euidently Christs true Church is destroyed Why therefore should I or any if we were yet to seek à better Religion rather adhere to the Reformation of à fallible Protestant than to that other of à fallible Arian or à Pelagian You Shall haue à Strange Answer 17 We are told when the Arians went about to reform the Church was pure but now Her known corruptions force Sectaries out of true loue to their Souls at least to reform themselues Our Sectaries Answer is an vnproued Supposition If the Church will learn Her duty by their good example She may if not She must remain in her errours Answ Is not this more then ridiculous First to make an vnproued Supposition their Proof and then to say nothing but what both the Arians and other Heretiques haue put in their mouths and And contain's nothing but what your old Heretiques taught then to Speak taught them to speak For did not these wicked men pretend as dear loue to their Souls Did they not Clamour as loud against the Churches imagined errours in those ancient dayes as euer Protestants haue done in these latter Say therefore why should the Protestants Reformation be esteemed more secure and Orthodox than what the Arians endeauored to introduce It will be hard to Answer whilst this Principle stand's firm If all reform the Church is ruined 18. Some may Reply Protestants without all doubt who haue diuorced themselues from the Church therefore clamour so loud because they haue strong Proofs at hand whereby to Another Reply examined euince that that once faithfull oracle is now guilty of notorious errours which no Arian could then do Answ Here is the main Point I would willingly be at and haue examined to the bottom I therefore press these Nouellists to pitch vpon some one particular Sectaries are vrged to pitch vpon Some particular controuersy Controuersy Transubstantiation for example or this now debated point of Idolatry in adoring the Consecrated Host and vrge them first to Argue by the plain words of Holy Scripture When all they can Say is said I will demonstrate that the Arians produce Passages of holy Scripture far more significant might we rest in the meer sound of words for their Heresy The sound of words in Scripture more plain for Arians then for Protestants than euer Protestant alleged against Transubstantiation or any other Catholick Tenet 'T is true your Arians make little account of any Authority but what seem's to them plain Scripture or appear's deducible from Scripture and this was the old Protestant way But our Newer men haue some respect to the Consent of Fathers and an ancient Church These we presse to dispute closely in Forme and to make our supposed errours or Sectaries Obiections hitherto Proposed haue been solued their Contrary pretended truths known by virtue of any one receiued Principle It is Answered thus much is done in their Books already set forth We Reply All their Obiections hitherto proposed haue been as fully and clearly solued as either they or we solue the Arguments of Atheists against God and the Iewes Cauils against Christ Or if they haue any new ones yet in store which require further satisfaction it is certainly most easy to propose them in good Form This done I will engage they shall no sooner appear in publick then haue à full and satisfactory refutation 19. We are told again such and such Books published Sectaries pretence of Books not answered reiected by Protestants haue not been answered As if forsooth all Books set forth by Catholicks were refuted In â word here you haue all It is very true the Cauils The Ieers and tedious length of some books haue not been answered with the like Cauils Ieers and length But what 's this to our purpose whilst we vrge for Arguments whereby it may appear to à disinteressed what hath been answered by Catholicks and what not Iudgement that Catholicks haue forsaken the ancient Orthodox Faith And that Protestants now lately had the singular Priuiledge of setling Religion right on its old firm foundations All Arguments hitherto proposed of this nature or which tend to infringe any particular Catholick Doctrin haue been dissolued and torn in preces ouer and ouer Or if as I now said there yet remain any vnanswered our Adversaries may vouchsafe to let vs hear them 20. Sectaries reply We haue indeed offerred to solue their Obiections as also to attaque Protestancy with many Arguments An other plea of Sectaries but as our Solutions are slight so our Arguments against them seem light and forceles Call me to mind one or two only 21. They haue been told If the Roman Catholick Church be fallible and Protestants as fallible Iewes and Gentils may Arguments vnderâ—alued by them as forceless iustly Scorn Christianity when they se à fallible Protestant attempt to settle an erring Papist in the right way to Saluation or à fallible Papist to do the like on an erring Protestant whilst neither the one nor other can know infallibly which is the right way to Saluation They haue been told 2. To make Scripture alone Though most Conuincing the sole Rule or Iudge in Controuersies encreases the Scorn of these Aliens from Christ who hold it more then ridiculous to appeal to à Iudge for the Decision of their doubts when none of them after the appeal made can Certainly know what the Iudge Of Sectaries unreasonable appeal to Scripture alone Speak's or this Rule of Scripture regulates What I say is manifect for So various and discordant are all rhese in their Interpretations of God's word that the Arians auouch it Speak's Arianism Protestants Protestanism Papists Popery Pelagians Pelagianism and so of the rest Imagin I beseech you that two who accuse one another of high Treason Should come before à Iudge and desire to haue the final sentence pronounced against the Criminal person