Verities For example All acknowledge Gods Divine Providence over the world and Therfore have strong Principles to prove the Truth We Christians say That Christ our Lord And His Apostles taught most certain Heavenly Doctrin Principles cannot be wanting to prove this our Christian Verity VVe say Iudaism and Mahometism are Fals Sects The Assertion can be made Good by sure and undoubted Proofs The only Question now under Dispute is whether we Catholicks or Sectaries profess and Teach the Ancient Orthodox Doctrin established by Christ and his Apostles And without all Controversy certain Principles cannot fail in this particular wherby the difference between us may be decided Or if they Do fail which is not possible every one may not only adhere without reproof to any Religion or none as Fancy pleaseth But moreover may most justly blame Almighty God And this is hideously impious who command's us on the one side to embrace true Religion yet on the Other Leaves us in such Fearful darknes That none after a diligent search can find out by sure Principles vvhat or vvhere that Religion is which He will have us to believe to make profession of to live and dye in And this would be highly contrary to his infinit Goodnes Thus much premised 6. I say first The Sectary whether He takes in hand to establish his own Opinions or to impugn any Doctrin of our Catholick Faith shall never come to an Intellectual light that hath a likelyhood of a sure Principle The Reason is most evident in Catholick grounds I say no more yet Because Truth cannot be contrary to Truth If therfore Catholick Religion be true what ever the Sectary sayes against it when he either Plead's for his own or oppugn's our Doctrin must of necessity be so remote from sure Principles That his whole Talk ultimatly Resolved will appear in its own likenes a meer cheat and end in nothing but a fallacy For it is not Possible to force Truth out of Falshood or to make that Probable which is Essentially improbable 7. I say 2. It cannot but be most manifest to every prudent disinteressed Iudgement That Sectaries have nothing like sound received Principles to rely on whether They oppugn our Catholick Doctrin or Defend their own Opinions To clear this Assertion from Cavils you shall se what we propose Be pleased only to take two or three sheets of paper much more is not needful And permit a learned Catholick briefly to set down in the first Pages of them the Proofs he hath for his Catholick Doctrin in one particular Controversy now agitated this short way of Arguing will do the deed Then let the Protestant write all he can say for his contrary Proposition in the other Pages And if you do not se a strange unequal Parallel of Proofs And no Proofs laid together call me what you will I 'll bear a just rebuke yet fear not any I say pitch upon One Controversy now in Dispute For Example that one long debated we cannot now insist upon all may be thought of Viz. VVhether Recours had to the Saints in Heaven by the Prayers of the living be erroneous or true Doctrin Next permit the Question to be truely stated and then Hear what the Catholick sayes for Himself He tell 's you first the Roman Catholick Church and the Greek Church also whether Orthodox or Schismatical teach as He believes 2. He produceth Scriptures to prove his Doctrin 3. He alleges Fathers both Greek and Latin quoted by every Polemical writer on this subject Bellarmin furnisheth you most plentifully lib. 1. de Sanct. Beati cap. 19. The wit of man cannot wrest them to a sense contrary to our Catholick Position 4. You will have His Reasons and that one most concluding Good men laudably pray for us here on earth Ergo much more the Saints in Heaven because in a better state can do that Charity When the Catholick hath ended his Proofs grounded on these and the like undeniable Principles Cast your thoughts a little on the Sectaries Contrary proofs And mark well his Principles Hath He any Church reputed Orthodox either now or six hundred years agon That expresly and positively defended his Opinion and condemned our Doctrin No most evidently not any Hath he so much as one syllable of Scripture that plainly and positively Denyes our Catholick position and speak's for his Not a word is found in the whole Bible to that purpose much against it Hath he Fathers so numerous and clear for his Novelty as we produce for this one Truth Saints can both hear and help us Not one Father is express against us or plain for his contrary Opinion Parallel therfore a Church and no Church Scripture and no Scripture Fathers express for us and not one against us And judge you whether it be not evident to every disinteressed judgement that Protestants want sound Principles to rely on in this Controversy And as you se a Defect of Principles here so you will find it in all other Disputes between us Now if they say They value not much of our Church Authority I answer They speak without Principles For the sole judgement of our Church had we no more will be thought in any just Tribunal a stronger proof for our Doctrin then their meer slighting of it can be without a likelyhood of proof If They say again They can either Deny or explicate the Fathers we produce I Answer They are still out of Principles For their Denial is weightles unles They ground it upon a surer Principle then that Authority is which they Deny Observe well We have innumerable Fathers Greek and Latin express for the Invocation of Saints Say therfore What will it Avail the Sectary barely to reject these Authorities because they are the words of men and not of God Vnles He Give you the plain word of God or the Authority of an Orthodox Church in place of them wheron his Denial hath sure footing If this be not don He comes to nothing like a Principle consequently the Fathers Authority most agreable to the Churches Doctrin is a clear Demonstration against him If He Pretend to allege Fathers contrary to ours I Answer He hath not one express or plainly contrary However falsly suppose He had one or two The contest would then be whether one that stands as it were alone opposit to the Churches Doctrin or many Fathers that side with the Church deserve more credit Here I am sure He will stand without footing on any certain Principle If He tell you Thirdly The Primitive Church prayed not to Saints They are his own empty words We prove the contrary by the express Testimonies of most ancient Fathers and the Tradition of our Church whilst He remains speechles and without a Principle to ground his Assertion on If He Object fourthly His Reasons chiefly two viz. Prayers to Saints lessens our Honor to Christ. And we cannot say how our prayers come to the Saints Hearing c. I Answer Here is
Religion and but one only certain and infallible Perhaps he will say that though his Proposition be fallible yet it is highly probable against the pretended Infallibility of the Roman Church no other society of Christians laying claim to infallibility Mark by the way what this Adversary drives at It is to tell the world a word of comfort viz. That Christ Iesus hath now no certain and infallible Religion taught or learned in the whole Christian world And to make this most fallible and false Proposition good he back 's it by another of his own as false and fallible viz. It is at least highly probable that the Church of Rome is fallible Pray you on what leggs doth this high supposed probability stand I 'll tell you it stands only on Mr. Pooles weak thoughts and unwarranted word more you have not For never did any ancient Council or universal Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers hold it a thing highly probable that either Christian Religion or the Catholik Church of Rome is fallible Doth the Scripture favour any where this wild Assertion No not one syllable is found to that purpose we have texts enough to the contrary some I shall quote on a fitter occasion You will ask what then is it that Mr. Pooles proves against us in the fourth Chapter of his Nullity I answer just nothing His whole strain is thus After much tampering with those convincing places of holy Scripture usually alledged for the Churches Infallibility and spoiling all with his fallible fancies he goes negatively to work and tell 's us Such and such texts turned out of their genuine sense by his glosses come not home nor prove any Church infallible and it is no wonder for as perverted by him they are none of Gods Scripture but his own scribled whimsies Take here one instance for many that text of S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. 15. where the Church is stiled the pillar and ground of Truth seem's plain enough open and significant for the Catholik sense Now comes Mr. Poole with his glosses page 86. and saith perhaps here may be an Ellipsis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be writ for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if so Timothy was the pillar not the Church Again The Church here spoken of may be that wherin Timothy was placed not the Roman 3. The term of pillar notes the solidity not the infallibility of the Church 4. It may note the Churches Duty not her practise with a long c. Observe wel Vpon these wretched fallible suppositions Mr. Poole seem's to conclude that those words are unconcluding for the Infallibility of any Christian society Put I ask by what Authority must I suppose his Ellipsis or that the Church spoken of was Timothy's Church not the Vniversal That the term pillar notes not the Infallibility c Doth God speak thus in Scripture or rather doth not Mr. Poole vent these wild Fancies without Scripture or any unquestioned Authority This later is most evident And can he think by such farfetcht glosses either to rob the Apostle of his plain obvious sense or to make me believe that his guesses hit right on Gods true meaning delivered in this text If he reply the meaning may be as he guesses I answer and it may not be as he guesses Who is here to judge between us Who can tell me that Mr. Pools May be is a prop sure enough to build my faith upon He is therfore to show positively by a Propositio quiescens that is by some cogent proof and undoubted Authority that S. Pauls words must be understood as he glosses and consequently is obliged to make good some one of these desperate Propositions Christ Iesus hath now no infallible Religion taught or learned in the Christian world All Christian Societies are fallible That holy and universal Church mentioned in the Creed is fallible c. But to wave such proofs to lay hold on a Text in Scripture and torture it as he pleaseth and after the misusage to tell us the Text proves nothing is only to sport with Gods Word and say that Scripture made no Scripture by whole heaps of fallible glosses is proofles The foundation is good but the superstructure is naught Give me the strongest place in Scripture for any Article of Christian faith I can by pidling at the Text with unevidenced glosses both so pervert and poyson the words that at last they speak haeresy Yet on such unproved conjectures Protestant Religion stands and can never have better footing while Gods unwritten Word is rejected and no infallible Teacher is allowed of that learn's us Truth One word more and I end Had those two Gallants Luther and Calvin when they took upon them to reform the darkned world of Popery thus allarm'd their Hearers My Masters We Preach indeed a new Gospel upon the best conjectures we are able but you must know that all we say is fallible How sick would such a saying have made the strongest stomack amongst them For if fallible if uncertain Doctrin it was none of Christ Iesus Doctrin and therfore stood in need of a more pure refining And how know our Protestants but that yet a new sort of People may start-up and make it their task to reform all the fallible Reformers that have troubled the world since Luthers dayes Had I no other just exception against our Protestants but thus much only That they yet know not where about They are in their reformation and because fallible can never know whether for example the thing they have in hand be yet a meer Embrio of Religion or of a more perfect shape a new layd egg or a hatcht chicken whether they themselves are yet only Novices Proficients or Masters in the trade of Reformation I say were there no more This alone would fright me from ever being Protestant Believe it the Professors of an uncertain and endles reformable Religion shall never come to settlement till they renounce the cheat and Believe as the Apostle teaches ad Gal. 1. 8. Licet nos c. Altough we or Angel from heaven preach otherwise to you then we have preached to you let him be accursed which is fully to say Believe him not And here by the way observe how destructive these words are of an uncertain and fallible teaching in matters of Religion for admit which Mr. Poole grants that all Christian Communities all Councils all Fathers all Tradition c. deliver only Fallible Doctrin that is Doctrin lyable to errour I only may not but am obliged to disbelieve this Truth of S. Paul and believe him or an Angel sent from heaven if either of them preached contrary to this fallible Learning Why Doctrin that is fallible may be false but the preaching of an Angel sent from heaven cannot be false and therfore is more certain then Christian Doctrin that may be false But I am obliged to quit the lesse certain Doctrin for the most certain preaching of an Angel
can be proved by Scripture Again No man call's into doubt the Objective Verities contained in Scripture known as such But here is the difficulty whether the new invented Interpretations made on Scripture by Sectaries be true or false and if false They have no Infallible Oracle to amend the Errour as the Catholick Teacher hath 5. I answer secondly S. Paul methinks layes foundation enough to solve the Objection Rom. 10. 15. How shall They preach unles they he sent Why therfore may we not assert That every Catechist every Preacher that hath a lawful Mission and is sent by the Infallible Church to preach Christs sacred Doctrin if he preach that Doctrin which Christ and his Church approves of is then under that Notion of a Member conjoyned with an Infallible Church Infallible in his Teaching Though all vulgar taught Doctrin is not such Now Ministers who are unsent men and therfore divorced from this infallible Moral Body cannot but talk as they do Fallibly 6. I would not have any to mistake my meaning Know therfore first I do not say That this or that Pastor purely considered as a Pastor is infallible in all he Teaches Nor secondly That either Councils assembled or particular Bishops are by any intrinsick inherent quality elevated to a state of Insallibility But thirdly I affirm That God who according to Christs promise will ever guide his Church in Truth cannot permit All the Pastors and Teachers in it to swerve from Carholick Doctrin For if so The whole Catholick Church might erre which is contrary to Pastors lawfully sent teach Infallible Doctrin infallibly Christs promise Hence I say fourthly Every Bishop or Pastor though not Personally infallible yet when he is sent to preach Christs Doctrin and complies with his Duty That is when he Teaches Nothing but what he hath commission to teach in the Name of God and his Church such a man I say considered as a nember conjoyned with an Infallible Church in the Delivery of Christs Verities may be sayd to teach infallibly For upon this supposition he doth not only speak Truth as it were by chance An Haeretick may do so But more as he speak's in the name of God and his Church He teaches as the Church teacheth that is infallibly The Reason is Manifest in Catholick Principles Because the Holy Ghost ever Assists some Pastors in the Catholick Church to teach true Christian Doctrin and 't is as certain that Those he Assists teach it infallibly Therfore a Pastor Prelate or Bishop that Delivers Christs Doctrin as is now declared teaches Infallibly You will say This Pastor or that Bishop may trough malice ignorance Objections answered or both swerve from Truth I grant it but then he teaches not as one of Gods Ministers not complies with his Mission You will say again Thus much at least followes out of this Principle That a Bishop when he Teaches as lawfully sent is at that instant as infallible as the Pope when he Defines in Council or to speak in Mr. Pooles homely language hath a Pope in his belly I answer Every faithful Bishop may have as Infallible Faith as the Pope what wonder is it therfore if when he Teaches as both Pope and the Church teach he be then sayd to Teach infallibly Yet there is a great Disparity between the Pope and particular Pastors Bishops c. For no particular Bishop can make any new Declarations of Faith obligeing all Christians to believe The Pope with a Council can do so No particular Bishop precisely considered as such is infallible For he may Teach to day as one lawfully sent and to morrow erre by ignorance yea and Malice also But the Pope considered as Pope and Christs Vicar on Earth can never Define in Councils but Infallibly and therfore his Assistance is in a higher measure certain and supereminently Infallible 7. The last ground of this Doctrin which great Devines The whole Church consisting of Pastors c. is infallible assert is That the whole Church of Christ which consists of Pastors and Hearers of Teachers and Learners Antecedently to Pope and Council Conciliarily assembled together is infallible For the Promises of Christ ever Assisting the Church Primarily belong to this whole moral Body which cannot erre Against this Church Hell gates shall never prevail with it The Spirit of Truth shall re main foor ever c. Now this Infallibility cannot but remain and stand fast in the members of this mystical Body not in Pastors only for it avails little that These teach infallibly if none learn their infallible Doctrin nor in Hearers only because they learn not infallible Doctrin without a Teacher Infallibility then accompanies both Pastors and Hearers How Pastors and Hearers are infallible As therfore These believing Hearers conjoyned in Faith with this infallible Church are under That notion infallible no Catholick can deny it so likewise these Believing Pastors as conjoynd in Doctrin with this unerring Church and Teaching what the Church Teaches under that notion are infallible in their Doctrin Yet as I now intimated there is a great Difference between the Representative Church of a Pope and Council lawfully and Conciliarily assembled and particular Pastors Particular Christians and Particular Churches For the Representative Particular Pastors may erre Church because of the powerful Assistance of the Holy Ghost cannot swerve from Truth in its Definitions but this Pastor that Teacher that Particular Church may swerve altogether cannot though under the notion of a Pastor sent to teach the Infallible Doctrin of Christ and his Church he Teaches infallibly Separate him from this moral Body he looseth Assistance and cannot but teach Fallibly though he speak Truth by chance consequently he is none of Christs Teachers for Christ never impowred any to teach Fallible Doctrin that may be false You will say separate a Minister from the Truth of the Gospel and he is also no Teacher Alas he separat's himself For he hath no Mission to preach as he doth and moreover Professeth that he can teach nothing infallibly But of this more afferward In the interim 8. To cut of all reply to the Argument I propose it thus No man that is by nature lyable to errour or wants God's special Divine Assistance in his teaching and Positively renounceth all infallible Societies of Christian Teachers can teach with certainty Christs Infallible Doctrin But all men now at least in being are by nature lyable to errour want this special Assistance in their Teaching and must as Mr. Poole will have it positively renounce all infallible Societies of Christian Teachers Therfore no man can Teach with certainty or deliver the Infallible Doctrin of Christ The Major is evident For he who by nature is lyable to errour and hath not infallible Men wanting infallible Assistance to teach cannot deliver Christs Doctrin infallibly Assistance to Teach infallibly or wants the Guidance of an infallible Society to Direct him may as easily erre and
of Fierce and cruel hath made Tractable of an Extortioner Liberal of a filthy Speaker fair spoken and of an unchast liver shamefast And I will shew you many who are grown Wors then they were before Thus Erasmus 15. Miracles the most glorious marks of Truth Miracles the most glorious Marks of Christs Church manifested in our Saviour Iohn 15. 24. wrought by his Apostles Mark 16. 17. and amply promised to those who Believe in Christ Iohn 14. 12. The Roman Catholick Church hath from Age to Age undeniably Evidenced and she only if we speak of clear and undoubted Miracles I mean of such as answer in Analogy and Proportion to our Saviours works The Blind se the Lame walk The Lepers are cleansed the Deaf hear the Dead rise c. These are the Churches Miracles Never had our Protestants or other Haereticks any like them Read Coccius and Bellarmin of Martin Luthers and Calvins famous Miracles The story is notoriously known I wave it 16. Of Ancient Miracles se Irenaeus advers Haeret. Of ancient Miracles lib. 2. cap. 57. St. Ambros Serm. 91. St. Austin lib. 22. de Civit. cap. 8. Theodoret in his 8. Books de curan Graec. Affect St. Hierom against Vigilantius Ruffinus St. Gregory with Of Modern Miracles others And for the more Modern be pleased only to read Iustus Lipsius a man of Credit and Reputation in his 3. Tome Antwerpe print anno 1637. towards the end with these Titles Diva Virgo Hallensis Diva Sichemiensis It is but time cast away to say more on this Subject most largely handled by our Writers who produce their Proofs answer to all contrary Cavils and cite their Authors of unquestioned Authority Both for pass't and present Miracles 17. And here because we mention Cavils read first I beseech you those Sacred Words of our Saviour Iohn 14. 12. Amen Amen I say unto you he that Believes in me the works that I do shall he do also Cavils of Sectaries against Miracles and greater works then those shall he do c. Next he pleased to say whether he Cavils not that Asserts these great Works and Wonders to have ceased after the time of Christ and his Apostles when not only approved History relates them but Reason also pleads strongly for their Continuance in ensuing Ages For had these Glorious marks of Truth failed in the Church as our Protestants would have it Because they have none Why Miracles continue in the Church Christian Faith ere this day believe it would have grown cold in the Harts of thousands and thousands Therfore to prevent Incredulity the Wise Providence Miracles still necessary of God rowseth them up and quickens their Belief with these forcible Incitements which neither Infidels can Deny nor Haereticks Own Again Miracles were necessary in the Beginning of the Church to demonstrate the Verity of Christian Religion against Iewes and Infidels But there is the like Necessity of them still for these mens Conversion All are not yet Reclaimed nor will Believe Scripture without farther Evidence 18. The Cavils of Sectaries against Miracles are Objection answered briefly reduced to these Heads Some say They are done by the help of the Devil First how know they that 2. Such was the cours and untrue Language of the Iewes against Christ Luk 11. v. 15. He cast out Devils and Devils help't him 3. Why are not such Miracles wrought by Arians or other Haereticks who surely come neerer Devillish Doctrin then Catholicks They object again We know not by Infallible and Certain Faith that these Miracles recounted in history were done I answer No more did the Primitive Christians who beheld Christs Miracles know them by Faith For they first saw them and afterward Believed We have therfore Indubitable moral Assurance of these wonders and that 's enough They say 3. Many Miracles are Fained and perhaps not truly related To the first I answer Gentils might have in like manner Cavilled at Christs The Gentils might have Cavilled at Christs Miracles as Sectaries do at the Churches own Miracles and said they were Fained yea and at true Scripture also Because counterfeit Gospels have been writ Know then we speak not here of either Fained or Doubtful Miracles But of such as are Clear Visible most severely examined Attested upon oath And manifestly proved before they receive warrant from either Church or Prelate We We rely on no doubtful Miracles have innumerable of These 19. To the second I answer Though Miracles only recounted in History are les assured then others approved by the Church yet it is a degree of madnes to deny them all And if some only of those many be True we have our Intent By the way pray you observe a pretty Humor of our Protestants If these Sectaries believe fables and deny Credit to Authentick History men read a Story though never so Unauthentik to the disgrace of a Pope of a Prelate of the Clergy or Religious Praedicant Clamitant They noise it all abroad and vent it openly in Print as most pretious ware And all are bound to believe it But when a very Saint or a choise Historian writ's of a Miracle Tell 's the Time the Place the Circumstances and make it morally Indubitable That is decry'd as an Imposture a Dream a forg'd Tale a meer Fiction and what not Is this think ye Evangelical Sincerity They object 4. Both Heathens and Haereticks had Miracles amongst them Mr. Poole I think somewhere Triflles with the Wonders of Heathens and Apollonius Tyanaeus Ergo They are not Signs of Truths Observe first how the Argument if of any Strength strikes with equal force at Christs Miracles as it doth at the Churches I answer therfore with St. Austin The few seeming Miracles of Heathens or Haereticks The Miracles of Heathens and Haereticks not comparable with those of the Church are not comparable to those of the Church either in Power Greatnes Continuance splendor or Majesty These as far go beyond the other in Worth and Excellency as the raysing of a dead man to life surpasses the taking a little water in a sieve or cutting of a whetstone asunder with a Rasor all sleight work fesible by Conjurers and the Devils help and much of that nature of those Egyptian wonders done before Moyses Whence it is that Blessed St. Austin little esteem'd the Donatists Miracles and those of other Haereticks Aut falluntur aut fallunt saith the Saint they either are deceived or deceive Se him in his Hom. 13. in Ioannem and more de Civitat lib. 10. c. 16. and in his Book de Vtilit cred c. 16. Concerning the name of Catholick which Protestants never had nor Those they Nick-name Papists a word newly coyned with their Gospel ever yet lost Read St. Austin contra Epist fondam cap. 4. and de utilit cred cap. 7. Christianus mihi nomen est said the Ancient Pacianus Catholicus cognomen illud me nuncupat istud ostendit Christian is
my Name and Catholick my Surname that indeed names me but this declares what I am And in both these we Catholicks Glory CHAP. XI Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of These declared Motives 1. WE have seen already both the Weaknes and Two Churches very different Strength the Obscurity and Glory of two different Churches Protestant and Catholick The first pittifully Naked The other richly Adorned with such Noble Marks of Truth as force Reason to give a final Sentence and say If Religion be in the world it must be found amongst those Christians who demonstrate it Credible with most urgent and convincing Motives But this Catholick Religion only doe's and not Protestancy For Protestants I Assert it boldly have not so much as one Rational Motive much les the complexum of all now related that works upon Prudence and Antecedently to their new Faith makes them Believe as they do If They have any such my earnest petition is to hear of Them or se them clearly layd forth to the Reason of other men or if They fail in this as of necessity they must let them Speak the plain Truth Viz. That all They Write and Preach is lost labor whilst they go about to draw Rational men to a Religion for which there is no Reason And 2. Here I answer to the trivial Talk of Protestants pretending to follow Reason in all they Believe and once more Assert They have nothing like a shadow Protestants have no shadow of Reason for their new Religion of Reason previous to their Faith either for their new Religion in General or any particular Tenent in it To prove my Assertion We must distinguish between the prudent Inducements that draw one to Believe and the Elicit Act of Faith it self These Inducement Precede Faith and are properly the Object of Discours Faith solely relyes on Gods Revealed Testimony without the mixture of Reason for its Motive The Previous motives well pondered bring with them an Obligation of Believing and not Faith it self For no man saith I am obliged to believe Because I believe But therfore I believe Because antecedently to my Faith I find my self obliged upon Prudent Reasons to believe as I do Thus much supposed 3. Make a search into all the Motives imaginable that may Prudently induce a Seeker after Truth to embrace Protestant Religion you shall find nothing proposed to Reason That hath the Appearance of Reason in it For example Ask first in General upon what Motive Extrinsecal to their Faith do these men own Protestancy as the only true and pure Religion Why dare they so boldly prefer it before the Faith of the long standing Catholick Church yea or before that of their homebred Sectaries of Quakers and Independents Silence will prove the best Answer They can Shew no Motive at all Perhaps we may hear them say They reject the Ancient Church because of its Errors and Novelties If so They first lamentably beg the question and Suppose that which is yet to be Proved 2. They answer not to the Difficulty For grant which is utterly false that the Church hath erred we ask not here for Arguments to Refute those Errors But inquire after Rational and perswasive Motives wherby Truth is proved to stand on the Protestant side A poor A poor Comfort to learn that my Religion is not good unles Sectaries prove theirs to be better Comfort God know's it is for me To hear from a Protestant that my Religion is not Right unles upon weighty Reasons He convince me that his is better For say I If the old Religion be naught This new one may be worse and more erroneous Sectaries are therfore oblig'd to bring in palpable Evidences wherby their Religion is positively demonstrated Credible and only the best which shall never be done 4. If yet to answer the Difficulty They take post Recourse to Scripture clear's not the difficulty to Scripture for Proof of their Religion They are out of the way and at the Conclusion before they put the Premises For in this place we make no inquiry after their formal act of Faith nor the immediate Object therof we know well their Answer But only Protestants have no Motives to believe contrary to the Church Or contrary to the Quakers Ask for the Rational Motive perceptible by all that preced's Faith and Prudently obligeth them to believe contrary both to the Ancient Church and their own honest Quakers And this if the Reply be pertinent must be evidenced Before they talk of a new Faith grounded on Scripture Had the Primitive Christians when they left of Judaism and Beleived Christ been Ask't Why they received Christs Doctrin and preferred that before their old Religion They would have answered The blind se the lame walk the dead arise c. We behold strange Wonders with our eyes which powerfully work upon Reason and cannot but proceed from God When therfore our Protestants deserted the Ancient Church and taught a new Faith contrary to it certainly some visible Apparent wonder A new Religion must have Signs of Truih and weighty Inducements some perswasive Sign of Truth should have ushered it in and sounded the Trumpet before these new Preachers All convinced by Reason should have cry'd out Here is Antiquity here is Vnity in Doctrin here we se the Pedigree of our Ancient Church Shew'd forth Now and not before our Eyes behold most glorious and undoubted Miracles God certainly speak's by these new men c. But when we look about us and find nothing to countenance this unknown Faith which like a Stranger came amongst us when we hear a Novelty preached without either Sign Motive or Inducement to make it Credible When we se a new Religion brought Words only given in by uncommissioned men upon their bare parole and unproved Fancies only what can we think But that both Arians and Pelagians yea and all condemned Haereticks have evidenced as strongly their old Errors by a verbal venting of them as Protestants do now their new Gospel For beside Words you have nothing to warrant it 5. Perhaps they will say They are a part of Christianity Old Motives no more for Protestants then for Arians and Therfore the old Motives belong to them I answer No more then to Arians or Pelagians who went as well under the name of Christians as Protestants do O But their Religion now professed is the Faith of the Primitive Church I dare swear it the Arians and our modern Quakers will yet A claim to the Primitive Faith no received Principle say as boldly They believe exactly the very Doctrin which pure Scripture Teaches But there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vast distance between saying and proving what is said by a Rational satisfactory and received Principle I say therfore their bare Assertion of holding the Primitive Faith which we utterly deny is so far from being either a probable or convincing Principle for
they Preach and teach They only can shew to all the World their Popes their Bishops their Pastors their Doctors who successively have taught and governed Christs Flock since the Beginning of Christianity They and only And glorious Marks of a long standing Church they shew you a Church marked and made glorious by innumerable known and undoubted Miracles a Faith seal'd with the Blood of innumerable Blessed Martyrs Beautified with such eminent Sanctity and Holynes of life in thousands as hath caused Admiration to very Infidels and drawn in no few to follow the like Austerity Such are the Inducements which plead strongly for the Roman Catholick Religion and no other They fully convince Reason and prove That if God as I noted above can conquer Infidelity and Haeresy by the force of prudential Motives here they are seen If ever he spoke by As God spake anciently by his Prophets and Apostles he speak's now by the Church the mouth of his Prophets or Apostles he speak's now by the mouth of this one and only Society of Christians yea and he yet useth as I may say the same powerful Language For if the miracles of our Blessed Lord and of his Apostles if their efficacious Doctrin their Sanctity of life their Blood shedding were Conviction enough to Infidels in those days They are now as forceable in the Church and as manifest to our Senses Which caused that Blessed man Richard de S. Victore lib. 1. de Trin. c. 2. to exclaim Si error est quem credidimus à te decepti sumus If it be error we Believe it is you who have deceived us Iis enim signis c. For with such Signs this Doctrin is confirmed which can proceed from none but you only If we speak of unquestioned Miracles as are the Resuscitation of dead men More since the times of the Apostles have been raised from death to life then in the Primitive Age. To deny these miracles is is to deny all History which supplyes the want of senses in Those who saw them not To owm them to disown Protestancy and profess plain Popery Our new men Therfore speak at random when they talk of I know not what Abstracted Evidences for Christian Religion and Tell us that the Motives for Scripture are agreed on by all I answered above No Evidence for Christian Religion in general nor for Scripture but by the Church There neither are nor can be Motives for Christian Religion in general if the word Christian compriseth all professed Haereticks For were it so God would deceive us and make Falshood as credible as Truth No Motives can evidence Scripture unles they first evidence a Church that indubitably gives us certain Scripture Which is to say in other Terms All Motives as well for the verity of Christian Faith as Scripture are only to be found in the Roman Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians If Protestants can prove their Faith or Scripture by so much as a likelyhood of either These now Named Sectaries are obliged in Conscience to make their Motives known or any better Inducements They are obliged in Conscience to make them known that men at last may se that clear Light of the Gospel wherof they endlesly talk in their Pulpits True Candor and Sincerity cannot but speak plainly to this Point without intricate Tergiversation if so much as a spark of zeal lives in their Harts and Rational Motives do not fail them We expect a candid answer CHAP. XIII Protestancy for want of Rational Motives dishonor's Christ and makes way for any new coyned Haeresy 1. I prove the Assertion That Religion highly Protestancy dishonor's Christ dishonors Christ which must of Necessity confess That a False erroneous Church is more eminently glorious and better marked with all evident Signs of Truth then that pure Orthodox Religion is which Christ hath now established in the world But Protestants must confess thus much And to prove my Minor ad hominem I need no more But two Proved by their owne Principles certain Principles of their own One is The Roman Catholick Religion hath been at least for a thousand years Erroneous yea some say Anti-Christian it still contradict's the Primitive Doctrin Holds an Unbloody Sacrifice Transubstantiation Purgatory c. contrary to Scripture Such Doctrins gave Sectaries just cause as they say to leave this Church and Lash us so severly as they have done to pull down our Monasteries to Bannish the Ancient Clergy to Ruin those who professed our Religion They were not meer Trifles nor petty mistakes which made our kind harted Countrymen to use us so unkindly Here is my first Principle granted by Protestants The second is as clear viz. That their new Religion of Protestancy as it stands now Reformed is the pure true and most Orthodox Christian Religion For set this and the Primitive Church aside of three or four hundred years continuance You never yet had say they any Society of men that taught purely Christs Doctrin No God wot a Deluge of Popish Errors overran Christianity for a thousand years together until these later men brought unto us the Joyful Tydings of their Refined Gospel 2. Upon these two undeniable Suppositions you shall plainly se what an Eternal Disgrace what Affronts Protestants will needs put upon our Dearest Saviour do what we can to hinder them He Blessed Lord founded a Church it cost him dear the Effusion of his Sacred Blood and promised us an Indeficient glorious Church to be raised out of all Nations yet after all these ample Promises he hath A glorious Church promised and an obscure one shewed us of Protestancy given us a pittiful one indeed no better a Thing then Protestancy which is utrerly disgraced obscur'd dishonor'd and quite put down by the Majesty the Miracles the Antiquity the Vnity the Sanctity of that Church which must now forsooth be stiled False Erroneous and Antichristian If this pass for current Doctrin you have with it sport enough for the How Christ is dishonored Devil and Protestants only make it Who upon their warrant may most justly reproach both Christ and his Church and thus powerfully plead at the bar of Reason Saviour of the world My false Popish Anti-Christian Church hath stood a thousand years in Error How the Devil may plead and most rationally if Protestants speak Truth yours of Protestancy only a hundred in Truth Mine both is and hath been Universally spread the whole World over yours yet see 's little out of some few corners in Europe My Church hath had most learned General Councils yours never any Mine produceth a long continued Succession of Popes of Bishops of Pastors yours not a man before Luther Mine is glorious with those very Notes and Marks of Truth which you manifested in your own Sacred Person and induced Infidels to Believe you Your late Congregation shewes nothing like them My false Church Fasteth Prayeth Contemplat's Converts more then
Papists erred in Doctrin They might more easily have erred in corrupting Scripture Purity or say it is the Word of God and not corrupted by These erring Papists For These men who erred in Doctrin might as well have insinuated errors into the Book of Scripture They had time enough to do it These men who changed the Ancient Primitive Faith of Christianity might as perfidioufly have Altered the Bible They wrought secretly a fals Belief into mens harts concerning an unbloody Sacrifice Transubstantiation c. And why might they not as cunningly have foisted into Scripture Words and Sentences suitable to such supposed errors Believe It is easier to corrupt â— dead book then to pervart innumerable living men it it is much easier to corrupt a dead Book then to pervert so many living Christians and bring them to a Belief of so palpable hideous and erroneous Novelties 5. Here then is my Dilemma Either the Catholick A Dilemma Church had erred when Luther and Protestants took the Book of Scripture from it or was pure in Doctrin If pure Most wicked were They for deserting it If the Church had then erred or was corrupted in Doctrin Neither Luther nor any Protestant can have Affurance that they read yet True Scripture For all the Certainty They can have of this Book is miserably uncertain and at last Comes to this doubtful Iudgement It may be we have true Scripture It may be and more likely not God only An unanswerable Argument knows All depend's on an Erroneous Church that gave us Scripture which might as well in the vast compass of a thousand years have guilfully changed this our Book from its Ancient Truth as cheated Christianity into a fals Belief 6. Some may yet say All now Agree as well Catholicks as Protestants upon the Verity and Integrity of Scripture Therfore its needles for many Books at least to Question this point farther I answer Protestants destroy the very Ground of Certainty Catholicks agree well Becaus they take this Book upon the Warrant of Christs never erring Church which cannot Deceive them But Protestants who Ruin this Ground of Infallibility destroy with it all Certainty of scripture in order to themselves Their Agreement therfore is no more but Verbal whilst the Principle which supports a Real one is shaken a pieces by them Hence you se How Mr. Poole speaks at Catholicks Confession no Proof of the Truth of Scripture to Mr. Poole random when he Tell 's us He knows Scripture to be the Word of God Becaus Catholicks confess and acknowledge so much I answer first Their Testimony with him is worth nothing For They had before he was born lost all Credit by introducing fals Doctrin into the Christian World and why not say I as well a fals Bible Such Doctrins He dares not admit of upon the Testimony of Catholicks yet With no colour of reason do Protestants Admit of a Bible upon the Churches Testimony and reject her Testimony in other matters He will Kiss their Hands and Take from them such a Bible as They are pleased to give him 2. The Testimony of Catholicks in this particular is with him Fallible and may be Fals But a Testimony that may be fals can never give any Assurance of True Scripture which of necessity must be had or none can ground Faith upon it 3. Mr. Poole is pittifully out in all he saith For he neither Doth nor can Admit of Scripture upon the Confession or Testimony of Catholicks Why Catholicks hold Scripture to be The Church holds her own Testimony Infallible Mr. Poole rejects this therfore he makes null the Churches Testimony to himself the Word of God Becaus the Infallible Church of Christ Assures them it is Gods Word This infallible Testimony of the Church Mr. Poole utterly Disown's and Therfore he must of necessity by his own Principles Reject the Catholick Testimony 7. Other perhaps will say That God by Special Providence ever preserved Scripture pure in all Essentials Though He permitted the Church to deceive Souls and lead them into Error What an Antiscriptural Assertion have we Here How is God Affronted What a lame and half Providence is granted him Sectaries affront God by allowing him no more Then a half Providence What no more but only to have care of a Book to secure That from falshood and in the interim to Permit his own immaculate Spouse his Church which Scripture should instruct to play the Harlot to Deceive the World and err Damnably O but what er'e becom's of the Church we must say our Protestants have True and incorrupt Scripture or no man can know what he is to Believe I answer And we must either have a True and incorrupt Church or none can be Assured of True and incorrupt Scripture It avail's little to have Verities shut up in a Bible if the Church erred in delivering them to Christians Say I beseech you what doth it avail Christianity to have the Pure letter of Scripture clos'd up in a Bible and preserved from Error if Christians Universally had been as it were Deserted by Almighty God and permitted before Protestants appeared in the World to Err in the very Substantials of Faith delivered in Scripture Yet it was so For confessedly not only those Antient condemned Haereticks as Arians Protestants say all Christians erred for a thousand years Pelagians Donatists and the Later Graecians but also that great moral body of Catholicks if our Protestants say true Erred in the very Fundamentals of Faith Since they Taught as they do still their Church to be Infallible an unbloody Sacrifice c. Gross errors therfore Reign'd amongst them whether we suppose the Scripture Pure or corrupted Imagin then which is utterly Fals Though Haereticks cannot prove it fals That our Scripture had been corrupted They had then Erred becaus the Book was falsified Suppose again which is True that Scripture is not corrupted you have still the same Effect which is Error in Doctrin drawn out of the very Words of pure Scripture The Reason surely is Becaus the Church did not rightly understand Scripture if so you se how Scripture not understood as easily begett's Errors as Error equally prejudicial whether it be caused by a false Church or falsified Scripture if it were corrupted What then matters it in Reference to poor beguiled Souls whether these great supposed Errors arise from Scripture misunderstood or Scripture corrupted Error is Error and alike Prejudicial in both cases I say therfore It is as great an Evil to have a Church that should teach Truth to deceive the world in bringing in a Deluge of Errors to the Ruin of the Ancient Primitive Faith as to have a Bible corrupted For 't is Error and fals Doctrin wrought in mens Harts That undoes them Now whether That be caused by a fals Church or falsified What Sectaries ought to fear Scripture it imports little Our Protestants Affirm the first and may
justly Fear the second God say they permitted the Church to Err and he may say I as well have permitted it to Vitiat Scripture They say Errors Insensibly grew up in the Church And I say they might as Insensibly have crept into Scripture Be it how you will from this Old erring Church Our New men suppose They received pure sincere and uncorrupted Scripture just as the Holy Ghost writ it A meer Impossibility For never greater Chimaera was fancied then to couple a Fals Church and True Scripture together â—â— True Scripture and a Vniversal fals erring Church 8. Some perhaps may say The Arians Donatists and other Haereticks had and have still True Scripture though they erred in Doctrin I answer No God a mercy to them For if They have True Scripture They may thank an unerring Church that preserved it uncorrupt before Heresy began and after But grant me No assurance of true Scripture if all Erred universally once as our Protestants do that both Haereticks and Catholicks likewise universally erred in Doctrin most Fundamental no man can now have Assurance of True Scripture O but the Unanimous Voice of all Christians Affirming Scripture to be the Word of God and pure without corruption is a Weighty moral Proof for its Integrity I answer none at all For if no Society of Christians unerrable and sound in Doctrin had that book in Custody The old Papists might for ought Protestants know have either by Chance or Fraud changed words in Scripture For example Those words Matt. 26. This is my body from what they once were This is a sign of my body and the Cheat was to maintain their Doctrin of the Real Presence But you will ask how could this be done I have told you By Malice or Inadvertency But when could it be done I answer in that Could Sectaries say when Papists first became Idolaters They might be informed concerning these Corruptions very Age Year or Month when these Papists first began to be Idolaters and worship a piece of Bread for God Then it might well be don Name that age Exactly and you have all Our new men Answer This Idolatry was brought in amongst us But they knew not When it began with such Secrecy and Silence This Text of Scripture therfore I say might have been corrupted with like Secrecy Though no man knows when And here by the way observe a strange Paradox of our Protestants So notorious a known A Strange Paradox of Protestants Novelty as this supposed Idolatry is which might most justly have Struck Terror into all mens Harts Visibly entred a Church diffused the whole World over yet none neither Friend nor Foe saw it cryed out against it or Has left it upon Record And one single Particle of Scripture cannot be changed but all must know it How can these two Consist together You will say The Primitive Church was Pure and so preserved true Scripture How do our Protestants know so much if it was Fallible Thus much of an Argument ad hominem which I desire Mr. Poole to Answer not to mistake As he may do if he think my endeavor is to prove Scripture corrupted in any Substantial Point no! 'T were Blasphemy to say it The Argument therfore proceeds from the Protestants fals Supposition yet true with them that the Church is fallible and has erred Then I say None of them can have Assurance of their Bible or of True incorrupt Scripture CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher 1. HEre is my second Proposition And nothing can be more evident might he Evidence of a known Truth prevail with Wilful men Arians we see are against Protestants in the Essentials of Faith Protestants against Catholicks and They against Both. All of them Acknowledge Scripture to be Gods Word Sectaries deny the Plainess of Scripture yet every one in practise Denies the Perspecuity and Plainess of it For if plain Why stand they at Variance with one another about this Plainess Protestants Doctrin is plainly delivered in the 39. Articles The Arians Doctrin is plainly in Their Writings The Catholick Doctrin most plainly in every Catechism No Advers party Impugn's these Doctrins for want of a plain Expression but for want of Truth It is quite contrary in Scripture for He were a Devil that should mention the want of Truth in Gods Word yet you see most Learned men vary about this Clearnes seek for it and cannot find it Though I have partly given the Reason Hereof yet Becaus the matter requires it I shall now add a word more for a further Explication 2. All know that the Objective Verities writ in Holy Objective Verities and the belief of them different Scripture and the Belief of those Verities in a Christians Hart are to be distinguished By the first God speak's to us By the second we yeild Belief to his Word All know likewise That if my Belief be true Faith it must say Exactly and expres that in mente which God speak's in Scripture neither more nor les And this is Saving Faith not the Objective Verities not saving Faith Objective Verity as it lyes in Scripture For if that could save us it would be enough to put a Bible in ones Pocket And say here is the Faith that saves me Though I know not what is in it or Believe Amiss Thus much is clear without Dispute in an Orthodox and an Arian whilst they turn to that passage of Scripture and Read I and my Father are one Both of them have the same Objective Verity before their eyes But the One only hath the True Belief of it in his Hart. Observe now How darkly Scripture speak's in this one great Fundamental Article And how easily we may swerve from One Instance of Scriptures Obscurity this Revealed Truth without an Infallible Interpreter For the words precisely considered may either signify unity in Affection as appears Iohn 17. v. 21. 22. or a Consubstantial unity and in this Indifferency to several Sectaries gloss The Church Interpret's senses lyes their Obscurity To Clear all and make them speak a Full sense the Arian superadds his Gloss and draws out of the Text as also from that other Iohn 1. 5. 7. no more but a Vnity in Affection only which is Haeresy The Catholick Interpretation teacheth a Consubstantial Vnity or One-nes in Essence and 'T is true Faith yet is no more formal expres Scripture then that of the Arian For Consubstantiality is no where Formally read in Scripture However it is believed and ground 's our Faith whilst the Arians Gloss is rejected And why hath it this Preference think ye Why is it better then the Arians No other Reason can be rendred but a most True one Viz. That the Church doth not only fully Express the Objective Verity darkly couch'd in Scripture But also Delivers this Full and clearer sense Infallibly For I say If the Churches Interpretation
moves and draws men to Believe Be it how you will Protestants cannot prove that the Operation of Grace is their peculiar inheritance though indeed our Protestants have an odd Spirit They cannot shew probably That the Operation of Gods Divine Grace is more their peculiar Inheritance then others who Believe contrary to them But of this hereafter In the Interim note That in the Discours hitherto we inquire not so much after the Reason of Protestants for the Canon of Scripture as for its Sense in Points of Controversy Wherof you will se more in the next Chapter CHAP. VI. The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture which proves the Churches Infallibility is more Amply Refuted 1. WE noted above That it much Avail's when Sectaries take a liberty of glossing Scripture as they please to urge them to a Proof of their Interpretations By this close Dealing we shall learn much of their Fallacious Spirit and se How they both abuse their Readers and which is worse the Sacred Word of God 2. In the former Discours we Handled that Controversy Scripture most significant for Infallible Teachers concerning the Infallibility of Pastors and Teachers in the Catholick Church To prove the Verity we allege such Express Scripture That I dare affirm the whole Bible speak's no where any Truth of our Christian Faith then This in more plain Catagorical and significant Terms Might The words without patches of vain glosses have their open and obvious Sense 3. For the infallibility then of Living Teachers we cite what Christ said Luk. 10. 16. He that Hears you hears me c. or as the Greek read's and perhaps more significantly Hearing you he Hears me and Argue thus He who hears Christ speak Hear 's a Teacher Arguments for Infallible Teachers subjectively Infallible in Doctrin and Teaching But He who Hear 's those who are pointed at by that particle You Hear 's Christ speak for hearing you he hears me Ergo he Hear 's Teachers subjectively Infallible in their Doctrin and Teaching 4. To this a Grandy amongst our Sectaries Answer 's The gloss of Sectaries That Saying of Christ He that hears you c. was Absolutely true in the Apostles who kept themselves to that which was revealed by Christ But it was only conditionally true mark the Gloss in their Successors id est So long and so far as you speak my words and not your own Observe I say the injury done the Text by a Self-conceited Glosser And he speak's peremptorily it was but conditionally true in their Successors Who saith so Good Sr Christ Or you Prove your Gloss which Overreaches the Text and All the Words which God ever spoke Must I therfore be fooled into a How desperatly fallible men go about to perswade that all Pastors are fallible fals Belief And hold all the Pastors in Christs Church Fallible Becaus you a meer fallible Man are pleased to tell me They were fallible or that All they had was only the Small allowance of a Conditional but of no Absolute Infallibility Evangelical Sincerity requires a proof of an Assertion so newly coyned Produce it A new Sectary may say that the Apostles were only conditionally infallible but Their Suecessors absolutely infallible then and let it be plain Scripture Unles this be done Any New Haeretick may give the quite contrary Gloss to Christs Words And say That the Apostles were only conditionally infallible whilst living with Christ They might be rightly instructed in case they erred But that the following Pastors of the Church were made Absolutely Infallible Becaus they had not the Personal Presence of so good a Master to reclaim them in case they swerved from his Doctrin Thus much is said and only said without Proof And your Gloss good Sr hath no better Proof to enhaunse it But your own Saying which is not worth a rush O But they are strange kind of Sectaries say you who deny the Apostles Infallibility They are so indeed And as strange They are who deny to the true Church Infallible Teachers But this is not what I aym at All I now say is That if such Sectaries appear perhaps amongst you in England They prove Their Assertion as well by venting their Fancies vented without proof by both these Sectaries Glosses upon Christs Words as you do yours You say Those words were only conditionally True in the Apostles Successors But prove nothing They say The Words were conditionall in the Apostles Themselves But absolute in their Successors And prove nothing You are here both alike unles Luthers proof help you out Doctor Martinus Lutherus vult sic habere sic volo sic jubeo You have not more You reply Where the Command is for preaching Matth. 28. the Restraint is added What Restraint None at all When sent as lawful Missioners to preach Christs Doctrin Then They could deliver no Other Doctrin sent by Him and as Members of the Church then founded Herein they could neither go beyond How far the Apostles and true Pastors are Infallible nor fall short of their Commission I say as sent For no man God knows saith that the Apostles or 70. Disciples or the Pastors of the Catholick Church were or are Infallible in every Ordinary matter wherof they casually discoursed 5. Well But the Message These 70. Disciples were sent upon required no Infallible Assistance For they were not to deliver fully Christs Doctrin But only to prepare for it By telling their Hearers That the Kingdom of God is at hand Here is also more then is probable or can be proved For is it probable think ye That these 70. sent to preach reiterated nothing but these few words The Kingdom of God is at hand Is it probable that They were so Toung-tyed as to say nothing at all of this Kingdom of Christs Sacred Virtues or of his Miracles wherby He founded this Kingdom c. Be it how you will They were Infallible at least in the delivery of that Message For had Christ sent by his Eternal Father Personally delivered the Message He had spoken Infallibly But saith the Text He who Hear 's you hear's me Ergo these 70. were Infallible in the Message they delivered You reply again Though the Apostles and those 70. Disciples were supposed infallible Before An obje ∣ ction Christ Ascension yet nothing can be drawn from Hence for the Churches continuall Infallibility First Becaus were Sent abroad by Christ when there were no Infallible Writings containing Christs Doctrin 2. They had sufficient Evidences of Miracles in curing diseases and casting out Devils to attest that Infallibility To this second Answered I answered above That the Church hath the like Evidence of Infallibility by Miracles Casting of Devils c. The first Objection is Proofles Becaus Infallible writings alone make no man Infallible as is evident in all known Haereticks who have Gods Infallible Word yet most certainly pervert it There is therfore as much need of an
of these Places now cited May be as Protestants understand The bare Saying of Sectaries stand's for no proof so I say The contradictory Proposition is every whit as good The Sense May be as Catholicks understand Who must Therfore whilst we are Both yet supposed to stand as it were on equal Terms Determine what God hath absolutely Revealed in these Scriptures I say absolutely For the question here is not what a Particular man may Imagin God to have Spoken But what He hath de facto Spoken The Reason hereof is clear Because God Speak's not in so weighty a Matter as this is to Try mens Wits or to Hear Them tell him Lord such may be the Sense of your words Faith relies not on what private men think God hath revealed Though I cannot say what it is Nor can our Faith Rely on what we only Think He may have Spoken But on what He hath actually Revealed And we have means thanks be to God To know this Absolute Sense as I shall declare in the 9. Chapter where the Objection is fully solved 5. In the mean time be pleased to reflect first That Protestants Glosses as iniurious to Gods Word as Those of the Arians when meer Fallible men Peremptorily put upon Scripture a Sense which They cannot so much as probably prove But by their own Erring guesses only to be the true meaning of the Holy Ghost and this in a matter which Highly concerns Saluation They plainly Injure Gods Sacred Word Protestants are these fallible men and do so Ergo they injure Gods Word The first Proposition is clear in the Case of Arians who Becaus They peremptorily give a Sense to those Scriptures which relate to the Real Vnity of Three Persons in one Divine Essence the matter is of High importance and cannot prove it But by the force of Their Erring Guesses only They wrong both God and his Word The second Proposition is as Evident For The Proof Protestants absolutely say The Scriptures now cited include not yea positively exclude a perpetual infallibility allowed the Church This sense and 't is a Point of highest Importance For the clearing of it End 's all Controversies they cannot prove But by their own Erring guesses only And therfore injure Scripture in saying God hath spoken that which cannot be so much as probably proved was Spoken 6. Reflect 2. It is not enough that Sectaries tell us upon their own fallible Parole That our Places of Sectaries come not home to the difficulty Scripture May be interpreted as they please or come not home to prove the Churches Infallibility For Admit thus much Gratis They yet convince nothing Because it is one thing to say and God knows only to say it our alleged Scriptures for example that of St. Paul The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth prove To say we prove not our Doctrin is not to say They prove the contrary not a Church Infallible and a quite other positively to Teach and prove it to be Fallible The most they can infer out of thiâ— Negative Such places prove not were all granted they desire is that They give the slip to so many Texts of Scripture or infringe so much force of our Proofs Alas This only is to pull as it Their weak endeavour is to pull down not to build up the Machin of their new Doctrin were so much of a House down But it doth not therfore follow that They positively give in as good Texts to the contrary Sense or Build up the Structure of their new Doctrin concerning the Churches Fallibility To pull down one Proof is not to destroy all we can say we have more Strings to our Bow then one much les is it to build up an opposite Doctrin The Machin these Sectaries would fain build lyes in this one positive Assertion The whole Church is Fallible This say I Fancy only Erect's For it stands unprop't Fancy doth all with them That is it neither is nor can nor shall ever be positively proved And hence 7. Reflect 3. If Protestants who rely totally on Scripture Proof Positively Assert as They do That the whole Church is Fallible They are obliged both in Conscience and all Law of Disputation to prove what They say For Asserenti incumbit probatio Observe my reason When Luther and Sectaries came amongst us and troubled the world They heard the voice of a whole Ancient Church against them owning the infallible Assistance of Gods Directing Spirit for which we now argue The Church pleaded thus Olim possideo prior possideo This Spirit of infallibility I long since have had and yet upon Scripture proof do Believe Well Now enter these Sectaries They first reject Church Authority and then make Scripture speak as Fancy pleases and first Reject the Authority of this Ancient Church next They fall abord with our Scriptures And becaus they are good at Guessing They tell us Verily These Scriptures seem not to prove a Church Infallible Becaus They are able to interpret all to a contrary Sense To this we have Answered Their seeming is no proof Withall That Catholicks as Many and Learned as They both can and do interpret them otherwise Hitherto therfore their cause is nothing Advanced More then is necessary And it is That whilst They positively establish a new coyned Doctrin of a whole Christian Church fallible contrary to what Antiquity ever owned I say 't is necessary That they bring some Positive proof and make good Their unheard of Assertion 8. And here we may have plain dealing if Sectaries Protestant have no Text of Scripture against an Infallible Church please Turn then to your Bible Gentlemen and shew me any Text like this The whole Church of Christ is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The Holy Ghost will not ever Teach it all Truth God hath placed Pastors and Doctors in his Church But such as may suffer us to be carried away with every wind of fals Doctrin c. Such Expressions we read in our Bible for the contrary Verity Have you any thing like them in yours to prove your opposite Asserted Doctrin I say any like them For I Press not to have from you the same Formal Words But will be content with one plain significant Text and we will stand to Scripture Or if Scripture please you not we will accompany you to Councils and Fathers which so much as Meanly makes the whole Church of Christ Fallible Such a Scripture I tell you once more you cannot produce Ergo you only vent your Fancies you talk and prove not you believe a Doctrin which you cannot show was ever Revealed in Gods Word You may perhaps trifle it out and Tell us as you are wont to do of our errors de facto It is nothing to the purpose For What we desire of Sectaries we enquire not here after your proofles Assertions They are Answered a hundred times over nor ask what
and all Sectaries would as well Agree in one harmony of Doctrin By force of that clear Interpretation none of Them Denies The clear Sense of Scripture interpreted by Scripture it Self If all agreed in the Sense of Scripture There would be no dissenting as they now agree in owning Scripture to be Divine They accord not in the first therfore Scripture is not its own Interpreter Or if any yet without Proof strongly Assert so much Most Evidently in order to these Dissenting men it is as useles an Interpreter as if it were none at all For it Composeth no Differences Take here one Instance Sectaries to prove Scripture conspicuous and clear without an Interpreter quote these and the like Places Thy word is a Lantern to my feet A Lante◠shining in a dark place c. We answer Scriptures are truely a Light when that outward cover of Ambiguous Words wherin the Sense often lyes Enclosed is broken open by a Faithful Interpreter And withall we add 'T is vainly frivolous to make Them such shining Lamps as to silence all Preaching and Interpretation yet this follows if Sectaries Gloss right For it is ridiculous to interpret or teach that a Lantern shines which I se bright before my Eyes Observe well The Protestant makes Scripture clear without a Teacher The Catholick Interpretation absolutly necessary to Scripture saith Interpretation is Absolutely Necessary Scripture it self Delivers not in Formal Words either the One or Other Gloss Therfore it doth not ever Interpret it self Home or declare its own Meaning Nay it cannot do so For all Interpretation Properly taken is a New More Clear and Distinct Light Superadded to the Formal Words of Scripture But no Hagiographer says This Sacred Book makes any such new Addition of Glosses Therfore it cannot Interpret it self And this is what the Apostle 2. Petri 1. 20. Seem's to teach Scripture is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of its own Explication 4. I say 2. No Private man whether Catholick Arian Protestant or Other can upon his own Discours or Iudgement only so Interpret a Difficil Scripture with Certainty as to Assure any that God Speaks as He Interpret's The Reason is Every Private Judgement is Fallible and lyable to Error which Truth that of the Apostle Romans 3. Omnis homo mendax Teaches But a Iudgement A Iudgement lyable to Errour cannot give certainty of the Scriptures sense Fallible and lyable to errour can with no Certainty give me that Sense wich God Reveals in a Difficil Place of Scripture Therfore I cannot Trust to it nor assuredly Ground my Faith on such an Interpretation And thus much Protestants Acknowledge for They say Neither Church nor Ancient Fathers are to be Relyed on as Infallible in their Interpretation of Scripture Therfore much less can a Minister or Lay Man Assume to Himself the Infallible Spirit of Interpreting or Resolve what a whole Vniversal Church is to Believe Alas such a man want's Certitude in what He saith he want's a Perfect knowledge of both Scripture and Antiquity never perhaps exactly perused He want's a Constant Stability for what He Judgeth this Hour He may upon after Thoughts change the next For as He is Fallible so is he also Changeable in his Iudgement 5. Yet More What Private Man Dare when he See's the Learned of contrary Religion at debate Concerning the Sense of Scripture step in amongst Them and say My Masters you are to Believe me and Acquiesce to what I judge of the Sense c. 'T is I And not You That know Gods Meaning Would not such a Thing be cast out of all Company Yet This is our very Case when a new Vpstart Puft up with his own Sentiments Tell 's either Catholick or Protestant what the Sense of Scripture is in Controverted Points of Faith And Hence I say The Catholick cannot Assure a Protestant without a better Proof then His own Opinion That the Sectary Err's in his Interpretation nor can the Protestant upon his own Assertion Remove the Catholick from the Judgement He makes of the Scriptures Sense Both As private men Catholicks and Protestants are both Fallible of them are alike Fallible if no other Certain Principle be laid hold on Here then is the Difference The Catholick for his Interpretation of such Places prudently Relyes on a firmer Ground then his variable Judgement The Protestant hath nothing to uphold the Sense He Defends But his own wavering and unsteedy Thoughts which are as changeable as Were moral certainty sufficient why is it to be more granted the Sectary then the Catholick the Man is fallible Here is the best Support for his interpretation and Faith also If he tell you he hath moral assurance or Interpret's as the Primitive Church did I answered above He only thinks so But Proves nothing Let him show that the Primitive Church ever Interpred those words The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth as he now Interprets them If he say He Believes as his own Judgement Interpret's I grant this is too Pittifully True But what am I the better on that Account Can we Rely on a Protestants easy fallible and erroneous Judgement in so Weighty a matter At last surely he will hit On 't And say he Interprets as the Holy Ghost Suggesteth Happy man did He so But we shall find it otherwise Presently However becaus the Word is of comfort let him hear it on Gods name For it is the Resolution of our whole Question The Holy Ghost only interprets Scripture Certainly 6. I say therfore 3. No other But the Spirit of Truth the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture certainly Iohn 16. 23. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will Teach all Truth But one and a most necessary Truth is to have Scripture faithfully Interpreted Therfore this the holy Ghost Teaches if he Teach all Truth Again Iohn 14. 16. He is called a Paraclete or Comforter abyding with us for ever But he is not a permanent Comforter unles he Solace as well by his Spirit of Truth mentioned Iohn 17. 19. as with other Interiour Consolation To allege more Texts obvious to all is needles The Assertion delivered in These general Terms is undoubtedly True and Protestaents I think who endlesly talk of their Interiour Spirit will not Deny it The difficulty by whom the Spirit interpret's 7. The only Difficulty which will trouble Them is Seing this Al-teaching Spirit usually Interpret's not by Private Illustrations nor Assumes every Private man to be the Oracle wherby he speak's and interpret's Seing also He leaves Scripture still as Speechles in order to its own further Explication as it was 16. hundred years agon The Difficulty I say is to find out that Oracle And a Christian Society it must be for Angels are not Interpreters wherin He Presides as Master and by it interpret's Scripture Find this Speaking Oracle out and we have enough Hear it and we hear Truth To our purpose then 8. Doth this Spirit
since St. Paul writ These words can so much as probably show it self permanently blessed with an Apostolical Teacher but our Ancient Roman Church only where the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet lives in every lawful succeeding Pope No Society of Christians can lay claim to such continued The Roman Catholick Church only shewes through every Age. Prophets as this Church hath had in it Age after Age whether by Prophets we understand with Scripture 1. Cor. 14. 1. Holy Men praying and Propâ—â—cying or such as Foretel Future things our Church hath had abundance of these if undoubted History may gain credit No Prophets laborious Evangelists Society of Christians can shew so many laborious Evangelists as this one Church alone and St. Paul points at 2. Timot. 4. 5. They are Those who have indefatigably through every Age without Cessation Preached and carried Christs Sacred Gospel to Vnconverted and most remote Nations Thus St. Austin sent by St. Gregory Pope Anciently was an Evangelist to our English St. Boniface to the Germans Blessed St. Francis Xavier and many other Evangelical men were so also to the furthest part of the world No Society of Christians But our Ancient Roman Church only can reckon up so long a perpetuated Hierarchy of lawful commissioned Pastors and profound Learned Doctors Pastors so many profound and learned Doctors who labored unto Death in Christs Sacred Vineyard and innumerable shed their Blood in Defense of it These being undeniable Truths 13. I Argue thus This known visible and never interrupted Society of Evangelists Pastors and Doctors This Ecclesia Docens or Teaching Church constituted The Argument by Christ himself was ever and is still Infallible and Becaus Directed by the Holy Ghost Teaches and Interpret's Scripture infallibly or It can err And cheat that ample Flock of Christians committed to its charge into damnable Falsities If the first be granted we have all we wish Viz. An infallible Hierarchy of living Pastors who shall Successively instruct us infallibly to the worlds end If contrarywise this whole Hierarchy can Deceive and lead us into damnable Error These two woful Sequels Undeniably Follow Fearful Sequels from Sectartes fals Doctrin The first That the Holy Ghost Directs not Teach's not that living Hierarchy of Pastors which Christ appointed to Teach us here on Earth For both This and every other Society of Christian Teachers may Beguile us with fals Doctrin and misinterpret Scripture Grant so much and it followes 2. That our Learned St. Paul Mistook himself and Uttered not one word of Truth in the place now cited For if these Pastors and Teachers appointed by Christ to Teach and so specifically here noted can Delude us yea and have de facto erred as Protestant Assert 'T is possible That They neither comply with the Work of their Ministery nor Edify the moral Body of Christ but destroy it nor persever in teaching Truth until we all meet together in a Vnity of Faith that happy day is not yet seen nor finally after all Their Endeavours Afford means to persever stedfast in Christs Sacred Doctrin They find yet a great Part of People called Christians like wilful Children resting on Self-opinion only They see them tossed and turned about with every wind of new Learning Such is the Fault and unlucky fate of Novellists who will be so wantonly Childish as to slight an Oracle Undeceivable Here then is the Conclusion The Apostles Words are True Therfore Sectaries vent a hideous The Conclusion Vntruth whilst they say these now named Evangelists Pastors and Doctors may Deceive and lead us into Errour CHAP. X. Objections are answered 1. PErhaps they will reply We mistake St. Pauls meaning For the Apostles Euangelists Prophets and Doctors c. Wherof he speaks are long since dead an gon They were those who Preached whilst Christ lived on Earth or soon after and Teach us still by the written Word now in our Hands Since those days we have had no Other Euangelists and Pastors continued in any Christian Society that either taught or interpreted Infallibly Roundly spoken But without book and as Falsly as fallibly Let Sectaries prove this gloss contrary to the express words and bring their proof to a received Principle For who see 's not the Obvious Sense of St. Pauls Testimony plainly perverted whilst He points at Teachers Successively abiding in the Church to the Consummation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to the coagmentation of Saints or until they be joyned together in one Faith and all meet in a Unity of Belief and knowledge of the Son of God The Deceased Apostles now in Heaven will 't is true se this last Day But are not now with us nor Teach until that Consummation be Therfore Others Succeed and teach in their Place so God hath ordered to the End of all things I have Answer'd to what is added of their present Instruction by the Written Word The Bible The written Word insufficient to reconcile differences I said cannot Because it interpret's not if self Reconcile our Differences And no deceased Euangelist appear's now either to Arian or Protestant to instruct them when they Fail or mistake Gods True Sense This very Scripture therfore requires an Interpreter in whom all must Acquiesce or we may run on in endles Dissentions to the day of Judgement But yo will ask Who is in fault Seing no man blames himself nor the Bible He read's Christ Answer 's He who hears not the Church is both the accused and faulty Person And upon this Occasion I answer to a second Objection 2. Our adversaries may say All Appellation from a Lower Tribunal to a Higher is lawful And they do so For they Appeal from the Church which only consists of men to God and his Word the Highest Sectaries by appealign from the Church to Scripture Tribunal imaginable therfore their Procedure is blameles I answer It were most blameles could They know Infallibly what God certainly saith in his Word But this they cannot know in controverted Points But by the Infallible Oracle of his Church To this Tribunal Christ sends us for Satisfaction in all In real Truth appeal not to Scripture but to Fancy only our Difficulties If we reject or forsake this Oracle in real Truth we appeal not to the undoubted Sense of Gods Word But to our own unsteedy Sentiments which are Fancies only and nothing like Gods Word Will you se this clearly Imagin only a new sort of Sectaries who will both Appeal from Church and Scripture to Gods interiour and eternall infallible This instance proves the Assertion knowledge of Truth They Appeal from the Church Becaus it is made up of men from Scripture because They understand it not in a hundred Passages Therfore they will rely on what God knows to be True and guess at it as well as they can Would you not esteem such Men mad and upon this Account That they cannot
recurr to an Invisible Society of such men now as well exploded by later Protestants as Catholicks 7. A fifth Objection flow's from the pen of a Late Mr. Stillingfleet Writer after this manner Cannot you conceive that there should be a Number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility If not saith he I 'll help your Vnderstanding a little Suppose And it 's only a Supposition That all the members of the Roman Church should be destroyed in one Age do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches sound at least in the Belief of Fundamentals without Infallibility I have answered already No. And given my Reason Becaus a Church A Church separated from Divine Assistance cannot persist stable divorced from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost is pulled from the Center of Truth which supports it and consequently the Doctrin of it must needs reel and totter now as is supposed to rely on no firmer a Hold then on mans unsteedy fallible Reason or on a Testimony meerly Humane and therfore Uncertain Neither have we without this Assistance more Security Without Infallible Assistance no security of fundamentals of true Belief in Matters called Fundamental then others As is clear in condemned Arians who no sooner left the Church directed by this Spirit of Truth But Errours followed them in points most Fundamental And yet like black Ghosts do and will haunt them without Repentance to the Worlds End 8. Before we end this matter I have one Question to propose It is Whether If all the Ancient Fathers A Question proposed to Sectaries that ever lived Had plainly interpreted Scriptures as the Roman Catholick Church now interpret's them contrary to Protestants They would then Disavow Their own Glosses And submit to the undeniable Authority of so many worthy Fathers Might Reason or Religion set one unlucky Adversary aside called Prejudice make the Answer Sectaries would say Yes And do so were The unanimous consent of Fathers against them Grant thus much And say boldly The Authority of The whole Antecedent The Authority of a whole Church more weighty then that of Fathers and this present Roman Catholick Church is in true prudence of greater Force to withdraw Sectaries from their new invented Glosses contrary to it Then if all the Fathers Together Had plainly interpreted Scripture as the Church interpret's Why Nothing on earth can Parallel this Churches Authority much les make it Inferiour to The Fathers only part of the Church the universal consent of Fathers The Reason is These Fathers were only a part of it particular men and Singly considered Fallible But a whole Church Embraceth a greater number and cannot be misled into Errour Nay I say Though we Impiously suppose Were the Church supposed Fallible the Authority of it is as great as the Fathers That this whole Church might swerve from Truth yet the Testimony of it is as great as that of the Fathers who as Protestants say may all err and swerve more easily This Reason is Reinforced if we reflect on one undeniable Truth which is In all controversies now between us Sectaries can pretend no more But thus much only That the sense of some few Fathers only They never pretended all whilst they interpret Scripture is though often obscure more against the Churches interpretation then for it Here is the most they can say with any Conscience Though we grant not so much when the whole Doctrin of a Father is well examined However Gratis Admit of the Supposition at present And se what follows A clear Testimony Though Fallible hath more weight then another that 's Obscure and Fallible Thus much only The Sense of such and such Fathers is doubtful and Sectaries say Fallible The Churches Sense is clear That is you know what it Teaches and Though falsly supposed fallible is yet far more firm then the other Testimony That 's confessedly both obscure and Fallible 9. This Discours convinceth that Sectaries cannot If Sectaries say the more clear Church Doctrin is the more manifest is its Errour They speak without Principles and suppose what is to be proved impugn the Churches sense given of Scripture by any thing that hath the look of a probable Principle For the Church Defend's it self upon two undeniable Grounds The first Positive And 'T is The Churches own Authority nothing can be greater The other Negative Viz. Never any of known credit neither Fathers generally nor Oecumenical Councils much less Scripture Probably clearly contradicted that sense which the Roman Catholick Church Gives of Scripture And here by the way You may se to what an Exigency our new None of undoubted credit Ever clearly contradicted the Churches sense of Scripture men are Driven for want of Principles They say The Roman Catholick Church is Fallible The Fathers are fallible All condemned Haereticks are fallible They themselves are fallible Thus much supposed Tell me I beseech you by what probable Principle can They so much as seemingly show That either They interpret Scripture better then we or That Any of us all ever yet arrived to the True sense of it in controverted If all are Fallible by what Principle can Sectaries prove their Interpretation to be the best matters Which yet is absolutely necessary For we can have no true Faith without the true sense of Scripture You know if the blind lead the blind There is no safe conduct And if the Fallible man Guides the Fallible both may mistake Their way and err grosly You will have no Answer returned to this Difficulty But Sectaries Fancy and Fancy only Or shew that Any had the true sense of Scripture 10. Some may Reply Protestants have the words of Scripture as clear as the Holy Ghost was pleased to Write them in Fundamentals As also the consent of Fathers at least for those Fundamentals They wave other By-Passages of Scripture and care not much A Reply of Sectaries whether their Interpretations be right or wrong I Answer first To say nothing of many Others They They cannot wave all Difficulties cannot wave one Difficulty concerning the Real presence of Christ in the Sacred Eucharist which is either a Fundamental Doctrin or none is Both Scripture and Fathers are in this particular most expresly against them as is proved Hereafter 11. But let this pass I Answer 2. We have as good Scripture as Sectaries can lay claim to in every Point which they call Fundamental And with it the In Fundamentals we are at least equal and in controverted matter far superiour consent of Fathers also In other controverted matters we own the same Scripture they own And moreover have the sense of it Declared by this long standing Church wherin we infinitly surpass them Speak therfore of matters out of controversy or wherin all Agree we are at least equal with them And for others in controversy
Because the Church stand's for us there No Authority Allegeable contrary to the Church can be comparable to it can be no Competition Unles They render our Churches Testimony of no Force by substituting a greater in its place For their sense which is impossible Alas They want Principles to go about such a work And Therfore must Reduce all they talk against us to Fancy only 12. What I would say here may perhaps be more clearly Expressed Thus. If Sectaries have plain Scripture for Fundamentals we have it also and take along with it Those Fathers They Admit of If in Iudgement against Iudgement Spirit against Spirit other Matters now in Controversy They rely on their private judgement when they interpret Scripture our judgement That 's opposit is to say no more as good as Theirs If they plead by the Spirit of Truth working in them we might set our Spirit against Theirs And Ask whether's better Thus far we stand most evidently upon equal Terms with them Now be pleased to observe what I say They have not one plain text of Scripture nor one plain Testimony of any Council or Ancient Father wherby they can so much as Probably offer to Prove That Protestants have Nothing for Their sense of Scripture but Fancy the sense of Scripture owned by Catholicks is Erroneous in points debated between us And Beside the judgement of innumerable Fathers We have also The Authority of a whole learned Church that Approves our sense They have neither Church nor Scripture nor Councils nor Fathers for Theirs Let therfore the world Judge How far they are from convincing our sense of Scripture to be erroneous by any known or received Principle unles their Fancy enter in and pass for a Proof which we utterly Reject You will say If in all controverted matters we make so much of Church Why Church Authority is to be highly esteemed Authority There is no Disputing Against us For the Church will ever stand for its own Doctrin I answer And if we Value not of it so Highly But Admit of our Sectaries Glosses upon Their bare Word We are worse then mad when 'T is evident They cannot prove that sense to be erroneous by a stronger Principle Then our Church Authority is that denies the Errour The Church Therfore fortified with most solid proofs drawn from Scripture Councils Fathers and Tradition most justly stand's for itâ—s own Interpretation And hence I say Whatever Sectaries can allege against it will show it self an impertinency Though Cavils may be raised There is no Rational Disputing against it You have the Reason hereof already Because what ever Sectaries can lay hold on like a Principle or That wherby They may Attempt to prove the Catholick Interpretations fals will Appear more then feeble to stand against The long standing Authority of this one Holy and Catholick Church But of this subject more afterward in the following Discours 13. And thus much of our Protestants strange unsetled Religion And Vndeniable Apostasy both from Church and Scripture We shall se in the next Discours How They recede from Reason also In passing be pleased to take these few Considerations along with you 14. A Religion destitute of all Appearance of any Ancient A Recapitulation of the enormities of Protestant Religion Church to side and symbolize with As Protestants most evidently are Their Recours to the third of fourth first Ages is Ignotum per ignotius and no less and Vnproved then a Supposed whimsy A Religion which hath not one syllable of Scripture for it as 't is evident men of this Profession have not And because they ever glory in Scripture-proof I am forced to tell them They cannot produce one text for Protestancy without Their fallible Glosses if I wrong their cause let them speak out and shame me I 'll suffer the Affront yet fear it not But Remember I call for plain Scripture A Religion which never yet had one General Council to Confirm it no Vniversal Tradition to Warrant it not one Professour before Luther to Own it A Religion which holds the Belief of all Christians to have been Fals for a thousand years together And the Prelates misled by Errour who taught Christians for so vast a time A Religion whose Professours take upon them to Reform others Before They find Their own pretended Reformation arriv'd to any Shadow of Perfection who espy errors in a Church never Discovered Erroneous By Thousands more Ancient and Learned then They. A Religion which hath the very look of Haeresy turn it which way you will which opposeth all men And is opposed by the Rest of Christians which is setled on no other Ground But the bare Vnproved Word of those Vncommissioned Men that Teach it which Changes every year and hath no seeming Principle for a Ground of Constancy not one Motive to make it Rationally credible Such a Religion I say Dishonors God Injures Iesus Christ seduceth poor Souls and as unworthily as weakly stands out against that Ancient Roman Catholick Church which is every way Blamles unless faulty in This that it made Protestants Their Progenitors And the Rest of the world Christians If I here overlash in Asserting too much let our Adversaries come closely to any one Particular and vouchsafe fairly and rationally to make my Errour known THE THIRD DISCOVRS OF The Vnreasonable Proceding of Protestants in some chief Handled Points of Controversy Be pleased to observe what I shall Note Hereafter You shall ever find our Sectaries either sculking in Generalities or supposing what is to be proved or wording it by Scripture misinterpreted or finally making Controversies endles without Appealing to any other Iudge but Themselves THE FIRST CHAPTER Protestants are Vnreasonable whilst They seemingly hold a Catholick Church Distinct from the Roman neither known nor Designable by any 1. THis is an Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church And was Sectaries are required to point at a Catholick Church before Luther so three dayes before Luther deserted the Roman Faith My humble sute is That our New Men will pleas by a plain Designation I ask not for a Definition of the Church to point me out the True Church which then was or now is Holy and Catholick Protestants as I here suppose were not then visible in the world There were 'T is true Arians Pelagians Abyssins Graecians And perhaps some Remainder of Donatists with other Haereticks whether more or fewer Known Haereticks constituted not the Catholick Church yet the Article of our Creed was then true it import's not to our present Question Notwithstanding it is Evident That some Christians then living unanimously Professed Their Belief in a Holy Catholick Church My demand therfore is whether That Believed Article was then True or Fals If fals for want of a true Catholick Church Speak out plainly And say that Christians Believed a Church which then Really was not in Being If True The then Holy Catholick
it self were Corrupted in certain great matters And no Body knew where on whose Iudgement should we Rely to single out those Corruptions This Case only supposed is a Real one in the Churches Before Luther if the Roman fail us For all other were corrupted Neither Scripture nor mans own private Iudgement can help in such an Exigency and no Protestant can certainly say in what However Take Scripture as it is most pure And plead with it against an Arian He laughs at you and says he hath more clear Scripture for his Particular Tenents then Protestants have for Theirs What then is next Every Private man must in such Exigencies Judge for himself The Arian Answers He doth so And thinks his Judgement as good as yours yet still remain's in his Errour Well at last you shall hear the right Solution CHAP. II. Of a late VVriters Doctrin 1. WHen all Christian Societies saith he consent to such Mr. Stillingfleet things as by the Iudgement of all those Societies are necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church Then we are Right in Faith And this Judgement is best made A second Answer refuted when we regulate our Belief by the Catholick Doctrin of the first Ages Here is no man knows what and not only a Generality But Impossibility upon Impossibility Say therfore Shall we ever se that day when all Christian Societies will stand thus United in one Judgement concerning the Being or the Essentials These men propose impossibilities of a Church Never Unles every Particular Society first lay down its own supposed Errour and say So much is not essentially necessary 2. Do you think That Catholicks will ever come in And acknowledge either Their Belief of an Vnbloody Sacrifice or Transubstantiation to be errours No. They hold these Doctrins as Essential as to Believe a Trinity Do you Think that Arians Pelagians and other Haereticks will so far Disown their Particular Tenents as to lay them down or grant They make not up a Church No certainly This Confent of Judgements Therfore in all Christians Societies for the The supposed consent of Iudgements for owning so much precise Doctrin Essential is a Chimâ—ra Sectaries cannot propound that precise Doctrin wherof God requires explicite Belief owning of so much precisely as is Necessary to the Essential Being of a Church is a most unlearned Speculation Neither do we mend the matter in saying as some do That nothing is Essential to a Church But what may be Evidently propounded to all Persons as a Thing wherof God requires Explicit Belief For upon whose Proposition made evident to us may we Assuredly rest and Hold That God requires an Explicit Belief of so many Articles and no more If you answer 'T is so much as The Catholick Church in all Ages received you still lurck in Darknes And prove ignotum per ignotius For you never yet told us nor can tell us where this Catholick Church is or what it Taught You will say it is That Church or the agreed-on Doctrin which all who went under the Notion of Christians owned as Holy and Catholick Answ There never was any such Church nor such Doctrin owned by all in the World For Christs True Doctrin always met with opposition and had Fals Doctrin against it You will say the Primitive Arians oppos'd as much the Ancient Church and Doctrin was pure let us stick to That And all is well I answer first It was most pure yet both Arians and others opposed it They therfore will not Agree to it And here by the way I might Ask Why their Authority was not then every whit as good to Vncatholick that first Church as Sectaries As Protetants do the Present Church is now to Uncatholick the Roman 2. It is a meer Subterfuge Thus to run up to the Primitive Church whilst you and we Agree not though 't is your Fault what that Ancient Church Taught in many Particulars If you say We must read and judge Alas We have All been Reading these hundred years And yet are at Variance about that Doctrin You se then how Controversies are made Endles by this Proceeding But what will ye It is an old Fallacy of our New men who first Suppose And then go on to Prove They suppose the Primitive Doctrin to be known and agreed on by Themselves and Us and then Appeal to it There Why Sectaries recur to the primitive Church is no such thing The Real Truth therfore is They take up shelter here Becaus Controversies that are now most handled were in Those days the least examined 2. Some of our Later men may perhaps pretend That we have not been able hitherto to understand their meaning or to dive into the Speculative Conceits A third Answer resuted of the Church Catholick And therfore teach us thus That Doctrin wherin all Churches have Agreed on ever since Christs time can be no matter of Discord for where all Agree there can be no Disagreement Take therfore that Precise and Vniform Doctrin which all Christians have Antecedently to particular errors Vniversally owned as unquestioned Christian Doctrin Therin consists the Essentials of Saving Faith or the very Quintessence of the Catholick Church and in no more 3. Mark well a strong Speculation about nothing You must Prescind one Vniform Vnivocal True Religion from The abstracting true Doctrin from fals is a speculation worth Nothing all Fals Religions in the World And then you have the True Religion That is you must cut of from Arianism from Pelagianism from Donatism from Protestanism from Popery For here is also some thing supposed Amiss what is Errour And the Remainder of Doctrin wherin all Agree constitutes the Essence of Saving Faith Believe it it will prove a mighty Diffic 〈…〉 ty to cut and carue right in so Weighty a matteâ— Pray you who must Go above this work Protestants Protestants ought first to lay down their own Errours Toyes Let them on Gods name who are so much upon Reformation first lead the way and lay down their own Errors next we shall se who follows them I am sure Catholicks will not Disown the Catholicks will abute Nothing of their Belief least Article of their Belief For they as I told you just now Assent with equal Assurance to all Points of Faith And so do also I think The Arians and other Sectaries to their Particular Errours But suppose Admit of the supposition nothing is concluded That we mentally conceive one agreed-on Harmonious Doctrin Vniversally held by all Christians who can Assure me that so much precisely is enough for Saving Faith You may say that That Doctrin wherin all Christians Agree cannot but be True Becaus all own it But you shall never soo much as probably show That saving Faith requires no more or stand's safe upon such a Generality The Arians believed in Christ that is General Doctrin But denyed his Godhead Cerinthus and Ebion Believed in
these later Definitions are proved Authentick Can you Imagin what They would be at Would These men would have They know not what they have an Authentick Attestation to prove what the Church hath Defined ever since the Apostles Time is the Ancient Apostolical Doctrin The Church Tell 's Them it is so but That 's not enough Would they have a Register Distinct from the Churches Declaration containing the Summ of all Apostolical Doctrin Yes sure this They seek for if their Demand of having the Apostles Declarations shewed them carry Sense with it For example we must shew them by some written Record more Ancient then all the Definitions of the Church are That the Apostles held a Purgatory Transubstantiation a Sacrifice c. Or at least Prove these Doctrins to be grounded on â—ndoubted Received Tradition I have answered Suppose the Roman Catholick They are clearly confuted Church And here we speak of no other For I hope Sectaries will not urge us to shew Them writings Received from Ancient Haereticks should Produce a Record containing a Summary of Apostolical Doctrin Our Adversaries might more justly except against that as an old unproved Legend then They are now able Rationally to except against the Churches Definitions Because such an Imagined Record must either be Approved by as great an Authority as the Churches is to gain it Credit or by a Greater There cannot be a greater in this present State of Things then the Churches own Authority But Sectaries Reject this Authority when the Churck Defines Therfore they would much more easily Reject that supposed written Instrument though it told them exactly what She now Defines is Apostolical Doctrin As much Therfore The Church can do as much without the Imagined Hand-writing as with it as the Church can be supposed to do by the Help of such an Imagined Writing it can do without it For if it have Authority to Legitimate as it were such a Writing it s own Authority is as worthy of Credit when it Defines without the Writing You se Therfore how Unreasonably these men require a Codicil containing the old Apostolical Doctrin which ought Forsooth to be Exhibited and shewed them Before they can be perswaded that the Church fairhfully Proposeth or Defines a Doctrin to be Apostolical 9. Now if They be convinced that to Require such a Manuscript from us is as Vnreasonable as if we should Press them to produce one for Their late Novelties And therfore urge the Church to prove her Defined Doctrin by undoubted Tradition I answer The Church doth So whilst They God knows Allege nothing like Tradition for so much as one of their New Articles A Fallacy of Sectaries about Tradition And here because we have a fit Occasion I 'll Discover in a Word the Fallacy of Sectaries in this matter of Tradition I say in a Word For 't is not my Task now to Handle that Question largely Thus it is Sectaries ever suppose when the Church Defines a Doctrin upon the Tradition of former Ages it is obliged to shew them the very Doctrin in express Terms Antecedently to the Definitions owned and writ down in the Volumes of some one or more Learned Fathers Whence it is They Argue How Sectaries argue No man heard of a Purgatory before St. Austins Time and He only hints at it slightly nor of Transubstantiation before the Lateran Council c. Therfore those Doctrins are Novelties lately introduced I Answer Were all this True The Argument is an unconcluding Negative and run's By uncluding Negatives limping thus Antiquity or the Ancient Fathers have not Expressed every Defined Doctrin of the Church in the like Explicit Terms as the Church useth Therfore such Doctrins were not really Received by the Church Observe well From the want of an Expression suitable to Sectaries Fancy They Infer The Fathers expres Things sometimes one way and the Church another the Doctrin was never Taught by Antiquity Alas the Fathers had their Expressions one way and the Church after mature Deliberation another often more significant Yet Both Aymed at the same Verity though differently set forth in Words as is clear in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation called by the Fathers a Real Change of Bread into Christs Body By the Lateran Council as you here se otherwise I say yet Farther Had the Fathers not at all so much as Hinted at a Doctrin Defined by the Church the Argument is yet Purely Negative and worth nothing Sectaries Discours highly improbable But is here all No. Their Discours upon another Account is highly Improbable To prove what I say Do no more but only Imagin That Three or Four of the most Ancient and Learned Fathers Had in express Terms Owned and Registred in Their Writings the Lateran Councils Definition concerning Transubstantiation as received Orthodox and Catholick Doctrin just as that Council Defines it would Sectaries then have owned it as Ancient and Orthodox upon those The Definition of a General Council gives Security Fathers Testimony If they say Yes They are Evidently convinced For the sole Authority of a most Ample Learned Council is in true Prudence a Firmer Principle and a better Proof to Rely on If we enquire after known and received Orthodox Doctrin ever held in the Church Then the very best Assurance That one or more Fathers can give Vs of it For who see 's not But that the very Definitions of the Nicene of the Council of Ephesus or Chalcedon c. Are more weighty to beget in us a Belief That what Those Councils Defined to be received Truths were so indeed Then if twenty other Fathers had Antecedently writ them in their Councils Representing a whole Church know more then particular Fathers learned Volumes The Reason is Because General Councils Representing a whole Church Spread all the World over cannot but know more Exactly what Tradition and the Received Doctrin of Christianity is Then Private Men can be Supposed to know who lived in several Parts of the World And bad no Obligation to Register intierly the Churches Doctrin in every Particular Thus much is said if the Church at any time Defines upon Tradition only Foâ— 'T is most certain that beside Tradition it Relyes on Scripture also and Hitherto never wanted the Authority of most Worthy Fathers that undubitably Taught as it Defined Though not always perhaps in such Express and significant Words If Sectaries Reject both Church and Fathers when they have not a word of Scripture for them 10. Now on the other side If Sectaries will neither Allow of the Fathers Doctrin Susiposing it were Express for our Catholick Verities as most evidently 't is in twenty Controversies nor of the Churches Definitions Already Declared in Eighteen General Councils We are out of the Reach of all Principles And must leave them to their unsteedy Fancies or wilful Obstinacy And pitty Their Deplorable Condition They are more to be pittied then Disputed against
from an Ancient Church This Formal Schism Cover all as much as is possible under the smoother Term of an Actual Separation is as clear on our Protestants Side As the Suns Shining at Noon day like Dirt it lyes at their Doors and They will never be Able to Sweep it away But to Say That Catholicks laid such Nastines There But to say that Rome was cause of it is a meer unproved Calumnie or That Rome caused This Sehism neither is nor shall be any more then a meer Supposed Whimsy An Vnproved Calumny As long as Truth is in the World 6. Say therfore I Beseech you Good Dear Countrymen Why was the Roman Catholick Church the Cause of your Schism Why Separated you your Selves from it You Answer A multitude of Corruptions What Sectaries allege as cause of their breach of Superstitions of new Forged Articles in Faith of Innovations and I know not what more made you leave this Church so Far as it had receded from its Ancient Purity Very good The Charge Drawn up goes High And is evidently Hainous But Say on Are your The Question is whether Proofs answer to the Charge Proofs Answerably as Strong or Equally Evident To make the Charge good Against this Church Both Accused and Condemned by you Or which Comes much to one Are these Proofs as Manifest To justify your Formal Schism as 'T is evident that you Made it Such an Evident charge Or are as manifest to justify that Formal Rupture as 'T is Evident it was made against a Church and so Tragical a Separation from it Acted by you Must both in Law and Conscience Be Supported and Born up by Evidence The Weightines of the Matter Requires it Weak feeming Probabilities meer crazy and Conjectural Arguments Atheists Vent such against God and Jewes against Christ are Here too Slight and Forceles Either to Acquit you of your Weak crazy Conjectures prove Nothing most sinful Formal Schism or To make us Guilty of the Causal 7. Come therfore Let us not word it Longer But go closely to Work We Appeal to Reason and undoubted Principles in this Controversy These and not Talk nor meer Conjectures must Vphold your Proofs if you have any Against our Ancient Church To Proceed Therfore clearly 8. Note first That the Supposed Errours charged on Errours charged on our Church are not Evident ex Terminis the Roman Catholick Church by Protestants are not like the first Principles in Nature Evident ex Terminis By their own Light Their Evidence Therfore if any be must be laid forth in a Solid and Convincing Discours And This Discours if Convincing is to be Driven on by a Medium which either by it self is or doth at last Rest on some Therfore must be proved by Discours reduced to owned Principles Known and Owned Principle Owned I say and Admitted of not by the One or Other Dissenting Party But Common to them Both. If such Principles Fail or the Discours which is carried on Derives not Strength and Certitude from Them The Force of Arguing turned either into a Roving Talk or Clamours is Lost Becomes Lame Deficient and Vnconcluding 9. Note 2. Whilst Sectaries by Imputing Errour to the Roman Catholick Church make it the Cause The Self-saying of Sectaries is excluded from being a Proof of Their Formal Schism They are not to Suppose That Their own bare Assertion or Saying We have Erred can be either Proof strong enough Or any Thing like a satisfactory Reason in This matter For their Saying is no Received Principle I Note thus much on set Purpose Becaus I really Perceive a strange Humour in our Protestant Writers You have in their Books Protestants Humor In Writing Controversies 'T is true Difficulties now and then hinted at Words multiplied Much Talk in General Intricate Discourses carried on in Darknes And This to Amuse a vulgar Reader weak Conjectures Enough now Drawn from This now from That Vnevidenced Authority Margents charged with Greek and Latin And Learned Margents They are or must be Thought so But after All you se the main Difficulties waved you Find Nothing Proved Nothing clearly Reduced to They bring nothing to undoubted Principles any other Owned Principle But Their own Proofles word and Bare Assertion In so much that I am Apt to Believe if I think Amiss God forgive me All that Protestants Aym at in their Polemical Writings is only to Keep up Talk in the World And Glory when They have the last Word in a Controversy whether a Proved Word or no it Imports not so it can be said They have Answered 10. Note 3. If As we Both must and will exclude The Principles They are to Rely on whilst They condemn our Church of Errour the Self-saying and Own-voting of Protestants from the Nature of a Rational Proof whilst They Accuse and Condemn our Church of Errours They are Necessitated to have Recours to other Principles And I think There can be none better nor more Free from all Exception Then These I now Name 1. Plain speaking Scripture 2. The Vnanimous Consent of Fathers Add to These if you Pleas the Indubitable Definitions of Ancient Councils 3. Vniversal Tradition Proofs which run on in good Form and Finally Rest on These or the like Foundations are Solid Undeniable and concluding If They swerve from such Grounds They Become both Faint and Forceles And cannot But Participate much of Fancy which we utterly Reject 11. By the Recours to Plain Scripture We Exclude All weak and unproved Glosses of Sectaries By Recurring Exceptions justly made Against Protestants to the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers we Highly Except Against an Vnworthy Proceeding of Protestants who if by Chance They meet with a Patch or maimed Sentence of a Father which because Dubious seemingly Makes for Them They Triumph as if the Victory were Theirs Soft and fair Say I There is no such matter For no Doctrin Doubtfully Delivered by a Father and 'T is then doubtful when it justly may Admit of Different Interpretations Can Pass For a Received Principle Principles are clear Much less hath it force to Blemish the Purity of an Ancient learned Church whose sole Authority is greater Then The Dubious sentiment of a Fatherless then the clear Iudgement of the Church can be the Dubious Sentiment of any one Father And Thus much our Adversaries must Acknowledge For Though a whole Torrent of Fathers undeniably Comes against Them As is most evident in Twenty Controversies Take for Example that one of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Dayly Offered up in the Church Or the Real Presence They Answer Forsooth the Fathers were Sectaries Reject the Evident Testimony of Fathers when most clear against them and fight with a dubious Testimony of one or two Fathers against the Church men and Had Their Errours c. Why then I Beseech you when One or Two of Them Speak only Doubtfully in a Controversy I Grant no more should Their
Authority have force to weaken our Churches Doctrin Nothing Therfore less Then The Clear and Vnanimous Consent of These Ancient Worthies truly Pillars of our Church can be Admitted of as a Received Principle We stand to this and the other now named Principles Thus much Premised we pass on to the Trial of Protestants Proofs CHAP. IX Protestants Cannot make Good Their Charge Against the Roman Catholick Church Concerning Causal Schism 1. THe Assertion saith thus Much. There neither is nor can be Proof against the Roman Catholick Church wherby it is made Guilty of Errour And Therfore none can Rationally Say That this Church was or is The cause of Schism in Protestants The Reason Hereof is best laid forth in these Few Words Proofs against Proofs fail when Principles are wanting this Church cannot But Fail when Received Principles are wanting to Support Them But Received Principles are Here evidently wanting To Sectaries in Their Charge Against our Church Therfore Their Proofs must Fail and Consequently when they are Resolved can come to no more but to meer Proofles Calumnies 2. To Show you That all Principles Fail them in This Matter You shall Se how Ingeniously we Proceed We Licence our Adversaries to make Vse of all the One plain Dealing with Sectaries Principles which the whole Christian World Own 's as Vndoubted Will They Please to have Recours to well Grounded Reason to plain speaking-Scripture without Glosses to the Vnanimous consent of Fathers or Definitions of Councils and Vniversal Tradition We are contented And will Acquiesce All we seek For is to Exclude Their own Proofles Word from entring in as a Received Principle You Se here is Liberty Enough And The Liberty given Them we Allow it withall Petition Them for Almighty Gods sake That they will Vouchsafe to Deal candidly with us And take to any One or More of These now named Principles and Dispute closely in Form Either Provided they will Dispute in Form by Syllogisms or That known shorter way of Enthymems By this Procedure we shall se the Rise and Progress of their Discours the Validity of Their Arguing whether it be Convincing and Finally rest on a Received Principle or contrarywise Lame and Deficient Reason is reason to all sorts of men and Though we are Papists we yet know well what Reason and Evidence is May it therfore Pleas our new Doctors to Begin with that Common Principle to us both of Holy Scripture Their Argument if to the Purpose cannot But be much to this Sense What Scripture saith is true But Scripture saith The Roman Catholick Church is at least lyable to Errour Ergo it may Their Argument from Scripture Ends after the First Syllogism err We deny the Minor And Expect a Second Syllogism to Prove it which Shall be more Fumbling and Proofles Then this very Minor that is Fals. I am so confident of this my Assertion That I in treat our Adversaries to Go on in Form And Prove Their Minor if Their Cause be good the Labour is not great And let us have the Honor to Answer Them Again They may Argue What Ancient Councils Define And And will be as Forceles if drawn from Fathers Holy Fathers unanimously Teach is True But These Say the Catholick Church of Rome Hath Erred or can err Ergo. We here Deny The Minor Also which shall never be Proved by a second Syllogism either Evidently or Probably In the mean while And let Them Remember so much Their Formal Schism is not only probable But Evident Though the Proofs fall short to Evidence the Pretended Cause of it 3. Some Perhaps will Say This way of Arguing doth not the Deed. No. They will go Otherwise If they will come to particular Controversies to work and Descend to Particular Controversies And shew us how Council hath Contradicted Council How Transubstantiation Purgatory Praying to Saints worshiping of Images c. are late Novelties Introduced into our Church Here They Hope to have us upon an Advantage And With such Doughty Doings They are able to make our Church Guilty of Causal Schism And Acquit Themselves of the Formal Crime Observe a Shuffling And Know Before we Catholicks are like to get a Sight of our Evidenced Errours We must Travel far And run over All those long Worn-out Controversies which have Troubled the world And to no Purpose For a Hundred years and More However we are Content We are willing may it pleas them to Dispute in Form and bring Arguments to Principles May it Pleas our Adversaries first to begin with one particular Controversy And so closely to follow the Matter by a continued Arguing in Form That at last They bring their Discours to a sure Owned Principle But I well Foresee Because Conscious of their want of Principles to ground a Convincing Discours on They 'l not Hear to this Proposition Therfore to leave Them without Excuse I 'll Propose another way Another way proposed Which every man shall judge most Reasonable Let them vouchsafe at least to Set down Plainly one of Their Protestant Tenents conrrary to our Catholick Doctrin For Example Transubstantiation is a New Invented Opinion lately brought into the Roman Church And then So closely to Give us the last and strongest Grounds They have for the Assertion without long tedious Discourses that nothing Appear superfluous Much may be said in a little compas Their Vndoubted Scriptures if any be aâ— Hand Their Ancient Councils Their consent of Fathers Their Ancient Tradition And which I highly Value of some Ancient Orthodox Church Authority Must of Necessity enter here to Vphold their Assertion if 't be Defensible This Don. I 'll Engage to The Authors Engagement Place against what ever Sectaries Allege The contrary Proofs of our Catholick Religion for Transubstantiation And Add to them the Testimony of our Learned Church And if These put in just Ballance or compared with the Other Do not in the Judgement of every Disinteressed Scholler Quite Outweigh all that Protestants can say Against us I 'll here Promise never to Trouble them more with Controversies But if on the Otherside you evidently find These men after all their Noise of introduced Novelties so cut of from Proofs so profoundly silenced That They cannot What will appear by this way of trial bring to light so much as one Passage of Scripture nor one Ancient Council nor the Vnanimons consent of Fathers no nor one clear Sentence of a Father And least of All Any Ancient Orthodox Church contrary to our Doctrin or that Plainly and Positively Defends Theirs You will I Hope Bear with me if I say once more Their new Opinion Relies on Fancy And that I Mistook not when I called this Treatise Protestancy without Principles I say that Positively Defends their Doctrin For I would have Them Know Their Negative way of Arguing We Read not forsooth of the Word Transubstantiation will if it Appear once more on Paper look
Succession of Their Church of Their Bishops of Their Pastors by virtue of any Immemorial Tradition Let Sectaries must solve Their own Argument them also Vouchsafe to give in that Title wherby They lay claim to a Possession of Truth What ever is Allegeable for the One or Other whether it be Tradition Scripture or Fathers will suffer more Contradiction from innumerable Called Christians then the least Article if any were little of our Catholick Faith Therfore they must Solve their own Argument The Reason is If they plead Traditioin for a continued Succession of a Protestant Church ever since Christ the whole Christian World yea even Protestants themselves Oppose the Paradox If Their Plea for Pure Protestancy be Scripture They 'l meet with as many Adversaries Having not one Syllable for it in Gods Word If finally They make a Belief Common to all Christians to be Their Essential Faith None likes the Doctrin Both Friends and Enemies Catholicks and Haereticks stand against them Therfore I say once more They must solve Their own Objection The Argument is solved 6. Now you shall have my Answer And I say An Argument That Drawes all the Force it has from the Opposition of Enemies And They were all known Opposition of Hereticks no proof against it Haereticks that Opposed our Catholick Tradition Destroys not only Evident Truths but also Impugn's Christ and Christian Religion Atheists make Objections Against God Jewes Against Christ yea And the very Instance now allowed of supposeth some wilful Zelots contrary to the common received Tradition of so many Monarchs undoubted Succession You Christian Truths meet with Adversaries He that will side with such Opponents shall at last desert Christianity se Therfore How weak this way of Arguing is Believe it There is no one Christian Verity but hath its Adversaries Therfore the Man that will Side with such Opponents and Cavil also Because a Company of Dismembred and jarring Sectaries Do so must look how He striks lest he cut to deep and Wound those He would not hurt For at last He shall be forced to shake of the very name an Notion of a Christian I 'll say in a word what is more amply laid forth Disc 1. Chap. 7. n. 4. 5. We have an Ancient Church against these Scattered Companies of Novellists A Church united in Doctrin Against their Iarrs and Endles Dissentions A Glorious Church manifested by such Marks and Motives as made the world Christian And these plead against Their Vnevidenced Opinions Finally we have most certain Tradition against their uncertain Guesses Vpon such Proofs which cannot be shaken we stand Therfore unles our Adversaries beside the Multitude of Opponents bring rational Proofs against our Possession which Rest at last upon undeniable Principles We are safe and cannot be Danted Alas The meer Number of known Enemies without Evidence Clamours of known Enemies without a rational Trial. Proofles to warrant what is Pretended Seem's much like unjust Clamours in a Disordered Common-wealth Loud 'T is true but as Sensles as Loud when Reason ought to have place and plead the Cause by Proofs and Principles Therfore we Appeal to Principles may They bear Sway we are content if not We told you Above Though as many Hereticks rise up against us As there are Atheists opposite to God And Iewes to Christ We Regard them not if they come Vnarmed and only Fight by the Votes of their own Scattered and Devided Companies But enough is said of this Subject in the Discours now Cited 7. Here I 'll only Add one Consideration more And it is to Assure our Adversaries Though They run to pass't Ages that is the whole world Over and Gather all the Votes of Enemies either against the Possession or the Ancient Tradition of our Church They only give us a Number of jarring Suffrages which bound up together cannot Amount to a weak Probability A weak probability though granted cannot clear Sectaries from Schism However Let Truth suffer Suppose them weakly Probable is this enough think you to warrant Sectaries Foule Schism Is here Ground enough to Iustify an Evident Divorce made from an Ancient Church wherin Their Ancestours Lived peaceably time out of mind Age after Age without Trouble and Disturbance No. All is improbable For what ever is less then Evidence Grounded on sure Principles will shew it self to be as it is a Proofles Cavil Against so long prescription and immemorial Possession of our Ancient Faith 8. Some may yet Reply All that 's Said hitherto An Objection Shows only a Personal Succession of Popes Prelates Pastors and People in foregoing Ages But is far from Proving the main point in Controversy They mean a full and quiet Possession of Truth which we make so Hereditary to These Popes and Bishops Descending from St. Peter That it was never lost This They say is to be Proved I Answer We are yet obliged to prove nothing For the very Testimony the Vnanimous When the Church gives in Her Evidence Sectaries are to Disprove it Consent the Constant Tradition of our united and learned Church without more are most pregnant Arguments as well for the Possession of Apostolical Truth laid claim to as For the Personal Succession of our Catholick Pastors Therfore unles Sectaries can weaken this Plea by a Contrary Evidence more strong then our Churches Tradition is and then the Proving is incumbent on them we stand firm upon our Olim Possideo which cannot be shaken I say by a contrary Evidence Stronger then our Churches Testimony and Tradition Speak now it 's your time of Proving What have you to Alledge against This sole Want of Principles makes Sectaries Cavils improbable Consent and Tradition Is it Scripture Produce it And we are silenced if not Vouchsafe to Hold your Peace Hereafter Have you the Consent of Fathers or Ancient Councils to make your cause Good against our Pleading Tradition and the Ancient Possession of Truth with it No. Examen These learned Volums you 'l not find one clear sentence favoring your unjust Process Against a Church That made your Progenitors Christians What then Remains Sectaries own Votes as weightles as the Arians to Scare us with But your own-self Simple Votes and if these Cast as it were in A ballance Against our Ancient Possession can out weigh it and so Deprive us of our Right The Arians long since had Destroyed us all for Their Votes were as weighty as united as yours Yes and more numerous 9. Well Though we are not Obliged to prove A Few Proofs briefly hinted at though we are not obliged to prove what both Tradition and our Ancient Possession Convince I 'll yet Hint most briefly at a few Proofs in Behalf of our just Possession First it is an undeniable Verity that Christ founded a Catholick Church And 'T is as Evident Sectaries Confess it that He invested the Roman Catholick Church in an Ancient Possession of Truth 2. It is an undoubted Verity
that Christ Christ Abandoned not the Church He Founded never abandoned the Church He founded For He told us Hell gates should not Prevail against it He gave Assurance of his being with us to the end of the world The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. If therfore Christ stood to his Word and once established the Roman Catholick Church in Truth it is Orthodox still and Preserved in Truth by His special Assistance 3. It is an Evident Verity that God whose Providence never Failed his Church could not permit this Ample and Ancient Moral Body of Catholicks to Cheat the world by its pleading a Possession of Truth if 't had none for a thousand years together when which is deeply to be Pondered there was not any A Truth well to be Pondered other sound Church on Earth for so vast a time to Teach Christians the Orthodox Faith of Iesus Christ 4. We have our quiet Possession Acknowledged by innumerable Votes of most learned Fathers 5. And 'T is a Greater Proof For nothing Scripture excepted can Parallel it The Testimony and warrant of this Ample Catholick Society carries with it our Evidence no less for an actual Prescription Then for the Right and Title of our long pleaded and enioyed Possession And who can suppose that all those Innumerable Professors of this learned Church by whom this Evidence was conveyed Age after Age were all besotted or deluded with Errour 6. And 'T is an Evident Demonstration No Ancient or modern Church reputed Orthodox by the Christian World ever so much as Quarrelled with the Roman Catholick Church or once No Orthodox Church Ever censured us for the want of a just Possession Questioned the Right of Her Possessing Ancient Truths delivered by Christ and his Apostles none Censured it none Condemned it upon any supposed want of a most just Possession but only Known and Professed Hereticks And to these our English Schismaticks Adhere An Inference grounded on these Proofs with these And no other They side If therfore The Foundations of our Church were once laid firm by Christ If He stand to his Promise Expressed in Scripture If his Assistance Fail not the Church Once Established by him If God could not 〈◊〉 this great Moral Body to Deceive Christians by Pleading a Possession of Truth when it had none And when there was no other Orthodox Church to deliver Christian Verities to the world If Finally The Authority of our Church And the Testimonies of most Ancient Fathers may speak in our Cause And this Convincing Proof also have place None Ever Gainsaid our Ancient Possession But know and condemned Hereticks We may well Hope to silence our Adversaries at present or if these Perswasive Reasons with many other Insisted on Hereafter Become insignificant to Their Obdurate Harts when They can not speak a Reasonable word Against our Evidences what shall we Do But Commiserate Their Condition You se How roundly I deal with Sectaries cannot Answer our Proofs Them And say They cannot speak a probable Word Against These Positive Proofs Though whilst we plead Possession it is their Task to Prove who are the Accusers And Charge Heresy on us 10. Observe therfore If they say our Saviour What They are to Prove once setled not the Roman Catholick Church in Truth They are to Prove it If they say He violated His Promise And preserved not the Church He founded in Perpetual Truth They are to prove it If They say We misunderstand the Scriptures now cited They are to Prove If They say our Catholick Church cheated the world for ten whole Ages together by pretending Possession of Apostolical Verities when it had none They are to Prove If they say our Church was once Sound in Faith but failed Afterward They are to Prove And withal Distinctly to point at some other Orthodox Christian Society that Succeeded in the place of the Roman Church now falsly Supposed Fallen into Errour And This will give Sectaries work enough Again If They Slight The Authority and Testimony of our Church Evidenced by most glorious Miracles And other Illustrious Marks of Truth They are to give in Lieu of that a more Valid Testimony a stronger Authority For Their Pretenses which is impossible If Finally They Talk of any Orthodox Church That plainly Censured or Condemned the Roman of Errour and Heresy And Herein we Vrge Them to speak to the Cause the Proof lies still on their side or if they Prove not Believe it our OLIM POSSIDEO is impregnable The Presciption and clear Evidence of a long quiet Possession are our wall of Defence not to be battered or Beaten down by Calumnies 11. Thus much premised You shall se in Brief How The Objections of our Adversary shewed forceles all comes to Nothing Wherwith This late Writer too weakly Oppugn's our Ancient Possession who After His Telling us Part 3. c. 5. Page 627. That the Proof lyes upon us He gives this Reason And let it be His first Objection 12. They who Challenge full and quiet Possession by vertue of immemorial Tradition and succession from Their Ancestours ought to produce the CONVEYANCE of that Tradition from him who alone could invest them in that Possession Mark these Mysterious Words Ought to produce the Conveyance of that Tradition from him c. What signifies This Had He said They ought to Produce a Conveyance warranting the Possession of Truth to be in their Church we would have sent Him back to the Proofs Already Alledged And Here only Insisted on our Tradition But to Demand for a Conveyance of our very The Efficacy and force of Tradition Tradition which is either by it self it s own most manifest and clear Conveyance or must be proved by another clearer Tradition And so in Infinitum Tend's Methinks a little towards Non-sense Truely I know not what the man would be at Would He Have us Think ye to Produce a Letter written by Christ Iesus for Conueyance Here must Signify Charta or No Charter or writ stronger then Tradition Instrumentum wherby it may Appear that the Tradition of our Church is Sound and Orthodox This would signify just Nothing Becaus Sectaries might more justly Cavil at such a writing And say it is Forged Then they can now Except against the greatest Testimony Imaginable of a whole Learned Church that must Give Credit to this Writing if 't have Any Therfore He who can Doubt of this Attestation of a The Reason far Extended Church May more Rationally Doubt of the Writing it self Though it were now actually laid before our Eyes to Read Se more of This Subject Above Chap. 7. n. 7. 8. Perhaps our Adversary will say we are to produce Scripture if not for The Conveyance of our Tradition at least for the Possession of Truth we pretend to I Answer This is now Don Our Proofs are Already given n. 9. 10. where I Tell you that Christ founded the Roman Catholick
the Plea of Possession and be tryed by the Law I Answer It 's a strange Piece of an Argument The Question ought not to be removed from the Plea of Possession And say it must not be removed Vnles you can Show by your Logick That when A Man hath two Good Proofs for a Verity He ought not to make use of both but is to Content Himself with the one only Thus it is We prove the Churches Infallibility by significant Scripture as a Possessor Bonae Fidei proves the Right to His Lands by his Ancient Writings And An Instance as He Add's to His Writings a just Possession So we plead Also Possession in our Case Why therfore should we throw Away this second proof taken from Possession unles An Evident Law Come Against it which we expect from you but Fear it not Sir you Possess a Benefice And can if need be show How you came by it whether it be a Writing or some Thing equivalent it Imports not You have beside the Possession of it Suppose now Any One would Endeavour to Disturbe you or Doubt of your supposed Right You would Plead both These Titles Would you not Answer This and your Objection is solved 17. A Fifth Objection page 628. Lyes I know not How wrap't up in twenty Obscurities It is much to This sense We must prove that there is no other way to Interpret the Law of Christ but by our Church Withall That the Church cannot come into a Possession of Any Thing but what was Originally Given Her by the Legislator Mark upon what Duties we are Sectaries put us on Duties which they cannot Comply with Put. We must prove And by the â—aw For Here is the last Trial with These men that our Church Interpret's faithfully whilst They sit Down speechles as it were in their own Cause And must not prove That their Church Interpret's better Moreover Note also by the way How the whole Question is The Question is removed from the Law to Interpretations now removed from the Law and comes to This Issue whether Our Interpretation or Theirs be more Conformable to Gods Word Most certainly Their Interpretation is worth little becaus confessedly fallible And Therfore Proceed's not from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost As is Amply Declared The proof lies on our Adversaries Disc 2. c. 9. n. 7. 8. 9. where we propose the Difficulty And Prove That One Only Oracle Christs own Spouse which is Assisted by the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture Infallibily Now if our Adversary Except's Against our Scriptures And Reasons there Alleged The Task of Proving will ly on Him For He must either Prove That our Proofs are Proofles or That His Far surpass them in worth And a clearer Evidence And He will find an Insuperable Difficulty in Both. All I say now is Though the Interpretation of our Church were Fallible it is as good as yours And if we respect its Age which gives some Preheminence it may be Accounted much better We have largely Answered to the other part of the Objection in the whole first Discours And Proved that the Church cannot Come into the Possession of Any Doctrin but what is Allowed of by the Legislator It 's otherwise A fallible Church may boldly Err. I am sure with your Church which becaus Fallible may Alter when and as often As Sectaries Pleas. To end Our Adversary Should have known that the Matter now Debated Depend's not Immediatly on the Churches Infallibility for Here is our Immediate Plea The Church was Once true And ever since its first Foundation Pleaded Constantly this quiet Possession of Truth Ergo unles that first ground be shaken And this Pleading Possession be Evidently Disproved it ought to be supposed true still And thus You se how the obligation of Proving lyes irremovably on our Adversaries 19. There yet Remain some other wordy Objections but I wave them becaus They are solved And in real Truth are meer Suppositions and no Proofs Sometimes They will Have Tradition to be Proved which is its Own manifest Proof Sometimes They tell us that a bare Possession in matters of Religion is a sensles Plea They suppose we have no more Somtimes that we are plainly the Imposers And They Not Aggressors And both are supposed I pass these and now hasten to one Objection more solved in a Third Proposition CHAP. XII An other Objection And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism 1. SOme may Argue further And say we have A simple Objection hitherto Supposed a Wrong Principle Viz. That our Errours are to be shewed us Evidently which is not so For it is Enough to make them known by strong Moral Proofs These sufficiently Convince us as Guiltly And Clear Them of the crime of Schism Neither can we have stronger Arguments Then moral in this Matter Becaus Principles of Faith are not Evident in Themselves All Discours Therfore built on Them must Fall short of Metaphysical Evidence Observe in Passing If our Protestants As They think Bring strong moral Arguments Against our Supposed Errours We give Them As Good as They Bring And clear our Cause by as strong good moral Solutions to those Arguments They say the one and we the other Who must be Believed Or Who must Judge here And if Again They hold themselves by Force of such moral Proofs Acquit of Schism which all Sectaries Pretend to we Charge it again on them By far more valid Arguments Who Iudges now Who is to be Believed Neither of us yet For Hitherto we only Talk without Principles Yet the Catholick hath his Principle in Readines A LONG ANCIENT POSSESSION now insisted on The Catholick Answer founded on a certain Principle which is eleven Points of the Law But By what good Law do our Protestants take this Right from him or Turn him out of Possession By what strong moral Proof grounded on an undubitable moral Principle can They convince us of Errours and clear Themselves of Schism I 'll Tell you and 't is a Truth They have neither We would Gladly Hear of Protestants Proofs against us reduced to sound Principles Proof nor Principle to rely on But their own Proofles word If I wrong them They can Right Themselselves and convince me by good Arguments in Form To what is Added of the Vnevidence of Faith I Answer Though the Principles Therof For example the Words of Scripture or the Definitions of Councils want Metaphysical Evidence in themselves Becaus only revealed Principles of Faith once admitted of may ground a certain Conclusion Truths Yet They are certain And once Admitted of as Certain can Ground a Discours which if well Deduced need 's no more to Faulter or Deviate from good Form then if we Argued out of Euclid's Principles Thus much per transennam Now to answer the Argumen Home Here is 2. My Third Proposition Protestants Cannot so much as Probably Acquit Themselves of Schism nor Probably impeach
to have been preserved by God Proves also the Roman Christian Religion Graciously preserved The Reason Prove True Christian Religion taken under that General Notion to have been Preserved in so many Storms of Persecution by Gods special Assistance If Sectaries Answer Yes The very same Arguments applyed to the Roman Catholick Church Prove that also Graciously upheld by Providence The Reason is Becaus as I have largely Proved True Christian Religion Though never so Generally taken And the Roman Catholick Religion are Synonima's and the very Same There is no Difference between Them Now if Sectaries say That as well the Christian as the Roman Catholick Religion have subsisted so long vvithout special Assistance by Mans meer Industry and Humane Policy They do not only Enervate Old Gamaliels Argument But more Vent a Paradox which can If Sectaries Say Religion hath been so long preserved by Humane Policy They vent an unproved Paradox never be Proved Or Brought to any known Principle But to Fancy only 26. And thus much briefly of some Few Arguments for the Roman Catholick Religion which if reduced to Form And 't is easy to do it are Vnanswerable You have more in the Treatise Let us now se in the next place what Sectaries can Say for their Novelties or upon what Proofs Antecedent to their Faith They are able so far to Evidence the Credibility of Protestancy As to make it in a Poor Measure Probable CHAP. II. Protestancy is an Vnevidenced And a most Improbable Religion Or rather no Religion but a meer Fancied Opinion 1. IT is Vnevidenced For the Professors of it can by no Rational Arguments Previous to Belief more Prove That Their Owned Novelties ought to be Admitted of as prudently Credible Then the worst Protestancy as much Vnevidenced as Arianism of Heresies Take for an Instance Arianism Hear my reason The very Grounds wheron Rational Proofs ought to stand Fail them They have no Antiquity no Vniversality no Succession of Protestant Bishops and Pastors They want lawful Mission Miracles and all other prudential Signs of Truth as is largely Declared in the first Discours c. 9. Yet from These and the like Motives Previous rational Proofs manifesting the Credibility of Religion must be Drawn Or The Religion which is Asserted Rational Motives must Evidente the Credibility of Religion or 'T is upheld by his bare word that sayes it is True to be True or Credible will Appear Naked and Vnevidenced having nothing to Vphold it But the bare Word of Him who Sayes it is True And Therfore is no Religion I need not to Vrge this Point further Becaus Sectaries tacitly Suppose the Credibility of their Religion to be Vndemonstrable by outward Signs and Marks of Truth For Inquire of Them Why They rather Embrace Protestancy then Popery or any other Doctrin of Hereticks You never Hear a word of the long Continuance Sectaries seem to make no Account of these Antecedent Motives of Their Church of their lawful Mission of the Succession of Their Protestant Bishops from Christs time Nor of Vndoubted Miracles c. No. But they presently run to Scripture and Tell you That both their Faith and the Motives of it internal to the Book Stand there sufficiently Evidenced Shall we se a little the Vanity of this Assertion 2. Methinks I enter into a Study where a learned Protestant Sit's with a Bible before Him And much Dissatisfied with his Novelties I Assure him The The Bible Alone proves Nothing for Protestancy very want of rational Proofs Grounded on Objective Motives Drawes me from His Religion which is neither evidently nor So much as Probably made Credible to Any The man Points at his Bible And saith This Book both Proves Protestant Religion and Gives you Motives for it Make Sir say I this your Assertion Good Viz. The Bible Delivers Protestant Religion He Argues The Bible Teaches that Iesus is the Christ the Eternal Son of God the Redeemer of the World And thus much Protestancy Teaches also Ergo Scripture Proves Protestancy To prove Doctrin by Scripture Common to all Christians is not to prove Protestancy I Answer The Argument à Genere ad speciem Proves just nothing For these Doctrins Common both to Catholicks and other Sectaries are no specifical Articles of Protestancy as it is Reformed Now These Sir you must Show Contained in Scripture For Example As a Protestant you Believe no Sacrifice Offered upon the Altar No Purgatory No Transubstantiation c. Pray you Warrant these Negative believed Articles by Scripture-proof He Replyes After his long Reading Scripture He Find's no Mention made at all of a Sacrifice of Transubstantiation And the like I Answer Others as learned as He find Them And Prove all by Scripture Here Therfore is no Owned Principle to Ground his Denial on But let this Pass 3. I Argue against my Doctor Though you find not a Sacrifice or Purgatory in Scripture nay more Though we falsly Suppose both to be unrevealed Sectaries Negative way of Arguing Demonstrated Proofles Mysteries Yet you cannot Positively say by an Act of faith A Sacrifice is not Purgatory is not I prove it Nothing can be Believed by Divine Faith But what God Positively Reveal's But God hath not said any where Positively There is no Purgatory no Sacrifice no Transubstantiation Ergo These Negatives cannot be Believed by Divine Faith Sectaries Grant the Major The Minor is as Evident For They shall as soon Prove That God now Positively Reveal's who shall be the last man alive in the World as Prove that Scripture Positively Teaches Purgatory is not a Sacrifice is not c. Whence I Inferr If Protestants Believe no Purgatory For Example It is not enough to say We Read of no such Place in Scripture For were this True It is Only a bare Negative And at most Showes That God What Protestants are to prove if The believe any of Their Negatives hath Omitted to Speak at all of Purgatory Which silence can Ground no Act of Faith Vnles this Consequence be good Becaus an infinite Verity neither Affirm's nor Denyes That Third Place Therfore I will Believe no Purgatory To Believe then no Purgatory or No Sacrifice It is Necessary not only to Say God saith nothing in Scripture of these Mysteries But more is required Viz. to Prove That His infallible Revelation Positively Denies Them For Before Sectaries positively Deny Catholick Doctrin They are to prove that God hath positively Denied it in his Word Before I Positively Deny a Purgatory by my Faith I must prove it Positively Denyed by an Infinite Verity Which is utterly Impossible Se this Point more amply Declared Disc 2. c. 8. n. 4. 5. 4. Perhaps the Doctor will Tell me These Negatives of No Sacrifice No Purgatory c. Are no Essentials of Protestant Religion But certain By-articles which may as well be Rejected as maintained whilst the Common and All-over Owned Doctrin of Christianity is firmly Believed If He
Consequently An Improbable Religion 23. And Hence it is Mark it you will find what I say Sectaries Thoughtles of Proving Protestancy make it Their chief work to cavil at our Religion most True That Sectaries chiefly Busy Themselves in finding Fault and Carping at Catholick Religion As if Forsooth Theirs were made good Becaus They Cavil at Ours But think not of An Other Task which most of all Concern's Them And 'T is Positively to Prove That Protestancy ought to be Owned as Christ's only True and Orthodox Religion This they wholy wave and the Reason is Becaus an Improbability cannot be Proved 24. Pray you Tell me Did you ever yet Hear Protestants prove not their own Religion from Protestant Any Thing like a convincing Principle when He goes about to Prove two Sacraments and no more or That Faith only justifies without Charity Or to be brief That Protestancy ought to be Valued of as the only pure and Orthodox Religion of Christianity No. I have Perused some of Their Authors and find These and Their other Novelties either passed over in silence or so slightly Handled That they seem afraid to meddle with such Difficulties What do They Therfore But think it enough to Cavil at ours Their whole strain is to find fault This in our Religion is not Right That 's not well proved A Third Thing Pleaseth not Here we have a Novelty introduced There is a Ceremony blamable c. Then a Ieer follows in Handsom Language And Their Work is Don. In the mean time The Main point in Controversy which is to Prove by undeniable Grounds Their Right settlement in Faith without Novelties is no more touched on Then if it were not in Being 25. In case they Reply To prove our Religion Fals An inconsequence of Sectaries in some particulars is sufficient to prove theirs True in all I have Answered could this be don The Inference is yet wors then Non-sense For suppose An Arian Did Convince Protestants of much Falsity Doth it Therfore follow that all he says is true No. What then doth the Protestant speak here to the Purpose 2. It is more then Improbable to prove any one Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Religion Fals. The Reason I give in It is impossible to prove the Roman Catholick Doctrin Fals. this place to omit Others is Because an undubitable Principle which cannot be shaken Stand's Firmly against These supposed Proofs And is thus Hinted at Already Christ Iesus Founded a Catholick Church which should never Fail and Therfore Could never be deserted by him For No Monarch that layes the Foundations of a Kingdom and obliges The Reason himself to take care of it can without injustice Abandon it unles a Contrary povver or great Negligence Deprive him of his Right Novv none can be more povverful then Christ And I hope our Adversaries vvill not make him Guilty of Negligence or Injustice Therfore He still Defends the Militant Church a most Dear Kingdom vvhich he Established Perhaps some less Considerate will say We here Tacitly suppose Christ to have founded the Roman Catholick Church We suppose Nothing but a most certain Verity only I Answer first If this vvere Supposed vve suppose no more but Truth vvhen it is clear That for a Thousand years before Luther There vvas no other Orthodox Church in the vvorld But the Roman Catholick as is proved in the second Discours I Answer 2. We Suppose Nothing but an Evident Verity Viz. That Christ founded a Church vvhich That Christ Iesus Founded a Church which He never Deserted vvas permanently to continue to the vvorlds End But this Church find it vvhere you vvill Protestants say Christ Abandoned Because before Luthers Dayes There was no True Church on Earth for ten whole Ages Or if they Admit of such a Church Let them please to name it But This will be impossible if They Exclude the Roman You se Therfore How pittifully weightles Protestants Proofs must needs be when They Talk of a Vniversal Deluge of Errours Overrunning the Roman Church yea and all other Churches What Sentence Reason gives upon these Considerations before Luther You se also may Reason have place Whether it is not much more prudent to Hold All those petty Cavils of Sectaries to be as They Really are most prodigiously Forceles Then to be wrought in this perverse Perswasion That Christ Iesus Deserted the Church He founded and Permitted not only the Roman But all other Churches with it to be Misled Nothing less then an Evident Demonstration can prove our Church Guilty of Errour into Hideous Errour Could Sectaries give Demonstrations of our Errours in good Form And believe it Nothing less then a Demonstration will Do the Deed They might look Big On 't And Hope to Fright us But when we Evidently See Their Proofs so Drooping and Faint that not one of Them stand's upon A sure Principle We may well Say It will be best For them Hereafter either to Hold Their peace of our Churches Errours or Learn to speak more to the Purpose 26. I Told you in the beginning How these men What Sectaries ought to Prove should Handle us Had They a Likelyhood of Truth on their Side They should silence us with undeniable Proofs drawn from Scripture from Councils and the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers They should shew us Precisely When our Errours first Began wherof they talk but Prove Nothing They should plainly Point out That Orthodox and Vniversal Church which as Strenuously Defended pure Protestancy six Hundred Years agon As We now and the rest of the world do Oppose it They should also tell us what Orthodox Church six or seven Ages since There was then most surely a True Church in the World Condemned Those very Doctrins of our Church that Sectaries novv Condemn and Cavil at Such Arguments could they be Heard of were to the Purpose But To have nothing from these â—risk Antagonists but Trifles And meer slight stuff is Lamentable Novv we are Told Scripture may be Interpreted this Way now an Other Now our Modern Authors say This novv That Now Council seem's to Contradict Council Novv meer Patches and Fragments of Fathers Pittifully Abused and VVeighed out of their Circumstances are Produced against us Novv they Their way of Arguing insipid and weightles The Roman Catholick Church hath withstood stronger Hereticks then Protestants are Ieer at our Popes novv at our Prelates Now at our Ceremonies And Thus They Hold on in a slighter Way of skirmishing Vnable God knovvs to do more Against a Church which Divine Providence Vphold's And therfore It Hath not only withstood Harder Shocks from former Hereticks Then now are in Being But also Defeated Them So it is Ecclesia in victa res est c. This Ancient Church is And will be conquerant Though Hell and Heresy Band against it CHAP. III. A VVord more of Sectaries new Mode of Arguing best Layd Forth By Touching briefly on one Controversy
The Sectary interpret's These and the like passages as his own Fancy suggesteth And if this Fancy hit not right He is undon for He hath no surer Principle to rely on either in this or any other Controversy but His own self conceipted Gloss The Reason is He hath no infallible All sure Principles fail Sectaries Church no clear Scripture no undoubted consent of Fathers no Vniversal Tradition distinct from his Gloss that can so much as make it probable Therfore his own unproved interpretation Doth all it is his last Principle and Strongest Hold He never goes Higher nor can advance one step further I am so confident of this Assertion that I challenge our Adversary to come to a just trial in this one Controversy A fair Offer And if He can Answer to our Authorities now quoted upon the Assurance of plain Scripture undoubted Tradition or the plain Consent of Fathers I 'll cry Peccavi and Ask forgivenes of my rashnes Thus they proceed 9. On the Other side when the Catholick interprets Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries against his Faith He never makes his interpretation to be the The last Proof of a Catholick is not his Interpretation greatest light or surest Proof of His Doctrin but most prudently Answers I am bound to interpret your less clear Authority brought Against me becaus I am Assured Aliunde by the strongest Principles Imaginable whether my Gloss hit right or no that my Faith is most certain Christs Church tell 's me so Fathers Confirm it None ever Opposed it but known Hereticks Here saith the Catholick are my last He hath assured Principles to rely on Principles Upon these I rest And can you my Adversary Imagin that I being so well grounded Ought to leave my certain Principles for a Dark sentence or your unproved Conjectures It is impossible You will se this more clearly by one Example The An Instance Catholick Believes a Purgatory The Sectary saith His belief is against Scripture Wisdom 3. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them No such matter Answers the Catholick for if the word Righteous point at such as are perfectly just and need no Purgatory your proof is proofles or if the word Torments particularly signifies as it doth a racking or torturing forced on Malefactors to confess the Truth before a Judge the Text is wide enough from your purpose For no such punishment shall touch the just departed Now mark The Catholicks just Demand saith the Catholick Will you Sir have me to part from clear and certain Principles wheron my Faith relies for a Scripture whilst the very sense of that Scripture is at least doubtful and obscure and therfore may be well explicated without violence no way Contrary to the Doctrin of my Church It would be a sin and a great one against prudence to yeild upon so slight a ground I should make saith He an ill bargain should I as it were exchange the sure Principles A woful Exchange of sure Principles for uncertain Glosses of my Faith for your uncertain Glosses and you have no more Though you read the Text now cited till your eyes be weary 10. Upon the Occasion now offered give me leave to Tell you one great Truth Viz. All of us must Vnavoidibly either firmly Adhere to the Doctrin of our Catholick A great Verity worthy of Reflection Church in these points of Controversy Or may Sectaries Glosses sway with us we shall be sure to Assent to that which is not only an Heresy but according to Ordinary Prudence and clear Principles a thousand times more improbable and Difficil Observe it in our present Controversy Sectaries hold it no improbability to say That the Souls of good men do not enjoy compleat Happines till the Day of Judgement Any thing may pass but Popery yet this very Assertion if we respect Authority The Improbable proceeding of Sectaries and reason also abstracting from Faith is less probable then our Church Doctrin is Those quoted Scriptures prove Nothing to this purpose as we shall show presently for to find mercy at that great Day inferr's not that all Souls must stay out of Heaven till the second Coming of Christ to judgement Note the like strain in other Controversies They will have me to Deny the Infallibility of my Church and will give me in Place of it their own fallible word which I am sure cannot Stand in Competition with the sole Humane Authority of my Church They will have us to deny the Popes Supremacy And what Do they inforce on us in lieu of that Nothing but Their own jarring heads that agree in Nothing And these must Teach and Govern us in place of a Pope They will have me to Disbelieve my Scripture interpreted by the Church and to believe their Interpretations who are both Churchles and Scriptureles Mark well and judge you whether that which Sectaries They would drive us upon greater Improbabilities would Drive us upon be not in a high measure more improbable and difficile then what we now believe and it must needs be so for as I told you the only support of their whole Religion as Protestancy is neither Scripture nor the Consent of Fathers but their own Glosses forced on both without further warrant Follow them closely through all Controversies you will find I speak Truth Contrarywise The Catholicks Security when He interpret's when the Catholick Interpret's He hath ever at hand a certain Principle distinct from his Interpretation which is his security For saith He I must either Interpret an Authority when it is Dubious or desert those Convincing Principles wheron my Faith is grounded which are without Controversy most certain But to do so is madnes and a notorious sin against Prudence Thus much by way of a Notandum Our Adversaries Objections 11. We come now to Combate a little with our Adversaries Objections but the Quarrel will not be long For besides what is refuted Already and some other Parergons not much as I think to the Purpose the remainder may be easily dispatched 12. He saith first Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what They declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation Mark the word Declare and se Sir what a law you lay on A hard Rule given the Fathers the Fathers they must tell their Readers when they write My Masters so much you are to believe on the account of Divine Revelation and so much not or if They fail in this Declaration they may as you seem to say afterwards speak only their own fancies and Imaginations Contra. St. Austins writes of Purgatory and holds it as we shall se presently But Declares not Explicitly that the Doctrin is of Divine Revelation nor Explicitly that it is his own fancy If therfore He Declares neither Explicitly upon what Principle The Argument is
but these Churches also pray for both and such a prayer Evidently proves a Purgatory Bellarmin cited cap. 9. n. Neque videtur tell 's you St. Ambrose hoped well of Theodosius and Therfore rejoyced in his behalf yet because He was not certain of his possessing happines He prayed for him And the like practise is yet in the Church when men of great vertue depart this life We pray for them if they stand in need though we verily think they need no prayer You know what distinction St. Austin makes Serm. 17. de verbis Apost between Martyrs and others Pro caeteris defunctis saith He Oratur We pray for the faithful souls departed but not for Martyrs Injuria est enim c. For it is a wrong to pray for a Martyr Cujus nos debemus orationibus commendari to whose prayers St. Austins Distinction between Martyrs and others we are to commend our selves This had not been well spoken had St. Austin thought that the Blessed in Heaven need our prayers as much as others do If you desire more of this subject or would know how the Greek Church prayes for Saints read Leo Alatius de Consens page 105. n. 15. where He taxes his Adversary Alatius of more then Childish ignorance in the Greek Affaires becaus he thought the Ancient Church interceded for How the Greek Church prayes for Saints Saints just as it Did for others No such matter saith Alatius Tormentorum ac poenarum nulla est mentio c. That Church in her Orizons for Saints makes no mention of any releasment from pain and torment but prayes that the Sacrifice offered up to God may be to his glory in the name of those Blessed for the celestial gifts of Grace bestowed on them Or that God may receive most large and ample thanks from them for the great glory they enjoy Wherfore St. Austin in Enchir. c. 110. speak's St. Austin is conformable properly Pro valdè Sanctis gratiarum actiones sunt Thanksgiving is for great Saints Alatius moreover cites not only the Orthodox Greek Fathers St. Dionysius St. Epiphanius The Sentiment of the Greek Fathers An Objection St. Chrysostom but also later Authors as Manuel Caleca yea and those of the Schism very pertinently to this purpose Some perhaps will say We may pray as well for our Saviour as for Saints if the supplications for them to be nothing els but a giving of thanks and offering up of such a Sacrifice as is now explicated If any one I say cavil thus St. Epiphanius contra Aërium presently after those words St. Epiphanius answers the Difficulty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We make a commemoratiom of the just craving the mercy of God for sinners c. Answers the Difficulty And saith we are to separate our Lord Iesus Christ from the order of other men because of the special honor and worship due to him knowing that he is both God and man and therfore cannot be rancked with other mortals though most high in glory Whence it is we No prayer made for Christ but to him pray not for Christ no more then for God because of his supream Excellency and Dignity above all other whether Saints or Angels but offer up to him a Sacrifice of thanksgiving as also to his eternal Father and the Holy Ghost as Bellarmin now cited well observes n. Separamus 17. You say 5. The supplications of the Church for the Dead respected mercy and forgivenes to be shewed the just at the day of Judgement and consequently were intended for Gods final Justification of them by his sentence at that great Assembly To prove this you cite many places of Holy Scripture 2. Tim. 1. 16. 1. Cor. 1. 8. c. Answer The Church in the Mass for the Dead whilst she represent's the terrour of that The Church speak's conformably to Scripture dreadful Judgement speak's most Conformably to the sense of these Scriptures And as if that Day were to be the first Trial doth not only make her Children Solicitous Quid sum miser c. What then miserable men shall I say What Patron shall I ask for When the just will hardly be secure But moreover teaches them to petition for mercy Ne me perdas Destroy me not in that Day call me with the Blessed c. Yet this Inference is not Good The Church and Scripture speak of mercy and forgivenes to be found at the day of Iudgement Ergo there How the Supplications of the Church respect the Iudgement Day is no third place of punishment wherin mercy is shewed before Iudgement I say therfore the Supplications of the Church for mercy at the day of Judgement respect the Mercies Don us before hand when we are released from the pains of Purgatory and supra Condignum receive a crown of glory above our Deserts And in this sense I understand St. Austin lib. 9. Conf. c. 11. Ve etiam laudabili vitae c. Wo be to the worthy commendable life of man if you O God remove pitty and discuss it too severely On the other side The Supplications for these intermedial mercies have a necessary reference to the Judgement Day really obtained before but when the Judge Mercy shewed the just will be publickly declared at the day of Iudgement sits They will be publickly Declared and made known before God and the whole world to the confusion of the wicked and the Eternal comfort of the Just Who may say with joyful hearts Misericordias Domini c. We will sing the Mercies of our Lord for Ever And Sectaries cannot Deny this Doctrin For do not they hold that God through the merits of Christ Sectaries cannot Deny this Doctrin pardons the guilt of sin and takes off all punishment from the Elect before they Dy What Forgivenes is there then anew to be Expected for them at the Day of Judgement when both sin and punishment are antecedently remitted Yet more Suppose that the souls of just men do not enjoy a compleat felicity before the great Day I ask whether They sit in that state with their sins on their Consciences or without them If They remain in sin all sins being mortal with Sectaries No pardon can be expected at the Iudgement day for mortal sins they shall never be pardoned for the future if without all sin They need neither forgivenes nor pardon at the general Day But only a publication a confirmation of that mercy as is now explicated 18. You say 6. Since we Confess that many of the Fathers held erroneous opinions concerning the State of the Dead We ought not to press you with their Testimonies Answer We go not about it but Sectaries are to look to their own Errours urge you to prove your erroneous Opinion Contrary to the greatest part of Fathers and all Church Doctrin And you are to do this not by talk but by solid proofs and Principles To what you
Passage more of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers is quoted 203 CHAP. X. Objections are Answered 217 THE THIRD DISCOVRS Of Sectaries Vnreasonable Proceeding CHAP. I. Protestants are Vnreasonable whilst They seemingly hold a Catholick Church Distinct from the Roman neither known nor Designable by any 231 CHAP. II. Of a late Writers Doctrin 236 CHAP. III. The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is unreasonable if Faith in Christ Only suffice for Saluation A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary 244 CHAP. IV. The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants concerning Fundamentals in Faith are Proved unreasonable 250 CHAP. V. An Answer to one Reply More of this subject 262 CHAP. VI. Some Few Propositions of a late Writer are briefly Examined His Discours of Fundamentals Destroy's Protestant Religion 271 CHAP. VII More of this subject Objections are Ansvvered 291 CHAP. VIII Protestants are unreasonable in the Defense of Their late Manifest and undoubted Schism 315 CHAP. IX Protestants cannot make Good Their Charge Against the Roman Catholick Church concerning causal Schism 323 CHAP. X. The Roman Catholick Church whilst Evidence comes not Against it stands Firm upon its Ancient Possessed Right This long Possession Proves the Church Orthodox 333 CHAP. XI Of a late Writers Exceptions Against our Pleading Possession 339 CHAP. XII Another Objection And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism 357 CHAP. XIII A second Argument Against this Schism Of Sectaries Cavils concerning Errours Entring the Church insensibly 362 CHAP. XIV A Word to a Few supposed and unproved Assertions Wherby some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism 379 CHAP. XV. More of These Authors confused Doctrin is Refuted 387 THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS Of the Churches Evident Credibility Of the Improbability of Protestancy CHAP. I. Christs Church is Proved to be no Other But the Roman Catholick Sectaries are convinced of errour 405 CHAP. II. Protestancy is an unevidenced And a most improbable Religion or rather no Religion but a meer Fancied Opinion 420 CHAP. III. A Word more of Sectaries new Mode of Arguing laid forth by Touching on one Controversy concerning the Doctrin of Purgatory 434 CHAP. IV. A Parallel of Proofs for and Against tâ—e Doctrin of Purgatory A solution to a late Adversaries Objections 452 CHAP. V. An objection proposed and solved in a Discours of another Controversy Which is the Real Presence 477 CHAP. VI. Sectaries without either Proof or Principles wrest Christs Words to an improper sense and vent an Heresy upon meer Fancy 489 CHAP. VII How differently We and Sectaries proceed in this Controversy VVhat they are to Prove 506 CHAP. VIII The Conclusion The Churches Evidence 517 SOME FEW OF THE MORE CHIEF CONTENTS OF THIS TREATISE THE FIRST DISCOVRS Of Infallible Teachers and the Motives of Credibility CHrists Church hath infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion Christs infallible Doctrin requires infallible Teachers A Doctrin that is fallible may be fals Christ sent none to teach any other Doctrin but that which may be resolved into Gods certain Revelation but such a Doctrin can neither be fals nor fallible Sectaries preach no other Doctrin but what is fallible and may be fals The Objective infallibility of Gods Word in Scripture is not ex terminis Evident and no Church as They say Ever yet told them or can tell them infallibly that it is infallible If all Pastors and Doctors may err in their delivery of Christian Doctrin God would as indifferently oblige us to believe a lye as his certain verities If God deprive all Pastors of infallible Assistance Christian Religion now stands on no more firm ground then mans weak mutable and erring opinion Gods infallible Revelation avails nothing in order to Faith unles Christians lay hold on the certainty therof by Faith which cannot be don unles that Oracle which proposeth the Revelation to all be infallible If the Proponent of a Revelation only say doubtfully I think God speaks as I preach but am not certain the Assent given to his Preaching is also doubtful and no Faith Faith surpasseth in its strength and Tendency all moral and Metaphysical certainty Though Moral certainty were sufficient for Faith yet Sectaries have not so much for Protestancy as it is reformed How Sectaries err in their search made after Religion and both weakly and improbably oppugn the Doctrin of the Catholick Roman Church Reflections upon the motives of credibility It is impossible after the establishment of true Faith in the world that God permit a fals Religion to be more clearly evidenced to reason by force of rational Motives then true Religion is manifested A fals Religion cannot equalize Gods true Religion in the evidence of prudent motives inducing to Faith No Religion hath motives founding moral certainty prerequired to Faith but the Roman Catholick Religion only Protestants have nothing like rational motives wherby Protestancy as Protestancy is proved to be so much as probable Where Mr. Stillingfleet Treats of resolving Protestants Faith He waves the Question wholy and speak's no more in behalf of Protestancy then Arianism or another Heresy Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of the Churches motives Sectaries cannot for want of prudent motives inducing to Faith convert an infidel to Christian Religion Their Religion Dishonors Christ and makes way to any new coyned Heresy THE SECOND DISCOVRS Of Scripture SCripture is a useles book in the hands of Sectaries if none as they confess Declare infallibly the sense of it in high points of Controversies Arians interpret Scripture as probably as Protestants when they oppose the sense received by the Church Sectaries make Scripture a book that proves all Religions and more significant for Arianism then Protestancy The fallacy of Protestants concerning the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered Grant no infallible Church we have no Assurance of true and interrupted Scripture Scripture might be more easily corrupted then a whole Church cheated into fals Doctrin No man can prudently suppose that God had more care to preserve Scripture uncorrupt then a Church free from errour All Substantials of Faith are not in Scripture A Learned Philosopher by his own reading Scripture cannot judge what it meanes in a hundred Passages without an Interpreter Sectaries now are in the very same case without an infallible Interpreter Sectaries in their Glosses on Scripture do nothing but add and substract from Gods Word When They Oppose the Churches sense of Scripture Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have not one word of Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy The Reason of private men or of a private spirit cannot interpret Scripture The new mode of Protestants misinterpreting Scripture is amply refuted All our Sectaries endeavour is to turn Scripture off from the Catholick sense by their own fancies and then think the work don It is one thing to say and only to say it that Scriptures alleged by us prove not what we intend and another positively to prove the Doctrin contrary
Ground and I would se it Answered 4. Some perhaps will say the Doctrin of these Sectaries relies on Gods Word and that alone is a sure and infallible Principle I answer if we speak of Sectaries particular Doctrin as reformed They have not one Article clearly no nor so much as probably grounded on Gods express word for Scripture saith no where that Faith only justifies that all Churches are fallible that there is no Purgatory no Sacrifice of the Altar c. Ergo these Doctrins want certain Principles Now if they Reply Though these particular Doctrins are not express in Scripture yet the general Truths of Christianity are And They rely on these not careing for more I Answer Though these Verities as revealed be infallible in themselves yea and infallible also to the Catholick that admit's of them as infallible for the certain Testimony of his Church yet no man no Church no Oracle of Truth ever hitherto assured the Protestant infallibly that they are infallible for all these with him are fallible therfore They are removed from the nature of being certain Principles in order to his Faith and Doctrin also unles He say that the Objective infallibility of Scripture is evident ex terminis to the very eyes that read the book which is proved improbable Disc 1. c. 12. n. 4. Wherof more presently I Answer 2. If the Objective infallibility of these great Verities be a certain Principle to the Protestant it either Derives into his understanding that teaches them a Subjective infallbility in order to his Doctrin or leaves him as He was before lyable to mistake and errour if the first be granted He is Subjectively infallible when He teaches and this He will not hear of Grant the second viz. That He is lyable to mistake and errour in his teaching He may well miss of the objective Truth because He only saith fallibly what God speaks infallibly and consequently his Doctrin ultimatly resolved saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare what God speaks and it may be not for my Declaration is fallible and may be fals Therfore you Christians who hear me can believe nothing infallibly becaus my very Teaching is doubtful And it is against the nature of a doubt to convey certainty into any understanding Se Disc 1. c. 4. n. 7. 8. Now if you Ask why it is doubtful though he speak truth as it were by Chance I answer the Reason is Because he hath no Pâ—iâ—ciple which determinates his teaching to say that Infallibly which God speak's infallibly The External Principle of Scripture makes him no more Infallible than the worst of Hereticks who read it And all other Principles He works by are lyable to errour And here briefly you se the difference between the Truth of an Act and its Certitude The first only sayes in contingent matters a conformity with the Object The other a necessary Determination to Truth by Principles not liable to errour And Sectaries alwaies want these Principles whilst They teach a Doctrin fallibly If here they take recourse to moral certainty only and think that sufficient turn to the fift Chapter of the first Discours and you will se them evidently confuted It is lost labour to repeat again what is sayd in that place 5. These grounds supposed you shall se how Mr. Pooles Exceptions against them comes to nothing Let us saith He P. 9. n. 2. examin a little the strength of this pretty Proposition viz. That if we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity Iewes Turks and Pagans are as well perswaded of their wayes as we Christians of ours What a mad Assertion saith He is this that nothing is credible but what is infallibly certain and that there is no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities c. To this I answer in a word you shall have the Reason hereafter Nothing in true Christianity is credible but what both may and must be believed by most certain faith in other moral matters things are morally credible though we arrive not to certainty but Faith hath its exceptions Mr. Poole goes on I am not infallibly certain that there is such a place as Iamaica for it is possible that all Geographers may mistake and Travellers may lye Therfore I am as uncertain that there is a sea passage to China by the North c. I am not certain if I find a Calf in a field but that it may as some time it was drop't from the Clouds but will any sober man think that it came not from a cow He hath other instances to this purpose And the man if I mistake not would here liken the cettainty of that Truth we have of Christianity to the certainty we have of Iamaica and a calf coming from a Cow and the Doctrin of Judaism He would have so improbable as if one should say the Calf was dropt from the Clouds In a word if He dispute with a Jew He will hear that his whole Discours is Petitio principij and that his Instances of Iamaica and a calf are nothing to the purpose because he supposeth what should be proved viz. That the Doctrin of a Iew is so improbable to that Sect as this Antagonist makes it And that the taught Doctrin of Sectaries is so highly Probable in order to them as is here supposed Alas the Iew wil utterly silence Mr. Poole with this convincing Reason What ever becomes of my Doctrin I tell you your Protestant taught Doctrin which may be fals is no better than mine because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible Revelation which cannot be fals That it cannot be thus resolved is evident because a Doctrin that is fallible and may be fals though true in it self as fallible and lyable to falsity cannot be as it were cast or laid on Gods infallible Veracity that essentially Disowns and rejects all Doctrin that 's fallible and may be fals Therfore as Fallible ultimately resolved it must be brought to its one home which is not Gods infallible Revelation but to meer fancy or some other uncertainty For example Put the case that an English Synode truely Defines Christ Iesus is God and man yet so that the Definition by vertue of all the Principles it hath or its own intrinsick merit is fallibly Delivered One reflects on this Definition and consider's the Truth of it which is a conformity with its object as also the Weaknes of it which is Fallibility for want of Principles that Determin it to Truth I Ask now why Do Sectaries believe Christ to be God and man by this Fallible Definition 'T is one of your Acts of Faith is it not You must Answer you Believe so because God hath said it in Scripture Very good But I Ask again Hath he said this Fallibly by a Revelation that 's capable of falsity No must evidently His Revelation is infinitly certain Ergo I say your Definition or Act of Faith Quâ fallibilis or as meerly fallible cannot
Themselves and the evidence of the former that is of the Churches infallibility not only denyed and Disputed down by Protestants but also questioned by their own Authors You End This Question I chalenge the whole Club of Iesuits solidly to Answer I Answer very catagorically without Clubbing it and say first The Catholick hath more then meer probable Evidence of the Doctrin of the Curches infallibility The Sectary by his own Principles hath not so much as probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Independent of the Church I say 2. Though the Sectary had probable evidence of the Scriptures infallibility yet it is a useles book in his hands 13. The first Assertion contain's two parts I prove the first The Catholick hath a Church evidenced by Vnparallel'd Miracles by conversions of whole Nations from Infidelity to our Christian Verities He hath a Church manifested by all those other Glorious Cognisances of Truth which the Apostolical Church shewed to the world not one is excepted as is proved Disc 1. c. 9. 10. If therfore that Apostolical Church was prudently believed to deliver infallible Doctrin and this before Scripture was writ by the inducements of those illustrious marks and Characters of Truth wherwith it was adorned our Roman Catholick Church that undeniably evidenceth the very like signs is proved upon that Reason to deliver also infallible Doctrin For where there are the same effects and signs of infallible Doctrin the Infallibility of it is as it were witnessed by them otherwise such Motives would be both inefficacious and useles whilst God shewes them for this end that all may give Assent to his infallible Verities taught by that Oracle where they evidently appear and I believe led on by the inducements yet must forsooth only believe uncertainties or fallible Doctrin that may be fals 14. The Doctrin therfore of the Roman Catholick Church is now as well made immediately Credible by vertue of these Motives as the Apostolical Church was before the writing of Scripture And These Motives in order to the Learned and those who prudently seek for Truth first and most immediatly Demonstrate the Church or Those persons that teach infallible Doctrin by whose Authority we learn what and where infallible Truth is professed That these marks and signs immediatly belong to the Persons that Teach infallibly and not to Scripture is undoubted Mark 16. 17. These signs shall follow in my name they shall cast out Divels c. Again not only the Doctor of the Gentils 2. Cor. 12. 12. call's the wonders He wrought Signa Apostolatus sui the marks of his Apostleship but a greater Doctor also Truth it self Iohn 10. 25. when the Jewes would not believe him remitted them to the evidence of his Miracles The works which I do in the name of my Father these give Testimony of me And vers 38. If you will not believe me believe the works Works therfore and wonders Annexed to the persons or Church that Teaches Forceably induce prudent men to believe the certain Doctrin Delivered by them who shew such wonders In a word here is all I would say No Religion is evidently true or fals ex Terminis upon the bare Affirmation of Him that sayes its true or fals Therfore it must have the Evidence of its Credibility manifested before Christians admit of the Doctrin But this Evidence is first manifested by such signs and Miracles as Christ and the Apostles personally shewed to the world and by vertue of them induced Aliens from Truth to believe it as Infallible Doctrin Therfore whatever Church shewes such Miracles the like signs and wonders as Christ and his Apostles manifested plead's as well for the Infallibility of its Doctrin witnessed by such Miracles as the Apostolical Church Did. But the Roman Catholick Church only and no other shewes these Miracles Efficacy of Doctrin Vniversality strange Conversions and other most Convincing Motives Therfore if the first Christians induced by such evidence firmly believed the Apostolical Doctrin to be infallible which was not ex terminis evidently infallible we may now upon the very like Inducements not for the inducements as the last Motive Believe as securely upon our Churches Authority the Doctrin taught by it to be infallible Deny this Evidence of our Motives and we force Sectaries to prove the Denial by as sure Principle as we Assert them Grant them and our Argument is concluding And here you have more them a meer probable Evidence of the Churches infallibility 15. An Other Argument for it besides those Scriptures cited Disc 2. C. 6. n. â— is not only probable but unanswerably Convincing hinted at Disc 1. C. 2. n. 9. Christ as is confessedly granted both by Catholicks and Sectaries sent Pastors up and down the world to teach Christian Doctrin But he never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be fals Ergo He sent them to teach his own infallible Doctrin and Infallibly I prove it He sent none to teach any other Doctrin then that which may be ultimately resolved into Gods infallible veracity revealing Truth But that which is ultimatly resolved into an infallible Veracity can neither be fals nor fallible Doctrin because God as I now said ownes no fallible Doctrin that may be fals Therfore this Resolution of an Act tending fallibly into Devine Revelation is rather Non-sense then Faith I infallible believe Christ to be God and Man because Gods infallible Revelation will have me to believe so For No Infallible Motive applyed to my vnderstanding as it is infallible can draw from me a fallible belief of a Doctrin that 's meerly fallible But All Sectaries whether Arians Donatists or Protestants Teach only fallible Doctrin and fallibly Ex parte Docentis Ergo they Teach not that Doctrin which Christ sent his Ministers to teach or that can be resolved into Gods infallible Veracity revealing Truth Yet most certainly some Christian Pastors by vertue of Christ Mission teach his infallible Doctrin Infallibly and these are the Pastors of the Roman Catholick Church who only lay claim to Infallibility and prove it also as the Apostles Did by the Antecedent Evidence of those Motives which the Church shewes and manifesteth to the world as is now Declared I chalenge Mr. Poole directly and Catagorically to Answer this my Reason without talking any more of Clubbs or running into Generalities and in as few clear words as I Deliver it 16. Now to prove the other part of my Assertion Viz. Sectaries by their own principles have not so much as a probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility without Church Authority Here is my principle The infallibility of Scripture which contains many Difficulties tell 's strange stories and seemingly often speak's contradictions is not by it self or own light so evidently Credible to the Eyes of a Reader as the infallibility of the Apostolical Church was evident by Miracles and Conversions to the Primitive Christians who believed it infallibly At least S. Austin judged it
not so Evidently Credible when He saith He would not believe the Gospel unles the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it The Infallibility of it therfore must by proved by some good Principles extrinsick to Scripture but the Sectary hath not one sound Principle Distinct from the Tradition and Authority of the Church wherby this Infallibility is proved Therfore Scripture in order to Him is not so Infallible as the Church is to the Catholick If any Deny my principle and make the Scriptures Infallibility Discernable by its own light by the Majesty of the style purity of its Doctrin or efficacy it works in the minds of those who read it c. I think there are evident Demonstrations against the Paradox For as I noted Disc 1. C. 2. 12. n. 4. Two things are to be considered in Scripture first the exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words and so much precisely is not the Scriptures total Infallibility which sayes more besides that exteriour language and necessarily implies A Divine Act a Volition or Decree of God wherby the Hagiographers that writ the words were infallibly assisted and determined to record truth and nothing but Truth Now this Divine Volition or Decree becaus it is essential to God and therfore no other but God Himself can be no Object of our senses when we hear or read Scripture Consequently it is to be Discovered by a Discours grounded on Principles distinct from the outward letter of Scripture wherby we may come to a sure Evidence of its Infallibility not at all yet within the reach of our senses And this no Sectary can do as I shall presently make Evident 17. I say Therfore if the Motives now alleged for the Churches Infallibility as Conversions Miracles Vniversality c. induce not immediatly to believe that Church they demonstrate to be Infallible much less can the exteriour words or sintax of Scripture be a fit Medium to Convince any of its Infallibility And to prove this besides what is often noted in the Treatise Chiefly Disc 1. C. 8. n. 7. Ill here only Propose two Questions The first Whether if St. Iohn who was infallibly Assisted had not recorded that short sentence in His Gospel The Word is made flesh but some other not infallibly Assisted by the Spirit of God had written the very same Verity as it were by Chance My Question I say is whether the Sectary that now reads this sentence in S. Iohn Gospel can more Discover an Infallibility in it by force of the outward words then if they had been Casually written by one without Infallible Assistance I think He will not dare to say yes or if He Do I 'll urge Him to prove it by Principles when the outward words are the Very same in both Cases and in like manner clear to all that read them My second Demand may yet perhaps better evidence what I ayme at and is thus Suppose that our Sectaries should put the book of Eclesiastes which they hold Canonical into the hands of twelve learned Gentile Philosophers and with it the book of Wisdome or Eclesiasticus also not held Canonical by them Suppose again They desire these learned and disinterressed men seriously to read these three books and after the reading Sincerely to tell them which of them hath Gods Spirit in it or contains his infallible Verities For this may be easily gathered by the very natural evidence of what they read by the Majesty of the style Efficacy of speaking which appears Clearly enough in the outward letter Thus much don seperate these Philosophers by four and four into three Companies put them into three different cells much after that manner as some say the sevently Interpreters were separated Let them with all sincerity read examin and peruse these Books and if when the work is ended they unanimously accord that a greater Divinity a stronger infallibility appear's in the song of Salomon then in the other two books we will say something is proved and hold it as strange a Miracle as that which S. Austin recounts of the 70. Interpreters Now if Any tell us this light of Scripture though sufficient in it self is not evident to every one that looks on it because the blindnes or perversnes of mens minds may keep them from the Discovery of it The Reply hath no place here for we suppose first these Philosophers to be disinterressed learned upright and sincere as well in their reading as in the judgement they give of it And secondly we will suppose that all those are not blind whom Sectaries make blind nor only those quick sighted I mean themselves whom they will have so 18. To these Questions I add one more it may pass for an Argument Ad hominem against Sectaries who hold all the Definitions of our Church even when they are true to be yet fallible I Ask whether these Quick sighted men are able to Discern the Fallibility of these Definitions by force of the outward words therof only as they Discover the infallibility of Scripture by the Majesty of the style and outward Sintax And mack where the force of the Difficulty lies As Infallibility necessarily implyes Divine Assistance in order to the Truths Delivered in holy Scripture so the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions implyes a want of that Assistance in order to those Definitions I Ask therfore whether as the first is Discernable and visible enough to their Eyes by the very context of the outward letter They will consequently grant that the other also is as clearly visible and Discernable by the very words of the Definition If They Answer yes First they need not hereafter to impugn the Churches Definitions by any other Medium but this that they are without further proof by themselves evidently fallible So much is said by them and it proof enough 2. They may as well say They know when a man tell 's a lye and this by force of his very speaking as that they know the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions by her speaking For if their eyes can Discern the want of Divine Assistance in the one case which really is not wanting they may more easily Discern the want of Truth in the other which really is wanting And if this be not a Paradox there was never any in the world Now contrarywise if they cannot Discover the Churches supposed Fallibility in her Definitions meerly by her Exteriour words because that is a thing invisible I would gladly learn how They come to know the Infallibility of Scripture by the words Therof for that is as much if not more invisible and as far removed from our eyes and senses 19. Some who pittifully suppose Scriptures to be proved Divine and Infallible by the very light which is in them Object first When we see the sun and the vast extent of the light it has we may well infer it comes from that luminous body And may we not say These proportionably inferr from the
God might have wrought Miracles by one that was purely Man and not Omnipotent and He did so de facto by his Disciples as He for told them Iohn 14. 12. Majora horum facient that they should do greater wonders Therfore other Principles and none could be more strong then Christs own Testimony besides His Miracles were necessary to beget certain Faith of his Godhead in Believers And so we say The Testimony of the Church Evidenced by signes and wonders is also necessary to beget a full Assurance of the Scriptures Infallibility without it we have no Divine certainty of Gods Word 23. Now I return a second Answer to the Objection and say A person that is not infallible can speak of things suitable to the Divine Nature and above the reach of humane reason of vertue and Godlines c. For not only the book of Herman or Hermes Called the Pastor highly valued of by some Ancient Fathers but other writings also though untruely ascribed to the Apostles often speak Divinely yet never were admitted by the Church as Canonical or Gods Infallible word Nay more Some parts of the Gospel and the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude also were not for a time received as Canonical by the Ancient Church though they spak then as Divinely and were as Insallibly Gods word as they are now the Ancient Church that had eyes as good as Sectaries red them yet Discovered no Infallibility or Divinity in them upon this account that they spak of things suitable to the Divine nature And who sees not but that the books of Wisdom and Eclesiasticus contain as high Doctrin as Divine Precepts as are in Salomons Proverbs or Eclesiastes yet the later are Divine with Sectaries and the former not And here I would willingly learn whether the first Protestants that admitted of the later and rejected the Other as Apocryphal did so because they smel't as it were a Divinity in those they received by the very reading and not in the former I am sure the more learned Protestants give other Reasons For these grounds therfore I say the Argument above is so unreasonable that I wonder men of judgement Ventured to propose it Now if they believe the Scripture to be Infallible because of the Miracles and other wonders internal to the book wrought in confirmation of its Doctrin Make a right Analysis and Ask why they believe these Miracles to be Infallible Scripture and follow them closely till they come to a Propositio Quiescens or an undoubted Principle And you 'l find the very Reason returned you to be the thing in Question Although we granted which is not true that Scripture it self said all things contained in the book are infallibly Gods Word For it would be demanded a new How They know that very Assertion to be Scripture 24. For these Reasons some Sectaries will say The Scriptures infallibility is to be proved by Discours not grounded on the meer light or Majesty therof but by probable Principles extrinsick to it And here is one Argument We know by humane Authority Morally certain that Scripture was writ by holy men Prophets Euangelists and Apostles I answer we know not so much of all the books in Scripture without the Churches Testimony For it is doubtful who writ the books of Iosue and Iudges and it is still in Controversy whether Salomon writ the Proverbs and therfore some not only Catholicks but Sectaries also are of opinion that if we rely on humane and historical Authority only we have greater and more particular Assurance that S. Thomas for example writ his summ of Divinity then we have Assurance of the particular Authors of no few books in Holy Scripture Again though we had this certainty grounded on History yet no man among Sectaries who say all Churches erred before Luther can tell us upon moral certainty whether the first Authentick Originals were afterward Corrupted or no by Ancient Hereticks and the supposed erring Church of Rome Se more of this subiect Disc 2. C. 2. n. 7. 8. Others again may Argue from the Miracles wrought by Scripture immediatly And one was as Baronius recounts that this sacred book in Diocletians time being cast into the fire the flames were forthwith extinguished I Answer first both this and other Miracles were only wrought in the true Church and at most prove which is to be noted that the book is true pious and holy but is far from Convincing that we now only inquire after which is its infallibility For God might have don the like Miracle for a true Christian Catechisme Had Diocletian who desired to rase out all memory of Christianity cast that into the Fire also Others argue from the Accomplishment of Prophesies which proves little without the Testimony of the Church First because the very Prophesies and the fulfilling of them must be proved to be Divine Scripture and this cannot be don abstracting from Church Authority 2. These two things are to be distinguished A power to Prophesy and to write as Hagiographers Did Canonical books One may prophesy who only heares from a Prophet what was told him upon the Prophets own Authority but none can write infallibly Canonical books of Scripture but such as have immediately the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct him In a word here is the last and most true Resolution of all these Difficulties Unles Sectaries rely on our Churches Testimony for the Infallibility of Scripture they are evidently beaten out of all likelihood of other Principles wherby to prove it is infallible Yet this very Principle of the Church in order to them doth little or nothing for reasons clearly alleged Disc 2. C. 2. n. 6. 7. It is needles to repeat them in this place 25. And it is as needles to prove my second Assertion above n. 12. Which is Though Sectaries had Probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility in general yet that doth them no service because it is a useles book in their hands This Proposition is so Copiously proved in the second Discours C. 1. and 2. Where much is said of Sectaries endles dissentions concerning the sense of Scripture though admitted of as Divine that no Unorthodox man shall acquit Himself of the Difficulties there proposed All I 'll do now Though it hath not been my Custome to tire the Reader with long Authorities of Ancient Fathers is to mind him of one only Tertullians Testimony in his book de Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos cap. 19. His words are Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est Rigaltius read's par incertae aut parum certa Nam etsi non evaderet collatio Scripturarum ut utramque partem sisteret ordo rerum desiderabat illud prius proponi quod nunc solum disputandum est quibus competat fides ipsa cujus sint Scripturae à quo per quos quando quibus sit
your Eyes and inables you to see the Rule 4. The Church is the Interpreter but not infallible and Authentick the witness or guardian of this Rule Observe well We have here a number of words but Nothing proved Nothing so much as cleared Say therfore plainly What tradition is it that conveyed to you the books of Scripture Most surely it is the tradition of the Roman Catholick Church for you have no other If therfore you dare trust this Church in a matter of so weighly importance as to hand to you Gods Sacred Word you may as well and with as good Conscience believe what ever other Doctrin it Teaches by Tradition See Disc 2. C. 2. n. 4. 5. You talk secondly of Reason that see 's this Rule of Scripture and you certainly mean the true sense of it or you say nothing Now I would willingly learn how your Reason comes to have the priviledge or preheminence of knowing such Secrets before your elder Brethren the Papists or your more neerer Allies the Quaquers or the old Arians The like doubt I move about the Eye-salve that annoints your Eyes you call it the Spirit of God And I am sure there is no Donatist or Pelagian but will say as much of his contrary Spirit But above all Satisfy me in one doubt and plainly point me out the Church that interpret's Scripture as you do in all those matters of Controversy now between us I tell you Sir There was never any such Church in the world fallible or infallible that favours your glosses and interpretations of Scripture 32. Page 46. You have a Fling at the Captains Arguments against the judgement of Reason who if you relate truely for I have not now his Epistle by me saith first Reason must submit to the judge therfore it is not the judge You Answer It is not the supreme judge but subordinate and tyed to Rule Contra. Every judgement with you is fallible and may easily Swerve from the rule or mistake the supreme judges Sentence if it do so it is erroneous and not to be followed Say therfore who ties your judgement that is fallible and may be fals to any certain Rule This should be Answered 33. He Objects again The judge must be Infallible but reason is fallible Ergo. You Answer The Maior is a pittiful Petitio principij Contra. Your Reply is more pittiful Observe well All judgements you say are fallible and many are not only fallible but fals also Most surely you will not have us to follow any fals judgement and yet we must follow a fallible judgement Vouchsafe to tell us whose fallible judgement we are to trust to in these weighty matters of Controversy And I have all reason to be satisfied in the doubt because it avail's me Nothing to know that I must rely on a fallible judgement which may be fals Vnles you teach me whose fallible judgement it is I am to rely on For example When you interpret a passage of Scripture contrary to the Churches Sense your explication is fallible Answer therfore why will you rather have me to rest on your judgement that is fallible then on the Churches contrary sense though it were falsly Supposed fallible If you say All things considered your explication is more probable you are the very man that pittifully begg's the Question and speak's without any probable Principle 34. Now if wearied with those Interrogatories you say roundly and this must be answered in your Principle that every man is to follow his own judgement in these debated matters The Arian is to follow his private judgement the Socinian his the Quaquer his the Donatist his c. you do not only license all the Hereticks in the world to remain still in their Heresies But moreover Counsel them to believe Falsities for you know or should know that these private judgements are all fals If finally you Answer We must rest on a judgement that is True although it be fallible I know not what you mean for no man amongst you can assure me in these high points of Controversy when a judgement is to be reckoned of as true that is fallible because Truth is most easily separated from an Act that is really Falliâ—â— 35. In a word Sir your whole Mistake lies in this You sound not to the bottome the signification of these words The Iudgement of Reason For Reason in this place cannot be taken for a weak Discours or the private Sentiment of every erring man after He hath humm'd over or paus'd on Scripture the Arian or Socinian will make his Religion good this way but the Iudgement of Reason Goes further and ought to be deeply rational indeed that is It must rest at last upon a solid and satisfactory Principle which throughly pondered work 's powerfully upon every prudent disinteressed Vnderstanding and gently forceth the man that layes prejudice aside to acquiesce and yeild without fear or trouble The Catholick Church of Christ only most evidently proposeth these undoubted satisfactory Principles wheron a rational judgement doth rest securely when the Faith Shee holds is resolved No Sectary ever yet shewed nor shall hereafter show any think like a Satisfactory Principle to ground a rational judgement on when He believes contrary to this Church All he can do is to tell us what He thinks but you shall never learn from him upon any solid Principle extrinsecal to his own bosome thoughts That God speaks as He thinks But I have said so much of this Subiect Disc 1. c. 7. n. 4. 5. and Disc 2. c. 5. n. 8. 9. 10. that it is needles to add More 36. To the 3. Argument If Reason were judge a man might pleas God without Faith I know not whether you propose it fully enough you Answer this would overthrow the Church You are much deceived for the Church teaches that none â—an please God without Faith In your fourth Answer your are â—â—ing up again your Reason to a Law and Rule in things you understand not Sir if you understand not you want cords to tye fast withall and therfore may easily not close with the supreme judges sentence But of this we have said enough already You will find the substance of what followes in your Appendix refuted upon several occasions in the Treatise Had I more time I would say a word to your Glosses upon these two places of Scripture quoted by you In the first though S. Peter saith contrary 2. Pet. 3. 16. that Scripture is difficile to be understood you will have it easy unles it be to the ignorant and ungodly and 't is likely you suppose there are none of these ignorant or ungodly people among you Upon the other Text 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. you seem to inferr from the Vtility of Scripture a sufficiency in order to Saluation which is as good an Inference as if you said Your head is profitable to make you to live therfore it is sufficient Or the Principles of Philosophy can instruct you
nothing probable for an Objection as soon solved as seen is far off from the nature of a sound Principle We say therfore if to pray for one an other Here on Earth lessens not Christs Honor there is no danger of lessening it by our recours had to the Saints in Heaven now in a most Glorious and happy Condition And thus no less a Doctor then S. Hierom Adversus vigilantium Paris print 1609. pag. 590. Solves the Difficulty at those words Dicis in libello tuo c. Thou Vigilantius saith in thy Book that whilst we live we may pray for one another but after Death no Prayer is heard for Any Here is the Objection Mark S. Hieroms Answer Si Apostoli Martyres adhuc in corpore constituti possunt orare pro ceteris quando pro se debent esse soliciti quanto magis post coronas victorias triumphos If the Apostles and Martyrs yet living in a mortal body can pray for others when they are solicitous for themselves much more can they do that Charity after their Crowns Victories and Triumphs He goes on Vnus homo Moyses c. That one Moyses obtained pardon for thousands Exod. 32. And the first Martyr S. Stephen living prayed for his Persecutors Act. 7. Et postquam cum Christo esse coeperint minus valebunt And what shall they be able to do less now when they are glorious with Christ in Heaven Meliorque erit vigilantius cams vivens quam ille leo mortuus And can thou Vigilantius a living Dog be better then that dead Lyon He alludes to S. Paul that prayed for others whilst he lived Tu vigilans dormis dormiens scribis I tell thee Vigilantius waking thou sleep's and sleeping writ's these things against prayer to Saints Thus S. Hierom. And not only S. Austin lib. 22. de Civit. c. 8. to omit innumerable others Approves the Doctrin but that worthy Bishop also S. Greg Nyssen in his Oration of S. Theodore Martyr Paris print 1615. page 1011. and 1017. confirms the Practice of it Pray for us saith S. Gregory addressing himself by an earnest Petition to S. Theodore when the Scythians threatned a war to the Country make intercession to him who is our common King and Lord. As you are a souldier fight for us and defend us And as a Martyr speak freely for your fellovv servants here A few lines after And if more Prayer be needful assemble together the vvhole Quire of your Brethren Martyrs and joyntly intercede for us Put S. Peter in mind move S. Paul and the beloved Disciple of our Lord S. Iohn that they be solicitous for the Churches vvhere once they vvore Chains passed dangers and finally Dyed Say now what lessening is here of Christs Honor by the prayer of this Ancient Saint and most learned Prelate Or what answer can be returned to these three Authorities The other Difficulty is as forceles For if Scctaries can explicate how the blessed Soul of our Saviour in Heaven hear's our Prayers which I hope they will not Deny I speak of his Sanctified created Soul all Difficulty ceaseth in the present Controversy How They hear is opinion se Bell. cap. 20. n. Argumentum tertium But That they Hear is certain Doctrin 7. Now if Sectaries tell us They can so explicate These Fathers as to make their words insignificant to our Purpose I would first learn what can be said to S. Hierom S. Austin and S. Gregory now cited But this is not all for I am to assure them further That their explications when contrary to the Doctrin of a whole Church as also to the obvious sense of either Scripture or Fathers quoted by us are so far off from being Principles that they merit not the name of mean probabilities which Truth is more amply Declared Discours 4. c. 4. n. 8. 9. Where I prove that no Interpretation of Sectaries can be Allowed of unles it rely on an extrinsick Ground much surer then His Gloss is that interpret's which therfore must be plain Scripture The undoubted consent of Fathers Vniversal Tradition or such like convincing Principles Hence I said when the Catholick Interprets a dubious or Difficil Passage He never makes his Gloss to be the ultimate Proof of his Doctrin But supposeth that proved by stronger Principles distinct from His Interpretation All is contrary with the Sectary who makes His Gloss to do all to be the last and surest ground of his Opinion without the Support of any better Proof then his own word is And thus much is evident in other Controversies now Debated between us as you will see Hereafter 8. From this want of clear Principles all the too manifest and most Discernable Faint proceeding of our Adversaries in matters now controverted shewes it self so openly that one with half an Eye may Discover it It is From want of Principles That they now begin to be weary of Protestancy and hold that a Faith Common to all Sectaries is sufficient to Saluation if this may Pass They need not herafter to stand more for Protestancy then Arianism or for any other condemned Heresy For the same Principles were there Any would make both Sects equally Credible Hence it also is That you have them ever Cavilling at our Religion and 'T is the easiest thing in the world to Find fault Yea and to cavil at the verities of Holy Scripture it self you se Arians do so but still you find them wanting in that which concern's them most which is to bring their Novelties to the grounds of either Scripture or any Ancient Church Doctrin Herin they are as mute as Fishes and say not a word It is from want of Principles That when they explicate a Council or Father alleged against them They are tediously long about little that is in relating the circumstances to be as They would have Them but whether they hit right is ever a matter of Dispute and nothing like a received Principle From hence it also is That when They make such and such Doctrins to be Inâ—oâ—ations Praying to Saints Purgatory or what els you will The very last ground They standon comes to nothing but Negative Arguments weak Conjectures blind Guesses Fancy and meer Vncertainties It is From the want of Principles That when we produce undeniable History for innumerable Miracles wrought in our Church An odd Answer is at hand They cannot believe them as if forsooth Their Parole or meer Vnbelief had force enough to make null all that is writ of this subject by most approved Authors From want of Principles it is That they ever place against our clear Authorities no more but meer uncertain Testimonies And pick out of our Writers all they can pilfer for Their Advantage wheras if they had a good cause in hand and sound Principles to rely on They should beat down the Doctrin of long standing Church 〈◊〉 by undeniable Proofs taken from Scripture Councils and consent of Fathers wherof more presently From hence it also
vapour with a few broken fragments I 'll espyed in these Modern Authors and worse applyed without attending to their whole drift antecedent and consequent and think to defeat an Ancient Church with such trivial Doings is so slight a way of schirmishing that it deserves no counterblow but pitty and compassion That incomparable Author of the Protestants Apology learn's them anohter way of arguing whilst he doth not only shew the endles clashing of Sectaries amongst themselves but moreover solidly proves our Catholik Doctrin positively and this by the most satisfactory and undeniable Principles that a lover of Truth can wish for Thus these new men should defend their cause and it is no fault of ours that they trifle it out and do no better We charge enough upon them and could they well acquit themselves they would certainly go more closely to work and answer directly We say and will prove it That that Doctrin which they believe as Protestants contrary to the Roman Catholik Faith is evidently no part of any Christian belief but a meer Opinion grounded on fancy only We say and will prove it that this new Religion of Protestancy hath all the marks and characters of heresy following it which can be thought on not one is wanting for if Arius of old who quited the ancient Roman Church and banded against it was upon that account both schismatick and heretick our Sectaries are in eâdem nave and have done so their cause and case in other matters is the very same 2. As Arius stood all alone at his first rise opposite to the rest of Christians and was opposed by all so were they also both opposite and opposed by all 3. As he began without commission to broach his Novelties against the ancient Faith so are they as wholy uncōmissioned to preach Theirs And here we give them matter enough to work on and conjure them to produce their commission 4. As Arius supported by secular power vented what ever he pleased without curb or any superiour law to check him and therfore fell into desperate Extravagancies so are our new men lawles also and submit to none but their own fancy and self-judgement Finally as Arius without warrant of the Church interpreted Scripture as his own weak reason taught him just so do our Sectaries here only is the difference That he had a plausible sound of Scripture-words for his heresy Protestants have neither sound nor syllable nor sense through the whole Bible for one article of Protestancy as Protestancy This I shall make good hereafter Here is charge enough drawn up against them but by what satisfactory known and received Principles which force reason to acquiesce and we make a search after these they can acquit themselves or rationally answer is a heavy difficulty I 'll tell you in a word and remember it they shall never answer by any thing that hath the look of a rational proof or a received Principle No Their own sole proofles word wheron the whole machin of Protestancy is built upholds what ever they teach They have no more They say 't is true they left the ancient Roman Church because it left it self but yet stick close to the Primitive Doctrin Observe it They are here both Accusers of us and Iudges in their own cause Their proofles word doth all without reducing it to any known or certain owned Principle Not one Council not one Canon no ancient Tradition no consent of Fathers can they produce wherby particular men are lycensed to rise up against an Ancient Mother Church and condemn it of false Doctrin They will tell you that they stood all alone when Luther rose up yet taught forsooth the true Gospel of Iesus Christ and we must believe them Here is the last Propositio quiescens They say so To what we charge against their uncommissioned Authority to preach as they did you have the like uncommissioned answer The Lord sent them abroad and the Truth they taught secures them But of these weak wordy replyes I have said to much in this short Digression Let us now retourn to Mr. Poole And I must say all he hath vented in his Nullity or Appendix against us comes to no more but to a most weak assault of a feeble Adversary for this man who endeavorus to prove that both Church and Councils and what else you can mention are fallible can never assume to himself or tye to any Community he joyns with the Spirit of Infallibility For if the infallibility of the Church of Rome must down down say I also with the infallibility of the Protestant Church of the Grecian Church and of all other societies of Christians With some of these Mr. Poole is listed and therfore I cannot but hold him and his Adherents men of no more then of a fallible Religion Hence I argue Suppose which is utterly false that the Church or all Churches all Councils all Fathers are fallible and that Christian Religion as it is taught by these is likewise fallible Admit also that I were to embrace one of these many fallible Religions which I shall never do will not prudence dictate if I have no other certainty then these meer uncertainties to rely on that it is better to hold where I am and stick to my ancient Religion glorious with innumerable Martyrs Doctors Confessors c. then to give up my Faith to Mr. Pooles post-nate fallible Religion and false discours How therfore can this man so much as once endeavour to draw me or any of my more ancient and universal Religion though supposed fallible to another new one which lyes sick of the same disease totters and reel's as much as mine if not more and in a word is fallible Of two evils the lesse is to be chosen It is an evil without doubt to have no Religion certain yet if I were to choose one of two uncertain Religions and could by no certain Teacher learn which of them is worse being both naught I would either pitch where I list and as my fancy lead's me or rather choose none at all knowing wel that a ruin of all Faith followes the renouncing of certainty in Religion But of this more hereafter In the interim I would know of Mr. Poole whether this strange and unheard of Proposition Christian Religion as it is taught and delivered by all Pastors Doctors c. is fallible be subjectively in him that speak's it an infallible Assertion or fallible If the first we have an English Pope I mean Mr. Poole who without either Scripture Church or Council can speak infallibly in matters of Faith If that formal Proposition be fallible it fall's of it self without further proof to nothing and renders this sense I. M. P. say by a fallible Assertion that Christian Religion is fallible which feeble Assertion and the weaker it is the worse it is for him cannot at all startle me or any who upon the Authority of thousands more learned than he to say no more hold one
of them certainly knows what he sayes They have Christs Promises of a Spirit of Truth ' abyding with some Christian Teachers find them where they can for ever to the end of the world but now They must say because all Pastors are fallible That Christ keep 's not his word if all may deceive and Teach both fallible and false Doctrin Finally they must own such Believers as S. Paul mentioneth Who receive the word of God as it Truly is the word of God but have not one Pastor or Doctor that dare show his face and say he Teaches this word infallibly Yet infallible Believers and infallible Teachers seem neer Correlatives the one if Faith come by Hearing staggers without the other and Infallible Hearers of Gods word suppose Infallible Teachers methinks when the Apostle saith Rom. 10. 14. None can hear without a Preacher he supposeth as well the Preacher instructing infallible as the Hearer infallibly instructed CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrin of Christ necessarily requires infallible Teachers 1. THe proof of my Assertion is more fully declared Chap. 4. n. 6. and relyes on this Principle Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly under that notion of fallibly taught Doctrin is not the Doctrin of Christ We are of God saith Scripture Iohn Epist 1. cap. 4. v. 6. He that knowes God hear's us he that is not of God heareth us not Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of errour Which is to say in other Terms He that hear's an infallible Teacher hath the Spirit of Truth and he that hear's not an infallible Teacher wants this Spirit of Truth Again Epist 2. v. 9. Every one that recedes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ hath not God c. But every one that Hears only a fallible Teacher easily recedes and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ Therfore he hath not God nor the Spirit of Truth in him 2. Upon these grounds I Argue further Christ Doctrin infallible in it self is either now taught infallibly by some Pastors lawfully sent or fallibly If the first we must own infallible Teachers of this infallible Doctrin If the second That is if Christs infallible Doctrin be taught only Fallibly ex parte Docentis it followes evidently first That though God speaks infallibly yet no man hath certainty of what he saith It followes secondly That such a fallible Teaching of Christs Doctrin may be cavilled at and disputed against For Doctrin taught Fallibly may be cavilled at and disputed against all Doctrin taught fallibly and which by force of its Proposal or merit of the Doctrin may deceive and be false is lyable to cavil and dispute Therfore this Doctrin may be also cavilled at and disputed against It followes thirdly That really Christs Doctrin perchance perverted by a fallible and false Delivery may not be Taught at all The reason is No other Doctrin is or can be taught but what is fallible and may be false but Christs Doctrin is nor fallible nor can be false Therfore that Doctrin which is only Taught fallibly as it is so delivered is none of Christs infallible Doctrin Consequently if any man would now utterly abjure all the taught Doctrin of the Christian world he might do it without being an Haeretick I prove it He who only abjures and Denies Fallible Doctrin which may be false neither abjures nor denies Christs Doctrin nor any Christian Verity which cannot be false But all Christian Doctrin that can be Taught Sectaries say is Fallible and may be False Therfore he who Denies such a fallible taught Doctrin denies not Christs Doctrin and cannot be upon that account an Haeretick You will say He who Denies all Christian taught Doctrin certainly Denies some of those Objective Verities which are revealed in Gods Word and therfore is an Haeretick Very true if he be sure That his Teacher delivers those Verities infallibly But our Protestants say Because all Teachers Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly implyes no Denial of Christs infallible Verities are fallible none can have that Assurance from them or any Therfore their Doctrin as it is taught fallibly may be cavilled at yes and denied also without the guilt of Haeresy The reason is Whoever only Denies the fallible Teaching of infallible Doctrin yet not known for such Denies not the Objective infallible Doctrin in it self but the Formal fallible Delivery of it and this he may boldly say is none of Christs Doctrin 3. The substance of what I would here expresse may No assurance can be had from men that Teach Christs Doctrin fallibly perhaps more plainly be reduced to Form thus A society of men who can do no more but only Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false can assure none that they Teach Christs infallible Doctrin which cannot be false But all societies of Christians can do no more but Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false for all Churches all Councils all Fathers all Papists all Protestants and Mr. Poole with them are as they say Fallible in their Feaching Therfore not one amongst them can assure any that he Teaches or Delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ I say That he Teaches for if we meet with a Simplician That tel's us He builds his Faith and Religion not upon any Preachers talk but on the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture I answer Unles Objective revealed Verities no sufficient ground of infallible Faith he first learn of some Infallible Oracle what Scripture exactly speak's in a hundred controverted places he shall never by his own poreing on a Bible either arrive to the depth of God true meaning or derive infallible Faith from those Objective revealed Verities The reply supposeth That all Truth couched in Scripture is as easily understood with the unclasping of a Bible as the sun is seen at noon-day If so Ministers hereafter may for the most of men shut their books stop their mouths and preach no more 4. Some yet perhaps will say One may preach the infallible Doctrin of Christ though himself be fallible in the Delivery of it which feem's manifest for every Catechist or Preacher though he delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ yet delivers it not infallibly why therfore may not Ministers in England teach as those do infallible Doctrin though ex parte subjecti docentis they Teach it fallibly I answer first Ministers in England have no Infallible Church to recurre to in case They erre for their whole Community is fallible The Catholick Preacher hath a sure Oracle to rely on an Infallible Church that unbeguil's him if he swerve from Truth which is a mighty Advantage and a great The Advantage of an infallible Church Disparity in the present question Now if you say Sectaries may as well rely on infallible Scripture for their Direction as we do on an Infallible Church I deny the Supposition and shall shew hereafter That not so much as one Article of Protestancy
describing the number also and given good Scripture for both which cannot be don 2. That Faith only Iustifies 3. That after he hath better pondered the Text of St. Peter 2. 3. 16. He prove by Scripture the Plainess of it in all necessary Points to Salvation A fourth proof concerning the Canon and Certainty of Scripture would choak Mr. Poole But I 'll not give him so undigestible a pill may He pleas to satisfy the three former Demands by Scripture only without Glosses and ungrounded Inferences drawn from what he thinks to be Gods Word But is not 6. Some perhaps may ask why all this time whilst we have Discoursed of Scripture of its Certainty of its Sense and Regulating Faith c. None of Mr. Pooles Arguments against us are taken notice of Hath he none or do I Dissemble them I answer The man hath nothing like an Objection To prove Scripture to be the Word of God He Relyes on the Confession and Testimony of Catholicks This Mr. Poole hath nothing like Arguments we have Refuted above To prove it uncorrupt in the Essentials of Faith He Tell 's us that by looking into the Nature and quality of those Various Lections which are pleaded as Evidences of Corruption we shall quickly find them to be in Matters of les Moment It seem's They are little Becaus Mr. Poole without Proof will have them so I could shew him great ones in the Protestant Bible But let them pas And be pleased to note how poorly he shifts of the Difficulty That Presses The Difficulty is concerning the best Originals which Protestants have hitherto met with none of them I believe ever yet saw the Autograph or Hand-writing of either an Euangelist or Apostle These Originals I say cannot be proved Uncorrupt if that Church which had them in Custody for a thousand years brought in a Deluge of Errors into the Christian World Finally to prove that a Protestant hath a Sufficient Assurance of Understanding the Sense of Scripture in things Necessary to Saluation He allegeth Gods Promise Iohn 7. If any man will do his will he shall know of the Doctrin whether it be of God But Protestants do Gods will thus much must be added or the Proof stands on one Leg and Papist Do not Gods will Ergo Those have Assurance of the true Sense of Scripture and These have not Here is the doughty Argument and that which follows is as weightles Protestants saith He have the Assurance of Reason Papists have no more and if that will not do They have the Assurance of the Spirit which God promiseth Luk 11. Here is work enough for another Chapter Yet in passing I cannot but reflect on a mistaken quotation Mr. Poole misquotes Sixtus Senensis in Mr. Poole page 230. where he cites Sixtus Senensis And both err's in the Annotation and Doctrin of Sixtus concerning the Clarity of Scripture Sixtus Therfore libre 6. Annotat. 152. not 151. as Mr. Poole Quotes § Quod autem Answering an Objection of St. Chrysostom plainly Afferts that when Scripture is said to be clear 't is not to be referred to the Whole Bible but to a Part of it only wherfore saith He St. Chrysostom divides Scripture into two Classes The One contains the hidden and abstruse Mysteries of Gods deep Wisdom And this part is not clear at all thus much Mr. Poole conceil's Altera sectio The other Section or Part of it compriseth the First and chiefest Principles of all things to be Believed and Chief Precepts of living And so much is clear Observe well The first and Chiefest Principles of things to be Believed infer no Clarity in every Particular revealed Mystery For He that believes this one Principle of Faith That the Church is Holy and the Pillar of Truth Hath a First great Principle and may learn by it all Truth If you please to se how Mr. Poole abuseth Sixtus read him in the page now cited It were most easy to Take him tripping in other Citations But that is not my task at present This only came in by Chance CHAP. V. The Reason of private men and their private Spirit cannot interpret Scripture 1. MR. Poole told us above That Protestants have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture Happy They if they were the only Reasonable men in the World But why are not Papists as Reasonable Why should the Pelagians the Arians or Honest Quakers be left out of the list of Rational men Or if These would Monopolize the Assurance of Reason to Themselves for their Sence of Scripture Why are They not to be Credited upon their Parole as well as Protestants For their proof is to say They have it crede quod habes habes and so will an Arian or Quaker say too Admit Were Reason allowed of to sentence the Sense of Scripture we must know whose reason hitt's right therfore which is fals that Reason be allowed of as Judge or an Iustrument to sentence the Sense of Scripture where it speaks obscurely We are nothing Advanced nor one whit the Wiser unles we know whose Reason it is that hitt's right on the Sense Now all of them most evidently do not so unles we impiously say that God hath revealed Contradictions in Scripture Becaus these mens Reason draws contradictory Senses out of Scripture and in All do not Interpret Scripture truely High Points of Faith also Say then good Mr. Poole whose Reason must yeild and to whom Must an Arians submit to yours or yours to an Arian Whose Reason must yeild and to whom whilst we vary about the sense Must mine bend to yours or yours to Mine Or may we all hold on to the day of Doom as Devided in Faith as we are in Iudgements concerning the Sense of Scripture Allow once of these Endles and Eternal jarrs in Religion here on Earth which this one Principle of Following private Reason establisheth and you may seek for another Heaven then Christ hath promised to the Children of Peace Hereafter That is for none at all God forgive these late Tumultuous Spirits the True cause of our wofull Dissentions But let us go on And 2. Pray you tell me when Protestants say They have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture in controverted Points of Faith E. G. The Trinity what signifies this word Reason with them Doth it import a Formal Discours much of that nature as Schoolmen use when they establish their Tenents in Divinity Sectaries are to say what this word Reason signifies If so the Principle of this Discours must be admitted of and own'd by the two Advers parties when by Reason only They plead for the True sense of Scripture And the Conclusion of the Discours must If a formal Discours two Advers parties must agree on a Principle be drawn from Premises founded on This received Principle Thus much supposed I might here ask first Upon what known and admitted Principle Do our Protestants ground
a lawful Syllogism wherby They prove That Their Reason hath ever the good luck the singular Priviledge to fall right on the True sense whilst No Princiciple to prove that Protestants reason hitt's right Others as learned as They swerve from it If here They talk of the Vnction teaching Truth of the Spirit c. They will be urged again for a Principle to prove That these Favors singularly belong to Them and not to Others who Dissent from them But we will wave this Argument And only note how in all those Disputes which our Protestants hold either with Catholicks or Sectaries take for an Instance the Arians the True sense of Scripture is so far of from being a The sense of Scripture when Two Sectaries dispute is Ever the thing in Question received Principle by both these Litigious Parties That it is ever the Thing in Question and must be proved by another own'd and admitted Principle if the Discours stand upon solid ground 3. One example will give you more Light Mr. Poole Assaults an Arian a far weaker Adversary then a 'T is proved by an Instance Catholick with a Scriptural Proof for that High Mystery of our Faith the Sacred Trinity and argues thus Scripture saith Iohn 1. c. 5. 7. There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father Word and Holy Ghost and these three are one But the Sense of this Scripture saith Mr. Poole is That God is one in Essenceâ— and Three Distinct Persons The Father Vnproduced the Son Produced and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Both. Ergo we must admit a Trinity Observe well The Arian Admit's the first Proposition or the Words of Scripture And here is the only Principle agreed on by these two Disputants But utterly denyes the second Viz. The Sense drawn out of these Words And tell 's The Arian admit's of the words of Scripture but denies Mr. Pooles sense his Adversary that this Sense is the very Thing in question but no received Principle And therfore must be proved not supposed against him Proved I say and by Sole Scripture which yet cannot be done Though we turn to all the Texts in the Bible Most justly therfore may the Arian tell Mr. Poole If his Faith fall upon such a Determinate Sense now given He Believes it either Becaus His private Judgement molds Scripture to that Meaning or Becaus He takes it upon the Authority of a Church which he professedly Disowns and will not Believe 4. In reference to what is here said note first That as the True sense of Scripture is supposed and not proved against an Arian by force of Scripture in this particular Mystery so much more it is ever supposed and not proved when Protestants dispute against Catholicks The reason is Their private Judgement Protestants first frame to themselves a Sense of Scripture and then triumph first makes what sense they please which is no received Principle and afterward They vapor like Conquerours as if sole Scripture did the deed and defeated us Upon the great Assurance I have of This my Assertion I chalenge Mr. Poole or any Protestant They have not one Text of Scripture against the Roman Catholick Faith without the mixture of Their private Iudgements to produce one Text against the Roman Catholick Faith which without the Mixture of Their private Judgements or unadmitted Glosses speak's so much as Probably against it The more plausible place they insist on is That of St. Iohn cap. 6. Vnles you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. For communion under both kinds which nevertheles must have twenty Glosses and as many self Iudgements upon it before it can put on a likelyhood of a proof against us 5. Note 2. That whilst the Sense of Scripture lyes under dispute and is not agreed on by the two Parties Why Protestants loose labour when They argue by Scripture at Difference For example a Catholick and Protestant It is but Labour lost in the Protestant to Assault his Adversary with Texts of Scripture For the Catholick Answers Olim possideo prior possideo I have ever believed the sense of Gods Word to be such as you know we Catholicks own And can you my Antagonist What the Catholick answer's perswade your self to drive me out of the Possession of my Ancient Belief by your Sole private Judgement or Those new Glosses you father on Scripture If so A worthy Gentleman who by right of his Ancestors for a thousand years and upward now quietly possesseth his lands May be turn'd out of House and Harbor upon the private Judgement of some New upstart Fellow That Tell 's him He verily thinks the Ancient Writings for his Lands are not wel Understood Therfore he will first do him the favor to explicate them according to his private Opinion though contrary to the Sense hitherto received which done he will drive him out a doors and make him a Beggar This is our very Case 6. Contrarywise when the Sense of Scripture is How we may argue from Scripture agreed on we may Argue as Schoolmen do and draw from it Theological Conclusions which though often Various amongst Divines yet the Principle admitted I mean the Sense of Scripture remain's unquestioned and is maintain'd without Contradiction Without Such an agreed on sense which either Scripture as it often doth Deliver's plainly enough or The common consent of Learned men makes Highly probable or The Church of Christ declares certain 'T is to no more purpose to Dispute out of Scripture then to speak Arabick to an Illiterate Peasant Yet the loose Behavior of our Protestants is such that it lead's them without the guidance of these Lights first to Fancy The Fancy of Sectaries a Sense of their own and then draw strange Conclusions from it So Mr. Poole After he had by his own Interpretation perverted that Text of St. Paul The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth might wel say The Church is not proved Infallible Thus much is noted if the word Reason signify a formal Discours 7. Perhaps Protestants may reply For in Truth it Another Acception of the word Reason refuted is the hardest thing in the world where to have them in their Answers That Reason here imports not any Discours at all But an immediate clear Light Transfused into their Mind when they read Scripture like a Beam shot from the Sun wherby their Eyes as perspicuously discern the most Abstruse Sense in it as men do the Sun by its Light or the first known Principles of nature by Their own Indisputable Evidences Is this Reply think you rational that draws not so much as a Dram of Reason after it For if their new Faith hath set new Eyes in their head It hath not surely pluck't out their Neighbours Eyes who yet I hope may see what is discernable by All. None then ever questioned the Suns-shining at Noon-day or Writ Commentaries on the first
Truths in Themselves yet so long as they are not proved to be positive revealed Truths or Spoken by Almighty God Protestancy stands like a Starveling void and empty of all revealed Truths Protestancy as so hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by God And consequently as it is this New Religion hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by him who upholds all Christian Verities I mean Gods certain Revelation 6. To se this Assertion more clearly Evidenced Hear a little what our Sectaries Answer Some tell us They know right well there is no Purgatory Becaus God hath not revealed it in Scripture There is no real Presence for the same Reason and so they Argue for the rest of their Negatives To this and whatever els can be proposed we have answered Though These Suppositions are very Fals yet Admit of them as True Viz. Thaâ— a Purgatory or Real Presence are not mentioned in Scripture All that follows from hence is That God hath been as it were Silent and omitted to speak of such Objects That Protestants inferences Still proved improbable is as we now falsly suppose He hath neither said there is a Purgatory nor Denyed it Now this Negative God hath said nothing of such a matter as it cannot Ground a positive Belief of a Purgatory so it cannot Ground a positive Belief of the Contrary or No Purgatory Whilst What both Catholicks and Protestants are obliged to prove therfore the Catholick Believes a Purgatory He is obliged to show that God hath Positively Revealed it And if the Protestant Believe no Purgatory He is also Obliged to show that God hath spoken Positively this Objective Truth There is no such place To say then God hath made no mention at all of a Purgatory in Sçripture and to infer from Thence a Belief of no Purgatory is in plain Language to Say I may Actually Believe that by Divine Faith which God never Spake The most therfore That can be Deduced from this Negative were it True God hath Omitted to Reveal a Purgatory is That no man yet knows nor can know upon Revelation whether there be such a Place or no. But to draw from it an Absolute Faith of no Purgatory is and I can term it no better then the last of Nonsense For how many Things are there known to God Which He hath omitted to Reveal Can I Therfore upon that Non-Revelation Rush on them with my Faith and Believe them for his not Speaking at all Yet thus Sectaries Proceed They have Protestants Believe Negatives becaus God hath not Reveal'd them good store of Negatives But not revealed Negatives And They will Believe them Becaus God hath not Revealed them Here briefly is my Discours if it Faulter or seem Faulty to our Adversaries my humble Petition is That they will Vouchsafe to unbeguil ' me and Friendly shew me where the Fallacy lyes If this Discourse be faulty my wish is to hear of the fallacy 7. Some perhaps will say We have Fought all this while with Shadows And supposed These Negatives No Purgatory No Transubstantiation c. To be Objects of Protestants Faith But we err not knowing Their Doctrin For They are only Held Inferiour Truths One Reply refuted Approved by the English Church to mantain Vnion amongst Protestants And not owned as Articles of Faith Thus Two later Men whom you may se largely Refuted Discours 3. c. 6. n. 7. All I 'll say at present is Because Sectaries seldom Agree in Doctrin it is impossible to Confute them all at Once To my Sectaries agree not in Doctrin purpose then There have been Certainly And are yet Protestants I think These the more Numerous That Hold the now named Negatives Articles of Protestants Some own these Negatives Articles of Faith Faith And Against such our Proofs have Force Others that Deny the Doctrin And exclude them from being Articles are in a worse Condition Because upon the Supposition They are Forced to grant That Protestancy hath no Articles of Faith Protestancy as Protestancy contain's not so much as One Article of Divine Faith in it For the whole Reformed part of it is made up of pure Negatives Consequently if Any should utterly Abjure that Religion He would not Abjure one Truth Revealed by Almighty God Se more of this subject in the place now cited And Both are Confuted know That our Adversaries will have Much to do To come of Hansomly whether They Grant These Negatives To be Articles of their Faith or Disown them as Articles This is fairly spoken without Clamours And Mr. Stillingfleet in his Preface to the Reader Believe it Some who tell us They have not Leisure Enough to kill flyes may sweat at it take whether part They please before the Difficulty be solved 8. They may Reply secondly And Endeavor to A second Reply of Sectaries worth Nothing Prove at least one of their Negatives Thus. There is no Purgatory Becaus God hath Revealed in Scripture two Places only Heaven and Hell which seem's Exclusive of a third Place I answer That word Only is neither Scripture nor Revelation Cast therfore that Particle away and Propose the Argument as we ought to do And it falls to nothing Thus it is God hath Revealed two Places and these Eternal it is most True Ergo he hath Revealed the not Being of a Purgatory is Fals and a meer Non-sequitur 9. They may Reply thirdly Catholicks Believe A Third at bad many things upon as pure Negatives for Example A Trinity of Three Distinct Persons in one Divine Essence and no Quaternity or no more Persons then Three yet this Negative is not Revealed in Scripture To Help on this worthles Argument I Grant more That not so much as a Trinity of Distinct Persons is plainly Revealed in Scripture Doth it Therfore Catholicks believe not upon Negative grounds follow that Catholicks Believe that Mystery and Deny a Quaternity upon Negative Grounds No such matter They Believe a Trinity and no Quaternity upon the solid Positive Grounds of their Church Interpreting Scripture upon a Universal Perpetuated Tradition And the Infallible Word of God not Written Protestants are destitute of such Proofs in the Articles they Hold. For They neither have an Infallible Church nor Tradition Nor Written nor Vnwritten Word to Rely on Therfore They Believe upon Fancy oâ—â—y 10. To End This Matter I will here Briefly Becaus An Objection answered conceiâ—â—ing Novelties introduced i 〈…〉 the Church it is Consequent Answer to an old Trivial Objection made by Sectaries against our Present Roman Church which They Accuse of Novelties introduced since the First Primitive Ages And weakly as They are wont Argue after this manner Your Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Praying to Saints of an Vnbloody Sacrifice c. Were not Taught for Three or Four Ages after Christ Therfore say They We may now well hold the Contrary And Believe no Transubstantiation no Sacrifice c.
certainly know without a Teacher what this Infinite Wisdom judgeth of the Truth they seek Observe the proof after This is the very case of Sectaries No more do they certainly know in their Principles what God hath already Revealed in that one Text This is my body and the like is of innumerable others then if he had never Registred those Words in Scripture They may guess at the Sense and miss more they cannot do Now if they tell me of no man knows what Moral Certainty or of Fundamentals clearly enough made known in Scripture we Answer fully to both in the next Discours 3. They may thirdly object If a Protestant cannot depose his Judgement nor think that the Church and Scripture say one thing Becaus his Reason finds them Opposite to one another He may stand for Gods Word against the Church To confirm this He may tell us also that the Church which An Objection containing the ground of all Haresy seem's to engross all Judicature and right of Interpreting Scripture is no more but a Party and a Party cannot in Reason be Iudge for it Self when the Protestant stands out and is in Controversy with the Church Here briefly is the Ground of all Haeresy and the old Plea of all Condemned Sectaries 4. To Answer the first I Ask what is this Protestant Is answered that cannot Submit his Iudgement Is he an Angel from Heaven or one immediatly Taught by the Holy Ghost No. He is a poor simple fallible and erring Man Why then may not he yeild to the Church as well as his Ancestors have done before him and the Wisest part of Christianity doth now The true Reason is Becaus he perversly will not submit And though he palliat's his Pertinacy with a Specious Pretence of Gods Word yet he hath not one Syllable in Scripture for him The most He can know if yet so much is that what he reads is Scripture but what God saith in that Scripture he cannot know at all but by Fancy only when he judgeth contrary to the Church O but God Illuminates him about A paradox of Protestants illuminated the Sense Why you my Friend more then an Arian as Strong in Fancy as you are But why you more then a whole Ancient Church Doth God tender you so dearly and not his Church Will he And of a whole Church left in Darknes Illuminate you and leave his Church in Darknes Will he give you the Spirit of Infallibility and take it from his Church Away with these Trifles not worth Refuting neither God nor Scripture nor Church is here stood for But a Self-conceipt only The Church no Party but Iudge 5. Now to what is Added of the Church being a Part and therfore no Iudge I 'll say one Word and first ask what is the Sectary that opposeth himself to the Church Is not he a Party also Will He then take upon him to Iudge and censure the Church And cry out against it as partial if it meddle with him The Church is already impowred by Christ to Iudge in Spiritual Causes as I have proved But no Particular man is more 'T is proved Authorized to Iudge the Church then a Vassal is to Iudge his Sovereign after Treason committed And the Instance is fit as you may se If some in a Kingdom tumultuously rise up against both King and Country as Sectaries have done against the Pope and Church They are accused and brought to a Trial before their lawful Sovereign the Fact is examined whether Treasonable or no. Will these impeached Men think ye fly from the Judgement of their Sovereign or plead He is a Party and therfore seek for Justice to a Forreign Prince No most certainly The King The Church the high Tribunal from which there is no appeal and Country where they offend have Power to Iudge them And so hath the Church in Spiritual matters from which there can be no Appeal And the Case is most Evident for the Church Becaus whilst Sectaries by their Schism or new Doctrin contrary to it become Rebels They have no Tribunal imaginable left them to Appeal to secluding this Iudge But their own Self-judgement which is the Delinquent The Church thus Sectaries make the Delinquent Iudge rejected Neither God Immediately nor Scripture more explicitly nor Angels Ministerially judgeth for them Therfore their last Appellation is to a very Friendly and too partial a Iudge Too partial a Iudge Their own what they Please And this is most evident in every debated Controversy where no other Judge is allowed of by them but Scripture and it were well would they stand to it But it is Scripture as They are pleased to Interpret 6. They may Object fourthly Those Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors mentioned in the Text Though granted Infallible are against all Reason supposed to be the Teachers of the Roman The pretense of other Lawfull Pastors beside those of the Roman Catholick Church Church For most surely There were other Orthodox Teachers beside these continued Age after Age in the world Why therfore doth the Church of Rome draw all that 's good to it self and Allow no other Christian Society at least a share of these Doctors and Teachers c Mark the Objection which acknowledges a Succession of other Orthodox Pastors and Teachers in the Christian World Age after Age Shewed Null And take with it my plain Answer If Sectaries lay claim to such They are obliged plainly to point them out And say where or when they lived who they taught c. But they are not designable Becaus from Luthers days upward There were none except the Roman Pastors in the Christian world But known confessed and condemned Haereticks And They were no Orthodox Teachers as I largely prove in the first Chap. of the next Discours Be pleased to read it They may Reply fifthly This Argument Such Pastors are not A Reply answered designable therfore were not is purely negative and proves nothing Well But I hope this Proposition Asserted by Protestants Such Pastors and Doctors distinct from the Roman Clergy were Successively found to have been in the World is Positive And therfore must be proved However Negative Arguments in such matters and of the like nature with this That is when things are of themselves Perceptible and yet not Seen Are both strong and Convincing For Example When negative Arguments have force If a company of quick sighted men stand up in a tower set before a plain and look round about them yet se nothing within the compas of the eye like a high Mountain They may well conclude There is no such Mountain within their sight Now I say A Church consisting of such Supposed Orthodox Pastors as Protestants imagin Distinct from the Roman is as visible and discernable as a Mountain in this present Case Yet were never seen by Protestants nor others Therfore it follows They were not at all unles we
Church which Verified the Belief of that Article can be plainly and without fumbling Designed Say then on Gods name what Christians had we who constituted the Holy Catholick Church Nor Papists according to Protestants nor the later Graecians in Those Dayes Papists you say were all in a Deluge of Errour which made Luther to leave them Our later Graecians held and hold still a True Mass Sacrifice the Real Presence Praying to Saints Prayers for the Dead c. They therfore contrary to our Sectaries were neither the Holy nor Vniversal Church None say Sectaries but gross erring men were in the world before Luther Much les were Arians Abyssins Pelagians Monotbelits or all of them together Now besides such erring men There were no other in the World If Therfore the Vniversal Church be Essentially made up of Particular Churches as truely it is For there is no Vniversale à parte rei And all Particular Churches Nameable in those dayes grosly Erred it follows evidently That then no Holy Catholick Church could be Believed Since Those times Our Protestants came in Protestants only are not the Holy Vniversal Church And will They if That Article of our Creed was Fals in the last Age verify it now and stile Themselves the only Vniversal Church I am Confident They will not Donatize so far or dare to do so The Question Therfore Proposed deserves an exact Answer Viz. Where or amongst what Christians shall we find the The Question proposed deserves a clear Answer Holy Vniversal Church Then free from notable Errour 2. Can our Novellists Rationally say That All those who rightly Believed in Christ constituted the Holy Vniversal Church If so The Reply is too general An abstract belief in Christ insufficient to constitute true Catholick Faith and we ask again Who Those were and urge to have the Particular Communities Specified That Catholickly Believed in Christ We demand moreover what they mean by that Belief in Christ Was it enough to Confes Him to be the True Messus Our Redeemer our Master or to acknowledge his Death his Resurrection without Believing more of his Doctrin Surely More is required and necessary to Saluation no. For first God never spake those other Excellent Verities registred in Scripture whether Dogmatical or relating to manners in vain But to good Purpose And with Intention That They should besides that abstracted Faith in Christ both be harken'd to and Believed after a Sufficient Proposal Again Were the later Graecians who firmly Believed in Christ and held never the les Almost all the Tenents of the Roman Catholick Church Catholick Believers also If so Papists can in no Iustice be excluded from that Communion Perhaps you will say you do not exclude them No. Why then have you hanged them upon Gibbets meerly for being Papists If you Answer you do so upon the Account of their Particular Errors then hang up a number of your own Ministers who confessedly have more Errors among them Or if petty Differences in Points of Faith may be pardoned in the One why are they so severely punished in the Other But ad rem 3. Say plainly And Answer Categorically without Arians and Pelagians believed in Christ Shuffling Were Arians Pelagians Nestorians Monothelits Parts and Members of the Holy Catholick Church For they believed in Christ and owned him for their Redeemer Master and Doctor yea and admitted of Scripture also If you Affirm it Then there never were nor can be Haeresies in the Christian Yet were cast out of the Church as Hareticks world whilst Christ is acknowledged in this General Way and consequently the Ancient Councils Dealt most unjustly with these men in casting them out of the Churches Communion And proclaiming them Haereticks Beside observe I pray you what a pretty Church is here made up of men irreconciliable in their Disputes Is this think ye that Holy Vniversal A Church compounded of hideous dissenting Members is not Christs Church and Vnited Society of Christians which Christ Iesus cimented together in one Faith who do nothing but clash one with another And will he own this for his Spouse when he comes to Iudge the World Yet farther No Doctrin proper to Particular Sectaries as Arianism is to Arians Pelagianism to Pelagians Protestanism to Protestants can Becaus bound up within the narrow compass of these Communities deserve No Doctrine peculiar to Sectaries can be Catholick the Name or Notion of either Holy Vniversal or Catholick Doctrin Prescind therfore from these particular Doctrins or lay them aside which as Protestants must say did not Vnchurch them my Demand is and it shall never be Answered wherin Consists the Protestants cannot answer the Question Remainder of that Doctrin which implyes the pure Essentials of Christian Religion joyns men together in one Faith and makes them true members of the Holy and Vniversal Church 4. Will You hear as I think the best Answer of some newer Protestants They may say Who ever Believes in Christ and Scripture and ioyns in that Belief which was Vniversally owned by the whole Christian World before Luther is right in Faith and a Member of the Holy Vniversal Church Though perhaps He Believes with his tainted Church some Errours A most wretched The first Answer refuted and unproved Assertion For who ever yet maintain'd That a Society of Christians owning some Doctrin True as all have don and more perhaps Fals is a part of the True Holy Catholick Church We say Bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu A Faith Therfore Truely good is Intierly good Any Falsity Spoil's it And then most when 'T is vitiated with notable Errours Tell me if Scripture A Church vitiated with gross errours is no more a Church Then the Bible notably corrupted is Gods word were Corrupted in some Points of Consequence would you own the whole Bible for Gods Word No certainly How then can we own That for Christs True Church which is corrupted with Fals Doctrin You will say We must take the Good without the Bad And Believe as much as is necessary to the Essential Being of a Church And that makes us Catholicks Though we ioyntly Believe some errors with it Answer This is wors then before And more confused stuff Who are those WE that can chuse thus None can separate Truth from falshood if I live in an Erring Church Or Tell me if I live in an Erring Church where Fals Doctrin is Secretly mingled with Truth what I am to chuse or what is Good or Bad If a poor simple man Deceived by his Pastor fall into an Errour There are others ready to unbeguile him But Because He who endeavours to unbeguile me may then most err himself here are none to do this Service Becaus none can certainly Iudge of the right or wrong Will you say That Scripture is to decide in such Doubts Pray you Tell me if by a supposed Impossibility Scripture
Christ But held that he was Man only The Monothelits Believed That which all Christians agree in though true is not enough for saving Faith in Christ But denyed his two Natures his two Wills Humane and Divine The Apollinarians Believed in Christ and held that the Word assumed True Flesh But without a Created Soul Tell me now can you Abstract a Belief from these Erring Christians Common to all other That is safe sufficient and enough to constitute Saving and Catholich Faith Is it enough to say I do Believe in Christ without descending with my Faith to an explicit Belief of his Divinity also Hath one that saith I believe in Christ But I will abstract from a Belief of his two Natures from his having a Rational Soul from His Being God and Man And Becaus others have positively Disbelieved these Articles I will only Prescind from the Verity of them to prescind is les then expresly to deny them hath such an one I say Saving Faith enough to make him a Plain Haresy followâ— from these Sectaries Doctrin Member of the Holy Catholick Church No. For if so He needs not to believe at all the Divinity of Christ or his two Natures after Scripture is Red and Proposed unto him which obligeth him if He own it for Gods Word not to Abstract from the Belief of these Articles But positively to yeild an Assent to them with True Faith as most Fundamental Verities of Christian Religion You se Therfore how Impossible it is to draw one true Vniform Vniversal Doctrin From all erring Christians And to hold that on the one side sufficient for Catholick Faith And on the other to comply with that strict Obligation which express Scripture clearly proposed forceth us to Believe 4. This Point I insist on Becaus I know Protestants cannot so much as probably Name any Thing like a Holy united Catholick Church before Luther unles They first Answer as some of them seem to do by the Abstract Doctrin of all Christians now evidenced no Faith And say That particular Errors did Vncatholick none Or Secondly run to an invisible Church not at all Designable Or thirdly as They Protestants ought to acknowledg the Roman Catholick Church as True c. ought to do Acknowledge that the Roman Catholick Church was then and now is not only a Church But the Sole Holy and Catholick Church of Christ through the whole World With this Catholick Society I could show were it not amply don by others How all who Age after Age merited the Name of Catholicks have ioyned in Faith And all who parted from it Have been Branded with the ignominious Note of Or can find none Haereticks If I speak not Truth Name any Society of Christians before Luther That ever gained the None ever had the Name of Catholick but those of the Roman Faith Repute of Catholick But such only as were United in Faith with the Roman Church Name any one Society That Divorced it Self from this Church which Forthwith lost not that Ancient Title of Catholick Or was not upon That Separation Stiled Haeretical Schismatical or Both. If you say first the Roman Church wronged them I Ask. Quis te constituit judicem Who made you judge in this Case Name the injured Parties Were the Arians Pelagians Nestorians Donatists wronged when they left Communion with this Church The Gracians Waldenses c. No more wronged then Arians No. But the Waldenses the Albigenses the Hussits And most of all The later Graecians had Injury Don them And why so more Then Pelagians Is your bare Assertion Proof enough to Declare Those Guilty and These Innocent When you your selves as much condemn them as Catholicks Do For You utterly Disavow Their Doctrin Was ever General Council Convened That did more Patronize the Errour of these Waldenses Then those other of the Arians or That blamed the Roman Church for casting them out of Her Communion No. Why therfore do you Plead â—o much for a Bad cause when you have no more â—o Defend it Then your own Proofles Talk which Had you spent in an Apology For any Old Condemned Haeretick would have Help't as much That 's nothing at all as now you Advantage These later Men And Observe I Beseech you How weakly you Go to work You say the Hussits Waldenses Sectaries plead for condemned Hereticks without any Principle but their own Talk and Others were good Catholicks We deny it And Demonstrate their Vncatholick Doctrin To what Tribunal shall we Appeal for a just Sentence to your Saying I or to our No. To None And Thus you Proceed with us in all your Controversies We must either take your Word for your Assertion or Dispute without end upon nothing that hath the Appearance And make Controversies Endles of a received Principle 5. You Say Again The Later Graecians were Catholicks Before they Recanted their Errours in the Council of Florence How Prove you That By a glorious Empty Title A Defence of the Greek Church By Far fetch'd Vncertain Conjectures And meer Negative Arguments which are so slight That if all were put together in a Iust Ballance They would not weigh one Straw much â—es Out-weigh the Definition of a most Learned General Council against the Greeks Yet such Talk and Talk only lengthen's these new Books And makes them so Voluminous as They are And They Defend Doctrin denyed by the English Church by the way Note here a Pretty Humour The Greeks must be Defended in that Point of the Holy Ghosts Procession from the Father Only whilst the Church of England Anathematizeth the Doctrin Is not this Right think ye And well done by a Protestant 6. Well You shall se my plain Dealing with Graecians Hussits and Waldenses could not make the Catholick Church you I Licence you to take These Graecians Those Hussits Those Waldenses c. to make up a Church before Luther yet must Tell you They Do not the deed without more Company which cannot be found That These we have named make not the Church Catholick is Evident For first they were never Vniversal either in Time or Place Their late Beginnings and little Extent are known and upon Record 2. They were never United in one Doctrin But more at variance with One another Then you and Catholicks are This they only Agreed in to Oppose the Catholick Faith And if so much made them Protestants or good Catholicks You may call in Turks and Iewes to bear them Company 3. They were most contrary to Protestant Religion and not in Trifles only Why therfore have you recours to a People so Blasted Scattered and almost now Forgotten Alas Protestants Every way Churchles The Reason is clear Becaus without them you have nothing to make a Church of And yet with them you are Churchles I say therfore No Roman Catholick Church no Church No Roman Catholick Church no Church at all at all If no Church at all There was then
with so poor a Belief which if it be Resolved Proves No Faith at all And therfore it is Impossible Becaus when I say by a General Proposition I am bound to Believe firmly All that God Speak's I cannot but Believe also every Particular comprised under that General at least implicitly as is Already both Declared and Proved 10. My second Proposition is Although contrary to Sectaries though we Admit of the Distinction between Fundamentals and others cannot make their Doctrin Good Truth we gratis Permit Protestants to Distinguish between Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental yet They are so unprovided of all means to make good the Distinction or to Sever the Fundamentals from the Other That They shall never Speak so much as one Word probably on this Subject 11. Some fraudulently shuffling all of with Generalities Think They say much when nothing is touched on to the Purpose and Define First What ever Appear's to me upon sufficient Enquiry to be Revealed by God Mr. Stilling fleets shuffling I am bound to Believe it by Virtue of Gods Veracity First Why am I bound to Believe twenty Verities in Scripture when the Belief of them hath as you Say no Reference to Eternal Saluation Why should God oblige me to Believe that now which will do me no good Hereafter Yet farther You Talk of Enquiry Tell He send 's us to enquire and sayes not of whom me of whom must we Enquire of our own Fancies These lead us as we se in the Quakers to a Thousand Fooleries Of an Vnerring Church You own none to Enquire of Of Scripture This Occasion 's Errour upon Errour And as Appear's by the Endles Dissentions of Haereticks may as well lead us to Deny Fundamentals as rightly to acknowledge them They define Pope-like Secondly All things not equally appearing to all Persons to be revealed by God the same measure of necessity cannot be extended to all Persons The All have not alike the same Explicit Faith Assertion only show's what is Evident That all Persons cannot have alike the same Explicit Faith But 't is far of from Proving That all Gods Verities when propounded have not Relation to Belief and Saluation Also Yet this is the true State of the Question concerning Fundamentals as Appears by These men who put a Difference between some Revealed Points and Others True Faith believes all Implicitly Those upon the General Account of Divine Revelation are Necessary These of lesser Reckoning stand at a great distance from absolute Necessity We say all are Necessary when Proposed yea and all are Implicitly Believed in every True Act of Supernatural Faith 3. They say An universal Assent to the Will of God and Vniversal Obedience to it are absolutely and indispensably Necessary to all Persons Perfect Obedience is resolved into particular Compliances with Gods will to whom Gods Word is Revealed The Assertion though most true run's on in Terms too Vniversal And must if it speak of an Efficacious Obedience be Resolved into particular Compliances with Gods Will Otherwise it Destroyes it self For no Man can say I now Purpose to yeild Obedience to Gods Will And in Sensu Composito of this Volition Resist his Will in any particular Otherwise it destroyes it self Therfore if it be his Will as most certain it is That I Hear Him and Obey Him in every Particular He Speak's my Purpose also of Compliance with his Will cannot but joyntly Embrace and Extend it self to those Particulars either Implicitly which is don in every due Submission to God Or more Explicitly when I Hear his Will Propounded in such and such particular Matters 12. I have already given the Reason hereof Becaus No Generality in Objects The Object therfore of Faith includes so many Particulars there is no Generality in Objects The total Object Therfore of my Faith as condistinguished from my Act of Believing includes à parte rei nothing els But so many Particulars as God hath Revealed In like manner the Object of my Obedience implies a Submission to so many Particular Commands He Therfore who saith by a General Act I Believe all that God And a datiful Obedience extend's to so many Commands Speak's I Obey him in all He Command's Fasten's upon nothing à parte rei But on Particular Revealed Verities and Particular Intimated Commands nor can He by a General Act more Believe All and exclude Some then exclude All and believe Some For want of well Pondering this Truth our Protestants whilst they own an Vniversal Belief of Scripture necessary to He that Believe's Scripture in General Believe's every Particular Saluation shall fumble as long as they live in Their Specifying Particular Fundamentals Becaus the Vniversal owning of Scripture owns likewise all Particulars in it Exclude Particulars And you make Null the Vniversal Proposition 13. Others Lay this charge on us to Believe All that God Reveal's in Scripture and there we shall surely meet with the Fundamentals of Faith Answ Though we Gratis admit That all Necessary Points are contained in Scripture yet it is too great a Task Yea and impossible also for every Simple Man to read the Book over But Suppose this be don He may not only fall into twenty Errours concerning Scripture But also most easily judge that to be Fundamental which is not and that not to be Fundamental which is And if He do so He hath neither Doctor nor Prompter at hand to Vnbeguile him CHAP. V. An Answer to one Reply More of this Subject 1. HEre briefly I Answer to a trivial Objection of our Adversaries who esteem us Catholicks Though we own an Infallible Church as far of from An Objection grounded on a mistake knowing the Fundamentals of it or giving in a Distinct Catalogue of them as They are after their Reading Scripture The Objection grounded on a Mistake is Forceles For with one Unanimous and equal Submission We Believe all That the Church The Church can Declare it self farther when doubts occurr Scripture cannot Proposeth which when Doubts occurr is Ready Able and Sufficient to Declare it self Scripture can not do so As is Manifest by the endles Dissentions of Protestants in this very Question of Fundamentals Now He That believes All that the Church Propofeth as Points of Faith Admits likewise of every Particular and with the same Certitude Though Perhaps He clearly Distinguishes not between Matters of Faith and Others But this Distinguishing when exactly don only Perfect's Explicit Faith And therfore as it Gives no Addition of more Faith absolutely Necessary to Salvation so the Want of it Deprives us not of any thing necessary to that End of Happines The Reason hereof is clear out of the Precedent Discours For He who by an Universal Assent Admits of all that the Church Teaches as Faith cannot but Implicitly Believe This Particular if it he of Faith One may doubt whether the Church proposeth such a matter as Faith and yet believe it
Controversy between us to a Trial of That which least Concern's us and cannot as they think be Decided by any Received Principle Viz. Whether They or we are better setled in non-Fundamentals which imports so little if our Protestants say true That the Knowing of them is scarce worth our Knowledge Becaus They are wholy Vnnecessary to Salvation and Make us neither more nor les Essential Members of Christs mystical Body The Catholick Church 4. From this Concession of our Adversaries I infer That no Protestant can probably go about to Draw any If the Belief of the Creed be Sufficient Protestants cannot draw Catholicks from their Religion Superfluities though granted hinder not Salvation Intelligent Catholick from his Religion First Becaus He is as Firm in the Belief of Fundamentals as Any Sectary whoever And that will save his Soul Now If they say we Want no Fundamentals but abound in Superfluities It is only said and not Proved However grant all though contrary to Truth These Redundancies Hinder not Salvation and may well be Listed amongst Non-Necessaries 2. No Catholick voluntarily Opposeth Himself to so much as to one Iota of Gods Word Sufficiently Proposed nor can He and Remain Catholick 3. He cannot Thwart his Judgement of Discerning or go Against his Conscience in Believing Catholick Religion For by Doing either He looseth Faith 4. As long as He is A Cordial and Sincere Believer of the Roman Catholick Faith He can have no Evident Demonstrations against it Or Tax this Church of Errour or if in Conscience He Do so eo ipso He cease's to be a Member of This Church And is no longer Orthodox 5. Yet I say More It is impossible for a Prudent A Prudent man cannot but se the great Evidence of Catholick Religion Man secluding Gross And most culpable Ignorance which makes him Imprudent to Shut his Eyes or not to Se Those clear Evidences Those visible Notes Those glorious Marks and Characters of Truth wherby the Church of Christ is made manifest to the View of All. The wise Providence of God will have this Discernibility or Perspicuity of it both Apparent and obvious To Ordinary Prudence Otherwise which is impious We might blame His Goodnes and Tell Almighty God You O Lord Assure us in Scripture of our Final Beatitude But you have with it left us in Darknes concerning the Way and Means to Find How one of Prudence may plead it out And to Attain this Happines What Avail's it to know the End And to be Invincibly Ignorant of the Means All who profess Christianity are not True Believers How shall we Discern the Haeretical Societies from Other Christ Answers Your Way By the Light and What Answer Satisfies Guidance of Those Marks of Truth which manifested me when I first Taught Christianity and yet Beautify my only Church is so Clear and Evident without Dispute Vt nec stulti errent per â—am That is hard For the most Ignorant To miss of it much more For the Prudent 6. No Conviction therfore No evident Demonstration can so forcibly Press upon a Catholick As to make him to Desert His Faith And if He stand not evidently Catholicks cannot unles Evidently convicted of Error which is impossible Desert Their Faith convicted of manifest Errour it were wors then Madnes in him yea and Damnable also to Change his Religion Let Sectaries therfore Stentor-like Cry out Till They grow Hoars again Mr. Poole all along smooth's his Discours with such Harsh Eloquence O ye blind Papists O ye Seduced Men when will ye open your Eyes c The Solid Catholick Answers Railing is no Reason Your Ancestors and mine were Papists Before You or Your Haeresy were in Being I believe my Creed as Their solid Answer to All Opponents well as you I Admit of every Word in Scripture as well as you I go no more against my Iudgement or Conscience nor perhaps so much as you Do. Wherin then am I faulty Nay I must yet Tell you More Though by a Supposed Impossibility The Church wherof I am a Member should err and I ioyntly be in Errour with it Yet as long as the Errour is unavoydable And invincible in me wherof my Conscience Reproves me not it is in your own Principles no matter of Damnation Becaus Ignorance excuses me Therfore as The Catholick Every way without blame I am every way without blame in my Belief so I cannot be reclaimed from it by you 7. But saith the Catholick Give me a Company of men who Admit of Christ and so far Deny His Church That He Evidently Convinces Sectaries of Their Errors and most unhappy forsaking the Ancient Church They cannot say where it is That will Reform Their Elder Brethren Before They have Certainty of Their own Half well made Reformation That think Themselves wiser then all the now Living And the Ancient deceased Defenders of the Roman Catholick Church That have causlesly Separated Themselves from an Ancient Church And Yet are not ioyned to Any Society of Christians which Beares the Resemblance of a Catholick Community Who never yet had so much as one General Council to Direct Them no Infallible Oracle to Teach them Protestancy described as it is No Motives No Miracles to Evidence their new Faith Who make every private Person a Church Every mans Reason Iudge of High Mysteries that transcend Reason Who Take and Leave what They list in Matters of Faith upon no other Warrant But their own wilful Choise Who seemingly own an Vniversal Church But yeild Obedience to None Who are Always seeking for Truth without Hope of finding it Always Teaching more Learned Then Themselves And yet to this day Know not what they Teach Who Too unluckily spend the few Days of Their Life in Scribling Controversies Though they se it is to no Purpose For besides a high Offence given to God All The Credit They gain in the Christian World Abroad And their Repute at home amongst intelligent Persons is no better Amounts to This Ignominy That unfortunatly They Patronize a late invented Haeresy which at last They must quit or quite Despair of Saluation Give me I say such a sort of Men They are not only battered and Bafled But Also by most Pressing Arguments Drawn both from Authority and Reason May be evidently convinced yea And if Gods Grace want not easily Reclaimed from Their Errors If Perversnes in some and Ignorance in others I mean the Ignorance of Pride Hinder not Their Conversion But to Withdraw a Knowing Catholick upon Rational Inducements From How They have gained some Prosylits his Religion is Impossible It is true They have Gained some Prosylits Vnnatural Children to Their Ancient Mother Church But how Alas Too indulgent to Flesh and Blood they were allured by Sensual not Rational Motives The Truth is Evident I say no more 8. To End this Chapter of Fundamentals Be Three things to be noted in this Question of Fundamentals Pleased
to Observe these Three Things 1. If we Consider the Motive of Faith which is Gods Veracity what ever He Speaks little or great is with one and the same Respect and Profound Reverence to be Assented to And here is no Difference between Fundamentals and Others 2. If we speak of the Proposition One concerns the formal Object of Faith of Faith Herein also There is no Difference For no man can Believe a Fundamental Doctrin Sooner Then Not Fundamental unles the one as well as the Other be Sufficiently Proposed 3. If we The other relates to its proposal Speak of the Matter Revealed I have shewed Above That some Points in Themselves or Per se More Essentially Constitute Yea And more Conduce to Piety Then others But This makes no Distinction between The Third to the matter believed Fundamentals and not Fundamentals in the true sense of our Question Because the lesser as well as the greater Are upon Gods Testimony Equally Believed in every true Vniversal Act of Supernatural Faith wherby we say All is to be Assented to That God Reveal's CHAP. VI. Some Few Propositions of A late VVriter are Briefly Examined His Discours of Fundamentals Destroy's Protestant Religion 1. I Say Briefly For I leave much to be Answered Mr. Stillingfleets Propositions refuted by more Learned Adversaries One Proposition is The very Being of a Church doth suppose the Necessity of what is required to be Believed in order to Saluation Very good but what then Marry This followes If 't was a Church it Believed all Things Necessary before it Defined How comes it Therfore to make more Things Necessary by its Definition First A word ad Hominem Protestants Add to what They conceive Essential to a Church a company of new unproved Negative Articles They proceed not consequently to their Principles Protestants Have now a Church Essentially Constituted or Have not If not Protestancy is no Christian Religion If They have such a Church why do They Add to that which They Conceive to be the Essentials of it A Cluster of new Articles never owned by any Orthodox Society For example No Sacrifice no Purgatory no Transubstantiation c. Could they proceed Consequently to their Principles they should neither Deny a Sacrifice a Purgatory c. nor Assert them But hold them meer Parergons Because They have a Church Essentially founded without them Why therfore Do They either Deny or Affirm Why medle They at all with these Articles Why load They Protestancy with the Vnnecessary Burden of so many unproved Negatives when their Church hath its whole Being before these Negatives can be thought of 2. In Catholick Principles both the Proposition and Question are most Simple For we own more Essentials In Catholick Principles The Proposition and Question are more then simple then Sectaries Do and Therfore say As there was a Church in Being before any Word of Scripture was writ and consequently the Writing of Scripture Added no new Being to it Though it declared Things more Explicitly so in like manner The present Definitions of the Church Alter nothing of the Ancient Foundations of Faith But only declare more As Scripture when first writ altered not the Antecedent Churches Doctrin So the Church now Alters nothing of the Ancient Faith explicitly Christs Verities contained in Scripture and Tradition And this Power the Church ever Had in all Ages Mark well what is said here For it Clear's All the following Fallacies of our Adversaries Discours 3. A Second Proposition What ever Church own 's those things which are Antecedently Necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church And here They say we must Distinguish those Things in the Catholick Church which give it Being from those Things which are the Proper Acts of it as the Catholick Church Very true But the only Question They wave the Difficulty is How much precise Doctrin That is which gives Being to the Catholick Church This our Adversaries Content with a general Word of a Churches Being wave whilst Catholicks Catholicks say All that God Reveal's is Necessary to the Being of the Church say plainly All that God Reveal's and is taught by the Church as Revealed is so Essentially necessary to the very Being of it That not one Article can be rejected after a Sufficient Proposal Dare Protestants say thus much of Their Negative Articles No Purgatory no Real Presence no Sacrifice c. Or own these as Essentials of Their Church of Protestancy To that Distinction of the proper Acts of the Church And One is the due Administration of Sacraments from the Faith connaturally precedes the use of Sacraments Being of it I answer the Faith of Sacraments which Connaturally Preced's the use or exercise of them is most Essential to the Being of a Church and This Belief every true Christian Hath 4. A third Proposition The Vnion of the Catholick Vnity of the Church and the Agreement are the same Church depend's upon the Agreement of it in making the Foundations of its Being to be the Grounds of its Communion For the Vnity being intended to preserve the Being there can be no reason given why the bonds of union should extend beyond the Foundation of its BEING which is the owning the Things necessary to Saluation It is not worth the while to catch at these improper Expressions The Vnion of the Church Depend's upon the Agreement of it For Nothing certainly Depend's on it Self now the Vnion of the Church whether we speak of the Objective Doctrin or of Faith tending into that Doctrin is Essentially its Agreement Therfore Properly it Depend's not on Agreement But really is Agreement As truely as Vnum Verum and Bonum Are Ens à Parte rei Whence I Say Vnity is not intended to Preserve the Being of the Church as a Cause preserves its Effect For Vnity essential to the Being is The very Thing Preserved Vnity essential to the Being of a Church is the Thing preserved by Almighty God by Almighty God And therfore cannot Preserve an Antecedent conceived Being without Vnity But let this pass Consider what follows They say The Bonds of Vnion should not extend beyond the Foundation of the Churches Being c. Very good What is next This it is Whatsoever Church imposeth the Belief of other Things necessary to Saluation which were not so Antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Meer Talk without proof Church Break 's the Vnity of it and those Churches who desire to Preserve Vnity are bound therby not to have Communion with it so long as it doth so Here is little said less explicated and least of all Proved First they say not How much Doctrin precisely makes up the Catholicks extend not the unity of the Church beyond its Foundations for They Believe so much as God hath revealed and no more Churches Being nor shall ever tell us by their Principles 2.
They name not the guilty Persons that Extend the Vnion of the Church beyond its Foundations Are they Catholicks who Believe all that God Reveal's and is declared by the Church to be Revealed Or Sectaries That have neither Church nor Scripture for any Article of their Protestancy 3. If they Hold themselves to be the Preservers of the Churches Vnity They must prove it by strong Principles And first shew Positively by Scripture That they have just so much as is Necessary and sufficient to Saluation Before Sectaries who have neither Church nor Scripture for one word of Protestancy Most unreasonably pretend to be the Preservers of the Churches Vnity they make us Guilty of any Breach of the Churches Vnity This will be a hard Task For if they say We Break the Churches Vnity in believing a Sacrifice a Purgatory c. They are obliged to prove and by plain Scripture That either their contrary Negatives are to be Believed or That neither our Positives nor their Negatives merit an Act of Faith which is Impossible For What Scripture saith we are neither to Believe a Sacrifice nor the Contrary 5. In the next place they come to Solve the Enigma to explicate the main Subject of the present Dispute And 't is to Tell us what those Things are Their own saying is the only Proof which ought to be Owned by all Christian Societies as Necessary to Saluation on which the Being of the Catholick Church Depend's Happy were they could they Unridle the Mystery Protestants cannot Shew what things are Necessary And say what Things are thus Necessary But our Author still run's on in Generals and Determin's nothing Be pleased to hear his Resolution 6. Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Saluation by Christian Societies But such things which by the Iudgement of all those Societies are Antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church No man I think knows to what that word Antecedently relates nor can this Author make sense of it One may Guess what he would be at He will Perhaps Say When all Christian They fall upon impossibilities Societies stand firmly united in one Iudgement concerning the Being and the Essentials of a Church then we are right in These Essentials Answ But this was never yet seen nor will be seen as is more largely declared Chap. 2. n. 1. whither I remit the Reader for further Satisfaction He Adds two Things more One is There cannot be any Reason given why any Thing els should be judged Necessary to the Churches Communion He means Who is to Iudge him that sayes He Dissents not in Necessary Articles of Faith But what all those Churches who do not manifestly Dissent from the Catholick Church of the first Ages are agreed in as Necessary to be Believed by all My God! What Confusion Have we here Where is the Protestant that can Assure us without Protestants cannot shew what the Primitive Church believed Dispute what the Catholick Church of the first Ages positively Believed and positively Rejected Could this one Point be clear'd without Endles Debate A better Vnion might be Hoped for But herein both We and Sectaries Dissent as is Proved above Therfore by No Appealing to the primitive Church without the Tradition of the present Church their Appealing to the Ancient Church whilst They Abstract from the Tradition of a present Catholick Church They go about to Prove Ignotum per ignotius And convince nothing 7. They Add a second Consideration which may be reflected on Ad perpetuam rei memoriam And 't is to Memorable Doctrin this Sense After Their Telling us That in Case of great Divisions in the Christian World any National Church may Reform it self as is Supposed England Men uncertain in all They say take on to Teach wherin Faith is abused Hath don and Declare its Sense of those Abuses in Articles of Religion yea and Require of Men a Subscription against those Abuses c. They go on We are to consider that there is a great Difference between the Owning some Propositions in order to Peace and the Believing of them as Necessary to Salvation Now Mark what Followes No Orthodox Church Ever excepted against our Church Doctrin The Church of Rome Imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed A most unproved Assertion which Articles are excepted against by other Churches name the Orthodox Church that ever excepted against them it cannot be don But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith Mark the Doctrin But such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self and in other things she requires Subscription to Protestant Religion reduc'd to Inferiour Truths them Not as ARTICLES of Faith but as inferiour Truths which she expects Submission to in order to Her peace and tranquillity And thus much the late Primate of Ireland expresseth to be the Sense of the Church of England as to her thirtynine Articles 8. Be it known to all men by These Presents That the Church of England so far as it maintains these The English Church consisting of Negatives is no Church Negatiue Protestant Articles of No Sacrifice No Real Presence No Purgatory is here confessedly owned to have no Articles of Faith Revealed by Almighty God And therfore so far 'T is neither any Christian or Catholick Church Because these Negatives the very marrow of Protestancy are now Degraded And Thrown down from their Ancient Height of Articles to the low Rank of a few Humble and inferiour Truths 9. But let us go on Who Assures you Sir of Inferiour Truths are none of Gods Truths Their being Truths at all God you say that Reveal's nothing but most Supream Truths Own 's none of Them No Orthodox Church no Ancient Council no Vnanimous Consent of Fathers no nor your own Synods in England Though without Proof They Suppose them to be Truths ever yet Defined them as you Two yong Popes do Doctor Bramhal and your Self to be Truths of an Inferiour Rank and Order Be it how you will I am sure the Declaration before these Articles says they are Articles of Religion These Authors clash with the 39. Articles and contain the true Doctrin of the Church of England Agreable to Gods Word If so Gods Word is Agreable to these Articles and Proves them Again Some of your own Coat and perhaps as Learned as you Call them Articles of Faith Certainly they These Negatives of the 39. Articles are neither Articles of Faith nor Inferiour Truths are none of our Faith Ergo they are yours or no Bodies Vpon whom then shall we Rely for the last Definition I 'll tell you Both the Assertions of their being either Articles of Faith or Inferiour Truths stand tottering without Proof or Principle upon the sole Fancy of those who say so 10. 3. If these Dull Negatives be only Voted for
or Commonwealth There is always an Agreement or Settlement in some great Matters before it Proceed to make new Laws yet 'T is not Common-wealths though antecedently setled may make new Laws consequent to say That the Agreement ought to be so Explicit in all Things in all Points in all particular Matters that nothing afterward can be Decreed anew It is Therfore sufficient That these new Laws Arise from some first solid Principles of that Common-wealth Antecedently setled in Being And if this be so They oblige as Much as the former Conventions Did when it was first setled Though they were not at all mentioned at the first Founding of the Common-wealth 20. Answerably Hereunto One may say Christ founded a Church Assisted as is here Supposed by a Spirit of Truth the Holy Ghost and first setled it upon some fewer Principles from which All other after-Definitions might Proceed or be Derived The The Church assisted by the Holy Ghost Derives new Definitions from its first Setlement Church thus Assisted Defines anew upon the former Setlement just as the Commonwealth makes new Laws upon its first Agreement Such Definitions Therfore because they Proceed from an Infallible Oracle call them yet new or old as you pleas Are as certain and of as great necessity to be Believed As those new Laws are Obligatory and of necessity to be Obeyed Here is one Disparity which is not to the Purpose Viz. That the Commonwealths Laws proceed from Human Authority The Churches Definitions from Divine Assistance Those oblige under a temporal The parity holds exactly Punishment These under Eternal But the Parity exactly Hold's thus far Those Laws were implicitly and virtually contained in the first grounded setlement of the Commonwealth These of the Church in the first setlement of Christianity Those may be called New These may be also called so Those become Necessary to be Obeyed These become Necessary New Laws are to be obeyed and new Definitions if any were are to be believed to be Believed Now further As no man Doubt's But That the Church may make new Laws in order to Obedience so none can but most Vnreasonably Doubt of its Power in Setting forth new Definitions It is very True Here may be much of a Quaestio de Nomine Whether They are to be called Old or New Because of their different Respects Relating to the first setled Vpon different respects these Definitions may be called either new or old Foundations of Christian Doctrin from whence They Proceed They may take a Denomination and be called Old Because Radicated in Those old certain Principles But if we consider them as more Ample Express and significant Declarations of Gods Eternal Truths They may without Offence or Clashing in the least with Church-Doctrin be called New Definitions Thus much is Briefly said to show how groundles our Adversaries Grounds are 21. But we will not leave the Difficulty Thus. To Answer therfore with more satisfaction Be pleased to note It is one Thing to own a Church perfectly Founded Two things to be noted and fully Instructed in all things Necessary to Salvation And an Other to suppose that all know explicitly what That Perfect founded Doctrin is which God will have to be believed as Necessary to Salvation This later Requires a clear Proposition made by some Oracle of Truth of the necessary Doctrin As is evident in Scripture it self For though I own all that Scripture saith to be True in the Sense intended by the Holy Ghost yet I must learn by a sure Teacher what it saith in a hundred difficil Passages 22. Now to Question Whether any thing which was not Necssary to Saluation may Afterwards become so Necessary that the not Believing it is Damnable c. I Answer The Question answered Nothing is now Necessary to Saluation After the Churches Definition which was not Necessary Before yea and Believed by the Apostles Themselves The ground of my Assertion is Because the Apostles immediatly Illuminated The Apostles the first and best knowing Masters of Divine Mysteries by Christ our Lord were made Partakers of His Divine Mysteries They had Primitias Spiritus the First Fruits of the Spirit Believed as we believe Taught as we Teach and never Delivered Doctrin contrary to the Church in After-Ages Hence Divines commonly Hold That the Church properly speaking The Church makes no new Articles of Faith but only declares more explicitly what was Anciently of Faith makes no new Articles of Faith But only Declares more Significantly and Expresly what Those well Instructed Masters of the Church Christs own Disciples Both Believed and upon several Occasions Taught others And here one Grand Cheat is to be taken Notice of Sectaries Think that All those Christian Truths which the Apostles Believed Explicitly are now Explicitly enough upon Record in Holy Writ It is an Errour Our Saviour as St. Iohn Testifies All that the Apostles believ'd is not explicitly in Scripture Cap. 21. v. 25. Did many Things which if writen in particular the whole World would not contain Might not then the Apostles also Believe many Things As a Sacrifice of Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory c. yea and Teach those Verities Though they were not so plainly Delivered in Holy Writ yet expresly enough But that Haereticks might Cavil at them 23. Here then is my Resolution which is most Catholick The Resolution Doctrin Christ our Lord Established a Church that is to Tell us Truth to the end of Ages This Oracle which Relies not on Gods written Word only But on the Vnwritten also undoubted Tradition answerable to Necessary Ocsions of new Haereticks rising up Or of Schism made in Christian Societies c. Often Proposeth more The Church useth clearer Terms in her Definitions Explicitly what the Primive Faith was And the Apostles Believed Not that it makes new Articles if we speak rigourously But proposeth the old ones again in more Clear and Significant Terms And how can Sectaries blame this Procedure when They without the Warrant of Gods Word written or unwritten Propose and Declare as They think the Ancient Sense of Scripture it self to their Hearers in a Hundred Passages Sectaries without Gods Word written or unwritten make new Definitions For example Christ said This is my Body They by A new Proposition Define This is a Sign of my Body Will they licence Themselves to Propose what they please out of Gods Word Already writ and Storm at a whole Church if it do so or Further Declare what was not Writ yet ever Believed Though perhaps not by all so explicitly as 'T is after the Churches clearer Definition The Church in this Proceeds upon a certain Principle indubitable Tradition Sectaries Have neither Tradition nor Scripture For what they Propose anew You se therfore whoever Pertinaciously Whoever Denies the Churches Definitions Denies the old believed Articles Denies the Definitions of the Church Denies not only the new Declared But the
inconsequent Proceeding of Protestants who must Trust our Church for the Handing down to them Gods written Word Sectaries ill Consequences whilst most Vnreasonably They Reject Her Authority when she Declares what the unwritten Word is I say most Vnreasonable For if it can Deceive in this later it may as well have deceived Christians in the first and given them fals Scripture Wherof se more in the second Discours 6. 'T is true There is Another way of Defining Another way called by Divines Asseveration called by some Divines Asseveratio or The Asserting of a Truth not so Explicitly at least Believed before as when the Church Defines against open Haereticks what was Antecedently of Faith And Herein the Church Proceeds not so much upon a Previous Known Act of Faith as upon the General Owned Principles of Catholick Belief wherunto Theological Discourses drawn from sound Divinity And other Principles partly Evident and partly in a high Measure Morally Certain have Access And are most Prudently Ioined Not That the Definition in it self Relies on those lower Principles But on Gods Gracious Assistance ever with his Church in the Delivery of Truth However Providence will have this way followed as a Vsual and Necessary Condition Because men of Reason in so weighty Matters are not as Sectaries do to Define at random but industriously to use Reason And Proceed on rational Principles But This belongs more to Divinity then to Controversy For I think the Church never yet Defined any thing against Haereticks that was not Antecedently a known and owned Truth of Faith Though not so fully expressed as it often is by the Churches clearer Proposition Thus we say The Real Doctrin of Transubstantiation The Real Doctrin of Transubstantiaton as old as that of the Trinity c. is as old as the Doctrin of The Trinity or the Consubstantiality of the Son with His Eternal Father Though the Words Expressing these Mysteries more significantly and clearly are of a later Date 7. Now to the Objections And one Hinted at above is The Church was solidly Founded in the An Objection Apostles time in all Things necessary to Salvation Therfore These Post-nate Definitions of it are to no Purpose To confirm This Our young Antagonist Ask's Whether the Apostolical Declarations of the Ancient Primitive Of Apostolical Declarations lost Faith were lost in the intermediate Ages or no If not lost Shew them saith He And There is no Need of new Definitions If they were lost in their Passage down the Church now wants them And therfore can Define nothing Were the Play worth the candle I might here Demand of Protestants whether Their Declared Sense This is a Sign of my Body Added Is retorted to Christs Words This is my Body which Sense They suppose to be Apostolical was lost in the intermediate Ages or no If not lost shew us that Apostolical Declaration and 'T is enough But this is impossible If 't was lost or rather never in Being How dare Sectaries make such a Declaration on their own Heads without Producing the Apostles Warrant I Answer The Answer The Church was solidly founded as 'T is now That which is sufficient in one Age Serves not always briefly to the Objection The Church then was solidly Founded just as 'T is now the Doctrin is one and the Same And every Article of it was ever and is now still either explicitly or implicitly Believed Yet These new Declarations are Necessary Because the Proposition of a Doctrin sufficient in one Time or Age Serves not for all Times and Ages when New Difficulties occurr And Haeresies rise up against it The Church therfore ever vigilant and Desirous to quiet all speak's Again more clearly the old Received Verities Causlesly too often Bogled at by Sectaries I say more clearly For 't is one thing to Assert Such a Verity is not at all contained in Scripture or in the Ancient Deposited Different Circumstances require clearer and more ample Declarations Doctrin of the Church And another To say it is so clearly There That in order to us and different Circumstances it needs not at all a further Declaration Sectaries continually Declare Their Sense of Scripture For They have no other Deposited Apostolical Doctrin to Talk of And why may not the Church Authorized by Christ with Better Reason do so too To what is Added to Help on the Objection I have answered Deposited Doctrin following the Church through all Ages is securely preserved The Deposited Doctrin Orally Delivered without writing is not lost But still remain's in the Churches Treasury 'T is as it were Handed down from Age to Age and Inseparably accompanies the Church through all Ages Yea and is kept there Though not in Chists or Coffers as securely as if 't Had been engraven in Brass or Marble And Sectaries must say thus much Sectaries must grant This. if They own Scripture for Gods Word For are not They now as well Assured upon the Churches Testimony or Vnwritten Tradition That St. Iohns Gospel was Indited by the Holy Ghost As if the Church produced a Hand-writing to Evidence that Verity Yes most Assuredly Whoever therfore Dare call into Their urging for a hand writing of Apostolical Doctrin is proved frivolous Question the Churches Authority Asserting a Doctrin Though it Produce no Manual Writing For it May as easily Doubt if it show you One Whether that very Exhibited Evidence be Authentical or no. Let us only Imagin that the Apostle that writ the last Part of the New Testament had exactly set down the whole Canon of Scripture which the Church now Receives Let us Suppose again That very copy to be left in the Hands of some Pious Christians Living in those Days No hand-vvriting distinct from Scripture is comparable to the Churches ovvn Authority and so long Preserved Vntil After Haereticks excluded from the Canon such and such Books of Holy Scripture as Luther lately Did St. Iames Epistle Both they and Luther might more Rationally have doubted of that very written Instrument then any can now Doubt of a whole Churches Authority owning the Canon of Scripture to be as it is No Charter Therfore no written Instrument Though once truly made when the Author is gon can Parallel the Churches Testimony in what it Asserts The The Reason Reason is Because a Manuscript only Tell 's you what it Contains but not Whose it is and though it did so Men might yet question the Forgery of it unles an Authority beyond Exception extrinsecal to the writing take away all Fear of Cozenage and make it Vndoubted Tradition surer then any Manuscript This Reason proves Tradition Necessary in the Church as well for the owning of Scripture as other Verities 8. I have said thus much to show How neer to a Piece of Non-sense our Adversaries Draw when To Cancel the later Definitions of the Church They urge us to produce the old Apostolical Declarations whereby
11. One word now to a Tedious Harange of Ieers 'T is a mile long at least and Wearies one out before He run's it half Over After our Adversary had Answer to our Adversaries Ieers of Milstones Talked of Milstones hung about our Necks of the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation c. He Tell 's us When the Apostles were sent to Preach all that Christ Commanded This must be Vnderstood that the Church had Power to Teach more if She pleased Alas the Apostles were only Tutors to the Church in its Minority But the great Divine Mysteries of the Seven Sacraments Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass were not fit to be Declared till the Church was at Age VVhat not one VVord of Necessary Points all this while Nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christs Vicar on Earth c Thus our young Tully Tattles To Retort his Argument I might here load him with the lesser Milstones of his Inferiour Negative Truths For these hang about his Submissive Neck if He be a Child of the Church of England And are as numerous as our contrary Positives But he will say they weigh little Because They are light Negatives Be it so Were the Apostles Think Ye so Tongue-tyed so Sparing of their Words as not once to Hint at one of these Inferiour Truths What not a Syllable The Apostles strangely sparing of Protestants Doctrin Through the whole Bible of two Sacraments only of no Purgatory of no Sacrifice Nor of a Sort of New Men that were to Peep out sixteen Ages after and Reform the World O were They alive Again how would Sectaries storm at their Silence And utter Forgetfulnes of These New Nothings which yet are the very best Essentials of Protestancy or it hath no Essence Thus men might Talk But Ad Rem 12. This whole wordy Argument is just like Protestant Religion purely Negative And brought to its best Sense Draws apace towards Non-sense Thus Christ and his Apostles Declared not to the VVorld These Doctrins of the Popes Supremacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass of Purgatory c. Therfore they are no Foundations of Faith I first Deny the Antecedent How will Scripture Speak's more expresly of the Popes Supremacy then of a Trinity you prove it Marry Thus. Scripture saith nothing of them I Deny that also It speaks more Expresly of the Popes Supremacy And of a Sacrifice Then of a Trinity of Persons in One Divine Essence or of Infant Baptism But let us Gratis suppose it do not so Here lyes the Strength of your Objection which is Improbably Negative Scripture saith not that the Apostles The Objection Improbably Negative Believed and Taught a Sacrifice the Popes Supremacy c. Ergo They neither Believed nor Taught them Observe well your Negative From the not Registring of all in Scripture that the Apostles knew Believed and Taught you infer They knew no More or at least Believed and Taught no More Which is as Vnlucky a Sequel as this You Sir have not Writ Down in your Rational Account of Protestancy All that your Learned Head hath in it All you Believe and Teach Others Therfore you Know Nothing Believe Nothing Teach Nothing But what is Expressed in that Book In a Word I have Answered The Successors of the Apostles Teach what is Apostolical Doctrin above n. 22. The Church of Christ that is The Heirs and Successors of the Apostles with whom the Mysteries of Faith were Deposited Teach us what Apostolical Doctrin is and This Positive Approved by Scripture And all Antiquity hath more Weight in it Then twenty of your weak Negative Discourses 13. But we must not Part thus I said just now Your Objection Against us is an Improbable Negative And I Appeal to your own Conscience whether it be not so For can You or any Prudent Man Imagin that all the exact Words or Express Doctrin Delivered by It is improbable to say all that the Apostles taught is registred in Scripture the Apostles in their laborious Sermons when They Preached to Iewes and Gentils are Recorded in Holy Scripture No. I may well say in St. Iohns Sense speaking of our Saviours Works the whole World or whole Volumes would not contain them Therfore All They taught cannot be Supposed to be either lost or Shut up in Scripture Take here your own Instance of St. Paul it Vndoes you He Blessed Man Act. 20. 20. 21. Kept nothing back that was profitable to them But shewed them and taught them publickly from House to House Testifying to the Iewes and Gentils Penance towards God and Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ You upon this Testimony too simply Demand What not one Word all this while of the Necessary Points nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christ Vicar on Earth I might Ask you Nothing all this whole of Infant Baptism of the Eternal Consubstantiality of the Son with God His Father Good Sir Reflect whilst the Apostle spak of Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ He might well have Declared both these now named and many other Particular Christian Verities I do not say He did so at that Present But This I 'll Defend Against you Because Scripture only relates in a General Way what St. Paul Preached A weak Inference of This Adversary You can neither Probably nor Positively Infer That he omitted to speak of These and other Necessary Doctrins I say in a General Way For Do you think that St. Luke Recounts in Particular all the Doctrinal Points that the Apostle Delivered when he went Preaching From House to House Or can You Perswade your Self that All the Hagiographers put together have Recounted all the Doctrinal Matters not one omitted That Christ our Lord ever Spoke and the Apostles Taught upon several Occasions Pray you ask your Conscience whether you can Iudge this Probable If It does not follow that what Scripture relates not is not to be Believed not The Argument Scripture Relates not those particular Doctrins wherat you Cavil which is yet untrue Ergo They were neither Believed nor Taught is not only a Negative But an improbable Negative 14. To conclude Let me Friendly ask you whether this your Positive Assertion The Apostles never Believed nor taught a Sacrifice or the Popes Supremacy Be an Article of your new Faith or only one of your Inferiour Truths If you Affirm the first You are Obliged to produce Positive Scripture for it And then it will be a A Dilemma that cannot be Answered Superiour Truth Revealed by God Though perhaps in your Principles not Necessary to Saluation Grant thus much And you too Clearly own Revealed Articles over and above Those which the whole Christian World and Rome it Self Believes Now if it be only an Inferiour Truth And not in Gods written Word With what Sectaries offer to reclaim us by Scripture and have not one Text to that purpose Conscience or Countenance can you Protestants who Always Pretend to Reclaim us from our
Harts And Tell us They have Done what is possible to Convert us to Drive us from Superstition Sectaries cannot say to what they would convert us And Draw us to the Purity of Their New Gospel They only give Words without Substance For to What would they Convert us Will They have us Believe the General Received Doctrin of all Christians We were Converted to this before Protestants Appeared in the World Do they desire to Convert us to a Belief of their New Negatives These are at most uncertain Inferiour Truths no way Essential to Christian Religion Put Our positive Doctrin weighed with Sectaries Negatives the case by a supposed Impossibility that our Contrary Positives were only Inferiour Truths like Protestants Negatives They might notwithstanding most justly hang in the Ballance with Them and would certainly outweigh Them Because a more Ample and Vniversal Church own 's Them All therfore They can Drive at when They Pretend to convert us is That We carry They only careser the exteriour form of Protestancy about Vs The Exteriour form of Protestancy in our Demeanour Though we still remain Catholicks in Hart They care not That is as I said now They would Convert us to be plain Hypocrits 19. From this and the precedent Discours it follows A Fallible Religion cannot defend it self That whosoever Embraceth a Fallible Religion which may be Fals can neither Defend his own nor impugn another upon any grounded Principle much less can He Persecute his Adversary to Death or Imprisonment Though He Nor the Professors of it persecute others mantain's a contrary Religion in like manner Fallible The Reason hereof is Clear Because The Defense of a Religion That 's Fallible And the opposition made against another Answerably weak and Fallible cannot go beyond the Strength The Reason is Evident of that last Ground wheron the Defense or Impugnation ultimatly resolved have their Footing But if the Religion be Fallible and uncertain The last Ground wheron the whole Machin either of Proof or Opposition stand's must needs be A Distastful opinative Conjecture Which without Certitude or Satisfaction is as A Defender of a Fallible Religion cannot preserve himself from Scorn unfit and forceles to Convince another of a contrary Belief as to preserve it self from the Scorn and Contempt of him though he profess no more but a Faith that 's Fallible Put the Case That a Pelagian and a Protestant are hard at a hot Dispute The Question proposed is Whether of these two Religions we suppose them both Fallible is the better With what Proof or Principle can this Fallible Protestant Assault his Fallible Adversary when He knows he cannot go one Step further then to what is purely Fallible If he interpret Scripture that 's Fallible if he Quote Fathers both They and He are Fallible if He cite Councils the Definitions with him are Fallible if He cry up his own Religion as having the Vpperhand in Probability He only throws his single vote into the Vrâ— which when 't is examined comes to no more But his Own Sic videtur or Self Fallible He can neither convince his Adversary nor persecute him but most unjustly Conceipt And Hence it follows That as He cannot Prove his Religion against his Adversary so He cannot but must unjustly Persecute him if he Refuse to Embrace that which cannot be Proved But most certainly his Proofs go not beyond the Bounds of Vncertainty and Therfore cannot oblige his Adversary to Believe him And Thus these two Combatants may wink and fight to the day of Iudgement without ending one Controversy or falling on any Thing like a certain Principle 20. I 'll say here a strange Word And think it very True Would A Learned Atheist write a large Volume An Atheist might say as much against God as against the Existency of God or A Learned Iew against Iesus Christ They might prove as much by a Roving fallible Talk Grounded on no Principles against These great Verities of Christian Faith as ever Protestant hath yet Proved against the Roman Catholick Church Protestants can say against the Roman Catholick Church For Their new Mode of writing is a long loos wearisom Discours without Reducing either Proof for their own Religion or Opposition made against Catholick Doctrin to Any Thing like a received Principle Mark this in all particular Controversies you will find meer uncertain Conjectures to be the last ground wheron either Their Proofs or Arguments Against us stand most unsetled Yet it should be Otherwise For whoever will venture to impugn a Religion That 's Held by the greatest part of Christians Infallible must strike Home and Reach to sound Principles Before He Touch it much less break it a Pieces Sectaries may say They are able at least to Defend Christian Religion in General owned Their Defense of Christian Religion in in general is to no purpose by all the World For the rest of Protestancy it may go whether you will Nec seritur nec metitur They are not solicitous My God are we come to this Pass now What must all the Disturbance of Sectaries their Schism and Rebellion made Against a Church their Glosses on Scripture And the whole Machin of Protestancy End thus in a Non Probatur it cannot be proved Is that only now asserted Defensible to wit the common Doctrin of all Christians That precisely taken is no mans Religion And Needs no Defense 21. Some other Objections yet remain But are all Solved upon the Principles now established One is If every Doctrin Defined by the Church be Fundamental the Church layes its own Foundations Contra There was Fundamental Faith in the Church before Scripture was writ Did Scripture Therfore lay New Foundations of Scripture Declared anew the Antecedent believed Doctrin of the Church Faith Because it Declared anew that Antecedent owned Doctrin Thus we Say the Church Declares the Ancient objective Faith of foregoing Christians ever implicitly at least Believed And not otherwise A second Objection less to the Purpose The Teaching Church either Believes in that Instant Sht Defines a thing Necessary to Saluation or doth not If She doth It was Necessary before the Definition newly made If not She Defines something Necessary to Saluation which was not before Necessary To answer the Objection I might ask whether St. Iohn when he writ this Proposition The Word is made Flesh Believed that Article of Christian Faith before he writ it or no If yes it was of Necessity to be Believed before If not He delivered something Necessary to Saluation which was not so before In one short Word Here is the solution to No Real Difficulty The Church at least Implicitly Believed before what The Church Believ's Implicitly before She Defines but more Explicitly after for her own Definition it Defines yet may and doth more Explicitly Believe the same Mystery in that very Instant She Defines Because God Speak's that Truth more clearly
To you or to me Mr. Poole But to All Rational men who know what Evidence is An now we need not go to School and learn That For nature with a little Logick Teaches sufficiently what Evidence is This Evidence Therfore drawn out in a close continued Arguing in Form will Do the Deed and Show whether we are Foyled or you Fight Vnluckily Vnles This way be taken to The loos and uncluding way of Arguing in Sectaries is most insipid and Blamable whilst you run on in a loos Vnconcluding Talk And Own No Infallible Iudge to Decide between us We may stay till Dooms day which is pittiful And End our Lives Before we end so much as one Controversy Study Therfore well For this Propositio quiescens which by the Evidence of its own Light Apparent to all makes us to Yeild up the Cause If you can do this you are Gallant men if not Know That your Shism is Evident This is the burden of the Song But the Pretended cause of it laid on us lyes yet in Darknes Vnevidenced And Therfore is Vnjustifiable 9. What will you say if a new Zelote of Our English Schism Argues Thus Most surely Protestants wise and learned men cannot All so numerous as They are Be Supposed to have made a Bustle in the World about Nothing They cannot be Supposed to have left an Ancient Church But upon the Sight of great Difficulties which frighted many and Finally withdrew Them from Holding Communion with it longer I shall Answer the Objection largely Hereafter Now I only Say When a Rebellion is manifest and Decryed A known Rebellion in Kingdom Or a clear Schism in the Church Cannot be Iustifyed by The Authors or Abbettors by all Indifferent and Vnconcerned men The sole Authority of Those who Began it can never make it Iustifiable The Case is clear in Civil Affairs For example In that ungodly Rebellion raised in England Against our lawful Sovereign as also in Ecclesiastical Witnes the Arians Schism Against the Church These Partisans Authority alone it is well known was Too Weak and Insufficient to Iustify either of these impious Facts 10. To that Talk of a Sight of difficulties I Answer He who for seeming Difficulties will leave an Ancient Church Whoever leaves an Ancient Church for seeming difficulties may as Easily Relinquish all Christian Religion Shall at last be forced to Abandon all Christian Religion which certainly hath its Difficulties And are there none Think you against our Protestants Novelties I say therfore supposing we once Digest the hard Mysteries of Christian Faith common to us all So Few So Slight so Vnvaluable are the Difficulties Against our Church That when One seriously Reflects on this Churches long Continuance on the several Councils convened in it on the different Judgements of learned men on the various Dispositions of People and Nations which make it up c. All apt enough according to nature to breed Endles Dissensions He must say if a spark of It is a special Providence That Difficulties are no Greater in the Church Reason live in him Digitus Dei est hic The work of God and a Special Providence over his Church Appears in this alone That Difficulties are no more nor greater in so long standing a Moral Body Than those slight ones are which causelesly Affright our Adversaries Do not then I say Desert Christian Religion Totally upon the Account of those difficil Mysteries it Teaches You can never in prudence Relinquish this Ancient Church For Pretended Contradictions in Councils for supposed Superstructurs Innovations and such like Trifles which Though stumbling Blocks to Sectaries are no sooner look't on then removed And put away By Most Satisfactory Answers CHAP. X. The Roman Catholick Church whilst Evidence comes not Against it Stands Firm Vpon Its Ancient Possessed Right This long Possession Proves the Church Orthodox 1. SOme perhaps may Object against the former Discours We Catholicks do not so clearly An Objection Acquit our selves of Errour Nor consequently of the Charge in being Cause of Protestants Scbism as we Rigourously Exact of them to have these Errours laid evidently Forth against us For if One should Ask How we Prove our Church to be free from Errour and this clearly Or That by our Errours we Occasioned not Protestants Separation from us what shall we say I Answer Though we have Demonstrations for the Truth of our Religion supposing Christ once Established a Church in the World And Can shew This Truth by a close Order of Arguing in Right Form Yea And we will Do it when Sectaries have Satisfyed our Difficulties Yet to Solve This present Argument We are not Obliged by the Law of Disputation to Prove any Thing Nor To do more Then only to Stand upon our Guard and Defense The Reason is Our Protestants are here the Actours the Aggressors Protestants because Aggressors are obliged to prove their charge 'T is Therfore Their Task to Prove ours only to Defend which is Easy if you Mark How strangely in Vain They make Their Attempts Against us Observe it After our Church had stood a Thousand years and more in the quiet Possession of Truth They Accuse it of Their weak Attempts Errour After so many Thousands of Learned and Virtuous men that lived Holily And Dyed Happily in it Yes And Had Eyes as Quick Iudgements as Deep and Wills as good to Find out These Errours Had any been As the best of Sectaries yet found none They forsooth Espy Them After The Churches Purity and Innocency This Church had its Purity and Innocency Signed and Sealed by the blood of innumerable Martyrs Evidenced by undoubted Miracles Manifested by so many Glorious Conversions wrought on Aliens Drawn to Christ And Finally Demonstratively Proved by All Those Illustrious Marks of Truth wherof we Treated Above Our Protestants Rise up And Calumniate This great Society of Christians Lay a foul Aspersion of Heresy on it Are not They Think ye as Actors Obliged in Justice to make Their Charge good Against us By Evident Proofs And are not We Proved by a long Possession Exempted from all Further Obligation of Pleading Then only to stand upon our Ancient Blamles And Quiet Possession Believe it This OLIM POSSIDEO PRIOR POSSIDEO is Warrant sufficient And our Wall of Defense against such weak Aggressors And yet we Strengthen our Hold with Canon Proof it is Evident Reason also Nemo praesumitur malus nisi probetur No Man upon vain And Evident Reason also Presumption ought to be accounted Naught unles Reason Prove him a Delinquent 2. For Example Give me a Loyal Subject That hath Don wonders and great Service for his Prince An Instance That hath Enlarged His Kingdom Gained Him Friends Defeated His Enemies And yet is Struggling to Do him More Service Whose Repute was never Stained nor Fame Blemished c. Suppose now That a little Knot of unknown Men should Offer at some Small or Vnconsiderable
Proofs And with These Endeavour to Impeach him of Treason would not the Prince Think ye Either Require Evidences to be brought in against so worthy a Subject or Reject These Accusers as unworthy of Credit Yes most Assuredly This is our Case Though no Instance taken from Private men can The Church Evidently hath proved her Fidelity to Christ Parallel the Fidelity of the Church Towards Christ The Roman Catholick Church I speak of no other For there is none Hath Faithfully Don Great Service For the King of Kings Christ Iesus It Hath Dilated His Empire Far and Neer It hath Defeated His Enemies Perfidious Heathens Gained him Friends and Innumerable Servants It yet Struggles Maugre all Attempts Against it to Promote Hitherto of unspotted Fame before Sectaries impeachment his Honor and Gain him More So long it was of an Vnspotted Fame and Accounted Pure without Blemish Till now at last a Little Inconsiderable Knot of Protestants Impeach it of Treason and Makes it a Rebel Against that King For whom it hath Served so long and Faithfully What then doth our Lord Iesus And All Iustice Too Require of These Accusers But Evidence Yes And if possible More then Evidence is necessary to make Their charge good against This Church It Hath Evident Proof enough of its Fidelity Iustice in this charge requires Evidence not unproved Cavils by its Faithful long Service By its hitherto Irreprehensible Purity Allowed for a Thousand years and upward And Therfore cannot be Supposed a Delinquent upon meer Cavils or For Things which look like Proofs But when Examined are no Sooner seen then Slighted no Sooner Weighed then cast away as Weightles 3. Take one instance more Though none of the Another Instance Ad Hominem Best it may yet best serve for Protestants Suppose That another Kind of Luther with a few Followers once Protestants as These were Anciently Catholicks should now Separate from the Church of England and Openly Accuse all the Ministers within that Iland of Errour in Doctrin of Injustice of Schism of Their Forcing Scripture by Vnproved Glosses to say what God never Spake c. The Accusation certainly would be looked on by Ministers As a Hainous Calumny What is to be Done Would not they After a satisfactory Answer returned to the Objections of these Supposed Calumniators Hold Themselves Vnblemished upon the Account of their supposed Ancient good Fame Thus much is only supposed to give force to the Instance And we must now Imagin it of Their Vnquestioned Integrity both in life and Doctrin wherof They have had Possession in mens Opinion for a hundred years Together Would they not All Vnanimously say That by this very Maxim grounded in Nature Nemo praesumitur malus nisi probetur None who had the Repute of an Honest man is to Loos it Vnles Evidence com's against Him And Blemish his Honesty Yes All of them would swear it They need not Therfore to Preach to These Accusers or To show By Positive Arguments How This is also only supposed in their behalf though not True Purely They Teach Christs Doctrin How Innocently They have lived How free from all Injustice How Their Hearers have hithertho Reverenced them as Saints And Laborious Workmen in Christs Vineyard No. This were it so Proves it Self The very having Don Well in the Eyes of All And so long Carries with it its own Evidence And is Argument Enough Wash They are not in Real Truth Calumnies but Verities then Away the Objected Calumnies if yet Calumnies And the Work is don They are Sound in Doctrin Clear Innocent And Blamles upon this Fals Supposition 4. The Application of this Instance to our Present The Application of the Instance Case is easy The first Luther accompanied with a handful of Men Accused not only A Few Ilanders of Errour But a Church of a far larger Extent Renowned the whole World over We have Answered to all Their Calumnies not one Objection is Omitted If there be Any new Ones For Gods sake let us Hear them This Don we stand still upon our Ancient Possession of Truth and Prepossessed good Fame in Teaching it These What Evidenceth it self needs no Farther Evidence Evidence Themselves And need no further Proof For This Argument is Good Once we were Honest men And therfore are so now Once Right in Faith and we are Right still Vnles Evidence Drive us out of our Ancient No less then Evident Proofs can Drive us out of our Ancient possession Right and Honesty Solve then a few Objected Calumnies The Work is don we stand upon Clear Ground which is The yet Vnshaken Hold of our long Olim Possideo prior Possideo 5. You will say The whole force of this Instance comes to one Trial. Viz. Whether we Catholicks What Sectaries may Reply Have Already Solved or can Solve as well the Objections of Protestants Against our Church As They are able to Vainquish what ever This now Supposed Sect Proposeth Against their new Doctrin If The Parity Hold here the Instance Presses If no It is Forceles Answer Here were it worth the While We might have Sport and se How our Adversaries Either Pittifully Beg the Question in what They say Or Licence Every Man to be His own Iudge Though he Vent Plain Haeresy or Finally Draw Controversies into endles Cavilling Observe it They say They can better Solve the Arguments of These new Sectaries against Themselves Then we are Able to solve Theirs against us Is not They beg the Question this a meer Proofles Petitio Principi Most Assuredly Yes And Mark how It Goes on Iust as Protestants Tell us Catholicks That we solve not their Arguments These new supposed Sectaries Argue strongly against Protestants so these New men stand stiffly to it And Tell Protestants They Solve not Theirs And They Instance strongly Thus. You Think your Selves safe And all clear For you when you say Papists Answer not to what you Object Against Them And our Reply is the Same We are as safe in saying Boldly you Answer not Our Objections Against you .. You say you Solve our Arguments We say No. Will you be Iudges in your own Cause for the Affirmative Permit us then to be Iudges in Ours for the Negative If you Say Again you give a Probable solution to our Objections So Catholicks Answer you If you say our Objections do not so Evidently conclude Against you But That still you are Able to Solve Them Negatively That is to show They do not force your Vnderstanding to yeild to Them So Catholicks Answer you with this Advantage That They can Enervate All you Object Positively by contrary valid Proofs And when This is don Have Twenty for one as learned against you Besides the Infallible Church They Pretend to That Vote and Voice for Them and Pitty your Folly in Objecting Now if After all Say These new Sectaries you Protestants Blame us for our late Separation made
from the English Church And therfore Charge Schism on us know That Clodius accusat moechos You Led the Danse And first Schismatiz'd from a more Ancient Church then we have don You yet Though Formal Separatists were not the Schismaticks But Rome that Gave you Cause And just so we say We are indeed the Formal Separatists from you But your Errours gave us just Cause to Part from you And therfore the sin of Schism is on your side And thus These Two Dissenting Parties Their Dispute is Endles because Neither own 's a Lawful Iudge nor can come to certain Principlet may Dispute until They both are Breathles And stand gazing on One an Other without further Progress Vnles They bring Their Discours to Vndubitable Principles or have Recours to some Third Equal Iudge between them or Finally Grant which Evidently follows That without a Iudge or Certain Principles The worst of Haeresies may be Defended if every one may first Accuse his Adversary And then give sentence for himself For there is no Arian no Nestorian But Every one Thinks well of his Heresy and will pretend as Protestants do that his Arguments are not solved Thinks well of his Errours And will at least Pretend as our Protestants do that his Arguments for them Are not solved CHAP. XI Of a late VVriters Exceptions Against our Pleading Possession 1. IT is very True Did not I se the Strain of Sectaries Mr. Stillingfleet Arguing to be Every where like it self weak and deficient I should scarsly have thought that a man of parts could Have missed so enormously as one doth in this Controversy whilst He gives you hints of hitting the nail on the Head and saying much to the Purpose Thus it is 2. We Plead a lawful Succession from the Apostles times And a quiet Possession of Truth with it by vertue of an Immemorial Tradition Our Adversary Tell 's us The Obligation of Proving lyes upon us Of proving what for Gods sake Marry that which We are urged to prove what is by it self an Evident proof Immemorial Tradition most Evidently Proves in so much that we are now urged to prove that Proof which is alone its Own most clear Light and undeniable Evidence They Proceed here just as if One should bid me Prove that All Mankind Descended From Adam If Scripture were not undoubted Tradition would prove we all came from Adam Had we no other Argument to Convince the Truth but immemorial Tradition Because some forsooth may Imagin without proof that God in One Age or other though they cannot say when broke of this lineal Descent By creating a new sort of men from whom we come and not from Adam which is Sensles For the Very Tradition alone has more weight in it to convince the Affirmative We all came from Adam then A pure Imagination without proof to perswade the contrary Negative Take one Instance perhaps more pressing and significant A Kingdom or Commonwealth Proves the Succession of its Monarchs or Princes for so long a time by a Constant Tradition never called into Doubt or questioned by Any Suppose some Zelots should begin to Quarrel with the states of the Kingdom And Tell them Gentlemen you are all Mistaken Believe us In An Instance one Age or other though we know not when it happened The lineal Race of your supposed Kings Failed A Vsurper Got to the Throne by force fraud or both And it was He it's true we cannot name the man that brought in Novelties strange Opinions Dangerous Maxims contrary to your Ancient Lawes and Customes Imagin I say thus much would not these Novellists think ye after no Smal contempt be put to their Proof or be scornfully laughed at should they urge the Kingdom to Prove what is proved by certain Tradition This is our very case We prove We prove as clearly the lawful succession of Popes and Catholick Pastors as Any Kingdom the succession of their Monarchs the lawful succession of our Popes of our Prelates of our Pastors and People by Vndeniable Tradition from St. Peter to this present Age And we are now called on To prove that which the very strength and Efficacy of Tradition Proves by it self without more Adoe A most impertinent Demand For if He that Denies the lawful lineal succession of Monarchs in a Kingdom warranted by undubitable Tradition must if He stand to it be put to His Proof the Kingdom Proves enough by its immemorial Tradition Much more are these men forced to Prove in our Case if they Oppugn the Tradition of a whole Vniversal The Churches clear Evidence Church For the Church gives in Her last and clearest Evidence when she Pleads undeniable Tradition No man can require more 3. You May say First Beside Tradition wherby the lawful Descent of Monarchs is Proved There are also Records at hand to Confirm the Truth of the Tradition I Answer The Church hath as Good The Churches Records as Ample as any in a Kingdom Records wherby she manifesteth the lawful succession of Her Popes Prelates and Pastors as any Kingdom on Earth produceth for the lineal Descent of its Monarchs Therfore it is you that must show And by sound Principles as well these Records to be forged or Vnauthentick as Oral Tradition which is a Distinct Proof to be Fals and Fallible Both are above your Power Skill and Learning Be it otherwise the Proof Certainly lies on your side And 'T is all I Intend at present 4. You may Reply secondly The Instance of Records contrary to the Church cannot be produced Monarchs succeeding in a Kingdom Vpheld by Tradition is Forceles if Contrary Records be produced and Prove that a Vsurper Got in and interrupted the right line of Succession The like may have been in the Church when Her Popes and Prelates became Vsurpers and changed the Primitive Doctrin of it Mark a Supposition For a Proof and withall Observe How you cast the Obligation of Proving on your Self For The Obligation of Proving is incumbent in our Adversaries Now it 's your Task to Produce These supposed Records Contrary to the lawful Succession we Plead for Shew them therfore And Argue by them or if you fail in this as you must Fail The Tradition from our Ancestours stand s still in its Ancient vigour unshaken against meer unproved Cavils and Calumnies 5. You may Thirdly Reply That Instance of Monarchs lawful Succession in Their respective Kingdoms when warranted by undoubted Tradition seem's good and convincing because no Man Questions the Right no Man within the Kingdom Doubts of the Acknowledged Succession But all is contrary in our present Controversy For innumerable called Christians do not only Doubt But expresly Deny that Right and lawfulnes of Succession which we Attribute ro our Church to our Popes and Catholick Pastors Therfore because the party Fail's The instance is forceles First a Word Ad Hominem Let it Pleas our Adversaries to Declare plainly the
Church in Truth And promised to be with the Church He Founded to the End of the World Withal that no Orthodox Church Ever opposed this just Possession c. It therfore lyes on our Adversaries to Disprove These Scriptures And to Weaken those Reasons by sound Principles or at least to Offer at an Answer which I Think will be Difficil to Do by Any Proof That 's weakly Probable 13. In the Interim you se the Strain of Sectaries Writing The Strain of Sectaries writing Controversies Controversies It is Ever to be Cavilling at our Tradition at our Possession and Prescription And Thus they run on as if their Cause were not at all Concerned Though it should be otherwise For do not Protestants Protestants pretend to a Possession of Truth as wel pretend to a Possession of Truth as Those They call blind Papists Yes And will They not say that the Truth they Lay claim to is either a Belief Common to all Hereticks or the Particular Doctrins of the English Church Yes For they 'l have no Mixture of Popery with it Well Now we Vrge them to produce a Conveyance From Him alone But can produce no Conveyance from him that could invest them in it who could invest them in the Possession of Either the One or other Doctrin Here You 'l have them Silent For not so much as a Syllable of Scripture nor one clear Sentence of a Father least of All Any Ancient Tradition Ever Favoured such Extravagancies However you must have patience And Hear Sectaries Loud in Their Complaints Against our Tradition and Ancient Possession And 'T is no wonder For 'T is easier to Cavil at Truth Then to speak sense For Falshood 14. A second Objection It is Plain in this Case viz. Of Prescription or Possession The full Right depend's not upon meer Occupancy But a Title must be pleaded to Shew that the Possession is Bonae fidei so that the Question Comes from The Possession to the Goodnes of the Title Answ By This Word Right or Title I understand a just and meet Reason Allegeable For What 's meant in this place by Right and Title that wherunto a man layes Claim And wherof He had Possession for long a Time As if One should Ask an Ancient Gentleman by what Right He Hold's His lands And How long He hath Had Them He Answers They were setled on Him by His Ancestours And here is His Title Both they And He have quietly Possessed Them without Cavils Cavils Against known Right Proofles for a thousand years c. Suppose now A wrangling Lawer should Tell the Gentleman Sir whatever becomes of your long Possession I Question your Right or Title And therfore say your Possession is not Bonae fidei But a meer Occupancy Would not This busy Fellow think ye if He said no more be put to His Proof when the Gentleman shewes His Right and justly plead's his long Possession Yes most Assuredly Here is Our very Case It is more The Right and Churches Title certain that the Roman Catholick Church was Once most lawfully invested in the possession of Truth by the Gracious Goodnes of Him that founded it Then ever Any was lawfully setled in Right of His lands For so much â—he whole World and Sectaries also Acknowledge as undoubted And Here is The Churches First Right or Title It is Again most Evident That Innumerable of unspotted Fame of Great Learning Sanctity and Vertue Have not only Avouched This Blessing to be once Conferred on the Church But Moreover have professed Themselves to be The Heirs and Professors of it Heirs of this Ancient Right And so Far the Professors of Those Primitive Verities That They â—onveyed them Age after Age to posterity I say No more yet but only what they Professed Now Starts up a Minister And Tell 's the Church just as the Lawer It 's Tacitly supposed by our Adversary an Occupancy but not Proved Doth the Gentleman She hath no Right nor Title But a meer Occupancy That 's no Possession The Church proves this Right first to have been Conserted by one that could give it Then She shewes it to have Remained with Her in Every Age By sure Witnesses of Vertue and Integrity Must not therfore this Minister Think you that Contrast's with such Witnesses And Encounters such an Army of old Tryed Souldiers be put to His Proof and Fight lustily by Evidence And if possible with Stronger Proofs Is All manfully Don Pray you Judge when He wholy supposeth what Should be proved And is pleased to Miscal our Ancient undoubted Right our just Title and Vnquestioned Possession by a new Coyned word of Occupancy Let him Keep the Occupancy to Himself and Apply it to His Protestant Religion That Hath neither Right to plead by nor Title nor any Ancient Possession 15. A Third Objection If we plead Possession by immemorial Tradition from Ancestours many things are to be Contested and this is one That no Antecedent Law hath determin'd Contrary to what we challenge by vertue of Possession Very Good When you Sir Shew us this Antecedent Law Contrary to what Our Adversary is to Show an Antecedent Law contrary to our Possession we Challenge by vertue of our Possession wee 'l yeild But you are to make this Evident And Consequently the Proof Lies on you which will be a hard Task For we Know There is no such Law against us 16. A fourth Objection Christs Law hath Determin'd Matters of Difference between us one way or other For Example Whether the present Church be Infallible or no. If the Law has Determined Against us Possession And Prescription signify Nothing If for us The Question must be wholy Removed from the Plea of Possession And be tryed on This Issue whether Christ by his Law hath determined on The Legislators Determination your side or Ours I Answer The Legislator hath most plainly Determined for the Infallibility of that Church which He founded And though you slight those Sacred Texts Super hanc Petram Pasce Oves Eâ—o Vobiscum or what Els you pleas They are yet Vigorous Proofs Against your meer Cavils Therfore Because you Offer to be Tryed upon this Issue Whether Christ We like our Adversaries Offer hath Determined for you or us we Accept of the Challenge And are ready to Dispute by Scripture only Produce then your Texts as plain and significant for the Fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Once Confessedly True As these now Hinted at and many more Cited Above are for Her Infallibility This don you may Vapour as much as you Pleas And Offer to be tryed by Law c. But we know your Want you have not after All this Talk a Syllable of Scripture Sectaries Have no Scripture Against the Churches Infallibility Against our Churches Infallibility Now to the other Horn of the Dilemma where you Say if Christs Law has Determined on our side the Question must be removed from
Fallible men may speak more boldly and Say Our Church is Fallible and hath brought in both this new mentioned and many other Innovations Therfore I deeply Charge their Consciences The Consciences of Sectaries are pressâ—d to prove what They teach of Errours in the Church as They will Answer it at the day of Iudgement not to Trifle in a most serious matter But without Ambiguity plainly to touch the Difficulty And to make known to the whole World what that owned Principle is wheron this Their Proposition stand's The whole Church is Fallible and hath introduced This Novelty of Christs Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament I speak Not by Empty words but certain Principles boldly And dare say It is a Flat Heresy And therfore Sectaries have nothing like a Principle Morally certain wherby the strength of the contrary Verity mantained by Scripture Church and Fathers can be meanly Quarrelled with much les solidly Reproved unles the too simple talk of a Few Novellists be able to Evert and Overturn what God hath Revealed And a whole ample Church Defends upon Revelation 10. Perhaps it will be said first The Fathers that Defend the Real presence were fallible and might Err. what Sectaries may plead but 'T is more then highly improbable I answer Our Protestants who Deny it are Fallible also and may Err more By what undoubted Principle Therfore can They Convince that Their fallible rejecting the Fathers Hath weight enough to make Null the Testimony of so many Blessed Saints against Their Doctrin We call here for Principles and are not content with Empty words They may Reply 2. They can Explicate both Scripture and Fathers contrary to the Churches Sense And so ridd themselves of that Burden I answer This Riddance is none Unles when they have explicated They prove by a more sure Principle Then the Express Words of these Fathers are That Their Glosses hit right and that the Fathers were Deceived which shall never be so much as Probably Convinced If They lastly talk of Citing Fathers for their Heresy I answer They have not one As will be amply Proved hereafter In the mean while let them know it will be the safest Cours to talk no more of Changes ad Novelties introduced into our Church without proof and Principles to uphold Their ill Supposed and wors Proved Calumnies But enough of this Digression We return now to other Objections 11. Some again Tell us The corruptions of our Church came in in time of greatest ignorance when little notice was Still Empty Talk without proofs or Principles taken and few Records were Preserved of them Here is more Talk without Principles For where Read They of so great Ignorance in the Church that Disinabled all Writers to Register such vast Changes Or where find they Records of those lost and Vnpreserved Records This is only Proofles talk if They have Records let them be produced if they have none let them Sectaries Guesses rejected Hereafter Wave such blind Guesses whilst Proofs are Expected It would anger our Protestants if I should tell them without Proof or unquestioned Records that the Beard of Their Religion is Insensibly Grown gray since their new Faith came in Or that Tares were cast into Their Church whilst They Slept c. Yet They it seems Are licensed to run on with such poor Guesses And no body must Check Them 12. Next they Argue We cannot show when the Were these Things unkown it follows not that other of greater monent are unknown also Necessity of Communicating Infants and the Rebaptizing of Hereticks or That Doctrin of Souls not seing God before the Day of Iudgement First entred the Church Yet These were Errours And their Beginning is unknown Here I answer briefly The Communicating Infants was only Tolerated for a time But never was held a necessary Doctrin of the Church Much less were those Two other These Examples touch not the Difficulty Points condemned by the Church ever Owned as Her Doctrin Such Examples therfore no Church-Doctrin are to no Purpose in this place 13. Lastly they Tell us Scotus thought Transubstantiation to be of no elder Date then the Council of Lateran And Bishop Fisher saith the Doctrin of Purgatory was not much heard of in the Primitive Church I would willingly se in Scotus his own works the Distin and Quest Where He Asserts what these men Say Some Protestants cite him in 4. Distin 11. q. 3. where He only saith in different Editions that Transubstantiation was more explicitly Defined in the Lateran Council which is far from making it no older a Doctrin Then that Councils Definition is But Admit Scotus said so and Bishop Fisher unquoted wors then they pretend The Church of Christ Teaches no such Thing Yet from this Oracle of Truth we must Learn and not from particular Doctors who may err what Church Doctrin is And for this Reason I told you above of much foul Play in Protestants Who Becaus they want Antiquity take no little Pains to run up and down our Authors and if by chance a Word be found less warily spoken They trifle with it and presently make that Popish Doctrin It is an Errour Catholick Doctrin is not one Mans singular Opinion Catholick Doctrin is no Mans singular Opinion But the Vniversal received Doctrin of the Church And thus much our Adversaries must assert for Themselves Otherwise when one of great Renown amongst them Tell 's Protestants Plainly It is but labour in vain to talk of union with One Another Vnles They ioyn again to that moral Body from which they once Separated that is to those who are in union with the Sea Apostolick The whole English Church must here Subscribe and say it is Protestant Doctrin Will they Do so The Voice therfore of One is not the voice of All nor one mans Opinion more mens Opinion Much less the Sentiment of a whole Church 14. It is but time lost to follow these Men whilst Blind Guesses no Proof of Novelties brought into the Church They Blindly run on Guessing at the Rise and Origin of our Supposed Errours and Tell us All our Corruptions came not in on a sudden They were first practised freely and then urged as Necessary Persons of great esteem first held them and Others soon followed their Example If one would take the Pains and trace it He might find the Head of these Corruptions at last c. Pittiful slight Talk unworthy a Scholler And vented at random against the Primitive Church would even Blemish that as much as any Other yea And Protestancy more I wave such stuff Because nothing like a proof follows it 15. My last Proposition is Though Protestants should convince Though Errours were falsly supposed to have entred the Church yet Protestants cannot Prove that They have set Faith right again on its old Foundations which is impossible That the Roman Catholick Church hath Swerved from the Primitive Doctrin yet They cannot
so much as Probably shew That They have mended the Matter or set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations as it once stood pure It is therfore a most Discomfortable Reformation which only Tell 's us of our being Out of the high Rode of Truth Vnles the Reformers lead us and this with Assurance into the unerring way from whence we Strayed If This be not Don it follows upon the Supposition That both They and Their pretended Reformation most discomfortable We are yet pittifully Out and Therfore both of us must look after some third Guide to Reduce us 16. Now that Protestants are utterly unable to perswade any Rational man That they have exactly brought Christian Faith to its Ancient Purity is more then Evident Sectaries have nothing like a Principle wherby their Reformation is proved Probable It is one thing to say we have Erred and an Other to prove that they are Right For beside Their own bare Word which is worth little They have nothing like a Principle neither Scripture Councils nor Fathers to Ground a probable Discours Pertinent to that Purpose For None of These ever Knew what a Protestant was It is True They Pretend Though God knows to little Purpose That Scripture Councils and Fathers are against our Errours But it is one Thing slightly to tell us we have Erred and an Other solidly to Prove that They are Right and have broughr Christian Faith hitherto much Tainted to its Ancient Purity This last is the only Difficulty And I Conjure Them as They will give an Account of their Religion to Almighty God without Tergiversation or Far-fetch't Discourses Directly and Clearly to Solve it The Proposition to be Proved and Positively What They are obliged to prove is Thus. Protestants Becaus they will be Reformers are every way Right in Their Faith from which Faith Catholicks have Swerved Observe it You shall never have They can give no direct Answer to the Difficulty a direct Answer to chis Difficulty They may tell you Catholicks have Erred They follow Scripture Their Rule of Faith is what was Delivered in the first Primitive Ages and They know that better then Papists Do. They Hope all is well with Them c. And thus They I put you of with Empty Words But to Prove Solidly that Proposition is impossible Believe it Those Bonzies of Iapan had more Plausible Proofs to defend their Pagods and Impugn Christianity Then our Adversaries have to Evidence Protestancy to be the Primitive Faith and impugn the Now-standing Catholick Roman Religion CHAP. XIV A VVord to a Few Supposed and Vnproved Assertions VVherby Some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism 1. THeir first Proposition There is no Society of Mr. Stillingfleet Christians of any one Communion but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to The Assertion is Fals in Protestants Principles unles it be granted that their ample Catholick Church can destroy Christianity the general Foundations of Christian Society I Answer If the Assertion fall on That Imagined Vniversal Catholick Church more Ample then the Roman which must be a Society of Christians of one Communion it is Fals in Protestant Principles Vnles they say That this great Catholick Church can Impose Things to be Belieued or repugnant to the general Foundations of Christianity Again if it Relate to the Roman Catholick Church it is a meer unproved Fancy of their own For This Church as is largely shewed Defends its Infallibility by Proofs as Certain as the Common Grounds of Christianity are Be it how you will You have here our Adversaries Acknowledgement That their particular Church of Protestants may impose Things Contrary to the Grounds of Christianity Protestancy becaus Fallible may Impose Things repugnant to the Grounds of Christianity And this I easily Believe without further Proof 2. The 2. Proposition There being a Possibillity acknowledged that particular Churches may require Vnreasonable conditions of communion the Obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable But only so far as nothing is required Destructive to the ends of Christian Society The The Author of the proposition sure enough supposeth himself fit to judge what is Destructive No Protestant can avouch so much as probably wherin the Church hath imposed Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants Profess them selves Fallible in all They Teach Assertion if I mistake not Supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to be only a particular Church Deficient and lyable to Errours which is not yet so much as probably Proved and Therfore I say the Obligation to Communicate with it is Absolute and Indispensable But let us wave this at Present and contrary to Truth Imagin That this Church hath imposed Vnreasonable conditions Destructive of Christian communion c. We Ask Again and very seriously who are They that can Mend the matter in case it hath Don so Or who dare Avouch by the Force of any received Principle that Such and Such particular Conditions imposed on Christians are Vnreasonable Where are the Equitable and infallible Iudges appointed by Almighty God to Decide in so weighty a Matter Are they Protestants No. It is impossible Hear my Reason If the Church hath Erred by imposing such Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants who Profess themselves Fallible in All They say may Err More Yea And spoil all whilst They go about to set Things Straight However if They dare Venture on so difficile a Work And therfore may more likely spoil Then mend what they Conceive Amiss They are First obliged to Prove And this not by Talk But by undeniable Principles That just so Far our Church Err's so Far it requires Vnreasonable Conditions of Communion And next That They the Illuminated men of the World have don no more But exactly Cancelled the Errours of our Church leaving all untouched that is not Destructive to the ends of Christian Society For we must believe They are the skilful Masters that always hit Right Though confessedly Fallible You shall sooner draw pure Gold out of meer dross Then get any Thing like a Tolerable Proof from these men to countenance One of these Desperate Assertions Alas They only Word it without Proof As Arians and Nestorians Do. And here is All you Have from Them 3. The 3. Proposition Nothing can be more unreasonable The proposition supposeth what is to be proved then that the Society imposing such conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. I Answer And nothing can be more Vnreasonable then to make a Receding Party from an Rebell 's are not to be Iudges in Their own Cause Ancient Church a few Rebellious People against it Iudges in their own Cause The Arians judged thus for Themselves and so do Protestants All rebellion in Kingdoms and Commonwealths is Patronized if those who Revolt may Clear Themselves from Guilt upon their own Votes and saying Such conditions imposed
And in Rebels also of a Common-wealth will Say The Arians Erred But Protestants hit right on the Roman Abuses and this makes their Reformation Iustifiable Meer Proofles empty Words The Proofles Talk of Sectaries For do you not se and evidently That all you Speak to this sense is a wretched Supposition and a pure Begging of the Question And Becaus it is so can either We or any third Indifferent Judge Believe you sooner speaking in your own Cause then credit an Arian that will say the very same For his Heresy O But Confessedly both Catholicks and Protestants acknowledge the Arians to be Hereticks And as Confessedly both Catholicks and Arians yes And all other Sectaries Say also you are Hereticks What Therfore get you by this Reply Will you Tell us next That you are Better at your Proofs against us then the Arians are The Arians laugh at you And say with Truth This very Assertion is Proofles Believe it Though the Arguments of Arians against our Ancient Church wherof they were once Members The Arguments of Arians are more difficile Then ever Protestants yet Proposed against our Church Doctrin are both Deficient and Strengthles yet They go far deeper into Difficulties vvhich look more manly On 't then vvâ—at hitherto any Protestant hath Proposed against us If you say This is my own unproved Assertion I will first Appeal to the Iudgement of any Indifferent and Vnconcerned Scholler for sentence in the case Next if this like you not Be you first Pleased to Propose one of the strongest Arguments you have Against any particular The Grounds of the Assertion are declared Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church One I say and in Form which may at last be Driven to an ovvned Principle And then Though I do Anathematize The Heresy I shall Advance an Other in Behalf of the Arians And if this in the Judgement of every good Scholler do not more Puzzle you in your own Principles then yours me against the Church I 'll Sectaries cannot solve the Arians Arguments without recurring to our Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture yeild up the cause Here is fair Play offered The ground of my Assertion is first Becaus Protestants cannot so much as Probably solve the Arians Difficulties without Recurring to the Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture vvhich they Reject 2. Neither Catholicks nor any can solve them Otherwise then only Negatively That is by shewing they do not Convince But to Infringe their Force Positively Or To Evidence them fals Abstracting from Tradition and The Reason why Arians Difficulties are harder then those of Protestants Negatively and Positively Protestants Arguments are Solved the Authority of the Church which is more the Proof of Catholick Doctrin then a Direct Solution to difficulties is Impossible Now on the Other side Protestants can Propose no Difficulty Against us for Protestancy But we will first Shew it Negatively Vnconcluding And next by Positive Proofs break in pieces the Seeming Force of it For example They Argue against the Real Presence A body cannot be in One Example Hereof tvvo places at Once We Show first Negatively that their Argument concludes not and then Introduce Positive Proofs partly drawn from Gods Omnipotency partly from other Undeniable Grounds Which both weaken and Dead the Argument And thus we Proceed with them in Other Controversies Concerning the Popes Supremacy Praying to Saints Purgatory c. 7. I have Complained all along of our Adversaries Asserting much and Proving Nothing You will yet se more of this Proceeding in some who Think They strongly Vindicate the Church of England from the Guilt of Schism CHAP. XV. More of These Authors Confused Doctrin is Refuted 1. IN a Chapter Intituled Protestants not Guilty of Mr. Stillingfleet Schism The Catholick Opponent Argues If the Roman Church was corrupted in Doctrin it Follow 's That for many Ages before Luther there was not one Visible and Orthodox Church throughout the whole World And consequently during that Time Every good Christian was obliged in some point or other to Contradict the Doctrin and Desert the Communion of all Visible Churches in the World Which If all particular Churches were corrupted in Doctrin the whole Catholick Church was also corrupted I say cannot but Imply a Leaving of And also a strong Opposition Against the Church Catholick What ever this Catholick Church be For this Catholick Society is not a Chimaera in the Ayr But is Essentially Constituted of either Pure or Particular tainted Churches Now our Adversaries say All particular Churches throughout the whole World were tainted Ergo what ever is meant by the Catholick Church was also corrupt and Therfore upon the Supposition men are obliged to desert the Communion of the Catholick Church He Grant's no particular Church was free from Errour They say all Churches had erred It is necessary to separate from all erring Churches therfore as necessary to separate from the whole Catholick Church What Sectaries Reply Tainted Yet more I am Obliged to Desert all Corrupted Churches Therfore I am obliged to Abandon the Communion of the Church Catholick After much Talk and Quibling about the Meaning of one Visible Church and the Errours of particular Churches whether Several or the same in particular Societies of Christians c. These men Grant That there was not One Church of any Distinct Communion from others free from Errours The Arians the Nestorians the Eutychians the Greeks the Abyssins Hussits And finally Catholicks Had Erred Therfore all the Churches in the World consequently the Catholick Church had erred before Luther But it is Necessary to Separate from the Communion of all Erring Churches Therfore 'T is as Necessary to Separate from the Communion of the whole Catholick Church 2. To This Argument They Answer There can be no Separation from the whole Church But in such Things vvherin the Vnity of the vvhole Church lyes c. Novv vvhen men Separate from the Errours of all particular Churches They do not Separate from the vvhole Becaus those Things vvhich one Separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make them all put together to be the vvhole or Catholick Church For a further Explanation They tell us Two Things may be Considered in all particular Churches One that Belongs to them as a Church The other that belongs to them as a particular Church What belongs to them as a Church Implyes the Common Ligaments or grounds of Vnion betvveen all particular Churches vvhich taken all Together make up the Catholick Church Novv these vvhich belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the Essence of a Church vvithout them And therfore supposing That I should Separate from all particular Churches I do not Separate from the communion of the whole Church Vnles it be for something without Which those could be no Churches 3. Here in brief is their Confused Vnproved and This Doctrin of Sectaries confused
may have Yours Also We are all yet of One Church and Need not to break of any Catholick Unity Becaus though both you and I err We may yet retain the Essence of a Catholick Churck Hereticks hitherto Never Pleaded thus for their Cause But as Pertinaciously Defended Hereticks as strongly defend their particular Errours as the Common Doctrin of Christianity their Private Opinions as They did the Common Doctrin of all Christians Only our Protestants now Pressed with Vnanswerable Arguments concerning the plain Naming of a Catholick Church before Luther like men living by shifting Seek out a woful Subterfuge and make all Erring Churches partly good and Catholick in the Common Ligaments of Christianity And partly Naught and Heretical in Their particular Errours Wheras the Spouse of Christ is but One Immaculate moral Body and can be no More Tainted with Errour then the pure Primitive Church was No nor more Corrupted then the whole Bible The entire purity of the Church Necessary now is and yet remain Purely Gods Word 3. Grant which is the greatest Chimaera Imaginable That the Common Ligaments and Grounds of Catholick Faith are to be found amongst all the erring Societies of Christians Protestants have yet an endles Task in hand Which is to Perswade All men Opposit to them That They by their Discerning Spirit Have just Protestants cannot prove that they have taken so much Doctrin to themselves as is purely Catholick hit the nail on the Head And taken so much to Themselves as is Purely Catholick Doctrin without Mixture of Errour with it Believe me it will be hard to prove so much done And if They Prove it not by Vndeniable Principles Farwell Protestants say I For They may be more in Errour by Their late Reformation Then all those Erring Churches together Which They have gon about to Reform 6. In another Chapter Intituled the Reformation of the Church of England justified These very men after they had made the Catholick Church like a Common field layd open to all those Inhabitants who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith Tell us That the Roman Church stand's Guilty of the violation of Publick Right and Add's Neither Proof nor Inference Good many Particular Doctrins many Superstitious Practises which have no Foundation in Scripture or Consent of the Primitive Church Therfore this Roman Church is Separated from the Communion of the Catholick Church And so is become Schismatical But their Church of England hath hit Right and is only so far Separated from Rome as Rome hath Devided Her self from the Belief of the Vniversal Church What have we here A Cluster of meer superfluous Words I am Astonished to Se men run on with such proofles Generalities However We will have Patience and friendly Ask How far is that large field of the Catholick Church to be extended Point out the Limits of it Name those Christians and Them only Not one of These particulars can be proved by certain Principles who Inhabite that large field What are those Fundamentals of Faith How many are there of Them ninty nine or a Hundred Specify with a Proof at the end of it but Proofs are now out of fashion with Protestants Those particular Fals Doctrins of the Roman Church so contrary to Scripture Say once Plainly what that Catholick Church is From which Rome Separated and something is Don But above all make good your wild Assertion That just so far you are Devided from Rome not one Inch more or less as Rome is Separated from the Vniversal Catholick Church To do this justice Requir's an exact Proof of these three Things First That you particularly Shew us Three Propositions to be proved What or how much the Precise Doctrin of that imagined Catholick Church is which dwell's in your Fancy 2. Wherin the Roman Church hath Swerved from that true Doctrin 3. And this will cost you some pains make good upon any Received Christian Principle That you are right in your Faith And have just Divided your selves so far from the Roman Church as this is from Another Church more Vniversal and Catholick Could these men live to Mathusalem's Age They would never come neer to the likelyhood of a rational Proof for any one of these Particulars I say of a Proof For I would have Them know That to talk at random and vent their own fancies as They do here will weigh but little when Reason comes to Ballance all with a close Arguing in good Form 7. When again They are Told in the same Chapter That the Separation of Protestants was not only from the Church of Rome But as Calvin Confesseth from the whole Christian World which necessarily Implyes a Separation from the True Catholick Church They Answer We have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherin the whole Christian VVorld is Agreed Is this so great No Heretick Separated from the Vniversal Doctrin believed by all Christians a matter to be Praised for Not to Separate from what men cannot Separate if they Own Christ and Deserve the name of Christians Mark well I beseech you Neither the Arians nor Nestorians nor Donatists Nor any other condemned Hereticks Separated from any Thing wherin the whole Christian World Agreed in For They Believed in Christ a Saviour and Redeemer and Thus much all Christians Hold But is This Faith enough to save us without Believing more Pray you Answer Again These Hereticks Added something what got Them the Name of Separatists or Hereticks to that General owned Belief of All And this got them the name of Separatists or Hereticks not Becaus they Deserted the Common Doctrin of the whole Christian World But becaus They Abandoned that Ancient Church wherin they were Baptized Protestants have Don the like in leaving the same Ancient Church And have Added That to Their Specifical Religion which was neither the Common Doctrin of All Christians no nor Held by any Christian Society in the World Vpon this Account Therfore They as justly Deserve the Name of Hereticks and Separatists as either Arian or Nestorian And thus much I Prove by their own Concession Protestants proved Schismatichs by Their own Doctrin For They grant that the Donatists were Separatists and Schismaticks Becaus they confined the Catholick Church within their own Bounds of Africa Yet by Their good leave These very Donatists Dissented in nothing that was held all over Common Christian Doctrin For they Acknowledged the same Christ as we Do yet were Hereticks Vpon the Account of their particular The Donatists no Schismaticks in Protestants Principles Doctrin Though They clashed with nothing held Vniversally You will say But They did Clash For without all Proof They Confined the Church to one place Only Contra. And you my good Friends without all Likelyhood of Proof make the Church a mighty wide One You give it Arms which embrace all called Christians Though Hereticks in their particular Tenents Did therfore the particular
Doctrin Disc 2. c. 6. n. 7. 8. 14. 8. Though contrary to both Truth and Conscience it were Supposed That We Prove not our Catholick They Improbably found Their Doctrin upon Fals supposed Negatives Being fallible and therfore not Assisted by the Holy Ghost They pretend Improbably to Teach Christs Doctrin with Certainty Verities Yet no Absolute Denial of these Verities follovvs from our not Proving Them But Protestants upon this Fals Supposed Negative We Prove Not vvithout the least Appearance of any infallible Revelation for them Ground their Faith Which is a most Desperate Improbability Disc 2. c. 8. n. 2. 3. 15. 9. It is Improbable to Say That Protestants whilst they Teach their Novelties or Interpret Scripture Do either the One or Other as Faithful Oracles or Instruments Assisted by the Holy Ghost For These men whether They Teach or Interpret Profess Themselves Fallible in All They Say Therfore are not assisted Instruments of this Blessed Spirit who Teaches by none The Necessary Doctrin of a Vniversal Church Interpret's by None but such as do it Infallibly Disc 2. c. 9. n. 8. 16. 10. To say That that Article of our Creed I Believe the Holy Catholick Church was not True in all Ages before Luther is more Then Improbable Protestants who They make Improbably an Article of our Creed Fals. can name no other Catholick Church but the Roman which They Hold Erroneous must both Vow and Vote the Creed Fals for so vast a time Disc 3. c. 1. n. 1. To Teach that a Doctrin common to Hereticks is enough for Saluation is Improbable A Religion essentially Hypocritical Improbable 17. 11. It is highly improbable to Say That either the true Church of Christ can be corrupted in Doctrin or that a Doctrin common to All Hereticks is enough for Saving Faith Protestants Affirm both Disc 3. c. 2. 18. 12. A Church Essentially Hypocritical That may Believe One thing And must Profess an other is unworthy of Credit and cannot be judged to Hold probable Doctrin Protestants own such a Church Disc 3. c. 6. n. 10. 19. 13. A Church or Religion that hath not one Article of Faith Grounded on Scripture as it is Reformed yet So is a Church without a word of Scripture for it Another Improbability of Sectaries Pretend's to Draw all to it By Force of Scripture Delivers most improbable Doctrin Protestancy is such a Religion Ibidem n. 11. 20. 14. Protestants that Pretend to submit to the Authority of one two or three of the Ancient Fathers And Scornfully Reject the Authority of the Roman Church Proceed Improbably Disc 3. c. 7. n. 9. And thus much Briefly of a few Doctrinal Improbabilities Taught by Protestants The Treatise afford's you more Touching the Liberty The Vnconstancy The Endles Dissentions of Sectaries with other sad Effects that follow This new Gospel These I wave in this place And 21. Say 2. The proofs of Sectaries for Their new Religion Sectaries Proofs of their own Religion are Improbable The Reason are Improbable The Assertion is consequential and Stand's Firm Vpon what is said already For a Doctrin Proved Improbable by undoubted Principles cannot be made Evidently Credible by any rational Arguments Vnles Truth be contrary to Truth But The Doctrin of Protestancy is Demonstrated Improbable Therfore no Rational Proofs can make it Evidently credible nor so much as weakly Probable To confirm this Do no More but Demand of any Sectary the Question hath been often Proposed Vpon what Rational Proof A Protestant cannot say upon a rational Principle why He judges his Religion true or the best of all other or received Principle Antecedent to his Faith He Believes Protestancy I do not say Christian Religion taken in what General way you will To be the Best and Purest Religion now Professed He cannot Pretend that this Novelty is ex Terminis Evidently True or Credible for no Religion is so Much less That He Believes without Reason or Becaus He will Believe Therfore after he hath Declared what He Believes He must also Satisfy the Doubt And Tell us Why He Believes And Ground his Answer upon a Rational Principle But it is as impossible to Satisfy This one Demand as to Remove the Pyraenean Mountains from the place they Stand in The Reason is It is It is highly Against Reason to Embrace a Religion without Prudent Motives Protestancy hath no Prudent Motives If they have any in store They can be laid forth to Reason Highly Against all Reason to Embrace any Religion whether new or old without Rational Proofs Grounded on sure Motives Which Plead as it were in Gods behalf and make Religion Evidently Credible Before vve Yeild Assent to it But Protestants have no rational Motives Antecedent to their Belief of Protestancy which Hold a strict Analogy with Those of Christ and his Apostles as is Amply Proved Disc 1. c. 9. 10. 11. 12. therfore their Religion as Protestancy is without Proof Vnevidenced If they can Gainsay my Assertion let them Speak And Bring their Motives to Light We would gladly hear what can be Answered plainly to this one plain Demand 22. After a General View Taken of Protestancy We may Descend to Particulars and enquire in the next Place Why the Professors of it Believe so much as one Article of this Novelty For example Two Sacraments only no Sacrifice no Church Infallible Why They Believe And 'T is the Worst of all Yea and a Paradox Astrange Paradon of Protestants beyond Expression That Christ Abandoned the very Church he Founded in the greatest Need and Danger that can concern a Church Which was and is to Defend it from Heresy Here we may justly stand astonished and Ask How it came to Pass that ouâ— Careful Lord Iesus like one Drowsy or Forgetful of his Charge Withdrew his Providence From that Church He Founded What Hath He been asleep so long 'T is True when He Entred a little Boat Matt. 8. It was a Type of the Church a great Tempest arising He seemed regardles of his Disciples feares And Slept a while But to Say He hath now Slept on For a Thousand Christ founded the Roman Catholich Church yet Protestants say he suffered it to perish Years and like one Retchles Suffered that Arke He Built not only to be Tossed with the worst of Tempests But to be overturned with a Deluge of Errours and Fals Doctrin is a Novelty fitter for Protestants to Broach then Any Christian in the World to Hear or Think of Ask therfore what Scripture what Vnanimous Consent of Fathers or Councils have They for this long Supposed Negligence of our Vigilant Lord I 'll tell you They can Allege just so much proof for this Vnheard of Paradox as They Do For Their other Novelties which is purely Nothing Protestancy therfore whether we consider Protestancy Every way unproved it in a General Way or Descend to the particular Tenents Therof is meerly Fancy An Vnproved and
the Greeks Teach And Do not slight the man for He has the repute of a most learned Scholler the whole world Over However if you Set light by his Person answer his Arguments His Reasons and most Convincing Authorities 14. If any one desire to know more of what the Greek Church hold's concerning the Fire of Purgatory He may read Alatius page 200. where He cites S. Basil and others for a purgation by fire You have much also Purgation by sire of this whole subject in His Book against Hottinger where He proves page 130. Chap. 10. that the Greeks pray for the releasment of Souls from their tears and Torments And that after the Ending of such punishments And passing into Happines after punishment they may pass to eternal Happines In Ecclesia Graecorum saith He pagina 155. cap. 11. Vnus fere est consensus omnium Graecorum c. Almost all the Greeks even those who are against the Pope agree so far with The blessed after this life enjoy the beatifical vision him that the Blessed after This life enjoy the beatifical vision with the Angels and se God facie ad faciem Now Sir if you would have an Answer Though it merits none to the pretty jeer you begin with Concerning the vast Incomes of the Church by Indulgences Rivet call's them Pontificias emulgentias Read Alatius page 223. Chap. 12. where He washes away the Calumny and shewes how severely the Church proceeds in this particular charging All Officers of the Court not to take No Salary for Indulgences so much as the least Salary for the very Parchment for the writings or any other labour belonging to the Indulgence And to avoyd all Deceit this Superscription goes with the Indulgence Gratis etiam quoad Scripturam All is frankly don without reward or recompence 15. You may return once more to His Book de Vtriusque Ecclesiae Consensione and page 272. find the Doctrin of Purgatory Professed and believed as well by the Syrians Armenians and other Fastern Nations that Profess Christianity as by the Greeks themselves Abraham Ecchelensis a Maronit saith Alatius And one no less skilful The Eastern Churches beside the Greeks believe a Purgatory in Ecclesiastical Affairs then in the Oriental Languages in His Notes upon Hebedieusu Bishop of Sobae expresly mantains the Doctrin of Purgatory and saith The Roman Church Innovates Nothing in this particular Teaches Nothing but what is read in S. Ephrems S. Ephrems Office accord's with the Roman Church Office Sive specâ—et id ad Purgatorium ignem sive ad remissionem delictorum whether that relates to the fire of Purgatory or to the remission of sins after Death Much more is there Alleged to this purpose but the work would be Endles should we transcribe the half of his Quotations Yet one Thing is not to be omitted which He as largely as learnedly proves Chiefly from page 268. to page 300. And 'T is that the Ancient Church The Ancient Church of the Iewes believed Purgatory of the Iewes believed a Purgatory He first urgeth that known Passage of Scripture Machab. lib. 2. c. 12. which though it were not Scripture as Sectaries pretend yet the book is of great Authority and was never taxed of Errour by Christ and His Apostles or any Orthodox Writer since Christ and therfore cannot but be reckoned of as an undoubted History Next He Produceth the Testimonies of no few learned Rabbins from page 278. wherby we have assurance that the Hebrew And the fire of it also Church indubitably believed not only a Purgatory but the Fire of Purgatory also And here were it worth the labour I could charge my margents with Hebrew enough borrowed from Alatius as Sectaries usually Do Theirs with Greek and Latin I know a Little and 'T is little enough of that language but I Slight such Paedantry too manifest a bragging of Nothing Good Ostentation ever Displeasing Apparel needs no Ribands nor a solid Discours so much Margent-Bravery of Hebrew Greek and Latin If any particular Emphasis lie in a Greek or Hebrew word it is worth the while to Search into it but too much of the florishing when every Boy Can transcribe a Greek or Latin sentence if He have a book before him relisheth not For it only serves to show how vainly Affectation creep's in under a colour of Learning Yet if this be the new Mode of Sectaries Let it pass it is one of their least Transgressions 16. Wel Not to forget Alatius page 277. cites you R. Menachem Calomiti whose Writings are yet preserved in the Vatican Library And This Rabbi Testimonies of the Rabbins tell 's us what the Judgement of the Hebrew Church was much to this sense That if any soul be infected with pride or Errour it was necessary before its entrance into Paradise to be washed and cleansed by fire in a place above Hell You have yet a clearer Testimony taken out The Iewes distinguished a triple State of Souls of the Thalmud Massecher quoted page 292. where a triple State of Souls is distinguished Of perfectly just of impiously wicked and of a third sort who are first to descend to a place of Torment to be tryed by Fire as Gold is And for the relief of such imprisoned Captives Iudas Macchabaeus sent twelve thousand Drachmas of silver to Hierusalem as an Oblation The Conclusion therfore is Sancta Salutaris c. It is a Holy and wholsom cogitation to pray for the Dead that they may be freed from their sins But enough of this subject if you desire further Instructions from the Rabbins concerning Purgatory read Alatius now cited CHAP. IV. A Parallel of Proofs for and Against the Doctrin of Purgatory A solution to our Adversaries late Objections 1. WE come now to a just ttial of the eause to Proofs and Principles Pray you observe We will ballance all without partiality and make the Parallel as it truely is The Question rightly The Question truely Stated Stated is Whether there be a third place distinct from Heaven and Hell wherin Souls departed this life suffer a temporal punishment From which punishment they are freed No dispute de nomine by the Prayers of the Living Call it Purgatory or otherwise it matter 's nothing we dispute de re not de Nomine Sectaries hold the Negative Catholicks the Affirmative And here is our first Principle 2. What Christs true Church and all other Churches The first and most convincing Proof in the world denominated Christians Profess and believe cannot but be an undoubted verity But Christs true Church and all other Churches with it Profess and Believe that third place of torment as also a Deliverance of souls from it by the Prayers of the Living Ergo that Doctrin is an undoubted Verity The Major is Evidently proved in the Precedent Chapter For the true Roman Catholick Church the Greek Church and those more Eastern Churches with the
Ancient Orthodox Church of the Jewes undeniably Profess and believe this Doctrin none can gainsay the Proposition The consent of act Churches a strong Principle The Minor is as certain for no Authority under Heaven plain Scripture excepted can be greater then the Vnanimous Consent of all Curches No contrary judgement is able to struggle with so much strength Therfore put the case first you will The supposition hold's not de facto for no Fathers teach so have what I would say better Evidenced upon a supposition That more then one of the ancient Fathers should expresly Deny a Purgatory whilst all Churches teach the contrary Suppose secondly that God should command me to believe the One or Other And that which prudence evidently Tell 's me is the most What we are obliged to upon the supposition Credible I am obliged if I proceed rationally to Adhere to the Church because it is evidently the stronger Proof and to deny the Fathers Authority Therfore I am bound much more to yeild my Assent now when all Churches Affirm the Doctrin and not one Father Denies it And our very Adversaries must say as much as I prove For do not they own the Holy Book of Scripture to be Gods Word how consequently Sect 〈…〉 es must grant what is now asserted they proced I Dispute not because all Christian Churches in the world do so If therfore that Authority be warrant enough for a Bible it is as weighty for the Doctrin we stand for And this was my Conclusion Perhaps you will say Very An Objection many among the Schismatical Churches Deny a Purgatory Contra. And very many also Deny the Canon of Scripture you Admit of Doth this make the Bible of less esteem among you Know therfore We speak Here of Church Authority and not of Schismaticks receding from a Church weaken not the Churches Doctrin Schismatical Parties receding from those Respective Churches wherof they were once members Know also that the self-Opinion of such Partisans is not to be compared with the Sentiment of a whole Church against them You may Reply Again We are now forced to make use of Schismatical Churches to Defend our Doctrin of Purgatory Answer No such matter We need not their Help but say Salutem ex inimicis nostris when Adversaries agree with us in a Truth it is an Advantage to our cause witnesses upon this account are multiplyed Et vox populi vox Dei if The number of withnesses for a Truth gives some Advantage All teach as we do it is certain we profess no Erroneous Doctrin At least the Argument Ad hominem Against Sectaries hath place who value so much of the Greeks and other Heterodox Christians We care not for more Besides the Greek Church when it was most Orthodox prayed for the Dead in a state of sufferance as is already proved 3. Weigh now well the Reasons Pro and Con. Reasons pro and con are weighed All the Churches in the world Defend a Purgatory that is a place wherin souls are temporally punished No Church reputed Orthodox ever denyed it I say more No Schismatical Church under the Notion of a Church contradicted that Doctrin Therfore our professed Faith is undoubtedly certain upon this very ground or if it be not one may call the primary Articles of our Faith into Question And The Parallel All and none A clear Conviction The second Principle thus you have the first Parallel All Churches stand for our Affirmative No Church Defend's the contrary Negative of Sectaries A most Evident Conviction A powerful Proof against this Heresy 4. The second Principle is S. Austins known Doctrin De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 4. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Consiliis c. What the whole universal Church hold's and was not first instituted by Councils What all believe is Apostolical Tradition but ever in use and retained Recte Creditur is rightly believed to be no other but an Apostolical Tradition But it is most certain that the whole Vniversal Church prayed for souls departed with intention to free them from a temporal Punishment The Greeks the Latins and the Ancient Hebrews Prayed so as is already proved And this had no first Rise from any Decree No Sectary can say when the Church first began to pray for the Dead suffering terment of Councils therfore it is an Apostolical Tradition which Truth Alatius further demonstrat's upon several Occasions Ponder therfore things impartially And ask now what Tradition have Sectaries for their Negative The Dead are not Assisted by Prayer They have none they are here put to silence for neither the Tradition of the whole Church nor of any part of it reputed Orthodox ever favoured Their Opinion or delivered what they teach Make then the Comparison All Tradition is for our Catholick Verity The Parallel and Nothing like Tradition for the contrary Heresy All and nothing make a strange Parallel And so it is at present 5. The third Principle Many Ancient and learned Fathers so interpret those known passages of Holy Scripture interprrted by Fathers a third Principle Scripture usually alleged for a proof of Purgatory that Scripture it self Speak's what the Church Teacheth Not one Father gives such a sense to Scripture as may Ground a positive or absolute Denial of Purgatory I cannot insist upon all Take for an instance that one passage of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. He shall so yet be saved as by fire And know that besides those learned Notes of Bellarmin upon the Text Lib. 1. De Purg. Cap. 5. and the Bellarmin Fathers there quoted most significantly expressing the Catholick sense Leo Alatius produceth others and Page Leo Alatius 311. Cites Manuel Caleca a more Modern Author Lib. 4. Contra Graecos who Saith the place cannot be understood of Hell fire for the Apostle speak's of a fire wherby souls are saved which is not the fire of Hell but a Purging Manuel Caleca his reason fire and by this They are to pass to happines And so much the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Per which insinuates a Passing strongly signifies Thus Caleca who hath much more to our Purpose It is true some Authors think the Apostle speak's of the fire of Tribulation Others though less probably of the last burning of the No Fathers makes Scripture to Deny a Purgatory world but no Father makes the Text or any other of Scripture positively exclusive of Purgatory for This is no Consequence We are to pass through Tribulation and the fire also at the judgement Day Ergo there is no penalty to be endured in a third place Here you have an other Parallel Most learned Fathers interpret The Paralled Scripture Conformably to the Churches Doctrin not one positively favours the Contrary Opinion of Sectaries Iudge you therfore and cast as it were into a ballance the express Sentiment of Many against
None and see where the greatest weight lyes 6. The fourth Principle is the Express Doctrin of The fourth Principle Fathers Themselves as well Greek as Latin whether it be grounded on Scripture on Tradition or both matters not at present Here we only Appeal to the Their Positive Doctrin To transcribe all they have said on this subject would be a long work Bellarmin novv cited cap. 10. hath many Leo Alatius adds other Greek Authors favour the Church Doctrin Greek Authors as well Orthodox as of Schismatical from his 57. page There you have Gennadius the Patriarch St. Epiphanius express to our purpose S. Chrysostom Hom. 69. ad populum and S. Damascen both approving and praysing S. Chrysostoms Doctrin Eustratiâ—s Priest of Constantinople Michaël Glycas a Schismatick Eugenicus Nomophilax adversus Synodum Florentinam Meletius Alexandrinus Epistolâ ad Chios who saith Expresly it is an Apostolical Tradition and grounded also in Scripture To Hold that the Dead have great Assistance by the good works of the Living But let us return to the more known Authority of Fathers S. Denis or some other Grave Author Eccles Hierarch cap 7. parte 3. saith that Dionysius S. Cyril of Hiâ—r S. Chrysostom the venerable Prelate prayes over the Dead to the End that all his sinn's committed through humain frailty may be forgiven him Say I beseech you what signifies this remission of sin's obtainable by the Prayers of the Prelate S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 5. We make Prayers and offer up the dreadful Sacrifice on the Altar for the Dead believing it to be a mighty Help for their souls What can be more plain Popery S. Chrysostom Hom. 21. in Acta Alatius quotes the words in his own language which begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. God saith He hath layd open to us many wayes to salvation Oblations Oblations and Prayers for the Dead Prayers and Alms for the Dead are not things vainly don in their behalf No They were instituted by the Holy Ghost who will 's that we endeavour to help one an other Be most assured the Dead have much profit by our Orizons The Saint hath more to this purpose in his 41. Hom. upon the first of the Corr. Theodoret cited by Alatius page 71. lib. 5. Histor cap. 36. Tell 's us that Theodosius the younger lay prostrate at the Reliques of S. Chrysostom praing for the Souls of his deceased Parents Arcadius and Eudoxiâ— that God would grant them pardon for their Offenses c. Alatius besides These cites Theophylact S. Cyril of Alexandria Metaphrastes and other Greek Authors You have the Latin Fathers Largely quoted by Bellarmin supra cap. 10. And their words are so plain for our Doctrin The Latin Fathers accord also Specially S. Austins that none without violence can draw them to any other sense then what the Church Teaches Most surely you will now expect that Sectaries Answer us with like measure And give in lieu of these Testimonies briefly hinted at others as clear and significant for their Opinion And this They are obliged to when besides the alleged Authorities we have an Ample ancient and learned Church that speaks in the language of the Fathers and Teaches the very Doctrin They Deliver But all is Contrary 7. I 'll tell you a great Truth and 't is worth a serious reflection Sectaries have not so much as one Ancient Father Greek or Latin not one Ancient Writer Sectaries want of Authors reputed Orthodox not one Council new or old not one word of Scripture that either Positively and Expresly Denies a Purgatory or Prayers for the Dead or the relief we now plead for afforded them in a place of Punishment What not one No. Parallel The Parallel therfore many with None and you will se what foundations Our Adversaries Novelties Stand on I say Expresly and Positively being well acquainted with Sectaries Proceding as well in this as in other Controversies Sectaries way of Arguing Here They will first be upon you with their Negative way of Arguing We read no such word as Purgatory in the Ancient Fathers 2. You may have a Company of blind inferences drawn from Scripture and Fathers before the sense of either be Agreed They make Deductions from Scripture before the sense of Scripture is known on 3. As far as Conjectures can reach they will set Glosses enough upon the best Testimonies allegeable out of Scripture or Fathers c. But mark it all this while you have Nothing Express nothing Positive and significant against us And Do they think that a meer Negative Argument hath force enough to overthrow a Doctrin Positively Professed by a whole Church and so many Learned Fathers Can they perswade Themselves that Their Inferences Forced from Scripture or Fathers are of any validity whilst the very sense of both lye under Dispute Take for an instance An Instance that of S. Iohn Apocal. 14. Blessed are the Dead that Dye in our Lord Amodo from hence forth they rest from Their labours The Question is what Amodo relates to whether to the day of every mans Death or to the last Judgement Day whether the Scripture speak's there of perfect Souls only or of others what is meant by that word labours For if it signify the sufferances and persecutions of this present life the Text Proves nothing for our Adversaries Notwithstanding all these Doubts undecided Their Inference goes on And 't is that S. Iohn here Excludes all sufferance in Purgatory Alas such Deductions are too weak to Oppose Weak Deductions an Express owned Doctrin all over the world as is now proved Yet you have no better from these men Nothing Express nothing openly significant Against us 8. I touched in the last place on Sectaries Glosses and interpretations forced on such Testimonies as are usually cited for our Catholick Faith And here How differently Catholicks and Sectaries proceed I will briefly Discover not only their Cheat but moreover shew you how differently we and They proceed as well in this present Controversy as in all other Disputes between us Observe well The Truth is thus When we Produce Scripture Councils or Fathers against their Novelties They make their own Interpretation to be the last and surest Ground wheron The Sectary makes the last ground of his Opinion to be his own Explication The Catholick hath his Religion proved before He Explicates Their maintained Opinion ultimatly relies Contrarywise the Catholick never interpret's Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries but He ground his Gloss on a surer Principle then his sole Explication reaches to I will explicate my self more clearly by one Instance Besides the Authority of our Church and all other Societies called Christian we allege for example St. Denis his Testimony St. Chrysostoms or any other to prove that Prayer for the Dead Avail's much for their comfort and remission of sins that is for the lessening of the pain due to sin
That 's not enough Sectaries are to Prove it Beares that Sense here An Instance That the Word EST in our Saviours Proposition hath determinatly that Sense and no Other You know Scripture saith Hic est filius meus dilectus This is my beloved son c. Now no Man can Inferr Becaus EST sometimes is Rendred Signifies That Here it looses its Proper sense And only Avail's as much as if you Said Christ only Signifies or is not otherwise the Son of his Father Then a material Picture Hang'd on a Wall is a Sign or Figure of the Prototypon This cannot be admitted of Vnles I say a Stronger Principle which is Impossible Force us to Approve of such an Heretical sense And thus We Discours in our Present Matter 3. Note 3. All the Principles which can be Thought on to Force Catholicks from the Received Sense of Christs Own Words or to Favour our Adversaries Cause must be Reduced to one of these Heads To No known Principle upholds the Doctrin of Sectaries Plain speaking Scripture To Vniversal Tradition To the Catholick sense of Christs Orthodox Church in former Ages or Finally to the General Consent of Fathers If none of these Principles Vphold Protestants Doctrin it Fall's of it self And wholy Relies on Fancy Thus much supposed 4. Here is my Proposition and an Inference also A Proposition against Sectaries Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one of these now Named Principles VVithdraw Catholicks from the Plain Received Sense of Christs VVords They cannot Prove that EST in our Saviours Affirmation Imports only as much as if you said it Signifies Therfore the Doctrin which Denies the real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is wholy Vnwarrantable and Built on Fancy Only 5. The Proofs of my Assertion are as Vndeniably The Proofs of it are no less clear Then the Proposition it self Evident as the very Assertion it self For it is Manifest No Scripture plainly Teaches I say no More now That the Verb EST in Christs Proposition Beares only this sense it Signifies And it is as Clear no Vniversal Tradition Approves of this new Fancied Sense What then Remains But that our Adversaries take Recours to some Ancient Orthodox Church or To the General Consent of Fathers I say therfore If they A Fair offer made to Sectaries can Name any Vniversal Church Nay any particular Church Reputed Orthodox the whole world Over That Interpreted these Words as They do or Clearly Denyed Christs true Body and Blood To be under the Formes of Bread and Wine after Consecration or Believed that Natural bread only hath the Name of Christs Body Though it be Really no more But a Sign only a Figure only a Resemblance only of his Body If I say Protestants you shall se will never Answer Directly to what is here proposed any one of these things can be proved They 'l Come of Gloriously And Gain Thousands to their Opinion But I know all is in a high Measure Impossible I say a Sign only a Figure only For We Catholicks both speak with the Fathers and Truely Believe The Eucharist to be a Sacrament And consequently a Sign of Invisible Grace Yea and a Figure also a Memorial of Christ Himself and his Sacred Passion But this is not the Controversy between us The sole Question therfore is Whether it be so purely a Sign or Figure that What They are to Answer To. the Thing Signified is not in the Sign And the Verity in the Figure That is Whether Christs Sacred Body and Blood be not Truely and Substantially within the outward Sign and really Present There This VVe Affirm and Sectaries Deny Though never Orthodox Church Denyed it with Them 6. To clear this Point And Add If Possible more Weight to our Assertion We Have an Ample Holy and Learned Catholick Roman Church whose sole Authority set Scripture aside is the Greatest on Earth The sole Authority of our Roman Church is Sufficient to Convince Sectaries of Errour Which confessedly hath believed and taught this Doctrin of the Real Presence for at least a Thousand Years I say Ever since Christianity began And can any one prudently Perswade Himself That so Chois and Learned a Society That yet Speak's in Christs ovvn Language And Literally believes his words as They are in the Gospel Hath for so long a time lived in a Cheat and taught Millions of Soules a most Damnable Errour Admit of this Vast Improbability We have yet a Demonstration No Other Orthodox Society Ever opposed our Catholick Doctrin against Sectaries And 't is No Orthodox Church can be named that ever Opposed Found fault or Blamed the Belief of the Roman Church Concerning this Mystery Therfore the Doctrin of this Learned Society is undoubtedly Certain upon a double Account that Christ Taught it And no Vniversal Church ever Condemned it 7. In the last Place we are to Say a Word of the other The last Principle which is the consent of Fathers Principle Which is the Vnanimous consent not of a small Number but of Many most Ancient Learned and Holy Fathers These can well Declare what Scripture Teaches of This Mystery And what Christs Orthodox Church ever Believed If All Readers Have not the Originals at hand They may see them in the Authors Cited above I shall only Hint at a few For to Transcribe All or Half of them And Quote the Places Exactly Would Needlesly lengthen a Digression which I Intended to make short In passing I 'll only say thus much If Sectaries with all the Skill Fathers express for Catholick Doctrin They have can Interpret These few Testimonies Which I shall briefly Glance at They may with the same Ease Yea And far less labour Explicate the Words of the Council of Trent and make that to speak Protestancy Or to Deny the Real Presence 8. Some Fathers therfore Dogmatically Teach What we take into our mouths is not that which nature These Fathers are Faithfully cited Though to avoid Tediousnes in a short Digression I thought it best not to give the Reader more Trouble then is necessary by quoting Exactly the places made But what the Blessing hath Consecrated And that by Consecration the very Nature of bread is changed Thou hast learned that of bread is made the Body of Christ and the wine and water is put into the Chalice But by the consecration of the Heavenly Word it is made Blood The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Sacred Invocation of the Adored Trinity were simple bread and wine But the Invocation being once don the Bread indeed is made the Flesh of Christ and the VVine his Blood The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made Flesh Christ by his own Will once changed water into wine and is He not worthy to be Believed that He changed Wine into Blood Mark a substantial
is Given for you They Answer No. It was not his Body but a Sign Only of His Body Given for us Observe well This Interpretation of a Sign Only is a Gloss of Fancy For neither the Word Sign is in Scripture Nor a Sign Only is any Ancient Father We Cite Again that Unanswerable Text of St. Luke This is the Chalice the new Testament in my Blood which Chalice is shed for you And mark the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Case and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Different Case What Answer our Sectaries Marry Beza Tell 's us St. Luke Here either spak a Solacism or a Marginal Note Cre'pt by chance into the Text Here is His best Solution And who Tell 's Mr. Beza so But his own Fancy We Produce moreover Those Testimonies of Ancient Fathers Briefly Hinted at Above And say no Wit of Man can solve Them Chiefly That Authority of St. Cyril Of VVine changed into Blood as water was Once changed into VVine They Answer The Change was only Moral of Wine Deputed to a Holy Use which is Against the very Nature of the Instance And consequently a Strong Thought of Fancy We say No Universal Tradition No Ancient Church ever Opposed the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church concerning this Mystery Herein our Ad 〈…〉 rsaries are Silenced And cannot Design the Orthodox Church that opposed our Doctrin as both We and the whole world beside now oppose their Novelty Parallel therfore the Proceedings of Sectaries Against us A Parallel between their Proceeding and ours Sectaries mangle and pervert most clear Authorities with ours Against them And you will find them to stand upon Quicksand without Principles The very Straits They are put to Demonstrat this Evidently whilst as you have seen They Mangle Pervert Misconstrue and Gloss Every clear Authority cited against Them And We on the other side candidly Admit both of Scripture and Fathers Quoted by Them without Any other Gloss but what the very Text and Context of the Testimonies Allow of 5. And Hence it is that you Always have our Adversaries Sectaries bold in asserting but weak at their Proofs bold in Asserting But Cold Vnmanly and Weak at their Proofs Besides what is now said the true Reason is No Proof can touch much less Vainquish a Verity that Stands firm upon undeniable Principles Plain Scripture the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers undeniable What our Catholick Proofs are Tradition the Authority of a Holy and Vniversal Church and this Negative No Church ever blamed our Doctrin are Strong Supports for the Faith we Profess And can our Sectaries who are as Scriptureles as Fatherles as Fatherles as Churchles and Finally Destitute of All other Principles Think to Dant us with a few Gleancings Gathered Sectaries cannot deny Them now out of This now out of that Ancient Writter when They Evidently se with their Eyes the whole Torrent of Antiquity contrary to Them Can they Perswade Themselves that Because one Theodoret For example Of Theodorets Authority Saith the Mystical Signs after the Sanctification Recede not from Their Nature but Remain in their first Substance Figure and Form are Seen and Touched as Before which words are literally True if we Speak as We Admit of his Words this Author Doth of the visible Accidents of Bread and Wine Can we I say Think that this one Authority Though it were a Hundred times more Difficil Hath Weight enough to turn the Scales Force Enough to Drive us from the Faith which Scripture Church and Fathers most manifestly Deliver It is impossible The obscurer places of Scripture and Fathers are to be Interpreted by the clearer All know when Divines Explicate Scripture or Fathers They Interpret the obscurer Passage by the Clearer And never make the Darker Place to give Light to the more Evident Observe Now. Theodoret saith the Mystical Signs Recede not from their Nature But Remain as before I say so too The only Difficulty is what he Meanes by the Word Signs and Sectaries Glosses without Proof Theodoret cannot be supposed to contradict other most Learned Fathers He is to be Explicated were he obscure by the sense of other Fathers Nature Sectaries Tell us The Sense is Bread and wine Recede not from Their True Substance First This is their Gloss without Proof For the Visible Signs of bread and wine are not the Invisible Substance of Bread and Wine 2. Theodoret in all law of Arguing when His plain Words Force not on us this sense of Sectaries ought to be Catholickly Interpreted And Had we no other Reason but this That it cannot be Reason To make so Learned a Father Though once he stray'd a little to Clash with all Antiquity it were Enough At most His Words are Doubtful And upon that Account capable of Explication is it not Therfore more Just to Explicate Them by the Clear and Vndeniable Doctrin of a Whole Church And other Fathers then to Draw these Fathers from their Open and Manifest Sense to His if it be supposed Obscure as in Truth well Pondered it is not Let Reason Judge Here. 6. By what is said Already We may well pitty the desperate Condition of Sectaries who Pertinaciously Defend an Heresy without so much as a colour of Sectaries want Principles Scripture Church or the General Consent of Fathers For these Principles and none can Parallel them Most evidently Fail our Adversaries Urge them Again and Again to speak more Pertinently to their Cause then is Don hitherto You get nothing but the Old Story told over again And it will never be Better for I se too Plainly Their Humor It is God knows Sectaries Tristing and wherin it Appear's To spend or rather to Mispend their whole Life and Labour in Trifles They Think to Cavil at the Proofs of our Doctrin Establisheth Theirs As if it were sufficient to make their Novelty good Because they can Talk against our Ancient Faith Just as if One to Prove Himself an Honest Man might do it Pithily by calling his Neighbour a Knave 7. I must yet Add one Significant Word more And 'T is very Necessary to lay forth our Adversaries Weaknes as well in This as in All other Controversies Observe Solid Proofs for a Doctrin stand firm and unshaken against all Opponents it VVhen Proofs of a Doctrin Stand on solid Grounds and Principles the Objections Against it are like Fathers cast Against the Wind forceles And return upon the Opponents to their Confusion wherof I think you Have Already seen Enough in this Present Controversy But contrarywise When the Proofs are Meagre Barren and Void of Strength They are ever so with Sectaries The Very Opposite Principles for Truth Dash All Discountenance All and Evidently Shew those Arguments to be Feeble And Truely would our Did Sectaries Proceed Candidly They would se Themselves Convinced Adversaries once Deal Ingeniously Candor would
Force them to Acknowledge what I say to be most True when they can allâ—ge nothing probably for their Novelty against our Plain Scripture Against the Ancient Doctrin of a Vniversal Learned Church And the Authority of so many Fathers now Cited 8. We might yet entertain you with One or Two Difficult â— drawn from the weak Reason of Sectaries solved Difficulties more Drawn from Reason Wherat our Adversaries Measuring Gods Power by their own Wit or Fancy Stumble not a Little One is A Body cannot be in two Places at Once Just so the Peasant Thinks the sun cannot be bigger then a Broad Sieve Because never learning Mathematiks He Measures All by his silly Imagination And so the Sectary Doth Here Because He is no Scholler in Christs School But ad Rem Who Tell 's Him that a Body cannot be in two Places at once Hath God Revealed this in Scripture Nitâ—her Faith nor Philosophy against th being of a Body in two places No But Philosophy Teaches it What Philosophy Aristotles No For the Received Doctrin of his School is That a Body to say nothing of a Soule That is in two places Head and Feet at Once Individually Considered by it Self is no more Actually It s own Local Presence or Place Then the Organ of the Eye is of it Self its own Actual Vision Or Fire A Body is not by it self it s own local presence An other Argument of Sectaries ungrounded by it self Actually Heat This is common Philosophy if That of Sectaries be Better let them Vouchsafe to Learn us Otherwise Not by Saying it is Better But by some Clear and Vndeniable Principle 9. An other Argument is Drawn from the Great Indignities wherunto Christs Sacred Body is lyable if it be in the Holy Sacrament As That a Mouse or Wors Creature may Eat it Vp c. Here we may Justly Exclame with St. Austin upon another Occasion lib. 22. de Civit. c. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis Omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas c. Se with what Slight Arguments Mans weak Wit Opposeth Gods Omnipotency Speak therfore Truth Is it not a greater The pretended Indignities of Sectaries shewed â—rivolous Indignity that Christ Permitt's a Sinner to Receive him with a filthy conscience Then That He lics in the Stomach of a Rat or Mouse Say yet Had a worm Suk't his Precious Blood when it was shed on the Ground in his Passion or a Spider bit his Sacred flesh in the Crib of Bethlem Would that Indignity think ye Have Forced men from a Belief of his Real true Body These are childish Arguments not worth the Answering And here you have almost an End of a Digression which I Think cannot be well Answered 10. I Exceed not in saying It cannot be Answered Some points Briefly touched on wherunto Sectaries are desired to Answer And therfore Tell our Adversaries if it shall please them to Reply They are first to Prove and by certain Principle that Christs Sacred Words now Alleged for our Catholick Verity are Misunderstood by us And ought to have Their Determinate sense of a Sign Figure Metonymy and no Other What we here Require is most Reasonable For if my Faith fall upon Their sense They are obliged to Prove it Revealed by Almighty God Otherwise Vpon sound Principles Contrary to all Reason They 'l Vrge me to Believe what an infinit Verity never Spak 2. They are to Prove And by a clear Principle also That in such an Age after Christ There was an Orthodox Church that Believed their Doctrin of a Sign Figure Metonymy Only c. And Publikly Opposed ours of Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist To do this More is required then to cite a few broken Sentences of Fathers half Abused and wholy Maimed Sentences of Fathers Proofles weighed out of Their Circumstances All which put together Come not neer to a Probable much less to a Certain Principle That 's able to Evert the undeniable clear Catholick Doctrin of other Fathers And the Authority of our whole learned Church with Them 3. They are not only to Interpret the Fathers now Alleged For Fancy without Proof may pervert the clearest Words God ever Spak But when Their Interpretation When Sectaries Interpret the Fathers They are obliged to prove their Interpretation is made They must Shew it grounded upon a contrary Received Principle as Strong as the Express Words of those Fathers are 4. They are to Show That Christ our Lord when He uttered those sacred words to His Disciples This is my Body And then foresaw the universal supposed Errour of Believing his Real Presence in the Eucharist would follow in all Orthodox Churches And from no other Cause but His own Express and significant Speaking They are I say Obliged to Prove And by an undeniable Principle that He shut up in the clearest Proposition He ever uttered that Dark sense which They draw from it And that He did so to Deceive the World Sectaries grant Christians to have been universally Deceived What Sectaries Grant in their Belief of the Real Presence And that the supposed Errour Arose from Christs plain words is Evident For the whole Catholick Church that Believes this Mystery doth so Because Truth it self said plainly vvithout Reserve This is my Body Finally That Christ our Lord would speak as He did is Manifest by the Gospel And that He then foresaw the Supposed Vniversal Errour would be also Believed by force of His words in the greatest part of Christendom is most Vndubitable Because of the perfect Knowledge He had of Future Things 5. May it please Sectaries to Proceed candidly They are to cast a serious Reflection on pass't Ages and Ponder well who those were that Patronized Their Doctrin and Opposed ours They are to compare and justly to Ballance their Obscure Scripture vvith our clear Texts The vveak Testimonies of Their misconstrued Fathers with our contrary now Quoted Authorities Their Novelty with our Ancient Believed Faith The sentiment of their little late Congregation concerning this Mystery with the Judgement and Belief of our long standing Roman Church c. And if when All is Don They can come to a sound Principle Wherby it may Appear to every Rational man That their Scripture Fathers and Church Authority Outweigh as it were Ours Or have more force to establish their Novelty then what is now Alleged to make our Catholick Doctrin most stably sure We will begin to Think They may more laudably write Controversies Hereafter But if contrarywise you find Them Gravelled at every Difficulty now Proposed and hear nothing distinctly Replyed to upon undoubted Principles or Further confuted then a loos wandring Discours will carry on a Weak Cause I 'll once more crave Their Pardon and Plainly Say Our Arguments and Reasons cannot be Ansvvered CHAP. VIII The Conclusion The Churches Evidence 1. WE have seen Enough in the Precedent Discourses That True Religion is not as Sectaries make Protestancy
to us to be grounded on Scripture In this Sectaries always fail The new mode of Sectaries interpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion Here is the sequel of Sectaries We Catholicks Prove not what we assert therfore they make the contrary Doctrin an Article of their new Faith Faith cannot rely on such Negatives Of the means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture The Holy Ghost only speaking by the Oracle of the Church Interpret's Scripture infallibly in those matters which concern the general belief of all Protestants who profess themselves to be fallible in what ever they teach are no Instruments assumed by the Holy Ghost to teach and interpret infallibly Gods Word No Sectary can judge the Church but the Church is to judge all Sectaries THE THIRD DISCOVRS Of the unreasonable proceeding of Protestants in some Chief matters of Controversy PRotestants who seemingly hold a Catholick Church before Luther larger then the Roman Catholick Church and cannot design it Proceed unreasonably and must falsify that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church Before Luther there were no Christians in the world for a thousand years at least but Roman Catholicks and known Hereticks neither those Catholicks alone as Protestants say nor the known Hereticks nor both together constituted the true Catholick Church therfore there was no true Catholick Church on earth for so vast a time No abstract Doctrin common to all who are named Christians is sufficient to constitute Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet is confuted and his Doctrin shewed improbable Faith in Christ only as a Redeemer is insufficient to Saluation A more explicite Faith of other particulars is proved Necessary If Catholicks and Sectaries are right in the fundamentals of Faith all the pretended Reformation of Protestants comes to a slight work about Non Essentials which may have made Things wors then before It is not the less or more weight of things revealed that makes Faith less or more valued of but the Submission we yeild to Gods Veracity which is one and of equal Authority in what ever he Reveal's Though a Distinction were granted between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Yet Protestants cannot so much as probably sever the Fundamentals from the others by any known Principle If there be no Catholick Church owned at least infallible in Fundamentals all Faith both of Christ and Creed may perish before the world end 's And if there be such an Infallible Church in Fundamentals Sectaries ought to design it and say to whom that Spirit is granted in what subject it resides c. A Protestant who so far Denies Christs true Church That he cannot say where it is and endeavour's to reform others before he have certainty of his own half well made Reformation cannot probably go about to withdraw a prudent Catholick from his Religion Some Propositions of Mr. Stillingfleet are examined His Discours of Fundamentals destroy's Protestant Religion He Speaks of the Being of a Church and saith not precisely how much Doctrin constitutes that Being He cannot name any Orthodox Church that ever Excepted against the Articles believed by the Church of Rome He makes the Negative Articles of the English Church not to be Articles of Faith but only inferiour Truths held only in order to peace and tranquillity His Church therfore is essentially Hypocritical which may believe one thing and must profess an other Though Protestants were very Papists in hart yea and Anathematized all These Negative Articles They may be looked on as Blessed Children of this new Negative Church if their Exteriour be fairly Protestant-like He makes his Church no more an English Church then a Church of Arians and of all condemned Hereticks He saith the English Church makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian world and of Rome it self The Assertion is Evidently Vntrue For no Orthodox Church no Heretical Society no Consent â—f the whole Christian World Ever taught That a Doctrin wherin all Christians agree is sufficient to Saluation When Sectaries Say Christs gave to his Disciples a Sign only of his Body This very Doctrin is either an Article of Their Faith or one of their Inferiour Truths If the first They believe that which never had the approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it self If the second be granted They have no Divine Faith at all of the Blessed Sacrament The Nullity of our Adversaries ground 's is declared though the Church made new Articles of Faith If we speak rigourously The Church makes no new Articles but only declares more Explicitly what was anciently believed The Fathers call the Church a rich Treasury wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is securely preserved The Analogy of Faith is explicated There was a Platform of Christian Religion before Scripture was Writ and the Apostles separated Themselves and Preach't to several Nations Sectaries who seemingly acquiesce in the Judgement of one or two Ancient Fathers most inconsequently reject the Authority of a Learned General Council that is of greater weight and Estimation If the Churches Definitions are therfore to be thought fallible because men declare them and all men are lyars much more are our Sectaries Novelties and Glosses on Scripture to be valued of as Fallible upon the same ground These fallible men tell me my Churches Doctrin is fallible suppose falsly it were so it is altogether as good as this very fallible Proposition is that sayes 'T is Fallible and if which is true it be infallible it is much better No man that holds His Religion fallible can probably endeavour to convert an other though the contrary Religion Professed by this other be acknowledged to be no more but fallible Much less can he persecute Him for not yeilding Assent to a fallible Religion All the Storms of persecution raised against Catholicks are not upon any account of want of Faith but for this sole cause that we will not believe one thing and force our Consciences to Profess an other Which is to say we are persecuted becaus we will not be Hypocrits The Vnreasonablenes of Protestants Schism laid forth from the VIII Chap. of the third Discours to the XV. THe Separation of Protestants from the Roman Catholick Church is as plain and manifest a sinful Schism as ever was Decryed Rebellion in a Kingdom or any Violation of a Countries Right The formal Schism of Sectaries is evident but the Causal charged on Catholicks is no more but an unproved Calumny Proofs brought to received Principles fail Sectaries whilst they make the Roman Church to be the cause of their Formal Schism The supposed errours charged on the Roman Catholick Church by Sectaries are not like the first Principles in nature Evident ex terminis and therfore must be proved by a Discours grounded on certain Principles We Licence Sectaries in their Discours against us to make use of all Imaginable sound Principles Scripture Fathers Tradition or what They pleas and only exclude
Their own self-voting from the nature of a rational Proof and Principle When a Rebellion is manifest in a Kingdom the sole Authority of them who began it is insufficient to make it Justifiable And the Authority of Sectaries is as forceles to Justify their Evident Schism against the Church Whilst Evidence comes not against our Church it stand's most firm upon its ancient possessed right This long Possession proves our Church Orthodox Examples Hereof Mr. Stillingfleets Exceptions against our pleading Possession are proved to be weak forceles and meer ungrounded Suppositions Though the Obligation of proving Evidently lies on our Adversaries who are the Aggressors yet we prove not only a personal Succession of our Popes and Prelates in forgoing Ages but also manifest a Quiet Possession of Truth that descended with these continued Popes and Bishops from the dayes of S. Peter to this very Age. No just Exception can be made against our Tradition which is Evidently its one Proof for there cannot be a clearer Mr. Stillingfleet supposeth that our Right of pleading Truth is a meer Occupancy He is to prove this becaus he is the Accuser No Antecedent Law hath determined Contrary to what we Challenge by vertue of our Possession We have both the Law for us and ancient Possession besides And there is no Reason when we allege two Proofs Law and Possession that we Quite the one which is Possession as Mr. Stillingfleet pretend's we should do which is against all rational Discours of this subject It is improbable to say that Protestants first saw these supposed errours imputed to our Church when others as Quick-sighted more numerours and Learned then They saw them not for ten whole Ages before Luther It is a degree of madnes to suppose that all those worthy and Learned Professors of the Catholick Faith were either so stupidly blind as not to have seen such supposed errours or so wickedly Hypocritical as to have wincked at them after their plain Discovery It is a Paradox to say that our new men saw these too plain and visible errours when that great Catholick Church which Sectaries make more large then the Roman saw them not but permitted Rome to countenance these supposed errours without check or reprehension Of the Impossibility of errours entring the Church after the first 4. or 5. hundred years Though Sectaries should convince which is impossible the Roman Catholick Church to be guilty of errour yet they cannot show that they have set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations as it once stood pure All Principles fail them in this particular Fancy only and nothing like a rational Proof uphold's this charge of errour against our Church Mr Stillingfleets Assertions are refuted If the Roman Catholick Church has erred by imposing unreasonable conditions Sectaries who Profess themselves fallible in all they say may have erred more and spoil'd all they went about to mend Nothing can be more unreasonable then to make a few Rebellious people receding from an ancient Church first to accuse it and then to sit judges in their own cause and condemn it None can probably show that these late Reformers of Protestants who opposed all other Religions are untainted or purely Orthodox As no men before the Donatists made the Church so strait as they did so never Christians before these later Sectaries made it so wide as to hold in it all the Hereticks in the world Protestancy as Protestancy is no Christian Religion at all if the belief of that Doctrin which is common to all Christians be amply sufficient to Salvation Protestants may Anathematize all the Doctrin within the compass of their reformed Religion and yet be saved THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS Of the Churches Evidence and Improbability of Protestant Religion PRotestants as they make not good their own Doctrin by Proofs grounded on certain Principles so they never impugn the Roman Catholick Faith by rational Arguments Catholicks contrarywise prove their Churches Doctrin by undeniable Principles The Grounds of Catholick Religion are briefly laid forth As it is an evident Principle that all those Wife and Learned Doctors who taught Christians Popery for a thousand years were neither fools nor perversly blind So it is more evident that God suffered not those millions of Christians instructed by these Teachers to be grosly abused with fals Doctrin whilst there was no other Catholick Society in the world â—o unbeguile them All other Sectaries who deserted the Roman Catholick Church erred grosly and it is improbable to think that Protestants only among so many straying Teachers were the only priviledged people elected by God to mend had any thing been amiss in a old decayed Church without mixture of errour or marring more then they mended Protestancy is unevidenced and an improbable Religion that is no Religion but a fancied opinion No Doctrin fallibly taught as Protestancy is can be ultimately resolved into Gods infallible Revelation Scripture alone without an infallible Interpreter makes no man infallible A Doctrin which at its first rise was and is still opposed by all Christians excepting the Sectaries who broach it is as improbable as Arianism A Church essentially errable may loâ—s all Truth and consequently all grace and so become divorced from Christ. A Doctrin proved improbable by undoubted Principles cannot be made credible by rational Arguments unles Truth be contrary to Truth Of the slight way of Sectaries Arguing against Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet like his other Brethren in a Discours of Purgatory begins with Ieers with Mistakes and dissembling of Difficulties He states not the Question rightly between the Latin and Greeks The Dispute between the Latins and Greeks is clearly laid forth by Leo Alatius a Grecian What passed in the Council of Florence concerning This Dispute The Greeks most certainly both before and after the Council held a place of punishment for souls departed from which place they are freed by the Prayers of the Living They also hold that souls enioy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement The weaknes of our Adversaries cause is best seen by a Parallel of Proofs for Purgatory and against it The Catholick Principles for Purgatory S. Austins was not the first that held Purgatory Mr. Stillingfleet misunderstands two passages in S. Austin The Sectary when He Explicates Scripture or Fathers makes his own Gloss the surest ground of his Interpretation When the Catholick explicates a dubious passage He relies on a sure Principle distinct from his Interpretation Objections are Answered How the Supplications of the Church respect mercy and Forgivenes to be shewed the just at the Day of Judgement An Objection is proposed in behalf of Sectaries and solved in another Discours concerning the Blessed Sacrament The Grounds of our Catholick Doctrin for the Real Presence The contrary Opinion of Sectaries is proved to be meer Fancy Sectaries cannot by vertue of any one received Principle remove the Catholick from the plain and Obvious senfe of Christs most significant words The
Disciplina quâ fiunt Christiani Vbi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianorum The sense of this whole sentence is this We are not therfore to appeal to Scriptures nor are our debates to be determined here wherin there is no victory or a very uncertain one For although there were no Collation or comparing of places together that might stay the two Advers parts yet the order of things requires this to be first proposed which is now only to be disputed viz. To whom the Faith appertains wherof the Scriptures are From whom and by whom when and by what Persons that Discipline is wherby they were made Christians For where there appeares the Truth of Discipline that is as Macereus and Pamelius interpret the Rule and of Christian Faith there you shall have the Truth of Scriptures the Interpretation of it likewise and of all Christian Tradition Observe well The whole context of these words saith first that debates can never be ended by Scripture only 2. That before we Dispute by Scripture we ought to know and by other Reasons who those are to whom Scripture belong's 3. That where the Discipline or Rule of Christian Faith is previously known by other grounds distinct from Scripture there you have the True Interpretation of Scripture and all Christian Tradition After a full ponderation of these words I leave any man to Judge that loves Truth whether that Doctrin be not here most remarkably expressed which is taught and mantained by the Roman Catholick Church 26. Mr. Poole from his 12. page to his 37. hath no work for me for his whole strain is to run on in cavils and finding fault with such Arguments of Catholicks as He forsooth judges inefficacious to prove the Churches Infallibility whereas God knows Had He had where withall to do it He should have gon a contrary way and proved positively by Scripture Fathers and Tradition the Churches Fallibility but Herein He is silent because in real Truth He hath nothing to say The ground of the Churches Infallibility which Mr. Poole never toucheth on is briefly hinted at above n. 15. and further laid forth Disc 1. c. 1. and 2. and I desire an express Answer to it Now and then He hath something against the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who with him are fallible because they speak of the Churches Infallibility and the good man never reflect's that he and his little book are far more fallible I wave such trifles 27. Page 37. He begins with his Distinctions of the Judge and rule of Faith and saith first The supream and truely Infallible Judge of all Controversies is God and Christ. Very Good but nothing is yet Done unles you fallible man can say in all the Differences between us what God and Christ speak what is judged for you and against us which is so far from being a Truth proved that in Every Controversy it is the very thing in Question and meerly supposed by you without either Proof or Principle You say again The External and political Judges to wit the Governours of the Church are subordinate to the supream Judge Answ Very true But what then Marry this followes that if they really contradict the supreme Judges sentence They must give their subjects leave to argue whether it be right in the sight of God Hold Sir a little If you rationally contradict them you must first prove your self wiser then these subordinate Judges are and Evidence their Errours by undoubted Principles which is impossible For either these Judges are Infallible or fallible if you grant the first you cannot rationally contradict them And if they be fallible How dare you a private fallible man speak contrary when your very Contradiction is no better then their opposite Assertion is I mean purely and poorly Fallible In a word without any certain Principle to rely on which you shall never have you too boldly take leave to oppose your Judges and make your self a Rebel by it You say 3. There is in Every particular Person a secret Judge which is called Reason or Conscience I must Ask once more what then Have not Arians Pelagians Quaquers and all other Sectaries reason as well as you What therfore this Instrument of reason can apprehend judge and work in you after your fashion it doth the like in these other after Their fashion Do you not therfore se how little you advance your cause by talking of your Reason which unles it be Evidenced by sure Principles to be better then that of your Adversaries proves just nothing And add what private Spirit you pleas to help your Reason out They will talk as much of their contrary Spirit to help theirs These two points are so largely declared and proved Disc 2. c. 5. that I believe your Answer to them will prove unreasonable 28. Page 40. You goe first very warily to work for no man knowes what you would say Then you are manly resolute in your Decisions We willingly acknowledge say you and reverently esteem the true and rightful Governors of the Church orderly assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whose decisions are to be highly valued c. Here is no man knowes what Pray you speak out and name more clearly the Church you reverently esteem of Tell us who these true and rightful Governors of it are and do not put us of with an old piece of a long since rejected Doctrin They are those who hold closely to the Truths of Scripture for we must know who these are Finally say when Councels are regularly assembled not according to your Fancy but which will be a long work for you let us have lawes prescribed wherby we may know by sure Principles more particularly without this general talk when Councels are orderly assembled or unorderly A word now to your resolute Definitions You say first this Judge of the Church is not infallible but subject to errour Answer And so are you Sir also fallible when you oppose your self to the Judgement of a Church whether it be your own English Church or the Roman Catholick If therfore the Judgement of both Churches were supposed fallible as the one is not your singular Judgement is no more but fallible also and what gain you by that Thus much only You Contradict the Church fallibly and the Church again Contradicts you fallibly and thus you may remain Contradicting one another to the Worlds End without the Decision of one Controversy unles you make it Evident by undoubted Principles that you are to judge the Church when you please and the Church is not to medle with you or your Iudgement You say 2. this judge of the Church being subject to higher Authority and tyed to a higher rule if its Decisions be Manifestly repugnant to that Superiour Rule they are not to be obeyed Answ You purely suppose what should be proved Viz. That the Decisions of the
or vouchsafe to return an Answer He will I hope after a general thought cast on what I intend to prove in the ensuing Discourses take particular Notice also of a few Notes here set down which may perhaps conduce to His better satisfaction 2. Concerning the first We need not to say much My Intent is Chiefly to prove These four Things 1. That Sectaries are Churchles because They acknowledge no infallible Church on earth Yet there are Infallible Teachers and consequently an infallible Church as is Demonstrated in the first Discours 2. That They are as Scriptureles as Churchles and have not one syllable of Gods Word for Protestancy Therfore we treat in the second Discours of Their mangling and misinterpreting Scripture 3. That Their Proceeding is most Vnreasonable in some chief controversies handled in the third Discours 4. We prove in the fourth Discours the Roman Catholick Church to be the only true Church of Christ And there also lay Forth the improbability of Protestant Religion All this is Don to make good what the Title briefly expresses Viz Protestancy is vvithout Principles of Scripture Church and Reason Now a word of what I would have you to Note 3. It is truly lamentable to se how controversies in these our dayes are driven on to nothing but to endles quarrels There is certainly some cause of so long a work which might methinks be brought to a period with less Adoe And what is it think ye Is it because Christs true Religion cannot be made evidently credible to Reason No certainly For that Religion which hath stood invincible in the heat of so many persecutions which hath converted whole Kingdoms and Nations and drawn Millions of souls to it must necessarily appear most evidently Credible to all rational men Is it because a fals Religion cannot be Argued of Falshood No. It is as easy to convince an erroneous Sect of errour as to prove true Religion to be true And Hence I say it is impossible to conceive any Thing like Religion that can neither be Proved evidently credible or manifestly Argued of Falshood The Reason is Because the evident Credibility of true Religion if one only be true in the VVorld takes off from the fals Religion all Prudent credibility and leaves it uttely destitute of Motives founding credibility In a word The euident credibility of Truth makes Falshood highly improbable VVhence I inferr If true Religion be made thus manifestly credible by Almighty God Rational Proofs cannot fail to countenance that which He will have manifestly known Contrarywise such proofs must of necessity be wanting to a fals Religion which God will have to appear both evidently Incredible and Improbable to prudent Reason The Catholick therfore that hold's his Religion at least evidently Credible before He believes and certainly true by his Act of Faith cannot but have Proofs at hand which Do not only clearly evidence the undoubted Credibility of it but also Dash and Discountenance what ever can be said in the Defence of a contrary Errour On the other side The Sectary must of necessity want such grounded Proofs And consequently whether he Defend's his own or impugn's the true Religion All He saith will end at last in meer Cavils and wordy Fallacies You have the Reason Hereof more largely laid forth Disc 1. C. 8. Because God cannot permit in the Presence as it were of his true Religion a fals Sect to appear so much as slightly Probable which ever is and must be inferiour to Truth or rather nothing in the lustre and evidence of Credibility Which is to say in other Terms An Erroneous Sect cannot he made at all Credible to Reason 4. What then is the Reason when the Catholick both supposeth and proves His Religion to be only true and Orthodox that These strifes go endlesly on between us and a few Protestants Scarce any Book though never so solid and learned is set forth by an English Catholick but presently a Thing called an Answer sallies out against it Exceptions are made by Sectaries This They say Proves not That Displeases c. In a word if we believe them All is Answered when God knowes A prudent Reader see 's the main Difficulties waved And very often finds the very state of the Question gtosly mistaken I 'll say my thought freely and humbly submit all I say to the prudent Censure of every learned Catholick As long as Sectaries without a just and rational Reproof it 's all vve can Do are permitted to continue still the strain of writing they constantly follow which is to entertain the Reader with tedious Discourses in general of Christian Religion when Protestancy is that which should be Proved with meer conjectures bare negative Arguments And unproved Propositions with their own forced and violent interpretations when an Authority urgeth In a word with their Guesses and unworthy Cavils seasoned with jeers when nothing els will Doe c. whilst this is Don The close way of Arguing is laid aside They may talk on to the worlds end without fruit to Any but to the Printer only that gains money by their Books You will ask wat Remedy Against this proceding An old Answer sayes much It is When they go about either to prove their own Novelties or to impugn our Catholick Doctrin That we keep them from wandring to far from home and Hold them close to Proofs and Principles these are the Shollers lawes our Rules and Canons Do this and you 'l soon se their long Discourses Shrunk up to little Their large volumes brought to a few sheets of paper Now if they refuse to stand to Principles we must leave them to Fancy And show how they both Disgrace their cause and themselves also 5. By this word Principle or Principles I understand in our present matter a strong rational satisfactory Intellectual light that prudently forceth Reason to acquiesce in a Verity proposed whether it arise from solid grounds of Reason or from great Authority matters little so it be prudently Persvvasive and forceably work on a well disposed understanding Iudges Decide by some measure of it in their equitable Sentences And Schoolmen should not want it in their Opinions But much more is requisite when we speak of Religion wheron salvation Depend's For here a far greater light a better Assurance Surmounting meer Probability is nenessary which cannot be darkned by Fallacies or weakned by Trivial Fetches You have the ground hereof Declared Disc 1. C. 8. Because God that lead's us in this present state to the knowledge of His Revealed Truths not by Enthusiasms or private Illustrations but by prudent inducements suitable to Reason always makes his true Religion so manifest by undubitable Signs Marks and Characters that not only the learned but the more ignorant may come if prudence Guide him to a clear Sight of it by certain Principles We may I think proceed as securely by light enough laid out to Reason in this weighty matter as we do in other great
misse in his teaching as hit right on the Infallible Doctrin of Christ The Minor is granted by Mr. Poole For all Churches whether Roman or English Arian or Grecian are lyable to errour want special Assistance in their Teaching and ought positively to renounce all Societies of infallible Christian Teachers Therfore the conclusion undeniably followes which is That none can with certainty Teach the Infallible Doctrin of Christ And from hence also followes an utter ruin of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too as I shall hereafter Demonstrate For if all Pastors all Doctors all Teachers of Christian Religion may erre in the Delivery of their Doctrin all Learners of it may likewise erre in Hearing it and if so we have no certainty That God is now Adored in Spirit and Truth by either Teacher or Hearer 9. The ultimate reason why a Total ruin of Christian The utter ruin of Christian Religion followes the fallible Teaching of it in a whole Church What all Euangelical Preachers lakoured for Religion accompanieth the fallible Teaching of it is thus proved None can teach Christian Faith that doth not Propose or make Almighty God to be the Author of it And therfore our Saviour Iohn 7. 16. told the Iewes That his Doctrin was not his but his Fathers that sent him Yea The Prophets also and all other Evangelical Preachers chiefly laboured in this to perswade their Hearers that God was the Author of that Doctrin they taught Now say I None can Propose or make God the Author of Christian Faith that doth not own it as a Doctrin asserted by his Eternal Veracity infallibly revealing Truth for this is the Formal Object of Christian Faith But He that only Teaches fallible Doctrin which may be false deserts this Formal Object and can neither own God for the Author of it nor his infallible revealing Verity Ergo he must own a fallible Authority to uphold this Doctrin which is utterly Destructive of Christian Faith The reason will be yet more evidenced if you propose it after this manner A Doctrine which by force of all the Principles it hath is meerly fallible and The last ground of this Doctrin no more may be salse But Christian Doctrin as it is Taught by all Pastors and Ministers of the Word c. is thus fallible Ergo it may be false But God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to Teach a Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to Teach a Doctrin or Religion that is fallible I prove it He sent none to Teach any other Doctrin but that which is founded and intrinsecally relies on his Eternal infallible Verity revealing Truth But such a Doctrin can neither be false nor fallible Therfore this taught Doctrin is certain and infallible For to grant that God sent Pastors to teach a Doctrin which relies on his infallible Revelation is to say He assist's them to teach it infallibly CHAP. III. Other proofs for Teachers and a Church Infallible 1. I Argue again thus Supposing the promises of Christ made in Scripture Gods Goodnes cannot oblige the whole moral Body of Christians to believe a falsity or to contradict his certain revealed Verities But if all Pastors and Doctors may erre in their Instruction whilst they teach Christian Doctrin God would God cannot oblige us to believe a falsity as indifferently oblige us to believe a falsity and contradict his certain Verities as to hear truth when by chance it is taught which is contrary to his Goodnes The first Proposition is evident and confessedly true For our Adversaries say it is repugnant to all conceptions of Gods Goodnes to require of men under pain of Damnation to Believe something as infallibly true which is really false The other also is as clear For if all Pastors all Doctors who have the charge of souls may because fallible as well Teach false Doctrin as true as easily erre as Deliver Christs pure Verities Christians are by virtue of Gods Command already intimated bound both to hear and obey them Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church that is as S. Chrysostome expounds the Prelates and chief Pastors of it let him be to thee as a Heathen c. Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Guides your Leaders and Commanders and be subject to them For they watch as being to render account of your souls Again vers 7. The Apostle command's us to imitate the Faith of these Pastors and Teachers From these and other innumerable places of Scripture known to all I argue What is possible may be reduced to Act but it is possible That all Pastors and Teachers may erre and Deliver false Doctrin to the Christian world and in case they do so I am upon these plain expres Ordinances of God obliged to Believe them Therfore I must Believe them although they Teach false Doctrin And if so God obligeth me to Believe a Falsity or which is a real Verity I am forced to grant this undeniable Truth that his All-seeing providence doth now and ever will Preserve a Church whose Pastors and Teachers are infallible in the Delivery of Christian Doctrin Without this certain established Infallibility in some one or other Society of Believers Christianity is no more but a meer tottering reeling and uncertain Religion yet I must listen to it whether Those who teach it stand or fall that is whether they erre or not teach an imposture or Truth 2. To confirm this proof I ask whether God after he had delivered his own certain Verities infallibly and made also by his Divine Assistance Those first Masters of the Gospel his Blessed Apostles infallible in their Delivery of these Verities whether then I say in the ensuing ages he divorced himself from his A question proposed to Sectaries Church and withdrew all Special Assistance from it or yet continued that gracious favour to some Pastors and Doctors of a Christian society If he continued that care and providence for the Direction of some Pastors in Truth Those because so guided are still infallible in their Teaching Contrary wise if he abandoned that charge and deprived all Pastors for the Future of infallible Assistance This woful consequence followes That Christian Religion once strongly supported by Gods unerring Spirit ever since the Apostles Preaching hath lost that Hold and now stands tottering on no more steedy ground then what the weak mutable and erring Sentiments of men can afford it Now how unmeet these are for so great a charge Salomon Sap. 9. 15. sayes enough Cogitationes mortalium timidae incertae providentiae nostrae The cogitations of mortal men are fearful and our Providence vncertain yet so it is and here mark the hideous crime of Protestants who first Divorce Christ from his Church and violently pull Religion How Sectaries transgresse from its center which is Gods infallible directing Spirit and then make all the taught Doctrin of
Christianity to lean and rely only upon mans weak timid staggering and errable conceptions The proof is evident for either it relyes on God and so is infallible or upon Humane reason and therfore as This is various Religion cannot but be changeable Let then the world judge I appeal to no other Tribunal whether Christians can be satisfied with this comfortles Doctrin All they can now learn from any Christian Pastor touching Religion hath only mans weak Thought and Reason for it but no certain Assurance that God speaks by these Pastors Because all and every one of them left to themselves are fallible 3. I must prosecute this matter further wherefore Man too feeble to preserve Christian Doctrine in its purity I say this Truth boldly It is above mans power and policy weak and errable in his Conceptions constantly and unchangably to support or carry on Age after Age the profound Doctrin of Christ in its Primitive purity without Divine Assistance Wit alone dazeled as we see in the search of the most obvious things in nature is insufficient either rightly to Penetrate these high Mysteries of grace or with certainty to conuey them unto us in that exact sense as God once delivered them The reason hereof is drawn from the sublime Excellency of Christian Religion Because of its sublime Excellency which being as all know a Doctrin of Gods own incomprehensible Wisdom a Communication of his deepest Secrets cannot but transcend the force of humane knowledge it cannot but lye as it were in a region above the reach of weak Reason only and stand at a great distance from our fallible Discourses Whence I argue thus All light and knowledge which flow from a fallible Power and capacity cannot but be answerable to such a capacity id est Deficient uncertain and Fallible But all the light and knowledge which Christians now have from either Church or Pastors concerning this sublime Doctrin of Christ and Gods revealed Verities in Scripture flow and are derived from no other but from a fallible capacity which is mans errable and weak understanding and not from Gods infallible Assistance who say our Protestants hath withdrawn infallibility from the Church Ergo This taught Doctrin cannot but be Deficient uncertain Fallible Doctrine is not Christs and Fallible Grant this and none can prudently rely on it none can know by any Principle whether it be true or false none finally can own it for Christs certain Doctrin Rob therfore the Church of its proper Dote which is Divine Assistance take from it the Spirit of infallibility Cancel that Truth of the Gospel I have prayed for thee Peter that thy Faith fail not Destroy that impregnable Rock wheron Christianity is founded Matt. 15. Tu es Petrus c. Though all the Pastors in the world were Salomons for wit Austins for learning Gregories for vigilancy Chrysostoms for eloquence yet they would be too weak feeble and fallible Instruments either rightly to illuminate Wit alone too weak to tamper with Religion us by the force of wit or Learning only concerning those High Verities revealed in Scripture or exactly to Preserve them in their first candor without change and Alteration Alas might wit alone tamper with Gods Truths at pleasure might it turn Religion into as many Forms or shapes as weak Reason often conceives This too unskilful Master would as Fancies and judgements are various now build now destroy now add now subtract now make now marr and bring in more confusion into Christinianity then the wisest men are able to redresse And 4. Thus much we se evidently not only in the old Mans with the cause of errours Philosophers who led on by their weak Discours and guesses grosly mistook in their Opinions concerning Beatitude but in some learned Fathers also witnes a Examples of it Tertullian and Origen For These two great wits of the world because they left the Guidance of the Church and relyed too much on their private Judgements fell as we know into deplorable errours But most of all this misery is visible in all condemned Haereticks as Arians Pelagians and Nestorians witty and learned enough but Because wit too boldly entred into Divine Mysteries and meddled with matters above its strength these men lost themselves and here was the sole cause Gods special Assistance preserves his Curch from errour of their Ruin and falling from Truth Whence I conclude contrary to Protestants who have nothing to support Religion but their own weak and errable Conjectures That unles Gods gracious Providence particularly Protect his Church and by special Assistance Preserve it from errour The very best of us all though never so learned left to our weak conjectures and fallible Discourses might most easily become Arians Nestorians Pelagians Protestants Socinians now Christians now no Christians or what you will Protestancy and all Haeresy which stand topling on no firmer ground then meer conjectures are lead the way to these Downfalls to no Religion or any Religion as Fancy best likes 5. To prevent therfore this great Evil the wise Providence Gods Providence over his Church of God who well foresaw mans weaknes and Instability first Delivered his own eternal Truths infallibly none doubts of this Next he caused these Truths to be taught infallibly by the first Masters of the Gospel his chosen Disciples here of also there is no doubt with our modern men Moreover Because his real Intention was That not only the Primitive Christians should exactly receive those revealed Verities from infallible Teachers but others also in ensuing ages for All souls were providently cared for His infinite Goodnes established a visible Catholick Church whose Head and Pastors guided not by humane wit or Policy but by Assistance derived from the Holy Ghost should by virtue of so special grace Teach Truth infallibly and preserve poor souls from errour to the end of the world Without this Addition Preserves Christianity from ruine of a perpetuated Assistance as well in order to the Later as first Believers providence would not have done its work compleatly Christianity ere this day too unsteedily built would have fallen to Ruin and as often alrered from it self in the space of 1667. yeares as our Sectaries have done in this last hundred A more spiteful Blow therfore cannot be given to God a greater Chimaera cannot be thought on then to grant as Sectaries do that his All seing wisdom first founded a Church upon infallible Teachers and next to spoile all with this ungodly Assertion viz Afterward when Christians as much stood in need of infallible Pastors for their Direction because of emergent Haeresies then it was He withdrew Assistance from them Abandoned his charge and left a whole Church to the wavering timid and uncertain Sentiments of meer erring men who altogether because by nature fallible might as easily without this superiour grace of infallibility have taught grosse errours as the Verities of Christian Religion This sequele followes
from our Protestants Principles where you se enough I say it once more of their great sin and Haeresy CHAP. IV. Replyes to these Arguments are answered 1. ONe perhaps may be God surely will never permit all the Pastors of Christianity to erre and deceive the world at least this is no Consequence They may erre Ergo they do and will actually erre for many things may be which never will be I answer and many things actually happen Answer to Objections which were never suspected would be and why may not this diffused Errour be one of them who knows the contrary In Protestants principles we have the greatest Presumption imaginable for this actual errour of all For they say That ample and ancient Church of Rome and all condemned Haereticks with it erred set then these aside it is impossible to design plainly such Christian Teachers as never de facto erred 2. The very possibility yes and facility also of All falling into Errour makes the actuality of it fearfully doubtful now men had been mad to loose both Lives and Goods to dye ignominiously on Gibbets for any doubtful and uncertain Doctrin The Apostle put other thoughts in the primitive Martyrs hearts other words in their mouths Scio cui credidi certus sum I know who I believe and am certain No Hearers therfore can certainly rely on any doubtful and uncertain Religion 2. The second reply Admit that all Christian Pastors Second Reply teach erroneous Doctrin yet no great mischief followes for Those who hear them are either conscious of the Falsity And if so they are not to believe their Teachers or They erre invincibly which is a blameles Errour and Therfore cannot in justice be held an Offence The first part of the Reply supposes some instructed Christians wiser then all their Teachers together which is an Impertinency never heard of The second touches not the difficulty for here we blame not such as may perhaps invincibly erre But say That the blame goes higher and is unworthily cast on God who obliges Christians to believe the Pastors of a Catholick Church and yet gives them such disabled ones that all of them may erre universally and teach Doctrin contrary to his revealed Truths Here lyes the mystery of iniquity upheld Protestants Mystery of iniquity by Protestants and the uglines of it appears in this wrethched Assertion God will have me to believe a Catholick Church yet this whole Catholick Church that is all the They cast blame upon God Pastors all the Councils all the Fathers Doctors and Prelates of this Church may teach me such false Doctrin as God never intended I should learn They may if fallible teach us that Christ is not God that Heaven is not a place of Eternal Happines nor Hell an abode of Eternal torments Such Haeresies have been spread by Those who went under the name of Christians and why may not I beseech you all Christian Pastors abuse the world as much if Gods gracious ordinance concerning the Churches infallibility faill us 3. A third reply It is one Thing to teach Truth Teaching Truth infallibly and another to teach it infallibly Put therfore the case That Almighty God foresaw from Eternity that though all Pastors of the Church potentiâ antecedente antecedently might erre yet some at least ex suppositione consequenti or consequently would not erre but teach Christian Verities faithfully Suppose I say only thus much We have sufficient Assurance of Truth actually taught in the world without that Previous infallible Assistance we plead for which seems here useles for if either man or Angel Delivers a Verity it matters nothing whether it arise from a Fallible or infallible cause Our Faith therfore hath strength enough if it rely on Truth actually Taught though the Teacher wants infallibility I answer If God foresaw that all the Pastors of his Church would not erre or teach false Doctrin This Verity is either revealed to Christians as a Divine Truth or no if not we make that revealed which is not revealed and consequently can ground no Assurance on it if it be revealed and known to us this very Revelation viz All the Pastors of the Church shall not erre is an undoubted Principle which assented to by true Faith is our Security Because such a Faith supposeth the contrary Actual errour of all essentially excluded by virtue of Gods Revelation For it is impossible that God tell us this Truth All the Pastors of my Church shall not erre in any age and yet in sensu composito of this Revelation permit them to erre universally Observe in one Instance the security we have by force of such a Revelation 4. Suppose that God had revealed to Isaac that his Father Abraham would not sacrifice him and withall that Isaac firmly believed that Verity He had been as indubitably secured from dying at that time as if Abrahams hands had been tyed in chains or wholy made impotent to give a fatal blow Now mark the Application As Gods Eternal Prevision of Abrahams not taking Isaacs life away Antecedently supposed the cause therof actually also foreseen antecedently I say in a foregoing signe os nature so likewise it is in our present case when from Eternity he knew that all the Pastors of his Church would not actually err and revealed this Truth in time His All-seing wisdom Previously pro priori signo rationis foresaw also the total cause of their actual not Erring which cause as I have already proved was not the power of mans weak variable and mistaking Reason But the most certain Principle of Gods special and Divine Assistance When therfore God as the Objection supposeth revealed that Verity All shall not err he did not only by virtue of his Revelation impossibilitate the contrary universal errour bur warranted more that all of them because prevented by special Assistance could not erre And this is what Scripture Energitically tells us of Hell gates not prevailing against the Church of Christs Being with the Church to te end of the world wherof more hereafter In the interim you see that Christian Christian Faith relies on Truth taught by an Infallible Oracle Faith doth not only rely on a meer contingent or hap hazard Delivery of Truth but on Truth taught by an Assisted and infallible Oracle which All must assert or grant that although Christ himself by a supposed Impossibility had been fallible in No certitude of Truth had Christ and his Apostles taught it Fallibly his Preaching or the Apostles likewise fallible in Their writting Scripture and only because lyable to errour had delivered Gods Verities contingently by chance Christian Religion might yet have stood as firme and unshaken as now it is which is a horrid and an unheard of Haeresy 5. A fourth reply We cannot prove by good reason if we set aside some ambiguous Passages of Scripture which only seemingly say the contrary that the immediate Proponent of true certain Christian Faith Catholiks
say 'T is the Church ought to be certain and infallible It seems enough say some that this Faith be taught upon a rational Evidence which Evidence finally resolved comes to no more but to a Moral certainty These as I am informed ground themselves on this Principle That all the Assurance we can have of Christian Religion hath for its whole Foundation moral Certainty only and it seems a prop firm enough to support it More it cannot have 6. The Objection contains two parts To the first I answer If Divine Faith be in the world Reason Divine Faith must have an infallibie Teacher convinceth that the object of it be propounded by a Certain and infallible Teacher and then most when Points fundamental lye under Dispute and are in controversy Faith therfore requires two things essentially to omit other Necessaries an Object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object made by some Teacher to Christians which Doctrin the Apostle ratifies Rom. 10. 15. How shall they hear without a Preacher By virtue of this Proposition whether we call it Cause or an Essential Condition the Elicite Act of Faith followes in a Believer and intellectually layes as it were hold both on Gods Revelation and the Thing revealed Observe now well Gods Revelation none doubts it is certain and infallible Divine Faith which resteth on this Motive and proceeds from Grace is also certain and infallible The only Difficulty remaining concerns this Proponent of Faiths Object and it is whether He that Directs me and endeavours rightly to settle my Faith upon Gods infallible Revelation do his work with assurance fallibly or infallibly 7. I say first Gods infallible Revelation avail's nothing in order to Faith unles Christians by their Faith lay hold on the Certainty therof or own it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent The reason is Because God speaks infallibly to Christians for this End That his infallible Word may have influence into Faith and support in with Certainty If therefore this revealed Word be not Certainly Proposed as it is infallible if it be not duely applyed to a Believers understanding under its The object of Faith must be infallibly applyed own Notion of certainty that strength of infallibility lyes as it were dead without Operation and profits Belief no more then Food doth a Body into which it cannot enter The similitude is fit For as Food though apt to strengthen a Body is just as if it were not unles it be duely Applyed so Gods Certain Revelation though most Proportionate to strengthen a Soul in Faith yet in order to this Effect it looseth all Efficacy while a due Application of its infallibility is wanting 8. To illustrate more this necessary Truth I say secondly When a Revelation lyes darkly in Scripture as it often doth in High points of Controversy according to the measure or degrees of Certitude which the Proponent of Faith gives to the Revelation and saith God speaks thus An Assent answerably followes with like Certitude in the Hearer and not a stronger If therfore the Proponent only say Doubtfully I think God speak's as I preach but am not Certain Gods Revelation is received according as 't is propounded Doubtful also is the Assent given to this Preaching If he say What I teach is Probable The Assent can be no more but Probable If finally He truely say I teach Infallibly what is revealed the Assent Answers and is Infallible The reason is clear For as no Eye can see Colours in darknes before light makes them visible yea and according to the measure of light it see 's them so no Intellectual Eye can discover a dark Revelation before he borrow light from his Teacher and as The light is lesse or more so He see 's that object lesse or more perfectly A dubious and uncertain Proposal therfore made of a certain Revelation when it doth not Clearly manifest it self is like a glimmering light And neither doth nor can apply the Objective infallibility Therof with Assurance to mans intellectual Faculty which yet seek's after Certainty in matters of Belief This needs no proof For he who proposeth only Doubfully a Revelation which is Certain in it self both in actu signato and exercito saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare A timide proposal of Divine Revelation begets no more but a doubtfull Faith what God speak's and perhaps I do not For my Declaration only Doubfully guesses at the Certainty of the Revelation And it is against the nature of all Doubt to convey Certainty into any understanding As long therfote as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me For want of an undoubted Application made by an infallible Proponent it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith then fire at a great distance warm That is no more Then if it were not Certain in it self or not at all in Being Whence I conclude That a certain Revelation if obscure in Scripture requires a Certain Proposition Because It little avail's me to know this truth That if God speak's he speak's infallibly unles hîc nunc in these circumstance when he speak's to me for my Saluation I yeild my certain Assent to the infallibility of his Word which cannot be done unles I have Assurance from my Teacher that he speak's as I ought to believe infallibly Upon these undeniable Principles I say thirdly Our Sectaries can have no Divine Faith Sectaries can do no more but doubtfully guesse at what they Believe and consequently as Protestants never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith I prove the Assertion All Faith which hath no other Certitude then what is derived from Those who propound the object of it id est Gods Revelation uncertainly and doubtfully is no more but wavering Opinative and doubtful But the Faith of Protestants is evidently such Because no man or Society of men amongst them can without doubt and fear infallibly say God speak's as I preach and I infallibly preach as God speaks For if he averr thus much with Truth he Propound's the object of his Faith infallibly and therfore is so farre infallible If he do They cannot propose Faith infallibly not his preaching must be finally resolved into his own timid weak and wavering Opinion which weighed comes to no more but this Levity I hope well and think I preach what God hath infallibly Revealed yet am not certain because all I say for ought I know is fallible 9. If you will se this Truth farther Evidenced do no more but ask of any Protestant Why for example He believes that all the Churches on earth are fallible That Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist That Faith only justifies That there are two Sacraments and no more c. His first refuge perhaps will be to Scripture But demand again Whether Scripture in plain and Express Terms Delivers these supposed Doctrins If he be not more then
impudent he must say No. All therfore he can reply is That the Ministers of his Church after a perusal of Scripture find these Verities contained there and Propose all to him as things Certainly revealed Therfore he believes them Here we come to the trial of Protestants Faith and mark well How unavoydably They are forced to grant That when a pretended Revelation Sectaries must own an Infallible Proponent is not manifest for them But lyes if at all very darkly in Scripture it must be brought to light and made more clear by some Teacher Some one or other if it have influence into Faith must Apply it and Propose it to a Hearer as Gods certain Word Without this Application made by a certain Teacher no Christian can but most temerariously admit of the Revelation as Divine and Certain 10. Demand therfore in the last place Whether all the Ministers in England are able to propound certainly and infallibly the above mentioned Doctrins darkly at least and indeed not all contained in Scripture as Gods revealed Truths to any The answer must be Negative They cannot for if they propose them infallibly Ministers are infallible Ergo say I none can Believe these Doctrins for Gods certain Revelation Because the Proposal of them absolutely necessary to apply the Revelation is defective weak dubious and uncertain The Faith therfore which followes upon so unsteedy a Teaching cannot but be answerably rowling That is in one word no Faith at all And Protestants have no better 11. Some perhaps may say Though Protestants have no great Certainty of the Doctrins above specified because they are neither expresly in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher yet their Faith in Fundamentals universally held by all Christians stand's sure enough and is infallible Such Truths shall never fail and so far the Pastors of the Church may it is likely be held infallible 12. Hereafter we shall treat more largely of Fundamental points and Therfore at present will wave what is not pertinent to answer this Reply And pertinent Why Doctrine of Protesta as Protestants is uncertain it is to say first That not one Doctrin peculiar to Protestants as Protestants because neither expresly found in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher can certainly be believed upon Divine Revelation That these Sectaries teach not their own Protestant Tenents infallibly is granted That Scripture doth not in express Terms without intolerable glossing deliver one of them shall be made after a few pages most evident And thus if this last Reply be to any purpose it brings Ruin to that part of Doctrin which is called Protestancy I say secondly There is scarce one Article of Christs Sacred Doctrin so clearly expressed in Scripture which may not would men take the liberty as Sectaries do by wilful Glosses to alienate it from the Churches sense be perverted Arians have taught them this mode of Glossing and they exactly follow it Separate therfore the words Doubful words of Scripture separated from the sense of an Infallible Interpreter ground not Faith of Scripture from the Sense of an infallible Interpreter we can Believe nothing we have no more but a body without a Soul guesses without certainty And upon such uncertainties the whole Faith of Protestants doth and must rely which is deplorable And here ask them when They appeal as They ever doe to Scripture What they mean by Scripture which needs Interpretation even in Points most Fundamental Must we admit of their Interpretation Why so more then of others as learned as They Why not as well on the present Churches Interpretation This is as good to say no more as their fallible Guesses are But of this Subject hereafter I say thirdly Never The Church in all her Doctrine equally infallible any Catholick Church hitherto held it self infallible in a few Fundamental Doctrins and not in others Therfore Protestants are more insolently bold whilst they attempt to make this Distinction then ever any Church yet was What That meer fallible Men shall be my Doctors and ex tripode define So far the Church holds infallible Doctrin But no further T' would be well nigh eight Degrees of madnes in me to believe them Admit once of this A new Haeretick may step out and defend as stoutly yea and upon as solid grounds that Scripture it self it not infallible but only in a few Fundamental Matters yet unknown to the world If you say this sounds too harshly and cannot be granted Parallel I beseech you your own wild Assertion with it The Church is Christ's Schole and se whether that runs much smoother Thus it is Christ hath erected a School which is his Church where Christians are to learn his Sacred Doctrin But when they come to it They find more then the half of its Doctrin doubtful fallible unsound uncertain Alas Aristotle's or Plato's School can cfford us Topicks and uncertainties enough I hope Christs School can learn us better Fourthly Were the Church falsly supposed Fallible in the delivery of some Doctrin lesse Fundamental it would be much safer to believe it then Protestants who may err in all they say And then most when being void of proofs They stand trifling with a Distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Herein as in all other things they are most fallible and must I think ye credit men that can say nothing certainly 13. Fifthly and I end Admit once of a Church with this half infallibility in fundamentals our Sectaries who so furiously oppugn that whole infallibility which we ascribe to the Roman Church must Answer their own Arguments against us For here we question them as they do us Where or in what Rational Queries made to Protestants Subject is that partial infallibility lodged What Pastors designable are endewed with it How shall we make our Addresses to them in doubts and difficulties if none know where or who they are What kind of infallibility is this By whose assured Testimony can we learn what is de fide funaamentali what not What if these Pastors be devided amongst themselves in their Decisions of fundameetals whose judgement is finally to be stood too c. These and the like Questions most easily answer'd by Catholicks when They give an account of their Belief as I shall shew in the Resolution of Faith press so strongly upon Protestants that not one of them shall ever have a satisfactory Answer Perhaps to Protestants pretence to a private Spirit solve them some will recurre to the private Spirit and say This tell 's them all Truth in these doubts Contra. Ask only here Whether this Spirit makes them or their Pastors infallible or can direct others to find out such infallible Pastors If they reply Those are such as Teach Gods Word purely the Answer is impertinent for we ask whether it Assists any to Teach Gods pure Word infallibly And who they are It may be others will say that Christ never had since the Apostles
time any infallible Church on earth even in fundamentals All therfore we have now to Direct us is only the book of Scripture without other Proponent and every mans private Reason Contra. It is Evident That Scripture makes no man infallible both Arians and Others read it and yet grosly err in Points most Essential Deny therfore a Church unerrable in Essentials and say boldly that as Arians have already erred in some Fundamentals so others might before this day have wholy erred and outed both Christ and Creed with every Article of Christian Religion For weak Reason alone is insufficient to Preserve Christianity in its Purity as I have shewed above wherof also more hereafter CHAP. V. A word with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty 1. HEre we come to examin the other part of the Objection proposed above n. 5. And thus Mr. Stilling fleet some later men Discours concerning the certainty of Christian Religion They say first and most truely That the ultimate Motive wheron Faith relyes is Gods infallible Testimony with all That none can question the fallibility of this Revealed Testimony when it is Sufficiently proposed and made known to us The only Question therfore is How it comes to be made known or discovered in order to those things Protestants Doctrine about Moral Certainty which are immediatly Revealed They say secondly Moral certainty may be a sufficient foundation For the most firm assent if the matter to be believed be the infallible Truth of a Doctrin upon sutable Evidence Though we have now but Moral Certainty of that Evidence The Assent may yet be firm to such a Doctrin as infallible They say thirdly Moral Certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Physical supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures as in Mathematical and Physical as to Theirs Here briefly is their Doctrin Some further Explications of it will perhaps more opportunely have place while we make our Exception against it And 2. My first Exception is These Authors do not sufficiently explain what they would have here understood by Moral certainty wherin there is a great Latitude One Degree of it excludes all Rational doubt Degrees of Moral Certainty And thus we say He who never saw Constantinople may yet upon the indubitable Testimony of so many witnesses who have seen it affirm without fear There is or hath been such a Citty in the world An other Degree of this Certitude reaches not so high As we se in School Opinions Some Philosophers Tell you it is Morally certain That sublunary Bodies as Fire and water are composed of Matter and Form That Accidents are really distinct from Substance and Motion yet now there are some that deny it and hold as they think a contrary Philosophy more Morally certain Therfore when we come to apply this Moral certainty to Disputable matters we do seldom or never agree about it I doubt not but These very men we now treat with will say what They judge God knowes that That part of Protestant Religion wherin it differ's from all Christians is upon Moral Certainty True yet the Rest of the world opposes them and Avouches it hath not so much as one Degree of Probability for it That therfore which is here meant by Moral certitude must if these Authors speak to the purpose be a Certainty wherof no man can Rationally doubt Thus much supposed 3. I say first and by this Assertion you may discover the grand Cheat of these Novellists Christian A grand Cheat of Navellists discover'd Religion as it is fancied and variously Professed by innumerable who go under that name and Notion hath so little of this Great Moral Certainty for it That it is an Haeresy to Allow it a mean Probability Why Arians Pelagians Eutychians Donatists Socinians And all other condemned Haereticks called Themselves Christians and professed some part of Christian Religion truely But had They I beseech you a great Moral Certainty For the other part of their Errours and Haeresies falsly vented by them as Christs Doctrin You wil say No. But they had it for the Fundamentals of Christian Religion wherof no man ever doubted and thus much they Defend upon that Certitude Admit of this as True though I hope Prorestants grant That Arians do deny Fundamental Doctrin What is it to the Purpose to tell us All condemned Haereticks and Protestants These men wave the main Question with them have Moral certainty for one Part of Christian Religion wherof None ever doubted And to give us nothing of this High Certitude for the other Part which is in Controversy and Specifically belongs to Protestants Had these men therfore come home to the Dfficulty They would not have here mispent time in Proving what needs no Proof viz. That the General Doctrin owned by all Christians as is a Belief in one God or of Christ a Redeemer c. Hath at least Moral certainty for it But They should have shewed That Arianism as Arianism or which had been to the Purpose That Protestancy as Protestancy stands so firmly built on High Moral Certainty That None can prudently doubt of Protestants under the general name of Christians perswade Nothing for Protestancy it Now this They fraudulently wave And only put us of with a general word of the Certainty of Christian Religion as if Protestancy hid under that Specious name had safety and Sanctuary enough or as if it were all one to say The part of Christian Faith universally agreed on is certain Ergo Protestancy as Protestancy goes along with it upon equal Certitude Alas This is that which only requires proof and is the thing we Absolutly deny 4. Again And here is my second Exception These Authors cannot apply their Moral certainty to the Faith of any Religion that beares the name of Christian At least it is neither appliable to Catholicks nor Protestants For proof hereof Note first That moral Two Reflections made on Moral Certainty Certainty taken in what Height you please is an Act of the Judicative Power in man subjectively setled in his Mind who hath it And ever falles on a Determinate Object for in Objects à parte rei there is neither Probability nor moral Certainty Every Thing imaginable being either in it self Real and Stable or not independent of any Moral Assertion As is clear For should one say now It is morally certain that there is such a Citty as Rome in the World Rome is or is not independent of what is asserted morally Certain Note secondly Though the greatest Moral certainty Moral Certainty may be False usually excludes a rational doubt in order to what is asserted certain yet in rigour it may be false And Therfore ever implyes some weak Degree of Fear of anxiety and suspicion to the contrary Had any one said a few dayes before the Burning of London little then foreseeing that sad Disaster that That Noble Citty would not in so strange a
Opposed by the greatest part of Christians as False and Paradoxal cannot be Morally certain If this Principle hold good it if followes That much and very much too of the Roman Catholick Doctrin want's also moral Certainty Because a very great number of Christians oppugne it as fals Some deny the Popes Supremacy Others the Real Presence Others Purgatory Others Praging for the Dead c. And Protestants after their long study deny all These at once Therfore such Doctrins cannot be Morally certain 7. I answer first This Objection without doubt Proves too much and impugn's a Certain Truth of Christianity For tell me when the whole world as St. Hierom saith growning under Arianism saw that Haeresy far and neer diffused Did that Opposition weaken the Moral certainty which Orthodox Christians had then of a Trinity of Persons in one Essence And we only speak now of Moral Evidence Antecedent Ancient Motives never loose their Force to Faith If so the Motives morally evident for the Belief of that Mystery ceased or at least lost their Ancient Vigor which is fals And one great Realon is Because that true Doctrin of a Trinity had no first Rise nor appeared like a new Paradox in Catholick Doctrin had no first Rise like Protestancy the world as Protestancy did peeping out like an unknown Stranger when Luther and Calvin first broach'd it No That Catholick Doctrin was universally believed by all faithful Christians before Arians were born The Motives therfore which made it evidently Credible before Arius continued firm notwithstanding His Opposition and still induced Christians to Believe as They had done formerly Which Reason also holds good to our present purpose And doth not only give an immense Disparity between the Moral evident Certainty of Catholick Religion And what ever Certainty Haeresy can Pretend to But also Demonstratively makes both Protestancy and all Haeresy improbable And this Truth I shall evidence having first cleared the Fallacy which intricates the Reply now in hand CHAP. VII How Sectaries err in the search made after Religion Of their weak and Improbable Opposition The Objection is more fully answered 1. OVr Sectaries and all Haereticks err grosly in a main Principle which breed's nothing but Confusion to themselves and Others Thus it is Haereticks errour in their search of True Religion Some for Scripture only In their search after True Religion They run on But how Extra viam in a wrong and mistaken way Some will find it out by the Book of Holy Scripture which few exactly read and none can understand by his private judgement These err not knowing Scripture And may as St. Austin notes Epist 40. ad Deo gratias end their Lives before they end Difficulties this Others fly to the primitive Church Doctrin way Others fly to the Doctrin of the Primitive Church and loose Themselves For what private man can now by his meer reading Morally ascertain me or any of the indubitable universal Sense of that Doctrin Wheras all which the Church held then was not writ Of what was writ part is lost and much of what remains is as experience Teacheth Others are for Reason only lyable to Cavils and Misinterpretations Others and it is a Socinian jogg Decide all by weak Humane Reason as if forsooth Wit alone were able to Fathom Gods Incomprehensible Secrets Others finally without Ohers stay on the difficil Mysteries of Faith further Inspection stand poering on the material Objects or Mysteries of Faith and after many a mispent Houre ask at last of a very unskilful Master their own weak Reason what it Judgeth of these Mysteries All labour loft If Reason as it often fall's out find's them difficil It Cast's them away as meer Improbabilities Thus the Arian reject's a Trinity The Pelagian Original Sin The Protestant Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist Because they run into Dark matters whick only puzzle Reason and wave those further Considerations which clear all And make Faith if not evidently certain in Attestante at least evidently credible 2. I say therfore The most easy way to find out true Religion or the first unquestionable Evidence The way to find out True Religion is easy and evident which points it out lyes open and is obvious to All Before we either examin particular Mysteries of Faith or enter upon Proofs Drawn from Scripture Councils or Fathers It is true from these Grounds we have irrefragable Arguments against all Sectaries But can They think that the wise Providence of God hath put as it were Religion so far out of sight or set it at so great a Distance from us That none can come to the knowledge of it Before Scripture Fathers and those large Volumes of Councils are exactly examined whic few read and fewer understand No certainly True Religion evidenceth it self and is True Religion evidenceth it self most Discernable from errour by an other clear and conspicuous Light which none can but se unles he wilfully shut his eyes Antecedently to the Perusal of Scripture Fathers c. This Light or Evidence we may rightly call Gods own perswasive Language wherby he Speaks to Reason before we Elicit Faith and rationally convinceth all of this general Truth One Society of Christians There is wherin my Eternal Truths are Taught this I make manifest by evident Signes by the Light of clear and undeniable Motives wherof none can but most unreasonably doubt So it is saith Origen Hom. 30. in Matth. Ecclesia plena est fulgore ab Oriente usque ad Occidentem The Church like a Resplendent Sun casteth out Lustre from East to West and They are blind who see not so clear a Brightnes Thus much premised 3. I Answer to the Objection above and say Sectaries groundles impugning Catholick Doctrin Though thousands more then Sectaries impugne part of the Roman Catholick Doctrin yet as long as God demonstratively Evidenceth the absolute Credibility of that Church which teaches it By such rational prudent and pressing Motives as have gained Millions of Soules to Believe our Adversaries in banding against Church Doctrin only bewray Malice Ignorance or Both And do no more but cast dirt at a Sun which providence maugre Their weak Attempts will have to Shine whilst Christianity lasteth So Urgent therfore so Illustrious are these Motives as I shal presently declare for the total Belief of what the Roman Catholick Church teaches That they do not only suppresse and silence such weak Opponents But also make Protestancy and all other Sects improbable and incredible The reason hereof most amply laid forth in the three next following Chapters stand's sure on these two undeniable Principles First That Church which Christ Iesus founded and Christ manifest to All and so is his Church his Blessed Intention was to gain the whole World to it is so Eminently Glorious so Clearly Marked with unboubted Signs and most Legible Characters of Truth That the Simplest Man if he follow Reason may find
Austin Learnedly Consider's lib. 22. Civitat Cap. 5. Chiefly at those words St. Austins Discourse Si rem credibilem crediderunt If men saith he Believed a thing credible he speaks of the Resurrection of the dead and the like is of any other Mystery in Faith videant quam sint stolidi se what fools Those are who will not believe Si autem res incredibilis est If the thing be incredible This is most incredible yea and the strangest miracle of all that That which was deem'd Incredible gained Belief the whole World over The Argument is convincing and proves as well that those after Conversions wrought upon Infidels by Roman Evangelical Preachers were Admirable and truely Miraculous Millions have been converted by them These numerous multitudes therfore of Believers were either drawn on by fooleries If so Fooleries could not induce Millions to contemn the world and become good Christians They were mad And here lyes the Miracles saith St. Austin Viz. That Fooleries could induce so many to Contemn the World and become good Christians Or Contrarywise They believed this Roman Catholick Church upon weighty rational Motives If so Why are not our Protestants obliged to believe as they did upon the same prudent Inducements If They Tell us The Church Taught an other Doctrin when these great Conversions were made then it Teaches now They do not only most unlearnedly Suppose what is to be Proved yea cannot be proved because utterly false But also speak not one Word to the Purpose For both our Progenitors in England and innumerable others were drawn from Error by Popish Preachers And even in this present Age the like glorious Conversions are and have been wrought by these Blessed mens Labours Why these Conversions are to be esteemed Miraculous and Theirs only Now if you ask upon what Account such Conversions are to be esteemed Miraculous This one Instance answers you Imagin you saw a little Flock of Sheep or Lambs sent into a Desert full of ravenous Wolves withall That these Lambs though at first many were devoured yet at length render'd the Wolves so Tame and so abated their Rage that they became like Lambs mild and submissive Would you not say that such a work were prodigious and above the force of nature This is our very case Behold saith our Saviour Luc. 10. I send you as Lambs amongst Wolves And these you must subdue It was done Behold saith the Roman Catholick Church I send my Preachers still abroad to the Remotest parts of the World and have changed Wolves into Lambs That is I have made Infidels once Rebellious to Christ Subject to his lawes the Vitious I have made Virtuous and brought thousands of them to no other Religion but Popery This work with the Assistance of Gods Grace is done Et est mirabile in oculis nostris and 't is admirable Had our Protestants made such Changes or drawn so many Infidels to their new Faith they would have talked of wonders But because Catholicks Why Protestants flight Miracles and Conversions gained them to the old Religion all is Nothing So it is They have no Miracles and therfore Slight them No Conversions and thersore undervalue them A Strange proceeding Those very wonders which induced the world to become Christian Because they yet eminently appear in the Roman Catholick Church must ly under Contempt Those Ancient Proofs of Christianity are now proofles Those Primitive Evidences of Miracles Conversions c. the Church is in fault for shewing them cannot be seen by these later Men who yet have Eyes to discern the Book of Scripture by its own Light and Majesty And by the way mark the Paradox The exteriour words of a Bible for of these A Paradox of Sectaries we only speak are Evidences enough for Scripture yet those glorious works now mentioned are forsooth no Evidence of this Church The very Majesty of the style Ascertain's these men that God Speak's by that Sacred Book yet all the perceptible miraculous Majesty which the Church shewes us cannot perswade them that he speaks by this visible audible and most known Oracle of Truth A Bible well known its true upon other Grounds to be most Sacred discouers its Divinity and immediatly proves who writ it Yet a Church so gloriously marked sayes nothing who Directs it Is this Reason or Religion think ye Can Reason produce this unreasonable Thought in any That the wise Providence of God hath permitted so eminent so numerous so pious so learned and so long standing a Multitude of Christians as Catholicks have been and yet are to be Cheated into Errour even whilst they evidence their Faith by such Proofs and Motives as Christ and his Apostles manifested Christian Religion What Shall we think that Miracles Conversions of Souls casting out of Devils Sanctity of life c. which were once convincing Arguments of Christianity are now showed to countenance a Falsity To judge so is the most improbable Sectaries judge improbably Thought that ever entred a Christians Hart yea and impossible unles we hold that God can leave of to be Goodnes it self or make Falshood more apparently evident then Truth the whole World over which is proved to be a gross errour 8. Other Arguments we have for a greater Certainty then moral previously Evidencing the Roman Catholick Religion before we Believe wherof more in the next Chapter It is now sufficient to say That our Protestants grant thus much First because Protestants grant Evidence of Credibility to the Roman Catholick Religion the more learned of them allow Salvation to those who live and dye in this Faith But most sure it is That Saving Faith hath at least moral Evidence and Certainty for it 2. Whilst They talk of no man knowes what Evidence manifesting Christian Religion in General They only plead for our Catholick Faith and speak not a word in behalf of Protestancy The Reason is If both these Religions are not True Motives Evidencing true Religion inseparably follow that but the One only The Motives which Evidence true Religion inseparably follow That and cannot belong as I have already proved to the Other which is false Therfore They or We are obliged to show them But Protestancy cannot show so much as one prudent Motive for it self as will most clearly appear in the 10. Chapter Ergo what Evidence there is for true Christian Faith Catholicks have it or there is none in the World for any Religion CHAP. IX A short Digression concerning the Shufling of Protestants in this matter 1. HEre I cannot but reflect on the slight endeavours of some later Sectaries who offer at Mr. Stillingfleets weak endeavours Much in an Empty Title called The Protestants way of resolving Faith yet in prosecuting the matter They handle it so unluckily that no man Hear 's a word more spoken in behalf of Protestanism then of Arianism or of what ever other Haeresy Motives and Reasons they give none for Protestant
or without Commission talk of a new Gospel No. As my Father sent me saith our Saviour Ioan. 20. so I send you And They evidenced their Calling to the great Work they had in hand by clear and undoubted Miracles which proved forcible perswasive Arguments and strongly wrought upon the most obdurate Harts Yer fifteen hundred years after our Novellists appear broach a new Gospel aym at no les a matter then to pull down the Idolatrous Babel of Popery so they stile our Ancient Church and we must take their Word for all They say though they neither shew Letter-missive or Patents to warrant their Doctrin no nor one miracle to confirm it So destitute they are both of ordinary and extraordinary Mission Some will say Though they preach without Mission they preach the Doctrin delivered in Scripture and the Ancient Miracles without need of new ones were wrought to confirm Scripture-doctrin which is now purely Sectaries word it without proof taught in the Reformed Churches and not in the Church of Rome Thus most pittifully Mr. Poole pag. 195. where you se first an unlearned begging the Question 2. Every Arian licenced to assert for himself what Mr. Poole too simply assumes here without Proof 3. This is most falss Doctrin For no man yet ever lawfully preached true Christian Doctrin no not Christ himself without a Mission Sicut misit me Pater c. For when He Blessed Lord first established the Doctrin of Christianity contrary both to Iewes and Infidels He did it not by Words only without Commission nor proved the Verity of his Gospel by the Ancient and long since pas't Miracles wrought amongst the Jewes as these men do their Doctrin by the Primitive Miracles of Christianity which belong not to them But He evidenced it and confirmed it by new manifest Protestants obliged to show undoubted Marks and Signs when they preach a new Gospel Miracles visible Signs and Wonders And thus our Protestants should have don when they first published their new unheard of learning and by it attempted to throw down that long standing Church of Popery Undoubted Miracles unquestioned Signs of Truth should as we read of the primitive Apostles Mark 16. 20. Have followed them also But in lieu of these what have you Unwarranted talk meer proofles Words of uncommissioned men Miraculous words indeed if able to subvert an Ancient Church to pull down Popery and build up Protestancy 4. Unity in Doctrin most known and remarkable No Vnity of Doctrin in the Catholick Church they have none witnes those innumerable Sects which now swarm amongst them and This new Faith hath produced of Arminians Zwinglians Brownists Independents c. And now our late Quakers are sprouted out of it the last spring perhaps though no body knows of this Reformed Gospel I need not to say much on this point A serious thought cast upon the different procedure of a Catholick and Protestant will lay The Blessing of Vnity and Curse of Division open the great Blessing of Vnity in the one and the contrary Curse of Division in the other Observe well Catholicks you shall find like right Noble men Standing upon a long continued Pedegree on their Ancient Tradition on their never interrupted Succession of Popes of Princes of Bishops of People united in one Belief You look on Protestants like new Vpstarts unfortunately divided in their very first Progenitors Luther and Calvin that begot them in discord And this Spirit of Division as a Ghost doth and will Hant them to the worlds end if they last so long Catholicks you will find like deep and silent Waters running together in one Channel concentred in one Principle setled on one Rock the Churches Infallibility You se Protestants not only destroying both Rock and Center But also so giddily unconstant Sectaries unconstants to their own Tenents that you have them at a stand no where And this often shifting hath undon them Once the 39. articles were points of Faith and Religion now they are no more so Once the Pope was Antichrist now with many Protestants he is the first Patriarch Once he was a horned Beast now more then one of our New men take of his Hornes and make him Rational Once Rome was the Whore of Babilon now with most it is purer yes and Orthodox in fundamentals Once our Bishops were all Idolaters unlawful Pastors now They are so Legitimate that our new men must either derive their Ordination from them or have none at all And thus unsteedily they dance up and down say and unsay Now yea now no as the Fancy takes them And they must do so until they have a firmer ground of Vnity to set footing on 5. Mr Poole page 201. to impugn the Vnity of the Mr. Pooles instance of Pagans and Devils against Vnity is impertinent Church tell 's us That both Pagans and Devils had it yet in the very next page complains much of the want of Vnity in his Protestant Brethren Methinks unreasonably enough For if Vnity be so proper to Pagans and Devils the more Protestants are devided The better it is for them Because further of from the Spirit of these agreeing Monsters But saith Mr. Poole Vnity without Verity is not to be regarded I answer Every one knows so much But what is that to our present purpose where we solely treat of Vnity and assert it with the Nicene Fathers to be a Grace or Dowry of the Church a Badge or Cognisance of Truth And this our Protestants must acknowledge who I hope will grant some large Christian Society agreeing at least in Fundamentals Protestants hold some Vnity laudable in the Church which they call the Catholick Church I ask therfore Whether such an Vnity extended to all Christians be not Laudable and a good Mark of Truth If so Why are Pagans and Devils introduced to slight the Churches Vnity If not We have now not one laudable united Catholick Church in the whole world What follows in Mr. Pools 203. page Mr. Poles simple Objection concerning Divisions between Dominicans and Iesuits c Is so profoundly simple that no mans patience can so much as hear it Every Puny knows these differences are not in Faith but Opinions only I pass by such trifles 6. Efficacy in Doctrin an undeniable Mark of No Efficacy in Doctrine the Catholick Church our Protestants have not Observe my proof It is most certain That these men came but late into the Vineyard of the Church sure after the eleventh houre and found it as They say in a Sad condition overgrown with Weeds of Popish Errors pestered with Arian and Graecian Haereticks opposed by Heathens and Infidels What our new Zealots should have done All these needed the Light of this new Gospel to shine upon them And who would not have expected before this day greater Conversions wrought among so many straying Souls by these new Zelots Popery ere now should have been dissipated Arians reclaymed
demonstratively gives a Catalogue of her succeeding Popes and Bishops from Blessed St. Peter to this present Pope who now sitt's in that Chair And if you will know of what account this perpetuated Succession of Pastors is read St. Austin Tom. 6. contra Epistolam fundam cap. 4. In Catholica A continued succession of great account Ecclesia tenet me saith the Saint ab ipsa Sede Petri Apostoli cui pascendas oves suas post resurrectionem Dominus commendavit usque ad praesentem Episcopatum successio Sacerdotum The continued Succession of Priests until now from the seat of St. Peter the Apostle to whom our Lord after his Resurrection commended his Flock to be fed holds me in the Catholick Church And afterward No Donatist can shew such a Succession no more say I can any Protestant Se more in his Book De utilitate credendi c. 17. at those words Dubitamus nos ejus Ecclesiae gremio condere c. 12. Sanctity and Purity of Doctrin which neither Purity of Doctrin Infidel nor Sectary could ever yet cavil at But upon the account that there is too much of it in the Catholick Church is pittifully wanting to Protestants I prove it As the Tree is known by its Fruit so Holy Doctrin is best known by the Holy life of those who profess it and the Saintly effects that Saintly Effects follow Holy Doctrin follow it If we might insist on the first tell me where have our Protestants Their holy Hilarions their retired Pauls and Antonies their Gregories their Bernards their Malachies Where have they Apostles Like St. Austin of England Bishops of such Austerity as a St. Charles Boromaeus Doctors so profundly learned and humble as St. Thomas of Aquine and St. Bonaventure Where are their undefatigable Missioners sent for Conversions to the remotest parts of the world with a Blessed St. Xaverius Where are their Mortified Religious Sanctity manifest their Solitary Monks their Tender Virgins shut up in Cloysters without hope of enioying the world or Friends any more Such Holines manifest's it self in the Catholick Church Protestants have nothing like it and yet those two impure Founders of the new Gospel Luther and Calvin had far Les of Sanctity Let every Conscience speak its own Thought and say plainly whether these Two now A parallel named were Patterns of Vertue like a Renowned St. Benet a Glorious St. Dominick an Humble St. Francis a Prudent St. Ignatius who endeavored not to amend the Church ever sound in Doctrin But only to better the world by their Incessant labours by their Charitable works and Blessed example Heaven now crowns these Saints with Glory and earth yet celebrat's their Memory with immortal Praise whilst Luther and Calvin lye buried in Oblivion only thought on for founding a Gospel upon Liberty which makes all the Followers of it Libertins and therfore we must acknowledge that Christianity hath been much wors Protestancy ruin's Alt. for their once being Christians More Atheistical Principles have been setled in mens Harts since these two new Preachers came amongst us more Phantastick Opinions vented more Kingdoms undon more Common-wealths ruined more Innocent blood shed after this Tragical Gospel got footing than before were heard of for a thousand years together in time of Popery And 13. Here we may briefly touch something on those Sad Effects of this new Gospel sad Effects which have followed Protestant Doctrin And setting Passion aside friendly ask of any Impartial man what good hath this new Religion don in the world What amendment hath it made in Life and Manners What Conversions hath it wrought amongst Heathens and Infidels What Sanctity hath it yet shewed us in the Professors of it What Churches hath it built What Hospitals hath it erected What Universities hath it founded either comparable to our Ancient or modern Catholicks All runn's on in a Contrary strain Ruins gastly ruins follow these men where ever they go to the Horror of those who have Eyes to se and Harts to deplore the sad Spectacles yet left of their impious Sectaries Sacriledge Sacriledge and worse then Barbarous Reformation viz. Of our Churches defaced of our Cloysters demolished of our Altars and Monuments pulled down whilst yet they live on our Revenues as if the very Memory of Christ and the Temples where once he was Worshiped were grown abominable to these new Spirits And why all this Confusion for a new nothing O Strange and Prodigious Spirit what shall I say Impiety of thee Thy Doings are only to undo thy Building to destroy thy Piety is to prophane Sanctified Places Thy Light is to bring in Horror and Darknes Rebellion thy Turning from Christ and his Church hath Turned Kings out of their Thrones Bishops out of their Sees Religious out of their Cells Nobles out Confusion of their Estates Sense out of Scripture Charity out of the World and Men out of their wits This Turning from Christ and his Church hath Turned Vnity into Schism Peace into War Religion into Policy Vertue into Hypocrisy Learning into Ignorance Such are the known Effects of this late Doctrin all upon Record reserved to the final Sentence of our most impartial Judge in the Vale of Iosaphat where it will appear whether I have wronged these men in drawing up this dreadfull Charge against them or They themselves for such Impieties done before God and his Angels 14. Our Sectaries are wont to object against the Objection Churches Sanctity the Scandals Pride and Luxury of Wicked men in it St. Austin long since answered the Cavil Amongst good Corne have Cockle with wheat you have Chaff mingled in a slorishing Kingdom you find Traytors amongst marryed women it is St. Austins instance some you may have les Loyal Are therfore all to be blamed upon the Account of some 'T is open Unjustice Se St. Austin in his fifth Book All not blamable upon the account of some against Faustus cap. ultimo and his 137. Epistle Blessed be Almighty God though the guilt of Sin lyes heavily on many yet great Sanctity is still eminent in the Church amongst all Sorts of people whether Princes Prelaets Pastors Religious Seculars Rich or Poor Great Conversions we se dayly not only made from Haeresy to Faith but also from Vice to Vertue from a looser sensual Life to great Austerity The Rich often voluntarily become Poor The Proud Humble the Avaricious Liberal the Riotous Frugal the Impatient Meek the Secular Religious and quit all they have in this tumultuous World to serve God in a quiet Cell Such changes from Worse to Better are Evident changes from worse to better undeniably evident in the Catholick Church which yet Erasmus his acute Eye could never se amongst our New men Profer mihi saith He in his Epistle to Vulturius Neocomus quem istud Euangelium ex commessatore sobrium c. Give me the Man whom this Gospel of a Gurmandizer hath made Sober
this Religion That it must be either further proved by Rational grounds or it is wholy Forceles and fall's to Nothing 6. They say again They have three evident Principles 3. Principles of Protestants answered to ground their new Faith on First What God speak's is true 2. Gods pure and uncorrupted Word is in their hands 3. They know what God speak's in this Word I answer the first Principle is certain The second more then doubtful The third on which all Relies and toucheth more upon their Faith then on any Rational Antecedent Motive evidencing it is demonstratively improbable For upon no Proof upon no received Principle By the light of no Rational Motive can these men so much as meanly show That They are better at knowing what God speak's in Scripture then a whole ample learned Church or then Their own Ancestors both knew of old and believed for a thousand years together These men long since deceased held and upon Scripture well understood as firmly the Real Presence of Christs Sacred Body in the Eucharist as a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence The first Protestants now Reject the Protestants Reject and Admit at pleasure other they Admit And why Upon what Conviction upon what Rational Motive do they take and leave assert and deny as they list Press this and other like particulars home instead of Reason or rational Proofs you shall have Their own reeling sentiments Sectaries self-seeming no proof given in for Answer And thus forsooth it is They read Scripture and verily it seem's to them It ought to be interpreted as they will have it I Ask a Reason for this new Seeming against the old received Sense And that very seeming which is in question you have prooflesly returned for an answer Observe well that I say here and you will find Protestancy reduced to Fancy only CHAP. XII Protestants for want of rational Motives cannot convert an Infidel to Christian Faith 1. IT hath often occurred to me If by a supposed They have no way to Convince a Heathen impossibility Schoolmen sometimes Argue so and profitably Popish Religion were utterly extinguished or the Proofs thereof quite rased out of all mens Memory yet that Protestants with all they can in justice lay claim to touching Religion should still stand in the world as now They do This Thought I say hath more then once seized on me Viz. How mean how poor how destitute and naked a Thing Protestancy would appear to be in the Eyes of either Iew or learned Heathen Philosopher For all it hath if yet it have so much is a borrowed Bible from others But no Miracles no undobted Marks of Truth no certain Tradition no Succession of Ancient Bishops no Pastors no Doctors In fine no Rational Motives if this Supposition stand can inable these new Owners of the Bible to say with Assurance This Book is Gods own Word and in This or this Sense God speaks by it 2. To clear the matter further Imagin That a learned Philosopher no Christian curious to learn A short Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Protestant what Christian Religion is as we now Suppose it only among Protestants and other Sectaries should for better satisfaction Address himself to so wise a man as Mr. Poole who I suppose will tell the Heathen That God is to be Adored in a certain Religion The Philosopher will Answer I doe so For my Religion is to follow Principles of nature to live a moral Life to submit to the Government I am under to do as I would be done by And here is All. O saith Mr. Poole Sr you have yet greater matters to look after you must believe in Christ if you will be saved Who was this Christ Demand's the Philosopher Poole He is God and Man born of a Virgin and one that manifested himself by a most Holy Life wrought many Miracles Dyed for us all Arose from Death to Life and afterward Ascended to Heaven Phil. A strange Story indeed But can you make the Story credible to my Reason Poole O Sr it is undoubted For this and much more is writ in a Holy Book we call Scripture And you are bound to believe it Phil. In a Book called Scripture Here is no Reason for I ask upon what Motive can you make All that is writ in this Book credible to me And here because I shall instantly press the point farther my Demand only is From Whom you received Scripture and how long since it came to your hands We had it saith Mr. Poole about a hundred When and from whom Sectaries had their Bible years agon partly from men that now are suppos'd forgot I think they were called Papists partly from other Haereticks as Arians Graecians of no great Credit for they are contrary to us Phil. And is it possible Dare you admit of this strange and Mysterious Bible upon no stronger proof then the Authority of Haereticks and such beguiled men Answ We do so For we have no better Testimony Phil. What Professors of Christianity had you in the world before your time That taught truely and purely the Doctrin of your Bible Poole For a thousand years at least we know not of any The best I can mention are the later Graecians and yet They highly dissent from us in points very fundamental as I read in Leo Alatius against Hottinger Arcudius and other Authors Phil. Tell me once more Had you no Professors No Pastors no Protestant Bishops of your Protestancy before these last hundred years no Protestant Bishops no Pastors no Doctors that handed unto you this Bible Poole None at all Phil. That is pittiful and makes me suspect your Religion However since these last hundred years have you made any known and notable Conversions upon Infidels by Preaching the Doctrin of your Bible or have you wrought undoubted Miracles in Confirmation of its Truth Answ We must Confess the want of great Conversions and of known Miracles also Phil. Satisfy me yet further in one doubt When you are at variance amongst your selves concerning the difficil passages of this Book which are many No cert Iudge to reconcile differences for I have read it who have you to Reconcile those differences in whose certain judgement do you finally Acquiesce Answ We acknowledge no infallible Teacher no certain Judge on Earth every man gives his private sentiment concerning those difficulties though not infallibly And 't is not in our power to do more Phil. Here can be no unity in Doctrin But No Commission to teach uncertain Doctrin say on I beseech you Tell me who sent you to teach these uncertain Sentiments of your Bible from whom had you Commission to preach such unsetled Doctrin You know that in Civil affaires if one uncommissioned assume to himself the Title of Legate or any Dignity in a Commonwealth he is either Traitor Tyrant or both You call your selves Legates sent from God you assume the Dignity
of Priesthood give me warrant for either show your letters Missive For if you cannot I may as prudently believe Arius old Haeresy as your new learning Truely Sr replyes Mr. Poole my Answer is The Lord I hope senr us I cannot say more 3. Here the Philosopher busies his thoughts and question 's Reason whether he may in prudence ground The Philosophers reflection his Belief in Christ upon a Mysterious and yet unevidenced Book which above thousand years together was never own'd by any true Professors of Christs Doctrin Whether he may do so upon the bare Word of these late men who without Mission began their Preaching only a hundred years agon Who have no unity want Miracles have made no Conversions nor are able to tell him what the Book saith in those difficil places that puzzle his understanding It is impossible saith he to Acquiesce without further Proofs drawn from Reason Tell me therfore good Mr. Poole seeing Scripture as you say contains strange Mysteries above my Reach and no few seeming Contradictions which standing in reason rather affright then invite me to accept of it can you give me Assurance by good Motives or Arguments Protestants cannot prove the Holy Scripture Not from Papists extrinsecal to the Book That it is Divine or writ by the holy Ghost and not by Chance of Ignorance or Illusion Answ I can First the Papists once owned this Book as Gods own hand Writing Phil. O never mention these men They are now as we suppose forgotten Surely you are able to evidence your Book which is the sole Ground of your Faith without Ayde or Arguments borrowed from Papists I 'll do it therfore saith Mr. Poole The Spirit of God bears witnes with my Spirit that this book is Divine and Gods Sacred Word I am yet an Infidel answer's the Philosopher Nor from the Spirit and know little of Gods Spirit much les of yours my search is only after Prudent Motives to which Reason ought to yeild and accept of this Book as Sacred and Divine Which Sr. you are oblig'd to produce and not wink and fight it out with me by an unknown Spirit which in Real Truth warrant 's as well a Jew to make good his Talmud or a Turk his Alcoran as you your Bible There is yet one Argument more saith Mr. Poole to prove the Divinity Nor from the Majesty of Stile of Scripture independent of Popish Tradition viz. The Majesty of the Stile the Sublimity of the Doctrin the Purity of the Matter c. These and the great Reverence all bear to Scripture seem powerful Inducements to admit of it as Gods Word Philosop They are strong Fancies of your own head and how void of all Reason I will evidently demonstrate Scripture not like the first Principles in Nature First no man can Assert that Scripture is the Primam Cognitum or per se Notum a Thing known Immediately by its own light as the first Principles of Nature are which yet this Majesty proves or nothing for if so I should se it yea and All without dispute would admit of one and the same Canon of Scripture 2. As much Majesty appear's in the Book of Wisdom or Ecclesiasticus which you Reject as in the Song of Salomon or Ecclesiastes Admitted by you 3. If contrary to our Supposition we might once call to mind that now forgotten Church of Popery There was no want you know it well either of exteriour Lustre Glory Majesty Conversions Miracles or of Preaching sublime Doctrin to set it forth Yet this Glory and Majesty you scornfully cast of as an Insufficient Proof for that Church and here without either Conscience or Reason you Adore a far lesser Exteriour Majesty and by it will Out-brave me with a Book the Truths wherof are yet as unmanifested to me by Arguments drawn from Reason as those very Writings are which you call Apocryphal 4. And here by the way observe your great Nor by the Purity of it which is the thing to be proved Simplicity in arguing You prove the Divinity of Scripture by the Purity and Majesty of it The first is in question For I who have perused Scripture and find no few seeming Contradictions in it must have my doubts cleared and that Purity evidenced by Proofs extrinsecal to Scripture before I believe it Pure Concerning the Majesty of the Stile Learn your Error Two things are to be distinguished in The Exteriour Connexion of words not the Divinity of Scripture Scripture The Exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words we read which solely considered is common to other pious Books writ by Holy men without Special Assistance of the Holy Ghost And here is all the visible Majesty that Scripture presents either to our eyes or Reason which therfore convinceth nothing What makes Scripture Divine The other is and herein consists the Vertue and Majesty of Scripture That God by his firm Decree and gracious Ordinance hath pleased to seal as it were This Book and own it as his Sacred Word Now this signature because External to the Letter or Syntax of Scripture is no Object of Sense nor your reason For you do not evidence it by Antecedent None proves the Bible by his Faith but his Faith by the Bible antecedently owned Sacred The Reverence shewed to Scripture no proof rational motives You may well say it is the Object of your Faith or Fancy But I hope you will not prove the Divinity of your Bible by your Faith but Evidence your Faith by your Bible Antecedently proved Divine to Reason by good Inducements Hence I Answer to that weak Argument drawn from the Respect and Reverence which all give to Scripture And say it carrieth not one grain of Weight with it For even Christians much more Infidels must first know upon Prudent Inducements That the Bible is Sacred before they Reverence it and not prove it Sacred Because they Reverence it For none proves this man to be a Prince or Prelate because he doth him Homage But therfore He complyes with that duty because he is Antecedently known or owned for a Person of such quality Here saith the Philosopher are a few Exceptions against your Religion and my Difficulties proposed To solve them 5. Believe it old Papists hitherto forgot must Catholicks prove their Religion shew themselves and be remembred again They and only they though we Imagin no Scripture written are able by an Oral and never interrupted Tradition to Assure a Heathen of Christ our Lord of the Miracles he wrought of the Apostles he called to Found a Church of the great Conversions they made They And the Scripture and they alone can warrant Authentick written Scripture and show who writ it and how it was handed down by continued Professers of their Faith Age after Age to this present day They and only they do still preserve Vnity in Doctrin Reclaim Infidels Shew their Credentials Produce their Credentials for what
yours it hath more Unity in Faith Yours is Rent and torn apieces with Divisions And Loe great God Here is that Glorious Edifice which you after all your perfect Idea's of a Church have erected For this you dyed and never shed your Blood to Establish my false erroneous Synagogue of Popery Permit Reason to judge in this case and say whether the Devil be an ill Advocate if Protestants avouch Truth And stand to their professed Doctrin That the Church of Rome drowned in a Deluge of Errors abandoned the first Verities of Christian Religion for a thousand years together And that their Church as it is now in Being is the most choise goodly and only refined Religion in the world 3. My last Argument hinted at in the Title is Foundations laid of new Haeresies thus A new coyned Haeresy without Motives of Credibility may be as well or better defended by plain speaking Scripture then Protestancy It is believe me the easiest thing in the world to draw Haeresy out of the Words of Scripture To make good my Assertion Read first St. Hierom in his Dialogue S. Hieroms Reflection Adversus Luciferianos Paris Print anno 1509. at the very end of the Dialogue This great Doctor then to reduce some beguiled by the Luciferians who held that a Bishop or Priest once Deserting their Faith could never again be admitted into the Church which they endeavored to prove by that text of St. Matthew cap. 5. v. 13. You are the Salt of the earth but if the salt hath lost its savor wherwith shall it be salted Ad nihilum valet ultra it is good for nothing hereafter c. St. Hierom I say to refute these hath an excellent Reflection Nec sibi blandiantur si de Scripturae Capitulis videntur sibi assumere c. Let them not flatter themselves if they seem to assume out of Scripture Of Errors drawn from Scripture what they say For the Devil hath spoken things out of Scripture Scripture God know's doth not consist in what we read but in the sense of it Otherwise saith the Saint Possumus nos c. I am able to coin a new Opinion out of Scripture and say That none are to be received into the Church that wear shoos or have two coats For that is Scripture 4. It were most easy to go on with this true Reflection of St. Hierom and draw new Haeresies every Particulars hour from Scripture One will say The Sabbath-day is to be kept Sacred in place of Sunday and bring Scripture for it Exod. 20. 8. Another That we are as well to abstain from Eating of Blood or things Strangled as from Fornication it is a Decree of the Apostolical Council and Scripture Actor 15. 29. A third That Infants aae not to be Baptized There is ground for it Matth. 28. A fourth That we are not to Contend in Law but quit our Coat if any man will take it and Cloak also Matt. 5. A fifth That no Euangelical Preacher is to carry Gold or Silver with him or have two Coats Matt. 10. 7. 5. Suppose that a new Sect of men should rise up A new Sect of men rising up this year in whole Multitudes and rigidly adhere to the exact letter of Scripture in these Particulars is it possible to convince them by Scripture It is impossible And have they not think ye more plain Text's of Gods Word for these Tenents then Protestants have for pure Protestancy Yea most evidently For they produce nothing but express Scripture without Glosses And do they not believe in Christ and admit of every jota in Scripture Yea and therfore are sound in Fundamentals Moreover Do they not acknowledge both Christ and Scripture upon the same Tradition or other Evidences as Protestants do Yea and are ready perhaps to joyn in Belief with them when they se Scripture as plain for any Protestant Doctrin They only add a Superstructure Have as good a Church as Luther had of these Articles And have They not as good a Church as Luther and Calvin had a year after their new Preaching Yes They swarm with multitudes of Followers and multitudes make a Church Why then is not the Belief of these men all grounded in Scripture as good as that of Protestants I think it is of two Evils the Better if more Words of Scripture can more advance the Worth of either Religion But I tell you and truly That neither of them is good because unreasonable and they are therfore unreasonable Because no mans Reason can in this present state of Christianity whilst God Govern's us by the Light of Prudence fall upon a Religion or Believe a Church which evidently Appears A Religion without prudent Motives is no Religion naked and destitute of all Rational motives inductive to True Belief Now Scripture alone without the Interpretation of a Church evidenced by forcible Motives is what you please to make of it And a Church not at all manifested by rational motives is no Church and Therfore cannot interpret Scripture If you ask why we say That Protestancy is so bare of Motives and consequently no Church I have answered above Because this Religion never had nor shall have any such perswasive Inducements or the like Signs of Truth for it as Christ Iesus and his Blessed Apostles manifested when they first taught the World and by virtue of those Motives gained innumerable Souls to Christianity Look then about you and find me out a Society of Christians that is evidenced by such Signs as hold a strict Analogy with those of Christ and his Apostles and you have the True Church But this is the Roman Catholick Church What proved Christianity anciently proves now the Roman Catholick Church only and no other as I have largely proved Dare you therfore own the true Christ and his Blessed Apostles who wrought Miracles lived Holily preached Efficaciously upon such Motives You must also own this true Church upon the like grounded Proofs Were Miracles Sanctity Efficacious Doctrin c. Rational inducements to Believe in Christ They are now both powerful and perswasive to Believe this Church To Deny as I said above all Miracles to this Church even the greatest as is the Raysing of dead men to life is to Deny Sense Reason History The forceable Motives of Faith cannot be taken from our Church and all Authority And to appropriate These and other Motives to Protestants is only an attempted Plagiary which cannot be done It is true These men glory in a stolen Bible and 't is all they can pretend to besides the bare name of a fruitles and unevidenced Church but the marks and Characters of a true Church They shall never have nor take from us And thus much of infallible Teachers and the Motives of true Faith THE SECOND DISCOVRS OF SCRIPTVRE THE FIRST CHAPTER Scripture is useles if none declare infallibly the sense of it 1. WHen on the one side I consider
how useles a Book These impious Glosses are laid forth only to show Sectaries how Scripture may be abused sole Scripture is with These men to end their Differences yea and what monsters are produced out of it by those that pretend most to Gods written Word And what is the reason think ye That these Sole-Scripturists These Arians These Protestants These Anabaptists c. are so various so opposite in their Tenents begot as they think out of the true written Word From whence the abuse proceeds of God Is it for want of wit learning or languages They thus Differ No. Is it for the want of Study and conferring one place of Scripture Clear as they think with others Obscure No Both Arians and Protestants have done this long ago Is it that all these Sectaries go against their Conscience or wilfully draw Gods Word to a pervers sense He never spake let the Innocent cast the first stone at the Guilty Truly I suspect it in Some yet cannot judge that All are Conscious of so hideous an Impiety 6. The true Reason therfore is These Sectaries The true reason is given after the Rejecting of Gods infallible Church the Oracle of Truth will by no more then half an Ey of Human Reason dive into the deep Secrets of Gods Eternal Wisdom Obscurely revealed in Scripture and herein they neither shew Judgement nor Learning With this pur-blind Eye of weak Reason They go to work They steer on their cours they judge They Determin They Define They Pronounce their fallible Sentiments on these High Mysteries which never the lesse Reason alone is uncapable to comprehend or Master Hence Why Sectaries vary as they do They vary as they do Hence it is they weary themselves out with opposite frivolous Interpretations of Gods Word which is but one whilst they are so divided in their Tenents Hence it is That almost every year we have a new Religion broach'd in England Such a jumbling we must expect such endles Dissentions amongst them And t is a just Judgement of God for their Pride who truely are no more but poor Schollers yet Disdain to learn of a good Master that 's willing to teach them all Truth 7. I call it a Iumbling for from Scripture by Reason of its les clear speaking arise these Dissentions and though it be quoted a Thousand times says no Endles Confusion about the sense of Scripture more now Then it did sixteen hundred years agon And therfore cannot end them They next fall upon a doubtful conferring one Passage of the Bible with another Several Versions and Languages are examined much Adoe they make And all is to know what God speaks in such Texts but without fruit For their Differences are as High as ever And neither Party gaines or looses the Victory Since Scripture alone nor the Comparing of Texts together is able to draw either side from their Preconceived Opinion After the Conferring of places They are hard at it with Fallible Explications when behold express Scripture is cast away by these two Combatants And now either the One must learn of the Other what God speaks in Scripture by a human fallible Explication which is no Scripture or nothing is concluded Arians and Protestants equally uncertain Who is then to be held the Master Interpreter the Arian or Protestant Neither And they have both Reason for it For neither ought to yeild in their own Principles The quarrel Therfore goes on and is endles If after Their fallible Explications of Scripture they proceed to Inferences This followes That followes c. All is plain Sophistry for Vpon what unsteedy Foundations Haresy stands Scripture Vitiated with a fals Explication can never Support a true Illation And upon such unsteedy Foundations all Haeresy stand's Scripture not understood is the Ground doubtful Collations of places fallible Explications fals Illations are the Superstructure They have no more And thus you se how useles a Book Why Scripture is useles in the hands of an Haeretick A question propose and answered of Scripture is in the hands of an Haeretick who neither can tell me so much as Truely much les Infallibly what God speak's in These High controverted Points of our Christian Faith 8. But you 'l ask how then happens it that Mr. Poole and Protestants hit right in yeilding an Assent to some Catholick Verities for Example to a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence and Contrary to Arianism Protestants acknowledge a Trinity by Oversight Profess the Son to be consubstantial with his Eternal Father in one Divine Nature I answer They light upon these Verities by an Oversight or as I may say meerly by Chance By Oversight For believe it had Luter thought well On 't He might with more ease have denyed These High Mysteries of our Faith then the Real change of bread in the Holy Eucharist By Chance For as by chance They Stole Or by Chance a Bible from the old Catholick Church so casually They took from her Here and There as it pleased Fancy somewhat of her Ancient Tradition also And upon This ground of Tradition or the infallible Doctrin of the Catholick Church They Believe as Vnawares engaged in a Belief They labour in vain to find Scripture for it well as they can These Sublime mysteries Being thus unawares engaged in a Belief They weary their Heads and wear out their Bible to find expres Scripture for it which cannot be found Becaus forsooth they will Believe nothing upon Tradition or the Churches infallible Doctrin I say Expres Scripture cannot be found that Assert's Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence or the Word to be Consubstantial with his Eternal Father Therfore if they Believe these Verities They must Ground their Faith not upon sole Scripture But on Scripture explicated by that never erring Oracle of Truth the Catholick Church Or on the Word of God not written which we call Tradition You se Sectaries must own the Churches Interpretation or become Arians therfore how our Protestants though in Actu signato they seemingly Reject Tradition and the Churches Interpretation upon Scripture yet in Actu exercito They own both and must necessarily do so or become plain Arians Yet here they are pinch'd again For if they Believe these Mysteries upon Tradition or on Scripture interpreted by the Church They are neither Papists In doing so They are neither Papists nor Protestants nor Protestants No Papists for Papists hold Tradition and the Churches Interpretation infallible No Protestants For They profess to Believe no more then God hath expressed in his written Word Though now they must leave that Hold and believe upon the Catholick Motive or renounce the Faith of these Articles 9. If Mr. Poole pretend expres Scripture for these High Verities of Christian Faith The surest way will be to produce it without Remitting me to other Authors or Adding his fallible Glosses to Gods Word For every Arian knows
well to Distinguish between express Scripture and the superadditions of Mens Glosses fallible Explications Interpretations c. Now if When Sectaries interpret Scripture truely They borrow light from Church Doctrin in this particular Mystery of the Trinity Mr. Poole Interpret's Scripture truely it is not God knows His skill that doth it No. The Reason is Becaus be borrows the Truth from the Churches Interpretation of Scripture and so fights against an Arian with anothers Weapon Where by the way observe a strange proceeding of Protestants who when They dispute A strange proceeding of Protestants out of Scripture against an Arian They 'l have the Churches Interpretation good against him and His naught against them And when they Dispute by Scripture against Catholicks They will have the Churches Interpretation forceles against themselves and Their own wretched Glosses powerfully strong against the Church Were there ever such Doings in the world before these dayes 10. But we have not yet said all concerning Scripture Interpretations of Scripture Inferences out of Scripture c. Wherfore Becaus we are gone so far Pardon a further trouble of giving you a few more Notes on this Subject They will shew you if I mistake not upon what rottering Principles the Grand Cheat of Protestant Religion stand's for want of Infallible Teachers CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 1. WE have almost seen enough how Sectaries either through Malice Ignorance or both make Holy Scripture a Book that proves all Religions Like Wittingtons bells It ring 's out what Fancy will For in Scripture is Arianism if we believe the Arians Here is Protestanism if we believe Protestants Here is Quakerism if we believe Quakers Here is what you will and All Haereticks lay alike claim to Scripture and the sense of it what you will not And it must be so whilst These men have a Bible in their hands and Construe all as they pleas Gloss as they pleas Interpret as they pleas without Limit or Restraint It had been much better Methinks if such Sole-Scripturists had never read Scripture in these debated Points of Religion then after their reading to se it made a Book that only begets Dissentions so grosly wronged and abused it is Yet no Body is in fault Pure Scripture cryes the Arian pure Scripture saith the Protestant nothing but Scripture saith the Puritan And there is no Redress for these Evils All run on in their wilful misunderstanding Scripture not one of them will yeild to another nor which is worst of all and plain Perversnes Seek after a means which is yet offered them to come to a right understanding of it 2. Truely I have often wondred at our Protestants men as they say of a more Sober Temper then your Quakers and Puritans are How it is possible Protestants Plea for Sole Scripture after they know right well with innumerable Holy Fathers this Plea or pleading sole Scripture to be nothing els but an old Trick of all condemned Haereticks That they can lessen themselves so much had they no other motive to retard them as to tread the Footsteps of such unworthy Sectaries and patronize a Doctrin which cannot but breed Dissentions to the Worlds end This it is Sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith Sole Scripture speaks plainly in all things necessary to Their false Doctrin Saluation On these two Hinges chiefly Protestant Religion turns about and will do so until God at his good pleasure judge it time to turn it out of the World Two Cheats they are and great Ones as I shall Demonstrate 3. Mr. Poole to mend the matter having supposed Mr. Pool's three Positions that sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith withall That there is enough said in Scripture to end all Controversies were men humble and Studious c. Seem's in the 7. Chap. of his Nullity page 226. to ground Protestant Religion on these three Positions The first is That the Books of Scripture are and may be proved to be the Word of God 2. That in the Substantials of Faith those Books are uncorrupted 3. That the Sense of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary Points There is no Arian but will most easily admit of these three Propositions How then were they all True can they more establish Protestant Religion then Arianism For a Principle common to two Advers parties cannot considered meerly as a Principle agreed on by both more Advantage the cause of One then the Other If therfore an Arian Assent to these Propositions they ground no more Protestant Religion then they do Arianism Mr. Poole wants a fourth Proposition The Truth is Mr. Poole is highly wanting in a fourth Proposition which if proved would have done him more service then the other Three And it should have been to this Sense Seing Scripture speak's plainly all Doctrin necessary to Saluation Certainly it ought to teach Protestancy plainly I mean the particular Tenents of Protestants as these stand in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin For if these be necessary to Saluation Scripture hath delivered them plainly or if it have not done so We must Conclude They are not necessary to Saluation Thus much premised we will shew you in the ensuing Discours how slippery and fallacious Protestant Doctrin is as it Relates to Scripture and Interpretation of Scripture 4. The first proposition No infallible Church no No Infallible Church no certainty of true Scripture Assurance of True and uncorrupt Scripture To makes my Assertion good against Protestants I will only propose this plain Question From what men of Credit and Integrity had the first Protestants Their Bible It From whom had Protestants their Bible was not drop't down from Heaven into their Pulpits with Assurance of its Purity or Certainty that no Change was made in it contrary to Truth since the Apostles Times Were they Iewes Infidels Turks Arians or Graecian Haeretiks that gave them Scripture Too perfidious to be trusted in a matter of such Consequence Too unfaithsul either to preserve true Scripture by them till Luther quit his Cell or then to put into his hands a Bible Vncorrupt in every Point Were they Catholicks Let our Adversaries shame the Devil and speak Truth 'T was from them They had their Bible together with the Originals But these Papists These very Catholicks if we may credit Catholicks in Protestants Principles cannot be relyed on for Scripture Protestants had not only Corrupted the Writings of the Ancient Fathers But also through Malice or Ignorance Had grosly erred a thousand years together and Changed the Ancient Doctrin of the Primitive Church They had Secretly wrought into mens harts a fals Belief of the Chutches Infallibility of an unbloody Sacrifice of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and such like errors Admit of this Supposition who is there amongst Protestants that shall dare to look on his Bible with good Assurance of its If
or the unchangeable Divine Word seemingly Changed when he took Flesh upon him and became an Infant These are Higher Mysteries and greater Difficulties If Human Reason might be judge and give a final Sentence But I 'll tell you once for all That man shall never be a Proficient in Christs School that will undertake to conquer High Mysteries no to be pried into by our weak discourses as I may say the great Difficulties of Faith by Examining the High Mysteries of it If he goe so to work he is cast into a Labyrinth and can find no Exit All therfore he is to do is to Learn and Examin whether God the Infallible Truth hath Revealed and taught us these Mysteries by any unerring Oracle Next How we are to submit in matters of Faith He is to Captivate his understanding And humbly Submit to him without further search who neither can be Deceived nor will Deceive us But enough of this Digression 6. We se thirdly Though Protestants Anathematize The whole Religion of Protestants is nothing els but addition to Scripture or subtraction from it all that Add to Gods Word or Take from it yet I 'll tell you Their whole Religion as Protestancy is either made up of no Scripture at all or is nothing els but a meer Addition of their own Glosses to Scripture or finally a wilful Subtraction from it To the Words now cited they add a sign a figure and God knows what more Is this Scripture When St. Iames 2. cap. 24. Dogmatically teaches that a man is Justified by Works and not by Faith only our New men tell us the Apostle speak's not of Justification before God but before Men. Is this Scripture When St. Paul Rom. 2. 6. plainly Affirm's That God will render to every one according to his Works Calvin and Beza Assure us He will do so indeed if there were any such But the Mischief is None can do a Good Work before God Is this Scripture No. These and such like Interpretations Our Adversaries do not own for Scripture yet They must own them as Tenents Essential to their Religion Ergo I say Meer Fallible Glosses which are no Scripture make up Protestant Religion as Protestancy And hence Doctrin of the 39 Articles as Protestancy not Scripture it is that their Doctrin delivered in the 39. Articles stand's there with all Clearnes that is you know what they say But when 't is Brought to the Test and is examined by Scripture you may seek long before ye find a word like it as 't is Protestancy 7. You see lastly That the Interpretations which Protestants give to those Texts of Scripture cited by How Sectaries abuse Scripture cited for Catholick Doctrin Catholicks for their Doctrin are meer Human Extra-scriptural and Anti-scriptural Glosses of their own Fancy We cite the Apostle 2. Thess 2. 15. For Tradition beside the Written Word For the Real Presence This is my Body Matt. 26. For Iustification by Good Works that of St. Iames 2. 14. For a Sacrifice to be continued to the Worlds End Malac. 1. 11. For Extream-Vnction Iames the 5. 14. For the Verity and Infallibility of the Church that of St. Paul 1. Timot. 3. 15. And what for Gods sake have we from our New Men to these plain Passages speaking Popery But a Return of meer Mock-fool Glosses Hatch't in their own Heads which have so little Shadow of Scripture in them That with force they drive the very life and sense out of Gods Word And They proceed so unluckily Sectaries make Scripture clear where 't is obscure and obscure where 't is clear That where Scripture is clear They make it obscure and where it is obscure They will seem to make it Clear by superaded glosses What can be more clear for our Catholick Doctrin of the Real Presence then those words of St. Luke 22. v. 19. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur This is my body which is given for you Yet with their Glosses they so Torture the Text That every Particle in it suffers Violence In so much that Iacobus Scripture tortured by Sectaries Gordonus observes in his first Tome of Controversies printed anno 1612. Controversia prima de Verbo Dei cap. 26. n. 11. pag. 121. No fewer then two hundred different Glosses have been added by Protestants to Obscure the plain sense of Christs own Words Some as this Author notes abuse and misinterpret the Pronoun Hoc Others the Verbe Est Others Corpus Others meum Others the Relative quod Others the Proposition pro Others the Pronoune Vobis Others finally the Verb Datur Yet after all this perverting and woful mangling of Gods Word we must Believe that our Protestants speak forsooth Scripture and nothing but clear Scripture On the contrary side we have seen more then enough in the Beginning of this Chapter how Vainly They cry up the Clarity of Scripture in Mysteries most difficil not fully expressed in Gods Word What man in his Wits can say That any Scripture through the whole Testament Speak's half so clearly of the Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son with his Eternal Father as the Text now quoted is for the Real Presence Yet those Scriptures must be Clear for that Christian Verity and this Obscure for the Real Presence 8. To conclude this point Methinks it highly imports when we deal with our Adversaries concerning How to proceed with Sectaries when They Explicate Scripture Their Explications of Scripture That we do not so much at least in the first place make it our Work Positively to Disprove them by other Texts and Authorities which our Writers usually do and laudably as to put them to the Proof of their wild Glosses which seem's most Reasonable For Asserenti incumbit probatio When therfore They go about to Obscure Scripture where it is plain with new Interpretations the world never heard of bid them not only Interpret but Prove Their Interpretations For example That the words of our Saviour now cited must be alienated from their genuin Sense and tortured as they are by Protestants Proceed thus with them put them to the Proof and you 'l soon see them at a Nonplus CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 1. MY first proposition Draw's Proof enough from the precedent Chapter For if Scripture be Obscure and speak not clearly all Verities revealed in the book it cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter But 't is more then evident that it speaks not clearly many Verities Concerning the Highest Mysteries of Religion Therfore it cannot Regulate Faith relating to These Mysteries without an Interpreter I prove the Minor Scripture which solely considered according to the Exterior Letter both may The bare letter of Scripture may and doth easily beget error and Doth as easily beget Error as Truth in the Intellectual Power of man Speak's
not clearly Whence it is that St. Austin Tom. 10. Serm. 70. de Tempore stiles Haereticks Infelices Unhappy Who only look on the Sound of words in Scripture which is saith he like a Body without a Soul But it is as clear That the bare Letter of Scripture without a sure Interpreter beget's Errors And therfore an Arian Becaus He Regulates his Belief by the meer Sound of that Text Iohn 14. My Father is greater then I Err's damnably And the like All other condemned Haereticks have done in their respective Errors drawn as they thought from Scripture Ergo it is evident that the Letter of Scripture speak's not Clearly in this one most High Mystery And therfore cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter Now further If this Interpreter A fallible Interpreter as useles as no Interpreter in points of Faith be fallible He is as Vseles to Christians for the Regulating of Faith as if he were no Interpreter For He may Deceive them And if we be deceived it much imports not whether the Error proceed from Obscure Scripture misunderstood or misinterpreted by an other An infallible Interpreter therfore is necessary in this Weighty matter that Assures us of what God hath spoken of such and such Particular Mysteries And here we Rest securely and have a most certain Rule which Sectaries want 2. Again I argue If Sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith it can Regulate without Glosses yea and without a Preacher too Why therfore do our Protestants charge that one Text above cited This is my body the like we may say of many others with so unnecessary a burden of their Interpretations Are Are Sectaries affraid that Christ spoke too plainly They affraid that Christ spoke too Plainly and therfore Add their Glosses to Obscure his Words None will own such an Impiety Then I say They are Added to Clear an Obscure Passage consequently They They gloss to make Scripture clear must acknowledge an Obscurity in this Scripture before their tampering with the Text and glossing it Well But when They have glossed all they can I ask what is it that Regulates their Faith in this particular Their glosses regulate their Faith not the words of Christ Do Christs Words as he spoke them or as They interpret Regulate here Not the first For 't is most evident that Christs own Words without the Protestant Glosses can never beget in any Understanding that determinate Belief which these men have of the Blessed Sacrament For the words of Christ say plainly This is my Body that is given for you Which pondered to the day of Judgement can never yeild this forced repugnant and far-fetch't Sense This is a Sign or a Figure of my Body Yet such is the Belief of Protestants drawn from this Sentence by their Interpretations Wherfore we must conclude that They Believe not for Christs Sole Words But for their Additional Glosses which is to say in plain English Their Overplus of Glosses Regulates Faith not Gods Express and most significant Word Some will say this Passage now cited must be interpreted as They will have it Becaus Scripture in other places seem's to favor their Interpretation I answer candidly Let them They cannot cite one Text out of Scripture in favour of their Glosses but produce so much as one plain Text out of the whole Bible for the Alienating of this Sentence from its proper Sense without Glosses which are no Scripture and I 'll proclaim them Conquerours Here is plain dealing but Remember well I call for Scripture only 3. I told you just now That as these Glosses are useles if sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith so are Preachers also yea and all the large Commentaries which Luther and Calvin have writ on Scripture Why Gods Word speak's clearly without a Preacher If Scripture be Clear ther 's no need of Teachers Away therfore with Preaching and Commentaries 'T is enough to thrust a Bible into mens Hands And bid them read it For there is True Doctrin and plain Doctrin but more is not required to Regulate Faith then The Reason Truth and Clarity Ergo Ministers may hereafter well spare their labor of Preaching and 't is better they did so Then to be in danger of perverting Gods true Word by their fallible Talking 4. To conclude this matter we have already amply proved That it is not the Bare Letter of Scripture which Regulates Faith Buth the exact and true Sense of it Ne putemus saith St. Hierom in cap. 1. ad Galat. v. 11. Let us not think that the Gospel lyes in the Words of Scripture but in their sense Non in superficie sed in medullâ not in the Out-side but in the inward Pith and Marrow of it non in sermonum foliis c. But no Protestant with so much as any colour of Reason can lay a more just claim to the true Sense of Scripture when He and the Church stand at Variance Protestants as uncertain of the true Sense of Scripture as Arians are Then an Arian a Pelagian or a Donatist can do when They draw Scripture to Their Sense All of them are alike guided by meer Guesses and first Read next Think then Iudge and lastly Believe Believe what What Their Private Iudgement Tell 's them and here is the last Rule of their Faith All of them guided by guesses Three parts of Protestant Religion wherof more in the next Chapter In the interim you may Resolve a Protestants Belief into these three broken Shreds or Fragments The first part is that wherin They hold with Catholicks And here they have the true Sense of Scripture interpreted yet no True Faith for want of Submission in other Points The other part is that wherin They agree with Ancient condemned Haereticks And herein They have neither the True sense of Scripture nor true Faith The last part is proper to Themselves as Protestant And here they have not so much as the Letter or a Word of Scripture for them much les any true Sense or Faith grounded on Scripture And 5. Upon this occasion I come to mind Mr. Poole The want of Mr. Pooles fourth Proposition of the Want of his fourth Proposition viz. That Scripture speak's plainly the particular Tenents of Protestant Religion as Protestanism And must Tell him He shall never find in the whole Bible so much as one Article of Protestant Religion as it stands in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin grounded on Scripture And Becaus The man may not perhaps like of too great a burden I 'll only urge him to Prove these three Protestant Assertions 1. That there are two Sacraments Three Protestant Assertions for Mr. Poole to Prove and no more But let him not think to turn me of as he doth the Captain with meer empty and insignificant Words Appendix page 34. Scripture is plain enough in describing the nature of two Sacraments He should have added And 't is plain in
natural Principles Yet we se These new Sectaries not only highly at Variance about the Sense of Scripture but also Gods Church which hath Eyes as well as They as highly opposite opposite to them However the Church must be Counted Pur-blind and They only sharp-sighted though the Light they fancy may licence any Haeretick to say what he pleases For as They Set Light set up against Light up their Light so an Arian may set up his against it And swear 't is the Clearer of the two for his sense And who can gainsay him 8. From this Discours it follows that the Assurance of Reason wherof our Protestants talk so much is a most insipid Word For it doe's not signify a Formal Discours for want of a known and received Principle Nor That quicker immediate Light â—f all Fooleries the worst now refuted I 'll go farther and say No Christian by Reason only can dive into the Mysteries of Scripture That no Christian by the force of Reason only when he reads These difficil Mysteries in Scripture can so much as once fasten a prudent certain Iudgement either upon the Thing revealed or the Ratio credendi Not upon the Thing revealed For that Transcends the Capacity of Reason nor upon the Motive why he Believes For by the force of Reason only he cannot know exactly Guess he may and miss that God speak's expresly in such a sense Therfore if upon his own Half-sighted and too daring Conceit He will proceed to a setled Iudgement and say positively what God speak's He tells the Story before he knows it And consequently highly offends against Reason For Reason dictates that we must first Learn Before we undertake to Teach or rashly enter into the deep Secrets of Gods Divine Wisdom without a certain and infallible Doctor 9. Therfore before we come to the Assent of Divine Faith A master an infallible Proponent is necessary who without Ambiguity assures us that God Speak's and in such a determinate Sense This once admitted Reason hath no place at all in the very Elicite Act of Faith or if it enter it spoiles Faith as I shall presently declare 10. I 'll therfore Explicate my self further and The Different Operation of Reason in a Catholick and in a Protestant withall shew how Reason goes to Work in a Protestant And how differently it Proceeds in Catholicks The Protestant hath no more but the bare Letter of a Bible before his eyes And toyl s hard with that one weak Instrument his own Reason to find out Gods Sense Therin He Read's he Humm's He Pausses He Expound's He interpret's and afterward Believes what he thinks is True Marck well He Sectaries know what they think but know not why They belive knows what He Thinks but yet knows not upon any Rational Inducement or solid Motive Extrinsecal to his Thought that God speaks as He Thinks Question him in any Particular and you will find what I say most True For example Why when He reads Those Words This is my Body he believes Christs Sense to be This is a Sign or Figure of my Body Ask him where is the Rational Inducement that lead's him to own this sense If Rational He is able to give an Account of it to others If herein he show himself unacountable He doth not only expose his Belief to the contempt of Vnbelievers but to Those thousands of believing Christians that oppose it Nevertheles 'T is so For he can render no other Reason for this The proof is given new coyned Sense But that after the reading of Scripture pondering the Words examining the Difficulties and conferring places together He is wrought into a Perswasion That God Speak's just as he Thinks and no otherwise where you first se That all the Reason he hath walk's round in the compas The Reason of Sectaries laid forth of his own weak Head without Shewing so much as a Resemblance of any sutable Evidence of it to others who notwithstanding know Reason as well as He. You se secondly That such a man Acts How They proceed more the Part of a Pope then ever any did that Sate in Peters Chair For he positively Defines what Scripture saith without the Extrinsecal Help either of Ancient Tradition or the Continued Sense of the Church Never Pope defined so at Random 11. And upon this Occasion I say more When Of the sentiments of Fathers expounding Scripture the very best of Fathers whether a St. Austin a St. Hierom or who you will differently as it often happens expound and Interpret Scripture by their Private Iudgement grounded upon Vnevidenced Principles or upon meer conjectural Probabilities Their private Sentiments can Advance us no further But to an Opinion only which therfore I may without offence Reject and never bring us to a setled Act of Faith Yet a far more Vnevidenced private Judgement in a Protestant doth all And as the only Light he see 's by serves him both to apprehend that God Speak's and in what Sense he Speaks Upon so great a want of Evidence his whole Faith depends Hence we se thirdly If Faith be a discoursive Act as some of our New men hold That is an Act founded on a Rational objective Inducement which inclines the Mind to Iudge as they do and Believe as They Iudge it No Protestant can say why he Believes as he doth is impossible for any Protestant to Answer the question why he believes that God speak's and in such a Sense by the Strength and Light of his own Iudgement For stead of the Rational Objective Inducement which ought to He only return's you the subjective Light of his own Iudgement for Answer incline him and we inquire after He returns only the Subjective Light of his own Internal Iudgement which being only a fallible Act Clear's nothing without some kind of further Evidence nor Answers the Question why he Believes Unles this be the WHY That becaus he thinks his own Thought true He is pleased to believe as he think's Where you find the reason most unreasonable Becaus it is Vnresolvable into either Rational Motive or any known and received Principle 12. We se 4. Though we Allow to Protestants as much of the private Spirit as their Harts can wish for wherby They are as it were pushed on to Judge The private Spirit supposes but proposeth no new Motive of Faith and Belieue Yet this Spirit being only As They say The Operation of Grace chiefly fortifies the Power that Believes But proposeth no new or further Rational Motive of Belief For it must suppose the total motive Antecedently proposed discernable by more then one only Before it can either push or work to any purpose Protestants say it And this is what some Protestants Assert Viz. That the Operation of the Spirit is more by way of Efficiency ex parte subjecti credentis in order to the begetting Faith then suppletory of the Rational Inducement That objectively
Infallible Teacher to learn us now infallibly what that Written Word speaks in a hundred As great necessity now to learn us what Scripture speak's as what Christ tought controverted Points as then was necessary to declare the Substance of Christs Doctrin which he delivered by Word of mouth I say the substance for without all doubt the Apostles and the 70. said explicitely much more in thir Preaching then meerly what Christ had implicitely and in fewer words commanded them to Preach yet They neither did nor could swerve in any Doctrinal Point Therfore in the publishing his Doctrin They had the Assistance of the Holy Ghost before his Ascension Though it was then more amply confirmed and promised anew not only to the Apostles then living But also to their Successors for ever 6. And this is what our Saviour Dogmatically Gods Spirit with his Church for ever Teaches Iohn 14. 16. of a Comforter the Holy Ghost who shall abide with you for ever which words implying a continual aboad cannot buâ— be understood in an Absolute sense Yes say They He shall be with them for ever But how Mark the gloss in regard of Consolation and Grace A meer Guess Not only for Consolation and Grace The only question is whether it hitt's right or no For who tell 's you Sr That this and no other is the Absolute sense of Christs Words Why may They not as well import the Assistance of Infallibility as that of Consolation and Grace Prove your Gloss and by Scripture This we urge for We Catholicks say without drawing further Proof from either Councils or Fathers which you hold Fallible That Christs following words Iohn 16. 13. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will teach you all Truth taken in their obvious sense warrants this Infallible Assistance for ever Can your Fallible Spirit assure me of the contrary You say Yes For these last Words are Restrained to the Apostles only Here is another Gloss or Guess as unlucky as the former For who Restrains here Christ or You If you do it you may as well restrain the Consolation of Grace to all the Apostles Successors as Infallible Assistance 7. We prove both the One and the Other Blessing granted to the Church by our Saviours own Words Matt. 28. 20. I am with you always to the end of the world and moreover Affirm that the Consolâ—tion of Grace granted the Church whose duty is to Teach us Truth Benefit's little in order to that Consolation of grace nothing in a whole Church without Infallibility End unles it be accompanied with the further Priviledge of infallibility For what comfort hath Any whether Learned or Illiterate to Hear that the Pastors of Christs Church have mâ—â—h interiour Consolation and Grace if this sorrowful Thought afflict his hart All and every one of thâ—se Pastors notwithstanding the plenty of their Grace may cheat him intâ— damnable Error and teach There is neither God Heaven nor Hell 8. I might further show How utterly inconsistent this supposed and yet Vnexplicated Consolation of Grace The Consolation of Grace and want of Divine Assistance uncompossible in the whole Church is with the Spirit of a whole Church which may Deceive us But the thing need 's no Proof for it is evident That God who hath promised to direct us by his Pastors cannot comfort them so plentifully with Celestial Inspirations and Permit all to delude and cosen us with Pernicious Errors Will he give them grace Think ye to Talk only and not to teach his Verities certainly To live holily for his grace serves for some end and Leave them to a Possibility of Corrupting his Spouse his own Sanctified God Courts not his Church with comfort and permitt's it to betray his Truths Church with fals Doctrin This in a word is to tell God That he court 's the watchmen of his Church with Heavenly Consolation who nevertheles may Betray his Cause and give up his Citty to the Devil when they please For here in They are left to their own wills and Fancies God you know is Truth and He loves Truth Truth is that which he first established in his Church And it Answers to that first Operation of Christian which is Divine Faith the ground of all Sanctity To tell me therfore That He comforts a whole Church by A Paradox of Sectaries Grace and yet leaves it so tottering upon Vncertainties That none can with absolute Assurance say He either teaches or hear's Truth delivered in any Article of Christian Faith is worse then a meer Chimaera And makes our Bountifull Lord not only a very Niggard of his Graces But also gives him a most high Affront The Grace therforâ— of Consolation The comfort of Grace supposeth the favour of Infallibility which he allowes his Church as a Church ever implyes or supposeth that Arcb-favour of Infallible Assistance Rob it of this Priviledge and other Graces avail little 9. And here by the way I must needs propose one question to our Protestants It is whether God Supposing his Promises already made can A question proposed whether the Church can withstand an loose all grace according to their Principles permit that the whole Church Vnassisted by his infallible Spirit loose withstand and reject what ever Grace he gives or hath given it If they say Yes It is Possible Then I Infer God can permit that the Whole Church may turn Traitour and become Impious For a Church which withstands looseth or rejects all Grace is traiterous and impious If they say no it is against his Goodnes to permit such a Universal Impiety They must acknowledge That he cannot but preserve a Church for ever whether consisting of Elect or no we dispute not in his Grace and favour Truth as necessary to the Church as Grace and this infallibly Ergo I say He cannot buth Infallibly also supposing his Promises Preserve it in Truth by the special Assistance of his own Unerring Spirit Truth being as all know as necessary to the Church as Grace is And thus we se in notorious great Sinners who although they have a thousand Incitements of Grace to amend their lives yea better themselves by it in some particulars yet as long as Divine Truth necessary to Christians is wanting Their state is Deplorable To conclude then Here is my Dilemma Either it is possible That the whole Church That is All the Teachers and Hearers in it may abandâ—n all Gods Revealed Verities and neither Teach nor Hear one Word of his Truth or 't is impossible If the first be granted 'T is not only possible that the whole Church may revolt from God and Truth But may loose all Grace likewise Grant this and say next what will become of our Protestants Elect people who Becaus Predestinated to Eternal life cannot but have Grace Observe well A Paradox of Sectaries the Paradox They cannot Loose grace yet 't is possible never to hear a Word of
Truth For all their Ministers are fallible What kind of Elect are these who have Certainty of Grace but no certainty of Truth with it Now if on the other side they hold it impossible That the whole Church may desert Gods Truths They grant what we ask And must say it hath the infallible Assistance we plead for The Reason hereof I have amply delivered in the former Discours Chap. 3. Becaus al the Human Science Wit or Learning in Nature alone can no more Secure a Church God preserves his Church aâ— Sound in Truth as Sanctified by Grace from Error Then give it Grace God therfore doth and will ever graciously prevent it with both these Blessings And as Infallibly keep it Sound in Truth as Holy and Sanctified CHAP. VII More of this Subject 1. BY what is said in this short Digression you se how pittifully our new men mangle the Text now Cited I am with you Always to the End of the World Hear their Gloss Yes say They. This Promise was made to the Apostles and their Successors But in a different degree For it was of continual and infallible Assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of continual and fitting assistance but not infallible The like is repeated afterward Protestants trivial Distinction of Fitting and infallible Assistance when They ask What we say to this Marry Sr I say it 's nothing to the Purpose For you neither declare what this fitting continual assistance granted these Successors as distinct from the other allowed the Apostles is nor can you declare these different Degrees And though you did so contrary to the They still run on in Generals Churches sense you only vent your own feeble and fallible Sentiments without Proof which I neither ought nor can in Prudence Believe To be plain Therfore be pleased to Answer Hath God Revealed to you what this fitting and continual Assistance granted the Apostles Successors is No. Doth any Ancient Council or Unanimous consent of Fathers Mince These Words and Dogmatize here as you do or only mention a Presence of the Spirit of consolation and Grace excluding infallible Assistance No. All is contrary as I could demonstrate were it here my task to prove Truth against you but this is done by others as 't is to force you to prove what your Fancy only vents against it And mark how Fancy goe's to work Christ saith I am with you always to the end of the World That is saith your Fancy He is present by his Spirit by a fitting Assistance But not by an Assistance Infallible This gloss Not by infallible Assistance is your own For neither Gods Word nor Vniversal Church nor General Council nor the Consent of Fathers nor Antiquity ever uttered any Thing like it Grant therfore it be Vnreasonable as you say to put your Party to prove a Negative Viz. That any of the Fathers denyed this place to extend to infallibility I am sure it is most Reasonable to force you to a Proof of your own Affirmative For you doctrinally Teach That Christ in this place Allows no certain Infallibility to his Church This because positively asserted is positively to be made good by a more strenuous Proof then Fancy only You say again Those of your Party only delivered what they Conceived to be the Meaning of this and other Places of Fathers which do no more then prove the Perpetuity of the Church What They conceived weak fallible Men Pray Sectaries Conceipts instead of Proofs what am I the better for their Conceipts Must I change my Ancient Faith for the Rowling and never agreeing Fancies of a few Ministers Why may not an Arian or Pelagian if sole conceiving can do it as well gain me to his party as a Protestant to His who Thinks that the Church is Fallible To that of the Fathers I Answer Their indubitable owning a Church Perpetual Evidently could we say no more supposeth a Church constantly True and Holy And the Constant Truth of it implyes infallible Assistance as is already proved 2. Protestants may yet reply They deliver what An Objection they conceive to be the Sense of Christs Words I am with you always c. Catholicks can do no more and Mark well As the words do not explicitly exclude Infallible Assistance from the Church always so neither do They explicitly include it For Christ saith not explicitly I will be always with you to the End of the World by my Infallible Assistance This then the case stands They Restrain Christs Promise and we see to Extend it too far They we say come to short of the Sense by cutting of Infallible Assistance We Catholicks They say go beyond the Bounds and add more to the Text than Christ Spoke Both of us therfore are Glossers and why is not Their Gloss as Orthodox as Ours Here is a better Objection then any hitherto proposed The Solution of it Ends all Controversies And the Solution might easily end all Controversies would Sectaries pleas to wave a few Self-conceipts and prudently Acquiesce to Reason whilst Truth plead's againsts their Errors 3. First then though I press not much this Point Sectaries have no Reason to prefer their Interpretations 't is evident That we Catholicks are the Elder Brothers as Numerous at least as They and to speak modestly as Learned Why therfore when both They and We interpret Scripture and stand as it were equally ballanced becaus 't is yet supposed uncertain who guesseth better why is not I say Our Interpretation could we prove no more as good as Theirs contrary to us If They prefer Their Gloss before Ours something of Weight beside meer Fancy must turn the Scales and Ballance more for them then us We alwayes ask for this greater Poyse in controverted To these of Catholicks matters and can get no answer 4. Secondly I must necessarily here Note an unworthy An unworthy proceeding of Sectaries proceeding of Sectaries with us when we Produce Scripture Fathers or Councils for Catholick Doctrin Their humor and 't is a a strange one run's on thus First They begin with their Glosses and labor to pervert that Sense which the Catholick owns And if after much Trifling they can Disguise this Sense or Twine it of â—â—om the Catholick Meaning They hold the Work done and cry Victory Mark in our present matter Their Frigid way of Arguing and it is alike in all other Controversies That Text say They The Holy Ghost will teach you all Truth may be Restrained to the Apostles only That other The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith may have the Sense They allow of and no more This Promise of our Saviour I will be with you always c. May exclude Infallibility And when They bring the Close of a Point debated to their own Self-seeming it may be They think all safe Wheras 't is most evident that nothing is yet so much as probably concluded For as They say The Sense
you fallible Teachers say but what God hath said in Scripture concerning the fallibility of a whole Christian Church This we wish to hear of before we credit your Talk or Believe for your saying It hath erred de facto CHAP. VIII The new Mode of Sectaries misinterpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion 1. HEre we give you a fourth Reflection consequent to the former Discours which follows upon our Sectaries misinterpretation of Scripture 'T is worth the Readers knowledge and if I mistake not totally Ruin's Protestant Religion Thus it is The whole Machin of Protestancy as Protestancy stands Protestancy stands topling on negatives topling upon supposed Objective Negatives built up by Fancy only without so much as one positive proof of Scripture to support it If I evidence not this Truth and consequently do not convince That our Sectaries have no Faith Deny me credit Hereafter 2. Observe well No sooner do these Sectaries perswade Themselves That they can Abate the force of our Scripture-proofs for Catholick Doctrin But They How They proceed farther an Negatives presently lay hold on the quite contrary Doctrin And make that an Article of their new Faith They say we prove not a Church infallible Therfore the contrary Position The Church is fallible is with them a certain Truth They say we prove not a third place of Purgatory Therfore the Belief of no Mark Thâ—se Inferences Purgatory is an Article of Protestants Faith We prove not Christs Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist Therfore the Belief of his Not-presence constitutes part of Protestants Doctrin We prove not the Popes Supremacy Ergo They Believe the Contrary c. To show their Nullity of Faith shall we here condescend to what They say And contrary both to Conscience and manifest Truth suppose with them the Proofs for our Doctrins to be proofles Be it so supposed at present Pray you say next What are They able to infer upon such a fals Concession Marry thus much If we prove no Purgatory There is surely no such Place If we prove not the Church Infallible it is certainly Fallible and so of the rest I answer This These Sequels are deeply Nonsense Sequele is Non-sense and a pure Non sequitur We prove not Ergo The contrary Doctrin is true For how many Things are there both Actual and Possible which men prove not and yet are so A young student in Mathematicks cannot perhaps prove that the Sun is greater then a Sieve Is it therfore consequent That that luminous body is not Greater The Proof is naught And here is all that follows One thing then it is in our present Case To say our Proofs Proofs may fall short and yet not fall upon falsities for Catholick Doctrin fall short or are forceles And a quite Other to say they fall upon falsities Ergo no absolute Denial of these Catholick Verities is deducible from our not proving them Yet upon this fals supposed negative foundation We prove not All Protestant Religion stands tottering as it doth 3. Be pleased to hear more of this Stuff Let us also falsly suppose as our Sectaries will have it that These may be objective Truths and Verities No Church is infallible There is no Purgatory c. Doth it follow think ye That they can believe These Negatives Every Truth is not a material Object of Faith with Divine and stedfast Faith upon the Concession That they are now supposed Truths No. It is a lame Consequence and a wors Non sequitur Then the other Observe my Reason No Objective Verity Although supposed True in it self can be believed by A lame Consequence Divine Faith Vnles God hath positively Revealed it or is at least clearly Deducible from Scripture So Sectaries Assert and upon this ground That Divine Faith besides Truths revealed by God are Objects of Faith a Material Object Believable requires also and this essentially the weight of a Formal Object which is Gods Veracity to reveal that which is believed by Faith Seclude this Veracity from the Motive and Formal object of our Assent Though we yeild to a thousand Verities not one of them can be believed by Faith 4. Now I Assume But the fallibility of Christs whole Church The not being of Purgatory The not Existency That there is no Purgatory no Real Presence c. is no where Reveal'd by God of Christ Body in the Sacred Eucharist and so of the rest Are no where positively revealed by God no nor clearly deduced from any Text in Scripture Ergo Although these were Truths in themselves yet they are not revealed Truths or Truths spoken by Almighty God Therfore they are insufficient to found Divine Faith The Major is granted by Protestants The Minor viz That these supposed Truths were Ergo Cannot be Articles of Protestant Faith never spoken by Almighty God in Scripture is so undeniably evident That here I am forced to chalenge Sectaries to produce so much as one Text wherin God hath Positively said There is no Purgatory No real Presence c. This they cannot do by so much as by a probable Deduction from Scripture much les by plain Scripture it self The Conclusion An Evident Conclusion against Sectaries therfore follows evidently They Believe not what God hath Revealed and consequently want Faith in the Articles they Assent to as Protestants Nay I say more They cannot Assent to These Articles as evident Truths For no received Principle either in Nature or Grace can evidence so much as the supposed objective Verity of These Doctrins Shall I yet add a word and say That no Proof grounded upon weighty moral Reason can evidence these negative Assertions to be Truths morally known Therfore though hitherto we have supposed them to pass for Verities yet in real earnest They are unproved and no other But the weak Thoughts of our Adversaries strong Fancy Now here If I mistake not You se Ruin enough of Protestant Religion And the Ruin of Protestant Religion as Protestancy which stand's upon a Fancied Opinion only and not upon what God hath Revealed in his Sacred Word No nor can probably be made known by any received Principle 5. To conclude this point I Argue thus These Negative Articles No purgatory No Church infallible c. Are either essential Pieces of Protestant Religion or not If not There is no such thing as Protestant Religion in the world For the Reformed part of it is wholy An unanswerable Dilemma made up of such Negatives No Purgatory No Transubstantiation No unbloody Sacrifice No Praying to Saints No Church infallible c. Cast then these and the like away Protestancy dwingles to nothing Now if on the other side They hold these as Articles of Protestancy And say They ought to be believed by Divine Faith They are obliged to shew which is utterly impossible that God hath Positively revealed them in Scripture Therfore I say Though we Admit of such Negatives as Objective
of Truth Reside in the late and hardly yet well known Congregation of Protestants Doth he Teach and Interpret Scripture by this Society The Spirit resides noâ— in Protestants of men No Most certainly no For that Society wherin This All-knowing Spirit Presides as Master is Taught infallibly Those He instructs to Interpret Scripture Both Teach and Interpret Infallibly For Truth it self can make none his Instruments and Interpret by them either falsly or fallibly But Protestants Because They profess to be Fallible profess themselves to be Fallible in what ever they Teach and interpret Therfore they ioyntly own themselves to be No Teaching or interpreting Instruments of the Holy Ghost Observe well the Reason This blessed Spirit when it learn's a whole Church what it is to Believe cannot but Interpret Infallibly by those He Teaches to interpret Our Sectaries deny this Grace of Interpreting infallibly to All Societies of Christians The Reason is convincing Therfore they deny it to Themselves For they are amongst These All And in doing so They Divorce their little Company from the Infallible interpreting Spirit of the Holy Ghost Consequently This Spirit leaves them For 't is most evident He Interprets not by such or for such as deny and Abjure his Infallible Interpretation God forbid may Sectaries Reply we Abjure it not But only modestly say We cannot Teach infallibly as he Interprets in our Harts No. To what purpose then doth this Divine Spirit lay up his infallible learning in your Harts if you can never utter it or Teach others after your Instructions secretly received as this Spirit speak's in you infallibly Here is Light indeed closely hid under a Bushel unseen by All Beneficial to None This short Discours can Protestants discover Sophistry in it let them speak totally Evert's their private Spirit And evidences That their Interpretation of Scripture finally comes to no more But to a Fallacy or a self-imagined Fancy All I would say here is summoned up in these few words Protestants confess that they neither Teach nor can Interpret Scripture infallibly Therfore by their own Confession They aro neither Oracles nor Instruments nor Interpreters of the Holy Ghost who Teaches and Interprets by none when â—e delivers Doctrin for a whole Church But by such as do it Infallibly Hence 9. I say 4. One only Society of Christians There is Hell One only Siciety that Teaches Infallibly gates shall not prevail against it or seduce it by Error which Teaches and interprets the Word of God Infallibly This one Dove is Chast This one Spouse is Loyal This one Oracle is Infallible He that Hear 's it hear's Christ He whâ— slight's it slight's Christ and draw's upon him the Malediction of a Separated Heathen and Publican Matt. 18. 17. Si Ecclesiam non audierit c. You do I know prevent my meaning For by this Spouse and Oracle I understand no other But that long standing Ancient Holy and Catholick Roman Church which Which is the Roman Church ever taught the World in foregoing Ages before our Sectaries seâ— footing in it Beside this faithful Oracle I do demonstrate in the 1. Chap. of the next Discours There never was is or shall be any thing like a Catholick Holy Church Now as it is Ecclesia Docens a Church Teaching and consists of Prelates united with one Head Directed by the Holy Ghost it Teaches and interprett Scripture infallibly As it is Ecclesia Discens or the Church Learning it receives and by virtue of the same blessed Spirit both Instruction and Interpretation infallibly 10. The Truth of my Assertion stand's firm upon the undeniable Grounds already laid no less well proved then presupposed Here is the summe of All. A summary of the precedent proofs The wise Providence of God hath left Sufficient means wherby we may know exactly the Sense of his Scripture in matters concerning Saluation whilst Learned men of different Sects are at endles Debates about this Sense and persist most obstinatly in what they have once laid hold on God therfore most assuredly will not have us run on thus in jarr's to the worlds end and conclude nothing There is means then of a Reconciliation afforded if we please But that 's not Scripture alone which cannot interpret it self but lyes still in that ancient darknes as it was first writ nor can it be mans Private Iudgement for that is both Various and Fallible Certainly it is not the Protestants Spirit For this we se changes every year And confessedly is Destitute of the Holy Ghosts Infallible directing Spirit It is no condemned Sect of Ancient Haereicks acknowledged for such both by Catholicks and Protestants Enthusiasm's no man believes Angels interpret not Scripture What then Remains but that we have recours to that One Ancient Holy and Vniversal Roman Church as wel for Instruction as Interpretation By this sole Oracle the Holy Ghost interpret's and teacheth or we must grant which is lamentable that we are turned loos into an inexplicable Labyrinth of Gods deep Secrets revealed in his Word without hope of finding any Exit 11. To prove my Assertion further positively by Scripture and the Authority of Fathers would be both tedious to a Reader and little avail with Sectaries And I wave as much as may be the useles Repetition of so often quoted Authorities who turn of Scripture by far-fetcht Glosses and undervalue Fathers as being fallible Yet while they do so know well enough their own misery at home within their brests which is nothing but a Spirit of Fallibility You find Proofs amply alleged out of Scripture Councils and Fathers to our present matter in our Polemical writers chiefly when they treat of the Iudge of Controversies However one Text though often quoted I will here give you Sectaries may tamper long enough with it before they return a probable Answer 12. The great Apostle of the Gentiles writing to A solid proof from Scripture the Ephesians Cap. 4. after he had warned them of keeping unity in Spirit and Faith also vers 11. Add's And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other Pastors and Doctors c. And why gave he these Teachers The following words Answer For the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the Body of Christ How long are these to continue To the Worlds end until saith Scripture we meet into the unity of Faith and knowledge of the Son of God c. What intention had God in establishing These Apostles Evangelists and Pastors in his Church That now we be not Children fluctuating and carried away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is turned about with every wind of Doctrin in the wickednes of men in craftines to the circumvention of error Thus the Hierarchy The Hierarchy of the Church that Teaches of Christs Teaching Church is constituted And by no other then Truth it self Now I say No Society of Christians
no Truth in that Article of Our Creed I Believe the Holy Catholick Church To Evidence further what I now Asserâ— Do no more But Forget as it were or cast out of your mind all Thought of Roman Catholicks from Luther upward to the fourth Age. Then Look About you And Consider Exclude the Roman Catholick Church Haereticks only remain well the Remainder of other Christians For that Vast Interval of Time You will find none but Professed Haereticks Schismaticks or Both as Arians Nestorians Pelagians and such a like Rabble of men Again Forget these as much as if They had never Been And only Think of the Roman Catholick Church Diffused the whole World over continued Age after Age Will you not have a Holy and Vniversal Church Presented Exclude Haereticks you yet have a glorious Church to your Thoughts Yea most assuredly And a Glorious Church too It is therfore Evident That the Roman Catholick Society was not only Necessary to make Vp the Church But was Moreover the Sole and only Essential Church of Christ as I have already Proved CHAP. III. The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is Vnreasonable if Faith in Christ Only Suffice for Saluation A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary 1. I Must Needs have a Word more with our Adversaries upon this Subject and Note That if a General Belief in Christs Sacred Person Office and Dignity be Saving Faith enough for a Christian which some endeavour to Prove by that Text of St. Iohn 20. 31. And these Things are written That ye might Believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God And that believing ye might have life in his Name If such a General Faith I say makes us all as well Catholicks as Christians without more Our Protestants need not to storm at us as They do for want of True Faith For we Catholicks Agree and Believe in Christ God and Man as firmly as They do And in this one Article only may we credit them All Necessary Essentials of Christian Faith are included It is true Catholicks say a more Explicit Faith is required as I shall presently Declare But Protestants who do not May rest Protestants slight work about things not Essentials contented And withall confess That the great Coyle They have kept in Reforming Catholick Doctrin comes to no more But to a slight Pidling about Non-Essentials which for ought is yet known Hath done more hurt then good And made Things wors then They May have don more hurt then Good were Before 2. To Drive the Difficulty home I Ask seriously Whether any one Article Peculiar to this Religion as If Protestants hold their particular Doctrin necessary to Salvation other Hareticks will pretend the like Protestancy That is beside the General Belief in Christ and owning Scripture c. Be necessary to Saluation If yes Then will Arians Pelagians Donatists and other Sectaries say also what they hold Particular is also Necessary And Therfore Doctrin Above or Beyond the Belief in Christ or not Vniversal is of like Necessity If Protestants answer No or Assert that nothing Particularly held by them because not Vniversal Catholick Doctrin implyes this And if not two strange Sâ—quâ—ls undeniably follow Necessity But a Belief in Christ only Two rhings follow The One is as I have now Noted That without Fruit at all They have made a shamfull stir with their Schism in Blustering all this while about non-Essentials and petty Differences which may be Believed or Not without Danger of loosing Saluation 2. It follows That as Protestants here Acknowledge a Church so Vniversal wherin all may be Saved that Believe in Christ in like manner Any one and upon as good Reason May make it Wider and allow Saluation A large Church must be allowed of by Protestants to all whether Iews or Turks that Believe in God only without Explicit Faith in Christ Vnus Deus Vna Fides Therfore in Place of Christs Church we may have a Gods Church more large and ample erected in the world 3. You will say Scripture is most Evident for a Belief in Christ Might a Defender of the now large Imagined Church which affords Salvation to all that Believe in God Answer He would tell you That the Explicit Belief in God implyes some kind of Implicite Belief in Christ And that is enough which He is ready to Make good when you have proved your Abstract Faith in Christs Sacred Person to be Sufficient to Salvation A better Answer is Scripture most Certainly Obligeth us to Believe in Christ Explicitly But doth it leave of there and not joyntly oblige us to More necessary to Salvation then Belief in Christ only Believe other Articles also Explicitly when they are plain in Scripture And sufficiently proposed Such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist c. Can we therfore after we Own these Truths Delivered in Gods Word hope for Salvation without an explicit Belief of them If so St. Iohn c. 6. 53. saith not True Vnles ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you Surely we cannot do this like Christians Unles we believe it The Belief of Sacraments necessary If no The Belief of these Sacraments constitute the Essentials of Saving Faith and so doth also the Belief of much Moral Doctrin set down in Scripture Read what St. Paul Writes Cor. 1. 6. 9. concerning the Vnrighteous Idolaters and Fornicators c. And tell me if you Own Gods Word whether the Apostle doth And of other Moral Doctrin not Disinherit all Vnbelievers of his Doctrin Therfore something more is Necessary for Christians united in one Faith to Assent to Then only to Believe in Christ 4. The true Fundamental Ground of my Assertion is This. What ever God Speaks in Scripture who never spake Idle word whether the Matter may seem to our weak Capacities little or great is after a Sufficient Proposal of the same Weight and Authority To Believe rherfore in Christs is a Fundamental Article and in one Sence Known to every One most Fundamental But to Reject or Abstract from His other Verities Revealed in Scripture or to make les Reckoning of them Becaus they Appear little to us is to Affront God And Tell him That we will Believe him so far as we pleas But no farther Wheras on the contrary side he Assures us That his Word is equally engaged in all He Saith And All Truths in Scripture are of equal Authority that his Eternal Truths whether little or great are not to be Valued of by what is spoken But by the certain Authority of him that Speak's them Hence Divins Assert and most Truely That no man can Believe so much as one Article of Christian Faith upon the Motive of Gods Revealed Testimony unles He readily Embrace All other alike as equally Proposed upon the same Authority For where we have the Same Motive we must yeild the Same
Assent and with like The Center of Faith Reverence Upon this Motive of Gods Revealing Word True Christian Faith Relies Mille Clypei pendent ex eâ omnis armatura fortium Here they meet together Concentred as it were in This One Vndeceived and Vndeceiving Verity Do I therfore Believe Christ to be We Believe all â—like upon Gods Word the True Messias Becaus God saith it I must also Believe Baptism the Eucharist and other Revealed Truths when after a sufficient Proposal I know That the same God Speak's Them For if his Word Prevail with me to Credit him in the one It is as Powerful and pressing to force as I may say Faith from me in the Other A further Reason is Because a Another Reason right Act of Faith setled on this Motive is a Virtual and Implicit Belief not of one Article But of all other which the Motive Own 's or Vphold's You se therfore none can truly Believe in Christ who Denies the least Verity Sufficiently proposed that God Reveals For as the True Belief of one Article implyes a Belief of All so Believe all â—â— none at â—â—ll the Denial of One implyes a Denial of all Other And thus Christian Faith consists in INDIVISIBILI And is either Wholy had or Wholy lost which is the True Cause why Protestants have no Faith And must Iumble as They do Why Protestants have no Faith and stagger in their Doctrin concerning fundamental's in Their Doctrin concerning the Essentials of it And finally have never yet discover'd nor shall hereafter if we seclude the Roman Any Thing like a Catholick Church before Luther 5. For These Reasons now alleged Perhaps Some will say That After a Belief in Christ and a General owning of Scripture we must Descend to more Particulars A Reply to little purpose And explicitely Assent to all that Express Scripture plainly Delivers And we will Adhere to the very Words without Dispute If we do so We Admit of all That God clearly Reveal's and Take it upon his Authority without Interpretation Answer Here is a fair Promise of Nothing For Who can tell when Scripture speaks plainly who can Assure us without Dispute when Scripture speak s plainly Both Catholicks and Protestants Dissent in this very Principle Those say it Speak's plainly for the Real Presence of Christs Sacred Body in the Eucharist For Remission of Sins by a Priest The matter still in Dispute For Iustification by Good Works For Extream-Vnction For the Infallibility of the Church c. These Deny all And do what we can to hinder them will upon their own Fancies Force into Gods Word certain violent Glosses which God never Spake You se Therfore That when we Descend to the Particular Expressions of Scripture Concerning the Particular Doctrins of it we are at a stand and cannot go forward For Sectaries will have no Judge on Earth to Appeal to in These Doubts If they say the Ancient A Iudge necessary to determine c. Church shall Judge We are as I told you as Far from Home as Before And as much Differ about the Sentiments of that Church as we do about the Sense of Scripture And thus it ever fall's out Otherwise Controversies are Endles Either we must Drive Controversies Between us to Endles Quarrels or yeild to what our Protestants say or Finally Commiserate their sad Condition Becaus they will not Acquiesce in a Judge upon Earth that as well Ascertain's us of the Meaning as it doth of the very Books of Scripture Without this Judge we may contract to the Worlds End and never be Wiser 6. You se this plainly in that Instance Proposed above out of St. Hierom. For according to plain Scripture if one strike us on the right cheek we must Turn to him the other also We are to Abstain from eating of Blood and Things strangled We are not to have two Coats nor carry Money with us c. None can Deny But that God Speaks These Verities Although they seem light to us Buthow to understand them is to be learned from some Infallible Interpreter of Scripture which Scripture obscure when Seemingly Clear in Words Protestants Reject when all know that very often where Scripture seem's Clear in Words There it is more deep in Sense and most Obscure CHAP. IV. The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants concerning Fundamentals in Faith are Proved Vnreasonable 1. WE need not here to Discuss too largely This Point of Fundamentals most Learnedly examined by Catholick Writers For if we Reflect well on what is Proved in the precedent Chapter There is enough said to Silence All Adversaries and to satisfy every Rational Mans doubts in This Question 2. We Catholicks Speak plainly and Assert Although an Explicit Belief in God as a Rewarder of Good and a Punisher of Evil yea as some Divines hold of The Catholick Doctrin Christ also After the Promulgation of the Gospel Be Primary Fundamental Points of Faith Becaus Necessitate medij Every one is obliged to Believe Them Explicitly Yet withall we say That the Least Article Revealed by Almighty God when it is Sufficiently Proposed grows to be so far Fundamental That none can Deny or Doubt of it without Damnable Sin And in this Sense there is no Distinction between Points Fundamental and not Fundamental The reason hereof Already given Relies upon this Certain Principle What ever God Reveal's is equally to be believ'd What God Speak's whether the Material Object be little or great After the Charge laid on us to Believe is to be Admitted of with equal Certitude and Reverence For it is not The less or more Weight of Things Revealed That distinguishes Submission to Gods Veracity gives true value to Faith our Faith or makes it less or more Valuable But that which set's the true Price upon it is the Submission we yeild by it to Gods Veracity Now because this Veracity is one and equally the same in what ever is Revealed By consequence we Say That Faith upon the Account of that Submission is equally Good Solid and Valuable This I Note in Opposition to Sectaries Faith not to be measured by the Diversity of Things revealed Who For ought I can yet learn Measure their Faith not so much By the Excellency of the FORMAL OBJECT as by the different Nature of Things Revealed Which Becaus considered in themselves They often vary in worth Protestants Think that the Degrees of their Faith may answerably be less or more various according as the Object requires It is an Errour The Reason For as it is certain That when God Speak's to us The Highest Truth imaginable Speak's so it is as certain That He is to be Heard by us with Highest Respect and Reverence whether the Matter be great or Small 3. What is here said supposeth a Sufficient Proposition of Revealed Verities which without doubt are not equally Clear to all Capacities if we Descend to the Explicit
Peace among you without Reference to your Faith your Church is Essentially Hypocritical which may Believe The English Church is essentially Hypocritical one Thing And must Profess an Other I now say no more having Told you enough to this Sense in another place Though all the Protestants in England do not only Dissent in Iudgement from the owning of These Protestants may curse These Negative Articles and yet besound in Faith Negatives Though they are plain Papists in Hart yea and Interiourly curse and Anathematize all your new Articles if the exteriour Demeanour be fairly good All is Fine They may be still looked on as Blessed Children of your new Negative Church The sequel is undeniable For They may Believe all that Scripture saith And this is Faith enough to Saluation And yet Anathematize your Negatives not at all contained in Scripture And wholy unnecessary to Saluation 11. Yet farther You Protestants Endlesly Talk A hard Question proposed to Sectaries of Reforming us Papists by Scripture Speak once plainly and Tell us How can you go about such a work as to reclaim us by Scripture To a Belief of your Negatives when you have not one Syllable of Gods Word for Them For if you have Scripture They are Superiour Truths Revealed by God and consequently Articles of Faith If you have no Scripture why Preach you fals Doctrin why Teach you that you can draw Vs from our old Faith to your New Negative Religion by plain Scripture No Protestant shall Answer to It cannot be Answered this short Demand 4. You cheat the World when you Offer to Resolve Protestants Faith which is no more Resolvable into Divine Revelation then Arianism Protestants resolving Faith a meer Cheat. is Because you must now confess that God never spake Word of Protestancy as Protestancy in the whole Bible Let therfore the world Iudge whether it be not a pure Cheat to give a Title of the Protestants way of Resolving Faith and then leave that which the Title Promises To talk of Resolving a Faith in Communi which stand's in no need of your Resolution 12. To see this more Evidenced And to end with these meer Nothings of Sectaries Our now Author Tell 's us That the English Church makes no Articles of Faith But such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages yes And are Acknowledged by Rome Protestant Church no more a Church then an Arian c. it self If this be so it is no more an English then a Church of Arians of Pelagians And of all condemned Haereticks For this man would say That a Faith common to All called Christians without Believing more is the English Faith and Sufficient to acquire Heaven Mark the Proposition And ask first what is now become of the The Arian and English Faith agree in Doctrin common to all Christians Protestants way of Resolving Protestants Faith Next and most justly call it a meer Fancy A new coyned Haeresy contrary to the whole Christian World For neither Scripture nor Councils nor Fathers nor any particular Orthodox or Haeretical Church much less the consent of the whole Christian World Owned the Belief of that Abstract Doctrin wherin all Haereticks Agree to be sufficient to Salvation A new coyned Haeresy contrary to All. The whole Christian World never yet said to Believe in Christ Abstracting from His Godhead and Two Natures is Sufficient Catholicks hold the Belief of a Sacrifice and Transubstantiation c. Necessary to Salvation And all condemned Haereticks as Arians Monothelits No Haereticks much less Catholicks Ever yet defended what our Sectaries here vent upon Fancy only and Others as firmly Adhere to their Particular Haeresies as to the Abstract Doctrin of all Christians Otherwise they had been wors then mad to have Abandoned an Ancient Church for a few supposed Inferiour Truths which neither can Vncatholick any if the common Doctrin of all Christians be enough nor make Them in Reaelity wors or better Christians And here by the way you se the Hideous sin of Sectaries who meerly for a Company of Inferiour Truths if yet They were Truths have shamefully Deserted The true Mother Church that made Their Progenitours The sin of Sectaries who have troubled â— the world for a company of supposed Inferiour Truths to be Christians I say If They were Truths For I utterly Deny the Fals Supposition And therfore press our Adversaries to speak to the Cause That is to come to Proofs and Principles wherby it may Appear That These Negative Doctrins No Sacrifice no Praying for the Dead c. Merit so much as the very name of Inferiour Truths These Negatives cannot be proved even by Their wonted weak way of Arguing Negatively We Read not of a Sacrifice or praying for the Dead For there is no man that Reads Antiquity But he Find's these Doctrins positively Asserted 13. From what is now said These Sequels undeniably follow First that Protestants cannot Resolve Protestants Faith but Fancy The Reason their Faith But into Fancy only For if they make the common Doctrin of all Christians only to be Their sufficient Faith for Saluation and Resolve that into its Principles both Fancy and Haeresy lye at the very Bottom of the Resolution And if they Go about to Resolve Their Negative Articles The whole Analysis the Regress the Reduction of Them will come at last to no other Principle But to the sole Fancy of Sectaries who call them Articles of Faith or Inferiour Truths It followes 2. If the English Church makes The English Church contradicts the whole Christian World no Articles of Faith But such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages Excluding others It doth not only Contradict the whole Christian World whose particular Communities owned the Belief of more Doctrin necessary But hath neither And Therfore hath no Faith at all Faith of those Abstract Articles now Believed nor any Faith at all Sufficient to Saluation as is largely proved in the 2. Chap. If Finally to Assoil These Difficulties Sectaries will Restrain that Ample Term of the whole Christian World to their imagined Catholick Church in the Ayr They are to specify the Particular Societies of this vast Church And when that 's Don They will find no Abstract Doctrin common to There never had been Haeresy in the world might Faith common to all be sufficient to Saluation all Christians Admitted of By any Sufficient to gain Heaven For were this true There had never been Haereticks or Schismaticks in the World whilst Christ only Though his Divinity be denyed is owned in a general Way Wherof more in the 3. Chap. 14. Here I 'll only propose one Question to our Adversaries When they positively Teach That that which our Saviour gave his Apostles in his last Supper and Priests now consecrate Dayly was and is no more But a Sign a Figure only of Christs Body My Question
I say is Whether Their Positive owning of a Sign or Figure only Be an Article of their Faith or no more But One of their Inferiour supposed Truths If this later They never Had nor can have any determinate A Dilemma that cannot be answered Faith of this Sacred Mystery which yet God hath most certainly Revealed unto us in Holy Scripture And consequently They believe nothing of the Blessed Sacrament by Divine Faith For Inferiour Truths are no Articles Inferiour Truths are not Articles of Faith of Belief with Them Contrarywise if They say the Belief of a Sign or Figure only is one of their Articles of Faith And the Thing Believed an Object of Faith They must certainly eat their own Words and confess That the English Church makes new Articles of Faith And such as never Had the Approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it Self For the whole Christian World of all Ages never Believed so Some perhaps will Answer They Believe in General Christs own Words Some Sectaries believe they know not what to be true Though They know not well what he meant when he said This is my Body Answer If they know not what he spoke why do They charge Idolatry on us By the force of their Inferiour supposed Their inconsequences Truths for Adoring Christ in the Sacrament I am sure Arius of old was an Haeretick For Denying the High Godhead of our Saviour upon the Vncertainty of his supposed Superiour Truths And Sectaries are now in a wors They are in a wors Condition Then Arians Case whilst they contradict all Orthodox Churches in the Belief of this Sacrament And make us Idolaters Meerly upon the Vncertainty of their imagined Inferiour Truths 15. Another Proposition is Thus. Nothing ought to be imposed as a necessarij Article of Faith to be believed by all but what may be evidently propounded to all Persons as a Thing which God did require the explicite belief of Observe the Vnexplicated words Evidently Propounded to all Persons Who must propound these Articles of Faith Must God Angels or mens private Fancies Do it No. The Oracle of Truth Christs own Christ Church Can only propose Faith unto us Church find it where you can is both to Propose Faith to us and to Decide all Difficulties when they Arise among us as is Already Proved Submit to This and all Controversies are Ended Here is also another loos Proposition Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of Another Proposition too General and insignificant all Ages Sr say you plainly where this Catholick Church was in all Ages and tell us exactly How many Articles it Held Necessary and sufficient to Salvation And we shall Drive you out of your Generalities which Prove just nothing To a more open and Plain They run on in General 's Doctrin wherof you are as much afraid as the Divel of Holy water We know not what you mean by the Catholick Church 16. Well But the next Assertion will clear all It is sufficient Evidence that was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith which was not admitted into the Ancient Creeds Pray you prove This sufficient Evidence by a clear Principle Vpon what Ground doth the The Belief of the Creed not Sufficient c. Assertion stand Distinct from your own Fancy The Baptizing of Infants The Admitting of so many Books for the exact Canon of Scripture The Belief all ought to have of the Holy Eucharist Are not Explicitly set down in Necessary Particulars not Expresses in the Creed the Ancient Creeds Therfore we must have Recours to the Catholick Church both for the Faith of these And many other Articles But we have said enough of this Subject 17. You go on Nothing ought to be judged a necessary Article of Faith but what was universally believed by the Catholick Church to be delivered as such by Christ and his Apostles Sr Before this Proposition be cleared you These Authors say not what is meant by These dark Terms Believed by the Catholick Church are to Declare what you Mean by those Terms Believed by the Catholick Church For if Rightly Suppose There was never any True Church But the Roman Catholick only continued Age after Age And upon This Supposition Reply which is easy to your Assertion and the Ten following Points You 'l say I mistake your Meaning concerning the very Notion of that Church which your Fancy makes Catholick And if I licence you to Enlarge The Catholick Church as far as you Pleas or To comprise in it All who have had the Name of Christians Though otherwise known Haereticks your Proposition to us is de Subjecto non supponente of a Subject not Supposable And the annexed Points are highly Impertinent They are to specify what and where This Catholick Church is Name Therfore Exactly The Catholick Church upon grounded Principles and all is don 18. After the ending these Negatives They inquire what we ought Positively to Believe as Necessary to Saluation And remit us without any further Proof but their own saying to the Articles of the Ancient A question proposed Creeds This is largely refuted already Next they propose a question Whether any thing which was not Necessary to Saluation may by any Means whatsoever afterwards become Necessary so that the not Believing it Whether The Church Can Define any Thing anew necessary to Salvation so that the not believing of it becomes Damnable becomes Damnable The Question If I mistake not Drives at This To shew that the Church can make no new Definitions of Faith Necessary to Saluation Because all Faith Necessary is Antecedently supposed as it were laid in The very Churches Foundation before it Defines Which Foundations were both Fully and Solidly laid when Christ and his Apostles Taught the World For the Earth was full of his Knowledge He taught his Disciples all things he had heard of his Father The Messias when he came would tell them all things c. Therfore a Church solidly Founded and before it Defines The reason of the Doubt full of Truth can make nothing so Necessary to Saluation by a new superadded Definition that the not Believing of it Becomes Damnable The grounds of Sectaries shewed Null though the Church made new Definitions 19. Before we Answer the Question it will be good to shew you the Nullity of our Adversaries Grounds and the Inconsequences of them Herein lyes the chief strength of all That 's said A Church must be a Church before it can Define and Consequently There must be a Vnion in Belief by which The Church is Constituted in Being Antecedently to its new Definitions Very Good All this in True but makes The Reason Nothing Against the Church though it Define anew I 'll prove it and Explicate my self by one Instance In a Kingdom
old Believed Articles And consequently is lyable to Damnation 24. You se moreover It is not only suitable to Reason But necessary also for the very Preservation of Christian Religion That the Church to whom the Mysteries Necessary For Christian Religion of our Faith were committed Though it makes no new Articles nor Supposeth any other Foundation then what was laid by Christ and his Apostles May yet as That the Church declare more explicitly Necessity requires Declare more Explicitly the Primitive Doctrin of Christianity For by what better Means can we possibly arrive to the Knowledge of Primitive Doctrine those Necessary Truths which the Apostles either Believed or Taught Then by their Heirs and Successors The Successors of the Apostles Teach in the place of Those deceased Masters I mean The vigilant Watchmen who were and Still are substituted in the Place of those First Infallible Deceased Masters They Blessed Men ran up and down the World from Country to Country from House to House Testifying the Faith of our Lord Iesus Christ yet neither committed all the Truths Delivered by them to Holy Writ nor supposed The Apostles writ not all They taught the Ignorant and Vulearned fit Instruments to Teach as They had Taught The Legacies Therfore of our Christian Truths were left in surer Hands I mean Chiefly in the Custody of the Successors of those first great Masters Whence it is That the Deposited Doctrin commended to Timothy Apostle commend's to Timothy more then once the Keeping of a Depositum of mighty Value which the Fathers and none more expresly then Vincentius Lirinensis call the Common Catholick Doctrin Or to speak Talentum Catholicum saith Vinc. Lir. in this worthy Authors words upon the Text 1. Tim. 6. 20. lib. contr prof Hae. Novit Biblioth Patrum Tom. 4. cap. 27. Talentum Catholicum Fidei The Catholick Talent of our Faith Aurum accepistis Add's Vincentius aurum redde Thou O Bishop Pastor and Doctor hast received Gold render as pure Gold again c. What things thou hath learned so Teach Adorn and Illustrate and mark Here a further Declaration of the Deposited A further Declaration of Deposited Doctrin allowed of Doctrin Allowed of ut cum dicas Novè non dicas Nova That when Thou proposest Things anew Thou Teach not new Things but the old Doctrin And hence it also is That the Church of Christ is stiled by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives a Rich Treasury The Church called by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is Kept And not only once Kept and then lost But as a Depositum ought to be it s Handed down from Age to Age from Church to Church Successively continued to the Worlds End If therfore you look for the Apostolical Depositum Leap not I Beseech you over the Heads of all those Christians who have been betwixt Us and the first 3. or The Apostolical Depositum is in the Churches hands 4. Ages As if it were to be found There and no where els But Demand of this present Church now in Being 'T is She that Knows better And Inform's us more exactly of Apostolical Doctrin Then all the lost Writings of the The present Church best inform's us of Apostolical Doctrin Ancient Church could have done or those that are hitherto preserv'd can do Because they are all lyable to endles Disputes and Consequently can absolutely Decide no controversy Now if any one Boggles at this Assertion as if we could not have sufficient Certitude of The most Ancient writings are lyable to Dispute what the Ancient Church Delivered by the Testimony or Tradition of the Present Church But further Requir's Express Records to be Produced of all that was ever Taught Let him correct his Errour and know That what is Carved in Brass or Writ in Velume cannot be more securely Kept then Apostolical Doctrin Deposited in the Hands and writ in the Apostolical Doctrin better preserved in the hands of Christs Pastors thenif't had been carved in Brass Harts of Christs faithful Pastors is now Preserved For what 's in Brass or Partchment Time may wear out and blemish But that which God hath committed to his Church and Chief Pastors therof who are to Teach Christians Age after Age shall never Perish never Pass or be put out of Remembrance And this Doctrin the Church Deliver's more Explicitly in her Definitions chiefly when she Declares Truth against Haereticks CHAP. VII More of this Subject Objections are Answered 1. TO go on with our Discours I would willingly Know when the Apostle Exhort's the Galatians cap. 1. vers 8. 9. Not to Believe an Angel Preaching contrary to what He had Preached and They had formerly Received As also the Thessalonians 2. c. 2. 14. to Hold the Traditions learned by Word or Epistle Whether All that the Apostles Orally taught was neither writ nor can be supposed lost we can Imagin that all the Apostles Orally Delivered was Either Expresly Registred in Scripture or the whole Substance of that Divine Doctrin of equal Certitude with Gods written Word is now Totally lost Neither is Probable The Essentials therfore of that Doctrin laid up sure in the rich Treasury of the The Essentials of it remain in the Churches Treasury Church still Remain with Christs own Faithfull Pastors And this is the Depositum mentioned in Scripture wherby the Church Assisted by the Holy Ghost Regulates Her self when She Defines Therfore great Divines Assert That the Church never Teaches or will Teach any new Verity that was unknown to the Apostles The Doctrin of Divines Se Greg. de Valentia De Fide Disp 1. Quaest 1. Puncto 6. § Illud vero And § Hinc quoque Suarez Disp 2. De Fide Sect. 6. n. 18. Tanner Disp 1. de Fide Quaest 1. Dub. 7. n. 211. 2. St. Paul Methinks confirm's this Doctrin Roman 12. 6. According to the Rule of Faith Wherupon our What is meant by the Analogy of Faith Sectaries Because the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Endlesly talk of the Analogy of Faith Let us bring Words to Sense and Sense to Principles What is This Analogy This Measure or Proportion of Faith Is that which every Mans private Fancy fall's upon to be Faith the Measure and Analogy of it God forbid If so Faith would be as Various as Fancy is Changeable in Haereticks We must therfore find out a better Analogy And if you say it is Scripture I Answer Before the writing of Scripture A perfect Rule of Faith before Scripture was writ There was a true and perfect Rule of Faith Otherwise These words of St. Paul Presupposing the Rule He mentions before he writ This Epistle are insignificant Again When He Tell 's the Thessalonians Epist 1. c. 1. of Their being a Pattern to all that Believed in Macedonia and Achaia Of the Word of our Lord sounded out by them Scripture
proves it in every place Of their Faith Spread abroad c. What Think ye was this not yet written Word of our Lord or the true Analogy of the Thessalonians Faith As well Dilated as Approved of What Finally was that Form of Doctrin commended in the Romans cap. 6. 17 Why Did the Apostle blame the unsetled Galatians for Being so soon Transferred into another Gospel and Denounce Anathema cap. 1. 6. if they believed an Angel Preaching contrary to his former Doctrin All these and many other Passages of Holy Writ manifestly Declare Before the writing of Scripture there was a plat-form of Christian Religion That there was Divine Doctrin Taught by the very Founders of Christianity before the Writing of Scripture There was a Plat-form of Christian Religion made by the very Apostles before they Separated Themselves and began their Preaching to several Nations And to comply with this Rule or Form of Faith Blessed St. Paul Though full of the Holy Ghost went to confer with St. Peter and the rest Gal. 2. 2. Act. 15. 36. Upon it The Apostles Held Councils yea Councils held upon that platform and Scripture writ and as some Grave and Learned Doctors Affirm by the Measure therof the Holy Scriptures were written Se the notes on the Rhems Testament Rom. cap. 12. v. 6. 3. Be it how Sectaries will There was Faith in the World before written Scripture The Apostles who taught it Had their Rule of Doctrin prescribed by a The Apostles had their Rule of Doctrin from a certain Master good Master the Holy Ghost for they Taught not Christian Doctrin upon their own frail Iudgements considered as Men. No they had ever the Guidance and Direction of this Blessed Spirit with them and as His Instruments Delivered so much as this Master according to Christs Promise gave Assistance to and neither more nor less Now those Pious Christians The first pious Christians had their Rule from the Apostles who heard this Apostolical Learning made it most certainly Their Rule Their Measure of Faith Their Analogy and Form of Doctrin Whence I argue This Form or Rule of Oral Doctrin First laid up in the Brests of the Apostles and afterward Delivered to different Nations was neither All set down in Holy Scripture for Volumes would not contain it nor All intierly lost 'T is pitty such a rich Depositum should Perish Therfore it yet Remains somewhere in safe Custody That Doctrin is yet preserved in the Church But no Place is fitter for it then that which the Fathers call Thesaurarium dives the Rich Treasury of the Church where 'T is still Preserved and Those Timothies I mean those Evangelists Those Pastors Those Doctors mentioned Ephes 4. 11. Appointed by Providence to Edify the Mystical Body of Christ The Chief Preservers of this Legacy and Noble Depositum are as Necessity Requires to impart it and make it known to the World by their Definitions Least like Children we be carried away with every Wind of fals Doctrin And The Ground of Tradition herein lyes the very Ground of all Apostolical Tradition This is not mine but the Great Vincentius Lirinensis own Doctrin now cited Where pondering that of the Apostle O Timothy Keep thy Depositum He Asks Quis Est bodie Timotheus nisi vel universa Ecclesia vel specialiter totum corpus Praepositorum c. Who is now or at this The whole Church or Rulers of it preserve this Depositum Day our Timothy But either the Vniversal Church or more specially the Whole Body of those Guides and Rulers set over it that are Themselves to have the intire knowledge of Divine Worship or to infuse it into others c Afterward Quid est hoc Depositum What is this Deposited Doctrin He Answers Id quod tibi creditum est 'T is that which is committed to Thee not that Thou Invent's that which thou hast Received not what Thou hath Fancied of thy own Head It is a thing not of Wit but of Doctrin Non usurpationis propriae not of thy Private Vse Fashion or Practise Sed The Church no Author but Keeper of Divine Doctrin publicae Traditionis But of publick and known Tradition brought to Thee handed to Thee wherof thou art not to be Author sed Custos But a Keeper and Preserver Then he goes on Depositum Custodi Catholicae Fidei Talentum c. 4. And thus you Se we have a Church a Catholik Principles wheron the Church proceed's Talent of Faith committed to it A Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin laid up in its Treasury We have a Moral body of Timothies of Teachers united with one Supream Head and Pastor That Assures us more Explicitly by its Definitions what the Ancient Deposited Doctrin is And Reclaim's us if we swerve from it We have Express Scripture that both A Mystical body of Teachers Gods written and unwritten word Sectaries want all Proves and Approves the Churches Proceeding in Doing so And this Sacred written Word faithfully Interpreted And the unwritten Deposited Word also most Infallibly Proposed is our Form our Rule and perfect Analogy of Faith O Had Sectaries but Half as much For what They boldly Assert contrary to us And because every Man is a Chutch with them They Define more then our Church Defines The Consecrated Host is Bread only a Figure of Christs Body only There are two Sacraments only Works Iustify not but Faith only c. Had I say These men but half Protestants have no Authority for their Definitions so much Authority for their Definitions How would they warble out the Notes of their Novelties But God hath Silenced them For they have neither Church nor Scripture nor Ancient Depositum nor Tradition nor Analogy nor Rule of Faith nor Motives to Make Talk only of a Nullity and an unproved Negative Religion what They Define probable nor Any other Thing to talk of But of a meer Nothing I mean the Nullity of Their unproved Negative Religion 5. What hitherto is said of Catholick Definitions made by Pope and Councils Chiefly Relates to such Matters as have been Anciently without Dispute Revealed yea And believed also Though not perhaps in order One way of Defining to all so Explicitly And this way of Defining some Divines call Propositionem That is a Reproposing of Mysteries formerly Believed whether clearly Deduced Gods unwritten word of equall Authority with his written word out of Gods Word or drawn from undoubted Tradition 'T is the very same For as the Oral Taught Doctrin of the Apostles was and is certain as Doctrin Registred in Scripture so all that really is Gods Vnwritten Word when proposed to us by the Church as such is in Substance of equal Authority and Credit with the Written For it is not the setting down of Truths in Velume or Partchment that Add's more Weight to them or makes them higher Verities And here by the way I cannot but Reflect on the
Errors by pure Scripture Venture probably on such a VVork when you bave not so much as one VVord of Scripture that inables you to Advance a Proof against us Relying on these Grounds and firm Principles 15. We easily Solve another trivial Objection of Another objection solved of Scripture containing all Things Necessary Sectaries which is Scripture contains all Things Necessary to Saluation Therfore we need no new Definitions made by the Church I might say much less do we Stand in need of Protestants new Declarations forced on Scripture without a Church But y'le Answer in a Word Though Scripture contained all the Oral taught Apostolical Doctrin and what ever els is Necessary to Saluation which is Fals yet when we se with our Eyes that Sacred Book pittifully Abused by Haereticks not only Haereticks make Scripture useles in lesser Matters as They account of Them But in the very Highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith it must needs be a useles Book in Their Hands without an Infallible Interpreter And therfore cannot Decide Controversies nor Tell us what is Necessary to Saluation as I have largely proved Disc 2. Nay farther Some may justly Question It may be doubted whether an Angel could write a Book so plain of other High Mysteries which the vulgar would not misunderstand Whether if a very Angel writ a Book as full of other High Mysteries yet unknown to the World as the Bible now Contains And used his best Skill to Express Those Vertties in the most Clear and significant Language Imaginable Some I say may Doubt whether such a Written Book left only to the Private judgements of Those whole Multitudes who now read Scripture would not be misunderstood in a hundred Passages if no After Teacher Regulated the weak Readers of it in Their Difficulties or did not comply with the Duty of an Infallible Interpreter Therfore the Bible which is now Extant And contains the High Mysteries of our Faith often less clearly expressed much more need 's an Interpreter And perhaps the wise Providence of God would have it writ so on set Purpose that Christians should have Recours to a Living Oracle of Truth and Learn of it what They cannot Reach to by their own simple Reading You Church Doctrin is repeated again and Again None can be ignorant of it will say an Angel can write a Book as clear to all Capacities as the Churches Definitions are Very True What then That Book only once writ is left as we now Suppose to the Sentiments of private Ignorant Men as the Bible now is in Their Hands But God hath provided that the Churches Doctrin be not only once Delivered No. It is Laid forth anew it is implanted anew it is repeated and cast like good seed Again and Again into mens Harts and Memories by Faithful Pastors and Teachers who shall never fail the Church to the End of the World 16. A third objection The Churches Definitions Because Men declare them and all Men are Lyars cannot be Infallible and Therfore Ground no Faith Contra 1. Ergo Neither Sectaries Novelties Nor the General Doctrin A cleur Conviction of Sectaries owned by all Christians of one God and one Christ Becaus men Teach them And all are Lyars may yet be Fallible and Fals also Grant or Deny the Sequel you are Silenced Contra 2. If All are Fallible and consequently may be Lyars in what they Teach why Vent you my good Friends So many Negative Doctrins which may all be fals Truely if There be no Infallibility in the World you neither ought to Vapor as you do with your Inferiour Negatives not Blame our They Condemn Themselves whilst their Censure is Fallible Contrary Positives For in Doing so You condemn your own Iudgement and Advance no Proof against us Your Fallible Censure were our Church Fallible Goes not one Step above a tottering Fallibility And therfore is too faint to Oppose the Churches contrary Doctrin Though falfly Supposed Fallible Mark well I Our Churches Doctrin Though supposed fallible is as Good as Sectaries Confessed Fatliâ—â—e Doctrin must say it once more You Fallible men tell me That my Churches Doctrin is Fallible Admit of the Fals Supposition it is yet upon all Accounts as Good as yours or as This very fallible Affirmation is That says it's Fallible And if in real Truth it be Infallible it is much Better 17. One word more If Any People on Earth ought to stand for the Infallibility of a new Invented Religion The Abetters of Protestancy could they Proceed consequently should Do it Why They Deprive Men of their Estates cast them into Prison Bannish some Hang up Why Sectaries persecute Catholicks while Iewes are tolerated others And All this is Don Becaus poor Catholicks cannot in Conscience conform to a Religion that is Professedly Fallible and Vncertain Now if such Crueltly can be practized on Christians whilst Iewes And the worst of Haereticks are Tolerated to live quietly For a Thing that 's only Fallible and may as well be Fals as True we are The Reason is because we cannot believe a Religion That may be as likely Falsas True surely at an End of all good Discours grounded on Christian Principles What To Bannish us to Confiscate Mens Estates To Shed our Blood For a Religion That may be Fals when we Believe our Creed And Profess as much as these newer Sectaries make Essential to any Religion of Christians is to speak moderately an unheard of Severity Yet so it is They Do not Harrass us as they do Because we Believe in one God and one Christ or own a Doctrin common to all Christians For themselves Believe so much But Here is our supposed Mark well our supposed Crime Crime We cannot Assent to a Religion that may be Fals we cannot Subscribe to a Company of new Negative Nothings And Therfore we are lashed and Persecuted Nay and I 'll tell you a Wonder our Guilt goes not so High A wonder never enough to be admired For though we were in our very Harts Arians or As we are Catholicks yet if in the Exteriour we do as Sectaries do we are still lovely Children of the Church of England Learn Therfore this Truth it is Vndeniable All the Storms of Persecution Raised against us Are not upon any In real Truth we are persecuted because we will not be plain Hypocrits Account of want of True Faith But for this Sole Reason That we will not Believe one Thing and Force our Consciences to Profess an Other Which is to say We are Handled thus roughly Because we will not Dissemble with God and Man and become plain Hypocrits Herein only Lies our Trespas Iustus es Domine recta Iudicia tua Iudge you my God whether that no-offence Merit 's These Scourges 18. By what is now said You may easily Perceive That when Sectaries seemingly Bemoan our Blindnes God knows how much of The Grief lies at their
Sectaries Negative way of Arguing out of Fashion like an old cast Garment no less out of Fashion Then quite worn out to nothing When this Controversy is Ended by Close Proofs and Principles without wandring into long dark Discourses We on our part are Ready to Engage in Any Other as shall best like our Adversaries And will Endeavour to make this Great Truth known to the world That Sectaries are as Vnfortunate in Proving their Own As unlucky in Opposing our Catholick Doctrin 4. Beside what is said Here is another Proof that A further proof of Sectaries not proving showes They can convince nothing unles Hereafter They manage Their Cause better then is Don Hitherto In All Debated Controversies We Have no more But our Adversaries Objections And the Catholick Answers The evidence of our Errours cannot Appear in our Answers For These All along gâ—â—on in Clearing us from Their Cavils Neither can the Evidence Arise like a Beam of light out of the Objections of Protestants Vnles They lustily Vainquish us with a Demonstration in good Form Supported by an owned Principle and Force us and other Intelligent Persons to Acknowledge That these Objections are plain Convictions of our Errours wherof there is no great Danger for We Catholicks Profess And say it with all candor That we look on These Objections against us as Slight Trivial While we return a Rational Answer Their Arguments Recede from all likelyhood of Evidence Defeated and worn-out to Nothing Be it how you will They cannot be Supposed owned Principles Between us Vnles we are mad And Grant That what our Protestants Vent and Vote against us is Vnanswerable As long Therfore as we give a Rational Reply to Their Arguments And let us have an Indifferent Judge to Decide the Controversy whether our Answers be Rational or no so long Their Objections will Recede From Evidence And Loos the Force of clear Demonstrations Against us Yet Their Schism is Evident That cannot be Denied 5. They may say first This Recours to a Judge is only a Put Of And makes Controversies endles Becaus If a Iudge be rejected Controversies are Endles They Acknowledge none But Themselves And I Answer This want of a Judge makes Controversies endles For seclude a Judge we may wrangle to the Worlds end and Stand still at as great a Remove from composing Strifs as we were when we began Them Pray you what do They think That without a Judge or clear Evidence which needs no Judge we must submit to their wordy Objections as if Oracles Pronounced Them when They Acknowledge Themselves both Fallible and Erring men in all they say No certainly Hitherto Therfore We have no Evidence yet Their Schism is Evident Remember That 6. They may Reply Again It is Plain Perversnes in us not to se the Evidence of Their Arguments Against our Errours Pittiful I Retort the Argument And Tell them It is wors then Perversnes in Them to Sectaries suppose what is to be proved make That Evident which Hath not so much as Probability in it Alas To Talk thus is Scholding no Schollership a Clamor no Close Disputing Be pleased to Put your Arguments in Form Unles This be don it is but Vain to Suppose Evidences which cannot be Proved Yet your Schism is Evident 7. They may thirdly Reply Their Objections against The self-seeming of Sectaries no Proof our Errours seem at least Evident to Them Observe a Strenuous Proof We urge to have Arguments against our Errours Reduced to Vndubitable Principles And here They give in Their own Self-seeming which is Fancy and True Evidence hath force with all Nothing like a Received Principle I say therfore They have No Evidence For This Works upon all mens intellectual Faculties alike And equally Necessitat's Them to Assent It is true The Perversnes of mans will may either make him to cry up That For evident which is not Or To Deny That to be Evident which is But it never makes him not to se what is clearly Discernable by its own manifest Light Thus then it is Neither we Catholicks Neither Catholicks nor Others Ever saw any thing like Evidence in the Arguments of Protestants nor the rest of the Christian World ever yet saw any Thing like Evidence in those Arguments of Protestants Why Therfore should we take Their word For it Or Believe that They have better Intellectual Eyes then Their Neighbours Alas if an Arian would lay Claim to such an Evidence For his Heresy He might do it upon Fancy and every whit as Groundedly as Protestants No Evidence is yet seen But the Schism is Evident 8. They may fourthly Reply Though they have no expres Definitions of Councils or Unanimous consent of Fathers Assertive of our Churches Errours Becaus all of them Sided with Rome and were no little Flatterers of that Sea Yet They Cite Scripture Against us which is a Principle owned by all Answ So do Arians Also and to as little Purpose But ad rem Produce plain Scripture without your own unevidentced Their Arguing from Scripture is Forceles Against us Glosses which we Reject as Extra-scriptural And put your Arguments grounded on Scripture in good Form You Shall se All in the First or Second Syllogism Decaied Faint Forceles And out of all Fashion of an Argument For Example you have not one Syllable in Scripture Against our Doctrin of Transubstantiation or Purgatory or any other controverted Point Therfore Arguments built on Scripture must needs fail you All you can Allege is That the Word Purgatory or Transubstantiation is not in Scripture And you know no more is the Word Trinity and Consubstantial O But the Reality is not in Gods Word How prove Their Negative way of Arguing Proofles you that in Form We Deny it But Admit it be not your Proof is Poorly Negative and without legs runn's Thus What Scripture Expresly contains not is an Errour Scripture Expresly contains not Transubstantiation Ergo it is an Errour We Deny the Major and give you Twenty Instances to blunt and Dead the Force of it Go on Therfore to prove That yet Vnproved Major It is Impossible Here you will have Them Sectaries are urged to Dispute in Form at a Stand They cannot Advance However Grant They Offer at it Our Answers still closely Follow Them And Enervate Their Proofs as They are Driven on in the Cours of Arguing Believe it They Shall be sooner out in Arguing Then we in Answering And to Shew you That I do not vainly Vaunt in Saying Thus much Let it Pleas our Adversaries And to bring Their Proofs to an Vndeniable Principle to come to a just Trial of Disputing in Form upon this particular Matter of Transubstantiation or of any other where They Think to have most Advantage And Press on us Proof after Proof Till at last They bring us to a Propositio quiescens That is to an Intellectual Light which by its own Clarity Evidenceth it self Solid not
Nor Protestants of Their Schism on us are Vnequitable and Grievous We therfore who Rebel will sit upon the Bench and Iudge so The Kingdom Believe it is to Decide in such Cases and not the The Church is to Iudge in this Cause of Schism Rebel's And so the Church is to Judge you As it did the Arians And not you The Church Your Complaint of unequitable Conditions imposed on you is only an Unproved Fancy begot in your Non-age when you never Heard good Word of Rome Passion still foment's it Sophistry Advanceth it but All will not Do. Most truely That Talk of unjust Conditions The Plea of unjust Conditions only a Mask of an injustifiable Schism is Meerly a mask to Cover an Unjustifiable Schism a Pretense to Defend what cannot be Defended Pull the Visard of which is don by putting you to the Proof of your Talk and the Proposition Appears in its own Likenes Ugly and Deformed 4. The fourth Proposition Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture Reason and Tradition That such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion The not communicating with that Society which requires those things cannot incurr the guilt of Schism Here wants a Minor which I shall supply with a contradictory Proposition thus But there is no sufficient Evidence from Scripture Reason and Tradition That such Things Imposed on Protestants by the Church of Rome are Vnreasonable Conditions of Christian Communion Therfore Protestants not A General task of unreasonable conditions Proofles Communicating with that Ancient Society which justly requires those Things cannot but make them Guilty of Schism Who must now judge between us Or Finally say whether that Major or This contrary Minor carries the greater weight of Truth with it The first is What Sectaries say in this Proposition Any Heretick may Assert and as probably only a Supposed and an unproved Assertion That both Arians and all condemned Hereticks may vent against us The Minor is Grounded upon the acknowledged Ancient Purity of our Church Which Vnles clear Evidence Overtrow it cannot but Defend it self as strongly Against such Calumnies upon its own Prepossessed Right and Innocency As the best of Kingdoms doth against a company of known Rebels When Therfore These Novellists Pretend to have sufficient Evidence from Scripture Reason and Tradition What Sectaries are Obliged to do by more then Talk only for Vnreasonable Conditions imposed They are Obliged to Descend to Particulars And make the Charge Good by valid Proofs reducible at last to Ovvned and allovved of Principles amongst Christians If this be not Don They may Vapour against our Church as the Iews Do against Christ But shall never Advance so far They make Controversies Endles as to a vveak Probability or make an End of one sole Controversy And mark what Doings we have Here. They vvill have no Iudge on Earth Clear Principles Fail Them in every Controversy And yet we must Hear and only in a General way Of sufficient Evidence Dravvn from Scripture Reason and Tradition Against our Vnreasonable Conditions If there be such Evidence Shew it And let us se the Ovvned Principles wheron it lastly Relies But truely So much Ill luck Follow 's them That Their want of Principles only Causeth Proofles Talk you never find a Controversy solidly handled or brought when They go about to Prove their own Doctrin Positively to any thing like a Proof or Principle And They are as unfortunate when They Oppugn Ours 5. The fifth Proposition By how much the Societies are greater which are agreed in not Communicating with a Church imposing such conditions By how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger By so much Suppositions without Proofs What are these Abuses Who is to reform the more justifiable is the Reformation of any Church from those Abuses and the setling the bonds of Christian Communion without them Here is the Thesis And a Thing like an Hypothesis comes limping After as well as it can Thus. On these grounds the Church of Rome Imposing unlawful conditions of Communion it was Necessary not to communicate with her and on the Church of Englands power to reform it self by assistance of the supream power it was lawful and justifiable not only to redress those Abuses but to settle the Church upon its proper and true Foundations So that the Church of Rome's imposing unlawful conditions of communion is the reason why we They pretend to settle and have no Ground to build on do not communicate with Her and the Church of Englands power to govern and take care of her self is the Reason of our ioyning together in the service of God upon the Principles of our Reformation Did you ever Hear men Vapour much What are these Principles Name one Talk much Suppose much and Prove just nothing Here you have them Observe it We Hear a Noise of Vnlawful imposed Conditions of great Abuses in our Church of the English Churches Power to Redress these Abuses Yet no man Knows nor shall ever know by any solid Proof what these Conditions and Abuses are Much less That a few Protestants have power to Redress Were there Abuses in the Church Protestants have not Principles to redress them them were there any such in the Church wherof more Hereafter 6. At present to Answer the Difficulty I will say two Things The first If the Power Number or Largenes of these pretended Reformers justify Their Reformation it 's more then evident That a Far greater Power Number and Largenes of those who Oppose it makes More Oppose these Sectaries Reformation then approve it it Vnjustifiable Now not only Catholicks But all the Christians in the World Altogether more Powerfull Larger and Learneder then a few Protestants Stifly Oppose this late Reformation as an Heretical and Schismatical Novelty Therfore that little Justification which their own Power and Largenes Gain 's to Protestancy is not only much weakened But made Null by a greater Power that withstands it I say 2. This Proposition is utterly Fals and Becaus Fals cannot be Proved Viz. That by how much Societies are greater It is not true that by how much Sectaries are more Numerous and greater by so much more Their Schism is Iustifiable and their Power larger in Agreeing not to Communicate with an Ancient Church wherin They vvere Baptized By so much more Iustifiable is their Pretented Reformation For the Society of Arians which Agreed in not Communicating with the Church of Rome was more Numerous Greater and Powerful then ever Ptotestants were in England They had their Emperours Their Bishops Their Councils Their Churches and a World of Followers Say therfore I Beseech you did their This Truth is clear in the Arians Number Power or Greatnes Iustify either their Heresy or Schism Or doth the greater Power and Number of Agreeing Rebels in a Kingdom against Their lawful Sovereign Justify that Treason You
of Schism and Heresy THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS THE CHVRCHES EVIDENCE OF THE IMPROBABILITY OF PROTESTANT RELIGION THE FIRST CHAPTER Christs Church is Proved to be no Other But the Roman Catholick Sectaries are Convinced 1. WE have often made a just Exception against Sectaries in the fore-going Discourses A just Exception against Sectaries mare fully laid forth And you Shall have it here Again in plain Language Protestants as They Prove not their own Religion of Protestancy so They never Impugn the Roman Catholick Faith by Rational Arguments at last reducible to Vndoubted Principles Catholicks Contrarywise Make good Their Churches Doctrin by undeniable Principles And by manifest Proofs Evidence the Nullity of Protestants Faith Though both these Assertions are already Demonstrated in the precedent Treatise Yet Becaus of the Weightines of the Matter it will be necessary to Epitomize some Points largely Declared above And bring much to a Clearer view and a more Compendious Form 2. To do this we may Suppose If True Religion God established Religion with intention to have it known not to hide it from us be in the World the wise Providence of God hath made it so Manifest to Reason by force of Rational Motives That All may know it For certainly God never established Religion amongst Christians with Intention to Hide it from Them or to put it out of their Sight if men will follow Reason Proofs therfore for it can no more Fail Then Religion it self Vnles Proofs therfore for it cannot fail an Infinite Goodnes which is impossible obliges us Vnder pain of Damnation to Embrace a Religion which no man after a diligent Search made by all the reason He hath can find out 3. Vpon this Principle let me tell our Protestants Wordy Cavils end no Controversy That They and We are not in so important a matter to mispend our time or to wrangle it out with Words No. Proofs must enter if They Hold their Religion True and ours Fals And so They must also if We say the Contrary Again Neither of us can here proceed as Schoolmen Do when They Oppugn One an Other Solid proofs must sway here and not weak Conjectures and Defend their Different Opinions upon weak and Doubtful Grounds For if the Proofs for Christs Religion be not stronger then Schoolmens often are for meer Vncertain Opinions We may as well and without Offence Reject a weak Proved Religion as we do a weak proved Opinion The Arguments therfore for Religion wheron Saluation Depend's Are to Stand firm upon Vndeniable Principles Or This follows That though God hath most clearly evidenced Religion yet proofs are wanting to make it known And this whilst He will have it Known And manifest to All. Thus much Supposed 4. We will First briefly Touch on a few Arguments for the Roman Catholick Faith which are amply laid forth upon several occasions in this Treatise I cannot A brief Repetition of some few Arguments Repeat All in a short Compendium yet you Shall have Enough to silence Sectaries And Remember VVe speak now of the Antecedent Evidence which clearly shews us Christs True Church and makes it indubitably Credible For no Religion As I noted above is Ex Terminis without convincing Proofs either Evidently Credible True or Fals. 5. I Say then First A Church or Religion which Manifesteth it Self and Proves the Doctrin it Professeth by the same Signs Notes and Characters of Truth wherby the The Roman Catholick Church is Evidenced as The Apostolical or Primitive Church was Apostolical and Primitive Church was Marked and Evidenced is Vndoubtedly True Or if this Proof be not valid we may easily Deny Truth to that Apostolical and Primitive Church Now the only Church in the VVorld thus Marked and Evidenced is no Other but the Roman Catholick Throughout all Ages This Principle is undeniable Deny these Marks and Signs to the Roman Catholick Church you Deny what is Evident Grant them And you Admit of Popery Se Disc 1. c. 9. 10. 6. 2. A Church or Religion which in every Age after Miracles Christs own Marks Evidence the Roman Catholick Church Christ Hath had a most clear Assured and Vndubitable Evidence of Truth which is the Glory of Miracles Christs own Marks and cognisances makes known the Absolute Power of God Cooperating with it And therfore cannot but be True Vnles we Think that his power Alone Divorced as it were from Goodnes Did set his Hand and Seal to meer Forged Signs and wrought these Wonders to Deceive the World But the Roman Catholick Church And She only Clearly Demonstrat's Vnparallelled Miracles not in One But in every Age As is without Controversy Proved by undoubted Records They are undeniable which Truth I engage to make Good if any Doubt of it Therfore either This Church or None is Christs True Church I call Miracles rhe most Forceable and Perswasive Arguments of Truth that can be Proposed All other And above all other Proofs most Convincing Proofs Though clear and Convincing to Disinteressed Iudgements being lyable to Cavils For cite Scripture against Sectaries wilful Misinterpretations Abuse it Produce Fathers and Councils They are either Rejected Other Proofs more lyable to Cavils by these men as Fallible or Drawn to a Sinister Sense as Fancy will have it Tell Them of the Sanctity of our Church They Answer Much of it may be Hypocrisy Insist upon that great Work of Conversions some reply Policy and Humane Industry had a strong hand in Them But when we Come to the Proof of Proofs And plead our Cause by Known and most Evidenced Miracles all Mouths are stopped Envy it self is Silenced And cannot speak a Probable word against us Vnles None can require that All and Every one of this Church work Miracles Perhaps some require and most unreasonably That every One within this Moral body should work Miracles which is meerly to cavil For in the Primitive times All had no such Priviledge It is Therfore sufficient That there be some Chois and Selected Persons Vnited in Faith with this Church to whom God Communicat's the Grace and Do These Wonders Se more of this Subject Disc 1. c. 10. n. 15. 16. 17. 7. 3. A Church which hath Converted whole Kingdoms and Nations from Infidelity to Christ And Drawn Innumerable Admirable Conversions wrought by the Roman Catholick Church as well prove it Orthodox as the Primitive Church Souls from a Tepid life to Pennance and Austerity From the Contents of the World to a Contempt of it From Self-love to a Perfect Self-Abnegation Must either be deservedly named the True Church of Christ Or the Apostolical Church Proved not its Truth by such Admirable and Miraculous Conversions The Church of Rome only Hath by the Assistance of God Don these Wonders Therfore it is the True Church or there was never any true upon Earth Deny these Conversions made by our Catholick Society you Deny what is most Evident Grant Them You
greater Testimony For its Perseverance in Christs Doctrin Then a few blind Guesses of Sectaries can be to the Contrary Which when they are Resolved come to no more but to Calumnies or Strong Fancies Disc 3. c. 9. n. 5. 14. 9. A Church whose Doctrin when you read Antiquity whether Councils Fathers or History you find so undeniably Owned and Vniversally Professed That the man is blind who See's not Popery maintained all along Those learned Volums For example Who see 's not But That a Sacrifice Daily Offered upon the Altar Praying to Saints Prayers for the Dead The Real Presence And the like are Doctrins plainly Delivered by Antiquity Now Such a Church which upon its own Authority also Defend's These Verities 'T is the greatest on Earth cannot be Vainquished by a few weak Cavils of our lately Vnknown and Vnauthorized Sectaries The Principle is Vndeniable Disc 1. c. 6. 15. 10. A Church That hath had Age after Age The both passed and present Witnesses most Learned and Holy a most strong Proof for the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church whole multitudes of Wise Learned and most Holy Professors the Number of them is numberles That without Fright or Fear of any Delusion lived ioyfully and dyed Happily in their Ancient Professed Faith Cannot But upon the very Testimony of these Witnesses so many And so rarely Qualified be Iudged Evidently Credible True Pure and Holy Otherwise we must Say That all These learned men for a thousand years and more were Mad Besotted and Seduced with Fooleries which is so Desperate a Proposition That None shall Dare to Vent it and speak Probably The Roman Catholick Church Alone Produceth such Chois Learned and Continued Witnesses for its Truth No other Sect comes neer it Our Roman Catholick Church shewes that all other Called Christians from Luther to the fourth or fifth Age were both Schismaticks and Hereticks The Roman Church only Demonstrat's with Antiquity a lawfull Mission of Pastors Vnity of Doctrin and a continued Succession of Popes Prelates and innumerable Professors Cavils cannot overturn an Evident Verity One Verity is that God could not permit so Learned a Church as the Roman is to be beguiled with fooleries for so vast a time Another Verity If the Roman Cath. Church be falsly supposed to have Erred Protestants cannot probably say how far or wherin in erred What They are to prove and by solid Principles A Third Verity Christ promised to be with the Church he founded to the End of the world Yet Protestants must say He Stood not to his Word None can Parallel it A most convincing Proof An undeniable Principle Disc 1. c. 6. n. 12. 16. 11. A Church That Evidently Demonstrat's all Other called Christians From Luther Vpward to Have been Schismaticks Hereticks or both is either to be Owned for the true Orthodox Church of Christ or we must Grant That Christ had no True Church on Earth for so long a time of a Thousand Years The Roman Catholick Church Demonstrat's this clearly And it is an Vndeniable Principle Disc 3. c. 1. 17. 12. A Church which Confessedly Demonstrat's its Antiquity Proves its Mission Evidenceth its Vnity in Doctrin And Showes a continued Succession of Popes Prelates Pastors and Innumerable Professors ever since Christianity began without Interruption Hath so great Evidence for the Truth it Teaches That all the Cavils of Sectaries Pretending a change of Doctrin made in this Society are Weak Proofles and Highly improbable The Roman Catholick Church Proves these Particulars Disc 1. c. 9. n. 8. 14. 18. To end I say three Things 1. No Cavils can Evert an Evident Verity But it is an Evident Verity That God essentially Goodnes it self could not Permit so Learned so Numerous so Excellent and Precious a part of Christians as the Roman Pastors and Doctors were from the fifth Age to Luther to be All Beguiled with Fals Doctrin Neither could He Suffer Those Innumerable Christians who were Taught by such Wise and Learned Pastors for a Thousand years to be all Misled by means of Their fals Doctrin or Cheated into Errour This is impossible Vnles we grant which is a Blasphemy That an infinite Goodnes utterly Deserted his Church and Preserved None True on Earth for so long a time 19. 2. This is an undeniable Verity If the Roman Catholick Church erred as Sectaries Assert These men cannot by Their own Discerning Spirit much less by an owned Principle probably say How far or wherin it Erred For example And I urge them to Answer the Difficulty why say They That our Church more Erred in believing the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Then in Believing a Trinity of Persons in one Essence They cannot by any Proof but Fancy only more Espy Errour in the One Then in the Other Therfore whilst They believe a Trinity and other Doctrins Common with This supposed Erring Church and indeed They must hold them on this Churches Authority only or cannot Believe Them They may be as well Plunged into Errour by owning a Trinity as They think this Church is Deceived in Holding the other Mystery of the Sacrament Se these two Points surther explicated Disc 1. c. 6. n. 12. 13. 20. 3. It is an Vndeniable Verity that Christ once Promised to be with the Church He Founded to the end of the World which was the Roman Catholick Church Now Protestants must say that Christ Stood not to his Word For certainly when He made this Promise He well Foresaw That the Roman Catholick Church would if Protestants speak Truth at last about the fifth or sixth Age Become Erroneous and consequently forsake the Good Master that founded it With this Church then Which Abandoned Truth Christ who is Truth Remained not nor with any other Society of Christians for Ten whole Ages Because All these were Professed Hereticks and Christ never Taught Heresy Or assisted Hereticks in their Doctrin Therfore He did not only Promise what he Ner'e Intended to Perform But more even now Glorious as He is in Heaven He Wink's at Yea and now winks at all the supposed errours of his once own Founded Catholick Church Vast Improbabilities these Hideous supposed Errours of his once own founded Catholick Church And Remedies none Poor souls are Beguiled to this Day with the fals Doctrin of that Church which He Established in Truth And Promised to Assist for ever Are These Think ye Probabilities No. They are the most Pernicious Doctrins That ever entred into a Christians Hart or Tongue Expressed 21. If Protestants shall Pleas to make any Exception against these Proofs Give me leave to Assure them first I will not take their bare Word for any Thing They say against us 2. To Fore warn Them of a usual Fallacy And it is That They run not here into tedious Generalities and Talk in the Ayr which only confound's a Reader and leaves him at last as much Dissatisfied as when He first Began to Read And hence I Tell them 3. They
exclamation The Prophets Lesson and the wise Counsel of the son of Syrach the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! Quis cognovit sensum Domini Who hath known the mind of our Lord or who hath been his Counseller Learn well that good Lesson Esay 55. 9. My Thoughts are not your Thoughts for as the Heavens are Exalted above the Earth sâ— are my Wayes Exalted above Yours and my Cogitations above your Cogitations Learn more of JESU the Wise son of Syrach Eccles 33. 15. And Look with Him upon all Teach â—â— to Reverence Gods permission of Evil. the Works of the Highest You se Two against Two and One Against One Against Evil is Good Against Death is Life Against a Iust man is a Sinner And I Add Against Truth you have Heresy S. Austin lib. 11. de Civitate c. 18. Call's S. Austins Discours of Contrarieties in Gods works these Things Râ—rum Antitheta Contrarities in the works of God And moreover Assures us That His Goodnes would never have Created either Men or Angels in whom Evil was Foreseen Nisi pariter nosset quibus eos Bonorum usibus accommodaret unles He had also Known how Useful Subservient and Beneficial I 'll would Prove at last to Vertuous Good Men. Atque ita in ordinem seculorum tanquam pulcherrimum Carmen etiam ex quibusdam quasi Antithetis honestaret And How that in the Cours of Ages He might Commend and set Forth all We Se like a well made Vers with certain Contrarieties Evil graceth virtâ—â— and Errour gives a lustre to Truth Evil Therfore Hath its Good and Gives a Grace to Virtue Errour Add's a Comliness to Truth And the more Ugly Heresy is the More it Sett's forth the Lustre of Christs Orthodox Church And makes it glorious S. Austin confirm's the Doctrin Pictor novit They are Words of S. Austin Serm. De Diversis c. 5. fine ubi ponat nigrum colorem ut sit decora pictura nescit Deus ubi ponat peccatores ut sit ordinata creatura A Painter Knowes well where to lay Darker Colours That his Piece may be Fair to the eye And Shall not God Know where to Place Sinners the like is of Hereticks That His Creatures may Therby Appear And shâ—wâ—s of what use erring men are to the Church Seemly and in Order Yes most Assuredly This great Doctor Saith yet More lib. de Vera Beligione c. 6. Haec enim Catholica Ecclesia per totum orbem validè lateque diffusa omnibus errantibus ad profectus suos ad eorum Correctionem cum Evigilare voluerint c. This Catholick Church so far and neer Diffused makes Benefit of all Poor erring Souls Yea and Doth so for their Amendment when They Shall Please to Awake out of their Drowsines It makes Vse of Gentils to let them Se the Wonders it Works of Hereticks to Prove its Holy Doctrin of Schismaticks to give them a Lesson of better Stability of Iewes to Shevv them the Beauty of Christian Religion c. So it is All the Blindnes in the world saith S. Austin els Were Ad aliquem usum Sanctorum ordinatur is Ordained for some Heresy serviceable to the Church Profit and Service of Gods Elect and Chosen People 8. Conclude therfore As there will be Deluded Souls whether Iewes or Gentils As There will be Sin Oppression and Open Injustice to the End of Ages Sic oportet Haereses esse So there will be Heresies also No wonder that some wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of the Church And Those who Wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of a Glorious Mother Church And wonder not at it For you Know That the Son of God Himself came into the World Et mundus cum non cognovit And the World would not know Him His sacred Doctrin was Preach't All over But Seemed Iudaeis Scandalum Gentibus Stultitia A Scandal to the Iewes and a Foolery When the Son of God was not known to All. to the Gentils What Marvel is it then that His Own Holy Church Be less Regarded by Dispirited Souls and the Doctrin therof set Light by Have Patience Wait on Gods Good Leisure No Hart is so Hard but Grace can Soften it These Dimm Eyes of Deceived Men Will at last be Opened Et videbit omnis caro Salutare Dei And all shall Se and Know That as There is no Other Saviour but One Christ our Lord So There is no other Church but No other Christ but one No other Church but the one only Roman Catholick Church One Wherin Salvation long Sought for can be Found But in the One only Ancient Apostolical Catholick and Holy Roman Church CREDO SANCTAM ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM FINIS THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER THE FIRST DISCOVRS Of an Infallible Church and Infallible Teachers CHAP. I. There are Infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion Page 16. CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrin of Christ Necessarily requires Infallible Teachers 20 CHAP. III. Other Proofs for Teachers and a Church infallible 29 CHAP. IV. Replyes to these Arguments are Answered 36 CHAP. V. A Controversy with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty 49 CHAP. VI. Faith only morally certain is no Faith Protestants have no Moral certainty of Protestant Religion 63 CHAP. VII How Sectaries err in the search made after Religion Of their weak and improbable Opposition The Objection is more fully Answered 70 CHAP. VIII A few Reflections made upon these Motives of Credibility No Religion hath Motives founding moral certainty but One only which is 〈◊〉 Roman Catholick Religion 78 CHAP. IX A short Digression concerning the shufling of Protestants in this matter 88 CHAP. X. Protestants have no rational Motives wherby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as Probable 96 CHAP. XI Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of These declared Motives 114 CHAP. XII Protestants for want of rational Motives cannot convert an Infidel to Christian Faith 119 CHAP XIII Protestancy for want of Rational Motives dishonor's Christ and makes way for any new coyned Heresy 128 THE SECOND DISCOVRS Of Scripture CHAP. I. Scripture is useles if none declare infallibly the sense of it 135 CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 144 CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher 153 CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 162 CHAP. V. The Reason of private men and their private spirit cannot interpret Scripture 169 CHAP. VI. The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture which proves the Churches Infallibility is more Amply Refuted 179 CHAP. VII More of this subject 187 CHAP. VIII The new Mode of Sectaries misinterpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion 195 CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture Truely One
Testimonies of Fathers are as clear for our Catholick Doctrin as the words of the Council of Trent A Parallel of Proofs for and against the Doctrin of the Real Presence The way of Sectaries is chiefly to loos Themselves in proposing difficulties against us without casting a serious thought on sure Principles that solve them They find the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament uneasy to sense but reflect not that They believe two or three other Mysteries fully as hard if not more difficile for Example a Trinity the Incarnation and Original sin It is most Evident what Ever Principle whether it be Scripture Church Authority or consent of Fathers that moves to believe these Verities that very Principle is as pressing forceable and urging yea and often more express for the Belief of our Sacrament wherat they boggle What the Sectary is obliged to prove if He except against our grounds in this Controversy We admit of Christs plain Words according to their most obvious sense we find them so understood by a number of the most venerable ancient Fathers as we understand them and moreover have a Learned Church that speak's as both Scripture and Fathers speak Can Sectaries now exact of us that we leave these strong Principles and rely on their word because They will have us do so It is impossible unles They give us in lieu of the se as plain Scripture as plain Testimonies of Fathers and produce the warrant of some other Church more ancient and Orthodox then ours is that once Patronized their Novelty If they say They can explicate our Scripture and ancient Fathers I have Answered above Their explication is worth nothing unles it be grounded on more express Testimonies that favour their Novelty then our contrary authorities are for Catholick Doctrin If again they reply As we must explicate their Authorities brought against us so They can explicate ours alleged against them I Answer if a stop be made here neither they no◠we yet come to the last Principles But here will be the final Decision of all We appeal to the clear Words of Scripture They have Evidently non so express We appeal to the most manifest Testimonies of Fathers delivered i◠this Controversy The Council of Trent speaks not more clearly They Oppos◠a few dark Sentences help't on with their Glosses contrary to the Fathers sense a◠is largely proved Lastly we appeal to the Judgement of our Ancient and fa. extended Church Herein they are forced to yeild for they have no Church comparable to it that Defends their Novelty The Churches Evidence Why God permits Heresy to be in the World A FEW NOTES UPON MR. POOLES APPENDIX AGAINST CAPTAIN EVERARD 1. I Say a few for I must be brief finding very little to stay me in the Appendix which is not directly solved in the foregoing Treatis And therfore wonder not it I often remit the Reader to the former Discourses as occasion requires it being impossible to reply to an Adversary upon this subject of Infallibility without touching on what is sayd already where the Direct Answer is given to His objections I would not indeed have writ thus much against Mr. Poole but only to hinder a little vanity in the man for if no notice had bin taken of his Appendix He might perhaps have thought too well of his work and judged it so learned a piece that none would Dare to meddle with it To gain what time is possible I pass by all His jeers his harsher language and Calumnies cast on Catholick c. Those Personal exceptions also uniustly made against the Converted Captain and some vulgar Difficulties solved a hundred times shall give me no work at present who will only fall and closely upon that which Mr. Poole its likely may think most material and to the purpose And because the best strength He hath lies in the beginning of the Appendix I 'le examin that most and make his errours manifest by sound proofs and Principles Briefly 2. The occasion of Mr. Everards Conversion was a Discours held with a Catholick Gentleman Who Asked me saith the Captain whether I was so certainly infallibly assured of the Truth of the Christian Religion that it was not possible for me or those that taught me Christianity to be mistaken therin and He gave me this reason for his question that otherwise as to me Christianity could be no more then probably true And we could not condemn the Iew or Turk or Pagan since they were as well perswaded of their several wayes as we could be of ours upon a fallible certainty And for ought we knew not having any infallible certainty for our Christianity some of them might be in the right and we in the wrong way sor it is possible you may be mistaken Thus Mr. Poole Appendix page 8. who slight's the Discours as silly weak and ungrounded 3. I say Contrary The Discours is strong rational and most convincing The ground of my Assertion further declared Disc 1. c. 1. 2. is thus A Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on cannot but be fallibly taught by all Teachers now within the bounds of Christianity is by force of its Proposition and merit of the Doctrin precisely considered most certainly fallible and may be fals But such a taught Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on and merit also of the Doctrin or force of its Proposition is fallible and may be fals is not the certain Doctrin of Christ which cannot by the vertue of any Principle it hath or merit of the Doctrin and force of its proposition be either fallible or fals Ergo such a taught Doctrin is not Christs certain Doctrin which neither is nor can be fallible or fals Now further A Doctrin which is not Christs certain Doctrin because remo 〈…〉 from certain Principles can be no other but the Doctrin of mans errable judgement or Fancy And consequently gives as little Assurance to him that teaches it fallibly or those that hear it as that of the Jewes gives to them Observe my reason equally Convincing in both cases Therfore we say the Doctrin of a Jew gives If you say the Doctrin of a Jew is not only fallible but fals also you suppose what is to be proved against him no Assurance to Him that Teaches and those who hear it because it is removed from all infallible Principles and relies only on his errable judgement or Fancy that teaches it but the Fallible Doctrin of these Sectaries now mentioned is also removed from all Infallible Principles for no man amongst them can deliver Doctrin infallibly Therfore it relies only on an errable judgement or fancy that teaches it and by good consequence is none of Christs infallible Doctrin But if it be none of Christs Doctrin it gives no more Assurance to them that Hear it than the Doctrin af a Jew gives to any of his Sect Ergo. Here briefly is my
Faith precisely rest's alwaies on Gods Revelation as the last and ultimate Motive without the mixture of any other See Disc 1. c. 5. n. 5. 6. as also Chap. 6. Now if you desire to know more concerning the certainty of him that Proposeth the Object of Faith darkly revealed in Holy Scripture read the 4. Chap. of the first Discours 10. By what is said hitherto you se Good Mr. Poole that true Christian Religion must either signify the Objective Infallibility of Gods Revelation or the Assent of Faith wherby we Captivate our understanding and submit to an Infallible Veracity both the one and other goe farr beyond the mean measure of meer Probabilities or the highest moral certainty Therfore your Instances of Iamaica and a Calf are here useles and insignificant I say True Christian Religion or to speak in your words The Truth of Christianity For if by the essential Truth of Christianity you will understand the prudent Motives or Inducements that precede Faith and shew us where True Christianity is professed and call these the Essentials of Christian Religion know first you have none of them as is proved Disc 1. C. 8. 9. and 10. Know secondly that these Motives previously pondered before we believe though most requisit to belief are not the Essentials of Faith whether you take Faith obiectively For the matter believed or subiectively for the Act of Belief But objects of Science as you may read in Chapters now Quoted For Faith which essentially constitutes Religion follows in every good Christian after the Consideration of these Motives and sub Notione fidei or as Divine Faith ultimately relies not on them 11. Vpon these Grounds all comes to nothing that you have P. 10. and 11. where you say If besides the Infallibility of the Thing there be required Certitudo subjecti the Infallibility of the person you will bring this fox out of his hole by a notable Dilemma A word only in passing Pray you Sir what 's here understood by the Infallibility of the Thing You either mean Gods certain Revelation and this certainly most infallibly is not to be called a Thing but ought to be spoken of with greater Reverence or you mean and your context bears no other sense the material Objects of our Christian belief now these solely considered can no more properly be called fallible or infallible then probable and improbable No man saith that a stone which he sees in the high way is either fallible or infallible probable or improbable The Reason is Because these Terms certain fallible infallible probable improbable c. note ever the tendency of vital Acts proceeding from an intellectual power And therfore most improperly belong to objects neither vital nor intellectual Thus much only by the Bye Now to your foxing it and fearful Dilemma Either say you a subjective certainty or infallibility of Belief mark your own words of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians or it is not If it be not necessary then Papists too vainly boast of it and must Confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians and infallibility necessary only for the Pope and Councel if a subjective infallibility be necessary for particular Christians then every Papist in England hath a Pope in his belly c. Here is the substance of your Dilemma and it is a strange piece of confused Stuff Observe well You begin with the Subjective infallibility of the Belief of the Truth of Christianity and then run further then to Iamaica to talk of that which you call the probable evidence of it Good Sir the evidence of credibility belonging to true Christianity is totally distinct from the infallible belief of it That if we make a right Analysis precedes Faith Faith followes and is far more certain then the judgement is all have of the Evidence of Credibility See Disc 1. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. Briefly I say first The belief of true Christianity is subjectively infallible in every faithful Christian who therfore may have as sound Faith as the Pope himself or any that sitt's in Councel The Reason already given and further declared Disc 1. c. 1. is thus God an infinite Verity speaks to us for this end that we believe him He speaks infallibly Faithful Christians believe both what He speaks and answerably to their power as He speaks Ergo they believe infallibly Again A fallible Belief cannot be ultimately resolved into an infallible Revelation none therfore that holds himself obliged to Believe an infinit Verity owned as infallible can proceed doubtfully upon that Motive for he knowes An infinit Verity speak's not doubtfully or opinatively I say secondly Infallible Faith of the Truth of Christianity is miscalled if you style it probable Evidence it is not probable but certain because it relies on an infinit Verity It is not Evident but obscure because Argumentum non apparentium Thus much is undoubtedly true if we speak of the Assent of Divine Faith Now if when you talk of particular Papists haveing a Pope in their belly you grosly Imagin that every one can Define or Declare infallibly Christian Doctrin in order to the whole Church as the Pope and Councel Doe you fight with shadowes no Papist hold's such fooleries And by this you se the last strength of your weak Dilemma brought to nothing 12. You are also as unlucky in your next Assault where you Chalenge the whole Club of Jesuits to Answer solidly By the Grace of God you shall have an Answer that will make you silent hereafter Thus you go on Were the Popish opinion of the Churches infallibility true in it self certitudine Objecti so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the infallibility of Scripture true in it self and certitudine Objecti as the must desperate Papists Grant For they say the Scripture is Divine true and certain in it self but not quoad nos therfore hitherto there is no difference It is not worth the while to insist here upon a Catacresis or abuse of words or to say how incompossible these two termes combined together are in the Papist Opinion and certainty of the Object For Catholicks in Matters of Faith content not themselves with a bare opinion where there is certitudo Objecti or Gods certain Revelation duely proposed that exacts from them no Opinion but a sure Assent of Faith And so we say that the infallibility of the Church is a matter believed by us because God hath revealed it consequently it s no Opinion But Sir this is not what I ayme at We will hear you say all And come to the strength of the Difficulty If say you it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist that He hath such probable evidence of this Doctrin of the Churches infallibility why should it not be as sufficient a fundation for a Protestant that He hath such nay infinitly more probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Since the evidence of the later is granted by the Papists
clearnes Greatnes Majesty and Coherency of those Truths revealed in Scripture that they must certainly come from none but God Answ What will not men say at last who dare Propose such evident improbabilities Why the whole world agrees in this that the light comes from the sun for it is evident to our senses but do all unanimously agree about the very Canon of Scripture or the clearnes of those books all admit of which are evidently obscure in a hundred passages and so seemingly incoherent in many other places that it is mighty Difficile to reconcile them Again What more Greatnes or exteriour Majesty can any Discover in Salomons Proverbs then in the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus or in those two pious Hymns Te Deum and Gloria in Excelsis such arguments therfore are not only slight but improbable 20. They Object 2. The works of Creation Evidence Gods Wisdom Power and Greatnes Ergo God can give as great evidence of a Revelation Answ I grant He can do so But What then Doth it follow that He hath don it de facto by the words internal to Scripture which is here only to the purpose without the light of orher Motives as Miracles Conversions and the like which as I now said immediately manifest the Church and not the book of Scripture 21. They object 3. No other way is conceivable that it should be evident that a Doctrin comes from God and consequently is infallible but that it contains things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of human reason things only tending to Advance Holines and Goodnes in the world And this Doctrin to be Delivered by persons who wrought Vnparrallel'd Miracles And They ask whether all these be not in the most evident manner Imaginable contained in the Doctrin of Christianity and in the books of Scripture I Answer first The Opponent is far from Conceiving any thing like a probability in this Objection For if it be evident that a Doctrin comes from God and therfore is infallible because it contains Things suitable to the Devine Nature the very Gentils without other Motives should as well see this Evidence as we se the light of the Sun Now if you say its an Evidence but not perceptible by all you runn into Darknes Destroy the Nature of Evidence and make it now evident now unevident when and to whom you please If again you say its an Evidence sufficient to breed Faith you beg the Question and speak improbably for nothing can beget Faith but what is owned for Gods infallible Word upon prudent Motives and the Testimony of some Infallible Oracle To confirm what is here said I Ask whether if Christ and his Apostles had appeared in the World and only preached the high Mysteries of our Faith as a Trinity the Incarnation Original sin with other Doctrins now registred in Scripture that advance Holines of life c. But all this without doing one Miracle Converting one Nation or shewing any the least wonder that they were sent from God to teach as they did My Question I say is whether upon this supposition either Jewes or Gentils would then have believed them or could have discovered an Infallibility in a Doctrin thus Orally Delivered or writ in patchment meerly by the force of the words If Sectaries say Yes They do not only speak a Paradox which no Christian ever uttered and make our Saviours Argument Against the Jewes Si opera c. If I had not don works amongst them which no other did they would not have sin null and inefficacious but moreover are convinced by this clear proof Suppose And it implies no impossibility that God who hath yet within the vast reach of His Omnisciency a Thousand other Verities unknown to the world and not at all revealed in Scripture or Delivered by the Church for certainly He hath not revealed all He knowes should now both inspire and Assist twelve poore Fishermen to preach infallibly these Truth never heard of before yet so that they Teach only but do no Miracles work no Conversions shew no wonders and give no other Testimony of their being sent from God but by their own bare word Would any men in the world think ye prudently believe them meerly for their preaching or would Sectaries as well Discover the Infallibility of these Verities taught by their preaching as they now Discern the Scriptures infallibility No the whole world would prudently set light by such Doctrin though in it self both Divine and Infallible for want of prudent Motives to make it evidently Credible and so all would have don had the Apostles only preached the Divine Truths already registred in Scripture without further Motives Therfore more is required to prove that a Doctrin comes from God then thus much only that it contains in it self things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of humane reason and conduceing to piety I say in it self for if we goe to a strict Analysis of the Scriptures Verities we are not to suppose as the Opponent doth but to prove that all these Verities are suitable to the Divine nature which both Jewes and Gentils Do Deny And therfore must be further proved 22. Now if on the other side They grant and most truely that none would have Discovered any Infallibility in Apostolical Doctrin without further evidence of Miracles of signs and wonders we have our Intent For it followes inevitably that Scripture cannot be Discovered to be Divine by it self nor Infallble by vertue of any light contained in the words or Sintax therof It followes 2. that Mr. Stillingfleet is more then a little out in his seventh Interrogatory part 1. Chap. 7. p. 230. fine where He Ask's whether it be not the highest Disparagement of this Divine Doctrin to make it stand in need of an Infallible Testimony of any that call themselves the Catholick Church Good Sir reflect These Motives of Credibility manifested by Christ and his Apostles their Miracles Conversions Sanctity c. taken purely as Motives previous to the Faith of those who believed were either fallible or Infallible take whether side you will If Infallible you evidently see that most certain Doctrin stood without Disparagement so far in need of those Inducements that it would never have been believed without them as is already proved though most infallible in it self If you hold those previous Inducements to be only Fallible you must yet Grant that the belief of that Apostolical Doctrin stood still in need of them without any Disparagement Therfore much less doth the Testimony of an Infallible Church Evidenced by the like Motives Disparage it I say the Testimony of the Church Evidenced by clear Motives For as the learned Snares Observes 3. Par. Tom. 2. Disp 31. Sect. 2. n. Dicoâ—primo The very Miracles of Christ precisely and solely considered or separated from all other certain Principles would not have proved Him to be the eternal Son of God because
true Catholick Church which is ever assisted by the Holy Ghost can be tepugnant to any Superiour Rule and therfore touch not Catholicks in the least manner But if you speak of the Decisions of your English Church which because fallible may be repugnant you license your self by your own Principles to disobey it And look you to that You say 3. The judge is Constituted by God in the Church not for the Command of mens Consciences but for the regulation of their Actions and Preservation of peace in the Church which is not Violated by mens inward and unknown Sentiments but by their External demeanour and sensible Effects of them Answ Most pittiful Doctrin What is all the preaching of Sectaries Come to no more but only to teach how the Exteriour Actions of men are to be regulated and peace may be preserved This Truely more be longs to the Iustiâ—ies of Peace in their Several Districts then to Ministers if therfore they goe no deeper into Consciences by their Doctrin they certainly preach not the Word of God for I read Heb. 4. 12. the Word of God is lively and forcible and more persing then any two Edged Sword and reaching unto the Division of the soule and Spirit of the ioynts also and the Marrows c. And these men go no further then only to give instructions concerning the Exteriour Regulation of Actions or preserving of Peace If therfore their Hearers were very Hypocrits Iewes or Arians in hart and only demeaned themselves fairly in the Exteriour like Protestants Ministers are not to medle with them but leave them to their own Consciences without Check or reproof wherof se more Disc 3. C. 7. â— 17. 18. Now if Mr. Poole will find some Mystery in the words he useth Command of mens Consciences let him read S. Paul to Titus 2. 15. Haec loquere Speak these things and rebuke Cum omni Imperio with all Command and Authority And so Pastors should Speak to Consciences Cum Imperio in Gods cause and people should obey them The Apostle gives the reason Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates your Guides or Commanders for they watch as being to render an account for your Souls And if they must render an account of Souls they may certainly speak like Prelates to their very interiour Consciences 29. Page 41. you say the Scriptures of the old and now Testament are the Infallible rule and ground of Faith Answ They are so Faithfully interpreted Se Disc 2. C. 4. where you have your Errours Discovered and the Objection fully Answered You say again Vniversal Tradition rightly understood is of great use and like a channel wherby Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us Answ the Parenthesis which alone is refuted in the Discours now cited the rest of your Assertion hath no hurt in it But you add a Mysterious piece of Divinity where you distinguish between Rem Tradiâ—am the thing Delivered Traditionem and the Tradition or Delivery of it and say Papists by Tradition understand the first that is res tradita Answ either I understand not you or you which is more likely misconceive the Doctrin of Catholicks For they distinguish between Tradition and the thing Delivered For example The Baptizing of Infants the keeping of Sunday in place of the Sabbath are Objectively Doctrins delivered and the Testimony Consent and Acknowledgment of the whole Universal Church witnessing these Verities are rightly called the formal Tradition therfore you mistake our Doctrin It is true as this word Faith sometimes signifies the matter revealed by Almighty God And most properly the internal Assent we yeild to the Revelation so this word Tradition may also signify either the Doctrin delivered or the formal Delivery of it but this makes not to your purpose You say again Tradition taken for the vehicle or conveyance of the books of Scripture is in some sort necessary to bring the Rule to you yet is no more a part of the Rule then a Basquet is Nourishment wherin bread is brought to feed on Here is your learned instance Believe it Sir if you take the Basket and find Nothing but a stone in it you will have a poore dinner And if you make Tradition minutely like the Basket in some sort necessary you may well have a stone for bread that is no Scripture given you for Scripture Tradition therfore whether part of the Rule or no is absolutely a necessary conveyance and must be Infallible 30. Page 44. you tell us Scripture is the Object only rule and standard of Faith by which all Controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged Answer The Proposition is only your own bare word Scripture alone can be no rule without an Infallible Interpreter as is proved Disc 2. c. 4. And had we no more to say but thus much that Scripture proves nor it self to be Infallible it were enough But grant which you yet Convince not that it is infallibly Gods Word an insuperable difficulty remains to be decided And it is whether you Sectaries know so exactly the sense of Scripture in all controverted matters that your fallible Glosses are to be stood to contrary to the judgement of a learned Ancient Church Hence I say you talk at random when page 48. you tell us There is enough delivered in Scripture by which all Controversies might be ended would men be humble studious and Self denying Lay your hand on your hart and speak your conscience can you judge this to be true Or can you perswade your self that none are to be found within the limits of this Ancient Church as humble as learned and studious as a few Ministers are in England Why vent you such Paradoxes without proof or so much as a probability You say again page 48. after some parergons of conditional and absolute power That if the Church be sufficient to end all Controversies because all must submit to its decrees and Doctrin the Scripture in like manner may be said to be sufficient because all are obliged to submit to the Decrees and Doctrin therof I Answer all are to do so when they know by an infallible Interpreter what the Scriptures Teaches but this in controverted matters is ever the difficulty You say it speak's one thing and we say the contrary therfore Scripture alone which is as silent now as it was Sixteene ages since is a less meet Meanes to end these Contentions Contrariwise the Church proposeth all shee teaches with the greatest clarity and if any doubt occurr is ready able and sufficient to declare it self further Scripture that hitherto never ended any difference between us cannot do so For a further satisfaction read the 5. Ch. of the 3. Discours 31. We return now to your 44. page where you tell us First Tradition is the Vehicle to conveigh the rule of Scripture to us 2. Reason is the instrument or Eye wherby you apprehend and se the Rule 3. The Spirit of God is the Eye-salve that annoints
to learn Divinity Ergo they make you a perfect Divine Sir the general Truths contained in Scripture because they teach us to believe the Church Tradition and other Apostolical Doctrins orally delivered are in this general way able to make us wise to Saluation but none can so much as probably draw from hence that all things in particular necessary to Saluation are explicitly set down in Scripture Every Catholick Writer that Explicates the Text shewes your Deductions to be weak and unconcluding That work therfore being don to my hand I end wishing you much Good and eternal happines FINIS Besides other faults noted in the beginning you have these In the Advertisment pag. 18. l. 22. Invocations R. Innovations p. 19. l. 16. of long standing Church our R. of our long standing Church p. 22. l. 5. were R. where in the Treatise p. 49. l. 7. Fallibility R. infallibility p. 158. l. 28. improperty R. impropriety p. 176. l. 18. Marck R. mark p. 239. l. 3. above R. about ERRATA CORRIGENDA Page 4. line 5. oft Read of page 6. last line retour R. return p. 11. l. 4. put R. but p. 17. l. 24. reach R. reaches p. 19. l. 10. as it R. as it is p. 22. l. 13. feaching R. teaching p. 22. l. 23. true R. true p. 24. l. 8. Insalibility R. Infallibility p. 22. Title Teachere R. Teacher p. 25. l 1. trough R. through p. 26. l. 1. foor R. for p. 27. l. 2. asserward R. afterward p. 30. Tit. futher R. further p. 39. l. 24. te R. the p. 40. Tit. Relyes R. Replyes p. 41. l. 16. in R. it p. 43. l. 11. assurance R. assurance p. 46. Title Relyes R. Replyes p. 47. l. 27. fundemeetals R. fundamentals p. 53. l. 14. dot R. doth p. 58. l. 2. vetities R. verities p. 69. l. 4. it if followes dele if p. 69. l. 9. praging R. praying p. 69. l. 23. Realon R. Reason p. 71. l. 17. whick R. which p. 74. l. 1. fo rit R. for it p. 77. l. 17. Father R. Fathers p. 77. l 30. standingh R. standing p. 81. Title dele certainty p. 90. l. 7. owing R. owning p. 93. Marg. loct R. lost p 94. l. 12. is R. it p. 94. l. 13. Prophet R. Prophets p. 103. Marg. sew R. few p. 113. Tit. Prave R. Prove p. 141. Marg. propose R. proposed p. 143. l. 6. pretend R. pretend's p. 144. l. rotterin R. tottering p. 149. l. 20. other R. others p. 158. Marg. te R. to p. 159. l. 2. Christ R. Christs p. 159. Marg. no Read not p. 175. l. 6. opposit opposite Read opposite p. 178. l. 5. stead R. instead p. 182. l. 22. were sent R. they were sent p 182. l. 27. casting of R. casting out p. 184. Marg. uncompossible R. incompossible p. 186. l. 5. buth R. but p. 189. l. 17. see R. seem p. 195. Marg an R. on p. 209. l. 28. interpred R. interpreted p 212. Marg. Siciety R. Society p. 215. l. 4. Propecying R. Prophecying p. 217. l. 24. if self R. it self p. 218. l. 5 yo R. you p. 222. l. 29. Objection R. Objection p. 228. l. 9. of R. or p. 256. Marg. cansists R. consists p. 256. l. 12. nos R. not p. 260. l. 7. ptosed R. proposed p. 261. Marg. datiful R. dutiful p. â—62 Marg doclare R. declare p. 269. l. 10 ' caslesly R. causlesly p. 275. l. 29. both we dele both p. 278. l. 13. reclaim R. convert p 295. l. 15. Chutch R. Church p. 302. Marg. uncluding R. unconcluding p. 311. Marg. care for R. care for p. 313. Marg. in in dele in p. 314. l. 16. sht R she p. 318. l. 32. ditt R. durt p. 329. l. 26. unevidentced R. unevidenced p. 330. l. 29. An R. and p. 342. l. 30 party R. parity p. 344. l. 5. An R. and p. 346. l. 10. these R. those p. 350. l. 10. Cutch R. Church p. 351. l. 13. for long a time R. for a long time p. 352. l. 26. onveyed R. conveyed p. 356. l. 1. infallibily R. infallibly p. 358. l. 15. Argumen R. Argument p. 359. Marg. Soy R. Say p. 362. l. 15. wales R. walles p. 363. l. 21. impiously dele pâ—â—ctam p. 363. Merg then then R. then p. 365. l. 31. licencence licence p. 372. l. 2. convinceth R. convince p. 375. Tit. Curch R. Church p. 375. l. 14. ad R. and p. 378. l 13. chis R. this p. 382. l. 29. overtrow R. overthrow p. 402. l. 18. that is R. it p. 405. Marg. mare R. more p. 406. Marg. smay R. sway p. 412. l. 14. confuthed R. confuted p. 417. l. 10. toughts R. thoughts p. 420. l. 7. ns R. us p. 424. l. 18. unworthly R. unworthy p. 425. l. 30. and is dele and p. 441. Marg. whac R. what p. 443. l. 4. teachers R. teaches p. 448. l. 18. Cathalick R. Catholick p. 449. l. 7. expreffing R. expissing p. 452. l. 11. ttial R. trial p. 453. l. 17. Cutches R. Churches p. 460. l. 20. Ground R. Grounds p 501. l. 6 worst R. wors p. 516. l. 15. Scripiture R. Scripture After Page 431. is Page 332. R. 432. There are without doubt many more faults in Orthography passed over to say nothing of points ill placed of Capiâ—â—l letters to often and comma's needlesly multiplyed What ever is found amiss impute it boldly to the Printer or to the Author and please to pardon both for the first knovwes not a word of English and the other has not the language perfectly
the Sacred Book of Scripture inrich't with the deep Secrets of Gods Divine Wisdom I mean the great Mysteries of our Christian Faith which highly Transcend the Reach of human Reason And A Mysterious Bible and Fallible Teachers inconsistant on the other side cast my thoughts on a Thing that talks of those Mysteries all alone in an English Pulpit Professing himself fallible in all he saith as He must do having no other Oracle of Truth to teach him but a Mysterious Bible and his own weak Reason when I say I consider the vast Disproportion between such a fallible Master and this infallible Mysterious Book I cannot for my life Discouer what either He or his Bible as 't is used by him is good for It is most apparently useles and unprofitable in his hands at least in all points of Controversies now debated amongst Christians And thus much I will Demonstrate 2. To go on groundedly Do not we see by too lamentable experience as many Strong Pretenders to Scripture as there are or have been Sects and Religions in the world All acknowledge the Book for All pretend Scripture Gods Sacred Word But highly dissent from one another when they come to examen the particular revealed Verities therin concerning Religion The Papists say this Book speaks for them Protestants say 't is on their Side Arians deny all and will have Scripture for them The Donatists say it speak's Donatism The Quakers Quakerism the Puritans Puritanism and so do all other Sects or Religions even to the Bottom call them yet as you please 3. It is most evident That These Dissenting men speak not the Truth of Scripture For they contradict one another and in matters of High Importance And 'T is as clear They all speak not the Truths of Scripture Infallibly What shall we do in this Confusion All deliver not the Truths of Scripture and robbing Scripture of its Verities Shall every one be left to his own Spirit and Judgement of Discerning If so The Arian may be an Arian still the Socinian a Socinian the Donatist a Donatist which is to say Haereticks may laudably Continue in Their Haeresy without Restraint or Blame Will you have an Arian take Mr. Pooles word that Protestants only exactly deliver God's Verities revealed in Scripture The Arian laughs at so great a folly and tell 's Mr. Poole Becaus we are both fallible Men your Word Sr is as forceles to perswade me That Scripture speaks what you would have it as mine is to work in you my contrary Opinion What is next to be done Shall we have Recours to the very Letter of Scripture and hope to find Debates clearly decided between these two Disputants It is impossible For the Letter of Scripture is the very thing Scripture les clear Occasions dissentions and therfore cannot End them they quarrel about how then can it when it occasioneth the Iarrs be a useful means to Reconcile them For example The Arian allegeth for his Haeresy that Text of St. Iohn c. 14. 28. My Father is greater then I and concludes from thence that Christ is les then his Father and consequently not the High God So the Arians speak Mr. Poole to prove the Verity of Christs Godhead allegeth and thought it no robbery to be equal with God also that of St. Iohn 1. 5. 20. This is the true God Observe 4. Here are two seeming Antilogies Christ is less Two seeming Antilogies then is Father Christ is Equal to his Father drawn out of two certain revealed Verities which yet Scripture reconcil's not For the whole Bible no where expresly saith That Christ according to Humain nature is Inferiour to his Father and Equal to him in his Godhead which though a Catholick Truth is not so fully expressed as to gain an Arian to Believe it who yet stands as much for Scripture as any Protestant doth That is his Impertinency saith Mr. Poole Becaus he will not se Light put before his Eyes Farwell Sr if you talk so idlely The Arian will storm as much at you in not yeilding to the Express letter of his Text My Father is greater then I as you do at him in not yeilding to yours He thought it no robbery c. Fallible interpretation dissatisfactory O saith Mr. Poole I 'll explicate his Text. You explicate And who are you What is your Fallible explication worth The Arian explicats your Text also Se the wicked Volkelius in his pestiferous Book Scripture explicated by Arians entitled De verâ religione lib. 5. cap. 10. where he largely discusseth St. Pauls words Qui cum in forma Dei esset and saith first that particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or formâ signifies not the same nature with God sed speciem tantum similitudinem which similitude He deposed taking on him the form of a fervant Quod in Altissimum Deum cadere nequaquam potest Next he glosseth on thofe other words Esse se aequalem Deo Dei enim est saith He tempestatibus morbis morti daemonibus imperare ut nutui ejus sine morâ parêre cogantur Dei est ab hominibus religiosè coli atque adorari Dei est in rebus omnes hominum vires longè superantibus invocari Vnde efficitur Christum merito in Dei forma Deoque aequalem fuisse à Paulo dici quod tantâ ab ipso potestate in omnes res Coelo subjectas donatus erat ut mari ventis morbis morti denique summâ cum potentiâ imperaret ideoque à plurimis divino honoris atque invocationis cultu afficeretur quia videlicet summâ hâc auctoritate atque potentiâ quam in se perpetuò manentem cum aliis quoque communicare poterat signisque mirandis Deum tanquam vera ejus effigies referebat Thus Volkelius whose Latin to conceil his impiety I english not In the 11. Chap. of his fifth book He explicates those words Verbum caro factum est and in other places confesseth that Christ is truely the Son of God Becaus God begot him in a particular manner by the Operation of the Holy Ghost in a Virgins womb and Becaus he honored him with a Permanent power of working miracles and other admirable Gifts above all other Creatures Nay he saith He is true God and Vnigenitus Patris but not Altissimus Deus Creator of Heaven and Earth Becaus the name of God is common to creatures of a lower rank then Christ was who by reason of his Singular Dignity and Supereminent Endowments is to be Adored before all other creatures whether in Heaven or Earth And therfore merit 's the Title of true God yet not Dei Altissimi of the High God 5. I intend not by giving you These impious Glosses of an Haeretick any way to favor his execrable Haeresy Though I profess ingeniously they are as good if not better then the best Interpretation that Mr. Poole gives of Scripture against the Catholick Church But only to shew you
the Roman Catholick Church of Errour Causal of Their Schism I prove the first part of my Assertion No Probability can Acquit them of Schism when Evidence layes That crime on them But this is True And to prove the Assumption I will not Here Tell Them Evidence layes the Crime of Schism on Protestants How Improbable it is That This Schism which took its Rise from one Discontented Luther and a Disgusted Prince can have any Good in it The cause from whence it came look's like naught And the Doleful Effect which Followed wors Nor will I urge Again How Improbable it is That this one Prince and one Fryar of lives confessedly Vicious can be Supposed to have gon About any Work of God or Piety when meer Passion Hurried them on to struggle Against Their own Consciences Against a whole Church And the Faith of their Deceased Ancestours These Considerations I 'll wave 3. Yet I cannot But Note how improbable it is To Suppose That All those learned Councils which Anciently Taught Christianity All those Learned Bishops Those Doctors Those Religious who like Stars Beautified the Terrestrial Heaven of the Roman Catholick It is improbable to say that Sectaries Discovered Errours in the Church unseen by Thousands more learned and numerous then They. Church for a Thousand years Together Had notwithstanding Their Vigilancy such a Mist cast before Their Eyes as not to Discover Those Palpable Gross Errours which our Protestants have now so lately Espied Say Therfore the Question is worth Answering How came it to pass That our Protestants first saw these Errours And upon that Monstruous Sight Quitted Rome whilst Others As Sharp-sighted as Numerous And learned as They Saw none of them for many Ages Before Speak probably Why for example Did not so Eminent a Saint and Doctor as St. Gregory the Great was or his Clergy so many following Innocents so many Clements so many Vrbans se these Errours and upon the Discovery Separate themselves long since from this supposed Erring Church I would hear their Answer If they except Against These Becaus They were Popes I Ask Why at least Did not so many Bernards so many Malachies so many Bennets so many Anselms so many Kings so many Princes whose Temporal interest God knows lay not in Adoring Rome with innumerable Others long Agoe Desert This Supposed Erring Church and Revolt from it as Luther did Is it not a Degree of Madnes to Suppose That All These Learned and innumerable Professors must either be supposed stupidly blind or wickedly Hypocritical These Worthy Powerful and Learned Professors of the Catholick Faith were either so Stupidly Blind as not to have seen Such Errours or so Wickedly Hypocritical as to Have Winked at them After a clear Discovery I say more The Professors of this Church were so far of from not Seing those Doctrins which Protestants now call Errours For example The offering up of Sacrifice For the Dead Praying to Saints c. That the Denial of them was Positively condemned as Heretical in Foregoing Sectaries None shall ever Probably Answer this Question no more then give Satisfaction to an Other Viz. 4. When this Schism was first made by a few Disgusted men in England Why did so many not only in that Iland Though temporally Vndon for their The Opposition made so Vniversally against this Schism proves it monstruous pains But innumerable more in the Christian World abroad Stand up Against it and Oppose it on its first Appearance as a most Pernicious Novelty All these condemned it as Heretical and Held the Broachers of it for Hereticks Now had either Goodnes Reason or Religion accompanied this Schism it should have rather Gained an Vniversal Applaus from Others more numerous and learned then those were who Began it But all was contrary it Appeared like another Ismaël Manus eius contra omnes manus omnium contra eum as Opposit to All so Vniversally Opposed by All And how could these few Abberters of it When The intolerable Pride of Sectaries this foul Work first Began without intolerable Pride Think Themselves Wiser in Patronizing it Then the Rest of the Christian World in Condemning it 5. Here then is my first Argument Against this Schism A new Sect Schism or Heresy call it what A new Doctrin never heard of before and so Vniversally Opposed cannot be sound and Catholick you will which was never Heard of before in the World And on its first Appearance met with an Vniversal Opposition made by All other Christians who then Lived Cannot be from God or Sound and Approved Doctrin But thus the Schism of Protestants was at its first Rise Vniversally Opposed And is so yet Ergo it cannot be from God or sound Doctrin The Major is Evident in the cases of Arius Pelagius and other Hereticks For the universal Dislike As is clear in the cases of former Hereticks and Opposition Raised Against These Schisms and Heresies were even Antecedently to Their Condemnation in Councils Proof enough against them And if our Adversaries Require more to wit a Council condemnation We have it Also They cannot in Justice make Any more Exception Against the Council of Trent Then Arius made against the Nicene Council The Minor is as clear for all Christians who then were in being Condemned the English Heresy and Schism Graecians Disliked it and do so to this Day Arians Abyssins Nestorians c. And most of all Catholicks oppose it so far That not one will Believe as Protestants Do. So True it is Manus omnium contra eum All banded against this Novelty Therfore it cannot be from God or approved Doctrin Now. That our Protestants since their first Rise have Gained the company of some few Iarring and Dissenting Brethren Proves Nothing For Arius in time Got more and I believe had them better united in Doctrin Then These ever will be CHAP. XIII A Second Argument Against this Schism Of Sectaries Cavils Concerning Errours Entring the Church Insensibly 1. I Argue 2. Protestants seemingly at least Own An Argument ad Hominem against Sectaries a Holy Vniversal Catholick Church before Luther of a very large Extent which comprised a Generality of Christians Over and Above the number of Roman Catholicks This Church was surely that Hierusalem mentioned by the Prophet upon whose Wales Watchmen were placed And were by Duty to Speak in Gods Cause when his Honor was Concerned In this Church we shall Certainly find Those Vigilant Pastors Doctors and Teachers Ephes 4. Who Perfect Saints and still Edify the Mystical Body of Christ to the end That we be Protestants highly Disgrace that large Catholick Church which They own not carried Away by every wind of Doctrin c. Now I Assume But with our Protestants leave All the Watchmen all the Pastors all the Teachers of this Ample and far Extended Church were so Carelesly asleep so Negligent and Forgetful of their Duty For the vast interval of a Thousand