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
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
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
I answer Admit of this most fals Supposition These Doctrins were not Taught Sectaries found Faith on a Negative No Faith at all can be founded on this Negative Before which will never be They Prove their contrary Doctrin Positively Revealed by Almighty God in Scripture For this Principle stands irrefragably Sure No Revelation No Faith Although the Object Assented to be True All the pains Therfore These men take to reduce Their Reformed Gospel to the Model of the Primitive Church is upon several Respects meer labor lost But upon this Account Chiefly it They cannot shew one of Their Negatives Revealed to any Ancient Orthodox Church faulters most That They cannot show one Negative believed by them to be a Revealed Truth to any Christian Society in the world It is pittiful to hear how they fumble in this Discours We Ask how they prove that the Primitive Church held no Unbloody Sacrifice put this for one example it serves for all Some Answer They find no such thing as a Sacrifice registred in those Ancient Writings Mark the Proof They find it not Ergo it is not to be found Catholicks as The Inferences of Sectaries unconcluding clear Sighted as others find that Doctrin expresly Asserted But becaus Protestants are pleased to Deny all They must and upon their Own word be Thought the Men of more Credit Well But Suppose the Doctrin was not Registred in those Ancient Records Is this Consequence good It was not writ Ergo it was not Taught No certainly Vnles They show all Taught Doctrin was then Writ or Registred But let us falsly Suppose that the Doctrin was neither Writ nor Taught Doth it follow that the Contrary of no Sacrifice now believed by Protestants was a Truth Revealed to that Church or taught by it No. Therfore they are here driven again upon the old Negative And thus it is That Church said nothing of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Which is Hideously Vntrue Ergo Protestants can now Believe no Sacrifice which is Hideously fals and as unlucky a Sequele as This That Church said not whether the Moon be a watery Body full of Rocks Ergo Protestants can Believe the contrary with Divine Faith You will Say we Trifle now For that Church was Perfect in Faith and either held a Sacrific 〈…〉 Denyed it I answer in Real Truth it Plainly and undeniably Held a Sacrifice yet must withal Affirm Though we Falsly suppose And this fals Supposition must be vigilantly regarded that it only Negatively abstracted from such Doctrin yet Protestants are far of from Proving it held Positively the Contrary That is no Sacrifice which yet is Necessary to be Proved if They believe no Sacrifice with Divine Faith 11. They may yet Reply They are Able at least to Produce some Ancient Fathers Clearly Enough Asserting no Unbloody Sacrifice Therfore they prove this Negative and so they can do Others I utterly Deny that clearly Enough and say They have not one Ancient Fathe 〈…〉 nor Council nor any Approved Authority No Ancient Father against an Vnbloody Sacrifice that positively Denyes a Sacrifice All unanimously Taught the contrary as Luther himself confesseth Much less have They Any that makes this their Doctrin a Truth Revealed by Almighty God or ever taught by any Vniversal Church Were therfore these supposed Authorities of Sectaries which are none and Reasons also for no Sacrifice more Numerous and Strong then what the World hath Heard of hitherto They cannot in Conscience suppose them Proofs weighty enough to Beat down the contrary Asserted And Vndeniable Doctrin not only of Fathers But of a Whole Church They cannot Suppose Them powerful enough to Build up such a new Negative of Protestant Religion especially whilst They see before their eyes the Torrent of Antiquity against them and our Answers returned to every Trivial Objection they make O But they can Solve all we Object And we must Take their Word Becaus They say so We also tell them We Solve what they Object and yet are not Believed Do you not se here most pittiful Doings and Controversies made Endles by this Proceeding when each Party saith what it pleaseth and Gain 's no Credit from the Other A Judge my good Friends and an Infallible Judge is here Necessary to Decide Matters between us But thus far evident Reason judgeth And Tell 's you Though you could Solve all we say for the Affirmative of a Sacrifice you are to Seek for a Positive Proof of your Vnproved yet Believed Negative There is no Sacrifice And the like I say of your other Negatives CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to Interpret Scripture Truely One Passage More of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers is Quoted 1. WE come now to Solve more fully the Objection Proposed Chap. 7. n. 2. It was to this Sense A Protestant Delivers what he Conceives to be the Meaning of Scripture So the Catholick doth also and can do no more Both of Them therfore are Glossers The difficulty proposed again Concerning the Interpretation of Scripture the only Difficulty is to know who Glosses better Here is the state of the Question 2. To go on Groundedly We may with our Adversaries leave Suppose That God hath not put a Bible into the Hands of Christians to cause Eternal Debates concerning the Doctrin delivered in it And if this be a Truth We may secondly Suppose God desirous of Vnity in Faith gave us not Scripture to cause eternal Debates That his Wise Providence so earnestly desirous of Unity in Faith amongst Christians hath Afforded some Means wherby we may rightly Attain to the True Sense of his Sacred Word For no man can imagin that Gods Intention is That we only Read without Arriving to the Sense of what we Read or which is wors that we fall into Error by our Reading Providence hath afforded means wherby we may understand Scripture This therfore Providence hath Prevented by one Means or other if carelesly we do not reject it We may thirdly Suppose That God regularly speaking Reveal's to no Private man the deep Sense of Scripture when He Reads and perhaps understands it not By private Illustrations new Enthusiasm's or the Ministery of Angels Therfore Private Illustrations no usual means some other way is Appointed by Providence to come to the True Sense of what He Reads The Reason is True Religion requires a True Interpreter of the Book which founds Religion Otherwise God would have only carelesly as it were Thrown Scripture amongst Christians And bid them Guess as well as they can at the Sense of it They having no other means to know his Meaning These Things Premised 3. I say first The Holy Book of Scripture neither doth Scripture cannot interpret its self nor can so Interpret it self as to bring Men Dissgnting in Faith to an Accord or Acquiescency in High Points of Controversy The Assertion is Evident For could the Book clearly interpret its own Meaning Catholicks Arians Protestants
Doctrin of the Donatists confining the Church to one place Vnchurch Them Believe it your The Donatists were Schismatichs for making the Church too strait and so are Protestants for making it to wide Particular Doctrin in making it too Large will Vnchurch you also I call both these Doctrins Particular and Heretical For as never men before the Donatists made the Catholick Church so strait as They did so never Christians before these later Protestants made it so large as to hold in it all the Heretckis in the World I say expresly This Doctrin of the Donatists was only their particular Errour and not Then Vniversal or Common to all Christians For Their very Denying the Church to be Spread the whole world over made that Doctrin not Vnuniversal or not Held by All. And thus much Protestants must Say For whilst They or any other Sectaries Maintain Tenents particular to themselves for example two Sacraments only A Doctrin In the Principles of Protestants the Arians and Nestorians were not Hereticks so limitated cannot be called Vniversal Out of what is hitherto Said we must conclude If no Doctrin can make a man an Heretick but the Denyal of That which the whole Christian World Own 's The Arians and Nestorians were not Hereticks 8. These Novellists go on Trifling in a most serious Matter And first Tell us Though a man Differ's A frivolous Instance Every one knows what is essential to a Man But Protestants know not how much Doctrin is Essential to Christian Faith and how much is meerly Accidental from all other in Accidents for Example in Feature yet he leaves not of to be Essentially a man Therfore though Protestants Differ from all other Christians in Doctrin Accidental or wherin these Dissenting Societies Disagree from one another Yet as long as They stick to the Common owned Faith of all Christians so long they are Safe and Members of the Church Catholick A miserable Put of It Seem's a very Vniversal Doctrin suffiseth Protestants to be good Catholicks All we Desire is That they will exactly say How much Precisely of this Doctrin will Serve the turn as both Necessary and Sufficient to make us all Catholicks Or whether the Arians Nestorians or Donatists Had enough of it to be good Catholicks If Yes They were both Good Catholicks and Hereticks at once Catholicks upon the Arians and Protestants Symbolize Account of Common Christian Doctrin owned by them and Hereticks for their particular Erroneous Tenents And it 's more then probable that Protestants are like Them Secundum quid Catholicks Because of Their Common Doctrin But Simpliciter Hereticks by Reason of Their late introduced Novelties 9. They tell us Again The Communion of the Church Catholick is not to be measured by the particular Opinions either of All or any particular Church But by such things which are the proper Foundations of the Catholick Church For there can be no Separation from the true Catholick Church but in such things wherin it is Catholick And it is not Catholick in any thing But in what Properly relates to its Being and Constitution Let the World Iudge whether this be not meer Confused Talk For the only Difficulty Sectaries wave that only Difficulty which requires Explication in this Matter is to know of these new Doctors How much Precise Doctrin is Necessary and Sufficient to be believed How much of it Constitut's The Being and Foundation of the Catholick Church And what is Accidental or Vnnecessary You se They wave This And content Themselves with telling us of no man knows what Being of no man knows what Foundation of a Church without Descending to Particulars or Proving what these Essentials are Or Finally who Those Christians were that were Right in the Essentials of Faith before Luther or had the Being of a Church amongst them They Proceed here as if Protestants inioyn us to learn that Doctrin which is Essential to a Church and allow us neither Master nor Rules to learn it by a Master should tell a young Beginner with Grammer You must learn your Rules well and understand them perfectly But you shall have neither Book nor Precepts from any wherby to Learn them I Profess before Almighty God and I think Thousands not only Catholicks But others are of my opinion I am yet as wholy Ignorant of what These Newer Protestants will make the Essentials of Faith the Necessary and sufficient Foundations and Being of a Church as ever Boy was of Grammer Rules when he first went to School I may perhaps Guess better at their Doctrin And my Thought is They Hold All the Hereticks in the The world would Cry Shame if they Explicated their sense world whether Arians or Others to be good Catholick Christians Yet dare not Publish so much in Writing And this is the true Reason why they Schulk in Generalities And hide Themselves under these universal Vnexplicated Terms of the Essentials of Faith of the Being of a Church the Foundations of it c. Well I will say it once more If the Doctrin common to all Christians be the Essential Necessary No Hereticks ever were if Doctrin Common to all be sufficient to Saluation and Sufficient Doctrin of the Church truely Catholick it Follows evidently That no Heretick was ever yet Vnchurched by His particular Heresy But 10. Woe be to Catholicks what ever becomes of Others They must be Vnchurched For These men Assert and very wisely as they Think Although nothing Separates a Church properly from the Catholick But what is contrary to the Being of it yet a Church And this is the Roman may Separate Her self from the Communion of the Catholick Society By taking upon Her to make such things Necessary Conditions of Communion which never were the Conditions of Communion of the Catholick Church Observe first A Supposition for a Proof of strange imposed Conditions Observe 2. A Supposition Meer Suppositions pass for Proofs with Sectaries for a Proof of no man knows what Catholick Church Wider and larger then the Roman But above all 11. Observe 3. Their unlearned Discours The Roman Church say They Draws the Bounds of Catholick Communion within Her self and so Divides from the true Catholick Church I Ask From what true Catholick Church did They cannot name the Orthodox Church from which the Roman Church Separated she Divide Her self Speak out And name that Church Design it Plainly which was Actually Orthodox and in Being when Luther Apostated and something is said to the Purpose If you fail to Shew us that Imagined Church from which you Suppose the Roman Separated All you Assert is a meer Calumny We say and can Justify it There was no such True Church in the whole World to Separate from Vnles Arians Nestorians Eutychians Graecians c. constituted that great Imagined moral Body But These as is Evident once Catholicks Separated from the Roman Church not She from them Therfore this supposed Separation is only an
St. Austin only doubted of one particular punishment it here but only calls such a particular pain into Question as is expiatory of lesser faults because as I told you He held These lesser transgressions usually taken away by sufferances endured in this life Conclude therfore unles this Inference be Good St. Austin doubted whether some faults were punished in Purgatory The Testimony shewed forceles against us Ergo He thought none were Expiated there which is not probable The alleged Testimony is of no force against us yet proves that you read not St. Austin too well Now if you say my Gloss upon this Authority is not certain I answer No more will yours be when you have Interpreted all you can Therfore neither of us yet come to a certain Principle And consequently you must produce a far clearer Authority before you Ask again whether any man in his wits can think that St. Austin spake this of a matter of Faith Supposing all sure for your Interpretation which to me And I think to others also that know Latin and sense will not appear probable It is not my Task to quote A parallel of clear and doubtful passages here at large those most clear Testimonies of St. Austin for our Catholick Verity yet I 'll give you one And wish you to parallel that with all your dubious places lib. 2. de Genesi contra Manichaeos cap 20. fine Those books are of undoubted Authority Qui fortè agrum suum non coluerit c. He that Cultivates not his Sectaries ever suppose meer dubious Testimonies to have more force then most clear ones and the judgement of a whole Church Field but suffers it to be overgrown with thorns hath a Curs on him in all He doth in this life Et post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem Purgatiâ—nis vel poenaâ— aeternam And after this life shall either have a Purgatory or suffer pain for ever Thus the Doctor And every man in his wits it 's your own phrase cannot but think he spake of a matter of Faith when his Doctrin agrees with the Belief of a whole Church See more lib. 21. de Civit. c. 16. Where He speaks of a Purging torment after Death as also in Psal 37. But enough of this point 15. You say 3. Where Any of the Fathers build any Doctrin upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture we have no further reason to believe that Doctrin then we have to Two Propositions more unproved believe that it is the meaning of those places So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of Scriptures which They and we both rely on And you give this reason For since the Fathers pretend to no greater Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrin then such places do afford it is the greatest reason that the argument to perswade us be not the testimony of the Father but the Evidence of the place it self Answ If here be not a piece of most Confused Doctrin confused Learning I never read any Observe well your own propositions as they lye in order First the Fathers are supposed to build a Doctrin upon the sense of doubtful Scripture and then you say you have no further reason to believe that Doctrin then you have to believe that it is the meaning of those places Very Good But I ask by what light can you better come to the true meaning of a doubtful place of Scripture then the Fathers Did If the meaning was How Sectaries may wrong both Scripture and Fathers doubtful to them it is as doubtful to you And if that sense which you draw out of a doubtful place be contrary to the Fathers you wrong both Them and the Text Them because you Oppose their judgement upon a meer uncertainty The Text becaus you will make it speak your sense which it doth not certainly for it is doubtful to you Perhaps you 'l say When the sense is doubtful Neither you nor the Fathers can tell what to make of it and Therfore without further enquiry it will be best to let it alone and remain in its obscurity May this Doctrin pass you need not to believe a great part of Scripture for it is very obscure They cannot contradict the Fathers explicating a doubtful place 2. You are bound in Conscience never to contradict the Fathers interpreting a doubtful passage For and it is very good reason if you will have the Fathers silent in such a case you are to hold your Peace and to say nothing against them Your second Proposition In this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of Scripture which they and we both rely on Seems not to be too full of sense For most assuredly when the Fathers explicate a dubious passage Their judgement tend's to declare the hidden sense of it Why therfore will No sure fixing on a doubtful sense you take their judgement off from such aâ—sense and put yours in room of it Or to what purpose do you talk here of Fixing upon the sense when a place is dubious and neither Church nor Fathers must be believed What is your Fixing good for when you suppose the thing you Fix on to be doubtful and your felves Fallible If you say you must come to a certainty of the sense by Tradition or some other way know that the Church and Fathers had better reason to be acquainted with such lights then any Sectary can have In a word A doubtful place remaining still doubtful or dubioufly explicated can never beget a certain belief in you or any Yet we say when the Church of Christ and Fathers also agree in an Explication When the Church and Fathers interpret all doubt ceaseth the doubt ceaseth and the delivered sense is most certain In your reason For since They c. you leap from the sense of a Doubtful passage to the Evidence of the place it self which seems not pertinent For what hath Evidence to do here when your Discours is only of a doubtful sense When a place is evident we se that as well as you And have with it the sentiment of a whole Church and Consent of Fathers also 16. You say 4. After some Talk of two Reverend Primates which I much heed not That St. Ambrose and others prayed for the Blessed in Heaven Ergo Orizons Old Objections renewed to no purpose for the Dead prove not a Purgatory I wonder you weary mens Eares again with such old worn-out Objections You or your Brethren have been told many and many a time that no Father no Church The Church prayes not for the Saints in Heaven to be released from temporal pain or to have sins remitted Greek or Latin ever prayed that the Saints in Heaven may be freed from any temporal pain or for the Remission of sins yet not only the Fathers
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
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
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
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
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
will not Insist much on their High Contempt of These sacred Words Which in a vulgar and Obvious Sense are as Fals as if I should now say Holding a Paper in my Hands This is my Body But This I must urge to their Confusion And wish All to takâ— Notice of it If the Interpretation now made of the Proposition be true Doctrin it Evidently Followes That Christ spoke so contrary to his Sectaries must say that Christ beguiled the whole Orthodox Christian world by the most Serious words he ever spok mind That He Hath beguiled the whole Orthodox Christian World By the most serious Words He ever uttered in this Mortal Life I 'll show you how Christ say Sectaries Before He spake those words This is my Body c. Had only this internal Act or Judgement in his mind That which I will now give to my Disciples Shall be nothing but Bread only or a bare Sign and Figure of my Body for Sectaries Suppose He never intended to make bread his Body yet hear how They make Christ to speak As it were contrary to his Thought I will Saith Eternal Truth Though I know That that shall be Bread only which I am to give my Disciples Mark the injury They make Christ to say That was his Body which really was not Three Things Evident in the Principles of Sectaries The first that Christ spoke improperly The second that in the Moment He spak He Foresaw a universal pretended Errour would follow in all Orthodox Churches The Third that this universal pretended Errour would proceed from no other Cause but from his improper speaking All Churches Orthodox believed the Real presence So Unluckily Express my self by Outward Words as to Miscal the Sign by the name of the Thing Signified and Avouch that to be my Body which Really shall not be my Body But is here all No. Christ intended more in these mens Opinion and Sayd in Effect thus much Though I now Foresee That an universal Errour will Follow Through all the reputed Orthodox Churches of Christendom upon my Dark and Improper Language yet I will speak as I do Obscurely And Beguile Them I know all will be Beguiled Because all will Mistake my Meaning And Believe That to be my Body which Really is not Thus I foresee They will err And the very Emphasis of my words will Cause this now pretended Vniversal Errour among Them Therfore They cannot But leave off to be Orthodox For a Church Erring in so Weighty a Matter Or That Adores a Piece of bread for God is Absolutely Vnorthodox and Hideously Fals. Sectaries you se grant that Christ spak thus Darkly And that by Doing so He hath Drawn all the Reputed true Churches on earth into This Persuasion is a most Evident Truth For there was never Any Church Acknowledged True in the world But such as litterally Vnderstood his Proposition in its Plain and obvious Sense And consequently All Churches Believed the Real Presence of his sacred Body in the holy Eucharist Though Sectaries say all Erred in that Belief I Say All for so Lanfrancus Speaks in his last book against Berengarius Omnes qui Christianos se esse dici laetantur All who are Glad of the Reality and Name of Christians Glory in this That they Receive in the Sacrament the True Flesh and Blood of Christ which was born of the Virgin Ask of all whether Graecians Armenians or of what other Nation soever Vno ore hanc fidem se testantur babere All of Them with Vnanimous consent openly Witnes That they have this Faith Now if our Adversaries Slight so Worthy an Author let them produce but one as Ancient and learned as Lanfrancus was That saith as much for the owning of Their novelty of a Trope Sign Figure only c. And I will be Satisfied 11. And Here we come to the last Triall of our Sectaries Cause Which is to shew you the High Improbability of their new Fancied Opinion And therfore we are in the next Place to Drive Them of All possible Ground to stand on And Demonstrate That The last Trial of our Sectaries cause which is to lay Forth the improbability of their new Opinion They have not so much as a likelyhood of any undoubted Principle wherby we may Learn That Christ our Lord Spake improperly in the Passages now Quoted or That his Words have any other Sense then what they Expresly Signify Which is our Catholick Doctrin CHAP. VI. Sectaries without either Proofs or Principles VVrest Christs VVords to an Improper Sense And vent an Heresy upon meer Fancy 1. NOte first when Christ our Lord said This is my body c. And used the like or more significant Expressions Registred by the other Evangelists He did not only Institute the Noblest of Sacraments But made also his VVill and Testament He Published a Law The Nature of a noble Sacrament Christs own will a Dogmatical Verity gave a Command Hoc facite Do this At least all Acknowledge That He Delivered a Dogmatical Verity Concerning our Christian Faith And did This in such grave Circumstances And to such Persons His own Dear Disciples That the Time Place and Persons to whom He Spak Required no Dark But most Plain and Proper Language As therfore no Man makes his last And other grave circumstances require plain and proper Language VVill Publisheth a Law Layes an Express Command on any or Delivers a Truth which All are to Learn Vnder Tropes Figures Metonymies or such Obscurities Thefe have place in the Dark Speaking of Prophets and serve well to set forth an Oration But contrarywise in obvious Vulgar and Intelligible VVords So much Less can it be Supposed when Christ our Lord spak of these Serious Matters That He Delivered his Mind in Obscure Metaphors Tropes or any such Expressions Vnles as I noted above We certainly Knew by more Christ could not speak so obscurely of this Mystery without clearing all in other passages of Holy writ plain Scripture Then our Saviours words are now cited That Though He beguile us Here with Tropes and Metaphors Yet in other Passages of Holy Writ He clear's all These dark Expressions by a contrary language And Speak's more Significantly for these Signes of Sectaries Then He doth for our Catholick Doctrin Vnles I say such Texts be at Hand Nothing can Force us from that Express Sense which the Gospel most Significantly Deliver's concerning this Mystery 2. Note 2. Sectaries Advance their Cause nothing at all when They tell us that the word EST sometimes Though the particle Est in some Propositions may be Interpreted it Signifies Imports as much as if We said Signifies As when you se a Picture of Caesar on a wall and Say This is Caesar The seed is Signifies the Word of God c. Could this be proved it is not enough More is required for They are Obliged to Show And by an Vndeniable Principle if my Faith Rely on their Gloss
might yet Go on And to clear all Answer now to a few Fals Supposed Grounds of Sectaries But the Learned Bellarmin Hath done the work to our Hands and Contributed more then Enough to Their Not one word of Scripture in the whole Bible for Sectaries utter Overthrow Truly is very pittiful to Se How after all their Braggs of Scripture Scripture is Here so Scarce with them That they cannot Find a Word through the whole Bible so much as remotely Favourable for this Heresy Observe wel what Straits They are put to 12. First the Particle EST in our Saviours Proposition must either Sound as much as Significat How they Trifle in a most weighty matter Signisies or Sectaries are undon And who Tell 's Them so but Fancy O It often Hath that sense I answer no such matter For EST ever retains its own simple and pâ—â—per Signification in every true Proposition and doth no more but joyn's the Predicate with the Subject what ever it be The reason is If any Trope or Metaphor lie hidden in the Copula EST it may certainly be Resolved into an other Word They Err in their Interpretations of Christs Words or Diction of a more Simple Clear and Open Signification Then EST by its own force Expresseth But this is Impossible For no Word can be clearer then the Clearest more Open then what is most openly significant This Copula is Always so and therfore cannot No Trope or Figure found in the verb Substantive though often in the Attribute or subject be Resolved into any clearer Diction And hence it is That when your Rhetoricians Treat of Figurative Speeches or Locutions They never Place the Trope or Figure on the Verb Substantive But either on the Attribute or Subject 'T is true the Predicate or Subject in many Propositions known Aliunde or by other clear Grounds to be Metaphors must be Explicated by clearer Terms whilst yet the Copula EST Holds its most Simple and Proper Signification Take one Instance Semen An Instance est verbum Dei The seed is the word of God The Word Seed as it is a Sign made by Institution essentially to Signify so in this place it is a Trop or Metaphor also For certainly Christ said not That material Seed cast into the Earth is really his Word if Therfore it be here both a Sign and Metaphor you must ultimatly Resolve the Proposition into a clearer Sense Thus. The very Essence of a Sign is to Signify This Word How Figurative Propositions are to be Resolved Seed is a Sign Ad placitum Metaphorically Representing the Word of God Therfore as well as a Metaphor can Do it Signifies this Divine Word where you se EST keeps its proper Signification And Therfore The whole Proposition finally Resolved Renders this Sense This Metaphor Seed is a Sign signifying Gods Word Now if you say We Grant at last That the Copula May here be Expounded Significat I Answer most True Yet without any Trope in EST For in such Enunciations Praedicatur Signum de Signo as Bellarmin notes The Sign is Predicated on the Sign As in this Proposition Amare Est diligere That is Amare is a synonimal Sign or signifies the same as Diligere And therfore is Explicated by Significat Because Sectaries explicate Christs proposition without placing the Trope on the verb Substantive the essence of a Sign is to signify But it is not so in other Propositions where that which is predicated is neither formally a Sign Only nor any Metaphor at all 13. You shall se what I say now Evidenced in our Sectaries Opinion For whilst they Explicate Christs Proposition This is my Body the Copula EST Retain's purely its own proper Signification without any Trope I prove it When we find a Trope in a Proposition it must lie There or in that Part of it into whose place when the whole Proposition is Resolved We put an other more plain and Significant Word to explicate the Trope clearly by this Resolving of a whole Proposition into its Parcels we easily judge where the Trope is Now Observe Our Sectaries resolve Christs Proposition Thus. This is my Body Hoc est signum corporis mei This is a Sign of my Body Mark well The words Subrogated to Explicate the The words subrogated to explicate the Trope with Sectaries be long to the Attribute Trope are these Two Signum Corporis But these two Words which belong to the Attribute or Predicate are not as is most evident Substituted in the place of the Copula EST Therfore the Trope lies not in the Copula which Keep 's still it s proper Significaiton But according to this Resolution in the word Corpus or Body Now How Fals it is That any Trope lyes in the word Body And consequently no where in the whole Proposition is Evidently Convinced by our Saviours true Assertion This is my Body which shall be given for you Believe it No sign of his Body was given for us But his Real Body Be it how you will Thus much is Clear That the Verb Substantive even here Retain's its Simple Proper and most Common signification 14. You may se more of this subject in Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 10. § secundo and cap. 11. per totum Where He Learnedly Explicates other Propositions Alleged by Sectaries as Petra erat Christus Agnus est Pascha c. All I 'le now say And 'T is what I noted Above Although it were granted that the Copula EST sometimes sound 's as much as significat Yet unles this sense Hold in All other Locutions of Scripture which is absolutely Fals our Adversaries are far enough from Proving their Intent Becaus they cannor Convince by any probable Principle That EST in this place Sectaries are far from proving their intent were all granted they pretend to A second Objection Hath that Determinate meaning which They would give it Therfore Fancy or something Worst must Help them to Mantain this Improbable Gloss 15. They Object 2. Those Words of Scripture Do this in Remembrance of me And then Discours We Commemorate no Body nor Celebrate any Ones Memory unles He be Absent But Christ As we Teach is Always Present in the Holy Eucharist Therfore we cannot make a Commemoration of Him as of One Absent If is one thing to say Do this Action you se me Do in Remembrrance of me And another to say the Sacrament is only a Remembrance of Christ The Apostle 1. Corrinth 11. Answer 's the Difficulty For After He Had sayd Do this in Remembrance of me He add's Quotiescumque enim c. As often as you Eat this Bread and drink this Chalice You shall shew the Death of our Lord until He Come But the Death of our Saviour is long since Pas't and not Present Therfore we may wel Commemorate his Death and Passion as Priests do in every Masse they say In Rigour therfore
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
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
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
is fallible Therfore the Belief founded on it is no better but Moral and fallible Mark well your own Argument 'T is thus 9. The Motives of Credibility for Christian Faith Because only known by Moral Certainty cannot ground a certain Belief of any Churches Infallibility Ergo I say The very Existency of God and his Revelation Because only known by a Moral Certainty cannot ground a firm Belief in God or any Christian Verity unles you say that These Motives for Christian Faith far surpasse in Certainty all the certain knowledge we can have of Gods Existency I know not what these men can answer My thought is They must make Faith a meer Opinion and allow it nothing of Certainty or Supernatural infallibility Though they seemingly speak otherwise as if Moral Certainty might be a sufficient Foundation for the most firm assent Would to God they would declare themselves intelligibly And say plainly whether this firm Assent here mentioned be only of the like Nature with probable firm Opinions taught in Schools Or contrarywise if this firm Assent be Faith whether it doth not Supereminently surpas the Certainty of All other obscure intellectual Operations which Christians now have on Earth This should be explicated but is not 10. Now to the Reply Though an exact Answer An Answer to the Reply cannot be well returned without entring upon an other question the Resolution of Faith which here lyes out of the way and Admit's not in this Place of a full and diligent Examination I say first No obscure intellectual Operation which preced's Divine Faith or is independent of it can arise to those Degrees of Certainty which this Supernatural Act requires Admit then that the Existency of God which is true can be Demonstrated by natural Reason Admit also that those strong Motives for Christian Religion Antecedently known by Humane Discours demonstratively convince the Verity of it yet because Faith as I now sayd Relyes upon a Superiour infallible Principle Gods own unerrable Veracity it far surmont's both these Certainties and much more would it go beyond them were they known as Moral Truths only Why A natural Discours wherby these Vetities are known is Science But no science gives the last or least Degree of intrinsick No Science gives the least Degree of certitude to Faith Certitude to Faith and Therfore Divines say Gods Supream Verity which ever supports Belief upholds it not as known by natural Reason For if it did Faith would be at last resolved into one natural Principle thus I believe God to be the Highest Verity imaginable not Because he saith so But because I know this great Truth Scientifically where you se the last Analysis rest's on an extrinsecal Principle of knowledge with which Faith as Faith meddles not 11. Thus much therfore is clear Although the Motives of Credibility manifest as they do most undoubtedly that God speak's to Christians yet when we bring an Act of Faith by a true Analysis to its Home and Center we find it ever Resting on Gods Veracity only as the last Stay and most certain Motive Notwithstanding Motives to Faith absolutly necessarly the Praeambulatory Motives avail infinitly to Faith Because they indubitably point out that Society of Christians wherin Gods Verities are certainly taught and make this Discernable from all other Haeretical Conventicles In a word They shew Christian Religion to be either evidently Credible or as some later Divines will have it evidently True in Attestante And if this be so the formal Object of Christian Faith is known as it were Scientifically either before or when we Actually Believe which seems grounded on those words of the Apostle Scio cui credidi certus sum I know and then believe certainly 12. At present I wave this Doctrin and say secondly It is one thing to know Scientifically and another Difference betwixt a Certain Belief and a Scientificall knowledge to Believe certainly Both intervene in the matter now handled Faith Prerequires a Science and Moreover essentially includes Certainty Thus it is While one of Prudence ponders those strong and pressing Motives which as Light doth the Sun gloriously evidence true Christian Religion such are Miracles the long continued Consent of Nations Sanctity of life Efficacy in Doctrin the blood sheding of Martyrs c. He knowes What and how these Motives convince that God cannot permit the world to be cheated into errour by them He knowes that his goodnes cannot proclaim as it were and publish to Christians a Religion manifested by such evident convincing Marks and Signs of Truth and afterward Signify a meer nothing It cannot be that God speak's in so powerful a Language and deceives us For who can perswade himself That all the Miracles done by Christ and his Blessed Apostles the eminent Sanctity They showed and admirable Conversion wrought by them open to mens eyes and senses were permitted like Charms to Delude the world Yet this followes if either no Religion answered to these great visible wonders or if such palpable convincing Signs could make a false Religion as Speciously Credible as Gods true Religion is Therfore Rich. de S. Victor lib. 1. de Trin. c. 2. with just Reason Exclaims Si error est quem credidimus à te decepti sumus If it be Errour we Believe it is you O God who have deceived us and He gives this Reason Iis enim signis c. For by such forcible Signs the Doctrin we believe is confirmed which could not proceed from any but from you alone Observe now well Two Judgements may ensue upon the Consideration of these exteriour Iudgements upon these Signs Signs which manifest Christianity The one after this manner God certainly Delivered his Eternal Truths by the Preaching of Christ and his Blessed Apostles who had no other Exteriour Testimony for their Doctrin but Miracles Sanctity Conversions of Nations c. I now see saith this prudent Man as evidently the like Miracles the like Conversions with great Sanctity c. in the Roman Catholick Church If therfore it was Evident that God spoke to the first Christians by the wonderful works of Christ it is as Evident that he Speaks now to me by the Still continued Miracles of this Church This Discours or Judgement wherby he affirms There are These wonders Faith and Science Tend differently God speak's by his Church is not Faith but Science Because it Relyes on Motives which Reason knows evidently enough Now further When He is thus disposed and prepared to Believe by so firm an Evidence The other Judgement of Elicite Faith followes which tend's not into the Evidence of those Motives for if it did so under that Notion it would not be Faith For Faith as Faith totally Relyes on Gods Sole Revelation and for this as the only Formal Object a Christian Believes what ever mystery is Revealed after a due Proposal as is already Declared 13. Some will say The Elicite Act of Faith Scientifically
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
If the Churches Interpretation were as fallible as the Arians Christians might follow either as they please were as fallible as the Arians Christians might indifferently Adhere to Either yea and changeably now take one then the other as they please A greater Probability can ballance nothing in this or the like particulars as I shall largely prove hereafter In the mean while by what is now said we may learn first Though Scripture in this and other Mysteries hath its Darknes yet by the good Providence of Almighty God we are provided of a Sure Interpreter which is absolutely Necessary For if Every one interpret according to fancy Haeresy is easily Drawn out of Gods Word And if none interpret Faithfully the Scripture still lyes hid in Obscurity which makes it for that part a Useles Book to Christians The necssity of an infallible Interpreter Learn farther That None can ever know exactly by Human Industry or his Sole pondering the Bible let him be another Salomon for Wisdom what God hath Revealed in these difficil Mysteries of our Faith without an Infallible Interpreter To prove my Assertion I 'll give you one Instance 3. Suppose that two or three most learned Heathen Philosopher well versed in Languages and all Human Literature had this Book of Scripture put into their Hands and were perswaded by the extrinsecal An instance of Philosoohers reading the Bible Authority of all Christians that God here speak's his Eternal Verities Withall That if they read the Book and by their Sole reading without Recours to any Interpreter possess the True sense of it They have True Saving Faith Well They read it and with as much Humility as any Protestant can do yet If They ask of none but Their own Iudgement errour followes Ask of none But their own judgement what it means in the more difficil Passages Tell me I beseech you And here I appeal to the moderate Iudgement of every Christian whether Catholick Arian or Protestant What Faith or Religion would these Philosophers produce out of Sole Scripture Solely Read and pondered by them My Thought is 'T is no more but a Thought That the Result of their Reading would end in Coyning a Religion different from all Others now in Christendom I am very confident They would never pitch upon Protestancy no nor Their doubts would be Endles upon any Sect now extant Alas they would Doubt and Stagger at every hard passage in Scripture yea and by the very Instinct of Nature if they own'd Scripture for Gods Book would humbly Supplicate Those who gave them the Book to lay open the Mysteries therin and Assure them of its meaning in a hundred Places yet none can do this good office for them But One only Society of Christians that layes claim to Infallibility and proves it Demonstratively if Faith be in the World 4. Be it how you will thus much I conclude Our Protestants are in the very same Case without an infallible Interpreter as the Philosophers are with Sectaries are in the very same case without an Infallible Interpreter no Interpreter These make Scripture speak what They think it speaks right or wrong And Protestants do the like whilst They give their sentiment on Mysteries above their Reach without an Infallible Teacher Pray you Reflect Had Christ Iesus and his Apostles never Taught any thing by Word of Mouth But only thrown the Book of Scripture amongst Christians Strange Confusions Had Christ and his Apostles given to Christians a Bible without an Interpreter when They left the World and commanded them to make that use of it which every Private Iudgement thought best what a Religion think ye should we have had at this day in Christianity any or none or a thousand different ones as good as none God only knows I do not Yet will say This is out very present Condition if an infallible Interpreter of Scripture be Rejected We may wrangle to the Dissentions would have followed without hope of union Worlds end but agree in nothing Dispute but conclude nothing we may raise Difficulties one against another But allay none And thus the contest must run on without Redres or Remedy All Appellation here to Antiquity to Councils Fathers Appellation to Antiquity remedies nothing being fallible with Protestants and Tradition help 's nothing Becaus they are Fallible And were they otherwise we vary as highly about the Sentiments of Fathers in every debated point of Controversy as we do about Scripture it self 5. We se thirdly How utterly impossible it is for a Protestant to draw from the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture the True Sense and meaning of Gods Word in any controverted point of Religion The Reason is Scripture never speak's plainly and expresly the Protestants Sense in these debated Controversies observe it in All and you 'll find it so What do they therfore to help themselves They first Reject an Infallible Interpreter and next as the Arians do superadd their own Fallible glosses to make Sectaries make Scripture to speak what They would have it say not what God speak's Scripture speak not what it Truly says But what They would have it say And thus they think Scripture cleared and Their Work don Take here one Instance for many Catholicks and Protestants have been at Variance a hundred years and more about these Sacred Words Matt. 26. This is my Body The different Senses drawn from them are Contradictory And therfore cannot be True This is my Body Really saith the Catholick and here is my internal Faith No saith the Protestant This is my Body figuratively or a Sign of my Body And this is my Belief Arians and Protestants vitiate Scripture after the same manner Mark I beseech Just as the Arian saith I and my Father are one and superadds his Gloss of one in Affection so the Protestant here vitiates the Text by his Gloss and adds to Scripture what God never spoke a Trope a Figure a Sign and I know not what And after This Injury don to the Words He Believes not for Gods Express Word But for his own far-fetcht and dear bought Interpretations which are no more Scripture then if he should tell me That An Example That text of St. Matthew cap. 3. verse 17. This is my beloved Son were to be forcibly stript of its Verity and misinterpreted Thus This is only a Sign or Figure of my Beloved Son No more doth Scripture through the whole Gospel warrant in the least an Improperty of speech in the one Text now cited then in the other I little Regard The Protestant dscourses and glosses contrary to this Mystery of Faith let us have plain Scripture much les their Inferences which are all Human and Fallible O but to say that Christ Body is Really Present under the Species of Bread yea and in a thousand places at Once is an Vnintelligible Mystery Why more Unintelligible then a Trinity of Persons in one Essence
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
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
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
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
Belief of particular Mysteries But this is no hindrance to Catholick Faith in the most How the unlearned believe all that is revealed unlearned man in the World For such an one Believes Explicitely as much as he knows is Proposed And is not only in Praeparatione animi ready to embrace more when more is Proposed But even now in every Act of Faith He Elicit's as I noted above Implicitly and Virtually Submits to All That God hath explicitly Revealed That Distinction therfore which some of our New men here Introduce Viz. A Distinction of Sectaries unnecessary Of Things Necessary to Salvation respectively to such as are of weaker Capacities and of Things Necessary to be owned in order to Salvation by Christian Societies as Bonds of Ecclesiastical Communion is to no Purpose unles we Speak of a less or more Explicit Belief which may be Various according to a Dark or Clearer Proposition The Reason is Becaus All that God Reveals and neither more nor less is One and the same Respectively to All to the Learned to the Unlearned to weak and Strong Capacities Yea And to the whole Church also and this All Acknowedge in every Act of Faith They have Though perhaps it be less extended to particular Articles But know as is The worth of Faith not in the Extension but in Submission now noted That the true Worth of Faith Consists not so much in the Extensive Reach of it to more Material Objects As in an Intensive and Equal Submission to Gods Veracity in the things He Speaks which now I yeild to by the explicit Faith I have And am ready to do more when a Clearer Proposition and Gods Command Require it Whence you se Though a How far the Faith of the unlearned is extended Rustick hath less of the Explicit Belief Then a Learned Clerk Yet He want's not therfore One Grain of Supernatural Faith that Saves all Christians For His Faith is Virtually as far Extended as any Doctors And his Infused Habit Every whit as Good If any one cavil at the Distinction of Explicit and Implicit Faith He may Correct his Errour by this one Example Give me One that hath read over Holy Scripture and Descend's by Explicit Faith to every Verity in it He Believes well Another far from That Extensive knowledge knows some Verities Revealed There and Believes them nevertheless He Owns All and every Iota in the Book for Gods Sacred Word Tell Saving Faith as well found in an implicit as in an Explicit Belief me I Beseech you Hath not this more Ignorant Man with his less Explicit Assent As true Saving Faith as the Other Yes most Assuredly And in the Sense now Declared as Far Extended This is our very Case Could we Therfore once Agree about the Proponent of Faith most Difficulties were ended These few Considerations Premised 4. My first Assertion is The Distinction usually made Protestants Distinction of Points more or less Fundamental is fals by Protestants of Points more or less Fundamental in order to Christians is not only Vnreasonable but also very Fals if we consider the Articles of Faith subsisting as it were or Essentially Depending upon Gods Eternal Revealing Verity For as They are Here All stand firm alike And equally sure upon this Verity If therfore I Answer All Faith stand's firm upon Divine Revelation with my Faith to what this Motive firmly requires And as undoubtedly Believe as God Speak's I must Assent to all with equal Assurance nor can I Believe some and Disbelieve others when all are Proposed alike No nor make Less or more Degrees of Certitude in my Faith From whence I Infer That no man by any Means or Search whatever can find out what Articles are Fundamental what not Because There is no Means possible to find that which There is Nothing of the less or more certitude when God Speak's is not to be Found But Fundamentals and not Fundamentals are not to be found And I prove the Minor Every Revealed Article is Asserted by an Infinit Verity But an Infinit Verity Deliver's all it Speak's with one and the same Infinit Certainty where no Degrees of more or less Certitude can have Place Ergo All Articles All revealed Truths therfore are equally certain of Faith have one and the same like Infinit Assurance as They are Spoken by an Infinit Verity Consequently one is as Ponderous as another And Equally Fundamental if We which is only to be Regarded do Respect the Motive Again If some Articles be Fundamental and others not it is either Becaus the Fundamentals Rely on a Greater Verity and the Non Fundamentals on a Less which is utterly Fals for the same Infinit Truth Speak's them all Or Becaus though He delivers all yet His Pleasure is That we Esteem of some more Fundamental Then others And this is Impossible Viz. That an Infinit Verity takes as it were the pains to Speak to us and for our Eternal Saluation And yet doth not Oblige us to Believe Him in what He saith with the whole It dishonours God not to Believe All He speaks equally forces of our Soul It is as I have shewed Highly against the Dignity of God To engage his Eternal Truth in Speaking to us And yet have Those He speak's to Talk as if it Matter'd not whether He be Heard or no. 5. You may Reply Some Things Revealed to us seem light in regard of the Material Object For who can Own it as Fundamental an Article of Faith to Believe that St. Paul left his cloak at Troas as to Believe the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son also I Answer God as we We cannot believe the greater Matter and Disbelieve the lesser without Forfeiture of Faith now Suppose Speak's both these Verities Therfore both are Equally True And if equally True I cannot Believe the one upon the Motive of Gods Veracity and Disbelieve The other when Propounded without a Forfeiture of all Faith The Disparity therfore which Ariseth here From the Matter Revealed Imports nothing to the present Question 6. You may say Again The Necessity of Things which ly in Gods great Design and are Absolutely to be Believed must be taken from the Reference They have to our last End which is Eternal Saluation Answ I say so too But General Talk This is only general Talk and comes not Home to the Question For the Question rightly stated Drives at Particulars and Ask's how many of those Precisely have Reference to this last End or are Necessary to Salvation Respectively to All after a Sufficient Proposition No Article Revealed can be Disbelieved Catholicks Say the Belief of all is so far Necessary That not one of All those revealed Articles can be Disbelieved Protestants make their Exceptions Yet hitherto Sectaries cannot say what Articles are to be excluded as unnecessary to Salvation never Dared to give in a Catalogue of what They except
nor can say That the Belief of such and such Articles are to be excluded as Vnnecessary to Saluation 7. Nay I Affirm more It is Impossible for Them by their own Principles to Exclude any To prove my Assertion Observe First They can no more say by a true general Proposition This whole Bible I have now Sectaries cannot by their Principles distinguish between Fundamentals and others in my Hands is Gods own Word and exclude the least Verity in it from being Gods true Word Then They can say by a true general Proposition All men are by nature Mortal and exclude any particular Man from being Mortal For as the Mortality of every particular man makes so far forth This Proposition True That if One be by nature Immortal it is Fals so the Truth of every particular Article in Scripture Verifies so far the other Proposition To believe Scripture in a general way that implyes the Covenant of Grace is necessary to Saluation That if one Article be not Gods true Word the General Proposition is Fals also Now I Assume But Protestants say to Believe Scripture to be the true Word of God at least in a General way which implyes the Covenant of Grace and Faith in Christ is Indispensably necessary to Saluation Therfore They must also Say To believe every particular Article contained in Scripture as being truely Gods Word is in like manner Indispensably Necessary to Salvation Becaus this General Belief carries as well in The Reason it an Owning of every particular Truth in Scripture as the General Assertion of All mortal Ascrib's Mortality to every particular man The Reason is clear For as Scripture is not made up of Generalities But Essentially Scripture Cansist's of particular Verities is constituted of the particular Verities contained Therin so if my Faith truely and intierly Own Scripture for Gods Word it is Extended to no Generality in the Object For there is none But to particular Verities Though the Mode or Tendency of the Act be Faith must be of Particulars nos always perfectly Explicit 8. If you Say The Argument Here proposed seem's Fallacious Becaus it Proves at most That every little Matter in Scripture may be an Object of Faith But no way Inferr's the Belief of them Necessary to Saluation For 't is very different To Affirm Such a Thing I may Believe And another to own the Belief of The Belief of Every particular in Scripture relates to Eternal Happines it Necessary to Saluation if this I say be the Reply my Answer is That as well the Belief of every particular Verity in Scripture hath the same Relation to mans Eternal Happines as the general Belief of owning Scripture for Gods Word hath not only Becaus the Particular is included in the General But chiefly on this other Account That being a Supernatural Elicit Act of Faith it can aym at no other End But mans Supernatural Happines For under this Notion of Supernaturality it Leaves as it were the Limits of Nature and raiseth a Soul to Eternal Bliss Where you se That Both the Means and End Vnivocally Agree in being Supernatural and are alike suitable To one another Permit me to Evidence this Truth further and Ask Whether the Denial or Disbelief of the least Truth The Disbelief of the least matter in Scripture makes one an Haeretick That God Speaks in Scripture once Owned for his Word and Sufficiently Propounded makes not a Man an Haeretick Yes most assuredly For by Denying That to be True which He knows God Saith is True He pertinaciously Opposeth himself to an Infinit Veracity Ergo The True Act of Faith contrary That which makes one a Faithful Believer hath reference to Saluation to this Infidelity of Necessity makes him a Faithful Believer But that which necessarily makes him a Faithful Believer hath not only Reference to his last End But is also necessary to Saluation for as Infidelity looseth Heaven so True Faith is Necessary to gain it Therfore the Belief of every little Article is not of little But in this Sense of as main Consequence as the Greatest The Belief of Every little matter in the sense now explicated is not Little And here by The way you may well Reflect upon the Desperate Talk of some Later Men who Tell us That All things contained in Scripture are not so Necessary in order to our End some being at so great a Remove from this End That the only Reason of Believing them is Becaus they are Contained in Scripture A most unworthy saying Mr. Stilling fleet 's Doctrin refuted which makes God to have Spoken a Thousand idle Words in Scripture For there They stand uselesly in the Book without Benefit without Subserviency or Relation to any further good But only to be looked on You may Read them and pass by them as Things wholy Vnnecessary to our Final End A strange Conceipt They frame of Scripture that make it up as Ill Apothecaries do sometimes Physick of Vnnecessary Ingredients 9. You may Reply Some Catholicks seem to The sense of Divines Concerning Matters Necessary per se and secundarily Necessary Divide the Object of Faith into that which is Per se By it Self Necessary And By Accident or Secondarily Necessary Ergo They Acknowledge Fundamental and not Fundamental Doctrins in the Sense of the Question now Proposed I Deny the Consequence For They only hold some Verities to be so Principally Necessary to the Essence of Christian Faith That if They had not been Revealed at All or Now were unknown Christian Religion would absolutly Perish But it is not so in Others For example Had God never Revealed any thing Touching Christ our Lord the Sacred Mystery of the Incarnation or a Trinity c. The very Essence Why called Primacy Objects of Faith of our Religion would not have been And therfore These are called Primary Objects Ratione materiae Becaus if we have no knowledge or Faith in Christ we have no Christian Religion Contrarywise Had the Holy Ghost not at all Inspired the Hagiographers to write much of the Historical part in Scripture which is writ or never Told us that Abraham had two Sons yet we might have Known Christ and perfectly Believed in Him Such Something 's in regard of the Matter are not necessary Though being writ become Necessary Verities then Becaus of the Matter are not Per se so Necessary However Being now writ They are True Objects of Faith Becaus God Speak's Them It is Therfore one thing to say These lesser matters if not writ at all had not been necessary to constitute Religion And another thing to say Now when They are writ and spoken by Almighty God They do not integrate the total Object of Faith But They least matter in Scripture is an Object of Faith may be looked on as Parergons or as Things void of all Reference to our Eternal Happines It is I say Impossible to own them
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
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
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
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
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
clearly We may first Suppose Two necessary Suppositions That as God hath Certainly Revealed the Truth of this Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Scripture so He hath also Taught us What we are Truely to Believe concerning it We Suppose 2. That his real Intention was and is That we stand to his Word and Believe Him as he Speak's Vnles we can Learn by some clear and Vndoubted Principle That he spak Reservedly or That his words bear another Sense then what they plainly Signify Vpon these Suppositions I Argue When God Reveals a Truth in Holy A clear Argument Proposed against Sectaries Scripture which concerns the General Belief of all And really Intends to Teach Christians what They are to Believe of that Revealed Truth He cannot Deliver more significantly clearly and expresly that Doctrin which He would not have Christians to Believe Then He Doth the Doctrin which He Would have them to Believe For if He did so whilst We cannot Learn by any known Principle That He speak's otherwise then He Thinks He would not only Equivocate and Deal reservedly with us in a Weighty matter of Faith And this as Ill beseem's his Goodnes as to Speak an Vntruth God in a weighty Matter of Faith cannot deliver more clearly that Doctrin which He would not have Christians to Believe Then he Doth the other which He would have them to believe If God cannot make a fals Religion more credible to Reason by outward Motives Then his true Religion is He cannot deliver an errour not to be Believed in more plain and significant words then he useth when he speaks a Truth to be believed by All. But more if we Rely on Scripture only He would Induce the whole world to Believe a Falsity Now I Subsume But it is most Evident if Sectaries Say right That God in speaking of this Mystery Delivers that Doctrin more clearly And significantly Which He would not have Christians to Believe Then He doth the other which He would Have them to Believe And there is no Imaginable Principle wherby we can learn that he Spake otherwise then He Thought or his plain Words Signify Therfore he speak's not only Equivocally and Reservedly in a weighty matter of Faith which is Alwayes to be Reflected on But He Induceth also the whole Christian World if Scripture guide us to Believe a Falsity by His too plain Speaking 5. Before I prove the Minor And give you this Clearer Language of Almighty God For what He will not Have us to Believe c. Be pleased to call to mind one Truth Explicated more largely Disc 1. cap. 8. For it is the Ground of my Present Discours Vpon that Principle therfore I say now Again As God cannot if True Faith be in the world make a Fals Religion more Prudently Credible to Reason by the force of rational Motives Then His True Religion is Evidenced and made Credible For if he did so He would oblige Reason to Embrace a Falsity and Desert Truth So also when He Delivers a Doctrin Concerning Christian Faith And in the most serious Circumstances imaginable He cannot Deliver an Errour in more Emphatical and Plainer words Then He speak's a Truth which yet You Shall se is Don if Sectaries be Believed The Parity Holds Exactly For As those more Perswasive Motives Antecedent to Belief wherby we are as it were summoned The parity hold's exactly to settle our Faith right Would If They Countenanced a Fals Religion Prudently Induce Rational men to embrace that and Leave the Discountenanced true Religion so This very clearer Language of God Wheron our Faith immediately Relies Would Also if it be more Express and Significant For Errour then Truth Force All to Embrace the Errour and Abandon Truth Becaus the Errour is most significantly Expressed in Holy Writ And the Truth not at All And This is Don when there is no excogitable Grounded Principle to Fancy or the bare words of Sectaries cannot work out of a Christians Hart the open sense of Christs words How Christ speak's and what Catholicks Believe Draw us of the supposed Errour if we be Beguiled or to work this supposed Falsity out of our Harts But the meer Fancy And the bare Word of a few Sectaries who say we are Deceived 6. Now to prove the Minor And Demonstrate that God delivers more Fully and significantly the Doctrin Which He would not have Christian◠to Believe then he doth the other Ponder these two things First what Eternal Truth Speak's in this Matter And we Catholicks Believe 2. What Sectaries say He speak's And They Believe These are Christs words This is my Body This is my Body Which is Given for you This is my Blood of the new Testament that shall be Shed for many Take heed say Sectaries Read warily These words Sectaries must say That Christs vvords taken in their plain literal sense are fals Taken in Their Plain literal and most Obvious sense are Fals and Therfore Express not the Doctrin we are to Believe Again Christ Speak's Thus. This is the Chalice of the new Testament in my blood which Chalice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is or shall be Shed for you Vnles you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed No such Matter say Sectaries This is not the Doctrin we are to Believe For these words Vnderstood in Their Plain Obvious sense are Fals. That Chalice Shed For us vvas not his blood But vvine of the grape We eat not the flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood But only eat Bakers Bread and Drink Natural wine Sectaries make the contrary Proposition to Christs words True His flesh is not really meat nor His blood Drink Observe I pray you Sectaries so Abhor The plain and Proper Sense of Christs own Words that they make the contradictory Proposition to Him Absolutely True in Every Particular And his Fals Therfore they must at least confess that he Speak's too clearly and expresly that Doctrin which They say we ought not to Believe Otherwise Why do They not Admit of his Words in Their open and most candid Signification 7. Shall we next Consider what Sectaries Believe of this Mystery and withall Learn whether Christ Delivers as plainly Their Doctrin in Scripture As ours Sectaries Faith of this Mystery Hear Their Profession of Faith We Believe Say They That that which Christ gave to his Disciples vvas Natural Bread Deputed to a Holy Vse And no More We Believe it to be a Sign Only a Figure Only a Seal a Token a Type Only of Christs Body That is We Believe it to be His Body by Resemblance Symbolically Tropically Metonymically and Significantly Which is to Say it Hath the Scripture no vvhere call's that vvhich Christ gave his Disciples Natural Bread or a Sign only of his Body name of Christs Body But Really is no such
Thing And is This your Belief Yes Out with your Bible Therfore And Shew me as Many clear Texts of Holy Writ where That which Christ gave to His Disciples in his last Supper is called Natural Bread a Sign Only a Figure Token or Type only of his Body For This is the Doctrin you say we ought to Believe As I have now Quoted for the Contrary where it is called Christ Body and Blood Though you Suppose This to be the Doctrin We must not Believe Believe it These expressions This is my Body which is given for you This The words of our Saviour are plain and most Significant is the Chalice in my Blood which shall be shed for you are most Open And Significant Language Answer Me with Other Texts as Significant For your Faith or to this Sense This is not my Body But a Sign Only of my Body which is given For you Speak Plainly was it a Sign or a Figure Only of Christ That He blessed Lord Sacrificed on the Cross Was it a Sign or Figure only of Him That Judas Betrayed or that Suffered For our sins No. It was his Iudas betrayed not a sign of Christ Body but Christ himself very real Body and this Body Truth that cannot Err saith He gave to his Disciples Once more I have right to Demand Give me Text for Text or Cast your Scriptures in a Pair of Scales for a Trope Figure and Sign Only and Lay mine now Quoted By Them for the Reality of Christs Body Present And Let that Side of the Ballance Fall where you find most Weight of Gods Word You will soon Perceive Nothing in Scripture of signes and figures only How Light your Heresy is Compared with Truth And that without further Dispute it Flyes up to Fancy For There is not in the whole Bible so much as one Syllable of these Signes Only of these Figures of these Metonymies or any such Language 8. We se Moreover If Sectaries Speak Truth The Conclusion Fall's on Them with a greater Weight then They Imagined For it Followes That Christ our Lord Hath not only Spoken more Significantly and Expresly the Doctrin He would not have to be Believed Then the other which They say is to be Believed But also That He obligeth us to Believe a Sectaries would have us to believe a Docttin contrary to express Scripture Doctrin And by force of Scripture Which Clear Scripture is so far from Expressing That it Expresly Teaches the Contrary to what They Say All Ought to Believe I might yet Propose this Argument in other Terms and Perhaps with greater Force after this Manner If Christ Delivered that Doctrin more Plainly The Argument is proposed in other Terms which Sectaries Suppose to be Fals and Less clearly Yea not at All The contrary Doctrin which They Suppose to be True They who ground All Their Belief on Scripture must either Interpret the plainer Scripture by the more Obscure yes and I say by no Scripture at All And this is pure Fancy Or will be forced not so much to Misinterpret as plainly to Deny the Obvious and Open Sense of Christs own Words And This is wors then Fancy And here by If by a supposed impossibility Catholicks were deceived in Their Faith the way you may gather 3. If Catholicks who Believe the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist Be Deceived in their Faith They may without Blame Impute the Errour to no other cause But to the plain Speaking of our Saviour and most Justly say Si error est quem credimus à te decepti sumus If we are Deceived 'T is you Blessed Lord who have don it You Tell They might justly blame Christs plain words us This is my Body which is given for you This is my Blood shed for many c. You never uttered the least syllable in your Scripture of a Sign Only of a Trope Figure or symbol Only Say therfore most imparrial Judge Wherin are we guilty whilst We Expresly Believe what you To say that Christ beguil's us or that we are beguiled by him is Blasphemy Expresly Teach And Reject a Novelty which None But Hereticks Brought into the World To Affirm that Christ intended to Beguile us by his too Plain Speaking of this Mystery is open Blasphemy And to Say we are beguiled by him is no Less An Impiety The Answer if Sectaries pretend we do not anderstand Christs words 9. All that Sectaries can Pretend for Their Cause Against this Discours is That we yet Arrive not to the True meaning of Christs sacred Words And Therfore They are ready to Teach us Very Good We are content to learn what is Truth But Before they Begin Their Teaching it will be best for Them To Reflect that we have here a Proposition This is my Body c. And because Christ Delivered It 'T is most True Therfore we have a Subject also This school terms are necessary in the present occasion we have a copula EST IS And a Predicate or Attribute My Body Now If our Adversaries will Vouchsafe to Teach Let Them first Please to Give us Plainly the Total Object of Christs Proposition And Say what that The total Object of Christs Proposition it to be declared Predicate was which He then Connected with the Subject HOC or THIS Did He say natural Bread remaining bread was his Body No 'T is most Fals. Did he say by an Identical Enunciation His Body was his Body No. Did He Say that what He pointed at was By the Energy of his Words made Really his Body No it is too plain Popery and Christ Say they never Spoke it How then shall we Learn what he truely Asserted or find a Subject Copula Sectaries can find no Truth in the proposition unles they first abuse his sacred words and Predicate in this Proposition They Answer And here is their best Instruction it is Impossible to find either Truth or these three Things in it Unles They first Abuse the Words And Say Hoc est Here Sitts Christs Body or That this Bread Per commumunicationem Idiomatum is Christs Body or That this Bread was made a natural Body by the Omnipotent Word of Christ or Finally Say To Omit other Glosses And This sense best Pleaseth Modern Sectaries That the Word Est Imports not Is or any Identity between Hoc and Corpus But Renders an other Sense and only Availes as much As if you sayd Significat This Signifies Christs Body Read therfore the Gospel thus This is my Body id est This Natural bread Signifies or is a Sign a Figure of my Body And we are Right We have the Genuine Sense of his Proposition Thus they Teach us 10. Here you shall se a Powerful work of Fancy A work of Fancy And a mighty injury don to Christ. And the Greatest Wrong Don I think to Christ that ever entred into a Christians Hart. To lay open This sin of Sectaries I
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
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
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