this Principle of Dr. Sherlock be reasonable the Jews ought when he disputed in their Synagouge not to have stirr'd an inch not to have hearkened to him till he had disowned infallibility In the Defence the Honest Footman is ashamed of so unchristian a Principle and would disown it saying That it appears plain and natural to him that he may submit his judgment to an Infallible Judge and yet the Church of Rome may not be that Judge true but this is contrary to Dr. Sherlock's Principle For how long is the Protestant not to stir an inch till the Catholic hath proved his Churches infallibility There would have been some common sense and reason in that Advice but not so says Dr. Sherlock but till he disowns infallibility 'T is as evident then as Noon-day-light that Dr. Sherlock lookt upon infallibility pretended unto as inconsistent with disputing and pretending by reason to convince an other of the truth and that consequently he takes the Jews's part against St. Paul. The Footman Mistook here his Masters Errant Preservative fol. 6. Dr. Sherlock asks this Question What difference is there betwixt mens using their private judgment to turn Papists or to turn Protestants I answered the same as betwixt two sick men the one whereof chooses to put himself in an able Doctors hands whom he knows to have an infallible Remedy whilst the other chooses his own Simples and makes his own Medicin As between two at Law the one whereof is guided by his Reason to take Advice from a wise Counsellor the other to be his own Council c. The Doctor 's second Answers by this Question And is not here private Judgment used all this while A shrewd Question indeed Dr. Sherlock had asked what difference there was in these two uses of private Judgment I produce the difference then as if the Question had been forgot still says the Footman there is use made of private Judgment it were as nice a Reply had one asked what difference is there betwixt an Ounce of Gold and an Ounce of Silver if when the different value is express'd he should wisely return this answer why there is still an Ounce in both cases Is there no difference then betwixt one who follows his fancy in choosing his way and him who chooses a good Guide and follows him because both choose do both equally rely on their fancy What Position can more abuse common sense Certainly the Ingenious and Learned Gentlemen of the Temple cannot but smile at this strange way of Reasoning in their Master so different from theirs Preservative fol. 9. They cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith because the sense given of Scripture and Fathers takes its Authority from the Church understanding it so I Replyed that the sense takes its Authority from God who spake the Word though we are certain that we have the true sense of that Word because we receive it from the Church which is guided in delivering to us both the Letter and Sense by the infallible Spirit of God that is to abide with Her for ever according to Christs promise Joh. 14. 16. I added that if John and William dispute which is the right way to a place John is not disabled of convincing William of his mistake because he receives the Reasons he uses from an infallible Guide This was plain and full what answers the Doctor 's second He cites some Catholic Divines how truly it belongs not to my present purpose saying that the words of Scripture brought in proof of Transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the Catholic Church hath ever received and delivered and that had not the Church ever taught that sense one might believe otherwise for all the Letter of Scripture Let it be so but what follows here But the necessity of an unerring Interpreter So that Text 1 Joh. 5. 7 8. There be three which give Testimony in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three be one and there be three which give testimony on Earth the Spirit Water and Blood and these three be one in the sense the Church hath ever received it in proves the strict Unity of God in the Trinity of Persons The Arians gave it a contrary and as natural a sense doth this prove that we follow not Scripture and this very Text in our belief of the Holy Trinity Once more I appeal to the Learned Gentlemen of the Temple hoping they will join with me maintaining against their Master that all the Judges of the Land may very reasonably convince by Law an impertinent Party though he should oppose that they may not do it because their Interpretation of the Law is to deliver the true sense of it The Preservative fol. 11. moves this Question Must the belief of an infallible Judge be resolved into every mans private judgment Must it not be believed with a Divine Faith and can there be a Divine Faith without an infallible Judge I gave this answer There can be no Divine Faith without a Divine Revelation nor a prudent one without a Moral evidence in the Motives of Credibility on which may be grounded the evident obligation to accept it The judgment being possess'd with that Moral infallibility rests not there but observing that goodness and mercy of God which cannot permit that falshood should be propounded in his Name with all the apparent marks of his Hand and Seal and without any like appearance on the Contrary inclined by a pious motion of the Will called by the famous Council of Orange affectio credibilitatis and strengthen'd by that Grace of God which bestows the Gift of Faith fastens on Gods Veracity and with a submission not capable of any doubt embraces the revealed truth If the infallibility of the Church were more than Morally evident it were impossible that any Heresy should be To this the Second of Dr. Sherlock hath nothing to oppose and is willing to submit if I can shew a Revelation that there is an infallible visible Church I will comply with so reasonable a demand and since not one in a thousand of those who oppose our Doctrin in this fundamental Point which once being cleared bears away all disputes understands what that infallibility means on which we ground the admirable certainty of each Point of our Belief give me leave Sir to be somwhat more prolix on this Subject than the narrow compass of a Letter would otherwise allow What is and whence proceeds this infallibility Many do suppose and object unto us that we hold a Man or many to be infallible in themselves a Title to which God alone can lay a Claim who only as he is truth so he is alone infallible They wilfully suppose that we place this infallibility in the sense and judgment of men so that whatever by their own Light they resolve and order must infallibly be true and just that such may frame new Articles
of Faith and a new Religion or at least Phanatick-like by Enthusiasms and new marvelous Revelations make new additions to our Faith so that we may have daily a different one their Votaries like a blind Herd being driven now to one Opinion then to another yet still supposing themselves infallibly right all this is a monstruous misrepresentation without one word of truth but men who themselves follow a lawless fancy and loose liberty must thus disfigure that admirable Guide which God hath left us otherwise they would soon be without any followers this account I shall deliver here of the infallible Guide which Catholics follow the Church of God will I am sure represent her in very different because in her true proper Colours Our Guide then is the Catholic Church either diffusive in its whole extent or representative in its Head and Bishops the Pope and a General Council for as in the State here in England we have a Common Law and a Statute Law the first not compiled by any one Lawgiver but delivered by all the Judges and Sages of the Law and preserved in all Courts and the daily use of the whole Kingdom the second delivered particularly by the Kingdoms Great Representative in its Head and Members the King and lawfully convened Parliaments So in the Church there is a general Faith first received from Christ and his Apostles and preserved by all Bishops in their respective Diocesses and in the mind and actions of each faithful Believer in the whole Catholic Church and when any difficulty arises by the opposition of new Heresies then the Church Representative the Pope and a General Council or Synod of the ablest and Holiest Bishops of the Catholic Church deliver their Sentence in favour of the ancient Truth ever followed in the Church which Decisions or Canons are like our Statute Law only declaring and applying to particular instances the Common Law or Belief of the Church We hold that this general Faith received from the Apostles and preserved in all the Members of the Catholic Church explained upon occasion by the Church Representative is infallibly true and this is all the infallibility the Catholic Church pretends unto neither the whole Church nor any person or persons in it are held to possess any intrinsick infallibility which we own to be proper to God alone Nay no man in this present state or condition of life as our Divines observe can be in himself impeccable or infallible all are of themselves subject to Error Scotus in 2. diff 2 3. Q. as well as to sin and whatever God doth in favour of his Church doth no more alter her defectibility than a strong man lifting up a great weight with a Child takes away the natural weakness of the Child which remains still the same though the weight not moveable to the Child be in effect drawn or lifted up Hence Rufinus observes that we do not say in our Creed I believe in the Holy Catholic Church as we say I believe in God the Father In Jesus Christ In the Holy Ghost By that Preposition that syllable in we separate the Creator from his Creatures Divine help from In Symb. art Eccless S. Cat. Hac prepositionis syllaba Creator a Creaturis secernitur divina humanis separantur Humane means but we say of these humane means appointed by Almighty God that although they be fallible and exposed to error in their own nature yet by Gods appointment and Grace they will prove infallible as to us and certainly lead to the knowledge of truth We do not say that they cannot of themselves deceive us but that God according to his promise directing them by his infallible Spirit it cannot possibly happen that they should deceive us If then says S. Thomas our Creed as many understand it teaches us to believe in the Catholic Church this is the sence of it That is to say our Faith leans on the Holy Ghost and the meaning of these words are I believe in the Holy Ghost who sanctifies the Hoc est intelligendum secundum quod fides nostra refertur in Spiritum sanctum Sanctificantem Ecclesiam holy Church and Guides her When God revealed to St. Paul that he should come to Rome and die there or to St. Peter that being grown old he should be Crucified were either of them immortal the one till he came to Rome the other till he became old not the least they were as srail as before as exposed to Diseases within as capable of being wounded and that mortally yet in a true sense they were immortal for that time because that by reason of the Revelation and protection of God it was impossible they should die before they came the one to Rome the other to old Age according to the Revelation Thus should God reveal to a Traveller in a wild Wilderness full of wild Beasts and beset by Thieves that he should pass certainly unhurt and not fall he nor those who follow him into the Hands of these or Claws of those this man would remain as weak as ignorant of the ways as exposed to danger as before yet would prove an infallible Guide to those who would follow him So supposing which I shall presently prove that God hath promised to the Catholic Church that his holy Spirit should guide her in all truth that she shall follow that true Guide and ever avoid falling into Error though each Member of the Church remain as fallible as weak as subject to Error as before yet it evidently follows that this Church will infallibly avoid all Errors never lead any of her followers into it and this is all we mean by the Churches infallibility A thing when thus rightly understood as clear as evident as certain as that God's Revelation cannot prove false as that the Holy Ghost and Christ himself who remains with the Teachers of this Church be in themselves infallible We do not expect any new Revelations or Lights we do not admit any new Article of Faith though where a doubt arises the Church hath infallibly power to declare what hath been revealed by Christ to the Apostles and Preached by them which perchance some part of the Church might have had a less clear understanding thereof and though when the sense of Scripture appears doubtful to some this Church can explain infallibly what the true sense and meaning is and deliver more explicitly what is implyed in the Word of Scripture for example if some doubts whether in the Mystery of our Lords Supper there be a true Change of the substance of Bread into that of the Body of our Lord. This Holy Church can declare that these plain words This is my Body do declare it and to avoid further mistake may give a new clearer Name to the old Mystery so revealed by Christ and Preached by the Apostles calling it Transubstantiation as She calls the Mystery of God one in Nature and three in Persons Holy Trinity a
with which these late Heresies are patch'd up But the last Defence brought for Dr. Sherlock is surprising and I could well quarrel with you Sir as a Christian for Licensing it What do you own that we only are to look on the Faith even as Preached by Christ as necessarily Infallible Is it no part of your Belief that you are any way concerned in that that certain Faith which Christ exacted from the Jews St. Paul from each Christian must of necessity be Infallible 'T is impossible by Reason to prove that Men must not make use Preservative of their own Reason and Judgment in Matters of Religion That Men must use Reason to come to this Knowledge that Answer Fol. 5. God hath revealed what they believe is very certain As the Jews Exod. 14. Crediderunt Domino Moysi servo ejus Did believe God and Moses his Servant As all Nations believed Christ and his Apostles So each Christian now believes Christ and his Church the first as Author the second as Witnesses Commission'd from God of their Faith being moved by the Proofs they offered of their Commission So far Judgment Thus the Apostles believed Christ teaching himself to be the Son of God their Judgment having first been convinced that God spoke by him which Method appears more particularly in the Man born blind whom Christ our Lord cured and who Nin̄ Dominus esset cum illo was thereby convinced that God was with him taught by him and in consequence to that Conviction having barely heard from Christ that he was the Son of God he fell prostrate and adored him not exacting any farther proof beyond his Word After a full conviction that God speaks by those who Preach to us there is no farther use of Reason if we believe St. Paul but in order to the bringing into captivity all Vnderstanding in obedience to Faith. 2 Cor. 10. Defence f. 7 8. If my Sense and Reason will serve me to find out an Infallible Church it is a little severe to renounce it when I come there The Apostles were as Infallible as the Church can pretend to be now yet 1 Epist John 4. 1. Believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits if they be of God. 1 Cor. 10. 15. I speak to wise Men judge you what I say And Acts 17. 11. we have this particular Commendation of the Bereans that they were more noble than those of Thessalonica in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what they heard were conformable thereto or no. Answer Do I renounce my Reason when I embrace what my Reason hath convinced me to be infallibly true Sure Sir you have too much Sense not to own this to be a sensless Position But let us apply it to another Case When a Protestant is convinced and that if you please infallibly that the Word of God in the Bible delivers a Truth and his Reason hath convinced him of it is he not to abandon whatever Reason can object against the Mystery If you say he is not then a Man may doubt of the truth of Gods Word A very Christian Protestant Principle If you say he is then 't is not severe but most reasonable to renounce Reason when it opposes it self to a Truth infallibly Preached and received from an Authority acknowledged Infallible As for the three Texts I have before shewed how the First is wrested from its plain natural Sense to the opposite The Third is against him for the Bereans received First the Word with all readiness of mind and then searched the Scriptures to see in them those Texts which the Apostles used to convince the stubborn and so do Catholics The Second is neither directly nor indirectly to the purpose For St. Paul having brought a Reason why they were to abstain from such Meat and Drink as was offered to Idols to wit that since they did partake of the true Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood they could no more use what was Sacrificed to Idols than serve at two opposite Altars and adore the true God and the false ones he asks them Whether this Reason is not convincing Now I would know whether a Supreme Judge much more an infallible one doth disclaim his own Power because he offers evident Reasons for the Sentence he gives and shews the Parties obstinacy that should refuse to submit to them As for those words As to wise Men I speak the honest Footman little understands the meaning of them it being the Language of the Primitive Church when any thing was touched concerning the great Sacrament of our Blessed Lord's Body and Blood not to publish that high Mystery but to refer to the private Instruction about it which was given after Baptism and never trusted to the Catechumens an evident Proof that in this Sacrament there was a high Mystery beyond the Faith in Christ our Redeemer as Saviour of the World and Food of our Souls by his Passion without which no one was admitted to Baptism Thus St. Augustin ever expressed himself in this Subject The Norunt fideles norunt qui Initiaati sunt In Ps 39. 33. Ps 109. Hom 42. c. 4. l. 50. Hom. Orig. in Levit. Hom. 9. Chrys Hom. 27. in Gen. Hom. 5. ad Antioch c. Faithful know what I mean those understand me that have been Christned Thus Origen and St. Chrysostom before him and St. Paul himself I speak to you more boldly of this Mystery as to the wiser and more fully taught Pray Sir leave off Licensing such wretched Trifles and such wonderful wrested Texts or never expect there should be any Answer returned to them tho' how far this Motive will prevail with you I have some small reason to doubt Preserv f. 21. We have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as you have of the Infallibility of your Church First because we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Answer f. 5. This is the great Point indeed which if a Protestant loses he loses all For 't is certain and evident that the Catholic hath the same assurance for each Article of his Faith proposed by the Church which he hath of the Churches infallibility as I have the same certainty of all that my Friend says to me which I have that he speaks nothing but certain truth He proves it first because he is in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God Hitherto there holds some parity though but lame but suppose it were entire the Conclusion would be this Catholics are as certain of the sense of Scripture as Protestants are that they have the Letter whence it follows demonstratively that when Protestants differ in the sense from Catholics they have less assurance for it than Catholics who have always the same assurance for the sense as Protestants have for the Letter Defence f. 6. and 7. You are Judges in your own Case
as a piece of Wood is the Material Square of a Carpenter their application of Sense to this Letter is that which makes their real and Formal Rule as the streightness or crookedness of a Rule is the true Rule of the Carpenter that uses it 'T is against this I write and against Dr. Sherlock's Principle that tho' several Men using the same Method of making Rules find and own that their several Rules make different Lines yet it follows not says he that the Rules they work by are not true nor their Methods of making themselves a Rule erroneous Preservat f. 83 84. Were all Protestants of a mind would their Consent and Agreement prove the certainty of their Faith Answer f 7. Not at all but 't is a most ridiculous Inference of yours This is the same Rule and their Disagreement proves not their uncertainty All Union is not an Argument of the Spirit of God for People may combine to do ill But St. Paul assures us Disunion and Dissention is a certain Mark of the absence of the Spirit of God. Defence f. 21. You should have added in some not in all the disagreeing Parties If the Question be put amongst a company of Men to go rob such a House is it a Mark of the absence of the Spirit of God in those which do not agree to that Wickedness Answer Certainly this honest Footman is hired to write as wide as may be from Reason that in Comparison with it Dr. Sherlock's Errors may appear tolerable I speak of People led into Disunion by the same Principle which from thence I conclude to be no good one And I pray those who refuse to go and rob the House do they act in this Refusal by the same Principle by which others are moved to the Robbery If they be for Example out of Spite tho' their Refusal be just and good their Motive or Rule they act by and of that only I speak is stark naught Dr. Sherlock's Principle which makes void all Scripture-proof IF a Mystery appears against Sense and Reason Preservative fol. 72. we must have a Scripture proof as cannot possibly signifie any thing else or else it will not answer that Evidence which we have against it Sense and Reason proving it naturally impossible Answ f. 7. A Text which cannot possibly have an other sense doth not leave it in any ones liberty who owns Scripture to be an Heretic therefore the Church produced no such Texts against the Arians or Nestorians to whom the Mysteries of the Trinity and of Christs Human and Divine Nature in one Person appeared against Sense and Reason whence it evidently follows that according to Dr. Sherlock the Arians and Nestorians were bound not to believe the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ A happy Ministerial Guide and well led such as follow him Defence f. 22. The Trinity and Incarnation which the Arians and Nestorians disputed they are Mysteries indeed and might seem to be above Sense and Reason but they are not contrary to it But that Transubstantiation contradicts both is plain Answ The Footman had better have minded his Masters business than to pretend an Answer to what he doth not as much as understand Certainly the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are not against Sense and Reason but they did appear so to the Nestorians and Arians and that is the Case put by Dr. Sherlock and therefore 't is evident that according to his Principle Arians and Nestorians were bound not to leave their Heresies Dr. Sherlock's Principle making void all use of Councils and Fathers AFter he hath respectively told us That Preservative fol. 73 Learned men may squabble about the Fathers he gives these Rules without which they be of no use 1. We must know that the Father is truly Author of the Book or the Council of such a Decree 2. That he was not corrupted by the ignorance or knavery of the Transcribers while they were in the hands of the Monks and to make this impossible he assures us They not only pared their Nails but also their very Habit and Dress to fit them to the Modes of the time 3. That the Father doth not in some other place Contradict what there he says 4. That he did not alter his Opinion after Answer f. 8. That 's to say some of these requisites not being possibly to be known no use is to be made of them Defence f. 23 24. These requisites that man that will build any thing upon their Authority must know or else he may be miserably mistaken yet this is not to deny any use of Fathers and Councils for Learned men may dispute about them Answ A rare Privilege granted to Learned Men that they may dispute about Fathers and Councils but not till they have resolved some doubts first which cannot possibly be resolved This is to sport pretty pleasantly but not to answer Dr. Sherlock's Principle which makes void all use of Civil Charity and Moral Justice to our Neighbor IT lies in his last Chapter in which he attempts Answer fol. 8. in vain to colour the Misrepresentations which his Party hath ever been guilty of It is when a mans Exterior Actions are naturally capable of a good and pious meaning and he ever and clearly declares that it is His. Yet to fasten upon him another opposite design and meaning taken from his opposers contrary Principle Than which there cannot be a greater and more unjust disingenuity this he calls to join Protestant Principles with Popish Practices For Example to insinuate That a Catholick thinks the blessed Virgin more Powerful in Heaven than Christ He tells us that he says ten Ave Maria's for one Lords Prayer And this though he knows that the first half of the Ave Mary is in memory of and thanksgiving for the Incarnation of Christ and the other half asks of the Virgin only to pray for us to Christ which is all the Power we allow her in Heaven Defence p. 24. The matter of Fact is true Suppose he doth not think her more powerful than Christ yet sure he must think her more merciful and ready to hear his Prayers Answ This is in lieu of excusing his Masters Malice and disingenuity meerly to make the Proverb Good like Master like Man. Mary her self her Merciful concern for us her Prayers are an Effect and Gift of the Mercy of Christ But to see how people will speak in spight of Sense when they are resolved to impugn Truth how can it prove that I believe a person more merciful than another because I repeat oftner my instances and Petition Naturally we call that a greater mercy which is sooner moved and yields to a single address But the whole is a most false Calumny as it insinuates that our Church applies her Devotions more to our blessed Lady than to Christ Our Mass our Church Office except now and then a short Prayer of three or four lines our Meditations our Fasts are all
directed to God and Christ from him only we expect the whole Mercy that must blot out our Sins and the whole Goodness that must make us Eternally happy Preservative f. 89. The Papist believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to Worship any Breaden God which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist Answ f. 8. This I call the most disingenuous Representation and the most false Calumny imaginable as a supposed and owned Truth to wit That Catholics Worship the visible Species in the Eucharist A most impudent slander no Catholic being guilty of it no more than the Apostles of Worshiping and Adoring the Cloths of Christ when they Adored him upon Earth Defence f. 21. There is no mention made of Species but the word is Sacrament Answ This is what I called disingenuity If he takes not Sacrament in the Catholic sense therein lies his fraud in Expounding by his opposite Principles our Actions and in the Catholic sense nothing hath a reference to his Accusation of a Breaden God but the visible Species of Bread. I concluded with this address to Protestants in Dr. Sherlocks words putting as I owned the word Scripture in the lieu of Fathers to shew that according to his very way of Reasoning the meer reading of Scripture could not serve for an useful Guide at least to the far greatest part of Protestants The Sentence is as follows Preservative f. 76. Amongst Christians there is not one in a hundred thousand who understands all Scripture and it is morally impossible they should and therefore there must be certainly an easier and shorter way to understand Christian Religion than this or else the generality of mankind even of profess'd Christians are out of possibility of Salvation Think well on it as you will answer at Gods Tribunal for the care you took of the one only necessary the saving of your Souls seek out that easier and shorter way and walk faithfully in it Defence f. 26 27. We do not only say but we find that Scripture in all points necessary to Salvation is plain and easie so that we may run and read 'T is true there are some Texts which we that are unlearned cannot readily find the true sense and meaning of but they are not such as immediatly concern Salvation and we are not destitute of helps as to these for we have learned and Religious Divines Answ Is it not pleasant to say that Scripture is plain and easie in all points necessary to Salvation and yet to see that those who use the same Method for the understanding of it differ as much as may be in the belief of these Points Is it not against plain Scripture to say that such Texts as the unlearned cannot readily find the sense of are not such as immediately concern Salvation whereas Scripture teaches us that there be Texts which the unlearned wrest to their own perdition Well I am weary in following this Footman running Extravagantly out of all Way and Reason Neither Sir have I any mind to add to this long Letter any farther Advice adress'd to your self If the exposing to your Eyes the Characters of the Books you License doth not move you not to prostitute so easily your Name to those heaps of disingenuous Cavils ill-laid Calumnies and monstrous Misrepresentations which you daily License it shall be to me a sufficient Note and Character of a Book not worth the reading much less the Censuring where ever I see you have opened it the Press which will in part ease of an ungrateful and unnecessary toil SIR Your Servant to all Christian Offices LEWIS SABRAN Of the Society of JESVS POSTSCRIPT THO' the Preface to Dr. Sherlock's Defence might very naturally have challenged to be first Answered yet because the Defence did attempt tho' most vainly to undermine the very Foundation of the Christian Faith that Rock of the Catholic Church on which Christ our Blessed Lord raised it whereas the Preface was stuffed chiefly with forged Calumnies against me I thought it my Duty and ever shall to pass by my own private Concerns till I had vindicated the Church of God. Now Sir I come to my own Defence I find my Adversaries Choler heated to the highest Ferment because I Answered the Celebrated Preservative an excellent Tract says he proved so acceptable by the Vniversal Entertainment it met with in a single Sheet which he says was a ridiculous Answer to so great a Book I omitted nothing Sir that even pretended to the appearance of an Argument and if your Celebrated Books swell so with words and prove void of Sense and Reason am I blameable for it He should have pointed at some pretended Proofs which I slighted to expose or have praised me for not wearying my Readers with a dull Prolixity But it seems we must copy these Men's Faults or abide their Censure He tells us next That the Accusations of Forgery of Clipping of Texts Fathers and Councils Run high on both sides That the Reader hath this certain way of knowing where the Guilt lies That the Church of Rome accuses us but do's not prove it but our Men do not only accuse them but prove it upon them This is indeed somewhat material and he instances upon my Forgeries on the one side and those that Dr. Comber Author of the Advice to Roman-Catholics is accused of on the other I am content to joyn issue upon this matter and having produced the Grounds on which these several Accusations are bottom'd I will leave the Decision to your and every unbiassed Reader 's Judgment having first owned Forgery to be the greatest Mark of a bad Cause and that even owned such by those who thus defend it He produces against me three Letters written as he says by one of their Learned Writers in which no less than One and twenty such Forgeries are proved upon me and Protestant like because I am accused concludes me guilty without taking the least notice of my full Answers given to those most false Calumnies he and his Learned Author following both the old Advice Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit Do but Calumniate boldly something will stick of the Dirt you cast First then I will shew the confident Impudence of my Accuser I Preached on the 25th of August last before his Sacred Majesty at Chester on the Conversion of St. Augustin from Heresie and a loose Life and throughout that Sermon I laid out in the B. Saint's own words those mistaken Reasons that hindred him and keep off present Sectaries from a due Reconciliation with the Catholic Church I offered evident Motives taken from the same Saint's words which obliged Him and do as efficaciously exact from all Protestants under pain of Eternal Damnation when a most dull Ignorance doth not excuse them to return to the Communion of that one only Church which they professed themselves Members of at their Baptism Those unanswerable Arguments of
so great a Doctor moved many to my knowledge to a happy Imitation of so Learned a Saint but they were too plain and solid to meet with even a seeming Answer from the boldest of their Mercenary Pens The only Trick left them was by some slie Insinuation some Calumny to divert the well-meaning Reader 's Attention and a Minister better known by his Forehead than Wit attempted it boldly in a Postscript He was however afraid of burning his Fingers with touching the Sermon it self but nibled at three Lines of the Introduction to it a Form of Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mother of our Lord taken out of the Thirty fifth Sermon of S. Augustin de Sanctis Then to support himself with big words he accuses me of Forgery and Disingenuity not for citing any thing otherwise than it lay in that Sermon but because forsooth this is not really St. Augustin's Sermon but a Spurious Piece unjustly Fathered upon him Then he as insolently triumphs as a weak Enemy who not daring to attack a Camp should brag of the Victory because he had most couragiously shot at random at an exposed Centinel Now Sir take a view of his Proofs and of those Forgeries he accuses me of in the two Letters which I writ in my own Defence His Proofs were these First the Title A Sermon on the Feast of the Assumption doth not agree at all to any thing that is near S. Augustin's time There was then not only no Feast of the Assumption therefore no Sermon could then be Preached on that Solemnity but not even any belief of such an Assumption This is a most weak pretence of a Proof For as I shewed that Day of Assumption when applied to any deceased Saint ever signified in the Language of Fathers the Day of their Death I cited several Sermons made by the Fathers as S. Cyril Amphilochius Methodius made on our Lady's Purification long before any Solemnity of it were observed in the Church of God That S. Hierom or an Author of the same Age William of Paris S. Bernard made Orations on the Assumption of our Blessed Lady altho' they doubted of her being assumed into Heaven in Body That the Sermon in S. Meliton's name own'd for his in the Fifth Century spake as fully on the real Assumption of our Blessed Lady as any Catholic ever did since And therefore it is evidently false that there was no such Belief in S. Augustin's time Farther I added That as Nicephorus witnesses Juvenal Patriarch of Jerusalem proved the truth of this Mystery as now piously believed in the Catholic Church to have been received of very ancient Tradition and that in the presence of Marcion the Emperor in whose time was the Fourth General Council Next I shew'd what a Cheat this Minister put upon his Readers by insinuating that the Thirty fifth Sermon I cited spake not of the Blessed Virgins Death but of her Assumption in the Sense which that word now vulgarly bears whereas the contrary is most evident and is expressed in such words as are found in all the ancient Writings of the Fathers on this Subject to wit In these the World is honor'd by so great a Virgins departure in what order or manner she passed hence to Heaven the Catholic Church doth no way recount neither is her Body found on Earth neither is her Assumption in the Flesh as it is read in the Apocrypha's found in the Catholic Church This is the true Opinion concerning her Assumption that not knowing whether in her Body or out of it as the Apostle hath it we believe her assumed above the Angels It is not evident from hence that this Minister most falsly imposed upon his Readers To this Accusation of mine he returns not a word of Answer to my Proofs only these insignificant Trifles That Nicephorus comes too late That S. Bernard doubted of our Blessed Lady's Assumption in Body That the first mention we find of Meliton's Book was Sixty Years after S. Augustin's time when it was declared Apocryphal Not a word to the Sermon under S. Hierom's name nor to any of my other Proofs His Second Proof was That very lately some Benedictin's at Paris in their late Edition of S. Augustin's Works had cast it into their Appendix as Spurious and that they told us that in their MSS. it wanted the Name of any Author but that the Louvain Doctors told us that in several Manuscripts which they used in their Edition of S. Augustin this Sermon de Sanctis was intitled to Fulbertus Carnotensis 1. I Answered That these were no Proofs or where they have an appearance of a Proof that 't is grounded on a Mistake 'T is no Proof at all on any side that in many Manuscripts there was no Name to the Sermon this is self-evident 2. That it is evident this Sermon was not of Fulbertus Carnotensis for the Sermon I cited assures us that the Church at that time taught nothing of the Corporal Assumption of the Virgin whereas Fulbertus in his Sermon of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin teaches That Christian Piety believed that Christ raised gloriously his Mother and placed hâ—r above the Heavens This was an undeniable Proof and therefore the Minister answers nothing to it However I added out of Courtesie that 't is no new thing that a Saint's Sermon should in some Manuscripts appear under other Names than their known Authors the same having happened to several Sermons of S. Chrysologus S. Ambrose c. That Syncletica's Life the undoubted Work of S. Athanasius was in some ancient Manuscripts intitled to Polycarp the Anchoret The Minister disproves not any one of these Instances To his vain Argument that the Style of this Sermon did seem to differ from that of S. Augustin's which is his private Opinion and of few late Writers I opposed the contrary Opinion of S. Thomas Aquinas who owned this Sermon to be S. Augustin's that eminent Doctor so well versed in this Saint's Writings that he was called Augustinus Contractus a Doctor to the defence of whose Doctrin the greatest part of Christian Divines are sworn Was not this a very full Answer Yet to shew how the Louvain Doctors owned the Invocation of Saints to have been S. Augustin's Doctrin I minded him that they receive his Eighteenth Sermon de Sanctis in which he speaks thus Having received these our Vows by thy Prayers obtain Pardon for our Sins What we offer let it by thee be pardonable What we ask with a faithful Mind let it become attainable Receive what we offer return us what we ask c. The Last Proof the Minister offers and which he values most is That one Isidore is quoted in that Twenty fifth Sermon de Sanctis thus Hence Isidore observes it is uncertain by this Saying whether the Sword of the Spirit is meant or the Sword of Persecution Now Isidore of Sevil in his Book of the Life and Death of Saints Chap. 68. hath these words Which indeed is
Sacrament considered with the Eyes of Faith and believe that this Sacrifice helps much to a holy life but not at all without it 30. Amongst them one can Merit for twenty so there is no need above one in twenty should be Good. Merit with us is Personal and not Communicative no one is better in the sight of God for the Piety of another and in what ever sense one may satisfie Gods Justice for the Penitential works he exacts from an other whose sin is remitted no one hath a title to the least degree of Glory and consequently hath any Merit by an others Sanctity or Merit Many more of this Man's Calumnies I pass by these Thirty and the other Ten I have laid down being a clear Evidence that he is the most confident Calumniator that ever Preached or Writ who dares say any thing without the least respect to Truth without any regard to Charity Honor or Conscience Now Sir give me leave to offer you some few of the many Fanatical Principles he advances as destructive to what you call your Church as to Christianity in general that in your second thoughts you may blush if you are capable of it for having set your Name to them and Licensed them to the Press The First God being a Spirit must not be sought for in Houses Fol. 48 50 51. of Wood and Stone because he must be worshipped in Spirit he must not be worshipped by any material or sensible Representations Those words Except your Righteousness exceeds the Righteousness of the Fol. 38. Scribes and Pharisees you shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven cuts off every thing that is External in Religion Do not these Principles remit all Christians to the Silent Meetings of Quakers Exclude the use of Churches rather than Barns Singing of Psalms and such other material Representations of the God whom we Praise The Second God and Christ are not present in the Assemblies Fol. 37. of Christians by any Figurative or Symbolical Presence There is no Symbolical Presence of God under the Gospel 'T is a great Fol. 34 55. Absurdity to talk of more Symbolical Presences of God than one for a Symbolical Presenc confines the unlimited Presence of God to a certain Place in order to certain Ends as for Example to receive the Worship which is paid him Now to have more than one such Presence as these is like having more Gods than one To say nothing of the absurdity of this Discourse which makes that Christian an adorer of two Gods who by Faith adoring God in Heaven and in his own Soul worships him in both places doth not this destroy the very Essence of your Sacrament the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper which you own to be a Symbolical Presence of Christ The Third If God be better worshipped before an Image than Fol. 53 54. without one then the Worship of God is more confined to that Place where the Image is I cannot see how to avoid this whereas there is no appropriate Place of Worship under the Gospel And 't is the same tho' the Image be not appropriated to any Place but carried about with us for still the Image makes the Place of Worship This is an Argument for all Dissenters from you and all Fanatics against a Set Liturgy a Set Form of Prayer for if God be better worshipped by a Set Form of Prayer than without it then the Worship of God is more confined to that Place where that Set Form of Prayer that Set Liturgy is used and 't is the same tho' no set Place be appointed for that Set Form of Prayer c. The Parallel is exact The Fourth Having laid this Principle All that is meerly Fol. 34 36. External in Religion is taken away all Rites believed to be in themselves Acts of Religion and to render the Worshipper acceptable to God and this because God must be worshipped as a meer Spirit To defend the use of Baptism and the Lord's Supper he brings this only Reason Mankind by Sin hath forfeited all natural Right to Gods Favor they can challenge nothing but by Promise and Covenant such Covenants require a mutual Stipulation on both Sides Therefore they must be transacted by some visible and sensible Rites whereby God obliges himself to us and we to him Is not this last Inference destroyed by the former Principle taking away all Rites that are Acts of Religion all that is meerly External And on this Principle ought he not to teach that the mutual Stipulation betwixt God and us must be made by his interior Graces and our interior Worship because God must be worshipped as a meer Spirit Upon whatever account that interior Covenant requires a visible sensible Mark and our actual Communion with Christ another all the Communications of Gods Graces to us all our return of Worship and Adoration will equally admit of sensible Signs and Rites To avoid farther Prolixity I will end with the following Principle of his most injurious to Christ and an open and never to be coloured Blasphemy Fifth Principle There never was never can be an Infallible Fol. 68 69 70. Judge Christ himself was not an Infallible Judge altho' he were an Infallible Teacher I must my self judge of his Doctrin before I know that he is Infallible therefore Men were to judge of Christ's Doctrin before they believed him and they are thus to this day to Examin his Doctrin by the Law and Prophets and he never required that they should submit to his Infallible Authority without Examination He could not be an Infallible Judge obliging Men to receive all his Dictates as Divine Oracles without Examination 'T was impossible to know him to be Infallible but by judging of his Doctrin by the agreement thereof with the Principles of Reason and of former Revelations Doth a Christian teach this and a Christian approve and license it What JESVS our God blessed for evermore even when owned the Son of God even from us Christians cannot exact a Submission to his Infallible Authority without Examination of the truth of what he says by comparing it with the Principles of Human Reason He cannot oblige us to receive all his Dictates as Divine Oracles Was Christian Faith was the Author of it JESVS ever thus affronted Did the Apostles err did they act against Sense and Reason when they believed what he had taught of his Flesh being meat indeed Joh. 6. v. 69. only because he had the words of Eternal Life because his Dictates were Divine Oracles Were all men of this mind Christ would not indeed find any Faith on Earth What tho' we certainly know Christ to have taught and declared a Truth must we not upon his word submit to it and embrace it till we have consulted our Reason and found it can object nothing against it Were the weapons of S. Paul's 2 Cor. 10. 5. warfare such as could humble what raised it self against the science of God and bring into captivity all understanding in obedience to Christ and had the Word and Preaching of Christ less power Christ teaches it is not yet a sufficient Motive for me to believe Should an Angel from Heaven teach me this I would with St. Paul return him no other Answer than Anathema and do you Sir approve this Do you License men to teach to Christians they are not to submit to Christ's Word as to Divine Oracles that they must make themselves his Judges and Examin by their Reason whether he spoke truth or no Well Sir were it but not to give occasion to the spreading so horrid Blasphemies against our Lord and God I take my leave of you and of such Books Licensed by you and end with this Profession of my Catholic Faith Christ is an Infallible Judge I must not Judge of his Doctrin but believe it and submit to him I submit to his Infallible Authority without Examination I receive all his Dictates as Divine Oracles If tho' Summoned by me you still refuse to Subscribe to this Doctrin I will obey St. John's Counsel I will have nothing to do with you nor return to you so much as Ave or any Greeting but content my self with Subscribing to this Profession of my Faith LEWIS SABRAN Of the Society of JESUS