the Vulgar let him read Gretser now Cited Bib. Max. sect 19. C. 4. and Serrarius C. 19. quest 143. And thus much of à digression CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 1. LEt vs if you please suppose that wee and Sectaries had now in our hands the very Autograph's of the whole Bible as it was once writ by the Prophets and Apostles or if you would rather Imagin the book drop't down from Heauen pure and euery way incorrupt I say the Sectary has not probable assurance of Scripture much less such à certainty as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting The ground of my Assertion is this vndeniable Principle owned as well by Protestants as Catholicks Viz Scripture solely considered according to the exteriour letter vnless the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost be had is no Scripture to the Reader For example Because the Arian read's that sacred truth My Father is greater then I and stand's meerly vpon the bare sound of words without the sense intended by the Holy Ghost Hee hath no true Scripture Whence it is that S. Austin serm 70. Temp. hold 's Hereticks most vnhappy because they take the words without the sense haue à body without Words without the true sense no Scripture à Soul the bark without the sap the shell without à kernel c. S. Hierom also in cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 11. speak's to this purpose Ne putemus c. Let vs not think that the Gospel lyes in the words of Scripture but in the sense of those words we read not in the out-syde but in the pith and marrow of it There is no need of quoting more Fathers The Principle is agreed on by all and most indubitable 2. Hence I argue Nothing is more essential to scripture than the sense deliuered by the Holy Ghost but the Protestant where he is most concerned has not so much assurance of the sense intended by the Holy Ghost as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting and I proue it He is most concerned when he opposes our Catholick Doctrin and stand's vp in defense of his own opinions but in neither has he such an indubitable assurance of the Scriptures sense as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting and this I say is euident For he cannot haue so much assurance if as weighty yea à far more weighty authority contradict's his sense But it is clear that not only the present Roman Church but other particular Churches in former ages reputed Orthodox contradict that sense the Protestant drawes from Scripture But Sectaries haue no Certainty of the sense when he opposeth Catholick Doctrin or defends his own singular opinions Therefore he has not so much certainty of the Scriptures sense as excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting Now that the sole iudgement of our present Catholick Church to dispute the thing no higher is as great vpon all accounts as the iudgement of Protestants seem's vndeniable And that the Testimony of our Church weakens the assurance of that sense of Scripture which Protestants lay claim to is most euident as wee see in school opinions when contrary to one an other for no man whether Philosopher or Diuine can prudently hold his opinion so certain as excludes à Possibility of doubting when as many wholly as learned yea more learned and numerous after à full knowledge had of it and long Study also deny that certainty Thus much I say is euident Now if the Protestant tells ' vs the Authority of his party weakens as much that sense wee make of Scripture as the contrary iudgement of our Church lessens his I answer The reply here is to no purpose For all I proue at present is that he want's this certainty whether we haue it or not is an other quaestion and clearly decided for the Catholik cause in the other Treatise Disc 2. c. 9. per totum Again were all granted the obiection would haue Thus much which is most fals only followes that neither of vs know assuredly the sense of Scripture which touches not the difficulty now in controuersy 3. My 2. Argument is so demonstratiue that if the Protestant A 2 Argument most Conuincing will please to solue it I 'le neuer trouble him more with difficulties To propose it clearly know only thus much That when the sectary read's Scripture and would haue it to his purpose He either ouer reaches the Text or fall's short of its meaning For example To those words of S. Math. This is my body he adds this as good sense This is à signe or figure only of my body Mark well We both read the same words but Catholicks deny that to be Scripture not because we deny the words but his sense we say is no scripture To that of our Sauiour I am with you alwaies to the end of the world He adds I am with you alwaies by à fitting but no infallible assistance We say this is no Scripture To that of S. Iames. A man is iustified by works and not by Faith only He adds he is iustified not before God but before men we still deny this to be Scripture And thus sectaries proceed with vs in all other controuerted Texts of Holy writ Whence I argue These Additions of à sign only of à fitting Assistance of iustification before men c are either the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost or Sectaries fancy but most euidently they are not the sense intended by the Holy Ghost for this must either be gathered out of Sectaries glosses and additions not scripture so many express words of Holy writ which is prodigiously false or must arise from the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance whereby Protestants as people Illuminated aboue all others giue vs the true meaning of Scripture and this besides the Paradox when à whole learned Church contradict's the assertion is most destructiue of the Protestants own Principle For they say the Holy Ghost interpret's by none enlightens none teaches none to deliuer the true sense of Scripture but such as do it infallibly which Truth is most vndoubted They say again when they giue the sense of Scripture or interpret God's word they do it so fallibly that it may be false or if they interpret infallibly and cannot err Eo ipso they are so farr infallible which they vtterly deny See Disc 2. c. 9. n. 8. what then remains but that the sense of Scripture proposed to vs by such fallible Teachers is only the thought of their own fancy 5. Some may reply Protestants after long perusing Scripture and comparing seueral Texts together iudge the sense of these and No more are their deductions other controuerted places by à lawful deduction to be as they declare I answer first They shall neuer come to so much as à probable deduction and I earnestly press them to
The iudgement of Credibility not attained by examining the Mysteries of Faith he come to this setled iudgement All I read not euidently true ex terminis is yet indubitably so Now this iudgement is not first got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the Church teaches No. There is à farr easier way whereby reason after à further discourse concludes that either God hath cheated the world by the Miracles the sanctity The blood shedding of Martyrs and all those conuersions wrought by the Church or we must grant That what the Church teaches is true And this general iudgement arising immediatly from à due Ponderation of the motiues of Faith which is Science disposeth an vnderstanding to belieue this great Truth God speaks his eternal verities by that Church be it yet where you will which Christ Iesus founded And in this sense we say à general Notion or knowledge of the Church manifested by supernatural signes is vsually necessary to the belief of euery particular Doctrin deliuered by it and consequently particular Doctrins can be no first mark or sign of this Oracle Thus much is here briefly hinted at to solue the obiection Hereafter the whole Analysis shall be most particularly discussed in its due place 4. A. 2. inference True Religion is first found by its marks The true Church is known before we can know the books of scripture and cognisances before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture can be owned as Diuine We come therefore to à knowledge of these incorrupt books by the help of that Christian Society where true Religion is taught and cannot first know where true Religion is by the books of scripture only I say First know For without all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the sense is once admitted vpon the authority of Christs Church we argue and forceably as the Fathers anciently did against Sectaries by Scripture But all such arguments presuppose the Books proued Diuine and sacred The reason of the inference is These Books only contain à simple narration of our Christian verities which both Iewes and Gentils slight therefore though we cry neuer so loud Scripture is Diuine and written by the Holy Ghost we effect nothing with these Aliens from Christ vnless we first conuince the truth by proofs distinct from Scripture it self And as little is No disputing by Scripture only without the Canon and sense be agreed on done if Christians of à different belief dispute by Scripture when neither the Canon nor the sense is agreed on For example Marcion produceth his Bible The Arian his and his sense A third à Scripture without S. Iames Epistle or that to the Hebrewes Our Sectaries Crowd in with their book whilst others as learned reiect their Canon and much more that sense they force from it in à hundred passages What is to be done in this Confusion Must wee admit of Marcions Bible or submit to our Sectaries Canon and new sense also No certainly it Cannot be expected Perhaps they will say we are to dispute the question and rigidly examin who hath the true Canon and sense of Scripture They or wee This ends the difference Very good But say on I beseech you And first giue vs à sure Principle à doubtful one in so weighty à matter help 's little which may bear vp the controuersy and at last end it for vnless this principle be agreed on the result of our dispute will be nothing but à fruitles wrangling O the Fathers and Antiquity well pondered cannot but decide the debate I answer may we iudge by the effect the assertion is most vntrue The ancient Fathers peruerted by sectaries end not Controuersies For haue not we and Sectaries now read and pondered the Fathers and Antiquity for one whole age what can be alleged on both sides as well for the Canon as the sense hath been said and after all are we not still as much at variance as farr off from ending the controuersy as when we began it Say Now but vpon à solid Principle who is in fault The Sectary thinks wee vnderstand not the Fathers and we are sure he abuseth them with farr fetch 't glosses He saith their words are clear for his sence and we profess the Contrary Hitherto we come to nothing like à Principle The Controuersy therefore driuen on no further but to the sectaries bare Yea and our No hangs yet in the ayre wholly vndecided The reason is Though the Fathers words be neuer so plain for our Catholick verities yet after the Sectary hath laid his glosses vpon them they are most vnworthily made by him as doubtful and à matter of as great contest as the very sense of Scripture is which both of vs would haue cleared by the Fathers testimony That is There is as much adoe may Sectaries glosses haue place to vnderstand what à Father teaches concerning the sense of scripture as to vnderstand Scripture it self before we haue recourse to the Fathers To recurre therefore to their interpretation in Controuerted matters whilst Sectaries as much darken that by their glosses as they obscure the Scripture we dispute about is The matter in Dispute no meet Principle to end it euidently à most vnfit way to end any Controuersy vnless that which is the very matter of Dispute between vs can be supposed à meet and sufficient means to end it which is impossible Now if the sectary blames vs because we reiect that sense he drawes from either Scripture or the Fathers and he also reiect ours what haue we but wrangling Both parties hitherto only word it and stand chafing at one an other without Principles God therefore hath prouided vs à surer and easier way to end debates about Religion whereof more in the sequele Chapters CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 1. NOte first If God as I said aboue once established true Religion among Christians He made it so discernable from all false sects that it may be found out by prudent reason Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertull. lib. 1. de Testimonio animae It s more known then any other learning For to say on the one side That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the world which shall not perish and on the other to assert it cannot be proued or found out is first to cast à blemish on Prouidence and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it because none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reason or rational arguments Note 2. The Doctrin of Christ which essentially constitutes true Religion stand's most firm vpon
must become Papists or wee turn Arians and Protestants Or finally be forced to deny plain Scripture A most conuincing Argument 9. The difficulty therefore is not and Sectaries seldom touchit whether Scripture be true were the sense known or out of Controuersy but what that true sense is which lies in obscurity and cannot be known without à certain Interpreter Here is the only Question debated between vs and Sectaries One may The only difficulty concerning Scripture Reply It is no good obiection to say learned men differ about the sense of Scripture Ergo it is not sufficiently plain because à great wit may wrest the plainest words God euer spake to à sinister sense Contra. 1. But who knowes when two learned Parties contest in this Matter which of them is the sinister Wrester Contra 2. When à whole Society of men as the Arians were and Protestants are now Tamper with à Text which touches an essential point of Faith And dissent from others as learned as Themselues about the meaning The sense cannot be supposed more clear for the one than the other without an other Rule certain and Definitiue Pray you say Is the sense of those words My Father is greater than I indisputably clear for the Arian Or the sense of Christs words This is my Body without controuersy clear for the Protestants Doctrin concerning the Sacrament when à whole learned Church opposeth both Euidently No. Therefore Sectaries must acknowledge an Obscurity in Scripture our Nouellists must grant that Scripture is not only obscure in these two places But more That à Iudge is necessary to ascertain all of its true meaning as well in these as in à hundred other Passages Again if Scripture want this clarity it cannot be its own Self-euidence much less conuince an obdurate Aduersary Nay I say though it were clear and the sense thereof agreed on by all called Christians yet both Iewes and Gentils scorn the Diuinity of the book And say if 't be of Diuine inspiration That must be proued by à certain Rule extrinsecal to Scripture Therefore it is not immediatly credible by it self or for it self Lastly were Scripture plain in it self yet And this vtterly ruin's Sectaries The certain Doctrin of it can neuer be applyed indubitably to any vnderstanding For our Nouellists say because all Teachers of Christian Doctrin are fallible none can make an infallible Application of it to any or teaeh that Doctrin infallibly which is in it self infallible See more hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. and C. 4. N. S. CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned The Properties of à Rule VVhat is meant by the Church Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out Her marks more clear than Her Essential Doctrin 1. THe true Church of Christ in this present State manifestly demonstrable by signal Marks and Motiues is the only plain certain Self-euident Rule of Faith apt to conuince the most obdurate Vnbelieuer It is immediatly credible and the Doctrin of it certainly applyed to à Seeker after truth These Assertions stand firm vpon 3. Principles 2. 1. Christ Iesus has prouided Christians of à clear and easy Rule otherwise All are left in darknes and know not what or how to belieue 3. 2. Nothing assigned by Sectaries Bee it Scripture solely or what els Imaginable Carries so much as à weak probability of being à Rule so plain easy and satisfactory as the true Church is 4. 3. All the properties of à Rule exactly agree to the Church of Christ and to Her only 1. The Rule of Faith is plain Christs Church is the Rule of Faith so is Church Doctrin and much more plain than Scripture I mean we easily vnderstand what the Church teaches though the Doctrin in it self be difficult 2. A Rule is its own Self-euidence so the Church is taken with the Marks and Motiues whereby She is demonstrated 3. A Rule is apt to conuince the most obstinate Aduersaries Christs Church has euidently don so witness the innumerable Conuersions wrought by Her vpon Iewes Gentils and most obdurate Hereticks 4. A Rule must be certain and certainly applyed to Belieuers what Christs true Church teaches is so for She is Gods own Oracle as shall be proued hereafter and teaches her Children infallibly The Truth of these particulars will be more fully laid forth in the sequele of this Discourse In the mean while two things are to be cleared The first what we vnderstand by the Church of Christ 2. How and by what means She may be known Thus much done we shall easily find out those Christians who are Members of this happy Society or essentially constitute that visible moral Body called the Holy Catholick Church What is meant by the Church 5. Concerning the first We speak plainly and vnderstand by the Church à visible Society of true Belieuers vnited in one profession of Christian Faith and the communication of Sacraments vnder the Conduct and Gouerment of Christ's lawful Commissioned Pastors I say no more yet hoping no Sectary can iustly quarrel with the Notion of à Church expressed in such general Terms And therefore waue at present that other worn-out controuersy agitated by Protestants viz. Whether the Predestinate only make vp the true Church or great Sinners also may be included That is not at all to our purpose now when we only seek after à Society of Christians vnited in the true Faith of Jesus Christ who owne à due submission to lawful Commissioned Pastors whether those who teach or are taught be Saints or sinners concerns them t' is true but not our present Question Of such Belieuers there cannot be two or more Churches but one only And to auoid all confusion or the mingling of different Questions together we here moue no doubt concerning the Head The meaning of the question proposed or chief Authority of this Church but immediattly Ask whether there is now and has euer been since Christs time à visible diffused Society of Christians who haue faithfully belieued the Orthodox Doctrin of Christ and vpon that Account well merit to be called the Professors of the true Catholick Church Of this Vniuersal spread Society our Sauiour spake most clearly or of none Hell gates Can not preuail against it The Spirit of Truth abides with it to the end of the world c. I think no Sectary will deny such à Church 6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and large diffused Body of Christians vnited in one true Faith and the sincere Worship of God And nothing is more consonant to reason more express in Holy Writ or more clearly asserted by the ancient Fathers than that the true Church laies forth Her own euidence or clear Discernibility whereby She is distinguished from all Heretical Sects That is She lies manifestly open to all eyes and Cannot but bee most easily known She is à Ciâ—â—y built vpon à mountain The light of the world A
of Diuine Inspiration because this Otacle saith so Then we Argue vpon à Principle proued by vs and supposed though not proued by Sectaries The Principle is Scripture is God's word We read the book which all Christians Say is Diuine And proue also from it the Churches infallibility against our Aduersaries Ex probatis concessis That the book is Diuine Here is no danger of à Circle nor any fault in this way of Arguing 8. Yet Mr Stillingfleet makes his Exceptions and will needs haue the Circle goe on against vs. You proue Saith he the Churches infallibility from such Passages Super hanc Petram Pasce oues c. But how come you to know infallibly A reply retorâ—ed that the Sense of those places is as you belieue For your Aduersaries deny any such thing as infallibility proued out of them I may Answer first by proposing the like Question How do these Aduersaries know that their contrary sense is exactly the true Meaning of the Holy Ghost Will they tell vs they think so here is all we haue from them what am I better for that When the Donatists Pelagians and all Heretiques can think as boldly as any Protestant And by their deluded thoughts vnsense as we se by experience the most choise and sacred Passages in holy writ To whom then shall we recurr in case the Sense be doubtful I Answer to the Church O saith Mr Stillingfleet Here we are got into à Circle again and though his own words see them in the page cited fine giue no force to his Probation yet I 'le help them on to all the Strength his meaning is capable of He should therefore Another Reply Answered Argue thus We belieue the Churches infallibility because the true sense of Scripture sayes she is infallible Again We belieue this very Sense of Scripture to be infallibly true because the infallible Church saith so I haue Answered The first Act of Faith wherwith we belieue the Churches infallibility is not at all founded vpon the true Sense of Scripture as yet not known in illo signo to be so much as Diuine but vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediatly credible 9. Now if we Speak of another Distinct consequent and more explicite act of Faith when we belieue the Churches infallibility vpon this ground That She declares the Scriptures geâ—â—in Sense which proues Her an infallible Oracle There is no difficulty at all Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is vltimatly resolued into and therefore again belieued vpon the same infallible Authority The sense of Scripture resolued and belieued of the Church or rather vpon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus iointly taken They ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles As if we first belieued the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation And then Vpon Scripture and Church Authority ioyntly again belieued the Churches Interpretation to be infallible because the Sense of Scripture known aliunde or without Depending on Church Authority Saith she is infallible This cannot be if Scripture and the Churches Interpretation Indiuisibly concurr to this lotter act of Faith whereof we now speak 10. Here then is à Dilemma that clear's all and free 's vs from the least Shadow of à Circle We either know or belieue the Scriptures Sense independently of the Churches infallible The Assertion Clearâ—d Interpretation or receiue it vpon her infallible Authority Grant the first There is no danger of à Circle for in case that Truth were know vpon à sure Principle distinct from the Church it would be another new and as strong à Probation of her Infallibility as if an Angel sent from Heauen should interpret Scripture to the Catholick Sense And then we might Assent to the Churches Infallibility vpon two disparate Principles which proue not one another The one Ordinary the Churches own Interpretation The other independent and extraordinary Should an Angel or Prophet sent from God interpret Say 2. We belieue the Sense of Scripture vpon the This way no two Propositions to make à Circle of Churches own infallible Authority There are no two imaginable Propositions to make à Circle of whilst that Sense internal to the letter can not be infallibly propounded otherwise then by the Church 11. Page 128. I find an vnlearned Obiection much to this Sense We Catholicks destroy all Possibility of auoiding à Circle if we proue by the Motiues of credibilty no new Reuelations Distinct from the old And this we Pretend not to For A weak Obiection in effect solued we only seek to euince by these Motiues à Diuine Assistance with the Church in euery thing She Defines but this Assistance cannot be proued from any other ground but only from the Promises made in Scripture Therefore we are still in à Circle For we belieue the Scriptures infallible because of the Churches Testimony and we belieue the Church infallible because of the Promises in Repeated Again Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church so as to secure Her from all Errour Here in Effect is the same Obiection repeated again Therefore I Answer We belieue not in the first place the Churches infallible Assistance moued therevnto by the Promises in Scripture For this first General Act of Faith wholly relies vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture because Her Testimony One Instance clear's all is made most Credible to reason by conuincing Motiues before we belieue that She is insallibly Assisted All must Say what I now Assert For before Scripture was written The Primitiue Christians belieued infallible Assistance granted the Apostles in euery Doctrin they taught being induced to belieue so by the Signes and Miracles which those blessed men Euidenced In like manner we in this present State answerable to the Procedure of these Christians hauing the same Motiues manifest in the Church may well be induced to belieue That She both now is and euer was no lesse Assisted by the Holy Ghost to speak Truth then the Apostles were for as much as concern's the Substance and Verity of her Doctrin CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffling The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communities and proue Her Infallible The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin no Mark of the Church More Mistakes and Errours discouered Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Belieues but not vpon Diuine the Testimony That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books to be Diuine 1. IN the next place Mr Stillingfleet labours to solue his Aduersaries main Argument the Substance whereof The substance of the Argument is As Christ and his Apostles proued themselues Oracles sent from God by their works Signes and Miracles Again as the Primitiue Christians
Article proposed by the Church speaking in the name of God If which is already proued the same God deliuers Truth as well by this Oracle as he did anciently by the Prophets and Apostles No disparity can be giuen 9. Hence I Say whoeuer will make à full Proposition of Diuine Faith and giue à Satisfactory Resolution thereof must both Propose and Resolue it into God's Authority speaking by this one Signalized and euidenced Oracle And here in few words is the vltimate reason of our Assertion If we exclude the infallible Authority of an euidenced Church neither the Canon of Scripture nor any verity in it nor its true sense which Heretiques depraue can be admitted as Gods infallible word Therefore S. Austin Spake most profoundly where He The reason why faith must be resolued into Gods Testimony Speaking by the Church professes He would not belieue the Gospel without Church Authority Hence it followes That though one might belieue the Mystery of the Trinity or the Incarnation for the truths reuealed in Scripture yet if à further Question be moued concerning the Authenticalness of these very Scriptural Expressions All if they will finally resolue their Faith must rely on Gods Testimony speaking by the Church and belieue that very Doctrin to be Diuine because She own 's it as Diuine 10. Thus we said Chap. 20. n. 11. That the infallible Authority of the present Church consummates the ancient Reuelation which long since past and remote from vs cannot moue to belieue vnlesse Her Testimony conuey's it to vs and in this sense compleat's it And what way of belieuing or resoluing Faith can be more easy then to Say I belieue the This way of belieuing most easy Incarnation both because S. Iohn wrote it and because God speaking by the Church saith he wrote it These two Indiuisibly taken may as well make vp one total Motiue of belieuing as the Royal Prophets Testimony and. S. Peters infallible declaration added to it Act. 2. V. 25. became one entire total Motiue to those first belieuing Christians I say Indiuisibly And The Churches Testimony not meerly à Condition therefore the Churches Testimony concurres not meerly as an extrinsecal condition preuiously assented to but iointly terminates Faith together with the ancient Reuelation as shall be Presently declared Herein also there is nothing like confusion but the greatest Clarity free from all danger of any vicious Circle 11. A. 4. Obiection The Motiues inducing to belieue that God speak's by the Church or that all ar called to seek their Saluation in this one Euidenced Oracle are Church Doctrins For we all belieue that the true Spouse of Christ is Holy How the Motiues inducing to belieue vnited in Faith vniuersally spread the whole world ouer c. Therefore they can no more rationally induce to belieue that first necessary Truth Viz. All are called to one Communion of Faith Than one Article of faith obscure in it selfe rationally induce to belieue another wholly as obscure We haue Answered aboue These Motiues may be considered two wayes First as they are euidently perceptible by sense and so naturally they precede Faith and induce to belieue 2. As attested Are Doctrinâ— of the Church also vpon Gods own Authority speaking by the Church And in this Sense they precede not Faith but are Articles belieued wherein there is no Mystery at all if which is certain The same thing can be both known and belieued by different Assents vpon distinct Motiues A. 5. Obiection Scripture when newly written and proposed by the Euangelists or Apostles to the Primitiue Christians In what sense Scripture was Compleat to the Primitiue belieuers was to them so total and compleat à Formal Obiect to ground faith vpon that they needed no Authority of the Church to compleat it more Therefore it 's still à full and perfect Motiue of belieuing in order to all this very Age independently of Church Authority The Obiection brings with it its own Solution For if those Holy Writers of Scripture were Infallible whereof no man doubt's and proposed all they wrote as Gods Diuine word That very Proposition was fully as certain to them as any Church Authority whether past or present can be to vs. Hence I say though Scripture was then That infallible Publication supposed à full and compleat Motiue to ground faith vpon yet now it Cannot be so Quâ—ad nos or in order to Belieuers in this present State without more not because there is any want in Scripture considered in it self But vpon another account that Circumstances are very Why not so now to vs without Church authority different and notably changed since those first dayes For now we haue neither Apostle nor Prophet at hand to Testify or publish the Scriptures Diuinity The ancient signes of Credibility which adorned those first blessed men and made Scripture most acceptable are out of our sight Therefore God's Church succeed's with her Lustre and Supplies as it were that want or takes the place of those deceased Prophets and Apostles 13. By what is here Said you may easily vnderstand the Two Terms explicated sense of those two Terms Quoad se and Quoad nos frequently vsed in this matter though not free from Sectaries Cauils Who say Whateuer is Quoad se considered in it selfe à Formal Obiect must be so in order to others because it is à Relatiue and cannot but haue respect to our vnderstanding Answ All this is true after à full and infallible Proposition A Reuelation may be in it selfe Diuine made of the Obiect Otherwise most certainly à Reuelation may be in it Selfe both Diuine and infallible though it appear's not so to all for want of à due application to Belieuers Again It may be in some Circumstances à compleat Motiue to ground faith vpon and in another State cease to be so Many Verities in Scripture when first written and proposed by Apostolical men were compleat Obiects of faith to the Primitiue Christians yet are not by virtue of that Proposition Thought it appears not so to all now so to vs Because They neither write in this State nor immediatly Propose the truths contained in Scripture Hence it is that the Church as wee said Supplies that defect and compleat's by her Proposition those ancient Reuelations which issued from Christ and his Apostles And for The Churches Testimony Clear this reason Her Testimony Quoad nos is more clear more known and more immediatly Credible than Scripture can bee 14. 3. Difficulties may arise concerning the Scriptures Canon and sense also which none can decide but the Church only and vpon that Account Shee is more Credible and more And necessary for other Reasons immediatly known to vs than the Scriptures abstruse Sense which is very often remote from vs before God speaking by this Oracle laies the truth open in clearer Terms And what wonder is here Whilst Sectaries confess to vnderstand the true sense of God's word
totally pure and incorrupt though S. Hierom obserues in his praeface to the Gospels Tot sunt Exemplaria quot Codices there are many of them Therefore He must haue recourse to the Greek which is vsual 9. Hence I argue If God shewed not particular Prouidence in preseruing our latin Edition from notable errour so diligently reuiewed by S. Hierom and approued also not only by many learned Writers in after ages but by à whole Church it is no lesse then temerarious to allow greater security to any Greek Copy for can the Sectary An Argument in behalfe of our Latin Edition say that Gods peculiar hand of prouidence alwais so attended the Transcriber or Printers of the Greek Copies that nothing could be written but pure Apostolical Scripture and with any countenance own à want à defect à subtraction of this peculiar prouidence to à Scripture approued of by à whole Church Obserue well the difficulty Where Gods special Prouidence is there we haue infallible assurance you grant God's special Authentick records had not come safe to our hands therefore you cannot rationally deny it to that Scripture which the Church approues CHAP. VII More of this subiect Doubts concerning the seueral editions ☞ If this digression Concerning the different Editions of Scripture seem tedious to the Reader he may passe to the 9. Chapter where he will find our Discourse Continued against Sectaries of scripture None extant more pure then the Vulgar La-Latin Abstract from Church Authority there is no Certainty of the best Edition Sectaries Comparing the Present Copies with the more ancient giues no assurance A word with Mr. Stillingfleet 1. THe first proposition If the Protestant reiect's our Vulgar Edition as not Authentick or as viciated in any material point touching Faith and manners He improbably pretend's to haue so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting To proue the Assertion I will here giue you à few Postulata vsually held indubitable by most learned men who haue writ large preludes called Prolegomena to holy Scripture Neither Catholick nor protestant shall rationally except against my suppositions First it is Certain that the greatest part of the old The first supposition Testament was Originally writ in Hebrew but whether that ancient Copy hath been euer since preserued pure chiefly after S. Hieroms time or notably corrupted by negligence or malice is very doubtful Learned men stand for the Affirmatiue and none I think can deny some lesser errours when greater are pretended You may see these different opinions of Authors in Prolegomen Ad Biblia Maxima And the particular supposed errours largely noted by Salmeron Prolegom 4. It would be too long à work to insist on this subiect and not for me to determine what is true All I contend for here is an vncertainty whilst great Authors are opposite and this is done to conclude what I intend against Sectaries 2. It is again certain that the greatest part of the new Testament was writ in Greek but here we meet with the same difficulty and inquire Whether the Greek by chance or inaduertancy has been corrupted since the Apostles time This at least if not more is The second supposition doubtful Graue Authors hold the Affirmatiue See Serarius in Prolegom Cap. 13. and Bonfrer c. 14. and the errours noted If Protestants deny them or think their own authority weighty enough to Contradict our Doctors the matter in Controuersy is still doubtful So much I plead and no more 3. It is certain that all other Bibles are only Translations or Transcriptions of The third the Original Hebrew and Greek The Greek version of the 72. interpreters out of the Hebrew or as wee vsually 〈…〉 ak the 70. is only à Translation wherin many doubts occurr One is whether that Translation be the first For Clement Alex and Euseb cited Bibl Max sect 18. c. 2. seem to hold an other more ancient before the time of Alexander the great How euer admit which is perhaps true the 70. version to be the most ancient we haue yet matter enough of Dispute concerning it and one great Question is whether at this day that version be yet preserued pure The ancient Archetyps wherof more probably are not now extant but when or where lost remains vncertain See Bib Max sect 18. c. 10. Authors say it is corrupted through the ignorance or negligence of the Librarians or the Printers See Bib t Max. c. 8. 9. Restat ergo Whence it was that those Laborious Doctors of Alcala at the perswasion of Cardinal Franciscus Ximeno The version of the Septuagint Archbishop of Toledo and afterward the Doctors of Louain making à diligent search after many Greek Copies corrected no few faults in the then extant transcribed Copy of the Septuagint yet this very correction was far from the purity of that ancient version which the Father 's vsed See Bib Max now cited where vpon that other version of the 70. taken out of an Ancient Manuscript of the Vatican Library Anno Dom. 1585. Came forth by the industry of Cardinal Anton Caraffa wherin most learned men laboured nine whole years and it was perfected about the beginning of Sixtus 5. Raign The greatest difficulty yet remains It is most certain the version of the 70. Interpreters differ's so notably from the Hebrew Text chiefly in the computation of years or point of Cronology that our venerable Bede though à great Scholler and one as humble as learned ingenuously confesseth Venerable Bedes Iudgement he cannot reconcile those Antilogies See Bib Max c. 8. fine Who then can tell me when we find these lections of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint opposite to one an other which is to be preferred Most learned men stand for the Hebrew as many for the 70. You may see these dissenting Authors quoted in Proleg Bib Max Sect 18. c. 11. and how some to accord them say That the Holy Ghost would haue the Septuagint now to add to the Hebrew now to diminish according to his good pleasure See Bib Max cap 8. fine 3. But let vs proceed to à further matter of doubting Long after the Edition of the Septuagint came forth three other Translations made by three vngodly men Aquila Symmachus and Theodotio Aquila Pontinus once à Gentil became Christian but denying Christ soon turned Iew learned the Hebrew language Of other three Translations and too critically translated the Hebrew into Greek almost word for word His spleen against the 70. Interpreters was so great that contrary to the verity of Scripture He rendred some places speaking of our Sauiour most perfidiously and wrested all to à confused and sinister sense Symmachus one of Samaria twise circumcised became at last à Professor of the Ebion Heresy and Translated the Hebrew into Greek not as Aquila did Verâ—atâ—m but rendred the sense more perspicuously Theodotion first Baptized then à Sectary of Marcions and Ebions errours lastly à Prosylite
in the new Nothing of à few iarring Protestants which all other Christians in the world decry as false and improbable Can you think that à foul-mouthed Fryar as euer liued and à Nunn sacrilegiously coupled together layd the first foundation of this excellent and reasonable Christian Religion Speak out and tell vs what you iudge or hereafter leaue of to vent such improbable Paradoxes I speak of à Religion now extant in the world or known 4. hundred years agone to preuent your wonted subterfuge of running vp to the Primitiue Church à most vnreasonable plea when you cannot say probably what that Church taught but only by the Tradition of the present which you most causlesly and vnworthily reiect But hereof wee haue said enough in the other Treatise Perhaps you 'l reply You defend that Church which hold's Doctrin agreable to Scripture I marry Sir but where shall we find it out Amongst you They own on vn known Church Protestants think yee when you know not probably the sense of scripture in one only controuerted Text much less so fully as excludes à possibility of doubting nor shall you euer know whilst you own à sense Contrary to the Roman Catholick Church as is already proued CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only though all Christians had moral certainty of the right Canon and sense also which is to say the meer owning Christs Doctrin is insufficient to proue it to all sort of People 1. THe Assertion may seem strange had we not an euident proof at hand and t' is thus The Iewes Turks and Pagans although all Christians now and euer agreed in some chief verities concerning Christian Religion as that Iesus is our Redeemer reiect the Doctrin as fals and foolish 1. Cor. 1. u. 23. We preach Christ Crucified à scandal to the Iewes and à foolery to the Gentils Whereby you may well learn how enormously Mr Stillingfleet erred aboue when he told vs that the meer excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion carries with it its own proof Our Assertion is contrary and grounded vpon this The proof of our Assertion opposite to Mr. stillingfleet Principle The Mysteries of Christian Doctrin considered in themselues transcend all humane Capacity and as the Apostle saith scandalize weak reason Therefore the Mysteries meerly laid forth to à Iew or Gentile are no conuiction because they are aboue the reason of the very best Belieuers Now if you say they ought first to be belieued by faith without any preuious inducement This is the worst of fooleries for none of the Primitiue Christians so much as belieued Christ or admitted Apostolical Doctrin without rendring first some satisfactory reason distinct from their faith why they reiected the ancient Sinagogue and assented to that then new preach't learning Some preuious light therefore distinct from these abstruse Mysteries which God laies before the eye of humane reason induceth all whether Iewes or Gentils to the true belief of Christianity and Consequently the meer supposed verity of the Doctrin only dark in it self is no absolute mark or first self euident Principle The rerity of Christ's Doctrin no selfe Euidence whereby we are immediatly moued to belieue such high secrets Pray you tell me should any one goe amongst some vnciuilised People who either haue heard nothing or very little of Christ and only relate the story of his sacred Birth in à poor stable of his obscure life from the 12 th year of his age till he began to preach c. Would such Barbarians think yee assent to these strange things either by the force of humane reason or Diuine Faith without further proof or motiue to make all good No certainly Yet all is true and very true yea and most reasonable but the verity alone is insufficient to perswade any that 't is true 2. From this short discourse whereof more in the second part these vndeniable inferences follow 1. That Sectaries assert they know not what when they make the true Preaching of the Gospel and right vse of Sacraments to be marks of the true Church For the true Church be it where you will hath euer its marks antecedently supposed to the true preaching of the word which marks first manifest that mystical body at least in à general way as I shall presently declare and thus known by à natural euidence she proposeth the Mysteries we belieue Here The Church is known by her marks before we belieue is the reason à priori of my Assertion That which is the first obiect of our Faith cannot be the first obiect of our knowledge the Mysteries of our belief layd forth by the preaching of Gods word are the first obiects of Faith for these we belieue and as belieued they are obscure therefore they cannot be the first obiects of knowledge if we speak strictly of knowledge or marks preuiously inducing reason to belieue Whence it is that reason hath its euidence or prudent inducements laid forth vpon other extrinsical Principles before we belieue Belief therefore whether you take it for the obiect assented to or the act wee assent by being as I said obscure can be no mark to it self or to the true Church we belieue in for à mark is euer more known than that obiect is whereof it is à mark or which is pointed at 3. Some perhaps will say The Church is vsually defined An Assembly of those who profess the true Doctrin of Christ therefore An Obiection true Doctrin most essential to the Church must necessarily be known before we know the total essence of the Church Ergo true Doctrin or the preaching of the word is à mark whereby we first find out the Church and consequently the Church marked with euident clear motiues is no inducement to belieue true Doctrin The Argument is an euident fallacy First because the Illiterate and simple Christians belieue in the Church and haue faith sufficient to saluation though they neuer arriue to an explicit Briefly solued belief of euery particular Doctrin taught by it 2. They either explicitly belieue all these particular Doctrins by Faith and this is impossible because all of them were neuer proposed explicitly or know them ex terminis to be Diuine Truths by humane reason when they are proposed and this is most vntrue For who can say that this truth Christ is God and consubstantial with his Father is à verity more known ex terminis by humane reason than the contrary errour of the Arians is You see therefore the obiection is forceles For as one who reades Aristotle or Plato knowes what is said or the substance of the Doctrin by the sense of their words yet remains ignorant whether it be true or fals without further reasoning and inspection so à Gentil that reads our Christian Doctrin in the bible may know much of its sense or what is said yet he must both discourse and reason well before
indubitable Principles appliable to the Belieuers reason If therefore à Want be found of such proofs and doubts arise whether Christ's Doctrin be taught or no None can by doubtful or ambiguous Proofs of true Religion easy and Conuincing Principles only absolutly say This is Christs Doctrin and Consequently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightines of the matter that is they are clear conuincing and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting Thus much supposed 2. I say first who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox when the matter is of Controuersy and cannot The sectaries proofs as dark as his Doctrin bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle then the particular assertion is which should be proued argues improbably The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so that is he neuer goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is which should be proued therefore he Argues improbably 3. To proue the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies Take à veiw of all our Protestant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask what Protestant dare appear and venture to proue That Faith only iustifies The like I say of his other negatiue Articles Of no real Presence of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass c. I absolutly affirm He cannot make one of these Articles good by any vndoubted Principle or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer than that dark article is which should be proued One reason is These Doctrins opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also are not euidently known as truths by the light of One reason of our Assertion nature or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years agone and Consequently no vniuersal tradition is for them The only difficulty is whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers generally patronize such Doctrins And to fauour Sectaries all that 's possible we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible but withall assure them it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book and the impossibility will be thus manifested As long as these men cannot proue their new Doctrin to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted but vpon less sure grounds or less assured tradition so long their doctrin is naught and stands vnprincipled But this is so as we shall see presently And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick The difference beween the proofs of Catholiks and Protestants and Protestant The first proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine the Church assures him of both but the Sectary euer fall's short in this and cannot giue you so strong à proof for his particular Doctrin as he doth for the very letter of his book which he supposes teaches that Doctrin 4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth and take one particular Controuersy we cannot insist on all and ask the Protestant How he proues that the real presence of Christs sacred body as Catholicks assert is not expressed in the literal sense of those words This is my body His negatiue assertion most euidently is not there in plain terms We therefore vrge him to make it good by à proof that 's clear or more conuincing than his own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is And is he not obliged think yee to produce à strong proof indeed when he hath so many powerful Aduersaries to contrast with 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers vsually cited by Authors opposite to him 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church for both Churches mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day 4. The express Doctrin of general Councils which define our Doctrin positiuely and The grounds of our Catholick Tenets condemn the figuratiue presence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery related by authors of most indubitable credit These are no slight grounds of our Doctrin Let vs see by what strong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them or which is immediatly to my purpose proues his new negatiue Position Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist Not one word in the whole Bible is like it much contrary Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him No. What euer sense he drawes from thence seemingly to his purpose will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle as his own improbable position is and therefore most vnfit to perswade it Has he as vniuersal Tradition or the vnanimous consent of Fathers for his negatiue or for that sense he would force out of Scripture as he and we haue for the letter of the Text now cited Nothing at all And to show you how iustly I propose this question call to mind what Mr The Sectary answers not to any Stilling exact's of his Aduersary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should saith he once see you proue the infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints c. by as vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is whereby we receiue the Scriptures I would extoll you for the only person that euer did any thing considerable on your side Thus he speakes after this precaution giuen Think not to fob vs off with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catholik with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Your own words Mr Stilling shall here condemn you The Question is whether your Negatiue Christ is not really present in the Eucharist as Catholiks affirm be Orthodox Doctrin We exact as rigid à proof from you as you demand of vs but fob vs not off with your own talk Tradition you haue none nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers but giue vs the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time as What we iustly require of Sectaries clear for your negatiue as you demand of vs for the articles now mentioned Or if this be too much giue vs but only the indubitable sentiment of any Church reputed Orthodox four or fiue hundred years past for this your sense and assertion and I will applaud you as à most singular person But this you shall doe when you haue turned all faith out of the world that is neuer I say therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
none can adore one that meerly takes vpon him the Maiesty of à King who is not with an Adoration due to that Maiesty so none can honour or adore Christ in the Eucharist with an honour due to Christ when truely and really he is not present but saith Theoderet Christ is to be really adored in the Eucharist and Consequently he is really present there 21. For the rest I remit the Reader to C. Perron who in the following Chapters dissolues and most clearly what euer can be obiected against his Doctrin To end this point be pleased to reflect vpon this one particular Had Theoderet said The Symbols remain in their first essence figure and form and included in that very speech as our Aduersaries will haue the One reflection more very substance of bread He had spoken most improperly which ill beseem's so learned an Author for vpon this supposition he speak's as incongruously as if one should say Peter this very hour who is himselfe both Soul and body remain's in him selfe that is The Cardinals reading clear's all in his Soul and body But if you read with the Cardinal Thus. Car ils demeurent en lae forme en la sigure de la premiere substance They remain and in the form and in the figure of the first substance of bread before Consecration really formed and figured by them the Construction is good the sense most clear perfect and without exception 22. Thus much I haue noted to satisfy the Gentleman and hope neuer to hear Theoderet obiected hereafter against Transubstantiation If I doe I shall say an old obseruation of mine alwaies proues true and t' is That the best Arguments of Sectaries Printed and reprinted in their little books are like old thread-bare garments quite out of fashion cast off and reiected I mean answered ouer and ouer by Catholick Authors yet Brusht vp must appear as new And this less blamable may pass for they can do no better but methinks it is intolerable that they bring again to light such worn-out stuff as you see now done in this particular and dare not inform the Reader how often it hath been torn à pieces Yet the worst of all remain's Viz. That they build their faith vpon sand one dubious Authority of à Father if yet dubious supports it and seem's to these new spirits ground enough to foment Schism to maintain à rebellion against as ancient Church which neuer belieued as they do CHAP. XII A Digression concerning the Real Presence The Fathers plainly assert it Sectaries glosses friuolous The agreement of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrin indubitable The Catholick's certain Principle A word with Mr Stillingfleet 1. BEfore we produce these Testimonies and lay open Mr Stillingfleet's Mistakes turn I beseech you to his Account of Protestancy Part. 3. c. 3. page 567. Where he treat's of Transubstantiation and calls it an vnreasonable Doctrin because repugnant to sense and reason also It seem's contrary to sense for sense tells vs what we see and tast is bread after consecration and reason vpon that sensible suggestion ought to conclude it still remains substantially bread Obserue I beseech you how the Gentleman to maintain his proofs drawn from sense is not only forced to reiect the plain sense of Christ's words according to the letter This is my body which is giuen for you This is the Chalice of the new Testament wich is or shall be shed for you But more Mr Stilling quarrel 's with all Christians except à ferr Protestants ouer how he is thrown into à desperate quarrel wherein he will neuer come off hansomly For he is engaged to make not only the Professors of the Roman and Greek Church who indubitably belieue the Real presence more than stupid because opposit to that he call's sense and reason but besides He contrast's with à far greater moral body of Christians I may rightly stile it the Representatiue of all named Christians in the world excepting à few Protestants I 'le shew you how At this day there are in that famous Temple of Hierusalem dedicated to the Holy Cross called the Church of the Sepulcre Catholicks Graecians Abyssins those most ancient Christians Syrians Maronits Georgians and others All haue their Altars in one and the same Church and all though different in some Doctrinal points and Ceremonies vnanimously belieue à true vnbloody Sacrifice and with it the real presence of Christ after Consecration No moderne sectaries haue place here witnesse Prince Radziuill in his Ierosoly Peregrin Antwerpe Print 1614. Pag. 109. Nay they are so meanly thought of that when the Prince named Lutherans Zwinglians c. The party he conuersed with demanded whether they were Christians What Christians said he and haue no Priest no Altar no sacrifice offerred vp to god in this sacred place where Christ wrought our redemption you may see more hereof in the following page of this Author In the mean while shall any say that à Representatiue of so many Christians are to be deemed fooles vpon this account that they contradict sense and reason It is so vast à Paradox that though Mr Stillings should write volumes on this subiect He would neuer speak à probable word against such à cloud of witnesses You may add herevnto if you please those many Christians conuerted to our The Chineses difficulty Catholick Faith in that vast Kingdome of China à People the whole world knowes most ingenious All of them as I haue heard from two worthy men à long time Missioners there the one is yet liuing who reclaimed many from their errours raise most difficulties before their conuersion against that one Mystery of our Faith the Incarnation of the Diuine word but after satisfaction receiued in this particular they submit easily to the belief of other Catholick verities and neuer Scruple in the least at the Mystery of the Eucharist as à Doctrin Contrary to sense and reason And they proceed most rationally for in real truth there are incomparably Most Concern's the Incornation greater difficulties in this one Mystery of the Incarnation to say nothing of the Trinity might weak reason decide the case than in the other What That God who is essentially immutable becomes man by à vnion betwixt the Diuine word and humane nature which vnion toucheth so intrinsecally on that Diuine Person that we must truly say This word is now intrinsecally affected otherwise then he was before and to conceiue all this done without à real change may the Common notion of mutation stand Mutari est rem aliter se habere is à difficulty so great say good Diuins that it hath rack't many à strong wit and yet can scarse be well solued Vtramque enim Substantiam in vnam conuenisse personam c. They are words of S. Leo Sermo 9. de Natiu Dmi nisi fides credat sermo non explicat That is the Mystery is very abstruse I verily belieue Mr Stilling Metaphysick will not reach
and both as you see stand opposite to Mr Stilling weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason 6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome In. 1. Cor hom 24. Other Authorities Chrisostom Pachasius Damascan who saith The kingly body in heauen is set before vs on earth We touch it and do not only touch it but eate it This body the barbarous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling Thou add's the Saint See'st him not now in the manger but on the Altar not held in à womans arms but by à Priest present c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg he explain's himself further Truly this table supplies the place of the manger for here also is our Lords body laid Paschasius à latin author who liued about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence à nd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. Sanguine Dm'i that the Centurist's Cent. 9. C. 4. Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen Pag 288. and other Sectaries charge him with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christs body No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. whose discours on this subiect though long is most significant As bread saith he naturally meat and wine and water by drink are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drink 's So this bread proposed the wine and water also by the inuocation and comming of the Holy Ghost are in à miraculous manner conuerted into Christs body and blood neither are they two but one and the same Our Lord himself hath said This is not à sign of my body but my body This is not à sign of my blood but my blood Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. reiects the Doctrin and call's this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. Iohn Damascen slight and fabulous sodo other Sectaries with him also 7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr clear noted First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who liued with our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn seem's to me vnanswerable Epist ad Smirnen not far from the beginning They saith he that is certain Sacramentarians admit not Eucharists and oblations because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins and his Father graciously raised from the dead So Theoderet 12. ages since Tom. 4. Dialogo 3. reads And Iaac Vossius who followes the Florentine Copy differs little or rather nothing at all None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear 8. The second authority as pregnant is taken out of S. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for Christians vsually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant Apology Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour by the word of God was made flesh and haed for our saluation flesh and blood so also after the same manner we are taught that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with thanksgiuing of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ which was Incarnate And for proof hereof he allegeth Christs own words This is my body This is my blood Thus S. Iustin speak's who liued not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin I know some Sectaries Cauil at the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by transmutation The sectaries Cauil answered and think Iustin held the Eucharist to be food for the body but his sense is clear for he saith only That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation is made after consecration the very body of Christ and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus Pag 368. translates Iustins S. Iustin's true sense words out of the Greek thus Sumimus autem hunc panem hunc potum non vt Communem sed eo modo quo edocti sumus Iesum Christum seruatorem nostrum habuisse pro salute nostra carnem sanguinem sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro sanguis aluntur post benedictionem ipsius esse carnem sanguinem Domini That is in plain English The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incarnate Sauiour Conformable hereunto Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenaeus aduersus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. Iustins words Sic per verbum precationis gratiarum actionis sacratam ab ipso alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes sanguinem Illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse didicimus The Interpreter also I follow significantly renders the same sense Alimoniam vnde c. The food from whence from which or where with we are nourished this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate Iesus Well but admit that Iustine call's the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies How some Fathers call the Eucharist Nourishment to the body he makes it not therefore Corporal food but Spiritual which nourishes them to à ioyful resurrection or to immortality and thus the other Fathers chiefly S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus finem speakes Quomodo saith he rursus dicunt c How do these Hereticks plead again that our flesh shall come to corruption and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord where with it is nourished Again Sic corpora nostra c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are not corruptible hauing hope of à ioyful resurrection But enough of these authorities Whoeuer desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his 2. book of the Holy Eucharist Out of what is said already I argue 9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also haue most impiously betrayed Christs cause in deliuering false Doctrin contrary to sense and reason or worthily defended à Christian verity Grant this second we haue our intent But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief and impiously erred in their expressions Ponder first what à frontles impudence accompanies the reply Next make this true inference It is impossible that such à supposed vniuersal errour should euer be rased out of A Conuincing Argument the minds of men by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à receiued Principle For what proofs or vndoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture our Tradition the sentiment of the Church and the iudgement
into blood as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine Consequently they renounce both the parity and open sense of the words And which is euer to be noted wilfully do so when they haue nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on Contrariwise the Catholick in this debate denies no express sense of any Fathers Testimony but only makes Inquiry into the Signification of words which are confessedly dubious Take here one instance Gelasius saith The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be First I make no account of this Gelasius Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi Contra Eutich He was not that holy Pope so called but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl Howeuer these two particles substance and nature may ex placito indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massinesse of bread and wine for natural qualities which flow from an Essence haue or often sustain as was noted aboue the name of that Essence they come from Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious sense but only contends that Nature and substance may signify as is most Of Gelasius How much his authority is worth vsual the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be And he giues this signification to these two words because Scripture Church and the Fathers wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends forceth him to it And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine Thus much may be said if that authority were worth any thing Read I beseech you Brereley In his Lyturgy of the Masse cited aboue pag 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined and that in very truth this Gelasius who euer he was speaking against the Eutichians as Theoderet did vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also Open the book and read you will be satisfyed I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Obiections 18. There is yet an other Reply Sectaries may say we suppose all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin The Supposition is denied because they quote t' is true not many but some Fathers and Scripture also to countenance their new opinion By the way here is occasion again to reflect on what is often noted viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers and they explicate all They cite also and we do the like and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other we are as much iarring as we were before without hope of ending Controuersies this way Now my Answer to the first part of the Obiection is We Catholicks suppose nothing but only The answer to an other reply take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church which was neuer censured by any Orthodox society of Christians Vpon these Principles therefore Scripture Church and Fathers we stand immoueable To that which followes I Answer Sectaries haue not one syllable of Scripture in fauour of their Nouelty and to omit à rehearsal of those triuial Arguments drawn from certain passages where they conceiue the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine c. I conuince my Assertion by the positiue ground abready established which none shall ouerthrow If this be the true sense of Scripture when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solue it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament Christ who is aboue in heauen is not really present on the Altar but in his sign only Or that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread only deputed to à holy vse If this I say be the true sense of Gods word Christs Orthodox Church expresly deliuered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luthers Reuolt for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth But no Orthodox Church then taught so or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture or Malicious and concealed it from Christians our Sectaries sense is not Scripture To confirm this Reason All know that the Roman Catholick Church then as well as now absolutly renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture and for that cause was not say they Orthodox in this particular Doctrin but no other Church confessedly Orthodox taught it at that time Therefore it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning All I would say is briefly laid forth thus 19. The true Church of Christs euer deliuers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters so much Protestants grant But No true Church deliuered this their sense three or four ages before Luthers reuolt Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost but à whimsy lately inuented This Argument I hold demonstratiue You will perhaps ask What is that these men can pretend to hauing neither Scripture nor Orthodox Church to rely on I 'le tell you in à word They allege How Sectaries endeauour te solue it first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers which the Catholick admit's not in the sense of Nouellists yet according to the clear plain and obuious signification of words as is now declared and He prudently giues this signification to ambiguous words because the Doctrin he owns stand's firm vpon other indubitable Principles Scripture Church and Fathers The Sectary euidently wants such Principles and therefore vapors as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities The next thing relyed on is much worse and purely nothing but fancy He reads Scripture and those euident Testimonies of Fathers as manifest for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it and these forsooth he endeauours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses without the least shadow of any distinct Principle which giues so much as à Colour to his fancied interpretations You shall see this truth most manifestly proued in the ensuing Chapter CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubious and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as vnwilling to catch flies as Mr Stilling is to kill them T' is his own phrase yet I must do so in some measure or permit à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort wauing many of lesser moment and I doe thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores For I am well assured If our
Tertullian reiect's and hold's insufficient to end disputes And so doth S. Austin also Epistola 49. Ad Deo gratias The other named Pars reflexa and the clearer which speak's of the Foundation of Christian Religion of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world ouer of its marks and Signes of its Perpetuity and infallible Assistance of Nations flocking to it c. This part I say the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word is so perspicuous and clear that it silences all Sectaries and euidently subuert's their Errours But to tell me it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Transubstantiation the number of Sacraments c. And the very sense of Scripture which should end all is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties To assert this I say is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience And therefore I will extort this confession from our Aduersaries may they please to answer that as they shall neuer proue one of their Protestant Opinions so they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin by clear and express Scripture 11. Some obiect S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian S. Austin's Discourse with an Arian who faith Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum c. Bâ—rnob neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou to the Authority of the other Let vs contend by the Authorities of scripture which are common witnesses to vs both Here two things seem clear First That S. Austin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council as Sectaries do now the Church 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to conuince an Arian A word only in passing Dare the Sectary offer thus much or dispute with the Catholick for the supposed Obserue the question here proposed Truths of pure Protestancy or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus I would willingly see some attempt made this way but am sure He will not dare to do it Because he saith His Protestancy or these Negatiues are not reuealed but only à number of inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controuersies when the Protestant ingenuously grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the sufficiency of Scripture help not the Sectary at all Irenaeus for example call's it the Rule of Faith S. Austin A Diuine Sectaries quote Fathers to no purpose Balance Theophilus Alex A firm foundation Gerson A Sufficient and infallible Rule Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part yea and of the obscurer also when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle But what makes all this for pure Protestancy or for its Negatiue Opinions Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith whereof it is vtterly silent Doth it weigh such Negatiues or tell vs what they are worth Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures vs out No Sacrifice on the Altar No purgatory No Transubstantiation Toyes trifles There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposit Verities of Catholick Religion or in behalf of Protestancy Therefore though S. Austin appeald to Scripture against an Arian and had his reasons for it yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent when after their Appeal they find not one sentence for Protestancy or against Catholick Doctrin Now to S. Austin 12. I say first The Saint reiected not the Authority of the Why S. Austin waued the Nicene Council Nicene Council which he euer honourd but only waued that as an vnmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus who no more regarded the Nicene Definitions than Sectaries now do the Council of Trent Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions Thus our Catholick Witers haue answered à hundred times yet we must haue this Crambe recocta serued vp again as à new vnsauory Obiection I say 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter which he Saith is à body without à Soul but to the true genuine Sense Thereof which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuersal consent of Christ's vnerring Church For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin to belieue the Churches sense of Scripture and to belieue Scripture it self which most manifestly commend's vnto vs Church Authority Had then the Saint argued thus against his Aduersary He had conuinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conuiction Council yet thou cans't not deny but that Scripture commend's à Church founded by Christ diffused the whole world ouer what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the sense of Scripture That is the sense of the Holy Ghost And can be no other for à Church which swerues from the true sense of Gods word is no Church founded by Christ But the Vniuersael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy errour Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers stand's opposit to thee also And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it self 13. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture God in Essence and three distinct Persons not so plainly expressed there He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduersary of errour None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself Lib. contra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith viz. of Baptism conferred by Hereticks which though not clearly expressed in Scripture is yet held à true and valid Sacrament His words are Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum c. Although no example of this thing the validity of Baptism by Hereticks can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by vs in this particular Cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesia when we now do that which pleases or is agreable to the Vniuersal Church which Church the Authority of Scripture it self commend's Vt quoniam As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue whilst it commend's the Church and euery one fear 's to be deceiued in the obscurity of this Question Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat Let him consult the Vniuersal Church
of this particular Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate Thus S. Austin himselfe Answers most profoundly S. Austin And he giues an Answer to the present difficulty viz. That if the Obscurer Part of Scripture speak not plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick the Heretick is to address himself to the Church and learn by Her what the sense of Scripture is Without light borrowed from the Church we haue only words about these high Mysteries but not fully sensed words chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries whose glosses depraue the plainest Passages in Holy writ as the Protestant doth Christ's clear Proposition This is my body If therefore we go on in such à contest with words not fully sensed we may well end our liues as S. Austin notes before we end one Controuersy 14. And thus you see as the One Part of Scripture is à body without à soul before it be receiued by the Church so the Other Part is also before it be both receiued and sensed by this Oracle of Truth Vpon this ground all those other Testimonies vsually alleged by Sectaries out of S. Austin against the Donatists Of Optatus Meleuitanus and S. Chrysostom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly solued for here is S. Austins Principle The sense of Scripture intended The sense of Scripture and the Church alwaies the same by the Holy Ghost and the sense of Christs true Church concerning Scripture can neuer clash but is one and the same If therefore I know the sense of the Church I haue with it the sense of Scripture also but with this difference That what Scripture often expresses less clearly Christ's Church deliuers more fully and Explicitly Whence it followes that if the Churches sense conclude against these Sectaries the Scriptures sense where it is obscure is in like manner concluding 15. You may obiect Scripture is in the noblest manner infallible For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly and may well be à distinct Rule or Principle from that sense which the Church giues of it Why therefore should not Sectaries haue recourse to that first and noblest Principle without relying on the Churches interpretation I haue answered because they know not guess they may and miss what Scripture saies in à hundred difficult Passages Therefore they are to recurr to the Church or must make vse of their own fancies to sense it The Argument purely fallacious is much to this sense Christ our Lord when he taught his Disciples was in the noblest manner infallible being Truth it self the Apostles were only infallible in their teaching and An Obiection answered further Explanation of those Verities they learn'd by à Singular Grace or participation of Infallibility Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the first sure Principle Christ's own words flowing from the Fountain of infallibility without depending on the Apostles Doctrin not so eminently infallible Now be pleased to hear S. Austin pondering those words Psal 57. Alienati sunt peccatores c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Christ and the Church and solues the Difficulty Ex veritatis ore ag 〈…〉 Christum ipsam veritatem Taught by the mouth of Truth I acknowledge Christ Truth it self ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam participem veritatis And by the same mouth of Truth I acknowledge the Church partaking also of Verity That is I own the Church to be not Truth it self not Scripture it self but à Copartner of Truth with Christ and Scripture I own it to be not Infallibility it self yet so eminently infallible by à singular grace or participated Infallibility That to dispute against it is most insolent madness Witness the same S. Austin Epist. 118. C. 5. ad Ian If he dare to do so Saith the Saint Serm 14. de verbis Apost C. 18. or rus◠violently against this impregnable wall of the Church let him know his doom ipse confringitur He is shattered in pieces Hence you see first that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary to the Churches sense giuen of Scripture without thwarting Scripture it self You see 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles looking as it were different waies but one and the same in order to our direction and regulating Faith whereof Scripture and the Church in order to all is one Principle more Hereafter 16. In the mean while you may ask why our Sectaries keep such à Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things necessary It is hard to say what they driue at For if all this pretended clarity diffused it self through euery passage of Holy writ worse it is for them and to their vtter confusion Obserue My reason The more clear Scripture is made by Nouellists the greater is their shame whilst they cannot proue by it's supposed clarity so much as one Protestant Doctrin nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholick Faith Therefore nothing is gained this way Nay all is los t by Their casting off Church Authority when after that wicked Fact clear Scripture leaues them as Scripturelesse as Their own malice has made them Churchlesse It is true I see some Colour for their Pretence to Scripture and thus it is Like men lawlesse they haue shaken of all other receiued Principles of Christian Religion Speak of à Church She is fallible and has actually erred Cite Fathers some pitifully gloss them others roundly reiect them as men meerly Fallible Mention Tradition the very word is odious Now for stark shame whilst they bear the name of Christians it is hard to throw away all Christian Principles What 's done therefore Why Sectaries take recourse to the bare letter of Scripture I 'le tell you They lay hold of à body without à Soul I mean the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Sense and this is all that 's left them I say without the sense whereof you haue seen enough already for when the sense of God's word is controuerted between them and vs and their sense run's contrary to the receiued Church Doctrin no probable Principle can make it defensible and vpon this Ground I said right They are as Scripturelesse as Churchlesse All this is most true and I well vnderstand it But why these men labour so earnestly to make the Bible plain when not so much as one plain passage is found there for Protestancy or against our Catholick Doctrin is à Riddle aboue my reach I vnderstand it not Let then as much as you will of the book be clear whilst the Clarity fauour 's not one of our Sectaries forged Nouelties nor Contradict's one of our Catholick Tenets it neither help 's the Protestant nor hurt 's the Catholick In the next Discourse we shall treat of the Church and more oportunely solue there à few obiections of Sectaries CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate Faith 1. THe next Principle after Scripture we named the
Set once more pen paper and proue vs guilty of damnable Errour and you 'l damn so many that very few of your Protestants will be left in à state of Saluation I 'le make the Assertion good hereafter In the interim you Tell vs Wee palpably beg the Question whilst we suppose the whole Church is on our side and against you which is à notorious falshood Sr words are but wind I shall by the Grace of God Euidence this Truth so notoriously in the next Discourse that you if reason may haue place must confess Catholicks are the only Orthodox Church And Consequently grant that Controuersies are ended between vs. THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith HEre wee come to handle à main Matter in Controuersies And first Euidence the true Church by Her Marks and Glorious Miracles The Roman Catholick Church is proued the only Orthodox Society of Christians and Rule of Faith also VVee Euince Her absolute Infallibility and shew by Reason That if She hath taught but one false Doctrin and obliged Christians to belieue it there is now no true Faith in the world CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 1. THE first Principle God whose eternal designe is to bring man to true Faith in this short pilgrimage and after to endles Happines afford's means to acquire both And hath as Principles presupposed well laid open the means whereby true Faith may be attained As made our final End known 2. The second Principle Those want the means leading to the last happy End who are Aliens from the true Church of Christ or Separated from that Catholick Society The Assertion is so plainly deliuered not only by most Ancient Fathers But by the more learned Sectaries also That it is needless to produce many Testimonies S. Cyprian Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae Saith Quisquis ab Ecclesia separatus est c. Who euer is separated from the Church is ioyned to an Adulteress And diuorced from all the Promisses of the Church He comes not to the reward which Christ has promised who leaues the Church of Christ He is an Alien Prophane an Enemy and cannot haue God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother S. Austin lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13. Speaks fully this sense Citing those last words of Cyprian And Lib. 4. de Baptis C. 17. Saith Out of the Church there is no Saluation Yet more Epist 152. Whoeuer is or shall be separated from The Fathers Testimonies preduced this Catholick Church although he thinks himself to liue most laudably For this one wickednes alone that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ shall haue no life Sed ira Dei manet super eum But the wrath of God remains vpon him S. Fulgentius Lib. de fide ad Petrum C. 39. Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it That an Heretick or Schismatick baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and Holy Ghost if he be not in Vnion with the Catholick Church Although he giues neuer so great Alms And shed his blood for Christ yet he cannot be saued I waue other excellent Authorities known to euery one versed in the Fathers And need not to take more pains when Protestants themselues own the Doctrin The Ark was à type of the Church saith Perkins in Symb. Colum with me 785. extra quam omnes interibant out of which Ark All dyed and all are damned who are out of the Church Again In Caput 9. ad Sectaries Consent Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church are not members of the Catholick Church Humfred Ad Ration 3. Campiani We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible Church of God Finally Caluin the Master of Sectaries Lib. 4. Institu C. 1. 4. makes it absolutly necessary to be in vnion with Christs visible Church 3. The ground of this Truth is so solidly laid down in Scripture that none can contradict it For here the Church is called the Kingdom the Body the Inheritance of Christ purchased at à dear The Ground of our Catholick Truth rare the effusion of his sacred blood A Citty built vpon à Mountain The House the Temple of God the Hierusalem the Pillar and firmament of Faith c. Whereby it appears That whoeuer is out of this Kingdom out of this Citty out of this house and Temple of God whoeuer is not à member of this Mystical body or shares not in this purchased Inheritance or in à word out of the true Church be it where you will I yet define nothing is in à damnable condition A sad thought for all Sectaries because it is certain that Christ has not composed his Church of such Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the true Church and of such as oppose it Vnity and Diuision in Vnity and Diuision in Faith haue no place in the true Church points of Faith ase inconsistent in the same Orthodox Church and destroy the essential forme of it which is one Faith Now if our Aduersaries talk of à vnity in Fundamentals they are not only euidently conuinced of Errour in the other Treatise But vpon this very Account become Separaters from the Church and without Principles Assert that which neither Church nor Scripture teaches Who euer hold's not the Catholick faith entire shall Perish eternally saith S. Athanasius in his Creed but an entire Belief excludes all distinction between fundamentals and others as is manifest I little value some Protestants Glosses made vpon this Text for Glosses with me are weightles when they stand vnprincipled 4. The 3. Principle What the true Church of Christ teaches concerning the sense of Scripture That 's the sense intended by the Holy Ghost and Consequently most true The reason is Truth cannot be contrary to truth The Church and Scripture neuer Clash But alwaies speak one and the same verity This Sectaries must grant who define the Church to be an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God Therefore it cannot deceiue or teach an Errour contrary to that pure word Or if it doth so it ceaseth eo ipso to be God's Oracle And the true Church of Christ 5. If these men still go on trifling with their wonted distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals And allow à Perfect vnity of Doctrin between the Church and Scripture in The Distinction between Fundamentals and others friuolous things absolutly necessary to Saluation but not in others This is to define and not to define to build and destroy to teach and cheat in one breath For à definition which makes known the nature of à Thing must stand in its open sense without restraint and exactly agree to the thing defined Mark now Christs true Church is the Thing defined and the Definition charged with endless restrictiue Terms is drawn to Non-sense fot it tells vs the Church
an Oracle of truth whilst all it teaches now is fallible and may be false 7. Hence I argue What Scripture saith is true Scripture here speaks of à Church founded by Christ of an Ancient Visible An Argument drawn from what is now said Society of Her perpetual Pastors without interruption of à Church conuerting Nations c. Therefore it speak's Truth and points at à sure Oracle marked with the notes we plead for who euer then admit's Scripture must ioyntly own these Marks and Signatures of the true Church But yee Sectaries admit Scripture and haue no such Marked Church with Antiquity continuance of Pastors c. Ergo you are not members of the true Church which must necessarily be found in some other Society of Christians 8. Here by the way we must preuent à triuial Obiection For some less knowing Aduersary may reply Wee destroy our own Ground and now proue the Marks of the Church by Scripture whereas we suppose the Scripture first proued to be of Diuine Inspiration because the Church manifested by her Marks and Motiues saith so 9. I Answer we proue the Marks of the Church and the Form of her essential Doctrin also by Scripture But how Vpon à Supposition that the Book be first proued Diuine by Church Authority Thus much done it is an excellent Principle But not Primum indemonstrabile it s own Self-Euidence Or first indemonstrable Principle This Truth is clear For no man goes about to conuert à Iew by alleging Passages out of the new Testament or to draw à Heathen to Christianity by any thing written either in the old or new Scripture As therefore that Scripture not the first in demonstrable Principle man would not be well in his wits who hopes to conuert à Protestant by meerly alleging the Definitions of the Council of Trent which he slights so he would be as sensles did he hope to conuert à Heathen by Scripture only as much vnderualued by him as the present Definitions of the Church are by Protestants Hence you see how Scripture is à Principle against Sectaries who admit it and reiect an infallible Church By Scripture we Argue and conuince them of errour might the words Thereof bear their proper sense without fancied Glosses Yet if we make à right Analysis it is not the first indemonstrable Principle but Per Modum suppositionis only that is it must be either supposed or proued Diuine 10. I say yet more Though both the Iew and Heathen owned Scripture as it truly is à Book indited by the Holy Ghost Though it were so there yet remains à difficulty not to bee solued yet they haue but made one step as it were towards Christianity For when such men look well about them and find Scripture differently sensed by so many iarring Heads as haue it in their hands by Arians Socinians Quakers Protestants c. Catholicks dissent from them all where can I beseech you these half Christians whether Iewes or Heathens securely rest With whom can they rationally vnite Themselues whose sense must they belieue and own as the vndoubted meaning of the Holy Ghost To doe any thing prudently in so weighty à Matter is impossible Vnless they first come to the knowledge of Christs true Church which as well Ascertain's them of the Scriptures sense in all Controuerted points of Faith as it doth of the Book 's Diuinity Now further It is not possible to know the true sense of Scripture but by the Church it is not possible to know the Church but by her Marks the essential Doctrin Thereof no more mark 's it self as true than Scripture Doctrin denotes its own Diuinity The Sectary therefore that rob's the Church of her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles Conuersions Perpetuity c. is guilty of three hainous crimes at once 11. First he makes the Conuersion of à Iew to Christianity Sectaries make the Conuersion of Iewes impossible most impossible I 'le show you how The Iew Admit's of the old Testament and drawes from euery passage which speak's of Christ and the Church à Sense quite different from that which Christians own The Protestant admit's both the Old and New Scripture And as we may Suppose is at à hot dispute with à Iew concerning Christian Religion First saith the Iew Lay Sir your New Testament aside which is no Principle with me Because it neither euidences it Self immediatly to be Gods word nor can you proue it Diuine vpon any sure ground extrinsecal to the Book Therefore we must Argue by à Principle common to vs both The old Testament only You read There I read also You know the Original language so do I You compare Text with Text I doe the like You Gloss and I Gloss against you Yet after all is done you draw one sense out of this very Scripture and would proue Christ to be the true Messias I draw from thence an other quite Contrary And say He is not My demand is whether Christ The Assertion proued whom you Adore hath prouided men of better means Than your Glosses and mine are whereby we may certainly know what the sense of this Scripture is If he haue done so it can be nothing but à Church manifested by Supernatural Signes and miracles for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthusiasms if the guidance of à Church be wanting we are all left in darkness And know not what Sense to make of Scripture and this ill beseems the Goodnes of à Sauiour who as you say came to enlighten the world and teach all truth which is not done For he leaues Reason in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church is It may well be the Protestant will except against his Aduersaries Glosses but He is soon silenced for Saith the Iew you good man when you treat with Papists interpret Scripture as you please and why may not I proceed so with you And vse the like liberty 12. The second crime committed by the Protestant who depriues the Church of Her external Signes is that he Eclipses that great light of the world which as Origen saith shines to all And make it as Obscure as some Protestants make their Church inuisible before Luther What I say is certain For no man can find the Church by reason when all rational Motiues are What Sectaries are guilty of taken from it And held impertinent to illustrate that great moral Body Hence you see the third sin of Sectaries relating to Scripture This Book also loseth all credit with Christians because it Euidenceth not its own Diuinity nor can any Signalised Church tell vs it is Diuine or certainly declare the true sense thereof to either learned or vnlearned 13. My last argument against the Protestant is no Topick nor bare Probability but à plain Demonstration The Title saith This reformed man has no Christian Doctrin made credible to The last conuincing Argument Reason whilst he belieues as Protestant To proue the Assertion Three
Which is to say the Reason we call reflex and prudent most easily finds out the Master that teaches truth and hauing once found him it relies on his word whilst direct Reason stayes intangled in difficult Mysteries and learns nothing Hence also it is that S. Thomas and others most profoundly Obserue à notable difference in our proceeding when we harken to God and to man When we treat with man we rigidly What man speak's is to be examined what God saith not examin the things he speak's and if found absurd or impossible reiect them We obserue the coherence of his Discourse and iudge whether it be consonant or dissonant to reason But to proceed thus with God who can neither deceiue nor be deceiued is Impudence Enquire then no more but thus much only what God saies and rest Satisfied his own sole word is warrant enough 11. We come now to apply this Doctrin more home The Primitiue Christians after à prudent search found out by euident signes and wonders the great Master of the world Christ our Lord and were commanded to hear him Matth. 17. 5. Ipsum audite And because he proued Himself by manifest fignes to be à Doctor and Prophet sent from God They belieued the Doctrin he taught vpon his own word though very sublime and aboue weak reason Now here is à Point of consequence worth our serious ponderation 12. Can any one imagin that our great Doctor of truth An application of the Doctrin left vs all comfortles or so destitute in his Absence without Pastors without Prophets withous liuing Oracles that yet speak in his name and deliuer with all certainty those Verities he taught and will haue euer taught Reflect I beseeck you This great Master saith No. Iohn 20. 16. As my Father sent me so I send you Matth. 20. 19. Goe and teach all Nations Luke 10. 16. He that hear's you hears me And to these Pastors he promises his presence and continual assistance to the end of Ages Matt. 28. 20. I will be with you euer to the end of the world And the There is yet à teaching Oracle very excellency the very nature of Diuine Learning requires this Assistance and must if Diuine depend on an Oracle which cannot but speak in Gods name Truth and Truth only For how is it possible to conceiue the vast moral Body of Christians of so different tempers diffused the whole world ouer knit firmly together in one sauing Faith if no certain Oracle laies forth that learning which God has reuealed and will haue all to belieue 13. The Sectary may Answer Scripture is his Oracle he needs no more Contra. 1. Christianity had à liuing Oracle before Scripture was written did then that Oracle cease to be because Gods truths were committed to paper or parchment Contra 2. And mark I beseech you how vnwarily weak reason already reiected works mischief to it self and others Reason The Plea of Sectaries reiected reads Scripture and when that is done it sett's endles iarrs incomposable debates not only between man and man but which is worse between God and man Therefore Scripture thus handled can be no Oracle that vnites all in one Faith Theses Iarrs between man and man are manifest for the Arians Pelagians Protestants and Catholicks read the book and you see what fighting there is about the Sense which only indeed and not the bare letter is Scripture Now that some of these many Contend also with God is vndeniable For God approues not all these different senses because contradictory Therefore some draw à false meaning from Scripture and these Some let the fault light yet where you will oppose the true Sense of the Holy Ghost yea act stifly to their Eternal shame against that noble perfection in God his vndeceiued Verity and this I call contention or quarrelling with God Truth it self which as you see our Sectaries will haue goe on without redress because they allow of no Doctor no Teacher no Oracle that can end the Strife or reduce the erring Party to due submission 14. I say therefore And here is my last Proposition The The true teaching Oracle name'd Roman Catholick Church which prudent reason easrly find's out and no other Society of Christians is Gods own Oracle What she teaches we learn what she reiect's we reiect Her Definitiue word is our warrant without further dubious search made into the Mysteries proposed The proof of my Assertion depend's on this brief discourse 15. God obliges all poor and rich learned and vnlearned to embrace true Religion And consequently afford's means to find it out being à matter of so much weight as concerns Saluation But the Necessary means to find true Religion is to come to the knowledye of that Oracle which Proposes and teaches truth with all certainty For no man teaches Himself but learns if wise of à better Master Scripture you see Ends not our Controuersies The Mysteries of Faith are not our Doctors because these in themselues obscure are belieued after Reason has found out Gods liuing Oracle Therefore all Christians must own à Teacher an Oracle of truth established by Almighty God commissioned to enlighten and to instruct the world How shall they hear saith S. Paul Rom. 10. 15. without à Preacher Obserue well à teaching Oracle is to Propose Euangelical Doctrin But how shall they preach vnless they they be The Church Commissioned to teach instruct's all sent Here you see the Mission and commission of Euangelical Doctors plainly pointed at Now further As none can but own such an Oracle so all must likewise acknowledge it so Visible by Marks and Signes so obuious to sense and prudent reason that the most simple may discern it from Heretical Communities For this Oracle teaches the poorest sort of men therefore Prouidence has made the euidence thereof plain and suitable to the meanest capacities 16. Here we See again the difference between the essential Doctrin of the Church and the Churches outward lustre manifest in Her Signes The first is not got by long Pausing vpon the Mysteries of Faith nor by rigidly examining the things reuealed as we discuss Doctrins probable or improbable in Schools No. The Christian saith not I will either Know how God can be one Essence and three distinct Persons How the Incarnation is possible or I will belieue neither For goe this way to work he doth like one that takes wholsom Pills and chewes them but finding much bitternes soon spits them out Thus then he should proceed guided by à Reflex prudent discourse My only search is to find out that Oracle whereby God speaks to Heathens Iewes Christians and Hereticks There is such an one manifested or none can Belieue any thing This once found How prudent reason discourses I examin no more nor intricate my self in the Mysteries proposed but will humbly Submit to all that 's taught This wisdom I learn from the Primitiue Christians who most easily knew that Christ
of that weak Declaration it appear's no other to me but As things are proposed so they are to all that belieue weak and fallible And none on earth can vnbeguile me or Propose it with greater certainty Because all are now Supposed fallible in their Teaching 8. One Instance may yet clear my meaning The Protestant reads Christs Sacred words Matt. 26. This is my Body And Proposes what he conceiues to be belieuable by Faith But An Instance doth it fallibly Imagin that the Roman Catholick Church also could Say no more for Her Doctrin or the Sense of those Words But as the Protestant doth so fallibly that all might be False it is clear That none whether Catholick or Protestant can haue Certainty of the Doctrin which Christ our Lord deliuered in that one short Sentence Why Both declare their fallible Sentiments only and Fallibly concerning the Sacrament So far their teaching reaches and not farther Therefore the Faith which should be had of the Mystery dwindles into nothing but into à fallible Opinion by virtue of that imperfect Teaching 9. Hence we learn that à Doctrin though infallible in Gods word without more Help makes no man though he be à Prodigy of wit an Infallible Teacher The reason is Infallibility Scripture alone makes no man infallible And why Proceed's not from Scripture easily misinterpreted but immediatly from Gods special Assistance And this Assistance which fixes an Assumed Oracle vpon Truth vnerrably no malice can wrest to falshood Now that the Book of Scripture as dayly Experience teaches is horridly peruerted to à Sinister sense needs no proof For all know what ruin Hereticks haue to the vttermost of their Power endeuoured to make of the chief Articles of our Christian Faith though they aknowledged Scripture to be God's Diuine Word There is scarce One which remain's Vnperuerted Some Deny the Necessity of Diuine Grace Others that great Mystery of the Incarnation Others an Equality in the Diuine Persons Others our Sauiours two Wills Diuine and Humane Thus the Pelagians the Antitrinitarians the Apollinarians and Monothelits taught and deceiued The world And when Scripture is Alleged in behalf of euery Orthodox Truth All you haue from them is à return of ouerthwart Glosses Grace must signify what the Pelagians please The VVord made Flesh How abused what the Antitrinitarians fancy and so of the rest Whence it is Euident that Scripture Alone without more light clears not sufficiently its own Truths For here you Se the most Primary Atticles disowned and Consequently Scripture abused by Priuate Spirits which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's reuealed Doctrin 10. We Catholicks require à further Help One faithful Oracle to teach which in this contest about the Sense of Gods What Catholicks require besides the bare Letter of Scripture Word end 's all Strife and Saies both plainly and infallibly Thus and thus an Infinite Verity speaks in Scripture Yet Sectaries are offended with vs because we can assert without hesitancy VVe belieue infallibly what Truth it Selfe Reueal's infallibly Nay more They are angry with God for hauing done them the greatest fauour Imaginable For to put à Period to these endles A signal Mercy of God makes sectaries offended debates raised among Christians To teach all Infallibly by his own vnerring Oracle what may and ought to be belieued Infallibly is à signal Mercy for which due Thanks can neuer be rendred Disowne the Mercy we liue and shall liue in à Spirit of Contention to the worlds end 11. Now if you Ask why the Church after She has proposed the Sense and verity of Scripture more easily beget's infallible Faith in Her Children Than the bare letter of Gods word can doe without Her I Answer The facility Diuine assistance Supposed arises from the Clarity of Her teaching known to all Vniuersally whether Orthodox or others Whence it is that few of our Aduersaries scarce moue any doubt concerning the Sense of the Churches vniuersal receiued Doctrin for that 's plain but chiefly Question the Truth of it Whereas all is contrary in our contest with the forenamed Hereticks For there is no Dispute whether Scripture be true What is chiefly debated with Sectaries The debate only being what it Saith or what the Sense of Gods sacred word is Here we fight in darkness before the Church Speak's and Declares Her Sense And if She be diuinely Assisted to teach truth as is already and shall be more amply proued in the sequele Discourse that doubt also ceases and vanishes into nothing 12. In the mean while Some may Object 1. The greatest part of Christian Doctrin is now agreed on and Supposed by Catholicks and Protestanss both true and infallible what necessity then haue we of any other Oracle besides Scripture to teach infallibly Answ The Agreement is Null and the Supposition destroies it self if all that taught Christian Doctrin since the Apostles time teach it fallibly For How could any An Obiection Answered agree in this That such and such à Doctrin is both true and infallible when He or They yea all that teach may because fallible erre in their very teaching and call that infallible Doctrin without Assurance giuen of its Infallibility Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible not infallible ex Terminis We must ioyntly own with that an Oracle which Proposes these Verities infallibly or can belieue nothing And by this you Se the Supposition destroies it Selfe For The Sectaries Supposition destroyes it selfe to Suppose à Doctrin infallible when none can Propose it answerably to its Merit as infallible or infallibly is as implicatory as to Suppose without Proof the Starrs in Heauen equal in number and from thence to Inferr they are to be iudged equal The Parity holds exactly 13. Obiect 2. Whoeuer though fallible Deliuers by chance Infallible Christian Doctrin Teaches the very sence that Christ taught Answ Very true But he giues no Assurance Aunother Errour of Sectaries That he doth so For à fallible Deliuery of à Truth as yet only Supposed not Proued infallible raises it no higher but to such à State of Vncertainty that one may iustly doubt whether it be Christ's infallible Doctrin or no. 14. Obiect 3. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity may well conuey vnto à Hearer that which God has Reuealed For why may not an infallible Verity as Reuealed though fallibly Proposed haue influence vpon Faith and work in Belieuers à most firm Assent Answ It is vtterly vmpossible For à fallible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Proposed as infallible by any neither Supposes the Truth Certain vpon other principles and this is euer to be noted nor makes it infallible It Supposes no Truth taught infalliby for Protestants Say None now can teach so All Doctors being fallible And most euidently Sectaries clearly conuinced it makes not that Verity infallible For the Verity as reuealed was antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching
I said well His reading and glosses and all he can Allege for himself are nothing but His own weak thoughts as far remoued from the foundation of truth Gods infallible Verity as earth is from Heauen and more 23. But its needles to Prosecute this Point further when one only reason which none can contradict giues Euidence enough against Protestants I Propose it thus What euer Doctrin they teach peculiar to Protestancy or maintain against the Roman Catholick Church either proceed's from Gods infallible Assistance or wholly borrowes strength from their own Sectaries teach Doctrin diuorced from Diuine Assistance fallible Conceptions after their reading and comparing Scripture Grant the first They teach infallible Doctrin by virtue of Gods infallible Assistance and consequently are the men who constitute an Infallible Church Say secondly that all they teach deriues force from their own weak reason guided only by the external words of Scripture vnderstood as they conceiue They teach as the Arians and all Hereticks haue taught before them à learning which is not from God Their And therefore not from God Doctrin in à word Diuorced from all Diuine Aide and Assistance stand's tottering vpon their own errable Sentiments and therefore neither is which I intended to proue Christ's Doctrin nor at all resoluable into that first Principle of truth God's vnerring Verity 24. Shall we to giue some clearer Light to the Controuersy hitherto handled compendiously recapitulate à few of these many reflections made already in the foregoing Chapters And then more establish the Churches infallibility vpon vndoubted Principles To do so may perhaps benefit the Reader 25. Say therefore Is it true that Christian Religion vltimately A briefe recapitulation of what has been Said depend's vpon God the first vnerring Verity No man doubts it Is it true that innumerable called Christians grosly misconceiue those reuealed Truths after their reading and perusing Scripture It is no less certain Is it true That the bare reading and pondering Scripture Sectaries like Arians no more ascertain's Protestants of the Verities there registred than the Arians or any other Hereticks The truth is vndoubted For from whom should they haue greater certainty Is it true That Funaticism Scripture wrested Doubtful faith euâ—ry Fanatique recurr's to Scripture as Sectaries do Experience proues it Is it true That this sole recourse to Scripture wrâ—sted to a sinister Sense vpohld's the most false Sects in the world Is it true That Christian Doctrin doubtfully taught beget's only à doubtful faith Is it true That the only support of Protestants in points of Religion Comparing Texts fallible Scepticism amount's to no more but to their own doubtful and bare pondering Scripture or to their various and fallible comparing Texts together Is it true That these men like Scepticks would stand euerlastingly quarrelling about the sense of Gods word and cannot be iuduced to hear any Iudge No Iudge speak in this cause of Religion but themselues Is it true That we urge them to make choise of what Iudge they please prouided they appeal not to their own Sentiments and Glosses as much controuerted as Protestancy is Is it true That they can name no Orthodox Church which No Orthodox Church Nor Councils Want of Infallible Assistance Fallible Professors of fallible Doctrin Diuine Reuelation wronged Doctrin neuer owned taught as they teach glossed Scripture as they gloss No Council generally receiued Comparable either to the Lateran or Florentine which fauours their Interpretations forced vpon Christs words Is it true That the Doctrin they propound confessedly proceed's not from Gods infallible Assistance Is it true That they assume to themselues the name of Christians and yet are ashamed to be called infallible Professors of the whole systâ—me of Christian Religion Is it true That they haue done their vtmost to take from God's infallible Reuelation it s own intrinsick nature of Infallibility by making it no more but morally certain in order to our Christian Faith Is it true That that half Infallibility some lay claim to in à few yet vnknown fundamentals appear's euen to Protestants not any Doctrin owned by the Christian world nor can it appear otherwise whilst à whole vniuersal Church decryes it as improbable Is it true That These Nouellists raise not their Doctrin Endles Disputes any higher but only to an endles Contest whilst no Iudge but themselues must speak in the cause 26. Are all these things I say more amply enlarged and clearly proued already so vndoubted that no Sectary shall euer rationally contradict them If the Iudicious Reader find I speak truth as he will may Preiudice be laid aside I may boldly Conclude Who euer see 's not the deplorable Condition of misled Sectaries who euer see 's not also an absolute necessity of an infallible Church to set them in the right way of truth Again is wilfully blind supinely negligent Yea vtterly Careless of Saluation CHAP. XIX Certain Principles where vpon the Churches Infallibility stand's firm The End of Diuine Reuelation is to teach all Infallibly Euery Doctrin reuealed by the fiast Verity is no less infallâ—ble then true It s one thing to teach Truth another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth Sectaries Strangly vngrateful A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Obiections 1. NOw wee come to the last certain Principles whervpon the Churches infallibilitâ— stand's most firmly Here is one The Doctrin which God reueal's as it proceed's from that first vnerring Verity is not only true but infallible The Second Principle Scripture which makes none infallible is often abused by Hereticks Principles premised The third Principle Some Christians are yet in Being That both teach and learn this true Diuine and infallible reuealed Doctrin The Proof is easy For vnless some Teach and learn it All Teach and learn another Doctrin distinct from that which God reuealed The Principle Proued and this neither is nor can be Diuine but meerly humane at most and Perhaps à foolery That therefore which the Prophet Asserts Iohn 6. 43. All shall be Docibiles Dei docible or taught of God is not so For now if the Supposirion hold's the whole Church take it in what Extent you please is deludeâ— as the Apostle Saith Ephes. 4. 14 With the wind of Doctrin in the wickednes of men in Craftines to the circumuention of errour And this brings ruin to Christian Religion 2. The. 4. Principle This Diuine Doctrin is not only A Church must be acknowledged absolutely infallible true and infallible in it self but moreouer so infallibly Proposed by one vnerring Oracle That all who will receiue it are most indubitably certain of those very truths which God has reuealed and therefore cannot err Make good this one Proposition We haue an infallible Church established not only in à few nicknam'd vnknown fundamentals but in euery Doctrin She teaches Now the Proof is taken from the End of Diuine reuelation which seem's most Conuincing For say I
Infallible then those first Masters of Christianity were Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is constrained whether he will or no if he giues in any thing like Euidence to make vse of these good mute things the Motiues of Credibility which he scornfully call's Coleworts too often serued vp or shall neuer proue that God once said The Diuine word is made flesh Which is to Say He must first euidence à Church before he Proues those words Diuine 40. It may be replyed His Euidence for the whole Book of Scripture and euery particular sentence in it is taken from the fallible Tradition of all called Christians and others also no Christians I Say fallible For he owns none Diuine or Infallible Tallible Tradition no sufficient Euidence Contra. 1. The Scripture was acknowledged Diuine before men agreed so vniuersally that it was Diuine Tradition therefore which is rather an Effect of our Christian Beliefe concerning Scripture then à proof of it presupposes some other more clear foregoing Euidence whereby the Book was anciently owned as Diuine This we enquire after and very reasonably because the Chineses haue à vniuersal Tradition for their Bible and the Turks for their Alcoran one also general yet such à humane fallible and weak Tradition proues not those Books to be Diuine Contra. 2. And here is an An Argument ad hominem Argument ad Hominem If Mr Stillingfleet belieues the Testimonies of Scripture Infallible vpon fallible Tradition which may be false he makes his Conclusion concerning the belief of euery Passage in Holy Writ far more sure then the Premises are which lead in the Conclusion And this Doctrin he reiect's aboue as improbable Contra. 3. He has neither vniuersal Sectaries haue no vniuersal fallible tradition for their Seripture Tradition for the Protestants Canon of Scripture disowned by more then half of the Christian world much lesse for its true Sense wherein dissenting Christians so much vary that none of them all can Say vpon humane or fallible Tradition what the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is and consequently this very Tradition as also Mr Stillingfleets double Resolution of Faith into the Books of Scripture and into the Doctrin or Sense come iust to nothing 41. Page 158. He Argues the whole Church consist's of men subiect to errour That is All the Parts are liable to mistake Ergo the whole Church cannot possibly be infallible A faslacious Obiection Solued in and of it selfe Answ Lay open these couered Terms In and Of it selfe The Argument loses force I Say therefore Men meerly considered as nature has made them fallible in order to belieue Supernaturally haue In and Of themselues no immunity from errour yet taken vnder another Notion as they constitute à Church they are infallible That is There was is and will euer be à Church Teaching and à Church Taught Infallible So that all shall neuer err in Faith You may easily reioyn This or that man these or those Multitudes may wilfully abandon Christ's Doctrin Too true God knows And if so They are no more members of the Church but Heretiques or Infidels Again If you run Some may err All the Church cannot ouer the rest of Christians remaining Orthodox whether Pastors or People and Say these may also fall from Faith I Answer Some may All cannot because God has promised euer to preserue à Church in Being I mean faithful Teachers and faithful Belieuers to the end of the world And must not Sectaries acknowledge thus much who hold à Church infallible in Fundamentals which vpon that account cannot wholly err 42. Mr Stillingfleet Answer 's Though the Authority of the whole Church be not Diuine yet she cannot err in Fundamentals because she is tyed to the vse of means Say Good Sir who tyes Her to this infa 〈…〉 ble vse of Mean's if the whole Moral Body and euery Member of it be fallible Grant that God by his special Assistance ties Her fast She is for that reason infallible and must Vse the means Take from Her diuine Assistance and Say She is only guided by the erring Conceptions of fallible men She may easily swerue from the Means and reuolt from Christ And thus the fallacy is cleared You The fallacy discouerid Sr Suppose the Infallibility must be taken from the right vse of means whercas the contrary is true Viz. Therefore Sâ—e rightly vses the means because She is antecedently preserued infallible by Diuine Assistance You suppose again that all the Parts of this They rightly vse the Means because antecedently made Infallible Assisted Church are fallible And we Say no For as long as they continue members of it So long as the Pastors lawfully commissioned teach in Christ's name and the faithful belieue their infallible Doctrin There will be euer such à Church on earth So long they are all infallible If any fall from Faith whether few or many These eo ipso cease to be Members of this Mystical Body yet the Church fail's not for the failing of some infer's not à possible Failure in all The want of this Distinction caused your errour 43. And thus hauing remoued such weak difficulties out of the way thought great ones in that 5th chapter which to an Difficulties remoued we proceed to the Resolution an vnwary Reader may seem to Obstruct the Catholick Resolution of Faith We will in the following Discourse first Premise some Principles much auailing to conceiue the easiest Resolution and next declare where the chiefest difficulty lies which Mr Stillingf has not done and finally endeauour to solue it without the least danger of any vicious Circle Afterward we shall proue that Protestants haue no Faith at all to resolue CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 1. THe first Principle God who is an Infinite verity and speak's not to stones can by à Diuine Language proper to himselfe so make his interiour mind and sincere God's proper language meaning known to rational creatures that all vpon hearing His voyce may without hesitation indubitably Say Thus God Iudges this be Speak's which granted All are obliged both readily and firmly to yeild assent to so great à Maiesty for his own Authority Known to all The reason hereof is clear If God can speak to Mortals and for this end that he be vnderstood there arises an obligation in euery one to belieue him without fear or doubt Or in case it be impossible after all humane industry vsed to learn what he speak's none can absolutely belieue him 2. A. 2. Principle Then and not otherwise this external Language is certainly known to come from God when it is spoken in his name and so fairely appear's by its own Signatures Lustre and Wonders to proceed from him That all must confess
it No more can these men if you set aside A selfe-wilful Perswasion satisfy Reason why they belieue as they doe then the worst of Arians tell you why they belieue Arianism 20. It would bee ridiculous in this contest to bring in Scripture as à Rule of their Faith For first we here enquire not after the Obiect of their Belief But call for rational Motiues whereby they are induced to belieue Protestancy 2. We Say Though Scripture were in à General way owned Scripture here not pleadable The most immediate Rule and the Sense of it could bee known by the priuate Reason of some men in the world yet The Sectary gain's nothing vpon the Concession because He knowes not nor shall euer know vpon any sure Principle That his The Reason Reason hath the singular Priuiledge to hit right on the Scriptures true Sense whilst all His Aduersaries and they are very many openly oppose it as improbable 21. One may yet reply For as much as The Sectary Belieues which is not much For it lies in à few Fundamentals If the protestant abstract's from what Doctrin he likes not He has the same Euidence of Credibility as we Catholicks haue And so far ioyn's with vs in Beliefe In other Matters of Contest He neither Belieues nor Disbelieues but Abstract's from all Contra. 1. Thus the Arians and all Heretiques proceed who first chuse and lay claim to so many Tenets of Christian Doctrin as pleases Fancy and then tell vs They haue Reason to chuse to Diuide and separate from the rest We why may not the Arian do the like demand and here is the main Point what rational Euidence haue they to do so Who made Beggars For all they haue they took from the Church such bold Chusers Again if they prescind or abstract They are obliged to Design an No Church fauours this Doctrin euidenced Orthodox Church which abstracted like them and positiuely taught so much Doctrin is precisely necessary to Saluation And no more This is impossible O yes The Primitiue Church seem's to haue abstracted from many Doctrins now taught by the Roman Catholick Contra. Who tell 's you so Your lame Negatiue way of Arguing Wee read not of Purgatory nor of Transubstantiation c. Pitiful The euidenced Roman Catholick Church by Her Constant Tradition speak's of both and also positiuely auouches that all now taught was then Anciently deliuered Here is our Principle and wee Sectaries vrged to name the Orthodox Church which abstracted as they do now vrge Sectaries to oppose it by producing the Authority of another more ancient Church which Spake then as they speak now Or which abstracted from such Particular Doctrins as they would abstract from But this is Impossible Out of all I Conclude Sectaries haue no Euidence of Credibility for any Doctrin belieued by them and Consequently no true Faith at all but Opinions only and those false too Now we must solue two or three difficulties of another Nature 22. A. 6. Obiection Reason Assures the Catholick that God speak's by the Oracle of the Church Ergo his Another Obiection Faith is vltimatly resolued into Reason I Deny the Consequence For if wee make à right Analysis The Act of Faith is not yet in Being in that Sign or Priority of Nature when Prudence tell 's Him God speak's by the Church The nature of that Iudgement serues only to induce the vnderstanding to Faith or to fix it vpon an vnuariable state of Belieuing And Consequently must be resolued into its own clear Principles Preuiously penetrated before the Catholick belieues Faith followes and relies immediatly vpon its own Obiect which is God's Reuelation proposed by the Church or by Scripture infallibly interpreted Now 23. If you Obiect 7. It is my priuate Reason which The equiuccation discouered makes me to belieue the Church I Answer The Proposition is equiuocal For it may either signify what I call Reason independently of all known Obiectiue Euidence makes mee to belieue the Church And that Sense is very false Nay its impossible One sense false to hold euery internal Act not resoluable into Obiectiue Euidence in à matter of such Consequence Reasonable This as I said aboue Patronises the worst of Heresies and Atheism also 24. Or Contrarywise the Sense may be The Church The other true when the Iudgement is grounded on rational Euidence glorioussly marked by clear and Conuincing Motiues known and applyed by my formal Act of Reason makes it Reasonable and that 's most true Wherefore euery rational Iudgement in the â—resent matter must be fixed vpon rational prudent Motiues distinct from the Act we iudge by The Iudgement is no more but Conditio applicans à Condition whereby the Obiectiue â—uidence is laid hold on and set before an Vnderstanding The Ground hereof is clear For we know not by Obiects extrinsick to our Knowledge but by vital Acts which interuene between the Intellectual Power and Obiects Now if any Ask why may not this Iudgement mistake and erre I Answer first by Proposing the like Question Why might not the Iudgement of the Primitiue Christians when they saw or heard of the Apostles great Wonders haue also been à Mistake or Errour Solue Why this Iudgement cannot be erroneous the one you solue the other I Answer 2. The Iudgement cannot if it pitch vpon what really is the Obiectiue Euidence be Erroneous For no fundation of Errour as wee now Suppose Lies there Therefore none can be deriued from thence into any vnderstanding A pure fountain yeilds no pudled water 25. A. 8. Obiection Faith is an Act of à reasonable power and consequently Conformable to Reason Therefore Faith Considered two wayes Reason regulates Faith or is its immediate Rule Answ The Act of Faith may be Considered two wayes First as it is à prudent reasonable Submission to Gods Reuelation 2. As it s terminated vpon the Reuelation proposed by the Church or As prudent how it is resolued any other infallible euidenced Oracle Consider it vnder the First Notion of à prudent Submission it euer Implies or rather presupposeth the rational prudent Iudgement now mentioned And this Iudgement preuiously set fast vpon such Motiues The resolution otherwise if considered as it relies vpon the Diuine Testimony as conuerted the world may well be Said to denominate the Act of elicite Faith à rational Obsequiousness Yea and its extrinsecal Rule also as will appear to euery one that makes à right Analysis or brings Faith to its last Principles But consider again the very Act it Selfe or precisely as it tend's vpon the Diuine Reuelation proposed by an Infallible Oracle it reason 's not at all nor more proues or Scientifically knowes its Obiect as Faith Than Science as Science belieues This Proues that submissiuely Belieues Not can Faith which euer presupposes its Obiect and Rule proued to Reason Scientifically proue either without lossing what is Essential to it I mean Obscurity
Writings being owned as Containing in them the whole will of God so plainly reuealed that no sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for Saluation There can be c. First its false that the whole Will of God is plainly reuealed in Scripture And An Vntruth Supposed had we no more but Thus much only Viz. The vast multitudes of Christians who zealously defend that sense they Conceiue of Scripture yet contradict one another in Points most Though the Assertion were supposed true it helps not Protestants Essential Proues it false whereof enough is said in the seueral parts of this Treatise But let that Pass Suppose it à Truth The Propositions or Proofs must run thus No sober Enquirer can miss of knowing God's will or of what is necessary to Saluation Now add this Minor But the Protestant only is the sober Enquirer For No Arian No Pelagian No Quaker No Papist soberly enquires excepting the Protestant Thus much must be Assumed or to the General Proposition Vnapplyed help 's the Protestant no more then others that execrate his Doctrin For if these or any of them may be listed among the number of sober Enquirers The Reason hereof its ridiculous to exclude all and yet reiect Protestanism The general Proposition for ought appears yet may be applyed as well by euery one to his particular Religion as by the Protestants to Protestancy Therefore it signifies Iust Nothing before à right Application be made by distinct Proofs to the One only true Religion Some may reply euery Man is to enquire and Answer for Himselfe Pitiful That 's to Say we must alwaies be Scepticks euer learning and neuer well taught Weak reason and fancy are thus made Sectaries after their long Enquiry haue no Vnion in Faith our Doctors if this Principle be owned Se Disc 2. C. 17. Per totum In the Interim know this long inquiring after one whole Age brings no vnion in faith to Protestants who are as the world Sees at endless Iarrs amongst themselues 20. The 16th Principle Opposes such Men as pretend to infallible Assistance without giuing an equal degree of Euidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did by Miracles as great as publick and conuincing as these were Answ This This Principle is first against Protestants Principle is quite besides the matter First because Protestants own à Church infallible in Fundamentals without giuing an Euidence equal to that of Christ and his Apostles Why then may not such an Euidence as proues the Church Infallible in Fundamentals be further extended and induce All to belieue Her Infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches 2. The Principle Secondly false is falfe We haue Apostolical Euidence in the Church euer since those Primitiue times as is largely proued Disc 1. C. 14. 15. 16. And Disc 3. C. 3. Lastly it is no more Thirdly though Supposed true it help 's not Protestants but à Proofles Assertion against the Church which laies claim to Infallibility And cannot though it were true aduantage Protestancy one whit Please to obserue my Reason Suppose the Catholick Church and the Protestant party were like one another equally fallible vpon what Principle can the fallible Protestant Party plead better or Say more for his Cause then the Supposed fallible Roman Church in behalfe of Her Doctrin Both of them as is proued in the second Discourse would in this case be à Publick scorn to Iewes and Gentils whilst they The reason hereof Conuinces Out-braue one another with the Meer Nothing of fallible Principles And which is euer to be noted can stand on no surer Ground then what is fallible and may be falfe if no Church be owned Infallible 21. In the. 17th Principle we are told its absurd to pretend the necessity of an Infallible Assistance to assure vs of the truth of Scripture And at the same time to Proue the Assistance Nothing yet for Protestancy from those writings from which nothing can be certainly deduced Answ Here again is nothing for Protestancy For Suppose which is false we proue not an Infallible Assistance Are therefore Protestants in à better condition then Catholicks How The Churches Infallibility is first Proued But to speak truth the Doctor wholly Mistakes we proue the Churches Infallibility independently of Scripture Read Disc 3. C. 5. In the. 18. Principle we hear talk again of the best Means for vnderstanding the Scripture but whether we Catholicks Arians or Protestants happily light on 't is not so much as hinted at by the Doctor wherefore I Said aboue these Generalities proue nothing without à neerer Application made by Proofs yet more immediate 22. The. 19th Principle The Assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may giue them greater Assurance of the truth of what is contained in Scripture than it is possible for the greatest infallibility in any other persons to doe Supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility Answ All this were it true is to say Iust nothing concerning Protestants vnless they be supposed the only Men who sincerely desire to know Gods Will for if any other called Christians Sectaries gain nothing by this abstract Principle of à different Beliefe be as Sober Inquirers or desire as earnestly to know Gods vvill as Sectaries What gain they by this remote abstract Principle Now to Suppose all other Christians negligent in the Inquiry after God's will and Protestants only the zealous Seekers comes neerer to à bold Presumption than to any thing like the nature of à Principle In à word here you haue all The Application to the Protestant Faith is wanting But what will you The Doctor cannot Vnless they Suppose Themselues the only sober Inquirers Want of Sense be drawn to plead for his own cause Finally sense is wanting in that last clause Supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility Which is only to Say Supposing the Church be not Infallible Catholicks cannot belieue Her Infallibility 23. The 20th Principle No Mans Faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be Infallible Answ But if This Principle concern's not Sectaries the Proponent be both Said and Proued Infallible and this is amply proued Faith with the Assistance of God's Grace may well yea and must depend vpon it and be infallible Howeuer let all here Said pass There is yet nothing drawn from the Principle more concerning the Faith of Protestants then of the More then the Arians Arians Obserue well Both hold the Proponent of Faith which is the Church Fallible Make now the Inference Ergo the Protestants Faith seem's more sound then the Arians is à pure Non-sequitur not at all Deducible from this Principle alone nor indeed from any other 24. In the three folloing Paragraphs 21. 22. 23. You haue only gross Mistakes though if all were true Protestancy has None can infer if Taith be
thoughts before they pass your pen. Haue alwaies this one reflexion in mind It s easy to Cauil easy to talk much but most laborious to make sure what you say by sound Principles And Principles your Aduersaries euer haue an Eye to Had you complyed with this Aduice the greatest part of your Account if not all might well have been spared Never rely on the vain prayses of your vulgar Readers all is not gold that glisters in their Eyes nor do they alwayes speak as they think For as much as concern's your selfe shew sr rather the strength of à Father in louing your works then the weaknes of à fond Mother that hugg's her Brats though most deformed I am told you imagin it à great Acchieuement and your selfe the conquerour in hauing gain'd onc priuate man T. C. to follow your triumphant Chariot Abuse not your Iudgement there is no such matter for in good sober earnest by what I haue perused in T. C. his book rather seem's to be an answer to yours then yours to his Abstain hereafter from opprobrious Language lest you meet with some ruffing Adversary that will pay you in your own Coyn. Please to vse your Buckler better in behalfe of Protestancy and tell me when your Negatiue Articles are thrown away as not reuealed what essential Truth remain's vvithin the Compasse of Protestancy reuealed by Almighty God and necessary to Saluation If you think it the wisest Course not to take notice of what is proposed against you in this Treatise vouchsafe to clear your selfe of the Contradictions charged vpon you And because I find you much intangled in your Resolution of Faith and haue laid your mistakes open to publick view when the Spirit of answering fall's vpon you again Answer I beseech you to the difficulties Obiected in the third Discourse But aboue all Answer to God with à hearty repentance for the wrong you haue done his Church and own me Sr Your friendly Adversary THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER THE RVLE OF FAITH Wherein the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Religion is established against Atheists Heathens Iewes Turks and all Sectaries CHAP. I. VVhether true Religion be in the world The Affirmatiue proued Against Atheists Atheism euidently Shewd'improbable 1 CHAP. II. Reason reiects all sects or Religions not Christian VVhether Gentilism Iudaism or Turkcism bee erroneous and improbable 13 CHAP. III. Christianity as it stands in opposition to Iewes Turcks Infidels and Heretickes is the only true Religion 21 CHAP. IV. Whether Christian Religion since its first Propagation hath not been in like manner preserued pure and further spread by Diuine Prouidence aboue the Power of Nature 25 CHAP. V. VVhether all called Christians Belieue intirely Christ's sacred Doctrin And whether meanes be afforded to arriue to the knowledge of true Christian Religion 29 CHAP. VI. Of our Sectaries errour in their search after true Religion As also of Mr Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing 32 CHAP. VII More of this subiect Doubts concerning the seueral editions of scripture None extant more pure then the Vulgar Latin Abstract from Church Authority there is no Certainty of the best Edition Sectaries Comparing the Present Copies with the more ancient giues no assurance A word with Mr Stillingfleet 42 CHAP. VIII How necessary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in the Church A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles Of Mr Stillingfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 55 CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 67 A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian 71 CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only though all Christians had moral certainty of the right Canon and sense also which is to say the meer owning Christs Doctrin is insufficient to proue it to all sort of People 80 CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 85 Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 94 CHAP. XII A Digressian concerning the Real Presence The Fathers plainly assert it Sectaries glosses friuolous The agreement of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrin indubitable The Catholick's certain Principle A word with Mr Stillingfleet 102 CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubions and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 119 CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 138 CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate faith 152 CHAP. XVI One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses and his vnexcusable abuse of other Fathers 159 CHAP. XVII VVhy the Glosses of Sectaries are impertinent and weightles Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers Of his vnskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry charged on Catholicks CHAP. XVIII The Protestant after all his Glosses can not ascertain any of true Religion He would make Controuersies an endles work 180 CHAP. XIX The last designe of Sectaries Glosses discouered They end nothing The clear way to end Controuersies of Religion A distinction between Authority and Principl'd Authority Of the improbability of Protestancy 192 CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 205 CHAP. XXI Protestants granting Saluation to Catholicks by à clear Inference drawn from their Concession end Controuersies of Religion VVhat force their concession hath VVhy they granted so much The Argument is clearly proposed Mr Stillingfleet return's no probable Answer A full discouery of his fallacies 217 THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 241 CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned The properties of à Rule VVhat is meant by the Church Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out Her marks more clear than Her Essential Doctrin 248 CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church euidented by Marks of Truth nor true Doctrin made credible to reason His whole Faith is built vpon Fancy 256 CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ was is and shall euer be the Holy Apostolical and Catholick Roman Church Her Antiquity and Constant Perseuerance in the Ancient primitiue Doctrin without Alteration
proue The Assertion 266 CHAP. V. A second Reason showing That if rhe Roman Catholick Church erred but in one Article of Faith thère is now no Fundamental Faith in the world VVere Errour in this Church it is à remediless Euil and cannot be amended by any least of all by Protestants 276 CHAP. VI. Other Euidences of the. Roman Churches Perseuerance in the Primitiue Faith without change or Alteration VVhether wickednes of life necessarily induceth Errour into the Church The Donatists and Protestants Argue and Err alike 285 CHAP. VII Manifest and most vndeniable Miracles peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church only proue Her Orthodox withall show that She still retain's the Primitiue Doctrin 296 CHAP. VIII Miracles euident in the Roman Catholick Church No less induce All now to belieue Her Doctrin Than Apostolical Miracles Anciently Perswaded to belieue that Primitiue Doctrin The Denial of Miracles Impossibilitat's The Conuersion of Iewes and Infidels 302 The Admirable cure wrought by Blessed S. Xauerius in the Famous Citty of Naples vpon à worthy Religious Person called F. Marcellus Mastrilli à Noble man by birth and by Profession of the Society of Iesus The Proof hinted at aboue reassumed 312 CHAP. IX A word to à few Obiections as also to Mr stillingfleets vnworthy Exceptions against that euident Miracle wrought at Zaragosa in Spain 321 CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signes peculiar to the Roman Cathollick Church proue her Orthodox And make Her Doctrin euidently credible These laid forth to Sense and Reason distinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies Inferences drawn from the Doctrin Here deliuered 333 CHAP. XI Christ and his Church made manifest to à Heathen No Prophet comparable to Christ no Church comparable to the Roman Catholick Our glorious Christ Iesus Exhibits à glorious Church Hee is proued the Only true Messias And the Roman Catholick Church His only true Sponse How the Heathen Discourses if rational And Prudent 349 CHAP. XII The Aduersaries of the Roman Catholick Church plead vnreasonably A Discouery of their fallacies The cause of all Errour concerning Religion The only means to remedy Errour 363 Arguments drawn from what is said Reflections made vpon the premised Doctrin 377 CHAP. XIII Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrin Atheists and Hereticks Argue alike The Motiues of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what euer the true Church Proposes A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church 181 A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 387 CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith CHAP. XV. Diuine Faith in this present State of things necessarily requir's à Church infallible The Reason hereof The Church neither Defin's nor can Define by Humane Authority only Her Definitions more than morally certain are Infallible Sectaries Recourse to Moral certainly in Matters of Faith à most frigid Plea Their Fallacy is discouered Obiections Answered 408 Other Obiections proposed by Sectaries Solued More of Moral certainty 419 CHAP. XVI Principles premised to the following Doctrin The Roman Catholick Church is à Church of One Denomination She and no other Society of Christians is Infallible Othet Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth The Infallibility of Councils maintained against Mr Stillingfleets Supposed Truth and Reason There are no Principles whereby Approued Councils can be proued fallible Sectaries Conuinced by their own Doctrin 423 CHAP. XVII More of this subiect A further Search made into Errours called intolerable VVhether the Roman Catholick Church must be supposed by Sectaries to haue already Committed intolerable Errours Or only whether She may for the future Err Intolerably The Doctrin of Protestants proued False And most inconsequent 443 CHAP. XVIII Two Aduersaries mainly Opposit to True Religion The last and most vrgent Proof of the Churches Infallibility taken from the Necessity the Notion and Nature of true Religion Mr Stillingfleets Obiections found weak and weightles Most of them already Proposed and Dissolued by others A short Reflection made vpon some few 452 CHAP. XIX Certain Principles where vpon the Churches Infallibility stand's firm The End of Diuine Reuelation is to teach all Infallibly Euery Doctrin reuealed by the fiast Verity is no less infallible then true It s one thing to teach Truth another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth Sectaries Strangely vngrateful A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Obiections 465 THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith CHAP. I. Some chiefe Contents in this Discourse briefly declared Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Churches infallibility and the Resolution of Faith The Catholick way of resoluing Faith the very same with that of the Primitiue Christians Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse 477 CHAP. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5 th Chapter Part. 1. examined is found VVeightles The weaknes of his Arguments discouered His First and chiefest Argument retorted and solued 483 CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 493 CHAP. IV. More of Mr Stillingfleets Errours Of that odd kind of Faith he seem's to maintain grounded on Moral Certainty VVhat Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue vpon Faith Other Parcels of his Doctrin Examined and refuted Obiections Solued 505 CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauour to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnlearned Cauil 516 CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffing The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communitier and proue Her Infallible The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin no Mark of the Church More Mistakes and Errours discouered Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Belieues but not vpon Diuine the Testimony That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books to be Diuine 523 Whether vve Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Tittle of the Chapter discussed Vpon vvhat ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 534 CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 545 CHAP. VIII The main Difficulty in the Resolution of Faith Proposed VVhat Connexion the Motiues haue vvith the Diuine Reuelation Of their vveight and efficacy God's own Language not imitable by his Enemies Faith transcend's the certainty of all Motiues The main Difficulty solued Of our great Security in Belieuing God Though vve haue not
make their sense good in the passages alleged when we now stand to Scripture only I answer 2. such dark inferences drawn from comparing Texts together not grounded on the very words euer imply à mixture of humane discourse which therefore is fallible and may be false Whence it followes that Sectaries can belieue none of these senses by Diuine Faith because the last Motiue or formal obiect of their Assent is à fallible reasoning only and this may erre And here you may learn how necessary an infallible Interpreter of Scripture is without which we are cast vpon meer vncertainties and vnauoidable improbabilities 6. The Sectary may yet answer To the comparing of Texts together He add's the sentiment of some Fathers for his sense I say of some for t' is euident He hath not all much lesse the Vniuersal consent or Tradition of the Church in euery age If this be the reply I may well oppose it in Mr Stilling own words pag. 216. Think not to fob vs off with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time c. But what will you say if he has not one clear Testimony of à Not on◠ancient Father Clear for protestancy The reason is giuen Father for him I boldly assert it and vrge him to produce but one The reason is What-euer Testimony of à Father is alleged for his sense will be at most if 't come thither so notably ambiguous that weighed with all circumstances it may well haue à Catholick meaning That sense therefore must stand good without contest when it answers to the iudgement of à whole learned Church and the Sectary hath nothing to draw it to his particular opinion neither vniuersal Church nor vniuersal Tradition but only à few ambiguous words capable of interpretation and his own fancy to boot Nay I say more He hath not so much as any little appearance of ambiguous words for his sense Pray you tell me and let Protestants shame me if they can where has he any hint of à Fathers doubtful words for his minc'd fitting assistance only allowed the Church Positiuely excluding infallible assistance For iustification by Faith only For two sacraments only For à signe only of Christs presence in the Eucharist yet these senses he vend's as the genuin meaning of the Holy Ghost without proof or probability therefore fancy only plaies here And thus you see the first part of my Assertion demonstratiuely proued viz. That Protestants haue not so much as à weak probable assurance of that which is the very life and essence of Scripture I mean of the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost Yet you know Tertullians iudgement Tertullian saith Lib. de Praescript cap. 17. Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum corruptus Stylus A fals sense depraues Scripture as much as if the words were corrupted Thus much premised and so fully proued that sectaries cannot return à probable answer I 'le add one consideration more to confirm what is said A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian 7. Imagin that à well disposed Gentil Philosopher half perswaded of the truth of Christian Religion addresses himself to the most knowing Protestant or Arian and not to dissemble the force of the Argument to some learned Catholick also He find's them strangely deuided about their Canon of Scripture about their Translations and which is to our purpose now at high difference concerning the meaning also The Arian tell 's him he hath the How men called Christians differ about scripture true sense so doth the Donatist the Protestant and Catholick likewise The wise man is not so foolish as to belieue any of them vpon their bare word although Stentor-like they cry this and no other is Diuine Doctrin Therefore he concludes if reason may haue place This way of finding what he would know without the help of some other Principle distinct from Scripture and the fallible Assertion of particular men opposite to one an other is so highly dissatisfactory and wholly insufficient that it cannot settle him in the truth of Christianity Nay he may wel argue further If I yet no Christian cannot so much as know these very books to bee Diuine because you say they are so when we Gentils and Iewes in part hold them only humane If I though I own them as Diuine can learn from none of you what they say for I find you all at high contradictions about the sense How will you induce me by this your Bible only to become Christian Or how can you when you dispute with one an other so much as propose à probable Argument out of Scripture in behalf of your different Tenets For The Heathens Discourse none of you yet know by Scripture only the true meening of it You first suppose à sense and then argue wheras you should clear the sense and proue it or your Argument fall's to nothing For example The Protestant find's in Scripture that the Holy Eucharist is called Bread supposing Bread to signify natural bread or at most bread deputed to à holy vse the Catholick denies this supposition and sense also Hee reads again in S. Iames c. 4. T 〈…〉 is one Law-giuer and iudge who can destroy and free Ergo saith the P 〈…〉 stant there is no other visible iudge in the Church to end Co 〈…〉 ersies As odd an inference as if one should conclude because it is said in Scripture Bee not yee called Masters for your Master is one Christ no other ought to be called Master and therefore this sense and supposition in also denied And thus it must needs fall out whilst the Sectary has not one express word of Scripture for his nouelties wheras saith the Gentil the Texts seem clear enough for Catholick Doctrin taken in an obuious sense yet not so clear but that à peeuish Glosser may peruert all by his wilful fancy 8. Yet the Gentil Argues You Christians say there is true Religon amongst you and that God the Author of it hath allowed The Heathens Argument Clearly proposed against sectaries means abundantly sufficient to knowit Means I say whereby not only Gentils Turks and Iewes but Arians and other Hereticks also may be reclaimed from their errours Thus much you must grant or say that Christ hath left an vnbelieuing world vnder an impossibility of being conuerted And if this be true that is if meanes be wanting to know the verities of Christian Religion The Gentil may blamlesly remain as he is and so may the Turk Iew and Heretick also Now saith our Heathen 'T is euident Scripture alone without further light is no meet means to reclaim any of them for the Gentil slights your whole Scripture and can that by it self draw him off his contempt Again The Bonzij in that vast Kindom of China pretend to an other Bible writ long since by their supposed great Prophet called Confusius and the book
of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer now alleged Therefore if we be in errour the wit of man cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles And here I vrge Mr Silling to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and significant that is Scripture as clear Fathers as clear Tradition as clear the Iudgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted for the opinion he hold's as we now allege in the defense of our Catholick verity Belieue it if he suppose as he certainly doth the Church to haue erred so grosly for à thousand years The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subiect when they meant no such thing He ought to fasten vpon sound Principles indeed before we yeild and must not think to ouerthrow What sectaries are obliged to our Doctrin or foile vs with à few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff which comes no neerer to Principles than improbability to Euidence Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities If à man saith he P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be false which sense iudges to be true he means which weak reason vpon the discouery of sense iudges true for our outward senses make no iudgement What assurance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrin A word to our Aduersaries strange demand Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christs resurrection if their sight might be deceiued about its proper obiect c I am astonished to read this and answer briefly Christ's Resurrection the like I say of Miracles was most vndoubted vpon the discouery which sense and reason made in the presence of such obiects because no contrary Principle so much as weakly stood against that euidence and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was obiected to sense then I now doubt of writing these lines But all is contrary in the present Mystery For here the vnanswerable words of Scripture the Authority of my Church the Clear Testimonies of Fathers the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to belieue the Diuine Reuelation which is either certainly known vpon these grounds or we boldly say no Christian verity was euer yet known vpon any sure Principle What if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling may roundly grant that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real presence for many ages and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been besotted them selues but moreouer haue basely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of belieuing that to be Christs body which really is not Howeuer he will honour the Fathers so far as to afford them the fauour of his glosses Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrin Mr Stilling is obliged to name some Churh reputed Orthodox 3. or 4. hundred years past for then there was à true Church in the world which held his opinion or as expresly denyed the real Presence as our Church both then and now mantains it and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy for I am sure there was neuer any such Church on earth Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery Fathers He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin and make all belieue that we Catholicks hold not yet the real presence Obserue the same language in all That wich in seen is not bread though it seem's so to the tast But the body of Christ Our sense may be deceiued Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed â— made the flesh of Christ and the wine his blood c. Thus the Fathers deliuer their sense and it is the Churches language also If therefore Mr Stilling can so gloss these words of the Fathers as to make them speak Protestancy or not to deliuer our Catholick Doctrin I should not wonder if in the next book set forth he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence If he did so I am sure his attempt would proue as vnsuccesful in the one case â— in the other 11. Well But permit him to interpret the Fathers and to fall foule as he is wont to do vpon our supposed Church errours what is the vtmost that followes Thus much only Meer talk without Principles For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know that his glosses which striue to dead the very obuious sense of the Fathers plain words implie not altogether as little satisfaction as little assurance as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it If so and so it is most euidently as his Doctrin before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians so his interpretations goe no higher but are euery whit as improbable 12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling that vnless his explanation Sectaries glosses vnprincipled worth Nothing of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distiâ—ct from and extrinsick to his glosses they are worth nothing For what auail's it me to read his glosses when no receiued Principle vp hold's them but fancy Reflect à little I read in Scripture This is my body My Church tell 's me the literal sense is true The Fathers as you haue heard and the Tradition of two Churcheâ— confirm this sense Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiect's my Churches authority then begins to strain the Fathers Testimonies with his glosses Stay Sr say I. I except against your glosses and iustly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coynâ— If true they stand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at Proue this and I 'le reuerence your glosses but if you fail and fail you must your Doctrin and glosses are both alike Counterfeit and thoughts of fancy only 13. Hee may reply When Protestants cite the Fathers against the Real presence For example That of S. Austin or Theoderet mentioned aboue we Catholicks explicate them and now which seem's foul play we except against his Glosses For If we interpret An Obiection why may not Hee doe so also A word only in passing conformable to what is noted aboue If to decide this one Controuersy of Christ's Real Presence recourse be had to the Fathers and the two aduerse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations the Dispute will neuer be ended Because priuate glosses leaue the two Dissenters as much at iarrs as they were before God therefore as I haue often said affords an easier means to know his reuealed Truths Now my Answer to the obiection is The Catholick then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation when it sham fully out-faces the
belief of Christ's real Presence in the Eucharist be an errour Christ and his Church and innumerable Fathers also haue deceiued vs. 2. One Authority alleged against Mr. Stillingfleet you haue in his own page 568. And t' is à known passage of S. Cyprian de Caena Dmi or of some other Author not much inferiour to him if we belieue Mr Fulk against the Rhem's Testament In 1. Cor. 11. and Erasmus his Annotations vpon S. Cyprian Basil print anno S. Cyprians Authority examined 1558. fol. 287. Mr Stilling contend's it is of à later Date yet is pleased by an Addition of his glosses to vnsense the words as well as he can and at last make them to speak Protestancy 3. The Authors words are These This common bread changed into flesh and blood giues life The bread which our lord gaue to his Disciples being Changed Non effigie sed naturâ not in outward form or semblance but in its inward nature or substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 4. Mr Stilling Asserts all this proues not Transubstantiation first because the Author Saith Christs words Vnless ye eate the flesh Mr stillingfleets reasoning not solid and drink the blood of the son of God you shall haue no life in you are not to be vnderstood after à Carnal sense Answ That 's true yet your Inference Sir is most improbable The Principle you must rely on is None are to think as the Capharnits did witness S. Austin that they were to cut into pieces Christs Sacred flesh and eate that as we do Common meats And your inference ill deduced run's thus Therefore the inward substance of bread is not changed into his body This inference I say is null for both these are eternal truths and well consist together Bread is changed into Christs body yet we neither cut that body à pieces or eate it as the Capharnits grossly imagined 5. He argues again and more improbably This Author saith he by the effects attributed to the Sacrament calling it His second Argument more slight food which nourished to immortallity cannot possibly be conceiued to speak if Christ's Corporal presence because we Catholicks confess Christs body remain's no longer in our body then the Accidents of bread and wine are there I verily think the man was busied with other thoughts when he wrot these lines For what sense haue we here Christ's Sacred body really present giues grace and is no longer present then the Accidents of bread and wine remain Ergo bread and wine are not Really changed into his body This I say is à most improbable inference For the effects of the Sacrament which imply the production of Grace may and must stand with Christ's real Presence though that production of grace Sacramentally giuen last's no longer then his Blessed body is vnder the forms of bread and wine 6. But an other doughty Argument is drawn out of S. Cyprian's words which Mr. Stilling cites in his Margent Sed immortalitatis alimonia datur à Communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens speciem sed virtutis diuinae inuisibili efficientiâ probans adâ—sse presentiam His third Argument proues nothing And He vnworthyly renders them thus in English That immortal Nourishment is giuen vs which differs from common food that it retain's the Nature of à Corporeal substance but prouing the presence of à Diuine power by its inuisible efficiency So that saith he what presence of Diuine power is there is shewed in regard of the effects of it not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ Sr I vtterly deny your prooflesse So That and say your deduction is more then improbable This Author saith expresly common bread changed into flesh by the omnipotency of the word giueth life and immortal nourishment which is Diuine grace and therefore the Diuine power appeares in both first in the substantial change of bread into Christs body next in the effect or production of grace in à worthy Receiuer and you improbably conclude it shewes it self in regard of the effects only 7. Like one half guilty of iugling you goe on I know you will quarrel with me for rendring Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem By retaining the Nature of à Corporeal substance Answ I do so indeed and will proue you à cheat for your pains First because you make this Author speak nonsense for if Corporalis substantiae The fallacy discouered retinens Speciem may be Englished By retaining the nature of à Corporeal substance you may as well render it by retaining the substance of à corporeal substance because nature and substance are here synomima's And if this be sense we haue à pretty Tautology or rather non-sense with it thus It differ's from Common food yet retains the substance of Corporeal substance or common food and in real truth is still natural bread or Common food Wheras if we read It differ's from common food yet retain's the outward forms or external Accidents of à Corporeal substance or common food the sense is good clear and open to euery Reader But we must go on You contend that the word Species in this place Signifies Nature or à solid body and not the external Accidents because Species anâ—nariae Species largitionales Curator Specierum whereof we read in the Ciuil law express the substance of things not the Accidents and so S. Ambrose must be vnderstood when speaking of our Sauiours changing water into wine he faith Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae substanâ—â—am in vini speciem commutaret Now no man will say that he changed the substance of water into the external Accidents of wine but into the nature of wine Therefore Species may sometimes signify substance Answ All this is true yet nothing to the purpose What the word Species signifies for can you or any man proue because Species signisies sometimes kind or substance that it alwaies doth so We read in Scripture Daniel 13. Species decepit te Isa 53. non est ei Species neque decor Daniel 10. Species mea immutata 1. Tim. 3. Habentes Speciem pietatis c. Will you translate Nature or substance hath deceiued thee There was no nature or substance in Christ of whom the Prophet speaks My nature or substance is changed Hauing piety in nature or substance All is ridiculous and therefore though Species may sometimes signify substance or kind vnless that signification hold vniuersally these instances of Species annonariae and Species vini proue nothing You will ask perhaps because the word is ambiguous how we may know whether in our present Controuersy Species signifies shape form Accidents or substance Answ This rule is certain when the word Species stand's in opposition or is distinguished from an inuisible Nature or essence it must of necessity signify the external shape or form of à thing and not the substance So when the Apostle exhorts vs. 1. Thess 5. The
true signification in this place giuen 22. Ab omni specie mala abstinete vos The sense is Abstain not only from inward malice but and here mark the opposition from all Shew or semblance of euil And when S. Cyril saith Orat 4. Mystag vnder the Type or species of bread is giuen the body of our Lord he euidently distinguisheth the Form or shape of bread from its substance And so S. Cyprian doth in the words alleged Corporalis Substantiae retinens Speciem retaining the exteriour shape or form of à Corporeal substance and mote plainly thus The bread being changed not in its outward Form and semblance but in it's inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 8. Mr Stilling again page 570. in his Answer to S. Cyprian This common bread is changed into flesh and blood saith we Protestants do not deny à Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which ye Papists assert Pray you Sr tell me what is the Terminus à quo and the Terminus ad quem of this your mysterious change You acknowledg some thing Protestants cannot say what is changed into Christ's body changed into the flesh and blood of Christ Is the substance of bread the terminus à quo or that which is changed into the flesh No t' is too plain Popery Is bread made à Sacrament or à Sign of Christ's body changed into the flesh of Christs Euidently no for neither the Sacrament nor that which you call à Sign of Christ's body is changed into flesh Note well the Emphasis of your own words of something changed into the flesh of Christ and say on Gods name what it is You may reply you speak only of à Mystical and Sacramental change That 's not to the purpose now the Emphasis of your words point at something created or increated changed into the flesh and blood of Christ tell vs plainly what that is or in good earnest your expression fal's too short of any intelligible sense 9. In case you run on trifling with your Mystical and Sacramental change only made vpon the accidents or substance of bread the Author now cited positiuely asserts more viz. Panis non effigie sed naturâ mutatus The bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed not in Outward form and appearance but in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh where 't is plain your extrinsecal sacramental change passing only vpon the accidents of bread or on the substance S Cyprian reiects the Protestants extrinsecâ—l Change which you say remains is excluded and à Real Conuersion of the inward substance of bread is positiuely asserted by S. Cyprian You Answer Some great Criticks haue assured you that the place is corrupted and that the ancient Manuscripts read otherwise Non effigie nec naturâ mutatus neither changed in outward form nor substance You see to what desperate shifts these men are driuen T is wonderful they cite not some great Criticks for à Contrary lection of Christs words Hoc non est corpâ— meum This is not my body Well I say first if those nameless and vnknown Criticks err and the Author speak sense as we now read without the Critiscism Non effigie sed naturâ mutatus not changed in outward form but in its nature Transubstantiation is asserted and your contrary Doctrin is condemned I say 2. This Criticism is improbable and not only turn 's the words out of sense into pure Nonsense but moreouer implies an impossibility I 'le shew you how The Criticism will haue vs read thus Panâ— iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie nec naturâ mutatâ— Omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward substance is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh Obserue well This bread remaining bread in outward shew and inward A Criticism exploded substance is made the flesh of the Son of God An vtter impossibility For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and substance be made flesh factus est caro than Lots wife remaining what She was flesh and blood in outward form and inward substance be made à pillar of salt The Omnipotent power of God cannot change one substance remaining what it is into an other T' is true Luther said Christs body was really present with bread but neuer thought of making bread remaining bread to be that other substance of Christs body 10. Mr Stillingfleet tell 's vs more P. 572. that Substance and nature with the Fathers and we confess it are not alwayes taken properly but sometimes more largely for Accidents Why therefore may not these words Sed natura mutatus in S. Cyprians Context bear that improper sense I Answer and ask first Why may they not also be taken properly When they clearly deliuer à Doctrin conformable to à whole learned Church and your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to stand on but fancy Had you any ancient Orthodox Church vniuersal Tradition or the plain consent of Fathers for what you assert you might speak more boldly and I would then say S. Cyprians words are false but without such helps to torture à Text as you do to turn good sense into nonsense and this without proof or Principle is more then intolerable Now here reflect à little on what hath been often noted You say the words are improper and render your sense I say they are proper and significantly speak what the Church teaches Pray Answer By what Principle shall you and I come to à decision of this one difficulty Hitherto if nothing be added we haue no more but our two contrary iarring opinions And are not Controuersies may this strain hold made an endles work To add more I Answer 2. If this Author speak sense Not changed in its outward form but in nature Your gloss is Nonsense Obserue well He speakes of The reason why we reiect it bread held in à Priests hand and saith first This bread is not changed in its outward form or Accidents Then he put 's his Aduersatiue Sed. but it is changed in nature and substance If therefore Nature here signifies as you would haue it the outward form or accidents of bread you must read the words thus Bread is not changed in its nature and Substance yet it is changed in nature and substance which is non-sense I proue it Nature and substance with you import the exteriour form or Accidents of bread bread is not changed in this exteriour nature and substance saith the Author yet you say it is changed in this very nature and substance Yet more S. Cyprian asserts à change in one thing not in an other I ask what is changed and what is not changed If the exteriour Accidents of bread as contra distinguished from the Sectaries cannot say what
worse than à Paralogism or any captious way of reasoning for it tend's to non-sense vnless the main Supposition be proued to wit That the Roman Apostolical Catholick Church once certainly pure in Doctrin has or Can decline from her Purity in afrer ages Mr Stilling knowes well that Catholicks who hold their Church infallible make the receding from its Purity à thing impossible How sensles then is it in this place where that Question of Infallibility is not handled first to suppose our Church fallen off from its old Doctrin and then to tell vs the Fathers Encomiums haue Still that 's Supposed which should be Proued nothing to do with it in this present state I argue thus and Mr Stilling P. 314. seem's to approue it Vpon the Supposition that the Roman Catholick Church has not swerued nor can swerue from it's first pure Doctrin The Fathers Elogiums are in this age as due to it as in any other But the Supposition must stand firmly built as you shall see hereafter vpon sure grounds and Principles But contrariwise this way of arguing is Non-sense I 'le suppose vpon no grounds the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred and then I 'le do an open iniustice and deny it the due Commendations giuen by the Fathers It is iust as if one should say I 'le suppose à man hitherto reputed honest to be à thief and then I 'le deny him iustice and hang him vp 4. I say vpon no Grounds And to proue my Assertion ask With what Church then visible in the world were Christians obliged to Communicate when all see S. Hierome will haue them to Communicate with some Church Mr Stilling Answers with the Catholick Church Very Good I Ask again whether the Roman Church and all other Churches vnited in Faith with it were rightly called the true Catholick Church Grant this you yeild the cause And Confess that Christians were then obliged to be in vnion with the Roman Catholick Church Contrariwise if you deny that to haue been then the true Church you are cast vpon No other Church Catholick but the Roman endless difficulties and here is one which cannot be solued Vpon the denial you Sr are obliged to denote or name an other Catholick Church distinct from the Roman more pure in Doctrin at that time than She was And that not only the Romans but all others were Aliens and Prophane who eate not the lambe or communicated not in faith with your new found fancied Church in the aire I say fancied for to point at such à Church on earth is as impossible as to proue known condemned Hereticks to be good Catholicks whereof see more in the other Treatise Disc 3. c. 1. 5. Mr Stilling to shift off the difficuIty will perhaps say When S. Hierome wrote This The Roman Church was truly Orthodox and that He accounted all Aliens and Prophane who communicated not with it Most true Doctrin But see what followes Be pleased to fall lower to the third or fourth Age after S. Hierome There was then I hope à Catholick Church in the world wherwith Christians Communicated in Faith but most euidently there was not any Tâ—en reputed Orthodox if we exclude the Roman from being so For all other Societies nameable In the ages after S. Hierome no Church Orthodox but the Roman though called Christians were professed Hereticks With these no man was obliged to communicate Therefore all were either bound to Communicate with the Roman Catholick Church or with no Church at all Hence I infer that the Fathers Elogium's giuen to the Roman Catholick Church were euer most iustly due not once only during the Primitiue times but now also and in all Ages Withall I assert That Mr Stilling denying this Truth speak's his own fancy without proof or the least appearance of any probable Principle And he will be as wholly vnprincipled if I first suppose as I may if my Creed be true That there is now at this very houre à true Catholick Church on earth and should next demand where that Church is in whose vnion I must liue and dye Will He pitch think ye vpon an vnion with the Arians Graecians Abyssins Anabaptists Protestants or Quakers Light where he pleaseth he can only vent his fancy without Proof or Principle Now cast as it were this fancy into à ballance with those most weighty significant Testimonies of ancient Fathers who positiuely press for communion with the Roman Catholick Church and you will see à strange vneauen Parallel conceited whimsyes And strong reasonable Arguments laid together Yet wonder nothing for weak fancy is the strongest Aduersary Catholick Religion hath S. Cyprians Testimony proposed 6. You haue yet an other Authority grosly misvsed by Mr Stilling Page 315. And t' is à known Passage of S. Cyprian in his 55. Epistle to Cornelius where he complain's of certain factious Schismaticks who dared to sail to the chair of S. Peter and the Principal Church from whence Priestly vnity had its Origen and carry letters from Prophane and Schismatical persons Nec cogitare eos esse Remons c. not thinking them to be the Romans whose Faith the Apostle commended ad quos perfidiae haebere non possit accessum to whom falshood vntruth vnfaithfulnes cannot haue Access Thus S. Cyprian And I put much force in those words Eos esse Romanos Those who then liued to be the Romans prophetically commended by the Apostle which words taken in an obuious sense argue that true Faith should neuer part from the See of Rome But Mr Stilling conceal's this force and translates Not considering that the Romans c. No less energy lies in the other following words To whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no Access which seem to exclude à possibility of falshood from the Roman Church 7. Now listen à little to four strange Glosses laid vpon this one Text. Three of them are the Bishops and one Mr Stilling Vain Glosses Laid vpon The Testimony laies claim to The Bishops saies first Perfidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith And why not my Lord He Answers It properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of Trust or in fact against the Discipline And gouerment of the Church And I say it as properly signifies Vnfaithfulnes or Vntruth And therefore excludes errour in Faith from the Romans yea it must haue this sense here because it s opposed to the Faith of the Romans so much commended by the Apostle which was true Christian Faith Perfidia therefore fignifies the quite contrary that is errour in Faith But grant the sense to be as the Bishop glosseth it excludes at least from the Romans to whom S. Cyprian wrote à Possibility of doing any thing against the Discipline and Gouerment of the Church or of being maliciously false in Matter of Trust If this be so much more are they secured by virtue of these words Ad quos persidia non possit habere accessum from à possibility of erring in Faith for
what auail's it to haue à Church garded from vniust dealing in Matters of Trust if you make it lyable to Errour in the main Essential which is true Faith the very ground of Saluation And Principle cause also of iust proceeding amongst Christians Perhaps these men will say S. Cyprian in his Elogium respected only the first Romans commended by the Apostle not Those who liued in his An other Gloss refuted time Contra 1. That is not only said without Proof but improbably falsifies the Saints express words Eos esse Romanos as is now noted Contra. 2. If S. Cyprian only relate to the Romans whom the Apostle taught what need is there to keep à coile about the signification of Perfidia when those first Christians had for their Instructor an Infallible Apostle If therefore S. Paul could not err in faith Perfidia may well exclude all misbelief or errour in Matters of Faith from that Apostolical Church And here we make way to discouer the Bishops leuity in his second Gloss. 8. Suppose saith he it be granted that Perfidia Signifies errour in faith or Doctrin yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely but with à respect to those first Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle Contra 1. Vpon what certain Principle doth this confident Assertion stand It belongs not absolutely to the Roman Church Proue thus much by à sure Principle and something is said to the purpose But without à solid Probation we look on it as à whimsey only or à thought of fancy Yet more What mean's his Lordship by those dark words With à respect to those first Romans Will he say that the first Romans were infallible in Faith and make those others to whom S. Cyprian wrote fallible This must be his meaning or nothing A second and third Gloss reiected For if both were equally infallible or both alike fallible he gains nothing by the word Respect to the first Romans Therefore he must hold that ancient Church of Rome to be more infallibly founded in Faith than the later Romans were to whom S. Cyprian wrote Admit this He makes the Saint not only to flatter à whole Church but to speak Nonsense also For in effect he saith thus much Your Ancestors the Romans were so secured from errour in Faith that they could not decline from Christ's Doctrin but you now are in à very tottering Condition for you may swerue from the Faith of your Ancestors you may perhaps belieue as they did and perhaps not Howeuer I will sooth you vp and praise you as à Church impossible to erre with an Ad quos Perfidia habere non possit accessum You are men so faithfull that no Misbelief can touch you The last Gloss of the Bishop is thus S. Cyprians Elogium seem's rather à Rhetorical insinuation than à Dogmatical Assertion Mark the proofles word Seem's t' is only à thought of my Lords fancy which I am sure seem's far from à dogmatical Assertion What That à Saint and worthy Bishop should Rhetorick it in so weighty à Matter But enough of this nothing 9. To make something doe at last Mr Stilling Page 317. laies his Gloss by my Lord's and has à good opinion of it To Mr Stilling misinterpretation giue every man his due it is better than any of the Bishops He sayes in à word after à relation of the present state of Rome at that time when those Schismaticks Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither that Perfidia may well denote the Falsness and treacherous dealing of those two Persons who seemed good Catholicks but were not so and sought to ioyn in Communion with Cornelius and the Catholick Party but meant it not Now such Iuglers should haue no Access to the Principal Church or to those Romans whose Faith the Apostle so highly extolled so that Perfidia Respects not the Romans nor excludes Errour from that Church but laies falshood as was well deserued on those Schismaticks This I take to be Mr Stilling meaning Contra. 1. The Gloss euery one sees violently strained makes the allusion between Fides and Persidia Both Strained and inconsistent with S. Cyprians sense insignificant 2. It is inconsistent with the Authors whole sense who speak's not of perfidious men but of Falshood and Vntruth which could not haue Access to that principal Church For it is euident that perfidious persons as Mr Stilling tell 's the Story actually had Access And therefore could certainly haue it when Fortunatus and Felicissimus came to Rome 3. Make the most you can of this Gloss it reaches no further but to à meer far-fetcht Guess and what is gained by That Can Mr Stilling establish his Opinion of the Churches fallibility on no surer grounds Can he hope to driue me by guesses and Glosses not only from the Obuious sense of these words but also from the clear Expressions of innumerable other Fathers who stand openly for an infallible Church It is à disperate Improbability Yet so it is These selfconceited Glosses and nothing els Vphold Protestancy in euery controuerted Matter The infinite number of them and the Stories Mr Stilling tell 's to no purpose at all so enlarge his Rational account That if you fling these away you may easily put the remainder of that Book into à smal Decimo sexto 10. Be pleased to obserue à little We say and Christ said it before vs Hell gates should not preuail against the Church founded Glosses opposed to manifest Proofs by Diuine Prouidence But fancied Glosses disputes it at last into à Possibility of being peruerted by Hell and Heresy also We say it is the Pillar and ground of Truth but Glosses laid vpon these words must be thought so strong as to shake it all in pieces We say Christ will be with his Spouse to the end of the world Hold there say Sectaries our Glosses tell you No For this promise was only Conditionally True in all that succeeded the Apostles A fitting Assistance we allow it such as pleases our fancies But no more We say with S. Cyprian S. Hierome S. Irenaeus and other Fathers that the Church neuer depart's from what She once held that in Her is the Rule and square of Faith that in Her is the Spirit of God That She is the welspring of truth The dwelling place of Faith c. But à companie of Glosses spoil all this Doctrin And so rack the sense of these clear Expressions that one may boldly swear the Gloss and Text are sworn enemies CHAP. XVII VVhy the Glosses of Sectaries are impertinent and weightles Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers Of his vnskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry Charged on Catholicks 1. MVch is said in the Other Treatise Disc 4. C. 4. n. 8. of our Protestants Glosses Here you haue à further discouery of their weakness And t' is the only thing aym'd at in this And the precedent Chapters In à word thus I conclude That man who in Matters of Controuersies defend's à Doctrin
it If no Councils nor Tradition support it It has no Principled Doctrin If no Principled Doctrin No Moral certainty If no Moral certainty for meer groundles Glosses cannot giue Any against all the Powerful Motiues of our Church there is no Probability in it If no Probability The whole Reformation must be reduced to fancy only There we found it And there leaue it 11. Now if any except against our casting off Protestancy from the meanest degree of Probability induced to Iudge otherwise vpon this ground That many learned men defend it I haue Answered aboue Meer Probability is insufficient to support Christian Truths Here I both answer and Ask. 2. where were the many learned Defenders of this new Faith when one Luther stood vp alone against the whole Christian world And first broached his Protestancy If at that time there was no Authority nor reason for the Nouelty Process of time hath gained it neither Look then into its Rise or First beginning you 'l find it vnsound at the bottom yea vtterly improbable vpon this certain Principle That the Singular Doctrin of one disgusted Rebel against à whole Church and Thousands more pious and learned then Himselfe can merit no Belief but deserues what it has to be Anathematized 12. We must yet insist à little vpon this Point And lay forth the Vanity of our Aduersaries pretence to Probability which done you shall see controuersies are ended Sectaries May say Protestancy improbable If their own Authority makes not Protestancy Morally certain it cannot but raise it to à high degree of Probability We deny this And shall presently Ask why their Authority more aduanceth this Religion to Probability than the meer Authority of Arians bring 's Arianism to Probability At present we do not only oppose the voice and vote of the Roman Catholick Church against this Plea But the Authority also of Graecians Abyssins and all other called Christians who with one vnanimous Consent decry Protestancy as improbable Compare therefore votes with votes Authority with Authority There is no Parallel For for one that defend's it you haue hundreds yea Thousands that Contradict the Nouelty Thus much is indisputably Euident if we precisely Consider Authority as it were in Abstracto or oppose the Votes of dissenting Parties against it But here is not all We must goe further And distinguish well between à bare Authority and a rational grounded Authority For this is an vndeniable Truth Reasonable Principles euer precede or are presupposed when Religion is pleaded for To the consequent Authority of those whether many or few that Teach or Profess it Hence all say If the first conuerted Iewes to Christianity Had not had most weighty Inducements proposed to reason before they deserted Iudaism and belieued in Christ The change had been most imprudent Nay all had been obliged as is proued in the 4. Chapter To hold on in that Profession still without Alteration So necessary it is to haue rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Religion before the Professors allow it either Moral certainty or so much as Probability Thus much premised 13. We draw Sectaries from all Self-Voting or further pleading by their own Authority And force them in this Contest if Sectaries drawn off their own Selfe voting Protestancy be defensible not to say but to proue by Principles distinct from their own bare votes These two Propositions 1. That God who is Truth it self And once laid his Truths the foundation of the Roman Catholick Church permitted that faithful Oracle to become Traiterous to teach Idolatry to tell the world loud Lies for à thousand yeares together And that all this happened when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to vnbeguile Those poor deluded Christians The second Proposition to be proued is That these Millions of souls learned and vnlearned who firmly belieued this Church And dyed happily in it were All mad All Idolaters All besotted and seduced What the Sectary is to Prou◠by Fooleries And which is à Paradox aboue Expression That à knot of late vnknown Nouellists pretending to Reformation dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themselues To make these supposed mad wise The Idolatrous Orthodox the besotted Reasonable The Seduced right in Faith again And that this was and is yet done vpon à meer proofles Supposition that we are mad and besotted which stand's on no Principles And for that reason is contradicted by the vast number of most knowing Catholicks And the whole Multitude of Christians Besides 14. When these two Propositions are made probable vpon good Principles Wee shall listen to our Sectaries Authority But if they fumble herein Only talk and proue nothing Wee reiect their vngrounded Authority And say The more votes they multiply without Proofs the less weight they haue You shall yet see how weightles Their Authority is might we here insist longer vpon one Matter of fact which ends all Controuersies In à word All know the great Controuersy between Protestants and Catholicks comes to this Whether they or we teach The difficulty proposed between Catholicks and Protestants Apostolical Doctrin Whether they or we lay forth the genuine sense of holy Scripture Neither Party saw or heard the Apostles Preach Neither pretend's now to Enthusiasms or priuate Reuelations concerning that Doctrin The whole cause therefore is to be tried and decided by Witnesses of foregoing Ages such Testimonies and Tradition must clear this Matter of fact A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Pastors without Doctors without Witnesses teaching that sense and Doctrin which the one or other Party stand's for is here both vseles and impertinent If then The Protestant makes his Doctrin Apostolical His sense of Scripture Orthodox The Catholick replies Be pleased to giue in your last Euidence produce your Witnesses your Pastors And Doctors Four Ages since That taught as you teach And sensed Scripture as you sense it My Church add's the Catholick euidently demonstrates à continued succession of Her Pastors that taught as I belieue as shall be proued hereafter And shewes as clearly à Succesion of the same Doctrin and Faith with these Pastors Her Antiquity is vndoubted and her pleading Possession in preseruing the true Sense of Scripture and Apostolical Doctrin is as great as any King on earth can shew for the Possession of the Crown he weares Now saith the Catholick Wee examin your pedegree of Pastors and Doctors And after some few Ascents by à The first plead by Principles the others not Retrogradation come at last to the year 1517. There we find and most euidently à Luther or Caluin To be the first men in the world that professed Protestanism that interpreted Scripture as you interpret or owned your Religion With these late Runagates you must stop No man on earth can aduance or bring your Genealogy further Therefore to speak in the words of the Ancient Optatus Meliuitan Lib. 2. Contra Parmen At that time you were sons
Church of Christ the only Rule of Faith which decides all Controuersies Concerning Religion CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ was is and shall euer be the Holy Apostolical and Catbolick Roman Church Her Antiquity and Constant Perseuerance in the Ancient primitiue Doctrin without Alteration proues The Assertion 1. IT is hard to illustrate à manifest Truth because what euer reasons are brought to light for it surpass not much the Euidence of the thing you would make clear Who euer goes about to proue by Arguments that the Sun is the most luminous Body in the Heauens will haue much to do because that 's euidents to our senses and so is the true Church of Christ saith S. Austin digito demonstrari potest She can be pointed at with your finger Origen adds Hom. 33. in Matth. She is like à sun casting her beams from one part of the world to the other Howeuer because we now treat with men who either see not or pretend not to see I will giue them all the Euidence gathered from demonstratiue Signes which à heart can wish for 2. I say first before we come to more conuincing Arguments Antiquity is à certain Note of Christ Church The reason is As God was before the Diuel and Truth before falshood So the Orthodox Church whether you take it from Adam or Antiquity denotes the true Church from the first preaching of Christian Doctrin was before all Sects and Heresies The Roman Catholick Church only which Christ founded and is so much extolled by the Apostle has this Precedency It was when the Arians were not we know their first Rise it was when the Pelagians were not we know their Beginning it was when rhe Donatists were not their Origen is as well known as that of Protestants which first peeped out with one unfortunate Luther something aboue an age since Might not then the Roman Catholick Church more ancient than all these Sectaries haue most justly questioned each of them at their first appearance as the learned Tertullian Lib de Prescrip did those of His time Qui estis vos who are you new men Vnde quando venistis From whence came you Vbi tam diu latuistis Where haue ye been hid so long No body yet saw you or heard of you I waue the Testimonies of other Fathers chiefly of S. Austin and S. Hierome though none presses this Argument drawn from Antiquity with greater efficacy than Optatus Meliuitan Lib 2. contra Parmeâ—an They are known to euery one But this Mark must not goe alone 3. I say 2. Antiquity and à neuer interrupted Continuance The Church once true neuer Changed her Doctrin of the same Visible Society Age after Age and the same Doctrin vpheld without change or Alteration clearly euidences Christs Church This Scripture strongly Asserts Osee 2. where the Church is said to be espoused to Christ in Sempiternum for euer Math 16. Hell gates shall neuer preuail against it Math. 28. Christ will be with it to the end of the world vpon which Passage S. Hierome speaks most clearly Qui vsque ad consummationeâ— sae 〈…〉 c. He who promised to be with his own Disciples to the end â—f Authority â—nd the world both showes that these blessed men shall euer liue in their successors And that he will not depart from the true Belieuers Videtur sicut luna c. They are words of S. Ambrose lib 4. Hexam The Church may be seen like the moon eclipsed but neuer perisheâ— She may be clouded and ouer cast with darknes but cannot fail The reason is If Christs Church could fail not only all memory Reason proue the Assertion of his sacred Passion with the other Mysteries of our Faith but the whole Scripture also would for that time of her supposed Deficiency haue been no obiects of Belief None could then haue said with truth I belieue the Holy Catholick Church or haue had Access to it because it was not then in Being Now further As the Church cannot fail so She cannot Alter from her self or change Christs Doctrin For if She did so She were no more Orthodox Christ could not own Her for his Spouse Ponder S. Austins Discourse on this subiect in Psal 101. Existâ—â—t qui dicunt c. There are some who say This is not the Church of all nations which once was No. That 's gone and thus they Speak saith the Saint because they are not of the true Church O impudentem S. Austins Iudgement vocem illa non est quia tu in illa non es O impudent speech it is not the same Church it was because thou art not in it Vide ne tu ideo non Sis. look to thy self least thou be not for the Church will be although thou were not in the world Then he decries this Doctrin of the Churches failure as most abominable detestable and pernicious And in Psalm 60. positiuely Asserts the permanency of it to the end of the world 4. Hence I argue But the Roman Catholick Church only hath euer continued in being without interruption and neuer The probation vrged changed or Altered the Doctrin which She first learned of Christ Protestancy which began one only Age since most euidently wants this continuance and euery year put 's on à new countenance Therefore the Roman Catholick Church and not that of Protestants is the Spouse of Christ That the Roman Catholick Church stood permanently in being euer since Christ is as demonstrable as that Protestants were not before Luther The Visible perpetual Succession of our Popes of our Bishops of our Pastors and of our Catholick People in all ages is an irrefragable Proof Neither do Sectaries much cauil at this Personal Succession or the exteriour Permanency of our Church for What Sectaries obiect that 's euident But here is their Plea This Church say they once Orthodox changed from her selfe forged new Articles of faith Contrary to the primitiue Doctrin Herein lies the great Charge Now if I demonstrate that the Roman Catholick Church once confessedly Orthodox hath euer since been Visible in the world and neuer swerued from the pure Primitiue Doctrin in after Ages She is certainly the Church of Christ still without Alteration You will Ask how can this be euinced 5. Some may think 't is best done by Paralleling our present known Church Doctrin with that of the Primitiue Times Very good But by what means shall we come to à right Parallel One may Say Make A diligent Inspection into the Records and Writings of those worthy Fathers who liued in the first Ages And all is done I Answer This Rule precisely considered help 's nothing For what if those Fathers neuer medled with most of the Controuersies now agitated between vs and Sectaries And t' is no wonder at all if they did not For may not à new Sort of Hereticks rise vp to morrow whose Errours neuer entred into the thoughts either of the
à most sâ—uere Examination and finally to make the Glorious vvorks of God knovvn Sentence vvas Iuridically pronounced by à vvorthy Arch-Bishop as is novv said Quod si rei tam notae contradicere ausint And if Sectaries yet dare contradict so manifest à Verity Quis illos c. who is there that vvill not look on them As impudent and list them among incredulous Iewes 21. Yet our Mr Stillingfleet forsooth Shifts all off with à Ieer. It is an easy thing for à Stump to grovv à leg in its passage from Spain hither What will not this man write to his petty purpose if 't come in his way What will he not pare away Mr Stillingfleets cheat and open fraud and add to à Story remote from the knowledge of the vulgar His book is full of such fraud Will he not think ye say any thing before the illiterate and ignorant in the high Mysteries of Faith whilst he blushes not to cheat and deceiue his Reader in à matter of Fact Notorioussly known to the world If he thinks I haue forged this Relation Hee shall haue the very indiuidual Copy I made vse of sent him the Bulk is not big If he doubt's of the Authority of these witnesses already produced and say yet all is à Fourb I 'll say as easily I am fooled in belieuing there is such à man in the world as Mr Stillingfleet whom I neuer saw And next will force him to exchange Principles with me à little You Sir say its à fourb à pretended no real Cure What 's required of Him I say Contrary The Cure was real and à great Miracle Proue now you Your Assertion vpon as good Humane Authority as I haue proued mine And we come to Principles fit to decide in the present Matter Fail to do this your Assertion hath not so much as one leg to stand on besides fancy or something worse CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signes peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church proue her Orthodox And make Her Doctrin euidently credible These laid forth to Sense and Reason distinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies Inferences drawn from the Doctrin Here deliuered 1. VEry little may suffice concerning the first part of the Title our Catholick Authors hauing done the work to my hands whilst they treat most largely and learnedly of the Amplitude and Vniuersallity of the Roman Catholick Church of the continued and Succession of Her Bishops Pastors and people of Her Vnity in one and the same Faith of Her Sanctity of the efficacy of Her Doctrin in conuerting whole Nations to Christ which S. Austin justly hold's miraculous The Largeness of this great moral Body rightly called by Sectaries à growing Religion which no persecution of Tyrants could hitherto suppres For time extends it self without dispute to all pass'd Ages since Christ And The Largeness of the Catholicks Church if we speak of place the growth successiuely was so great That In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum it hath been preach'd with immense fruit to all Nations Answerable to that of the Royal Prophet Psalm 2. where the eternal Father speaking to Christ our Lord as man giues him an ample Kingdome spread all ouer for his Possession Ask of me and I will giue the Gentils for thy Inheritance and thy possâ—ssion the last ends of the earth 2. Hence we first distinguish the Church of Christ from the lewish Synagouge limitated to one time till the comming of our true Messias And to one place also For the Sacrifice essential to that Religion could not be offered but in the Temple of Hierusalem only We distinguish both Church and Doctrin likewise from Mahumatism Nestorianism Eutychianism and other Heresies in Distinguishes Her from all false Sects the East which neuer got any considerable footing in these Western parts of Europe Finally we distinguish it from Lutheranism Calvtanism and Protestanism à confused Mixture of both and other late Doctrins These and their dissenting Heads stay in our Northin Climats without fruit or Progress made into Asia Affrica Greece or the like remote Countries wherefore some doubt not to auerr and most truely That the Holy Orders of S. Dominick of S. Francis and of the Society of Jesus are further spread more diffused through the world at this day â— than all the Sects or Subdiuisions of Protestants euer yet were or I think will be But the Kingdome of Christ's Church as Tertullian Cited aboue Chap. 1. n. 6. well obserues Vbique regnat reignes euery where and is The Amptitude of Christ's Keingdome euery where belieued Nor can these latter Sectaries now in an aged world hope to Propagate further For if S. Austin De Vnit. Eccle. C. 14. Thought it enormously improbable that Donatism then so early could diffuse it selfe the whole world ouer much less can our confined Protestants very late Teachers after so many Centuries when Heresy euery where lyes à gasping Hope to draw forreign Nations to à Belief of their Nouelties 3. The reason à Priori is A greater extent à further increase seem's inconsistent with the very Nature of those who professe this Religion For once liuing in the Vine and drawing Nutriment from thence they wilfully cut them selves off and separated from the Church Therefore as S. Austin saith they lie where they are Withering and dying without Lustre or any Enlargement Again as they began this new learning without Gommission to teach So they can send none hereafter Authoritatiuely to spread it further Hence I Argue That Church only is Christ's true Spouse which euer Protestancy increases not And why was from the first Rise of Christianity and successiuely got Possesin the four Parts of the world But thus the Roman Catholick Church was and is Still diffused here is Christ's promised Inheritance Therefore She is the only true Church Contrarywise the narrow confined and iarring multitudes of Sectaries scattered vp and down in à few corners in Europe All late Beginners and shameful Desertors of this Ancient Society neuer had so ample an inheritance and Consequently Their pretence of being the true Church of Christ is more than improbable 4. VVe may yet subioyn to the Amplitude of our Religion the euer visible and neuer interrupted Succession of Bishops and Pastors in the Roman Catholick Church from Christs time A Mark no less euident to sense than openly destructiue of Heresy This succession long since Prophesied by Daniel Cap. 2. Christ Kingdom shall neuer be dissipated and foretold by the Apostle Ephes 4. 11 He gaue some Apostles c. Sett's forth the Glory of it VVe need not in this place to weary the Reader with the known Authority of S. Austin positiuely Asserting Contra Epist fundam The succession of Lawful Pastors vrged C. 4. That the Succession of Pastors from S. Peters time held him in the Catholick Church and the Argument is more fully urged again Lib. de utilit Credendi C. 17. VVee need not tell any with
Reflect GeÌ„tle Reader vpon these Consequences the Legardemaine the Imposture of this supposed Deceiuer It followes 2. That the Iewes who crucified our Blessed Lord iustly deserued vpon that Account Renown and Honour yea the highest Recompence For it was à laudable fact to comdemn à Counterfeit sâ— openly wicked as dared to call Himself the Son of God when Hâ—e was not Perkin Warbecks disguise was but à Peccadilio compared to this shameful cousenage The sin of Mahomet who neuer made Himselfe God but à Prophet only came not neer the Malice of this one supposed abhominable loud Vntruth It followes 3. That our supposed Impostor I haue à horror to pronounce the word deseruedly merited And yet merit 's for His vnexcusable Hypocrisy eternal Reproach contempt and ignominy in the just judgement of God men and Angels Hence I Argue 5. God is just and hath Prouidence ouer the world But our just and wise God neuer since Christianity began Seâ— Mark or Sign of Ignominy vpon our Blessed Sauiour as he hath done vpon other Impostors Our just and wise God euer since that wicked People nailed him to à Cross hath been so far from honouring them or rewarding Their impious Fact That most visible and seuere Punishments haue proued the only Recompence and best Reward The Temple ruined their Dispersion followed Christ honoured the Iewes contemned vp and down the world where they liue contemptible chiefly infamous for Hypocrisy and Auarice Se also this Argument more enlarged aboue Chap. 2. n. 4. Our most just God hath not only taken of all Marks of Ignominy but euidently to our Senses declared by real Effects His innocent Lamb our louely Sauiour worthy of Honour Benediction and Glory So true it is We read Apocal. 5. 13. Dignus est Agnus qui occisus est c. The iust Tribute of Prayse and Glory is visibly paid him so Prouidence hath ordained not only by Kings Princes Learned and vnlearned by all Nations far and neer But by the very Turks also 6. And is it possible reflect I beseech you that God who is no Exceptor of Persons could haue punished so dreadfully these abandoned Iewes had they done well in crucifying our Lord Jesus Is it possible that his iust and wise Prouidence could euer haue crowned à Counterfeit with so much Honour God's iust Iudgement and renown as our Sauiour hath gained or permitted A cheâ— not only to be Reuerenced as the true Son of God so long though he was not but moreouer to draw so many Millions and Millions of Souls into errour as belieued in him for sixteen Ages and more The Paradox is so desperate so highly improbable That one would as soon deny both God and Prouidence As once seriously harbour it in his thoughts Obserue my Reason 7. The Light of nature dictates abstracting from Authority Rom. 2. 9. That as on the one side Shame Ignominy and Confusion pursue horrid Workers of iniquity So on the other Proue ouâ— Sauiour Innocent Glory Honour and renown inseparably follow the manifestly declared just and innocent But Shame Confusion and Ignominy Gods Iust Signes of indignation yet visibly follow that wicked race of People the Authors of our dear Sauiours death contrarywise Glory and renown euer since he dyed haue been his due reward and own inheritance Therefore if God speak's And the Iewes Criminal as He doth by these Signal Effects of Iustice The Iewes so long seuerely punished stand like guilty Criminals in that high Tribunal of Heauen There sentenced answerable to their Desert as Workers of iniquity And our Holy Lord Iesus so long honoured the whole world ouer receiues the contrary Sentence And is by visible effects there proclaimed just and Innocent A Domino factum est istud c. It was not chance but à Signal work of Prouidence that the Stone these Builders reiected became so glorious as to support the noblest Fabrik God euer made 8. Apply what is is now said to the Roman Catholick A true Application of this whole Doctrin Church We shall se an exact Parallel of proofs deliuered in the same Terms Christ our Lord called Himself Eternal Truth in all he taught Our Church stil's Herself Gods own Oracle in all She teaches Now whilst so high à Prerogatiue is claimed She either speakes Truth or lies most impudently Grant the first Viz. That this Church speaks Truth she is to be belieued in all she teaches Say secondly she falsly makes Herself Gods own Oracle when she is not Diuine Prouidence which cannot dissemble nor Design to ruin Souls by the false Doctrin of an infatuated Oracle would long before this day haue either destroyed Her or marked Her out as à Cheat by some euident Sign of Justice as he hath marked other false Oracles Iewes To the Roman Catholick Church Turks Infidels and Hereticks with Contempt ignominy and Disgrace The sin is so hideous that it well deserued à greater Punishment and would haue been inflicted vpon this Church also if the Supposition stand Vnless as is now said we Assert which is abominable that Gods express Will was that She should poyson whole Nations for so many Ages with corrupted Doctrin But All is contrary To our vnspeakable comfort the Roman Catholick Church fail's not She keep 's her Posture still She flourishes euery where euen amongst thousands and thousands She flourishes that dare not interest will haue it so Profess Her Doctrin And without any least Note of infamy proceding from God what Diuels or Malice inuent or vent against Her we heed not Teaches not only the most pious and learned in this neerer world But the wisest also of the whole Vniuerse Thus we discoursed of Christ our Lord and the Argument hold's as strongly in behalf of our Church 9. Again Hath God whose Counsels are just Crowned our Sauiour with Glory and Renown Has he also who knowes well where to inflict Punishment manifested his Wrath vpon an vngracious People that condemned Him Ponder I beseech you first How visibly Prouidence has made his own Spouse the Roman Catholick Church Renowned And wonder not the Made renowned Son of God paid dear for the Renown and gave his life for it Vt exhiberet ipse sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit and present to Himself and the whole world à most glorious Church All this I say visibly Appears to oâ— eyes and senses 10. Ponder 2. Where and vpon whom God hath Set Marks of ignominy and inflicted most rigorous Punishments Whâ—â— vpon Iewes only that opposed and condemned Christ Are Iewes and Heretiques these only Marked and Chastised No. Those rebellious Spirits also Those first Renegados I mean the chief Arch-hereticks that opposed and condemned his Church Vile and abiect in life dying felt Gods heauy hand of Iustice Manichaeus was stead à liue Montanus hanged Himself Arius voided out his bowels and filthy soul together in à Priuie God strook Iulian the Apostate dead
presseth this point most efficaciously Lib. de vnit Eccles. Cap. 2. Quaestiâ— inter nos versatur vbi sit Ecclesiá vtrum apud nos aut illos Here lies the main Business where the Church is whether with vs or them Again Epist 163. Quaritur vtrum vestra an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei We demand whether yours or ours be the Church of God which must be known saith Optat. Mileuit Lib. 2. By Her Marks and Characters And therefore we said aboue though S. Austin made vse of Scripture against the Donatists it was not done to decide euery particular Controuersy by the bare and obscure words of that holy Book No. The profound How Scripture manifests the Church Doctor aymed not at such impossibilities his whole drift being to teach the Donatists à great Verity which we all subscribe to viz. That Scripture once admitted as Gods word without Dispute clearly demonstrat's the Church by Her visible sensible Marks Antiquity Miracles Conuersions Digito demonstrari potest We can point at Her with our finger Saith S. Austin The Church therefore thus manifested we haue enough and rely on Her as à faithful Oracle in euery Doctrin She professeth Se Cardinal de Richelieu Traitte pour conuertâ—r ceux c. Lib. 2. C. 7. § Cest encore Where he exactly renders S. Anstins meaning conformable to what we deliuered Disc 1. C. 14. n. 10. 21. The last Inference If all are bound to embrace true Religion All haue also with the obligation means to know where it is taught But the means to know this lies not in the essential Verity thereof for that is no Self-euidence or manifestly true ex Terminis The means to know it is not found in the high Mysteries of Faith for these far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding remain yet in darkness without More light Scripture alone makes not its own Diuinity known and though it did so And the Heathen owned it as most Diuine yet when he euidently discouer's that dissenting Christians Sense the book quite contrary waies he has not the means to learn what true Religion is or where it is taught Thus then He must Discours or belieue nothing 22. God that 's Truth reueal's the Verities of true Religion If so some vnited Society of men teaches what euer God reueal's for Angels are not our Doctors I find Saith the Rational man great Signes of truth amongst the Christians and after The Heathens prudent Disâ—ourse many à serious thought Cast vpon à Matter of highest Concern I sind also that all those Signes as Antiquity Vniuersallity à visible Succession of Pastors euident Miracles which cannot but proceed from God belong to one only Christian Society the Roman Catholick Church I se moreouer à strange benign Prouidence held forth in preseruing Her from innumerable attempts of Aduersaries No Iew no Heathen no Heretick can show the like Signal Marks and Proofs of Gods loue as this one Catholick Oracle demonstrat's Therefore all other Societies are false Sects misled by erring Prophets according to Christs own Prediction Math. 24. For there shall rise false Christs though they clamour neuer so loud Ecce hic est and Conclusâ—on Christus Loe we preach Christ and his truths Thus Reason test's satisfied yet because the Heathen see 's who le Armies banding against the Church and rationally hold's their Arguments like theer cause very weak He is desirous to haue the Fallacy of some chiefe Aduersaries laid forth to his reason For your Satisfaction be pleased to read the following chapter CHAP. XII The Aduersaries of the Roman Catholick Church plead vnreasonably A Discouery of their fallacies The cause of all Errour concerning Religion The only means to remedy Errour 1. THe enemies of the Roman Catholick Church are chiefly reduced to these four Classes to Atheists Heathens Iewes and Hereticks A word briefly of their fallacies in order Some Atheists there haue been and perhaps Lucian was one that to cast off all thought of Religion more expresly denyed Diuine Prouidence than they did the Existency of à God And à chief The Atheistâ— Plea Argument to omit others of less weight is much to this sense A Numen Infinitly wise and powerful shewes his careful Prouidence in gouerning the world But an euident Principle opposes this careful Prouidence and no contrary Principle of equal strength Seem's to establish it Therefore reason well denies Prouidence Now here is the euident Principle The Oppression of iust men manifest to our eyes the preuailing of the wicked against the iust of Turks against Christians to say nothing of other much visible Confusion and Discorder proue à neglect of Prouidence and no contrary Principle half so strong or euident conninces it none counterpoises the weight of this clear proof now hinted at ergo Reason reasonably denies Prouidence Thus the Atheist The Pagan Argues That Religion is false which holds Mysteries ridiculous and impossible but Christians How the Heathens and Iewes Argue teach that God is one Essence and three Persons Both seem impossible The Iewes vapour against à crucified Sauiour and lay its vnworthy God to become man and to dye ignominiously vpon à Cross Lastly our modern Sectaries that own Christ come limping after the rest and except much against the Roman Catholick Church She Say they has changed the ancient Articles of the Primitiue Faith and introduced Nouelties in lieu of them She maintains errours contrary to sense in Her Doctrin of Transubstantiation And much more seem's amiss 2. I say first All these and the like Arguments are meer vnsound Paralogisms and proue iust nothing against Prouidence against Christ or the Romam Catholick Church Before I discouer the fallacies be pleased to note 1. That God whose existence we haue proued Disc 1. C. 2. is à Being incomprehensible and far transcend's the reach of our narrow Capacities The very Gentile Philosophers owned the truth agreeing in this Principle That humane reason is as weak to know what God and diuine Mysteries are as an owle is to behold the Sun at noon-day Note 2. Reason in man often too bold enters into Diuine Mysteries though conscious it walks in à Labyrinth not so much as Principles prâ—mised to solue these Obiections half-sighted in the search it makes and this less than Half-insight into Diuine truths is the cause of Atheism of all Heresy and the most gross errours now raigning in the world The Apostle 2. Tim. 3. 7. Point's at the misled Semper discentes They are alwaies learning but neuer come to the knowledge of truth Note 3. Reason in the inuestigation of Religion and Diuine verities may tend two different waies Directly and Reflexly Direct reason as is now said fall's vpon some great Mystery in faith finds it harsh yea most difficult to be vnderstood and What follows The faint man with his feeble reason either reiect's the Mystery or remain's so perplexed in the search that he can resolue nothing His procedure is iust like
And because it is here impossible to descend to all particular controuersies we will fall vpon one only much debated one serues for all Viz whether Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation be Orthodox Doctrin The truth yet lies in darkness there is no Self-Euidence either in the Affirmatiue or Negatiue T' is yet no more but doubtful or à meer Perhaps whether the Protestants or we Speak Truth Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is Where the difficulty lies yet obscure to vs both and as little euidenceth it Self as the Verity we enquire after By what means then can we raise our selues aboue this state of Doubting to so great à degree of certainty as to Say without fear Transubstantiation is Orthodox Doctrin And the contrary is not so 10. The Catholick to waue in this place other proofs recur's to his Church And saith this Publick euidenced Oracle as well raises him to à State of certainty for his Tenet as the euidenced Primitiue Church rais'd the first belieuing Christians from their doubts to Security For the like full euidence alwayes lead's to How the Catholick Peoceed's a like certainty of Belief The Protestant hauing reiected our present euidenced Church hopes well and will needs find flawes and falsity too in Her Doctrin not by confronting Her Euidence or denoting an other Church As ample as ancient as miraculous as She is which held his Doctrin for this though it should be pleaded if we come to à clear Decision is vnpleadable because the Protestant has no such Oracle What 's done therefore I 'll tell you and you may iustly wonder He shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's though there is no such matter to launch into the vast Ocean of Scripture Councils volumes of Fathers ancient Records and thinks The Sectary takes à Contrary way to carry on his cause this way Here He pick 's vp one dark Sentence of à Father and triumph's with that There on another Here vpon the least hint giuen he Snarles at one piece of Popery there at another Here he guesses and there he misses In à word the man is busily idle doth much and iust nothing run's on but is out of his way utterly lost without the guidance of God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the Labyrinth And if you Ask why he is out I Answer his Errour lies here that both in this and all other Controuersies he makes his false Suppositions to pass for proofs against euidence 11. You shall see what I here Assert Made Good To proue no Transubstantiation the Se ary read's Scripture Fathers Antiquity or what els you will Be it so He read's but not alone For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's also Mark now The One after his reading glosses so doth the other The One compares Passage with Passage so doth the other The One discourses So doth the other But when all is done and here lies the mischief the Protestant imposes one sense vpon the perused Testimonies and the Catholick another Which leaues him in State of doubting quite contrary This dayly Experience teaches viz. That we differ not so much about the words we read as about the sense of Scripture and Fathers Therefore this also is Euident That the Protestant aduances not his Doctrin if yet he get so high aboue the degree of guessing only whilst he pleads by his glossed Scripture and Fathers For as long as the Catholick wholly as learned and conscientious as He is and an ample Church besides opposes his far-fetch'd Sense out of the Fathers He cannot without Impudency and making à false Supposition to pass for his Proof cry it vp as certain Now further As the sense he drawes from Scripture and the Fathers is no more but at most doubtful I say improbable so his Assertion concerning no Transubstantiation or what euer els he holds contrary to the Roman Catholick faith is wholly as much wauering or purely doubtful But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak What euer is doubtful grounds not Faith either to ground any Christian Tenet vpon or to Contrast with the Roman Catholick Church whose Doctrin is indisputably made euidently credible Therefore unless à weake Vncertainty can reuerse Euident Credibility the Sectaries Plea against the Church is not only improbable but highly improbable 12. To conclude this Point Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma It is possible to Denote and point at another Church which without dispute taught Protestant Doctrin and opposed ours as Ancient as large and euery way as Euidenced to sense and reason as the Roman Catholick Church is Or it is not possible If possible controuersies are strangely ended for proue A Dilemma me once such à Church I say plainly There is no such thing as true Faith in the world worthy defense Why Because if the Supposition hold's two different Churches euidenced à like equally as ancient as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Miracles clash with one another Say and Vnsay approue and condemn The one condemn's Protestancy The other Popery One will haue Transubstantiation belieued The other not which is as wholly destructiue of Christian Faith as if Scripture it self should plainly Speak Contradictions 13. On the other side If the Sectary can neither name nor point at à Chutch euery way as euidenced as the Roman Catholick No euidenced Protestant Church no pleading for Protestancy which expresly propugned Protestancy and opposed Popery He shall neuer utter probable word against any one Article of our Catholick Faith For throw an euidenced Protestant Church out of the world All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin or against vs will either End in à slight discharge of à few scattered vnweighed Sentences of holy Fathers no sooner read than Answered or as we dayly Experience in gross Mistakes and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrin And can these think ye extinguish the visible Lustre of our Chureh can these lessen the euident Credibility of Her Doctrin or bring so known and owned an Oracle into open disgrace or publick Disreputation It is impossible The most vigorous Abbettors of Protestancy may not only blush to Assert it but will be bafled did we once liue to see the happy day when our iust cause might be proposed and heard in à Publick Dispute before Learned and impartial Iudges A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick and hold him much more wise Learned and moderate then some late voluminous Writers haue been yet because Truth will out I must not dissemble but Speak truth And therefore Say in à word His whole attempt against the Roman Catholick Church is weake And the feebleness of it Cannot but appear to euery Reader that penetrat's the force of the Principles already established My wish indeed was to haue Vnderstood his meaning better in some particular passages For
here and there he seem's to me à little obscure yea to build with one hand and to Pull down with the other How euer by what is clear we haue enough and may well refute his Errours 15. Page 19. In the Book now cited He takes leaue to blame all those who declare in behalf of the Protestant Church that it depart's or Separat's from the Church of Rome For Saith he seeing it hath bin granted in and by this Church euer since the Reformation that there is and alwayes was saluation to be had in the Church of Rome as à true Church though corrupted I am very confident that no Church can Separate from the Church of Rome but they must make Themselues thereby Schismaticks before God I grant 1. Such are Schismaticks as leaue this Church I grant 2. Saluation was and will euer be had in this Church Yet say 3. It is Calumny yea à plain Contradiction to grant Saluation attainable in this Church and to impeach Her of Errour or corrupted Do rin The Calumny Church Motiues either proue that Oracle pure in all She teaches or in Nothing is vnquestionable because the Marks the signes and exteriour Euidence of our Church already insisted on either proue her Gods Oracle as sound and faithful in all She teaches as the Primitiue Church was or conuince nothing What then can these Aduersaries ayme at Will they grant Her no less illvstrious in Marks and Motiues which induce to faith than the Apostical Church was and yet make Her à Monster à harlot and prefidiously false in proposing Faith Haue so many learned Doctors Age after Age taught Her Doctrin so many Martyts shed their blood In defense of it so many Saints wrought glorious Miracles to confirm it and after all can it vpon no proof but vpon à vain and most vniust Supposition be called false and vnorthodox Nothing can be more extrauagant You must therefore either deny the Euidence we plead by which is vndeniable or own this Church entirely sound in euery Doctrin proposed as Faith Whence it is that when Iewes Gentils and Hereticks conuert themselues to Catholick Religion drawn thervnto by the light of euident Motiues they frankly belieue no Part but all Church Doctrin without Exception And the Reason of belieuing thus Wholly and not The Reason of belieuing entirely and not by halfes by halfs is giuen aboue C. 5. 6. where we Demonstrate that if the Roman Catholick Church has erred in the proposal but of one Point of Faith and obliged Christians to belieue that vnder pain of Damnation She is not only traiterous to Christ and therefore can be belieued in nothing But moreouer at this present day there is no true Faith professed in the Christian world Contrarywise if She be true and vnerrable in all teaches She is to be belieued in euery Article without reserue 16. Now to the double Contradiction in the words alleged It is granted Saith Mr. Thorndicke that there is and alwayes was Saluation to be had in the Church of Rome as à true Church though corrupted I Answer this is implicatory For if true She is not corrupted in Doctrin or if corrupted in Doctrin She is not true Vnless one makes by meer fancy à Chimera of the Catholick Church and sayes à true Church may be corrupted which is impossible for truth excludes corruption Therefore no Orthodox Christian euer owned à Church partly true partly false You Sr say 2. Saluation may be had in this Church Very good Ergo Her Faith is sound able to produce The Contradiction euinced against this Author in euery soul Repentance the loue and fear of God and what euer els is necessary to acquire Heauen Or if it want this Essential Perfection and bring not men to à security of Saluation it is no Faith at all and consequently Catholicks must be damned for want of diuine Faith hauing no true Church to belieue in See more Disc 1. C. 21. n. 7. Finally wheras you Assert No Church can Separate from the Church of Rome but they must make themselues thereby Schismatieks before God The Inference Sr is true but most clear against your Selfe And proues that both you and the Protestant Party are Schismaticks before God and man too For this matter of Fact Viz. That you Separated from Protestants proued Schismaticks and rebelled against the Roman Catholick Church is as euident as That England once Catholick communicated with Rome in Points of Faith in the vse of Rites Liturgies Sacraments And afterward diuorced it self from that Communion Reply or tell vs you had cause to do so and so far only receded from this Church as She receded from Her Ancient purity You make again à false Supposition your Proof your self Iudge in à cause you haue nothing to doe with And the louely Spouse of Christ loyal and perfidious Chast and à harlot with one breath 17. Yet one word more You say the Church of Rome is à true Church wherin Saluation is had though corrupted One clear Inference against Mr Thorndick Hence I Argue Either you in England are now at this instant separated from this Church as it is True or not If separated from it as true the Reformation belongs to you only you are to cancel your own Errours according to the form of Doctrin in our Church for She if true is so far pure that she cannot be reformed And thus much you seem to grant P. 33. It is out of loue to the Reformation that I insist vpon such à Principle as may serue to re-vnite vs with the Church of Rome being well assured that we can neuer be well reunited with our Selues otherwise That not only the Reformation but the common Christianity must needs beâ—lost in the Diuisions which which will neuer haue an end otherwise What is this to say but to wish the English Church reformed by the Roman Catholick Therefore something if these quoted words bear sense is amiss not in the Roman but in the English Church which needs Reformation Now on the other side if you say the Roman Catholick was and is à true Church Another Inference as clear and that the English also is altogether as true as she or hath not separated from the Roman in matter of true Doctrin it followes ineuitably if the Supposition hold's that neither of them needs Reformation in matter of Truth for here we speak not of Rites and Ceremonies which are alterable To what purpose then is it to talk of reforming either Church in point of Truth when both are Supposed so true that neither can be reformed nor differ if true in faith from one another 18. Perhaps you may yea and must reply if your Discourse haue sense Though they are true in Doctrins called fundamental yet both haue their lesser corruptions and these need Reformation This is all that can be Asserted For if both are false in fundamentals neither of them at this day is the Orthodox
done which will neuer be I am confident His Extract or what is required of Mr Thorndick Draught would appear so imperfect and mishapen à Business in the iudgement of Catholicks and Protestants also That as the one Party cannot but look on it with disdain so the other would reiect it as vnworthy Acceptance 22. Besides would it not seem à new wonder to Strangers abroad Yea and as ridiculous as wonderful were rhey told that after so much labour spent about reforming Religion in England we haue yet at present à thoughtful Gentleman there that 's very busy in Setting forth the last and best Edition of Protestancy Reformed which perhaps may proue worse than any other gon before Naught it must needs be for this Reason That the means he would reform by has no Proportion with the designed End For by A New◠Reformer of Religion in these old dayes of the world the light of à few dead Manuscripts written 14. or 15. Ages Since He offer 's now to amend all the Churches in the world though the very sense of these Writings which must be the Rule of his Reformation is neither well known to Himselfe nor yet agreed on by those dissenting Churches he would reform What think ye Were this sense yet to be learned the want whereof causes endles Errours among Sectaries would not common Prudence rather take it from à liuing Oracle which has taught the world time out of mind than from à late Nouellist that Professes himself fallible and Therefore may most easily Misinterpret would appear ridiculous to all the best Records This liuing Oracle at least promises infallibility Which Shall be proued presently And therefore is à Surer Principle to rely on Then The Fathers Sentences long Since Written whilst Sectaries make Their sense and true meaning à Matter of Contest 23. Yet one word more and I end Mr Thorndick will Reform the present Roman Church Corrupted by the Primitiue supposed pure for the first 4. or 5. Ages I must needs demand first whether that Primitiue Church the Rule of his Reformation Questions proposed to our Aduersary was infallible and pure in those pretended fundamentals only necessary to Saluation though not in other Doctrins of lesser Moment Or. 2. Whether She because fallible as much needed Reformation in smaller Matters not called fundamental as this present Church is supposed to need Or. 3. Whether She was so entirely pure in euery doctrin little and great that She could not be brought to more Purity or be better Reformed Grant the first viz. That the Primitiue Church was vnerrable and pure in fundamentals only not in others The present Roman Church is as good as She was For our Aduersary own 's Her à true Church wherein Saluation may be had and thus far She needs no reforming Grant 2. that both these Churches because fallible might erre and perhaps haue erred in lesser Matters not named fundamental The Primitiue can be no Rule of Reformation to the present Church because that Primitiue is alike err 〈…〉 alike reformable And for ought men know as much out of the way of truth in Non-fundamentals as the present Church is Therefore I said aboue if the blind cannot lead the blind à Church wanting Reformation cannot reform another sick of the same malady 24. If finally it be Said the Primitiue Church was so infallible so pure euery way both in great and little Matters that She could not be more reformed in the first 5. Centuries for example We haue à Church once entirely pure And then vrge our Herein Satisfaction is most required Aduersary not barely to say it But to proue vpon indubitable Principles Scriptures Fathers or the General Consent of Christians that She continued not wholly as pure in the sixt seuenth or eight Age and so downward to our dayes as She was before To shew à Deficiency in this Church once confessedly true in after Ages will be more than an Herculian labour when it is demonstratiuely euidenced aboue That nothing but à Church equally as Ancient as Vniuersal and glorious in Miracles as the Roman is can probably impeach Her of the least Corruption Mr Thorndicks Mistake is that he makes as Sectaries vsually do à false Supposition his Proof He supposes A supposition made à Proof our Church corrupted in Doctrin and then will amend it according to his fancy by the Primitiue whereas he knowes or ought to know that we Catholicks deny His Supposition and say both are vnerrable and withall Assert that no Authority on earth can better inform vs of the Primitiue Doctrin than the present Roman Church which hath successiuely handed it to vs Age after Age. Howeuer to take away all ambiguity and further Dispute in this Matter you haue next three following Chapters which I hope will giue Satisfaction to the rational Reader More shall be added hereafter CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith 1. AS the Answer to the Question aym's at à clear and easy way of ending Controuersies Concerning Religion So the following Discourse tend's to settle one great truth in the minds of euery one viz. That both the Ancient and present Roman Catholick Church is not only infallible But that the what we intend to proue Aduersaries of Her infallibility destroy the very Essence of Christian Religion And deseruedly merit vpon that Account The name of Schismaticks and Heretiques also 2. To make good what 's now Asserted à few Postulata or Principles must be premised One is That Church which Promises and proues Herselfe infallible in Doctrin doth not only Vpon these following Principles facilitate but giues also absolute Security to Faith For such à Church Participat's most and comes neerest to that first Diuine Apostolical Spirit which confessedly was infallible 3. A. ◠Principle Whereas nothing hath or ought to haue à stronger Influence ouer the minds of men than Religion So nothing can discountenance it more than à stedfast Perswasion of its Fallibility and Consequently of it 's easily being False This Perswasion Cut's of all Christian Assurance and driues men to so cold an Indifference of embracing this or that Religion That it much import's not which to take to any or none 4. A. 3. Principle The means or influence whereby Christ preserues his Church infallible needs not to be explicated by any Supernatural quality personally inhering in the Teaching Representatiue or intrinsecally eleuating the conuened Prelates to à State of Infallibility for t' is enough that the safe Conduct of Almighty God who is alwaies vigilant and Assists by his exteriour Protection so secures the Church from errour that She neither What the Churches Infallibility requires can be misled when She teaches nor mislead others Yet I deny not but that an interiour Motion of Grace may be yea and often
improbable Yea and destroies Protestancy It is And why improbable Because it cannot be Supposed that any priuate man or men haue vsed full Diligence to vnderstand the Scriptures Sense And that à Church of à thousand years standing hath neglected à Duty so necessary But these priuate men whether Arians Protestants or Socinians and the Church draw contradictory Senses from Scripture And all these iarring Sectaries with their different Senses defend not truth Therefore some of them let the fault yet light where you will haue not vsed Diligence nor righly vnderstood God's word The Question now is and some Oracle must decide it where or in whom this Misunderstanding lies Most willingly would I haue this one Difficulty folued and t' is worth the Labour whilft euery one See's it is no more certain that the Protestant hitt's on the Scriptures true Sense than it is certain that the whole Church after à thousand years Diligence mistakes it Can this think ye be euer cleared in behalf VVhy Should Sectaries his right on the Scriptures Sense of Protestants by any Proof so much as meanly Probable It is Impossible Wherefore I Conclude Their Grand Principle is rotten at the very root fail's all that Rely on it I will say it once more If the Protestant hath no greater Certainty of his Sense of Scripture than it is certain That he hitts right and the Church Err's in her Sense His Belief after all industry And the Church be deluded vsed stands vnprincipled rests on his own fancy and is not rectifiable while he iudges so Say the very vtmost it is no more but à meer hazard whether he belieues or no and this destroies Protestancy Thus much of Scripture 21. The next thing pleadable in behalf of Mr Stillingfleets Truth and Reason may perhaps be the Authority of Holy Fathers It is weightles if the Church be fallible or has Erred And first Protestants say all Fathers are liable to Errour I add more and Assert if that Church whereof They were Members taught or can teach false Doctrin it is à meer vanity to seek for certain Truth or any satisfactory Reason in the Fathers Writings What can Streams the Fathers were no other be Supposed pure and The Sectaries pretence to Fathers improbable the Head fountain Gods own Oracle Poysoned and infected Did they hit right vpon our Christian Verities when their only Guide Christ's sacred Spouse misled Posterity Could they Dedicate all their Labours to make an Oracle renowned that afterward whispered Errours into all mens ears These are Paradoxes I Say then it is à stronger and far more reasonable Principle to Assert That the Church neuer erred nor can erre Than first to Suppose Her erroneous And next to find truth in the Fathers who were no more but Schollers and suck't the milk of purest Doctrin from the Brests of this their Mother The Catholick Church If She therefore poysoned them with fals learning both She and They yet poyson vs And consequently neither the Church nor Fathers deserue credit nor can be prudently Belieued 22. And here by the way I cannot but reflect vpon à strange Procedure vsual with Sectaries in All their Polemicks First The procedure of Sectaries vnreasonable they Suppose the Church and Councils errable yea actually misled in Asserting Purgatory Transubstantiation c. And to Rectify what is thought Amiss Some few Gleaning of Fathers how little to the purpose is seen aboue are produced and these Forsooth must stand as it were in battail Array fight against à whole Church and ouerthrow Her Errours Is this think ye Reasonable Can it be imagined that God preserued his Reuealed truths in the Hearts thoughts and words of à few Fathers and suffered his Vniuersal Church with so many learned Councils conuened after the Four First to fall presently into so shameful à Dotage as Sectaries charge vpon Her Were the Fathers Then illuminated and was the Church afterward darkened and besotted There is none so blind But must needs se Himselfe out of Countenance by aduenturing to Defend à Tenet so highly Contrary to all Reason Wherefore I must earnestly petition the Reader once more to reflect vpon the greatest Folly which Methinks euer entred the Thoughts of men Thus it is The primitiue To say the Fathers taught truth and that che Church deserted Truth Fathers not many in number Who wrote in the First three or four Centuries in different Times and Places perused by few and vnderstood by Fewer are Supposed to Deliuer exactly the Catholick Verities What They sayd was True And an Ample Vniuersal Church together with Her Learned Councils known to All spread the whole world ouer for à Thousand yeares and vpward must be Supposed so Abominably sinful Is worse then a Paradox so Fearfully misled as to Desert the Ancient Faith of Those Fathers to Peruert God's Truths And Finally to Bring into the Vast Moral Body of Christians à Vniuersal Mischiefe à Deluge of Errour of Idolatry And no man knowes what If this be not pure Phrensy there was neuer any 23. The last Principle to ground Truth and Reason vpon or to bring Controuersies to an end is Vniuersal Tradition but this also Fail's to vphold Truth if the Church be fallible For who will or can with certainty trust the Tradition of à Church or so much as take the Book of Scripture from Her were she branded with this foul Note of hauing Publickly taught and wilfully imposed à hundred Doctrins vpon Christians contrary to Gods reuealed Reuealed Truths But more of this aboue C. 5. 6. 24. After all you se first Truth and Reason brought to Ruin Faith and Religion vnhinged if the Church and Councils be Fallible You se 2. These Inferences Setled vpon vndeniable Principles The Church is infallible Ergo Controuersies are without Perplexity ended Contrarywise The Church is Fallible Ergo Contentions Clear Inferences against Sectaries goe on without Redress endlesly Scripture as you haue heard because differently Sensed decides nothing No more do the Fathers Say Sectaries confessedly fallible Church and Councils are reiected as errable when and as often as Sectaries please Those that Dispute of Religion Yet more Fallible are not to be Iudges in their own Cause and without à Iudge Their best Arguments will be thought by all Prudent men no more but Vnconcluding Topicks And really they neither are nor can be better for want of Principles and some Oracle Infallible 25. Whoeuer desires to haue the Principle I Rely on further established by clear Inferences drawn from our Aduersaries needs only to read M. Stillingfleet from page 534. to the end of that 2. Chapter My Principle is There is no possibility of ending strife touching Religion if the Church and Councils be fallible yet Mr. Stillingfleet and his Lord Say they must haue some end or They 'l tear the Church à sunder My Task then is to show that these mens Doctrin Tears all in pieces and makes Controuersis
of faith void For suppose I belieue Euery Resolution made null by this Obiection the Trinity because God hath reuealed the Mystery plainly in Holy Scripture I Ask whether God's Testimony supposed the Principle of belieuing be more infallible then the Trinity which is belieued vpon it here called the Conclusion Say The Diuine Testimony is more Infallible I 'll Affirm the very same of the Churches Proposition For what the Church speak's God speak's Answer No. And giue this reason Because we belieue the Testimony and the Mystery attested by one Indiuisible certain Act of Faith which tend's infallibly vpon both these Obiects at once without making Conclusions The difficulty ceases And hereby you se How the Churches Testimony is the Clearer Principle first How the Churches Testimony is à Principle to the thing belieued For euery one knowes that à Formal Obiect compared with its Materialâ— which lies in darkness is the greater Light and has the preheminence to be immediatly known For it Self and not for another Whereas the material Obiect would still remain in à State of obscurity and neuer be yeilded to but by the Energy of its formal Motiue In this sense therefore the vltima ratio assentiendi or formal Obiect may be well called the more certain Principle Though as I now said the Assent be indiuisibly terminated vpon both Obiects infallibly 18. You se 2. Where the mistake of our Aduersarie lies He Supposes faith generated by Discourse First that we belieue The Mistake discouerd the Trinity for example vpon one Principle Viz. The Churches Tradition or Testimony and then descend lower to belieue the same Mystery vpon God's Reuelation distinct from the Churches Testimony As if forsooth the Churches Testimony were an â—xtrinsecal condition preparing all to belieue vpon the Diuine Reuelation This must be intended or nothing is said to the Purpose now we vtterly deny the Supposition and Say when we belieue the Trinity or any other particular Mystery vpon the Churches Testimony or rather vpon this reuealed truth God speaks so by the Church We then elicite not two distinct Acts one depending on the other but with one One Indiuisible tendency in Faith indiuisible tendency of Faith belieue at once the Formal and Material Obiect together That is we belieue God speaks the truth by the Church which is to say we Assent to it because he speak's it by his own infallible Oracle 19. This one syllogâ—sm clear's all What the Church Saies is true The Church Saies God has reuealed the Trinity Ergo that 's true We resolue the Maior or first Proposition thus What the Church saies iâ— true That is What God speaking by the Church saith is true But God speaking by the Church Saies the Mystery of the Trinity is Ergo That 's true Where you see we only Discourse could Faith be so generated which some Diuines Assert from the Formal obiect or from Gods Reuelation to the Material belieued Now Mr Stillingfleet makes this Sense of the Maior Proposition and here lies his Errour that the Church Saies of Her self not including Gods Reuelation is The Errour more Clearly pointed at an act of Faith and true But the Church of her own sole Authority saith God reuealed the Trinity Ergo I must first belieue the Mystery by one act of Faith vpon the Churches Testimony as à Preparatiue to belieue it better vpon Gods pure Reuelation which is another distinct Formal Obiect from the Churches Testimony This Discourse is implicatory First because the Churches Testimony if separated from the Diuine Reuelation can ground no act of Faith 2. If which is true it only cooperates with or consummates the ancient Reuelation in order to the Belief of any Mystery it can help nothing to bring in à Conclusion wholly as obscure as it self is That word Conueyance beguiled Mr Stillingfleet for he thought if the Churches Testimony conueyes vnto vs the ancient Reuelation What beguiled thy Aduersary it must be excluded from being infallible and much more from being à ioynt Motiue with it Herein lies his Errour 20. It is difficult enough To Say what He would be at in his two next pages Some times he will haue no want of Euidence in faith as to the Reason inducing to belieue And if he means That what we Assent to by faith must be euidently Credible before we belieue it s à Truth but if he will haue the very act of Faith elicited to be euident the Apostle Heb. 11. 1. Faith implies Obscurity contradict's him For Faith is an Argument of things not appearing Sometimes again he saith the Assent is not requried to what is obscure and Vneuident And then to mollify the Proposition add's But what is euident to vs And theresore credible In à word Obscure Doctrin if he intend's thus much only That the euâ—dence of credibility precedes the inâ—â—dent act of Faith all is well But by one Instance we may guess where he err's The manner of the Hypostatical vnion Saith he is to vs ineuident wherevnto God requires not our Assent but to the truth of the thing it selfe Answer good Sr Is the truth of the Hypostatical vnion in it selfe or of the Trinity euident to vs Where lies that Euidence The truth of the Trinity euident to no Belieuer Or vpon what Principle is it grounded Hereticks are found that for the very difficulty of these ineuident Mysteries deny both And the best Orthodox Christians ingenuously Profess they so far Surpass all natural capacities That ther is no assenting to either but only by an humble submissiue Faith which essentially implies Obscurity If therefore what you say bo true We may lawfully suspend our Assent where God giues not euidence of the thing Assented to you may Consequently suspend your Assent and neither belieue the Trinity nor the Incarnation 21. Page 140. He demands why we belieue the Resurrection of the dead We Answer because God reueal's it An Obiection Proposed But Questioned again why we belieue that God hath reuealed it We Answer because the infallible Church saies God did speak it whereby it is plain that though our first Reply be from God's Authority yet the last Resolution of our faith is made into the infallibility of the Churches Testimony For though God had reuealed it yet if this Reuelation were not attested by the Church'es infallible Testimony we should not haue sufficient ground to belieue it Therefore the Churches infallibility must be more credible then the Resurrection of the dead 22. To giue à Satisfactory Answer please to hear what I demand also Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour is Answered by Scripture it selfe the true Messias because Christ spake the Truth with his own sacred mouth Iohn 4. 26. And if he belieues Scripture He Assents again to that truth vpon S. Iohns Testimony And so firmly belieues it that if the Euangelist or some other of like authority had not wrote it he could not haue
vnderstanding to an infallible Assent 4. To Solue this pressing Argument many learned Diuines ascribe and Methinks most reasonably so great an Euidence to the Motiues of credibility so strong à connexion between The Iudgement of learned Diuines them and the Diuine Reuelation that it 's impossible to separate what God has conioyned Viz. The Truth of his Reuelation from the euident appearance or rather the real Exhibition of so many glorious Miracles so much blood shedding for Christ so great Sanctity Such innumerable conuersions wrought vpon Millions c. These and the like Signal wonders taken atlogether God cannot permit to be done in his name and with all their Circumstances to confirm à Faith which tend's to no other end but Holiness of life and euerlasting happines vnless the Diuine Testimony were really in Being as these Signs conuince VVhere in the force of Church Motiues lies 5. To illustrate more this necessary Truth be pleased to consider à little wherin the weight of our Church Motiues lies and first behold them as they are Positiues Signes Miracles Sanctity Conuersions so positine that neither Iew nor Gentil can deny one of them 2. Carry well in mind this negatiue Truth also The want of Arguments to the Contrary I would Say Nothing like à rational Proof can be alleged against them but what equally discredit's the admirable Wonders of Christ and hie Apostles Add herevnto 3. That no Society of men be they Heathens Iewes or Hereticks haue hitherto shewen or shall hereafter shew Signes Comparable to these in confirmation of any doctrin apposite to that which the Catholick Church teaches God's exteriour voyce net â—mitable by the Diuel or any false Prophet 6. From what is here hinted at and the Principles already laid I Discourse farther God can speak to creatures in à Language worthy himselfe and so proper to his own great Maiesty that no false Prophet can forge counterfeit or perfectly imitate it The Assertion seem's manifest For if his own Language be forgeable or imitable by Enemies It is impossible to judge by any Sign whether he or the Diuel speaks Nay it followes clearly that God Cannot speak at all in à Language worthy himselfe or powerful enough to gain Belief For if His voyce be not distinguishable from that of an Enemy How Shall men yeild à surer Assent to God when He speaks than to an Impostor that speak's like him 7. Thus much supposed these two things follow ineuitably Church Motiues certainty Speak Something and in right Order First Something is certainly signified by these Marks and signal Motiues manifest in the Church and consequently they are either God's Voice or the Diuels Take which you will If God's own Voice for etiam factis loquitur Deus Saith S. Austin it is so clear and discernable by it selfe from another cogging Gypsie Language that all may know it proceed's from God Or if this cannot be known it auails him not what followes if the Language of the Motiues be an illusion to speak when the language he vtters cannot possibly be discerned to be his Contrarywise if you say The whole Aggregation of Motiues are à meer illusory language of God's professed Enemies you vndoe all you destroy the Euidence of Christianity you annul our Sauiours most glorious Miracles and render the Apostles admirable wonders not only insignificant but contemtible to Iewes and Gentils Let therefore the man appear in publick who dare boldly Assert All the illustrious Motiues and markes God either Speaks by them or Christianity Perishes of the Catholick Church which as I said certainly signify something are the Language of Diuels or false Prophets when it is euident they induce to belieue à Doctrin most Pious and sacred If you Affirm Christianity goes to wrack Say no or acknowledge such supernatural Signes to proceed from God we haue enough the very Lustre of ithem so discountenances and abashes Heresy that it appear's as â—t truely is in the highest measure improbable 8. Hence we see T' is the second inference and the chiefest thing I aym at an inseparable Connexion between these supernatural Signes and the thing signified I mean between the Motiues and the Diuine Reuelation For if it be certain that such Signes The Connexion asserted followes from hence proceed from God which is indubitable vnless either Diuel or false Prophet fourge them None can doubt but that God's interiour Reuelation actually exist's as the Motiues Morally Euident do Conuince 9. You will Say If the Motiues haue an Infallible Connexion with Gods internal Reuelation that very Reuelation and Consequently the Mystery Reuealed must also appear euident Faith not Euident though the Motiues haue an Essential Connexion in Themselues to all Belieuers And so faith would be Euident I deny the Consequence because the Assent giuen to that Connexion which implies the highest Moral certitude conceiuable vnder the degree of most strict Euidence is Science and not Faith For it saies no more but thus much The Diuine Reuelation not seen in it Selfe but only by the light of external Signs is by virtue of these Signes made euidently Credible Now this euidence Faith as Faith leaues Or laies aside And firmly adheres to the Diuine Reuelation only for it Selfe as Contradistinct both from the Moral Euidence of the Motiues and their apparent Connexion with the Reuelation 10. The reason is taken from the Notion of Faith which essentially tend's obscurely vpon its own Obiect as the most ancient Fathers assert whose words because known to Euery one I waue at present and will only mind you of what some Protestants teach Faith Saies one and the Twi-light seem to agree in this Properly The nature and tandency of Faith that à mixture of darkness is requisite to both with too refulgent light the one vanishes into knowledge as the other into day Thus much granted t' is clear that no Euidence of the Testimony assented to can moue to Faith not only because we should in the case of Euidence be necessitated to belieue But vpon this account also that the certitude of Faith taken from the Supremest Verity is of à higher Strain and far surpasses all the certitude we find in Nature or in the Motiues inducing to belieue For were it possible as it is not that these Motiues and all the preuious Proofs leading to Beliefe could deceiue it is yet more impossible that God's infinite The excellence of it surpasses all created Certitude Veracity deceiues any Now by Faith we lay hold vpon this most Supreme or All-comprehending Infallibility proper to God alone not communicable to any creature And in this sense Faith far transcend's the Certitude of the forementioned Connexion which is known to be Infallible by Natural Discourse only 11. It is true The more euident these Motiues appear the better they induce to belieue yet for that reason haue lesse to doe with the very act of Faith which as I sayd rest's vpon and
One only Society Proposeth Faith which is rational which is rational and consequently obliges all to belieue her Doctrin 12. Hence you see that euery one in the Choise of Religion is to ponder in the first place those weightly Arguments which make an Election prudent And then it is prudent not otherwise when Signes from Heauen Gods own Marks heighten What makes an Election Prudent the Religions Credibility so far aboue all other false and forged Sects That these at the first full Sight appear as they are horrid gastly and contemptible 13. If you will Discouer more clearly what I would haue reflected on in this Particular Be pleased to compare Heathenism Iudaism Turcism and finally Aeresy with one glorious Roman Catholick Church Speak plainly Can you find in these any thing like the Miracles the Conuersions the large Extent the Vnity and Sanctity of this one most Euidenced Oracle I need not proue the Negatiue You cannot for its Demonstrable to sense Heathenism and Heresy are now things of Scorn the whole world ouer Iudaism t' is true once had its No Society Comparable to the Roman Catholick Church in this rational Euidence Signes and Miracles wherein it far surpassed Heresy which neuer had nor will haue any like it Howeuer Christ's Illustrious Kingdom his Church Militant vastly surmount's that Ancient and now decayed Lustre of Iudaism And thus much briefly of the Euidence of Credibility which once had Faith most firm easily followes and without it none can belieue 14. A second Proposition Faith in this present State is resolued into the Authority of God the first Verity speaking by the Church This way of resoluing Faith is both plain and easy The Plainest resolution of Faith and very suitable to the common Apprehension of euery one learned and vnlearned who if Questioned why they belieue any Diuine Mystery readily Answer Sic docet Sancta mater Ecclesia So our Holy Mother the Catholick Church teaches And they Answer well For the First Instrumental Principle where into Faith is resolued must be so clear and Conspicuous à Rule that all may easily learn the Doctrin deliuered by it 15. The Assertion is plainly laid forth Deut. 30. V. 11. The Assertion Proued by Scripture The Commandment I command this day is not aboue thee nor farr off nor situated in Heauen that thou mays't Say Who of vs is able to ascend into Heauen to bring it to vs That is To know where true Faith is taught we need not to weary our selues with much Speculation or expect that God in Heauen lay open the sense of Scripture by Enthusianisms or any Priuate Reuelation Nor placed beyond the Sâ—a that thou may'st pretend which of vs can passe ouer the sea and bring it to vs. And hereby That endless Labour that euerlasting Inquisition Sectaries endles Labour made after Truth proper to Sectaries seem's reiected Originals must be examined Passages of Scripture compared History sought into Libraries turned ouer Languages learned Yea and the very particular Mysteries of Diuine Faith must be weighed by humane Reason and thus they descend into the Abyss of God's secrets before they come to Satisfaction in Religion All is toylsome all dissatisfactory all endless A more short and easy way is at hand For saith the Scripture Iuxta est sermâ— valde in ore tuo The word is very neere thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart to doe it And the Apostle Rom. 10. 8. Applyes this very Passage to the Word of our Christian Faith Hence I argue 16. But the Church is that first Instrumental Principle The Church is the first Instrumental Principle and most easy Rule which teaches our Christian Verities Scripture teaches them not so plainly Therefore Faith may well bee resolued into the first Verity speaking by the Church and whoeuer resolues it without all dependance of this liuing Oracle put 's the Conclusion before the Premises as we shall see afterward 17. I proue the first part of my Assertion 1. It is as euidently credible that God speak's to all by the Church as that he anciently spake by the Prophets and Apostles For we haue the same supernatural Signes manifested in all these Oracles à The Churches Euident Credibility parallel with that of the Apostles like as is largely shown aboue and Consequently haue with them the same Grounds of an Euident Credibility But Euident Credibility induced the Faithful to belieue those manifested Prophets and Apostles Ergo the Churches Euident Credibility euery way Parallel induces all in this present State to belieue this Oracle 2. God is equally infallible Yea one and the A second reason same Verity whether He speak's by one single Person or many and must be heard with all profound Submission Prouided that the Oracle He speak's by bee made immediatly Credible A third and by the lustre of Supernatural wonders as most euidently the Church is 3. The Church Answerable to the Prophets and Apostles is à Liuing Oracle and vpon that Account able to Solue all doubts which may occurr in controuerted Matters but the Clarity of à liuing euidenced Oracle ready to decide all such difficulties makes the Rule of Faith easy and much auail's to à clear Resolution 4. Our Analysis into God's Veracity Speaking fourth reason by the Church Stand's firm vpon that first Principal and infallible Motiue the Diuine Tâ—stimony it Selfe I call it Principal because the Church is only Instrumental as we now said whereby God speak's And this Resolution is made without any danger of à Process in Infinitum or the least Shadow of à vicious Circle as Shall presently appear by giuing the last Analysis 18. In the Interim know thus much To proue the second The other part of the Assertion it manifest part of our Assertion viz. That Scripture is not à Rule so perspicuous and clear in deliuering the very Chiefe Articles of Faith as the Church is in controuerted Matters were to proue à plain Euidence For what can be more manifes't then that wee and all Hereticks pas't and present are at endless debates concerning the true Sense and meaning of those very words we read in Scripture Yet the Ruel of Faith Sectaries confess it ought to bee clear open and manifest to all I waue all further discourse vpon this Subiect and here adioyn our last Analysis 19. One demand's why I belieue that great Mystery of the Incarnation I may well Answer first God's own sacred The last Resolution giuen Word which we call Scripture Asserts it The next Question will be Why I belieue this to be Scripture I answer The same God speaking by his own Oracle the Church affirm's it A third Question followes Why doe I belieue that God speak's thus by the Church I Answer the Ground of my Faith in All Demands answered this particular is God's own speaking and the very same with that hee spake by the Apostles As therefore his Own word vttered by
in matters most Fundamental other Rules and means must be vsed The Original Languages are to be examined seueral Passages compared together daily Reading and pondering the different places with much Prayer also seem What Sectaries acknowledge necessary What is this to Say but that their reading pondering and comparing are in order to them means and Rules more immediatly known then the hidden Sense of Scripture Herein then lies the difference that we in Lieu of their fallible reading recurr to an Infallible Church and Say her Testimony is more perspicuous easy and clear to vs than the dark Verities in Scripture are to them after all their pondering and comparing CHAP. XII The last Obiection Proposed VVhether the Churches Testimony may be called the Formal Obiect of Faith Other Notes and Considerations Concerning The Resolution of Faith 1. A 6 th Obiection If God whereof no man doubt's once said in Scripture The Word was made flesh its needless to speak the same Truth again by the Church Nay this God has spoken the Same Verity by different Oracles seem's impossible vnless the Churches Testimony be properly the Formal Obiect of Faith Answ The first part of the Obiection contains no difficulty for it is certain God has spoken the same Verities by distinct and different Oracles by different Euangelists for example And why cannot he as well speak them again by an Euangelist and the Church If the Church be absolutely infallible for the Diuersity of the Organs or Oracles He speak's by diuersifies not at all his Sacred word 2. Now to what is hinted at concerning the formal Obiect A question proposed I Ask whether this Assertion in Catholick Principles be not de Fide and reuealed by Almighty God Euery Doctrin proposed by the Church is true The Catholick Answer 's affirmatiuely And here is one Verity as an Instance for many The Church is infallible or cannot err I Ask again whether this very Proposition made by the Church may not be belieued vpon Her own Authority What somâ— Diuines answer by an Act of Diuine Faith Some Diuines Answer negatiuely and Discourse thus The Assent giuen to the Authority or Proposition of the Church is not Faith but rather an extrinsecal disposition to Faith So that by one Assent we first Say The Churches Proposition is infallible and afterward by à true Act of Faith belieue the Truth proposed by Her vpon God's pure Reuelation contained in Scripture or vpon Apostolical Tradition 3. Though this Discourse which defend's the Churches absolute Infallibility giues no aduantage to Sectaries yet it seem's Their Answer Seem's difficult difficult for two reasons chiefly First if à firm and infallible Iudgement terminated vpon the Churches neuer erring Proposition which fully declares Christ real Presence in the Eucharist for example Precedes the true belief of that Mystery grounded on Scripture or Apostolical Tradition That very faith as grounded on Scripture would be à necessary obscure act generated by the Discourse or ineuitably inferred from the Connexion between the Churches infallible Proposition not assented to by Faith and the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture The Inference is clear For the Church Saies infallibly Christ is really present And I Assent to that Truth but by no Act of Faith say these Yet from thence I euidently inferr That He is really present and this is done before I belieue the Verity by Supernatural Faith I think this cannot What is necessarily inferred vpon that Iudgement be granted Some Answer that preuious Iudgement is only à condition disposing to belieue and not the Cause or Motiue why I belieue Contra. Call it cause call it condition or what you please by virtue of that Iudgement I Assent to the truth of the Mystery in it selfe and from thence must necessarily infer that God has reuealed it before I belieue it by supernatural Faith And this is to Discourse not from the formal Obiect of Faith to the material which may be probably defended but from one Principle purely extrinsecal to Faith viz. The Churches Proposition obscurely known to the Diuine Testimony and the matter reuealed 4. A second Reason God truely speak's by the Church which is as well known by its own lustre and Miracles to be à Diuine Oracle as euer Prophet or Apostle were known to be so The Church immediatly Credible by their Signatures and Miracles No Disparity can be giuen But these Prophets and Apostles were made by their Marks and Wonders immediately Credible therefore the Church hold 's Parallel and is also by it Selfe and for it Selfe immediatly credible And hence it followes That the Churches Infallibility may and must in à General way be belieued before we come to an infallible Belief of Scripture For to Say I must first belieue by true Faith the Churches Infallibility vpon Scripture And to Say again I cannot first belieue that very Scripture to be Diuine This way of belieuing implâ—x and intricate or to speak truth But vpon the Churches Testimony seem's if not impossible at least à very implex intricate and à difficult way of Belieuing I say first belieue For none in this present state can know the Scriptures Diuinity without Church Authority 5. For these and many other Reasons I Conclude that this Proposition made by the Church She is an Oracle teaching all The Church can ground an act of Diuine Faith truth whereby men may attain Saluation is à sufficient Motiue to ground an Act of Diuine Faith vpon The learned Suarez to omit many other Diuines Disp 9. de Fidâ— Sect. 9. n. 14. Speak's most profoundly and pertinently to my purpose Ipsa Ecclesia seipsam proponit vt veram quia c. The Church proposes Herselfe as true and because she is sufficiently and euidently proposed therefore she obliges all to belieue such à Verity no less then other things appertaining Diuines teach So. to Faith Iust after that manner as à true Prophet who sufficiently proposes truths reuealed to him by God Consequently Sufficiently proposes himselfe to be à true Prophet Moreouer Disp 3. de Fide Sect. 11. n. 11. Quod Ecclesia definit Deus per Ecclesiam testificatur VVhat the Church Defines God testifies the same Verity by the Church Scripture accord's Scripture is Consonant where the Church is called the Pillar and ground of truth The Fathers accord so vniuersally that à Volume would not set forth their expressions Take only these two in place of many S. Cyril in Conc. Ephes Tom. 1. de Nicaenis Ancient Fathers Speak most significently Patribus They the Fathers there were inspired by the Holy Ghost â—ot to recede from Truth Non enim iâ—si loquebantur c. For they spake â—â—t but Christ our Sauiour witnessing â—t was the Spirit of God and the Eternal Father that spaâ—e in them S. Greg. Lib. 1. Regist Epist 24 Is yet more significant where he professes no less Reuerence to the four General Councils then to the four
All skilful and well spirited Protestants might without any Tradition know it to be God's word This double resolution Supposed 12. Yet more Our Aduersaries maintain à twofold Resolution of Faith First into the Books of Scripture and these Books fallible Tradition without any Diuine light seen as yet Conueyes to vs For Tradition as they say is not Diuine 2. â—to the internal light of the Doctrin contained in the Books And into this light of Doctrin they Resolue their Faith not â—to Tradition 13. Now here you shall haue an vnanswerable Dilemma The Tradition which only Conueyes the Books as Contradistinct from the internal Doctrin makes that very Diuine Doctrin to sparkle we Argue against Sectaries more than it would sparkle without Tradition Or not If â—ot The light the Splendor the internal Lustre of that Doctrin Considered as Doctrin is and must be independent of Tradition and Shine as I now said by it Selfe as à Diamond doth though the Books were found in the Streets Contrarywise if the Tradition of the Books Augments in the least or makes the internal Doctrin there contained to appear more Diuine than it would appear without Tradition That very Tradition must be à ioint Motiue wherevpon we belieue the Diuinity of Scripture I proue it demonstratiuely That â—hich laies before the intellectual Eye of à Belieuer the Lustre light and Sparkling of the internal Doctrin contained in Scripture is the true cause or à Partial Motiue at least The force of the Argument why He belieues that Doctrin Tradition doth this Ergo it is à Partial Motiue why he belieues the Doctrin Or if it â—ail's not at all to discouer that Lustre of the Doctrin the pretious Diamond of Scripture may be well discouered and known without Tradition I would willingly hear what our Adâ—ersaries can reply to this very plain and as I think no triuial Obiection without reminding vs of their killing flies 14. To Say more in this place is needles hauing proued in the other Treatise that the Maiesty and sparkling of Scripture what the true Maiesty of Scripture is lies not in the exteriour Syntax or in any outward Connexion of words common to other pious Books But Contrarywise in the Special Assistance wherewith God directed the Hagiographers to write as also in his own Diuine Volition which Seal'd and approued all that 's Writ as Verities issuing from no other fountain but from Truth it selfe Herein consist's the Dignity worth and Maiesty of Holy Scripture 15. Now because that Diuine Assistance and God's internal Volition whereby Scripture is approued as most sacred are no Obiects of sense It necessarily followes that none can discouer The true Excellence not discouerable by our exteriour Sonses the true Excellence of that Holy Book by any Inspection though most diligently made into the Syntax or outward words of it only Hence I said Had. S. Iohn not at all recorded that truth in his Gospel The word is made flesh buâ— some other without Diuine Assistance had left the Verity written in Velume The words and Truth also would haue been the very same now and then yet very different in their value if Considered as Proceeding from the Spirit of truth in the one case and from no Diuine Assistance in the other 16. By this its plain that the Maiesty of Scripture lies not in any expression of outward words Howeuer admit gratis it did doth that Majesty think yee help any to vnderstand its Though the Maâ—esty of Scripture lay in the words true Sense in Matters controuerted Euidently no. For manifest experience teaches that whole Multitudes of dissenting Christians both read and Reuerence the same bare letter Yea and haue the same Majesty of words laid open to their view yet so notoriously oppose one another and in Points most fundamental concerning the genuin Sense thereof that plain contradictions That would not auail to vnderstand the Sense are forced out of this sacred Book after their Reading But enough of this is said aboue And much more you haue of Mr Stillingfleets strange way of Resoiuing the Protestants faith in the other Treatise Discourse 1. C. 9. Where you may see that Protestancy is neuer medled with nor brought to any better Resolution by him than Arianism or à worser Heresy Yet I Say he took the right Course for in real Truth Protestants haue no Faith to resolue which truth will better appear in the following Chapter where we examin whether true Religion Can be found out by Reason CHAP. XIV The Mistakes of some Sectaries in this Controuersy It s necessary to distinguish between true Reason and fallacious Reasoning Priuate Reason liable to Errour Principles presupposed to the Decision of this Question Reason easily finds out true Religion by à rational Euidence preuious to Faith 1. SOme who endeauour to make à Friendly Agreement The Attempt of some Sectaries between Reason and Religion wholly omit to discusse the mainest point of all which concern's Christianity And T' is in à word to tell vs whether amongst those innumerable Religions now swarming in the world whereof certainly many are false and Only is true men by the force of prudent who Omit the main Business concerning Religion Reason can come to the Knowledge of the true One. This is the Vnum necâ—ssarium worth our knowledge indeed For what auailes it to hear of an Agreement between Reason and Religion if I cannot by the light of Reason find out that Religionwhich God hath established It would be but à comfortles Word should One Say Sir There is à rich Inheritance in the world belonging to you but neither you nor I nor any other after all diligence vsed can tell you where or what it is 2. This and it is à grand Omission may be well grounded The ground of their Omission on another errour these Authors Maintain who first make à Religion according to their own Phansy and then offer to Shew the Reasonableness of it Wheras All iustly expect to haue at least in à General way some Hint of that full Doctrin which Christian Religion comprises before we Cry it vp as reasonable or yeild our Assent to it Thus much neither is nor can be done by any Sectary And mark how we are left dissatisfyed 3. After some general Duties pointed at which belong to Their Distinction of Fundamentals and others improbable natural Religion we hear of à Distinction between the Fundamentals of Faith and Others Then we are told that All the Fundamentals are contained in the Apostles Creed And that if we go beyond the Creed for the Essentials of Faith none can Say where we shall stop Answ Sr you are told in this Treatise where the stop is to be made And there also you will find this late Inuented Distinction of Fundamentals and no Fundamentals cast away as vnsound Doctrin All I will Say at present is that you build vpon Sand you make à meer fancied Supposition
They destroy not eo ipso Probability in Arianism or in any other false Sect Therefore the Conuiction drawn from these Arguments must be so strong That one as is now noted may without Hesitancy The Strength of this Euidence boldly Say first Induced by the force of Euidence its manifest to reason that God has founded one only true Religion 2. Induced by the force of Euidence I'ts manifest This and none but this is the Religion He founded 3. Induced by the force of Euidence its manifest to reason that All other Sects called Religions are false And not only false but in the highest degree perniciously improbable 28. These Assertions Stand firm vpon this one Principle God Gouern's the world whereof no Christian doubt's He The works in nature speak Gods power and Wisdom giues Being to euery creature His Power and Wisdom are most discernable by these works in Nature And shall we haue no clear knowledge think ye of his Wisdom care and singular Prouidence drawn from the Noble works of Grace laid open to all Mens View and most manifest before our Eyes in that admirable Fabrick of true Christian Religion founded by him Shall the works in Nature speak plainly their Creator And the Admirable wonders of Grace be silent And shall the manifest works of Gâ—ace be silent of their Author The common Sense of all rational men disclaims the Paradox And must if induced by Reason acknowledge an Euidence in that Oracle whereby God vouchsafes to Speak But if à false Sect could either Surpasse in its Marks and Indications or so much as Equalize The true Religion That Specious Euidence leading to belieue would Cease and be so much Eclypsed that none could by the force of Reason Say This is the way that lead's to Heauen This is the Religion which God founded And consequently all might shake of the Obligation of belieuing seing none can belieue without à preuious Clear knowledge had of what He is bound to Assent to The Religion therefore I am obliged to liue and dye in must bee Clearly made discernable by its Marks from all false Spurious Sects or This obligation ceases whereof enough is said already CHAP. XV. From whence the Euidence hitherto mentioned Proceed's That Religion only is reasonable which Heauen declares reasonable The Declaration is euidently made in behalfe of the Roman Catholick Religion VVho is the misled reasoning Man Other Particulars handled The readiest way to Conuince Sectaries 1. IT remains now to Examin from whence the rational Euidence here pleaded for proceeds Methinks That receiued Maxim in Schools Qui dat Formam dat Consequentia God who founded Religion ad formam Help 's much to Answer pertinently For if the Cause that giues à Thing being giues it also what 's consequent or belongs to its Being And if all Vnanimously agree concerning the Cause and Author of true Religion This necessarily followes 2. The same God and infinite Goodnes that founded Religion laies also be fore vs the Euidence we Propugn But Layes forth its rational Euidence an Euidence proceeding from such an Author whose works are perfect and is annexed to the Religion which Wisdom it selfe giues Being to must needs bee clear and haue force to Conuince the most obdurate hearts May Prudence Sway and Passion be laid aside To explicate what is here said is to proue it All know that God who will haue vs walk to our last End by obscure Faith giues no Euidence of the Mysteries Considered in Themselues For none knowes the Trinity or that great work of the Incarnation by any Euident It is called the Euidence of Credibility On what it is grounded Principle clearly proposed to Reason Therefore the Euidence wee seek after must bee Extrinsick to the Mysteries belieued which Diuines rightly call the Euidence of Credibility and it is grounded vpon those visible supernatural works of Grace which an infinite Power only can produce And vpon this ground I Said The same God that found 's Religion laies before the Eye of reason its rational Euidence also 3. Hence I boldly Assert and T' is no less of singular comfort to all Faithful belieuers then of shame and Confusion to Heauens declaration Iewes and Heretiques That Religion only is reasonable and brings with it an Obligation of belieuing which Heauen it selfe declares reasonable That Religion only is reasonable which Euidently Supernatâ—ral Signs beares the Marks the Characters and Supernatural signatures of an Infinite Power and Wisdom That Religion only is reasonable which haâ— been approued by the publick Iudgement of the very best the most choise Publickly approued and learned who haue liued since the Creation of the world That Religion only is reasonable which by God's special Assistance hath wrought Admirable Conuersions Neuer Censured Strange Conuersions giues in Euidence of vndoubted Miracles preserueâ— vnity and was neuer yet Censured by any known Orthodox Christian That Religion finally is only reasonable which Assures euery one by à present Vniuersal Tradition of à Church diffused the whole world ouer VVhat God has Said what Christ hath taught and what Doctrin the Apostles preached Here is both Reason and in Tradition the Rule That giues Assurance of Faith with it Find me out then such à Faith such à Religion as euidences these Illustrious Marks the Cognisances and Signs of Heauen that 's only reasonable or none euer was or can be accounted Reasonable 4. We are now in the last place to Examin what Prophets what Teachers or finally what Church haue been Signalized with these strong pleading Testimonies with these Signs and Marks of Who or what Religion can shew these Masks and Signs Power and VVisdom The Iewish Church had them in some measure when Almighty God Exodus 9. 16. told Moses Posui te c. I haue placed thee my Seruant vt â—stendam in te fortitudinem meam to show my Power and Might And that by thee my name may be spoken of through the whole earth Certainly Christ our Lord manifested yet far greater Wonders Iohn 15. 24. If I had not done among them works which no other Man hath done c. Whilst the blessed Apostles preached none can doubt of their Miraculous Signs which Heauen Euidenced and God himselfe manifested by them Thus much supposed and no Sectary can Question the certainty of my Supposition 5. I will come neerer home And to lay Forth the Evidence of the Roman Catholick Church Speak this great truth None but She euer Since those Apostolical times hath had not only the like Vnity in Faith The like Supernatural Marks and The effects of power and wisdom wonders wrought in Her by an Infinite Power and Wisdom But also more Miracles greater Conuersions à greater number of Belieuers and Consequently à more Vniuersal consent of Hearts ioyned together in one Beliefe In à word as full an refulgent in the Marks of the Roman Catholick Church Euidence euery way
haue neither Inference nor Principle In very reallity neither true Consequence nor Consequentia No Inference because it s à meer Tautology or à bare repetition of what the Doctor had formerly asserted without Proof or Probability And Consequently far enough from the Nature of either Principle or Inference Had the Doctor brought in any thing like an Inference He Should haue Said Vpon such and such grounds already established It followes that these and what Should be proued these particular Doctrins of Protestants are true and immediatly deduced from this or that Principle But he totally abandon's the Protestants Faith and leaues his Fellow-sectaries as faithless as they were before he wrote these Principles The True Inference therefore or all that followes is that he hath lost his whole Labour 2. The. 2. Inference The Infallibility of that Society of men yet no Inference who call themselues the Catholick Church must be examined by the same Faculties in Man the same Rules of trial the same Motiues c. Answ Here is no Inference but the same thing repeated again which for the substance lies in his 6th Principle what Reason is to examin Now if we Speak of this Doctrin considered in it Selfe we easily grant that the rational faculties in men both may and ought to examin by the Light of prudent Motiues what Society of Christians is Infallible as also what Diuine Reuelation is made euidently Credible to Reason But herein à double Caution seem's necessary The first That Sectaries assume not to themselues the sole Faculty of examining and iudging but leaue to others à share of it also The second A twofold Caution to be obserued Prouiso is that Reason in this Search go not beyond its Bounds but pitch vpon that which is Reasons proper Obiect I mean vpon those Signatures of God's own Visible Wonders already explained These two Conditions obserued All is well Sectaries will soon Se their Errour 3. The. 3. Inference deduced out of no Principle falsly No want of Motiues and Miracles in the Church Supposes but proues not the want of Miracles and other conuincing Motiues in Roman Catholick Church It is largely refuted vpon seueral Occasions in euery one of these three Discourses 4. The fourth Inference From whence it comes I know not is thus The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and reason which any Church obtrudes vpon the Faith of men The greater reason men will haue to reiect the A Speech like that of Iewes and Arians Pretence of Infallibility in that Church as à grand imposture Answ Had à Iew who hold's it against Sense and Reason to belieue that God became an Infant Or had an Arian that denyes the Trinity because the Mystery seem's repugnant to his weak Reason Spoken after this manner None would haue much wondred But that à Doctor who pretend's to belieue these Fundamentals of Christian Religion Cannot find roome enough in his head for reason and Faith in euery particular the Church Teaches argues some little want both of the One and Other But say on what is it he boggles at O à Consecrated Wafer appear's to be bread and is not bread this is repugnant Sense beguiled to sense and reason Contra. Those two Angels that came to Lot Gen. 19. appeared to the Sodomits like mortal men but were not so Was not Reason here vpon the suggestion of Sense How rectifyed beguiled And are not both these faculties now rectifyed in vs by what we read in Holy Writ which ascertain's vs they were not men but Angels Thus it fall's out in the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament Wherefore I Say Were it not that God Speaking by Scripture and the Church assures vs that what we se is not substantianly bread the whole world would guided by outward Appearances hold it bread as those wicked Citizens iudged Lots entertained Guests to be men and not Angels But when eternal Truth interposes his Authority and tell 's vs by his own Oracles what is here contained vnder the Forms of bread is God in this Mystery interposes his Auâ—hâ—rity and vnbeguils reason not bread but Christ's Sacred body Reason yeilds vpon this most prudent Ground It is the highest reason in the world to belieue God though by reason we know not how things are Here is our Principle not possibly to be reuersed vnless the Doctor proues his Contrary Doctrin by the Authority of another Scripture or some other Church more euidenced by Supernatural Wonders and Consequently more Orthodox than the Roman Catholick Church is You may read the First Discourse C. 12. n. 4. where its Proued that the immediate Obiect of Sense Ceases not to be in this Mystery 5. Wherefore I Infer that if the Doctor would haue the Infallibility of that Church reiected as à grand Imposture because A hint giued to Iewes and Arians to reiect the Scriptures Infallibility it obtrudes vpon vs Doctrins in his Opinion repugnant to Sense and reason He ought also by good Consequence to Inuite both Iewes and Arians to reiect the Infallibility of Scripture as à grand Imposture where it Speak's of the Incarnation and the Sacred Trinity for certainly these Mysteries are far more aboue all Mens weak Reason then this other of the Blessed Sacrament is 6. The Doctors 5th and 6th Inferences deserue no such names because they are not deducible from any Principles being Vntrue Assertions in place of Inferences only his own plain Assertions and most vntrue Say I beseech you From what Principles can He infer That to disown à Church which teaches Doctrin aboue the reach of weak Reason is not to Question the Veracity of God but to adhere to that in what he hath reuealed in Scripture How can this be done Whilst the whole No knowing what Scriptâ—re Speaks without an Infallible Church world see 's the holy Book of Scripture so variously Sensed by dissenting men called Christians that none can conclude vpon any clear Principle which sense is true which false without owing à Church Infallible I Say aboue the reach of weak reason But not repugnant as the Doctor supposes For no Catholick Verity can be repugnant to Euident reason though much aboue it In à word That Doctrin is repugnant to Reason from whence two Contradictions clearly follow now I vrge the Doctor to giue vs any thing like à Contradiction in the Mystery already What 's Contrary to Reason mentioned of the blessed Sacrament That Doctrin is aboue Reason which cannot be known by the ayde of natural Principles only And thus the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity of the Incarnation of Original sin and Transubstantiation also are so far remoued from our natural faculties that none but God only can discouer them by his Supernatural Reuelation The 6th Inference And What 's aboue it where the Doctor tell 's vs That the Church of Rome neither is the Catholick Church nor any sound
sacred Doctrin hath been à Diuine vvork aboue the force of nature Thus much performed vve Shevv hovv Sectaries erre it their Search after Religion and euince that it is not found by their priuate pondering Scripture alone much lesse by any vnprincipl'd Glosses Lastly in this Discourse vve lay forth an easy vvay vvhereby all these vnfortunate Debates concerning Religion may come to à happy period THE RVLE OF FAITH Wherin the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Religion is established against Atheists Heathens Iewes Turks and all Sectaries CHAP. I. VVhether true Religion be in the world The Affirmative proved Against Atheists Atheism evidently Shewd'improbable 1. THe question may perhaps seem doubtful to many upon Different judgements Concerning true Religion these grounds First Who euer admit's of Religion must either hold it true upon the Authority of others or because he is perswaded it can be found out by his own search and industry If he relies on Authority He meet 's with as many Pretenders to truth as there are different Professors of Religions on earth The The most of men pretend to it Iew pleads for his as the most ancient the Christian for his the Turk for his the Heathen for following the light of nature and every one thinks well of his own way and votes his own Religion best If therfore à searcher after truth relies on Authority He can no more say these take the Christians word than the Heathens the Heathens then the Jewes the Jewes then the Turks the The diffically about the choise Arians then the Catholicks the Catholicks than the Protestants and Consequently ought in prudence to reject all Religion 2. On the other side if He chuse à Religion by the force of his private judgement only or own industry He is cast into à Labyrinth and shall never find an exit He is obliged in prudence to make à diligent search into all the different Sects which are or have bin since the first creation of things He is carefully to examin the causes of them the grounds they rely on the connexion or coherence they have with one an other He is to converse with the learned of these different Religions or read their books and then to pitch by his own erring judgement on what likes him best which perhaps may be worst of all This task you see is immense and no lesse unsuccesful than laborious mans life is spent before halfe the work be done Therfore it seems none can come to the certain knowledge of true Religion either by Authority or reason Ergo saith the Opponent there is no such thing as true Religion in Being 3. Contrariwise I say True Religion most evidently is in the True Religion is in being The reason of the Assertion world The Assertion is grounded on this certain verity God eternally existing by himself without cause and infinite in all perfection is in Being therfore true Religion cannot but bee also For Grant such à Being as God is necessary of himself without any superiour cause it followes He is to be adored by all rational creatures essentially inferiour to him and not by any false or mock-worship but in Spirit and Truth for such an adoration only suites his Divine nature Of the adoration due to God This reason is reinforced by the light of one indubitable Maxim Quod universis videtur est verum What appeares to all or at least to the most Civillized Nations to be à Truth is so for such à universal consent of nature is the Dictamen and voice of God the Author of nature But all Nations ever owned some Religion therfore this agreement of God and nature is à Truth The minor is evident All civillized Nations own à Numen to say nothing of Christians out of the very writings of Heathens who assure us though people are found so barbarous as to live without lawes learning or civil goverment yet no whole nation was ever yet heard of but owned some kind of Numen some sacrifice some homage some worship due to à power either falsly or truely judged worthy of Reverence and honour Neither is the One difficulty removed force of the Argument infringed by saying many and very many Nations erred in the Truth of Religion which may seem as great an Evil as to have none for thus much is only proved at present that the voice of nature more easily ownes Religion then it professes one true That therfore being the universal Testimony or General consent of all cannot be false Haec testimonia animae its Tertullians Doctrin which S. Cyprian borrowed from him quanto vera tanto simplicia quanto simplicia tanto vulgaria c. This general Truth by how much more pure and simple by so much it 's more vulgarly known by how much more vulgarly known by so much its more common by how much more common by so much it 's more natural by how much more natural by so much it 's more Divine Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertullian omni Doctrinâ agitatius omni homine Majus 'T is à learning more known and resolved in mans mind than all other learning greater then man is and therfore à certain truth setled in all by the Author of nature God himself Now that many err in the truth of The cause of Mistaking true Religion Religion proceeds without doubt too often from want of instruction sometimes from pride ignorance or Malice in the Teacher which is the deplorable case of condemned Hereticks Sometimes and this is most usual it comes from an obdurance of heart begot by à custome of sinning and transgressing against the very light of nature For this custome bring 's à punishment with it that it darken's the mind notoriously and makes reason à stranger not only to weighty rational motives which forceably draw us to good but more over it so stupifies so dulls and indisposeth à soul that the impressions of grace not wanting to the most barbarous touch as it were on flintly rocks and produce either â weak barren fruit or rather no penitential fruit at all Would therfore the most obdurate Scythians or any other uncivilized People yeild to the ordinary grace allowed them for the avoiding of sin known contrary to nature God who illuminates every man in the world would give more light until they came to the knowledge of truths necessary necessitate medij to attain saluation For this is an undoubted Maxim of Divines God is not wanting in necessaries and Facienti quod in se est non denegat gratiam He denies not grace to such as endeavour by the ordinary means afforded them to avoid sin contrary to nature but if careles of that duty which nature obliges to they voluntarily plunge themselves into an Abiss of horrid transgressions the obdurance now mentioned followes The powerful operation of grace lies stifled and much deaded in such hardned hearts and Consequently sense and love of pleasures bear greatest sway
there which makes reason à stranger to Gods truths and from hence gross errors concerning Religion take their rise and have their origen The objection above purely fallacious supposeth those different Pretenders to true Religion to be all of equal Authority and casteth mans weak and erring reason on too long and laborious à work True Religion is known with lesse Adoe then these Adversaries Imagin as we shal shew hereafter and solve the objection in its due place 4. I argue 2. from the assumed principle God exist's Therefore true Religion is and discourse thus There are and ever have been several Religions professed in the world and all are not false for if all were false God whose existence we now suppose would see himselfe not at all adored in spirit and truth but rather Universally scorned by an erroneous worship as if men had been created for this end to mock and abuse their Creator And this seem's contrary to the light of reason Now further All Religions are not false From false Religions one only true is proved ergo one onely is true because two or more which hold Contradictions can not be true and if one be true every rational creature is obliged to follow that when 't is clearly proposed and to worship his maker by à right way of Homage but this obligation must suppose the truth of Religion in being because no one can be obliged to embrace à foolery or to worship God by à meer nothing You will say one may be bound to follow an errour or an erroneous Conscience therefore the proof taken from this obligation evinces not the actual truth of Religion Answ When we are bound to follow an errour in à matter of chiese Concern the Contrary truth which all should assent to so really is that we may be unbeguiled and set right but if all Religions are false there is none true supposable and Consequently the Universal errour of all is à remedilesse evil If therefore God requires à true exhibition of worship from his Creatures He cannot permit all to err Universally and for this reason true Religion is in being You may reply God is independent of us all and need 's not our Homage or adoration Very true but man depend's upon God and by the instinct of nature is obliged to adore him in truth which instinct as we shall prove presently originally proceed's from the Author of nature and therefore God also obliges all to pay him the true tribute of praise and no Counterfeit worship Some Perhaps may object Religion seem's not Capable of à demonstration because that which is true de facto depend's on God's free Revelation the Credibility where of can be evidenced but not the truth I answer in the general assertion already made we abstract from the particular proofs relating to true Religion we treate with all who own à Deity and say these if God had not elevated man to supernatural beatitude or omitted to reveal the sublime mysteries of faith had in that State been obliged to adore theyr Creator with no false homage and thus much reason evinces although we cannot as the objection proves striciâ—ly demonstrate the truth of Christianity but only its Credibility whereof more and very amply hereafter In the mean while 5. Methinks I hear some who stand much for reason say that Atheists rational men oppose all Religion and why may not their Plea be heard in so weighty à matter Answ It s not my intention Atheism proved most unreasonable at present to combate too long with Atheists they are utterley overthrown by the learned Arguments of innumerable grave Authors I have other Adversaries to treat with However because their pretence is reason observe how they destroy not only Religion but reason also yea and extuinguish the very light of nature with it 6. The ground of Atheism is this prodigious accursed Principle There is no God no supreme Power no Numen no Providence for The accursed Principle of Atheism acknowledge à God and Providence reason evidently concludes He is to be adored in spirit and truth and this worship or Adoration we call Religion This Assertion then God is not is à prime truth or the first verity with Atheists wheron all their human actions depend by this supposed verity they are regulated during their mortal lise Contrariwise This Assertion God is an eternal Being by himself is à prime Loud falshood with them to be scorned by every one Hence I argue That first supposed verity God is not depraves the will extinguiseth the light of nature makes men execrable enormously wicked impious sacrilegious takes of all fear of future punishment and hope of reward For if there be no God or no supreme power to punish hainous offences the most hideous sins imaginable would cease to be pernicious and consequently every one might without check or torment of Conscience if it served his ends kill and destroy all he meets with No wrong no open injustice no Treason no rebellion can be invented so monstrous but may be done without reproof of Conscience if this Principle hath influence upon what we act God who can neither punish or reward is not in Being And thus you see how that first Atheism destroyes the light of reason Arch-truth of Atheists God is not horridly depraves and vitiates the will makes it savage and brutish which ex terminis is evidently fals for Truth considered as truth is à perfection of the understanding and cannot per se pervert nature or wrest the will in man to all wickednes On the other side you see that this Arch-falsity of Atheists God is an Eternal Being by its own force and light rectifies nature makes men upright just obedient submissive to lawes and goverment which is impossible for such à grand errour setled in mans intellectual faculty is by it self as wholly unmeet constantly to produce such laudable effects as Truth is to deceive or cold water to warm us You see 3. that unlesse villany and wickednes be deemed wisdom and virtue and justice be accounted of as madnesse Atheists must change the Propositions and say God is remains à supreme Truth God is not is à supreme errour and withall Conclude that the first intellectual Truth cannot make men wicked nor the first errour make them virtuous 7. Some perhaps will reply against our first inference Nature it self abhorres the impieties now mentioned and that 's the Atheists Rule although God were not in Being I answer Nature doth so Nature has her impressions from God without God no truth can be-known now because it receives those impressions from God the Author of Grace and nature but destroy this first Author Eo ipso you abolish those very first lights of nature and make it stupidly brutish The reason hereof à Priori is most convincing Nature is endowed with these first lights because it receives them from an indefectible and unerring intellectual Being for if this first
medled with it Which therefore can not make it Infallible By what is said you se our Sectaries Supposition of some Christian Doctrin acknowledged infallible is pure Sophistry for none can Assure them so much if All that teach it be fallible The very Apostolical Doctrin respectiuely to vs now liuing loses i'ts Infallibility if this Supposition stands That all Teachers are fallible Now we Proceed to à Second Argument and Discourse thus 15. If the whole Church the like is of any General approued The Churches Infallibility further proued Council can err She may not only traitorously betray Her Trust But moreouer doe so much Mischief to Christians by vniting all in Errour That they must remain in it without redress or remedy For if the Church may mistake whilst She Teaches No man on earth can be rationally Supposed wiser than She is nor goe about to Vnbeguile the deceiued by Her The Euil here hinted at is so Notoriously horrid the Perplerity it causes so Great that either Church Doctrin vnauoydably becomes despicable whilst euery one may iustly Quarrel with it Or this Principle must stand vnshaken that the Church cannot teach à Falshood 16. Some Sectaries seing the Force of this vnanswerable Argument hold the Church Diffusiue infallible in fundamentals Yet neither name nor can name those Christians who constitute an infallible Church larger than the Roman whereof enough Sectaries Oppose The Infallibility of Councils without reason is said both in this and the other Treatise In the next place their whole Strife is to Oppose the Infallibility of the Churches Representatiues in her General Councils But methinks inconsequently For what euer Reason proues Immunity from Errour in that diffused Moral Body Conuinces as forcibly the like Priuiledge in its Representatiues Which are not Conuened to deceiue But to teach God's reuealed Verities 17. Mr. Stillingfleet Part. 3. C. 1. 2. P. 506. After à larger Prologue to very little Substance Tell 's vs. It is not any high challenge of Infallâ—bility in any Person or council which must put an end to Controuersies For nothing but Truth and Reason can euer do it and the more men pretend to vnreasonable wayes of deciding them instead of ending One they beget many I say contrary If the Church and Her Councils be infallible Controuersies are ended without more Adoe For all know vpon that Supposition What to belieue and what to reiect And if they be not Owned infallible there is no such thing or things in being as Truth and Reason which can put an end to Controuersies To explicate the Assertion is to proue it 18. Doe then no more but cast away all thought of an Infallible The Infallibility of Councils asserted Church as also of Her infallible Councils It is clear that euery Doctrin Taught since the Apostles time has been deliuered Fallibly T is clear likewise All that teach it at this day highly dissenting among them selues Teach fallibly Imagin now that two aduerse Parties Ten learned Protestants on the one Side And as many learned Catholicks on the Other meet together and seriously Discuss this Point whether Protestancy or Catholick Doctrin as opposed to Protestancy be the true Religion the like is if any particular Controuersy fall vnder Debate I say the Attempt to decide any one controuerted matter is Vain and Impossible if both Church and Councils be Supposed fallible And consequently Mr. Stillingfleets Truth and Reason are no more but meer insignificant Words The Reason is Whilst fallible men pIead for Religion vpon Principles as fallible as they are that Argue the Result of that Dispute necessarily carried on by Arguments and reasoning purely fallible can end in nothing but in dissatisfactory Topicks if yet it come so far But this is so and obserue well The Protestant plead's The weaknes of two parties pleading fallibly for his Tenents or oppugn's our Doctrin and doth it fallibly The Catholick Answers and fallibly too The Protestant Replies but hath no infallible Principle to ground his Reply vpon no more hath the Catholick if the Supposition hold's any other Answer but what 's Vngrounded and Fallible Say I beseech you do not both Parties busied in this Contest vpon vncertainties run on in Darkness Haue we yet the least hope of Satisfaction Or so much as the Truth we all seek for yet discouered in this weak skirmish Whilst Fallible men and Fallible Arguments and Fallible Principles are the only Support of the whole Discourse Most euidently no. All are left where they were before in à deep Perplexity 19. I Said iust now If we we exclude an Infallible Church and her approued Councils Truth and Reason vanish to nothing and that no Principle remain's whereby these Contests of Religion can be ended To proue the Assertion further I first vrge the Protestant to name the last certain Principle or that vltimate Sectaries are vrged to name the last Iudge in these Debates Iudge in whose Sentence he dare Acquiese and Say positiuely vpon this Principle we must both rely This shall Define whether you my Aduersary or I yours defend Truth The man will not for stark shame name Himself nor any priuate Person on earth for Iudge He cannot recurr to an Inferiour Council and Oppose that against One Generally receiued the Whole world ouer He will not adhere to à Schismatical and Heretical Church and plead by Her in defence of his Doctrin against an Oracle neuer yet taxed or tainted of Errour Or if he doth so he gain 's nothing For all those are as fallible as the two Parties now in contest Where then is the Sectaries Sure Principle or last Iudge to stand to in these Debates Or whither will he goe to find out his yet Vndiscoured Truth and Reason Will his refuge be to Scripture It help 's nothing in this Case not only because Scripture omit's to speak either explicitly of the half of such And cannot pitch on any Controuersies as are now agitated But vpon this Account Chiefly That if the Church and Councils be fallible the Book it self becomes à most fallible Principle to all For neither Catholicks nor Protestants nor Arians nor any can Say with Assurance â—uch and Such is the vndoubted â—ense of Gods word in Controuerted Matters if the Churches Iudgement be set light by and look't on as fallible Yet I 'll Say thus much Were the Church fallible Sectaries may well blush first to decry Her Sense of Scripture and then to set vp the far inferiour and fallible interpretation of euery single Person against the Church 20. Some may Reply The grand Principle of Protestants The grand Principle of Protestants reiected is that Scripture in things necessary to Saluation appeares plain to all who vse ordinary Diligence to vnderstand it wherein certainly their Truth and Reason may be found Contra. And I Press not in this place the Vncertainty of the Principle which is as disputable as any other Protestant Tenet But Say more it is wholly