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
Fathers nay you haue not so much for this Negatiue Doctrin which vpon that account proue nothing because they are as dark for your sence as the Doctrin is which you would proue by them 5. For example You may allege some passages out of S. Austin chiefly that contra Adimant C. 12. Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue à sign of his body The obuious sense whereof without torturing the Text is thus Our Lord gaue vnto his Disciples the Consecrated species and accidents of bread which were à sign of his Body there contained and doubted not to say that what he gaue them vnder those accidents was really his body Let now any one probably inferr that his S. Austin's words fauour not Sectaries sacred body was not then present vnder the accidents of bread because S. Austin saith those accidents were à sign of his body not absent for à sign or figure implies not the absence of the thing signified by it Well but grant contrary to truth all you can wish The words at most are ambiguous and therefore no fit Principle to ground an article of faith as is now noted You may next allege that known Testimony in Theodorets Dialogues The Mystical signes after the sanctification recede not from their nature but remain in their first substance figure and form are seen and touched as before I answer Theoderet plainly speaks of the Mystical signes More of Theoderet afterward which are seen and touched not of the inward substance of bread and wine which are no immediate obiect of our senses those signes recede not from their nature but remain in their form and figure as before and t' is Catholick Doctrin whereof more presently But grant the vtmost The words are only dubious and therefore insufficient to assure vs of an article of Faith when contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the present Church I assert yet more Though any Father should say That the substance and nature of bread and wine cease not to bee there is nothing yet concluded against vs for by these words substance or nature the outward Massinesse or Corpulency of bread and wine may be well vnderstood which as Theoderet saies remain The reason is In ordinary Speech we often giue to qualities which flow from the essence or nature of à thing the very name of the thing it self Thus we say an excessiue heat is fire à Massy heauiness is lead or à stone wheras heat and heauiness in common philosophy are only natural qualities or properties distinct from each substance respectiuely Such locutions were they found are at most dubious but we stand in no need of any far-fetch't glosses 6. Lastly Tertullians speech lib. 4. contra Marcio cap. 39. ex Cap. 21. Lucae contain's no difficulty Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his body Tertullians sense most plain and easy saying this is my Body That is à figure of my body Obserue the words Made the same his body and all is clear What did he make so I answer That bread which in the old Testament was à figure of his body according to the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius Let vs put wood into his bread that is à Cross into his body he makes now in the new law most truely and really his body Whoeuer read's Tertullian will find this to bee the genuine sense of his whole Discourse in the place cited where first he ieer's Marcion Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis Crucifigeretur Then saies Marcion vnderstand's not that bread in the old Testament was à figure of Christ's body as the Prophet Ierimie speak's Conijciamus lignum in panem eius scilicet They are Tertullian's own words Crucem in Corpus eius That is à Cross into his body See Pamelius his learned notes vpon this passage chiefly n. 662. and. 667. and you will easily free Tertullian from all ambiguity in Speech There are yet other Authorities much weaker produced by Sectaries but these now quoted seem sufficient for my chief aime whereof more presently In the interim I expect from these men à clamorous reply 7. They will certainly tell vs the sense and explication now giuen to these Fathers are no more but meer vnproued guesses or A reply of sectaries answered thoughts of our fancy I might first answer This sense immediatly flowes from the plain words which we admit according to the rigid grammatical signification of euery particular sentence But let vs waue this and ask whether the contrary sense of sectaries be any more but meerly their vnproued glosses or thoughts of fancy I say they are so and consequently as dark and wholly obscure as that Negatiue Proposition is which should be proued by them They storm and say the sense is clear for them I stifly deny it and assert the conttary They perhaps will vrge me to proue my sense I vrge them to proue theirs which cannot be done by the Fathers own words without à surer Principle For you see the words occasion the quarrel but that which is the cause of our dissentions can neuer end them or bring vs to any acquiescency without à further Principle And thus we stand Andabatarum more winking and fighting The one saies Yea The other No. without fruit or further progress and are yet farr from ending difficulties 8. Now here is that which I would haue all to reflect on for it is of mighty importance viz. That controuersies between the A reflection necessary for all that write Controuersies Catholick and à sectary cannot but be an endles work if both endeauour to decide them by Principles and vary as much about the sense of those Principles which are supposed to end the Dispute as we do about the very matter in question This is euer so whilst the sectary reiect's an infallible Church or her vniuersal Tradition Obserue well The matter now in question is Whether Christ be really present in the blessed Sacrament We allege his own Sacred words The Sectary saies we mistake the sense and consequently will not haue the difficulty decided that way To know the Truth both of vs examin all the other passages in Scripture relating to the Mystery both read the originals and the different versions both compare Text and text together nothing is yet ended Still we stand at variance about the sense which should decide matters between vs. Next we read the Holy Fathers for our Sectaries like not Tradition they produce their How Disputes are made endless Testimonies we interpret We produce ours They also interpret Obserue well I say Are we not as much at variance about the sense of these Fathers which are supposed à Principle to end our debates as about the very meaning of Gods word And doth not the matter in question still remain vndecided Most euidently yes Therefore vnless some other means be afforded whereby we may come
propose an Argument for the Vulgar Latin which Mr stilling shall not answer In what euer Society of Christians we find faith intirely true we haue there Authentick Scripture But from Luthers time vpward to the 4. or 5. age faith intirely true was only found in the Roman Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians Therefore the Roman Catholick Church which read so many ages the Vulgar Latin as Authentick had true Scripture I proue An argument prouing the Vulgar Latin Authentick the Minor wherin only is difficulty If the Roman Church erred for so vast à time in any point of Diuine Faith there was no faith intirely true the whole Christian world ouer because all other Societies denominated Christians were known condemned Hereticks and consequently had not true faith Therefore either the Catholick Roman Church enioy'd that blessing or we must grant à want of faith for ten ages the whole world ouer But if this Church had Faith intirely true it preserued also Authentick Scripture for where true faith is there you haue true Scripture If not it followes that wee haue no assurance at all either of the one or other Therefore if all Churches vniuersally erred in points of faith no Church can giue so much assurance of authentick Scripture as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting See more here of in the other Treatise Discours 2. c. 2. n. 8. 13. Now we are to solue à difficulty which may arise from our former discourse where 't is said If one rely on humane authority which is fallible and may be false so much mistrust so A difficulty proposed and solued many doubts occurr concening the Originals and various Lections that none can haue indubitable assurance of Scripture How therfore could the Church without moral certainty and greater too had of the Authentick books antecedently to the Councils declaration determin so peremptorily this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick yea and to preferr it before other Latin Copies I might here first by the way demand vpon what certainty can the Sectary prefer his Edition take which hee will before the Vulgar Latin What euer moral assurance he has independently of the Churche's Testimony for his Bible the Church has greater for Hers. But to solue the difficulty positiuely I say the Church after all moral diligence proceeded in this particular vpon an The Catholike Principle ascertaining Scripture vndeniable Principle which is that God by special Prouidence preserued as well Scripture free from Material corruption as Church Doctrin pure and orthodox in both wee Catholiks rely on peculiar Prouidence and all must do so vnless they will rob Christ's Sponse of all the treasure she has and violently take from her not only Orthodox Faith but Scripture also The Church therefore in her Declaration depended not on à meer Moral fallible certainty which may be false but vpon infallible Tradition This gaue indubitable assurance of the Scriptures purity free from all material errour Here is her last Principle And thus you see à vast difference between the Church and Sectaries The Church plead's possession of Authentick Scripture vpon Gods gracious Prouidence and hath it warranted by indubitable Tradition the Sectary reiect's this infallible ground and run's away with no man knowes what Certainty and in doing so cast's himself vpon the greatest doubts imaginable concerning scripture 14. Perhaps you will say Mr Stilling p. 213. relies in this matter on the vniuersal consent of all Christians and Therefore includes the Testimony of the Roman Catholick Church I answer first Hee hath not the consent of this Church for all those Editions He approues and Consequently the greatest part of à vniuersal consent fail's I answer 2. He Sectaries Cannot rely on the Churches infallible Testimony neither doth nor can remaining Protestant admit of the Catholiks surest Testimony or Tradition for our Church own 's in this most weighty matter an infallible certain Tradition Mr Stilling reiect's that therefore he hath nothing from our Church which fauours his Assertion drawn from the most assured consent of all Christians concerning Authentick Scripture And here by the way I cannot but take notice of this Gentlemans weightles obiection Pag. 216. who grants there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from Tradition But think not to fob vs off saith he with the Tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages with the Tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick c. with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Answ I verily perswade my selfe He The surest principle to know ancient tradition speak's not as he think 's for tell me vpon what surer Principle can men now possibly be better informed of Church-tradition in all ages then by the tradition of the present Church You see He slights the Testimony of two or three Fathers needed we relief from them and I am sure the vnanimous agreement of all Fathers makes no where the consent of the Church in all antecedent ages contrary to our present Churches Tradition From whom therefore shall we learn On what vndubitable Principle can we rest or say such was the Tradition concerning Scripture in pas't ages but from the present Churches Testimony It is impossible to pitch on any other Proof which is surer or half so sure 15. What followes is yet worse Fob vs not off with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick Good Sr. designe you or name plainly that Catholick Church distinct from the Roman Catholick in all ages and to vse your own words we shall extol you for the only person that euer did any thing memorable on your side but if you do not this as I know you cannot for all other before Luther were professed Hereticks 't is you that iuggles and fob's vs off with meer empty words He still goes on thus worse and worse If I should once see you proue the A weak Argument reâ—orted infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints the Sacrifice of the mass c. by as an vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is wherby we receiue Scriptures I shall yeild my self vp as à Trophey to your braue attempts Contra 1. ad Hominem If I should once see you proue all Churches fallible the Pope no supream head No Inuocation of Saints no veneration of Images no Sacrifice of the Mass c. and the rest of your negatiue Articles If I could once see you proue two Sacraments only Iustification by faith only Christs not real presence in the Holy Eucharist by as vnquestionable and vniuersal Tradition as that is whereby Scripture is receiued we would yeild also to your braue attempts Answer this if you can or for bear hereafter to weary à reader with euident improbabilities And mark well why I call them so 16. Haue we not à more vnquestionable
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
Mysteries of Christian Religion which certainly cannot regulate Faith or determine Controuersies concerning Religion For à Rule is the measure whereby we iudge what is true and what is falâ—â— but no man iudges this by the Mysteries themselues Belieued because these proposed without further light are not only obscure but highly Transcend all natural discourse And therefore Reason would reiect them were it not curb'd and rectified by an other Superiour most certain and infallible Rule distinct from the Mysteries I further ground and more à Priori is That man who Iudges of Religion by the Mysteries belieued makes in real truth his own fancy or weak reason to regulate Faith and is sure to erre â—le shew you how Giue me one as yet not setled in any Faith that cast's his thoughts vpon all the different Religions now Professed in the world Iudaism Mahometism and Christianity He call's them all to the Tribunal of his Reason which is guided by the Mysteries of each Profession And is resolued to pitch on so What weak Reason would embraceâ— If left to it selfe much as seem's suitable to his Iudgement Reason certainly if it proceed Reasonably will only pick out of euery one such Mysteries as are Facile and no way torture an Vnderstanding Much may displease this Seeker after Truth in Iudaism yet perhaps not all The filth and Fooleries in Turcism like him not yet something he may approue Finally he fall's vpon Christianity and there find's those insuperable difficulties of à Trinity the Incarnation Original sin c. These suite not with his Reason and consequently are reiected Therefore if Christianity be true à false Religion cannot but haue more sway with him than the vndoubted reuealed Verities of Iesus Christ Thus much seem's clear Perhaps you will ask why I instance in an Vnbelieuer who is yet to chuse his Religion When I should show that Christians euen those we call Sectaries ought not to end Controuersies or to regulate their Faith by the apparent easines or difficulty of Mysteries within the bounds of Christianity whereof many are in dispute between them and Catholicks Answ I haue instanced thus on set purpose to lay open the great Errour of all Sectaries who leauing the These who yet belieue nothing and Sectaries are alike in their Choise Of Religion Conduct of Christ's Church run along with this supposed Vnbelieuer For as he after à consideration had of seueral Mysteries found in the Religions now named takes out of each what is easiest and best likes his Fancy or weak reason So Sectaries ptoceed Though they walk in à lesser compass and for the most part limit Themselues to something taught by men called Christians whether true or false imports not Within such bounds they take and leaue as freely what pleaseth as any Vnbelieuer doth and vsually throw off Mysteries most difficult to sense and Reason Thus the Arian reiect's à Trinity because it is à hard Mystery and not plainly expressed in Scripture The Pelagian denies Original sin vpon the same ground and Protestants thunder against Transubstantiation because the word is not in Holy Writ and the Mystery seem's repugnant to their Reason All therefore are alike as ill Self-chusers with in such à compass as any Vnbelieuer who makes à new Religion on his own head guided by no other Rule but fancy or what seem's to him reasonable The sole cause of this Self-chusing is the Sectaries falling off from the conduct of Christs vnerring Oracle The Church which tell 's them what God speak's This vnfortunately slighted They make him speak iust so much as they think fit or seem's good to their weak and fallible Reason 2. The next Principle Sectaries may lay hold on for à sufficient or at least à Subordinate and concurrent means to decide Controuersies and regulate Faith is the Authority of the ancient Fathers Though Catholiks highly honour these great Lights of the Church And no way decline the tryal yet they Protestants doe and must except against the Authority of Fathers think an easier Rule can be assigned for all and know well that Protestants doe and must except against this very Rule One exception is The labour is immense to peruse exactly the large volumes of Fathers the like is of Councils which can only be done by the more learned of different Religions Howeuer suppose the work performed by à learned Catholick and à learned Protestant and that both diligently read the Fathers The satisfaction giuen to the Generality of other Christians is very little or nothing who first must Hear what These two men report and next credit their dissenting Iudgements And can such iudgement think ye thus at variance as they haue been for à hundred years certainly regulate Diuine Faith in à Seeker after truth or end debates wheron Saluation depend's It is impossible Again These Fathers with Sectaries euen all of them put together are fallible and may teach False Doctrin Nay more They haue actually taught it say Protestants and grosly erred whilst they openly mantained à true Sacrifice vpon the Altar prayers for the dead Inuocation of Saints Translation of Saints Reliqâ—es and their worship Pilgrimages because the Fathers are fallible and teach Popery to Holy places Auricular Confession to à Priest vn written Tradition vowed Chastity the Hallowing of Altars of Churches of water bread oyle candles And the great virtue of the sign of the Holy Cross c. These say Protestants and innumerable others haue been the foule mistakes of Fathers and Therefore Mr whitaker plainly affirm's Popish Religion to be à Patched couerlet of the Fathers Errours sowed together And D. Humfrey highly blames Mr Iewell for his so bold Appeal to the Fathers saying herein he gaue the Papists too large à Scope was iniurious to himself And after à manner spoiled himself and the Church c. The words of these two Sectaries are cited as I relate them in the Protestants Apology Tract 1. Sect. 3. subd 14. Page with me 128. And neuer Aduersary could yet Tax that Author of à false Quotation who also through the Seueral passages of his book showes how Sectaries ascribe the now named and supposed errours to the Fathers It would be tedious to expose all his laborious Collections on this subiect to common view again Who euer desiers further Satisfaction need 's only to bring eyes to open the book and read his Marginal notes Thus much premised 3. I say The Fathers that are not only fallible but also supposed by Sectaries to haue actually wronged Truth can be no Appendant or subordinate much less any sufficient Rule of faith for them when these conceited Errours are so numerous Recourse to Fathers in Fundamentals most insignificant That all along they stick most Close to our Catholick Doctrin as is largely proued in the Protestants Apology Some perhaps will say we must haue recourse to such passages of Fathers as only treat of Fundamentals and so farr are vnexceptionably plain
your Glosses To point at his Church and Councils which taught Protestancy to an Orthodox Church The world was neuer without one Say therefore in Gods name where or when was such an Orthodox Christian Society in Being that positiuely taught no Transubstantiation No sacrifice of the Mass No inuocation of Saints c Where or when were your Councils which positiuely defined these Doctrins c You may Answer and truely You haue indeed neither Church nor Councils Nor Tradition Express for these your Negatiues Very right Therefore I wrong you not in saying your whole Cause subsist's vpon Coniectures cauils And Glosses Because now you cast your selues into an Impossibility of pleading by any better Principles than meer guesses are Thus much supposed Say I beseech you What auail's it if when an Authority is plain for Popery that you can by à nimble gloss darken it Or if obscure You haue A Fiat lux at hand and can charm it into so much Clarity as may suffice to dazle the eyes of à vulgar Reader What Satisfaction haue I here or what gain you by this Proceeding when you know we haue more witnesses ready to attest yea to dye for our Catholick Verities than you haue hairs on your head or Glosses in your book What gain you to your cause could you missinterpret all the Fathers that euer wrote when you without the warrant of any Orthodox Society haue yet à whole learned Church Her Councils and Tradition against you And all the store of Ammunition left you to attaque this great Oracle of Truth is very small no more God knowes but à without them no satisfaction is giuen flash of lightning borrowed from the Ignis fatuus of your far-fetcht Glosses Gloss on Cauil on coniecture on to the worlds end As long as no known or Owned Principle distinct from Glosses and coniectures Support's them You only beat the aire or to vse à pretty late phrase amongst you lapwing-like Pew most when furthest from the nest I mean you are most fierce to end Controuersies when you are furthest off from Principles which only can end them 8. Thus then you should proceed had not God and Truth silenced you I E. S. B. D. declare to you honest Papists That in the Sixth or seauenth age after Christ His true Orthodox Church positiuely taught no Transubstantiation Such à Council either in former or later Ages expresly defined so Then and before also Church Tradition was vniuersally for my Doctrin And thus much I can make good to the learnedest Romanist among you Wonder not Therefore when you quote your Iustins your Cyprians your Chrisostoms seemingly contrary to my Church Doctrin That I interpret all I am forced to doe so or against conscience must desert my old Mother Church Her Councils How Sectaries ought to plead and Tradition likewise From which You haue too licentiously swerued to side with your Iustins and I know not who els Could the Sectary plead after this manner His Glosses would haue force But he neuer meddles with the First main Business That is neuer ground 's his Doctrin vpon any thing like à satisfactory Principle But as if He minded to tire Ones patience run's on headlong with Glosses When he has no Principled Doctrin to Gloss for Iust as if One should tell his neighbour Sir you lye And this I auerr to your face Though I want where withall to proue my Saying true In all these Controuersies Sectaries are so pertly vnciuil as to giue the Lie to à whole Church And what supports the Boldnes Haue they any other Church more Orthodox Councils more learned Tradition more vniuersal to proue we lye than our Church our Tradition And Councils are which say we speak truth Nothing at all like them We here challenge them to speak to the cause and controuersies are ended What then remain's to plead with Plain Scripture Not à word Fathers plain Not one O yes Tertullian is drawn in to help at à dead lift so is Theoderet And one or two more Very true But he is à glossed Tertullian à glossed Theoderet c. Separate then these Glosses from the Fathers genuin Doctrin giue them the Sectary to manage you see him in open field compleatly armed ready to encounter Church Councils Tradition And all the other Principles of the Catholick world Are not Glosses think Glosses strangely powerful with Sectaries ye strong and prodigiously powerful which haue not only force to plead against à whole Church But more ouer to implead her of palpable errour This Church is supposed to haue changed Her ancient Doctrin And Sectaries will reform it not by recurring to any other more Orthodox Society of Christians But by meer guesses and Glosses That is The Fallible Glosses and gueses of men confessedly fallible must reform à Church which hold's Her selfe infallible And proues it also 9. Thus it is Christian Reader I speak plainly And can defend my Assertion Besides meer begging the Question in all Disputes besides Cauils And weak coniectures The Sectary hath no more left him to oppose our Catholick Tenets but meer vnprincipled Glosses I neither word it nor wrong Protestants in saying thus much Peruse if you please their writings chiefly Mr Stillingfleets Account you will find when the Churches Infallibility or Transubstantiation c. Happen to be handled That Glosses laid on the Authorities vsually quoted for Catholick Doctrin euer take vp the most room And which is worse yea pitiful in à Rational Defender of Protestancy You shall neuer find through this whole Book waue Cauils coniectures and Glosses one sound Principle laid plainly forth nor so much as hinted at in behalf of any Protestant Article What think ye Shall Yet Most weak and feeble Christians who would fain haue à Church to liue in see the old House of God pulled down by vnhandy Glossers before They haue à better built vp And well setled on good Foundations Pulled down What say I Alas our Glossers haue not strengh to vntile it much less force to demolish that long slanding Fortress Yet Glosses chiefly And t' is à sad thought for the Sectary support his vndefensible Schism made in the desperate quarrel against that Church which gaue his Ancestors Baptism These only there is no more must plead in behalf of his inhuman and barbarous Reformation These finally must answer before an Impartial Iudge at that great day of Doom for all his merciless cruelty practised vpon the deceased and some yet liuing Catholicks Sad thoughts I say they are to goe to bed with to rise with to banquet with which like Ghosts will haunt him to his dying day And lay Torment at his restles hart in his greatest iollities And more in the houre of death 10. After all you see the Conclusion and an end put to Controuersies The Conclusion against Sectaries If no Orthodox Church vphold's this Protestancy or any article of it which is euident No Councils nor Tradition can support
without Progenitors successors without à Pedegree New Teachers without commâ—ssion Protestants indeed but without Principles 15. Hence I argue and it is à demonstration against Sectaries If neither Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christians in forgoing Ages euer owned or so much as heard of Protestancy before one vnfortunate Fatherles Luther broached it If no Antiquity so much as once mentioned one Professor of that Religion if no Tradition handed to Luther the new Faith he taught all which is without dispute manifest Protestancy most enidently is vpon this very account both an Vnwitnessed and an Vnprincipled Religion And not only improbable but in the highest degree improbable But no Authority can release an vnprincipled Nouelty from its own intrinsick miserable and â—ssâ—ntial state of improbability Therefore our Sectaries votes of no weight at all cannot make it probable And thus Controuersies are ended because an improbable Religion And for this reason improbable because vnprincipled is not defensible 16. To add more to this Discourse I Ask whether one Arius opposing the whole Church represented in the Nicene Council Protestancy as improbable as Arianism defended probable Doctrin or no You will answer No. Very good Yet he quoted Scripture and might one insist vpon the exteriour letter or sound of words more plain and express in the behalf of his Heresy than all the Protestants on earth can produce Fathers plain and Expresss for their Nouelty of Protestanism I would say Neither Theoderet nor any other Father speak's half so clearly to the Doctrin of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass c. As these words to omit others My Father is greater then I may the exteriour letter regulate here seemingly express an inequality between the Father and the Son Now if the seeming clear sound of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrin probable against the Church Then much less can the more obscure Testimonies of some Fathers make the Doctrin of Protestants probable against the Church Now. And if we speak of followers that Arius gained in his time There is no comparison He had more than euer England had Protestants in it 17. One may yet reply The Nicene Fathers cited plain Scripture against Arius Very true And so do Catholicks against Protestants For Christs Sacred words This is my body are as significantly plain against Protestanism as any Text those Fathers then vrged or yet can be vrged against Arianism The Arians not Conuinced by Scripture only But this you see did not the deed nor was then the last conuiction And why Here is the reason Because as Protestants now wilfully Gloss this plain Passage of Scripture and many others So the Arians then wilfully Glossed all those Scriptures alleged by the Nicene Fathers And yet hold on in that strain to our very dayes as you may read in Crellius and Volkâ—lius Yet more As the Arian Party then only Glossed but without the help of any antecedent Church Doctrin known to the world or vniuersal Tradition to settle their Glosses on So our Protestants now do the very same There is no disparity betwixt them They Gloss 't is true but giue vs Churchles Glosses Finally as those Fathers at that time did not only reiect the Arians Glosses but established also their own Definitions vpon Scripture How Conuicted interpreted by the known deliuered Doctrin of the then present and the more Ancient Church for they represented both And thus ended that Controuersy So we Catholicks proceed against Protestants And bring all debates to the like last period The Church or nothing must end them Without recourse had to the known and owned Doctrin both of this present and precedent faithful Oracle They and we may interpret Scripture long enough They may Cauil And we may hold on in our Answers to the end of an other Age without hope of ending so much as one Controuersy But of This enough is said already 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 1. SEctaries may obiect first We Suppose all this while But proue not The Orthodox world to haue hitherto maintained the Doctrin now taught by the Roman Catholick Church concerning Transubstantiation Inuocation of Saints c. Therefore our Discourse seem's vngrounded I answer 1. The Reply is not to the Purpose in this place whilst we only press Sectaries to giue in Proofs for their Contrary Positions This wee say They Cannot doe Now if wee bee as farr of From Proofes or Cannot ground our Tenets vpon vndubitable Principles Controuersies are ended without more Adoe Because The first Obiection answered both of vs if the Supposition hold's haue no Articles of Religion to Propugn But weak opinions which whether true or false import not Saluation Nay the Truth of them could it be known is scarse worth any mans Knowledge I Answer 2. Our Proofs to say no more now Stand firm vpon Church Authority once at least owned Orthodox on our Councils and ancient Tradition neuer yet repealed nor excepted against But by Hereticks only May it please our Aduersaries to come Closely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets by the Authority of any like or better Church than ours is We haue done and must yeild But this they know is impossible And therefore neither will nor can Answer our Discourse If they say our Church where its contrary to Protestancy has erred Vrge them to proue the Assertion by any Principle either equal to or stronger than our Church Authority is And you will haue them driuen again to their Glosses or to some few gleanings of Fathers In à word to no Principles 2. They may obiect 2. We haue took much pains to proue Nothing against Protestancy For we know some late Professors namely Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet stifly maintain A second Obiection Proposed these Negatiues of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass No Inuocation of Saints c. To be only pious Opinions or inferiour Truths Neither reuealed by God nor Essential to Protestant Religion Therefore whilst we vrge them to ground such Negatiues vpon plain Scripture vpon the Authority of an Orthodox Church Councils Tradition c. They tell vs we meddle not at all with the Essentials of Protestancy But only dispute against Opinions And Contrary to iustice force them to proue meer opinions by Scripture Church c. wich is more then we can press vpon them or doe our selues For haue not wee Catholicks many Opinions in Schools which none pretend to ground vpon so strong Principles as we settle our Articles of Faith on Yes most assuredly Opinions then and Articles of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled And thus Point's at à distinâ—tion between Faith and Opinion the Protestant discourses in the present Matters Here saith He is the only difference That Catholicks lay Claim to more Articles
principio In the beginning What is that Word saith another which was with God or how was it with God Was it One real thing Essential to him or meerly à breath à Word terminated vpon creatures without which nothing was made All know though the Arians had à Church to teach yet with that sure Rule of faith they mangled and misvsed this very passage of the Gospel Therefore difficulties much more would molest these Philosophers hauing no Oracle to interpret And as many would arise concerning other Scriptures relating to the sacred Trinity Original Sin and the like Mysteries 9. Now here is my reflection and I think euery Intelligent An application made to Sectaries person will speak as I doe Iust so much as these Philosophers haue to gloss with and descant vpon So much Sectaries may challenge but no more if we seuer Scripture from the Churches Interpretation Both haue à Body without life words without sense difficulties proposable concerning their reading but none to Answer them 10. The only difference between them is That the Philosophers yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no Schoole to go to Sectaries haue both yet run as it were from Schoole with half à Lesson with one part and t' is The difference between them and the Philophers much the obscurer part of Diuine Learning only the bare Texts I mean of holy Scripture shutting out the Churches infallible Sense And what haue you in lieu of this light which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Christians The weak and errable Sentiments of a few disvnited Sectaries And is this all we can rely on Do we belieue the Trinity the Incarnation and other high Mysteries so obscurely expressed in Gods word that innumerable haue mistaken the true Sense because à Luther à Caluin or their followers expound Whether Luthers followers or an Ancient Church is to teach it Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches Interpretation which has euer taught the world The One or Other must haue influence vpon Faith if we will belieue But most manifestly the first men only of yesterday and fallible are not our Doctors Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Ascertains vs of the Scriptures Sense of its Truth and infallible Doctrin also 11. Two things necessarily follow from this Discourse The one That Protestants Shew themselues strangely vngrateful because Sectaries manifestly vngrateful And why they slight an Oracle which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Christian Faith for in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scripture vpholds that true Assent they yeild to the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity So much is granted Or not Grant it I Ask. Why disdain they to hear this Church in other matters If you deny Their Submission to this and the like Mysteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible dissatisfactory thoughts and glosses Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitiue Churches interpretation and ground their Assent vpon Her Doctrin Nothing is got this way For the most Primitiue Recourse to the Primitiue Church friuolous exposition of Scripture was no more infallible than what the latter Church or Councils haue Defined But enough is said aboue of this Chasing all Controuersies vp to the Primitiue Ages 12. The second Inference is If God has not made Religion à matter of eternal Debate If all are obliged to belieue by diuine Faith the very truths yea the same infallible truths which God has reuealed and no other of à lower or slighter Rank If he has reuealed them for this end that all may be Ascertain'd A second Inference of their intrinsecal Worth That is of being both Diuine and infallible If the whole Christian world remain's not at this day in Errour or is not cast vpon vncertainties what to belieue If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed Doctrin stand's and subsist's firmly ioyned together in God the first Verity impossible to be separated there And if Finally as T' is there true and infallible all are obliged to learn it Nothing can be more manifest then that diuine Prouidence has established and impowred Some Oracle to teach and propose that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and Nâ—tion as it is both true and infallible 13. Thus much Supposed and proued All further Questions The Oracle teaching truth cannot be questioned concerning the Oracle ceases For it neither is nor can be another but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to interpret Scripture faithfully to rescue Gods truths from the lewd misusage of Hereticks Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abuse Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches our Faith is sound Catholick and Apostolical But if Scripture by reason of its Obscurity deceiues any or the Church could deuiate from the sincere interpretation of Gods truths there registred The Very life of true Religion is lost Faith vanishes into errour 14. Who euer seriously Consider's what is already said in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets scattered Mr Stillingfleets Obiections weightles Obiections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils vtterly void of strength Some worthy person of our Nation who he is I know not in his Guide of Controuersies Disc 3. has so broken and vanquished the little force they haue that I may well supersede all further labour herein There is not one Obiection proposed but T' is either first euidently retorted vpon Mr Stillingfleet Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Question Or 3. Impugn's all Councils Or 4. Appears so slight at the very first view that it deserues no Answer What can be more slight then to tell vs as he doth P. 508. That we He Speak's not truth are absolutely auerse from free Councils because we condemn all other Bishops but those of our Church without suffering them to plead for themselues in any Indifferent Council It is hard to say what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent Councils for he fetters all with so many Conditions that neuer any was yet found in the Church so qualified as he would haue it Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter as also P. 557. You will se what I assert Manifest It is true we condemn A Calumny for à Proof all heteredox Bishops and doth not Mr Stillingsleet recriminate and condemn ours But to say we suffer none to plead for Themselues in à free Council is à flat Calumny vnless that only be free which some bodies fancy makes free and no other A word now to one or two Obiections 15. If you saith Mr Stillingsleet require an Assent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible There must be an antecedent Assent to this Proposition That whatsoeuer Councils decree is infallible I first retort the Argument If you require an Assent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting Or hold That the conuened there deliuered true Doctrin There must be an The first Argument retorted
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
Reformation Vpon what they would build their Reformation vpon one Principle Chiefly we will here in the first place Shew you what they pretend and vtterly destroy it 2. In à word The main ground of our Protestants late The Protestants pretence laid forth Reformation or the Chiefest cause why they deserted the Roman Catholick Church is best declared in their own language The Roman Catholick Church Say they though once sound and Orthodox yet in after Ages turned from God betrayed his truths brought in Idolatry and damnable Heresies Hence it is we boldly accuse her hence it is we write against her notorious Errours and out of loue to our Souls leaue Her Nos iussu diuino Babylone Egressi Saith Riuet in Sum. Trac 2. q. 2. n. 3. We by God's command are gone out of Babylon he mean's the Roman Catholick Church not so much for her vnpurities as for Her What Sectaries Assert Idols and Heresy More he hath in the following words often accusing this Church of Idolatry and Heresy Consonant to what Mr Stillingfleet teaches in the seueral passages of his Account 3. To overthrow this whole Plea I Argue thus Whoever The ground of their Doctrin ouerthrown euidently impeaches an ample Church of Idolatry or Heresy once vniuersally acknowledged Orthodox and proues not euidently the truth of his Accusation by clear and vnquestioned Principles but desert's that Society without Euidence alleged against her Doctrin by this one Syllogism Acts most vniustly Err's notoriously and Sin 's damnably Bâ—t Protestants do So. That is They euidently impeach à whole ample Church once vniuersally reputed Orthodox of Idolatry and Heresy and haue also most euidently deserted Her without Euidence alleged against her Doctrin which can be grounded vpon vnquestionable Principles Ergo They act most vniustly Err notoriously and Sin damnably 4. The Maior Proposition stand's firm vpon à Principle hinted at aboue Viz. That an euident Accusation in so weighty à Matter vtterly loses force vnless euident Proofs support it The Maior Proposition proued and confirmed This may be further Confirmed by one Ratiocinations in the like Form of Arguing Whoeuer should euidently impute to Holy Scripture once vniuersally receiued as God's Sacred word Idolatry and Heresy or so much as impeach it of flight and incredible Doctrin as the Machiauellians and Socinians do without What if one discoursed of Scripture as â—â—ctaries do of the Church clear and euident Proofs would be à most desperate Plaintife and Sin damnably because he endeauours to bring into publick disreputation God's own truths which the wisest of the world euer reuerenced as Sacred and Diuine And though he should plead as Sectaries Discourse of the Church or Assert that the Book indeed was once pure and Orthodox but afterwards falling into wicked hands notorious Corruptions false Doctrins when or how no body knowes clancularly got in and spoild its purity Though I say He Should plead after this manner without à clear demonstration or Euidence of Proofs He would yet be à most vniust Accuser and Sin damnably Ergo He or they that tax à whole Church once owned for God's Spouse and most certainly Orthodox of notorious corrupted Doctrin with an addition of Idolatry are guilty of the very same open Iniustice and Sin damnably The Parity holds exactly 5. The Minor Proposition viz. But Sectaries impeach c. Sayes two things First that they euidently accuse à whole Church The minor Proued and haue euidently derserted Her which is manifest Ad oculum Secondly that they haue done so without Euidence of Proofs against her Doctrin grounded on vnquestionable Principles And this we shall most easily demonstrate if our Adversaries will please to own with vs these following Principles or any of them as most vnquestionable 6. First the plain and express words of Holy Scripture without Mixture Indubitable Principles supposed where vpon proofs must stand of their particular Glosses or ours also 2. The vnanimous Consent of ancient Fathers but still without Glosses 3. The clear Iudgement of any Orthodox Church wherevnto we add the express Definitions of ancient approued Councils and vniuersal Tradition receiued by all 4. Manifest Reason No Principles can be better or equalize these in worth Proofs if solid must stand vpon One or more of them 7 Speak therefore its high time Let vs not eternally word Sectaries are vrged to follow closely the main point it but go closely to Work We are here in à main Matter Concerning Saluation can you Dr Stillingfleet or any Protestant in England as Euiduntly proue that such and such an Article of Catholick Religion is Contrary to all or any one of these mentioned Principles as euery Grammarian can euidently tell you that this or that Solaecism is euidently against the Rules of Grammer I here boldly challenge you vouchsafe to Answer without tergiuersation if you can reioyn you are worthy Doctors if not be pleased to surcease from writing Controuersies hereafter Yet one word more 8. You say Euidently we are Idolaters because we Adore Christ By Proofs drawn from ihe Principles already mentioned in the Blessed Sacrament Hold on I beseech you and proue your Euident Assertion Euidently by plain Scripture by the vnanimous consent of ancient Fathers by the known Iudgement of any Orthodox Church c. When you pretend to haue done thus much But begin you first I 'll boldly Confront you and demonstrate that the Scripture you allege is no Scripture your supposed Fathers are false Oracles your supposed Councils your Tradition and Sectaries Prooss meer Phaâ—sies lastly what you call Reason merit not so much as the very Names you giue them All this is to Say in other terms You grosly abuse these Oracles you either Corrupt their very words as is most vsual or violently force from them à new peruerse Sense which God neuer intended to speak by them And Consequently the Euidence you pretend to is nothing But à strong Illusion or an vngrounded Phansy not resolvable into the Clarity or Truth of any one of the forenamed Principles Thus much premised 9. I prove the Minor positiuely If it be à manifest Truth The minor Proposition proued that Christ our Lord had an Orthodox Church on earth for the last ten Centuries If it be also manifest that the Professors of this Church be it yet where you will were either Idolaters or damnable Hereticks it is most demonstrable that Sectaries cannot Euidently Euince the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry 10. The ground of my Assertion is Whoeuer euidently Whoeuer proues the Roman Church Idolatrous ruins Christ's true Church proues the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry euinces eo ipso That Christ had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thoufand years To make this manifest Please to diuide the whole Moral Body of men called Christians into three Classes into Orthodox Belieuers if yet there were any into Idolaters and known Heretiques This Diuision made
far equal that as Mahomet driues all to his belief by the sword the cause is natural so the Church drawes all to it by wit policy and humane learning and this means is altogether as natural Now if you say those first Conuersions were truely effects of grace and wrought by Gods special assistance This sequele is Clear The like made in after ages by the Church far more numerous as difficult and wholly as glorious proceed from the same fountain of Goodnes God's Diuine grace and special Assistance And note I speak here of real Conuersions wrought in Belieuers vpon solid motiues the Church shewes you millions of them not of hypocritical changes pretended hypocritical Conuersions not Valuable for God and Religion when worldly interest has à hand in them These are as soon distringuished by their false lustre as à comet from the sun they last not long but fall like blasing starrs We meddle not with them Thus much of à short digression which makes way to an other querie and 't is as followeth 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 1. THese questions largely handled in the other Treatise are soon resolued vpon certain Principles I say therfore first All called Christians belieue not truely and intirely Christ Sacred Doctrin and proue it If Hymenaeus and Alexander Timoth. 1. c. 1. 20. once true Belieuers made shipwrack of their Faith if the Arians Monothelits Pelagians Donatists and such known Hereticks named Christians haue fallen also and lost true belief of Christian verities sufficiently proposed This sequel is euident All of them though named Christians haue not Faith intirely good nor indeed any Diuine Faith at all See the other Treatise Disc 3. c. 3. n. 4. 2. I say 2. All and euery one may with ordinary diligence come to the knowledge of the true Christian Religion I proue the Assertion Diuine Faith without which we cannot possibly Means sufficient to know true Religion please God is determinatly necessary to saluation and consequently the Religion where true Faith is taught is also necessary Therefore both these after Ordinary diligence vsed may be known vnlesse we wil say that God first makes such things necessary to saluation and then remoues them so far out of sight that none can know by prudent ordinary diligence what these necessary things are I say necessary to saluation not to dispute with Melchior Canus and others of the necessity of faith to the first iustification of à Sinner This difficulty we waue and Argue 2. God as we now suppose with all Christians yea with Iewes and Turks also is the Author of true Religion which he reuealed to the world for no other end but mans happines and eternal saluation therfore if he desires all to be saued by true Religion which is the final end therof He cannot vnles his Prouidence fail but afford meanes to know where it is professed otherwise which ill beseem's an infinite wisdom he would set vs all on work to gain Heauen by the belief of true Religion and withall leaue vs so in darknes that we cannot with all prudent industry come to the knowledge of it which is to say He will haue vs know the end of Religion and yet conceal the meanes leading to the knowledge of it 3. Again I argue 3. God who obliges not to impossibilities laies à strait command on all to belieue true Religion and not to assent to any fals sect therfore it may be known and clearly distinguished at least from the errours of infidels Iewes and Turks Known I say but how Not by its internal light immediatly for no Religion euer yet was its own self-euidence ex terminis or prudently got admittance because the Professors of it Cryed it vp as true Therfore the credibility of true Religion which must be True Religion is not its own selfe euidence laid open to Reason by force of Conuincing motiues is made as well discernable from Heresy destructiue of saluation as from Turcism or Iudaism yea and may be no lesse clearly discouered by its proper signes and lustre than à true Miracle for example that of S. Peter from Simon Magus Sorcery This cannot be denyed vnles God as I now sayd either command's impossibilities viz to find that out which cannot be found or licenceth vs to embrace any Religion called Christian whether good or bad true or fals it imports not because the best if it can be found is no more but à meer Probability or like vncertain opinions in Philosophy which may be reiected or followed according to euery priuate fancy This execrable Doctrin of the indifference to any Religion learned in the Diuels school is now à daies much in the mouths of many and I fear too deeply rooted in the hearts Nor à thing indifferent of some later Sectaries But of this more here after In the mean time you may conclude If true Religion be in the world it s made discernable not only from Iudaism but Heresy likewise and if it haue this discernibility it can be known if known it induceth an obligation to be belieued with Diuine Faith if it grounds certain Faith Subiectiuely taken in him that belieues it is no Opinion and considered Obiectiuely it implies the highest certainty Imaginable setled on God's Reuelation as is largly proued in the other Treatise Disc 1. c. 5. n. 6. 7. CHAP. VI. Of our Sectaries errour in their search after true Religion As also of Mr. Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing 1. ONe errour common to all condemned Hereticks is in the first place to find out true Religion by the book of holy Scripture alone A most improbable way as the ancient Tertullian learnedly obserues lib de Praescrip cap. 9. 15. but chiefly cap 19. at those words often cited Ergo non ad Scriptuâ—as prouocandum c. The reasons of my Assertion well pondered are most conuincing 1. The Sectary laies hold of à book which he sayes teaches truth and yet knowes not in his Principles nor shall euer know infallibly whether the book he own 's contain's the Doctrin of true Religion or ought to be valued as Gods assured word which is to say in other terms He learn's infallible truths of à Master before he hath infallible certainty of this Masters teaching truth infallibly That the Sectary wants infallible assurance of his book is euident for he saith no word of God written or vnwritten no infallible Tradition no infallible authority on earth ascertain's him of the Scriptures Diuinity So Mr Stillingfleet in seueral places chiefly part 1. c. 6. Pag 170. Therfore he can haue no in fallible Assurance of the Doctrin contained in Sectaries haue not infallible assurance of their Bible Scripture and consequently no Diuine Faith grounded on that Doctrin as I shall shew hereafter How euer grant him an indubitable assurance in à general way of some
Pius the 4. but other great schollers also profoundy learned in the knowledge of Scripture and skilful in the Hebrew Syriack Chaldee and Greek began the Great diligence vsed in the Correcting the Vulgar Correction of the Vulgar Latin and to accomplish the work diligently examined these ancient books these M S S the best Originals of Hebrew and Greek and commentaries also of the most ancient Fathers c. Speak therefore of humane industry we may boldly say our Vulgar Latin hath been reuiewed and corrected with greater care than euer version was set forth by Sectaries But if these men will still pretend to find any Material errour in the Vulgar I only ask by what more Authentick Copy can they so much as probably hope to amend it By the Hebrew and Greek Toyes Dispute the Question rigidly there is lesse assurance of these supposed Originals integrity then of the Vulgar Latin so industriously examined not only by the best Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant but also by other ancient M S S. and commentaries of the Fathers 8. I cannot therefore imagin what Mr Stillingfleet aimes at when he tell 's vs page 215. that Doctor Iames who had taken the pains to compare not only the Sixtine Clementine Bibles but the Clementine Edition with the Louain Annotations makes it appear there are 10000. differences in the Louain Annotations from the Vulgar Latin and that these differences arise from Comparing it that is sure the Vulgar Latin with the Hebrew Doctor Iames opposed Greek and Chaldee What would the man haue think yee Will he suppose first that Thomas Iames hitt's right in euery thing he saies The learned Iames Gretser whose authority is euery whit as good the whole world over as that of Mr. Iames. Tom. 1. Ad lib. 2. Bell pag. 1060. denies all this with à Mentitur tertiò Thomas Iames Decem millia verborum c. Read Gretser I cannot transcribe all he hath Again will he say that the Vulgar Latin is to be corrected by the Louain Annotations or these by the Vulgar if any thing were amiss in either Or 3. If these pretended differences arise from the comparing all with the Hebrew Greek or Chaldee can Thomas Iames be supposed to know the last energy and force of euery Hebrew Greek or Chaldee Rational exceptions against Mr. Iames. word when there is controuersy better then the Authors of the Louain and Correctors of the Vulgar Latin Here we may come to an endles wrangling about the Genuine signification of words but decide Nothing God help vs if the knowledge of true Scripture depend's on such petty Nicities and fruitles quarrelling 4. And this is to be noted Were these differences more then are made by Mr. Iames The question would then be whether they imply any Material alteration concerning Faith or Manners or introduce notable errour contrary to God's reuealed verities or finally bee meer verbal differences grounded on the obscure signification of Original words If Mr Stilling only pretend's this later let him remember his own expression of racings of the skin and know that there was neuer Translation in the world which may not be thus Cauilled at If any Material alteration be pleaded he both speaks à lowd vntruth and contradict's himself when he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Diuine Prouidence in preseruing the Authentick records of Scripture safe to our dayes 2. He is to name that Authentick Copy either Original or translation by the indisputable integrity wherof these supposed errours may bee cancelled and Gods pure reuealed verities put in their place But to do this after so immense labour and diligence vsed in the correction of the Vulgar will proue no lesse than à vain attempt or rather à desperate impossibility Vpon this ground 9. I say first Who euer denies the Vulgar Latin to be Authentick true Scripture hath Eo ipso lesse assurance of any other Edition now extant and consequently not so great certainty of Scripture as excludes à Possibility of all reasonable doubting I An Assertion proued proue the Assertion That man may rationally doubt of Scripture who reiects the strongest assurance imaginable and makes choise of à weaker But this is done if he doubts of or denies the Authenticalness of the Vulgar The reason is first because He hath no other Edition as is now said examined with more care or greater industry and this ground 's the highest humane assurance conceiuable 2. Because the Vulgar is approued by God's Holy Church which giues infallible certainty if therefore the integrity of the Hebrew and Greek be not vnquestionably authentick he wants that certainty which excludes à Possibility of doubting And Much less assurance hath the Sectary of his own later iarring Editions of Scripture which breed nothing but confusion to the very Authors and all who read them 10. I say 2. If the Sectary hold's the Vulgar Latin Authentick Scripture yet makes it guilty of some lesser faults and therefore endeauours to correct it by à more authentick What if lesser faults be pretended in the Vulgar Copy he cast's himself vpon meer vncertainties and labours in vain The reason is To doe thus much he must suppose that other Copy he would correct by to be more pure than the Vulgar and this cannot be proued vpon any receiued Principle Now if you obiect Authors Commonly deny not some obscurities or lesser verbal faults to haue been in the Vulgar I answer that 's nothing to the purpose were all true for it doth not therefore follow it can be corrected by any other Copy which is more Authentick Scripture A lesse authentick Bible may help herein when other lections are accuratly examined yet may be faulty in greater matters 11. I say 3. No Tradition no Testimony which is fallible and may be fals can giue so great assurance of Authentick Scripture as Diuine Faith requires or that assurance which excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting which is to say in other words The infallible Testimony of the Church is absolutely A Testimony in fallible is necessary to ascertain Scripture necessary to ascertain vs of Authentick Scripture The conclusion is directly against Mr Stilling who page 226. makes the certainty Christians haue of the books of Scripture so fallible that it may be false yet enhaunses the certainty of the Doctrin there contained to à note higher of infallibility We shall see the leuity of this distinction fully discouered hereafter and our Assertion proued in à more proper place All I will say at present is No man can be certainly assured of true Scripture vnles he first come to à certainty of à true Church independently of Scripture Find out therefore the true Church and we haue all we seek for I mean true Scripture with it vnles one tend's to à high degree of madnesse and Assert's that the true Church of Christ cheated into an erroneous Bible was depriued of pure and authentick Scripture 12. And here I will
vniuersal Tradition for the books of Scripture if Tradition be drawn from the voice of all called Christians whether Catholicks or Hereticks then there is for the very primary Articles of true Catholick Faith A Trinity for example the Incarnation the necessity of Tradition more and Lesse vniuersal Grace Original sin c. Yes most assuredly for innumerable Sectaries admitted Scripture and yet denyed these essential Articles therefore as their Denial made the consent and tradition of all called Christians less vniuersal for such Doctrins so their admitting Scripture with others heightned that Tradition or made it more general Say now Sr. Had those Hereticks argued as you do how little would they haue gained If we should once see you proue à Trinity Or Original sin c. by as vniuersal à Tradition as that is whereby Scriptures are receiued we would acquiese but this is not possible for both you and wee admit Scripture and consequently make that tradition more vniuersal yet we deny your primary Doctrins and therefore all tradition is not so ample for your Doctrins as for the books of Scripture Here is your vnreasonable reasoning Mr. Stilling You know well Hereticks who owned Scripture with vs denied à Sacrifice of Mass An vnreasonable way of aryuing Inuocation of Saints and other Catholick Articles and you 'l haue vs to take à tradition from these men to vphold the Doctrins they denyed Iust as if an Arian should bid me proue à Trinity from all Tradition euen of his Church when he admit's Scripture and denies à Trinity If you reply you vrge vs not to bring in the tradition of all known Aduersaries of the Catholick Church for these now named Articles but only the vniuersal Tradition of the Catholick Church in all ages we haue already answerd that 's best known by the present Churches Testimony no other proof can parallel it And thus much of the Authenticalnesse of our Vulgar Edition free from all material Corruption A further difficulty may yet be moued concerning lesser faults and the preferring it before all other Latin Copies CHAP. VIII How necessary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in the Church A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles Of Mr Stillinfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 1. NOte first It was very meete to haue among so much confusion and various sections of Latin Copies one certain approued and set forth by the mother Church to the end her Children might be vnius labij of one tongue and speak one language in their reading preaching and publick expounding One lection of scripture necessary Holy Scripture Note 2. Though the Council of Trent sess 4. declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick and preferr's it before all other latin Editions Quae circumferuntur which are now abroad it doth not thereby detract any thing from the credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew and Greek Copies whereof Authors dispute whether they be pure or no whilst the Church is silent and defin's nothing Neither doth the Council reiect the Version of the Septuagint or that ancient Latin Copy called Itala read in the Church before S. Hierom as Vnauthentick in any material point for this Argument is conuincing to the contrary As it is madnes to say Christs Church had not true Scripture since S. Hieroms time so is it à desperate improbability The Church had in all ages true Scripture to assert She wanted that in the ages before S. Hierom which is to say The Church had euer authentick Scripture Moreouer shall we think yee iudge that God whose Prouidence neuer failed suffered his own spouse to be beguiled with false Scripture for 15. ages and that now towards the end of the world he will prouide vs of à purer book by the hands and help of à few scattered Sectaries 2. Note 3. Translations may be faulty three wayes chiefly 1. More ambiguity and darknes may lye in à translated word than in the Original and this fault if any is remediless because the latin or à Vulgar language reacheth not alwais to the full Energy and signification of an Hebrew or Greek expression wherof you haue some examples in that learned Preface to the English Rhems Testament anno 1600. 2. Corruptions How Transtations may be faulty may creep into à Version by the inaduertancy or ignorance of the Translator who is neither supposed prophet nor infallible and thus Authors say that S. Hierom though prodigiously learned was not euery way infallibly secured from lesser errours yet this Prouidence God hath for the good of his Church that he will nor permit any considerable deprauation to remain in all Copies If therefore one be faulty all cannot be thought so and the faults of one by carefully comparing it with many and à diligent inspection into other Copies may be corrected See Greg. de Valent lib. 8. Analy C. 5. puncto 4. 3 dly Lesser deprauations often enter à version through the mistakes of Printers Librarians c. Of these you had many in the Vulgar Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles and they are scarse auoidable chiefly after seueral reimpressions as we daily see in other books Thus much premised 3. Listen à little to Mr Stilling strange inconsequences and groundles exceptions against the Corrections of Sixtus and Clement He saith the one Bible differs from the other as Of Mr Stilling 〈◊〉 gâ—â—und 〈◊〉 exceptions appears by those who haue taken the pains to Compare them in some thousands of places A great number indeed But the first question will bee whether these Pain-takers ought to be belieued vpon their bare word without further examination This Sr. you suppose which cannot well pass before the particulars come to the test and bear the censure of your Aduersaries wholly as learned as you haue any But say on Are these supposed differences any more but like the racings of the skin or do they giue any mortal wound to the Vital part of Scripture If you only assert the first you may not only Cauil at your English Bibles but also at all the latin translations vsed in the Church both before and after S. Hieroms time for they haue some verbal differences which you may call petty and inconsiderable faults Now if you assert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are Materially corrupted in points of Faith and manners or to vse your phrase Vitally wounded what is become I beseech you of that peculiar hand of Prouidence you own in preseruing the authentick Copies of religion safe to our dayes Or which much imports you to answer by what other more authentick Copy can you without endles disputes and vncertainties correct the Vulgar This one particular will giue you work enough before you come to à certain decision of the difficulty In à word because I think many know not too well all that concern's these two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles I
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
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
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
clear words of à Father and when the Glosser has no vndubitable Principle distinct from his gloss wheron to settle his Doctrin as he has not in our present Controuersy Obserue well The Fathers say What wee see is not bread but Christs very body The Sectary interpret's That wee see is not common bread indeed but Christs body Figuratiuely or Sacramentally The Fathers say it is not figuratiuely only but really his body So Theophilact Answered and the reason giuen and S. Iohn Damascen cited aboue Had the Sectary who interpret's thus an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss deliuered by any Oracle of Truth Scripture Traditions or Orthodox Church there would be good reason to giue him hearing But when we euidently see that the best and only proof of his Doctrin is no more but the very gloss he makes without Further Principles we iustly except against him and hold such glosses improbable 14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer interpret's any Authority but when t' is dubious and if it be so it neither help 's the Sectary nor hurts the Catholick and therefore ought In reason to be cast aside as either impertinent or as weak and forcelesse in all disputes of Controuersies The fundamental Christ's Doctrin not proued by glosses or any ambiguous Testimony Reason already hinted at is The true Doctrin of Christ is not proued by Glosses or any doubtful Testimony but stand's most firm vpon known and indubitable Principles or if in order to Christians it want's such supports it cannot pass for Christ's Doctrin An ambiguous Testimony therefore which seemingly opposes this true Doctrin Certainly Principled is most impertinently alleged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick Faith 15. Vpon this one sole ground now clearly laid forth I confidently Affirm all Controuersies in Religion might be easily ended would Sectaries please to lay Preiudice aside and follow manifest reason I 'le shew you how Write down first the two contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Protestants Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist Christ is not really and substantially present Next examin well the Principles wheron these Contrary Doctrins rely or are supposed to rely The Catholick vrgeth first Christ's plain words 2. The Authority of his Church and saith his Churches Doctrin is the very same that Christ words literally taken express 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of The Catholick Principles Fathers and discourses thus When I find the most significant expressions of Fathers consonant to our Sauiour's plain words and to the owned Doctrin of my Church I must assuredly rest on these as indubitable grounds or Confess that There neither is or was euer any Principle for the soundest Article of Christian Faith Examin next the Sectaries Principles Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine or to this sense This is not my body b◠à Sign only of it Euidently No. Has he any Church esteemed Orthodox by the Christian world which without Controuersy taught this Doctrin of à sign only three or 4. ages since Name Sectaries haue none such such à Church He will speak's to the purpose Has he Fathers so numerous so express and clear for his Signe and figure only as the few Testimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Doctrin If he haue let him please to produce them I 'le doe no more but lay my Testimonies by them and if after the perusal or à iust Parallel made of both All the world iudges not those I quote to be most conuincing may the literal sense stand and his both dark and ambiguous I will vndergoe any Censure You haue heard how loud and express the Testimonies briefly hinted at and innumerable more are for our Catholick Verity I challenge Mr Stilling to Confront them with others as openly significant for his opinion I verily think he will neuer goe about to doe what is desired but fob vs off with killing flies and no man knowes what 16. In the interim I Argue I am either obliged to renounce An Argument drawn from our Catholick Principles the obuious sence of these Authorities which I see euidently Consonant to the words of Scripture and to the Doctrin of my Church or by force of these Proofs am still to belieue as I doe Grant this second I stand on secure ground But if I am obliged to renounce the obuious sense of Christs words my Church Doctrin and the expressions of these Fathers c. Our Aduersaries are bound if à spark of Charity liues in their Hearts to plead by stronger Principles which may settle me in an absolute Renuntiation of my Doctrin and withdraw me from the supposed errour I liue in Is not this iustice and Charity think ye And is not the Compliance most easy For if their Doctrin be Christ's Doctrin and mine not Theirs stand's as I now told you vpon clear and indubitable Principles And Principles of that nature are easily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderstanding Now I subsume But it is euident the Sectary hath no such conuincing Principles which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal sense of Christs words and the Fathers already cited And this I proue What euer Principle obliges me to renounce or to deny the plain literal sense of such words must giue assurance that those expressions literally Why none can remoue me from our Catholick Tenet vnderstood are dangerous and apt to induce Christans into gross errour for if literally taken they do no mischief or be not apt to induce into dangerous errour why should I Deny their obuious sense because Ptotestants will haue me do so But there is no Principle so much as meanly probable whereby these expressions are proued false or inductiue into dangerous Errour for were this really so some Church or Author of Credit would long sincé haue noted their ouer much vehemency in sayng more then was true concerning this Mystery which none euer yet did Therefore I may still and without Reproof hold where I am and adhere to their literal Doctrin which my Church teaches 17. Some may teply Sectaries vrge vs not so crudely to reiect the Fathers Testimonies as only to moderate or rectify their sense by the help of our Modern mens glosses which is à blamles proceeding for we do so with Gelafius and other Authors when they seemingly make against our Doctrin and Protestants do no more Answ Protestants do more for their interpretations euer imply à peremptory and absolute denial of that very literal sense which the Father words express For example S. Cyril saith Catech. Mystag 4. He that changed water into wine by his sole will hath also A reply of sectaries answered changed wine into blood The expression inuolues à parity and implies thus much That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee so wine was really and substantially changed into Christs blood Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and substantial change of wine
Notes in the other Treatise Chiefly Disc 4. C. 2. n. 23. 24. Where you are told That the great work of Protestants is not so much to proue Their own Religion as to spend time in cauilling at ours And by superficial Glosses to driue sense out of the Fathers most significant Doctrin and then to tell the world they are not for Popery And thus may their glosses haue place no Religion neither their 's not ours can be proued by the Fathers This most vnworthy Sectaries proceed vnworthily with the Fathers Procedure with these great Lights of the Church lenghthens Protestants books And makes Mr Stillingfleets Account to swell into the bulk you see Might I here by the way speak my thoughts concerning it I verily belieue there was neuer Book set forth which lesse deserued it's Title than this He call's it A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion yet if any one after à diligent perusal of the whole Work can show me but one Article of Protestancy proued by plain Scripture by à General consent of Fathers by any ancient Church Doctrin or vniuersal Tradition I do at this present engage to euince by my Answer That he is grosly mistaken The fairest Occasion Mr Stillingfleet had to speak home for Protestancy was Part. 1. C. 7. Where he treat's of their way of resoluing Faith yet euen here he fall's so vtterly from the Cause that he saies no more for Protestancy than Arianism See the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 9. You will ask perhaps wherein then lies the Substance of his book I Answer in two things chiefly First in à tedious wordy quarrel Two impertinences Constitute the subslanet of Mr Stilling Account with Catholick Religion His flurting at it is endlesse 2. In à gross Abuse of the Fathers by his intolerable Glosses Of neither shall he giue à rational Account to God at the day of Iudgement To proue what is here hinted at Read I beseech you the following Chapter which I place here on set purpose to lead in à further discourse concerning the Glosses of Sectaries Withall to lay forth their emptiness and fraud And finally to show whither these Vnprincipled life-less Whimseys tend at last Thus much performed you shall see Protestancy appear like it self à meer Nothing CHAP. XVI One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses and his vnexusable abuse of other Fathers 1. THough much is said of this subiect already yet because here is Occasion again I shall briefly point at two or three of Mr Stillingfleet's notorious Abuses To prosecute all or the half he has would make this Treatise as big as his volume We begin with that known Passage of S. Hierome Epist 57. Ad Damasum where the Saint saith The Church is built vpon S. Peters See and whosoeuer is out of the Communion of that Church whereof Pope Damasus was then head is Prophane an Alien and belongs to Antichrist c. This in brief is the Substance of S. Hieroms Doctrin Mr Stilling Part 2. C. 1. P. 311. Imputes not plainly these Expressions to heat or flattery although S. Hierome abused Saith he it look's the more suspicious because at that time S. Hierome had à great picque against the Eastern Bishops And then tell 's vs to no purpose what occasioned the Quarrel Reflect good Reader Is this hansom to make à Saint and most profound Doctor to Speak in so weighty à Matter against Truth and his own conscience moued therunto by flattery and no man knowes what Imagined Picques Suppose he earnestly stood for Truth against those Bishops must He Therefore be thought either to flatter or to deny truth now when he writ's to à Pope his lawful Superiour Vpon what Principle doth this vngrounded calumny Stand Pray you Answer 2. After some Parergons not worth the mentioning Mr Stilling Saies When S. Hierome Pronounces those Aliens and Prophane who are out of the Communion of the Church it either belongs not to the particular Church of Rome or if it doth it makes not to our purpose What mean these words The particular Church of Rome The sole Diocess of that Citty No. S. Hierome speak's of the Church built vpon S. Peter or of all Churches vnited in Faith with that See where Damasus then sate which only excluding Aliens That is all heretical Societies make vp the true Vniuersal Orthodox Church as shall be demonstrated hereafter Well saith Mr Stilling Suppose I grant that S. Hierome spake of the particular Church of Rome he means or t' is Nonsense of all Churches of the same Faith with the Roman yet this comes not home to the purpose vnless we Catholicks proue our Church to be as Orthodox now as She was in those Primitiue times We proue Good Sr. Proue you on God's name to Mr Stilling demand impertinent whom prouing belong's That this Church is less Orthodox now than formerly Who euer stand's in à known old path as we Doe ought not to proue he stand's there Olim possideo prior possider is his proof but one that start's aside and takes to à new way as you haue done should tell vs why he left the other high Road wherein his Ancestors walked No prince proues his Right and Title to à Rebel but if any be so vngracious as to rebel that man must show why he did so or suffer for it But of this subiect so much is said in the other Treatise that I hold it vnanswerable More shall be added in its due place In the mean while you see à pretty way of arguing which run's vpon an idle Supposition viz. That the Roman Church is altered from it self since S. Hieroms time The improbable Supposition is first to be proued before the Argument haue any force till then we may lawfully iudge that S. Hierom's Testimony concludes against this Aduersary Pray tell me If I vpon à bare Supposition should assert that Mr Stilling is no good Diuine and thence infer he is His false supposition not proued vnfit to write Controuersies might he not most iustly be angry and well deny my Assertion because the Supposition whereon the Assertion stand's is not proued No more say is t' is proued in the present Matter viz. That our Church Doctrin is altered from it self since the primitiue times Proue that vpon sound Principles and you will doe more then Euer Protestant did hitherto 3. Hence all Mr Stilling following talk of Paralogisms fall's to nothing It is he saith our perpetual Paralogism when the Fathers are cited in praise of the Church of Rome although sometimes their Rhetorick swell'd too high in their Encomiasticks They are his words That we will needs haue these praises to be vnderstood as well of that Church in our present age as in the Fathers time when it better deserued them And he add's As though it were not possible for à Church to be eminent for purity of Doctrin in one age and to decline from it in another Answer All this is
ours Contrary to him is an Errour Ergo. The first part of my Assertion seem's euident For you know what hauock the Sectary makes of all infallible Principles Scripture only excepted which I am sure speak's not à word in his behalf nor against vs All Churches with him All Tradition All Councils All Fathers also are fallible and may deceiue Therefore thus much is indisputably clear He cannot proue infallibly I say no more yet that his Tenets are Christian Truths or infallibly That ours contrary are Errours For no man can more deriue an infallible proof from à meer fallible Principle than fetch gold out of dross or light out of Darknes Whateuer Therefore he plead's by next is vnder the degree of infallible certainty And what is it think ye O He has Moral Assurance and here is the Principle that his Tenets are Christian Truths and Ours false or erroneous Very Fallible Principles ground not infallible Doctrin good I ask Though moral certainty auail's nothings as we Shall see hereafter How he proues no Transubstantiation to be à Doctrin morally certain When the Contrary is expresly defined in three General Councils And held by à learned Church Has he any Council so renowned as either the Latheran or Tridentine which euer owned his Negatiue as à Christian Truth Has he any Church as Vniuersally spread the whole whorld ouer as the Roman Catholick is which maintained his Doctrin three or four Ages since Euidently No. Vpon what then ground 's He his Moral certainty I 'le tell you in à word All he can pretend to or plead in This Controuersy comes to no more if it reach so far But to two or three dubious Authorities taken from those Fathers who were Professed members of the Roman Catholick Church And this little slender part He makes not only to striue against the whole Church but moreouer giues it so much strength as to Impeach That great Moral body of errour And vtterly to ruin the Doctrin which hath been taught age after age That is to A part Compared with the whole say The lesser Part or rather à meer supposed part must be thought so powerful as to make à happy war Offensiue and Defensiue against that whole Moral body whereof it was à member Is not this à strange Simplicity 4. Be pleased to take here one Instance from Ciuil affaires only Suppose you haue à Parlament consisting of three hundred and three iust vpright graue and most intelligent Persons who first treat of some weighty Matter relating to the good of à Kingdom or Common wealth And after long deliberation Enact what in prudence is thought best in order to its Setlement Suppose withall that two or three of à different iudgement withstand the Act and hold what is concluded not well done Will any one think ye not only ascribe à greater moral Certainty to those three dissenting votes Than to the other three hundred But more ouer decry the far more numerous votes though of Persons equally wise as vniust impertinent and remote from the meanest degree of moral Certainty And this is done reflect An Instance seriously vpon no other ground for no other reason but because Three are wilfully supposed by à third Party looking o◠strong enough to oppose the greater Part. If this instance like you better make vse of it Imagin that à Synode Consisting of 303. Protestant Ministers define as they think What 's b◠to hold within the Compass of Protestant Religion Imagin also that three oppose Them Can any of that Religion allow more Moral certainty to the three votes than to the other three hundred if we respect Authority meerly Certainly ◠5. Our very case is here sufficiently expressed and the instances Applyed to our present purpose easily applyed to our present purpose The Roman Catholick Church is you know à great Moral body comprehending not hundreds but thousands and thousands whereof innumerable are now and in past Ages haue been most iust vpright prudent and without Controuersy most eminently-learned These vnanimously Enact as it were whether in the Representatiue of Councils or by the vniuersal voice and vote of the whole Church That Praying to Saints prayers for the Dead or which we now insist on the Doctrin of Transubstantiation are not only Tenets morally Authorities not clear impertinently alleged certain But more ouer Articles of Diuine Faith Our Aduersaries to oppose this vnquestionable certainty produce three or four Authorities not clear as is supposed done in Parlament but weak and strained and hope hereby to reuerse to vnuote what these thousands haue decreed contrary Three or four witnesses And these at most dubious are here brought in against Transubstantiation to make our new mens opinion Morally certain and yet These thousands most wise and learned though they clearly vote and profess against it cannot forsooth gain so much credit with à few Sectaries as to aduance the Doctrin to moral Certainty For here we waue the question of infallible Assurance What Doings are these What daies do we liue in The whole Catholick Church teaches as She euer taught that the very Substance of bread is really changed into Christs Sacred body And now o strange times one Theoderet though no way opposit is haled in to reuerse the Doctrin One must striue against and conquer Thousands It is we say à pretty feat to kill two Birds with one bolt But here we haue à greater exploit Theodoret is supposed to leuel so right with à darker expressions if yet dark That he destroies the Faith of two Churches at Once the Greeck and Latin Councils and eminent A parallel of Authorities learned councils haue defined in our behalf and one Tertullian Though herein he speak's most Catholickly is pick't out to plead against them What 's one against innumerable Tradition both Ancient and modern deliuers the Truth we Propugn And an vnknown Gelasius set vp by Sectaries must be thought powerful enough to repeal and contradict our fore Fathers Tradition What Doings are these Can the Sectary hope to beate down that stronge Fortress which Hell gates could neuer yet shake by such slight and forceless Armour Alas goe to single votes we oppose our Iustins our Cyrills our Cyprians our Chrisostoms clear and express against one Theoderet were he doubtful Now with an Addition adde to these The weight and graue Authority of our Church and Councils There is no Parallel no Comparison betwixt vs. Yet more Suppose these few Authorities were clearly contrary to vs the Protestant only has at most three votes as it were in Parlament against Millions and what gain's he by this His pretended Moral certainty stand's not firm like an vncontradicted Truth against such à Cloud of opposit witnesses And. 6. Here you haue à further reason of my Assertion As long as this Principle stand's sure in nature A whole body is greater than à Part and à Part thereof lesse extended than the whole So long it will
be indisputably euident That the vote or voice of à whole moral body I mean of à Vniuersal Church far and neer extended A further proof of our Assertion carries with it greater Moral certainty For all this while we touch not vpon Infallibility than à small and slender Part can haue were such à part found so inuincibly ignorant as to contradict the whole All I would say is No more can à few particular members Though Angels for knowledge contest with the contrary iudgement of our ample Church Than three votes in Parlament with the Contrary iudgement of à whole Kingdom No more can the Authority of particular men equalize much less surmount in weight and worth the Sentiment of à whole Moral body than à hand For example surpass in bigness the whole man As the one exceed's in quantity and Extension so the other doth in weight and Intenfion 7. Hence you see first How poorly Sectaries play at small Game when hauing no ancient Church of their own to recurr to They are fain to run for refuge to à Few Fathers professed members of our Church And here like people picking Salads gather vp some small fragments which now they clip now mangle now peruert now Gloss now dress after their new fashion And at last serue all The new mode of Sectaries arguing fairly vp in the larger Margents of their little English Books With these they flourish and vapour as if forsooth à small parcel were able to contrast with the far greater Moral body or à few stolen gleaning were all true they say sufficient to Vnuote what euer this Oracle of Truth hath defined contrary Leaue of I besecch you Gentlemen this Trifling giue vs weight for weight measure for measure Please to plead by sound Principles or you lose the cause Doge not with vs we deal nobly with you 8. Wee giue you plain and express Scripture The Church is à Pillar and ground of Truth She is founded vpon à Rock c. And you Scriptureless men return vs your fancied Glosses We quote innumerable Fathers most significant for our Catholick Positions And you fob vs off with obscurities with Criticisms and such simple stuff We appeal to Tradition you haue none We And this mainly import's show you à Church à Visible and à most glorious Church which time out of mind Belieued as we belieue And would gladly know where your Orthodox Church was The Sectaries Pleading impertinent which four Centuries since approued or published your Nouelties And you like men losing your way go wandring about till at last you fall vpon Theoderet's Dialogues And with one single Passage ill espied and worse applyed hope to vndoe the whole Catholick cause It is not one nor ten Theoderets though they speak far more clearly than is done That can preiudice our Doctrin whilst you haue neither Church nor Councils for yours These Principles we demand of you but you haue them not Therefore you are cast into an impossibility of writing Controuersies hereafter For the few Shreds of Fathers vnluckily cut out by you are too slight to obscure the greater Lights of our Christianity of our Church of our Councils of our Tradition and innumerable Fathers Belieue it had the Fathers you Quote so much Strength as you imagin others would haue read them before your eyes were open better Iudgements would haue weighed what force they had before your Luthers and Caluins were in Being But That wiser world now gone to Eternity waued such Cauils And knew well That what à Titius or à Caâ—us saies may be right And may be wrong But what the Church of Christ Defines and teaches cannot but be sound and Orthodox if God speak's Truth Here is the Principle whereon Christians securely relied in past Ages before our later Sectaries troubled the world 9. You see 2. in what à pitifull case Sectaries are when no more is alleged against our Catholick Doctrin And rest assured They haue no more but à few scattered Authorities now taken Doubtful Authorities of no weight at all from one now from another ancient Father Therefore I discourse thus The Authority is either expresly plain against vs which I neuer yet saw in any Doctrinal Contest between the Catholick and Protestant or Contrariwise doubtful and ambiguous If doubtful it decides nothing nor can the Protestant though He Vow 's it Clear make it soe whilst the learned Catholick auouches the Contrary Hitherto both of them stand vpon Opinions and end nothing Neither can the one or other yet absolutly Say by virtue of such à Passage only Your Doctrin is False And mine is True For à Principle rationally apprehended dubious determin's none to an absolute true iudgement one way or other Let vs therefore suppose contrary to Truth That the Sectary produceth à Father indubitably clear against Catholick Doctrin Thanks be to God These great lights of the Church are not so scarce with vs But that we are able to confront that one Authority with the plain Testimonies of other Fathers far more numerous And thus much I here engage to do may it please Sectaries to come to à iust Tryal and fully examin with me this one point of Transubstantiation now hinted at And if after the Contest we do not only match our Aduersary but quite outvie him with many more Testimonies fully as clear and clearer We may then rationally ask what 's one clear Authority worth I say yet more Though we falsly suppose these particular contrary Authorities to lie euen or equal on both Sides I mean as pregnant for the Sectary as for the Catholick yet I neither lose my cause nor he gain 's his Because neither of vs can absolutly say vpon what if authorities were equal on both sides Moral certainty which Doctrin is à Christian Truth And which not For in this conflict of Authorities Supposed equal both iudgements are left in suspence The one saith I quote clear Authorities for my Tenet The other answers Hee doth so too And Therefore hitherto stand so equally poised That neither may cry Victory Neither can yet pretend to so much Moral certainty as excludes All reasonable doubting because both Parties must doubt whilst the Authorities of the one abate the force of the other What then followes from the Fathers Testimonies were they thus equally diuided That is if as many clearly stood for the Negatiue of no Transubstantiation And iust as many clearly for the Contrary Positiue I Answer This followes That we and Sectaries must of necessity will we know Truth either appeal to à third certain concluding Principle or stand doubtfully opining as is often done in what followes vpon arguing out of doubtful Principles schools without à final Decision For to Belieue any thing certainly as Catholicks belieue if that Principle be excluded or to know any thing yet morally certain as Sectaries pretend to know is vtterly impossible Because à Principle purely probable is euidently too weak either to Support
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
but à Protestant opinion To assert 3. That the Ancient Church was right in faith And the present Church not or That She hath imposed meer Opinions to be belieued by Christians in place of Articles of Faith is à flat Calumny an improbable opinion which neuer yet was nor can be grounded vpon any rational Principle And can these opinions think ye which all Catholicks reiect pass for the grounded Essence of Protestancy They must or it has no Essence at all And mark well As they proceed with vs here so they doe in all other Controuersies They tell vs not only the Creeds but Scriptures much more contain all things necessary to Saluation That 's only their Opinion They tell Particular Proofe Thereof vs Their Belief now and that of the Primitiue Christians for the first Three or Four Centuries is one and the same It is their Opinion meerly And demonstratiuely vntrue They tell vs They own à Church before Luther but to say where or when it was distinct from the Roman Catholick or as They Imagin much larger than the Roman is only an Opinion and most improbable In à word They are euery where so narrowly confined That whether they build or destroy Impugn our Religion or offer to establish their own They neuer get out of the reach of Their own tottering improbable Opinions 8. And because I find this strain runs through Mr Stillingfleets whole Book He cannot surely be iustly offended if for my better Satisfaction concerning his Rational Account I require his rational Answer to one Question which I hold very reasonable Thus I propose it You Sir defend à Religion called Protestancy You allow it some essential Doctrin distinct from Popery and all condemned Hereticks Your Title supposeth this Doctrin well grounded The grounds of Protestant Religion Answer I befeech you giue me first without fumbling that Doctrin peculiar to Protestancy which essentially makes it à Religion Giue vs the Specifical difference of it if 't haue any And A question proposed to Sectaries Next Ground this Doctrin be it what you will vpon the vndubitable Authority of some known Orthodox Church Orthodox Councils or vniuersal Tradition but Fob vs not off with your vnproued Opinions Tell vs no more of belieuing Creeds only The Scripture only the Four first general Councils only without more these Onelies we except against Yet doe you only thus much as I now require T' is easily done if your cause be good And I will recall what euer I haue written against you And craue pardon for my rashnesse But the Catholick knowes well because Heresy can haue no grounded Doctrin This task is impossible I am now to shew the Protestant the impossibility of it also 9. Imagin one who belieues the Creeds as the Sectary pretend's to doe yet so That interiourly And from his very heart He abiures and slights all those Negatiue Articles called the opinions of Protestants I speak not here of his exteriour demeanour nor Countenance his dissembling i' ft be so My Question is this Whether such à man haue internal essential sufficient faith to make him à true belieuing Protestant He hold's himself one vpon this conuincing Reason That he firmly belieues what euer the Professors of that Religion maintain Sectaries must make meer Opinions their Articles of Faith as both essential and sufficient to Saluation Besides He knowes well No obligation lies on him to belieue by Faith the Negatiue Articles of Protestants neither can he because God has not reuealed them Such à man therefore hath compleatly essential Faith enough and is à true belieuing Protestant or if he be not yet got so high or haue not the Protestant Faith compleatly necessary and sufficient to saue him He must help it out by belieuing some one or other Protestant Opinion And Consequently the Belief of Opinions must either constitute him essentially à Protestant Or He will neuer be one yet this is most vntrue for God obliges none to belieue vnreuealed Opinions as Articles of Faith 10. We must goe yet further Suppose this man belieues the Creeds The Roman Catholick Church and euery particular Doctrin She teaches iust so as the best Catholick Belieues And whereas before He only slighted the opinions of Protestants now in place of them he firmly adheres to the Contrary Catholick Positions viz. To The Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation An vnbloody Sacrifice Praying to Saints worhiping of Images And in à word to all that the Church obliges me to belieue The difficulty farther vrged This man in heart is certainly Catholick I Ask whether he is yet à true belieuing Protestant In our Sectaries Principles Hee is For first he belieues his Creeds or Doctrin Common to all Christians And there is the Essence of their sauing Faith O but all is spoiled by belieuing the Church And what euer Doctrin She teaches Why so I beseech you why should this spoile all if in Conscience the man Iudges Her Articles to be reuealed Truths A Catholick you say may be saued Though he belieues thus much Therefore there is no reason to damn this man vpon any Account of his want of Faith For the Faith of His Creeds saues him And the beliefe of our Catholick Articles ruin's not that Faith Ergo. Again You must say His abiuring your Negatiue Opinions doth not Vnprotestant Him if he belieues the Creeds why then should the firm adhering to our contrary Positiue Catholick Articles which you call opinions make him less Protestant You may reply If He hold's them only as opinions He is still Protestant But we now suppose He belieues all as Articles of Faith Very good This then followes ineuitably Not to belieue them as Articles of Faith besides Owning the Creeds essentially makes him Protestant Ergo This also followes To belieue some one Negatiue or more then the Creeds Formally express Add to them the common Doctrin of all Christians The four General Councils c. is essentially necessary to Constitute him Protestant Now This very More which is nothing but à Sectarian Opinion essentially enters in to make him Protestant or Hee shall neuer bee one Thus much I intended to proue and I hold it proued demonstratiuely 11. You haue what I would say plainly laid forth in this vnanswerable Dilemma He who iudges all the Negatiue Articles of A dilemma Protestants false And belieues the Contrary Positiues taught by our Catholick Church As reuealed Truths is yet Protestant or not If not the belief of some thing els Truth or vntruth is essentially requisite to make him Protestant But the belief of That be it what you will now superadded to Constitute him à Belieuing Protestant is no Truth reuealed by God But only à Protestant Opinion without which he wants the Essence of that Religion Ergo most euidently the Belief of Opinions essentially constitutes him à belieuing Protestant Consequently some Doctrin which God has not reuealed makes him Protestant And the belief of his Creeds is not Faith
leaue them without excuse to silence them for euer Here is an vn answerable Dilemma Either the marks now kinted at are admitted or reiected Suppose them owned as clear cognisances of the true Church or of Her Orthodox Doctrin we most justly urge Protestants to proue what I know will neuer be made probable Viz. To shew That they had à Church three or four Ages since inuested in the signes and marks now mentioned On the other side if which is usual such marks be slighted as unmeet to manifest the true Church it must bee granted They haue no euidenced Church and Consequently no true Doctrin with it Hence I Argue Who euer belieues in an uneuidenced Church destitue of all Signes and marks of truth belieues in no true Church The Protestant belieues in such an vneuidenced Church Therefore he belieues in no Church But he who belieues in no Church belieues à Doctrin more than improbable or absolutely false And this is fancy or worse than fancy 3. What answer think ye do Sectaries return to this Argument They return no probable Answer A strange one indeed They tell vs the only Mark of the Church lies not in any external Notes but appear's in the written word of God and the Purity of Scripture So Alstedius Lib. de notis Ecclesia C. 29. Whitaker Contro 2. 9. 5. C 17. and Mr Stillingfleet here and there seem's well pleased with the fancy Contra. 1. The Church had her Marks besore Scripture was written what euer sensible Signes Then distinguished that holy Society from all heretical Conuenticles makes it yet known to the world and Still as clearly point's it out For the writing of Scripture nothing at all obscured the exteriour lustre of those Signes or prudent Motiues Contra. 2. A Mark which makes an obscure thing known is euer more clear and sensible than that is which is marked by it The Church Say Sectaries The Church more clearly manifested than Scripture is obscure and must be first known by Diuine Scripture But this very Diuinity of Scripture is more obscure than the Church For it is not its own Self-euidence nor known ex terminis to be Diuine Therefore vnless this Diuinity be made manifest by an other light it cannot giue to all the first notice of the Church which appeares More clearly to sense and reason by its own Signes than Scripture doth 4. Hence it followes 1. That Scripture which should first mark out the Church cannot do it being more obfcure than the thing marked by it It followes 2. That the Church thus marked is its own Self-euidence not Farther demonstrable to Reason Who euer therefore depriues the Church of her external Motiues or takes from her the glory of Miracles of Antiquity Conuersions c. Shall long grope in the dark before Hee find's either Church or Scripture You will say Scripture known by the vniuersal Tradition of Christians may well mark out and first discouer the true Church Tradition being à thing most known and Sensible to all Contra. This very Tradition either supposes à Church signalized with other Of what weight pleading Tradition is rational Motiues or excludes them And imports no more but the bare Consent of Christians that accept of Scripture as Gods Diuine word Grant the first we haue all that 's wished Plead only by the Second or tell à Heathen who may be gained to belieue the Church That all Christians vniuersally own Scripture as Diuine and mention nothing of Miracles or other Motiues manifest in the Church He will soon reply The Chineses haue also vniuersal Tradition or à general consent of à People largely diffused for their Bible The Turks haue it for their Alcoran yet such à Tradition alone is no Mark of God's word or the true Church Why then should it be à mark to Christians if no more be said 5. And the Heathen easily makes his Plea good by this conuincing Reason à Priori Before this vniuersal Tradition was before you so many Christians agreed in the Belief of your Bible the Doctrin Thereof was made credible vpon other Motiues These Motiues are not now extinguished or of lesser account because you haue agreed on the Scriptures Diuinity Nay they The Heathēs exceptions against Tradition only must be presupposed to haue been before you agreed For this Agreement is not the cause of the Bibles credibility but an effect of the same That is Therefore so many Christians haue agreed by à vniuersal Consent that Scripture is Gods word because it was made credible to Reason Antecedently to an Agreement so vniuersal But the ground of this Agreement was no other but the Authority of the Orthodox Church gloriously euidenced by the Lustre of her Signes and Motiues c. This Principle alone vtterly ruins Mr Stillingfleets Resolution of Faith as shall be made clear in an other place 6. Again saith the Heathen you Protestants discours not probably you iust proceed as one doth who laies Colours before à blind man and bid's him iudge of them You say that both I and Iewes are blind and cannot discouer the light which lies in the Scriptures Diuinity If this be so how can you imagin that I may find out the true Church by the light of Scripture though admitted vpon Tradition which I can no more look on than an owle on the Sun at Noon-day Neither will it help you at all if you Say Scripture interpreted both Mark 's and manifest's the true Church For I must first know that Scripture is Diuine before I giue credit to any Interpreter And though I were ascertained of that Diuinity yet I am still to seek whether your Interpretation or the Arians be better and this I cannot know without à sure Rule extrinsick to Scripture And all fallible Interpretation Yet the Heathen hath not done but pinches the Protestant shrewdly Admit saith he that Scripture Mark 's out the Church and giues vs the first Euidence of it when it tells vs. The Church is à Citty built vpon à Mountain and founded on à Rock That all Nations shall flock to it That Christ will be with it to the end of the world That it euer had and will haue Pastors Visible He clearly conuinces Sectaries and audible till we all meet in one Vnity of Faith That it is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. Can you my good Protestants show me such à Church belonging to you three or four Ages since when you had not one single man in the world professing your Protestant Religion Where was then your Protestant Citty visible on à Mountain What Rock stood it on in those daies when it was not in being What Nations what Iewes what Gentils did it then conuert to your Nouelties How was Christ then with it and taught it all Truth when there was no such Church to learn his Doctrin Giue me à Catologue of your Visible Pastors at that time or tell me how your Church was then à Pillar
ouerthrow any Doctrin of our Church Alas what this Oracle positiuely defin's is à stronger Principle than twenty dubious Authorities of Fathers if any such were in appearance contrary It followes 2. That the Roman Catholick Church must of necessity be either owned Orthodox in all She teaches or cannot be belieued in any thing 8. Wherefore I say à great word If this Church hath deceiued the world in teaching à Purgatory for example neither we nor Sectaries can certainly belieue that Christ was here on earth or Redeemed vs. For Ask why belieue wee this great Mystery If you Answer Scripture reueal's it you are Questioned again How One Errour in the Church Destroyes all Faith know you that Scripture is Gods word which Ex terminis euidences not it self You must Answer Vniuersal Tradition and all the Churches in the world haue owned the Book for Gods word Very good But The Church hitherto supposed most Orthodox among so many Heretical Societies and Her Tradition likewise haue actually deceiued all For She is now Imagined to haue taught the false Doctrins of Purgatory Transubstantiation c. Therefore you cannot belieue Her or any Tradition for erring in one point of Faith She is not belieuable in any This principle stand's firm Much less can you trust to the Doctrin or Tradition of known Heretical Churches whether Arians Pelagians or others For all these haue erred and most grosly Therefore you haue no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture nor can you belieue this one Prime Article Christ dyed for vs by Diuine Faith 9. Let therefore the Sectary labour all that 's possible to contract the fundamentals of Faith into the shortest room Imaginable let him mince them almost to nothing let this one Article Iesus is the Christ be Faith enough for all I say if the Roman Catholick Church speaking in the name of God as She pretends to speak hath taught but one false Article and obliged Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation Purgatory for example none can now vpon any Motiue known to the world firmly belieue That Iesus is the Christ So pernicious is one known errour of the Church that it ruins's all belief of other Articles nor can such à Church be more trusted in any thing She speaks than Scripture relied on were it false in that Article Iesus is the Christ 10. The reason à Priori is All Faith is at last reduced or finally resolued into Gods Diuine Reuelation whether he speaks by this or that Instrument by this or that Oracle imports nothing The Vltimate reason of the Assertion The difference of the Oracle he speaks by diuersifies not faith which alwaies tend's to one Center and rests on one sure Ground Gods Veracity If he speaks by à Prophet that 's his Oracle If by an Apostle he is made an Oracle If by the exteriour words of Scripture they are Oracles if by the Church She is his Oracle Now further Suppose any of these assumed Oracles speaking in the name of God declare à false Doctrin to Christians the Falsity Vltimatly redound's to God who own 's them as Oracles yet by them teaches the world Falsities It fall's out here As if à Prince should send à Legate to à State who speak's in his name and cheat the whole State by his Embassy would not all deseruedly vpon the Supposition more impute the Cheat to the Prince than to the Legate that speaks in his name The parity is exact and proues if either Scripture Prophet Apostle or Church speaking in the name of God deliuers false Doctrin God himself deceiues vs and therefore Rich. de S. Vict. Said well in this sense also Si error est quem credimus c. If we belieue an errour T' is you Great God who haue deceiued vs But if God can once deceiue either immediatly By Himselfe or mediatly by his Oracle The whole Systeme of Christian Faith is desstroyed What I say would bee true Although He should make à solemn protestation of Speaking Truth For euen then he cannot oblige me to belieue because he may deceiue in that very Protestation and deliuer à falsity if the supposition hold 11. Here then is the final Conclusion As subiectiue Faith in à Belieuer is Indiuisible That is it is either wholly good or wolly naught None can haue à piece of Faith without the whole vertue an Could the Church propose one false Article She can bee belieued in nothing Arian cannot belieue Christ to be à Redeemer if He denies the Trinity So if one Matter of Faith proposed by the Church be really Contrary to what She defines None can belieue any thing She teaches For the meer Possibility of deceiuing Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all She proposeth And this proues the Church absolutly infallible not in some points only but in all and euery Doctrin whereof you haue more in the 15 16 and 17 Chapters following 12. Some may reply I suppose all this while the Church made so stedfastly God's Oracle as not to err in any Doctrin She proposes which is Petitio Principy or à begging of the Question Contra. And Ye Gentlemen whilst you impeach Her of Errour Suppose Her Instrumentum diuulsum an Oracle tom as it were from Gods Sspecial Assistance iust as if I shoâ—ld Suppose the words of Scripture separated from the Spirit of truth You suppose Her à fair spouse yet make Her à harlot when and as Often as you please You acknowledge some Church or other find that out where you can to teach Truth yet you like petulant Schollers will forsooth be so wise as to tell her where she misseth in Her Lesson and correct Her for it And you haue done it to the purpose For you haue destroied Her Monasteries rob'd Her Altars prophaned Her Temples abused Her Children banished some and hang'd vp other Are not these fine God deceiues if the Church câ—n Err. Doings Contra. 2. I suppose nothing but what is manifest that Christ euer had à Church on earth once more find it where you can and that God speaks to Christians by this Oracle which he will be with to the end of the world And against which Hell gates shall neuer preuail Now I say if this Church which God not I makes his own Oracle and promises to teach Truth by it can deceiue but in one Matter of Faith God himself deceiues vs And this Church ceaseth Eo ipâ—o to be Catholick yea and God to be the Eternal Truth For it Matters nothing if he can deceiue whether he do it by Scripture or the Church Solue this Argument if you can 13. You may say 2. The whole ground of this Discourse à Fallacy and comes only to thus much If à man once tell à lie he must be thought à lyar in all he speaks So it is The Church speaks an vntruth in some things Ergo it doth so or may do so in all seemes no good consequence Contra.
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
beseech you Why did God impart truth and infallible truth to the world The end was not to improue his own knowledge being euer Omniscient It was not that the Angels and blessed in Heauen should belieue for Faith ceaseth in that happy State All there se intuitiuely what they once belieued The end therefore The Proof is taken from the End of Diuine Reuelation why God reuealed true and Infallible Doctrin was That we yet Pilgrims on earth walking by Faith should yeild Assent to it and belieue all as both true and infallible But this is impossible if the Church which immediatly Proposes the Doctrin can clash with Scripture or with Gods Reuelation and peruert his Verities Therefore She must be acknowledged both true and infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches 3. If any reply It seem's sufficient that the Church teaches Truth though She neither proposes nor teaches it so infallibly but that some times She may swerue from it He destroyes again Christian Religion Be pleased to obserue my reason If the Diuine reuelation is to be assâ—nted â—o infallibly infallibility of reuealed Doctrin be lost as it were in the way between God and vs If the Reuelation appear not as it is in it selfe infallible when we assent to it by Faith That is if it be not infallibly conueyed and applyed to all by an vnerring Proponent as it subsists in its first cause infinitly infallible Faith perishes we are cast vpon pure Vncertainties and may iustly doubt whether such à Doctrin separated from that other Perfection of infallibility be really true or no To se this clearly laid forth Please to make one reflection with me 4. May not either Iew or Gentil well inclined to Christian Religion rationally propose this Question to the Protestants or to any Has God reuealed any Doctrin which is only true God's reuealed Doctrin is no less infallible then true and not infallible You will Answer No because the same infinite verity which support's truth is powerful enough to vphold also its infallibility Say on I beseech you Can you who pretend to teach truth the worst of Heretiques haue done so Ascertain me also that you teach and propose Gods infallible Truths infallâ—blâ— Proue your Selues such Doctors and none will euer Question further the Truth of what you teach For if you once make this clear that you teach the infallible Doctrin which God has reuealed the truth inseparably connexed with infallibility is no more disputable but manifestly Credible But if you turn me off with à fair Story of teaching truth and Ascertain me not of your teaching it infallibly euery rational man will most iustly doubt of your teaching Truth And here is the reason à Priort 5. Euery Doctrin which is taught as à Verity founded vpon God the first Verâ—ty is no less Infallible than true Therefore who euer Ascertains me of the one must ioyntly ascertain me of the other Or if he will diuorce truth from that perfection of Infallibility There is no parting Infallibility from truth he giues me no more but at most the half of that Doctrin which God reueal's Nay I learn not so much from him seing God own 's no true Doctrin men can teach natural truths which is not as eminently infallible as true Now further If I be fob'd off with no man knowes what halfes of Diuine Doctrin That is if the Proponent parts truth from its infallibility and no Authority in Heauen or earth licences any to Separate what God has ioyned together I only learn the faint Sentiments when We belieue God's reuealed Doctrin or weak Opinions of fallible Teachers founded vpon fancy which God disclaim's And which is euer to be noted man by nature fallible can do no more but only propose them as meer humane or doubtfull Vncertainties But à humane doubtful Proposition though true beget's as is said aboue no certain faith in any Therefore who euer will not vtterly ruin the very life and Essence of Christian Religion must absolutely assent both to the truth and Infallibâ—lity of Religion and consequently acknowledge an Infallible Oracle which teaches and One Church only Infallible proposes Infallible Verities Infallibly But this is only the Roman Catholick Church as is said aboue for no other Society of men laies claim to teach Gods infallible truths infallibly 6. To solue all Obiections against this Discourse it will much auaile to be well grounded in this sure Principle Viz. A certain Principle It is one thing to teach truth and another to teach Diuine and infallible truth Man by natural reason can teach truth yet is insufficient to teach Diuine reuealed and infallible Truth this must come from à higher Power either from Diuine Assistance or Supernatural Wherevpon our Answers to Sectaries Illumination If therefore the Protestant Should demand Why we cannot belieue his Doctrin euen when he only Proposes those general Verities which all Christians admit He neuer offers to Obtrude vpon you his inferiour Tenents peculiar to Protestants Answer They are truths indeed and infallible truths but not proued so because he Vnassisted teaches them If he Ask again vpon what foundation do we Catholicks lay the truth and infallibility of that Doctrin we belieue and teach Answer are grounded Vpon this firm Ground that Scripture interpreted by an Assisted Oracle the Chruch which cannot beguile any Proposes all we learn as true and infallible Doctrin 7. If he reply 3. Protestants abstract from the Churches Interpretation and hold Scripture plain enough in all fundamental Doctrin necessary to Saluation Answer He err's not knowing the depth of Scripture which is so dark and vnintelligible in the abstruse Mysteries of faith that vnless certain Tradition and the Sense of the vniuersal Church cast light vpon it or impart greater clarity to the bare letter The wisest of men Scripture is obscure will be puzled in what they read or at most guess doubtfully at its meaning And therefore may easily swerue from truth To se what I say proued 8. Imagain only that twenty learned Philosophers or more who neuer heard of Church Tradition or of her Generael re 〈◊〉 Doctrin had our Bible drop't down from Heauen with Assurance that it contain's Gods infallible truths prouided all they read be rightly vnderstood but not otherwise Suppose The most learned Philosophers ignorant of Tradition and Church Doctrin 2. They peruse that one Sentence in S. Iohns Gospel Iâ— the beginning was the Word and that Wâ—rd was with God Thâ— same was in the beginning â—irâ— God c. Suppose 3. They also confer the Sentence with all other Passages in Holy Writ relating to this Mystery Could these Philosophers think ye by the force of their natural discourse only acquire exactly the infallible truth of the Incarnation iust so as the Church now teaches and belieues No. Euery Particle would put Cannot Vnderstand it them vpon à further Scrutiny What is signified Saith one by this In
infallibly the Infallible Testimony of the Apostles Preaching with à Diuine Infallible Assent Most certainly they Did. Yet the Infallibility of that Testimony was not known if we speak strictly of Knowledge but by Motiues of Credibility which were no Obiect of their Faith vnless you make faith to be Science The Argument retorted but Inducements only to belieue Ergo this very Primitiue Faith was vnreasonable because it was an infallible Assent built vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of that Euidence whereby those pious men were moued to belieue Hence You Se though the Motiues which illustrate the Church were in themselues fallible and not Metaphysically conexed with the Diuine Testimony yet Faith grounded on that Testimony cannot but be certain and infallible and consequently must Transcend or goe beyond all the degrees of Certitude appearing in the prerequired Motiues Mr Stillingfleet reply's This is to require Infallibility in the Conclusion where the Premises are only probable Answ He err's not knowing the nature of Faith which Discourses not like to Science For example Make this Sillogism Whateuer God reueal's is True but God reueal's the Incarnation of the Diuine VVord Ergo that is true The difficulty only is in the Minor But God reueal's which cannot be proued by another belieued Article of Faith wholly as obscure to vs as the Incarnation is I say proued by Reason because the same difficulty will be as much moued again Concerning the Proof of that second belieued Article as concerning the first of the Incarnation and so in Infinitum And Shew'd Proofles Therefore all rational Proofs auailing to beget Faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were in another Region more clear yet less certain than the reuealed Mystery is we assent to by Faith 4. Now to our Purpose We hold this an Article of Faith The Church is God's infallible Oracle And therefore Say antecedently Rational Proofs for the Churches infallibility to Faith it cannot be proued by Arguments as obscure or of the same Infallible certainty with Faith For then Faith would be superfluous or rather we should belieue by à firm and infallible Assent before we do belieue vpon the Motiue of Gods infallible Reuelation which is impossible Hence it is that when we goe about Haue not the certainty of Faith 〈◊〉 the Infallibility of the Church independently of Scripture Yea and also independently of all belieuâ—d Church Doctrin We must necessarily Euince this rationallâ— by reflex Arguments and Motiues extrinsecal to what we Belieue which are not of the same certainty with Supernatural Faith it self Now these Arguments what these Motiues Proue founded vpon the Motiues of Credibility can goe no further stretch them to the vtmost But only to proue this great verity That what euer we belieue either of Scripture or of the Church is most euidently Credible aboue all things proposable to the contrary And this great light the learned at least haue before they yeild an infallible Assent vpon Diuine Reuelation to the very Doctrin of the Church or Scripture either 5. I Say 2. Mr Stillingfleet and all Sectaries whilst They Belieue with an Infallible Assent the most fundamental Articles in Sectaries goe beyond that Euidence whereby they are induced to belieue Scripture goe beyond all Proportion of that Euidence whereby they are induced to Belieue And consequently must Solve their own â—eak Argument yet strong Ad hominem against them If I Euince not this Truth blame me boldly And obserue my Proof 6. The Sectary belieues that Verity which S. Iohn expresses in this short Sentence The word was made Flesh That is he belieues the Incarnation of the Son of God with an Assent so infallible that it cannot only be false but that he would not disbelieue it vpon any reason Proposable Though an Angel should preach Contrary But neither this Act of Faith nor its Formal Obiect the Diuine Reuelation are ex terminis euidently true Quoad â—s yet must be proued â—uidently Credible to reason or Faith becomes vnreasonable and rash For Qui cito credit leuis est corde Now further None can proue this by another Act or Article of Faith no more its own Self-euidence than the belieued Incarnation The Assertion Proued is All therefore which can be done is to make it euidently Credible by Motiues extrinsecal to Belief by vniuersal Tradition and the Consent of innumerable learned men who haue both conueyed vnto vs the Words as Diuine Scripture and the genuine Sense of them also But this very humane Tradition this exteriour Consent of all or what other Motiues can be Imagined preuious to Faith because fallible may deceiue Yet by the help of such fallible Motiues Mr Stillingfleets Our Aduersary Clearly Conuinced Faith if it rest's vpon the Diuine Reuelation is raised higher and stand's firmer vpon that Ground than the Euidence of his Motiues can induce to Therefore he makes the conclusion surer than the Premises And goes beyond all Proportion and degree of fallible Euidence preambulatory to his certain Belief What I Assert is manifest For by Faith he The Conuiction Manifest Sayes the Incarnation is so infallibly true that it cannot be false Yet all the Motiues which induce him to belieue Say Possibly it may be false or exclude not à Possibility of falshood And if this be not to Transcend all Proportion of his acquired Euidence nothing is to goe beyond it 7. The Argument will be yet more clear if proposed after this manner Mr Stillingfleet infallibly belieues the truth of that Scripture now Quoted I Ask by what means can he know That this very belieued Truth is à Diuine Verity or Scripture The Answer may be That 's known vpon Tradition or the publique Authority of all not only Christians but others also who haue conueyed the Book to vs. Very Another most Conuincing Proof good But this Publick Authority this Conueyance or what euer Tradition you will is either of equal infallible certainty with the Belieued Truth of Scripture Or less and much weaker If less and weaker Mr Stillingfleets Faith goes beyond all propotion and degrees of his preuious acquired Euidence Not to be answered And it be of equal infallible Certaintly That is If he belieues as infallibly the Conueyance of those Words For or Vpon Gods Diuine Testimony as he belieues the Doctrin there contained to be à Diuine Truth He makes one Article of Faith the Proof of another and euidently incurrs the Circle obiected to Catholicks as shall appear afterward When we examin his 170. Page and refute his Errour concerning the Moral Certainty of Faith 8. Now to the Obiection It is not possible That the Assent in matters of Faith rise higher or stand firmer than the Assent to the Testimony is vpon which those things are belieued Answer Very true But know Sr we Assent to matters of Faith vpon Gods Diuine Testimony and not for the Motiues
which only induce to belieue So the Primitiue Christians belieued vpon Christ's A Mistake in the Obiection infallible Testimony and built not their Faith vpon the exteriour Motiues Euident to Sense which meerly considered as Motiues only made his Testimony highly credible to Reason Viz. One Instance which none can boggle at That it was Diuine and infallible For example Some saw Others heard of our sauiours great Miracles of his admirable Sanctity And then discoursed The Man that doth these wonders cannot but be one sent from God It is true he preaches both new and difficult Doctrin to our eares But if he be sent from God we are obliged to Belieue him vpon his word And vpon that Word Their Faith relyed 9. Apply this Instance to the Church you haue all I would Say The Church is euidenced by Miracles Sanctity of life in Millions by Conuersions and the like signal Motiues Here are the Inducements which proue Her Gods Oracle and Clears all the Doctrin highly credible aboue what euer all other Societies called Christians haue Taught Yet our Faith is not built vpon these Motiues considered as Inducements but vpon Her infallible Testimony The Instance now giuen Concerning the most Primitiue Belieuers is so clear That our Aduersaries shall neuer weaken the force of it or shew the least Disparity 10. And thus you se all Mr Stillingfleets talk P. 113 Comes to nothing I desire Saith he to know whether an infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motiues of Credibility Answ And I desire to know whether an A Question answered and retorted Infallible Assent to the Apostles Preaching was grounded on those Motiues which the Primitiue Christians saw or heard of before they belieued what you say I 'll say Briefly Many learned Diuines hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphysically connexed with Gods diuine Testimony speaking by the Church and if that opinion be true the Motiues ground an Infallible Shewed also impertinent Assent but that 's Euidence and no Faith And therefore most impertinent to your following Inference If say you we affirm the Motiues ground an Infallible Assent there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of our Church infallible in order to Diuine faith For we Catholicks you hope will not deny but that there are at least equal Motiues of Credibility to proue the Diuine Authority of the Scriptures as the infallibility of our Church And if so why may not an Infallible assent be giuen to the Scriptures vpon those Motiues of Credibility as well as to our Churches infallibility Answ A strange kind of Argument 11. First Sir you know or should know Catholicks hold with S. Austin That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority How then do you say You hope we will not deny c No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other Treatise also immediatly make Scripture Credible independently of the Churches Tradition No Miracles were euer heard of No Motiues make Scripture euidently credible which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you more Canonical Scripture than that of Iudith which you reiect Did any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of Salomons Canticle that 's Scripture say you and refuse to dye for the Book of Wsdom cast out of your Canon Or was euer any soul sooner conuerted by reading the One than the other These Miracles Sr these Martyrdoms these Conuersions immediatly illustrate the Church and proue not à Part only but Her whole Doctrin to be Independently of Church Authority most Euidently Credible and worthy of belief whilst you se your Signs of Diuinity and no man knowes what imagined motiues in behalf of Scripture as little Euidence the Books you admit as those you reiect That is neither indeed haue any Self-Euidence in them abstracting from Church Authority Your Euidence therefore is à strong fancy and nothing els 12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole Canon or bare letter of Scripture you haue not any so much as probable for the Sense chiefly in Controuerted matters which properly is God's Reuelation without the Churches infallible Interpretation Speak Sr your Conscience plainly What can it auaile you or me to know that the Book we read is God's No Motiues for the Scriptures Sense word Seing innumerable false Religions by peruerse Misinterpretations are drawn from thence if that other Principle Deus â—â— dixit God or Truth it self speaks This and this particular Sense lies in darkness concealed from vs. This Principle then God speak's this Sense being the very vltimate Resoluent and last foundation of Christian Faith must when that Sense is Obscure borrow light from no dark mistaken fallible or doubtful Orade But the bare letter of Scripture is dark and grosly mistaken by Heretiques mans priuate Iudgement is fallible our comparing the Scriptures Passages together is meerly Coniectural and dubious Therefore if the certitude of Faith must rely vpon VVithout the Churches Infallible interpretation what God has spoken I mean the infallible Sense of his sacred word The Oracle which interpret's can be no other but an Infallible Church And here I both Petition and vrge Sectaries to assign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can be built seing all confess we are obliged to belieue that Infallible sense chiefly in matters they call Fundamental This Argument alone could we say no more forceth euery rational man to own à Church absolutely infallible in Her exposition of Scripture 13. From whence also it followes first that Mr Stillingfleet much mistakes Himself when he Saith Both sides I hope agree Our Aduersary mistaken that there are sufficient Motiues of Credibility as to the belief of Scriptures I answer There is not one firm Motiue for the true reuealed Sense and this only is Scripture if we exclude Tradition and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church Bring to light but one and I am satisfyed 14. It followes 2. That that half Tradition owned by Sectaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books of Scripture leaues them wholly Scriptureles and as Faithles The halfe Tradition for the barc letter as if they had no Bible For it neither grounds faith immediatly because it is not God's Reuelation but the fallible Consent of men Nor can it induce as à Motiue to belieue any one particular Article of Christian Religion without further certitude had from the same Churches infallible Tradition and interpretation Not sufficient concerning that most weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning Reiect therefore this infallible Interpreter All of vs iust like Arians Macedonians Donatists desperatly rely vpon the worst Guides Imaginable our own fallacious and vngouernable fancies and will needs learn of such giddy Teachers the pure interpretation of God's Word These we make our Oracles in lieu of Christs Church and in doing so may easily ascribe to God à Doctrin he disdain's to own and
and all the particular Sentences contained in them are not God's written word He could not yet for such à peruerse Denial be accounted an Heretique I Proue it None can incurr the guilt of Heresy but he who denies à Truth which God has reuealed or which stand's firm vpon à Diuine Testimony But he that denies the Books of Scripture to contain Heresy not incurred though one denyed the Books of Scripture to be Diuine God's Word in them renounceth no Truth reuealed by Almighty God For Saith our Aduersary this is no reuealed Truth nor stand's firm vpon any Diuine Testimony Therefore he is no Heretique Now further if he may without the sin of Heresy deny these Books to be Diuine Seing God neuer said so It is impossible to belieue the Doctrin therein contained to be Diuine vpon any Diuine Testimony yet Mr Stillingfleet thinks he may 35. My Reason is No man vnderstand's by the Books of Scripture which contain the Principles or Doctrin of the Iewish and Christian Religion to be meerly the Paper or Couer of the Books but he must vnderstand if he rightly conceiues VVhat is to be vnderstood by the Books of Scripture what Scripture is the very Principles and Doctrin contained in those writings For example Here is one Principle in the old Testament Gen. 17. 4. God made à Conuenant with Abraham and his seed for euer Another in the New Ioan. 1. 14. The Word is made Flesh. Answer I beseech you Can any man truly affirm that these two Principles the like is of innumerable others contained in Scripture stand not firm vpon God's infallible Testimony when T' is manifest the whole Christian world is obliged to belieue them with à Faith grounded vpon the same infallible Testimony that reuealed them Principles of Religion denyed It was Therefore no little Ouersight in Mr Stillingfleet to Speak here of the Principles of the Iewish and Christian Religion contained in à Book called Scripture And positiuely to Assert these cannot be belieued vpon à Diuine Testimony This certainly is not Defensible 36. Some may yet Reply Two things are here to be considered First the bare letter or outward words of Scripture and these we belieue not vpon Diuine Reuelation but haue them from vniuersal Tradition or the consent of Nations An Answerto such as here diflinguish The second is the Sense or Diuine Doctrine which these outward Signes or exteriour words Conuey to vs. Now this Sense or the interiour Doctrin of Scripture as contradistinct from the bare outward letter we purely belieue vpon the Diuine Testimony casting the Assent giuen to the Words vpon Between the bare words and the sense other forrain Principles I belieue Mr Stillingfleet elswhere Saies some such thing as this or must say it Contra. 1. The meer outward words though pure are no Books of Scripture And as separated from the Sense and interiour Doctrin are neither Principles of the Iewish or Christian Religion nor in rigour God's word For God neuer spake nor inspired others to write words but he iointly conueyed with them his own Sense and Doctrin also And Methinks its very hard to belieue this Doctrin This is my beloued Son as God's sacred words and not to belieue those very words to come from God vpon the same Diuine Motiue which Support's the Doctrin Moses saith our Sauiour Iohn 5. 47. Has written of VVords are Diuine me And if you will not belieue his Writings how will you belieue my Words These outward Signes therefore the very words of truth called by the Apostle 1. Thess 2. 13. Verbum auditus Dei words of hearing or heard are in very deed the VVords of God and consequently may well where none can rationally doubt of their Purity be assented to vpon the same Diuine Testimony with the Doctrine contained in them 37. The Reason is God would haue been the same Verity he now is although he had reuealed nothing that therefore which moues or determin's Belieuers to assent to the truths reuealed is not only his increated Authority but the sincere external Reuelation with it also These Two iointly The First Veritas Speaking is the Obiect of Faith concurr as one Motiue whence it is that the First Verity as Speaking or Reuealing may be rightly called the Formal Obiect of Faith I know Diuines vary about this Question Whether the external Proposition be à partial Motiue with Gods internal Verity or only à necessary condition whereby that Verity the vltimate ground of faith is applyed to Belieuers herein much may be de Nomine But none of them all Say The exteriour Reuelation is assented to vpon one Principle which is not Diuine and that the Doctrine conueyed by it is belieued vpon another most Diuine and infallible This is à nouelty VVhat Sectaries should grand Neither do I see how Sectaries can find that Lustre that Maiesty and Diuinity so often talk'd of in the purest words of holy Writ if they be not owned as God's true words vpon his Diuine Testimony 38. Let vs now briefly examin Mr Stillingfleet's Proposition without depending on what he teaches or must teach concerning the belief of words separated from the Doctrin VVe belieue Saith he the Doctrin contained in the Books of The Doctrin in it selfe examined Scripture vpon à Diuine Testimony because God has giuen abundant Euidence that this Doctrin was or is of Diuine Reuelation Here are three things Distinguishable The Doctrin Belieued The Incarnation for example The Testimony reuealing the matter bebelieued and finally the Euidence whereby that Testimony is brought to light Now all our difficulty is concerning the Euidence of this Diuine Testimony wherevpon we belieue any Mystery and we Ask from whence Mr Stillingfleet takes his Euidence He has you se abundance of it wherewith to proue that God euer Said The Diuine word was made flesh 39. The Question seem's reasonable because this Testimony which all ought to belieue and consequently doth Exist is not it's own Selfe euidence nor can it be euidenced by another Testimony of Scripture wholly as obscure to vs that God spake The Diuine Testimony not its own Self euidence that Truth For so we should goe in insinitum and Proue one dark Testimony by another equally as dark Infallible Tradition not written and the infallible Authority of the Church our Aduersaries reiect And may Say Both though admitted are Obiects of faith and consequently vnder tâ—at Notion appear as little Euident to vs as the Scriptures Testimony is we desire to proue Therefore whateuer is rightly called Euidence in this matter whereby all would discouer an obscure Testimony not yet proued God's word must of necessity be extrinsecal to the Testimony it selfe and if extrinsick no other Euidence can Therefore the Euidence of its Credibility must be taken from extrinfick Motiues Possibly be had but that which arises from the known Motiues of Credibility For by these the Church is proued an Oracle no lesse
Infallible supernatural Assent whereby all ought to adhere to Mysteries most profound or aboue all humane Reason And consequently we deriue its certitude The Catholicks faith most certain from God's Infallible Reuelation inuested in his own Diuine light and readily return him à double Obedience of our whole interiour of the Will and Vnderstanding together and belieue most vndoubtedly 17. One may Obiect 2. As none can discern true Gold A harder Difficulty from another mettal very like it vnlesse there appear's in the Obiects some real Difference so it is impossible to discern à true Reuelation from one meerly apparent or false by any Diuine light vnlesse there be an Obiectiue diuersity or discernibility discouerable between them which cannot be assigned 18. This Obiection proposed by no Sectarie is to the Purpose To solue it I must remind you of that Solitary Man Commissioned Proposed by no Sectary to preach after his Vision had in à desert place who goes abroad tell 's what he had heard and seen in his own natural Language But gains not belief He vseth another Idiotism Speak's in Gods name and as one sent from God ought to speak That is he euidences his Mission by supernatural Signes work 's Miracles or proues them wrought in confirmation of his Doctrin All now adore him as à Prophet All belieue This Language some Diuines rightly call an extrinsecal Form of speech which is Supernatural Quoad modum because it contain's wonders done aboue the force of nature and proceeds from the Faith of him that teaches as also from the Belief of the whole Church besides Please to obserue As mans natural speech is apt to beget in à Hearer à natural knowledge of his internal Conception The language of God whether exteriour or interiour that speak's and the thing spoken of So this Supernatural Language is apt to beget in one well disposed à Supernatural apprehension of his internal conception that speak's and the Mystery likewise spoken of Now because this exteriour Language is God's proper Form of Speaking and most peculiar to himselfe it carries with it Ex natura rei it s own signature it s own Discernibility in so much that its distinguishable from all other Carries with it it s own discernibility wayes of speaking which are false or come not from the first Verity And this peculiar mark of God's speaking very discouerable the preuious light of Faith perceiues as most different from all other counterfeited Languages And thus you haue the Obiectiue Diuersity sought for fully pointed at 19. Hence you see first That none can propose A false Mystery for example the Incarnation of the Holy Ghost inuested in all and euery due Supernatural circumstance requisite to belieue Two Inferences deduced from this Doctrin à reuealed Truth Something appertaining to God's exteriour Language and the natural preuious Proposition whereof we haue now spoken though both Miracles and Mission be falsly pretended will euer be wanting You se 2. That when two Mysteries are propounded together the one false the other true both in the same natural manner neither of them contain's à sufficient proposal Inductiue to supernatural Faith nor can God according to ordinary Prouidence giue his Grace to belieue in such Circumstances whilst the Preacher abuses his function and teaches things he was not sent to teach CHAP. X The easiest way of resoluing Faith Laid forth in two Propositions The euidence of Credibility further declared Sectaries haue no Euidence of Credibility It is as euidently Credible that God now speak's by the Church as that He did anciently Speak by the Prophets 1. THe first Proposition Faith which comes by exteriour Hearing is resolued into the first Verity speaking In to what faith is resolued by one or more lawfully sent to preach who proue their Mission and make their Doctrin euidently credible by Signes both prudent and supernatural You haue in this Assertion first Faith 's Formal Obiect God's increated verity Specified You haue 2. the Appendants requisite to beget Faith briefly hinted at whereof more presently 2. If therefore any Ask why we belieue this or that Diuine Mystery The Incarnation for example Some Answer the One and the same Answer returned by All. belief is grounded vpon vnwritten or Apostolical Tradition Others vpon the words of Scripture others finally recurr to the Churches infallible Testimony All of them speak but one and the same thing comprised in these few words God Saith it who cannot err speaking by One or more lawfully sent to Preach 3. Inquire again But from whence haue we Assurance that God has said the Diuine word was made flesh for the Doctrin to vs is neither Euidently true nor Euidently false I Answer God Himselfe giues infallible Assurance hereof And who can do that better then He Here Faith precisely considered as an Vpon what Verity Faith finally relies intellectual Assent finally rest's In so much that if you multiply demand's to the world's end no other Answer can be returned but this only Eternal Truth has said it or reueal's that he All further Answers impertinent the Reason hereof Speak's this Verity All further Questions proposed and replies giuen though different in sound are really Synonimal The reason is because the last Motiue of Faith can haue none before it Selfe for to run on in Infinitum with Motiues and stop no where is to make no Resolution at all 4. I know à Heathen Philosopher may abuse the Sense of the An Obiection Proposed in the name of à Heathen Apostles words 1. Cor. 1. 18. And say we now preach foolery indeed Gentibus Stultitia For what can be more deuoid of reason then to belieue most infallibly whilst the mind yet in darkness doth so hauing by the very act of Faith no euidence why it beliâ—ues Infallibly I Propose this Obiection in the name of à Heathen for no Christian whether Sectary or other can vse it because Christian Doctrin teaches that none can be saued without Faith which as I now said is neither Euidently true nor Euidently false ex Terminis Therefore all that belieue are ineuitably cast vpon à necessity of chusing à Doctrin whereby Saluation may be attained though it be not like the first Principles in nature it s own Selfe Euidence 5. Now to satisfy the Heathen and quiet à mind too inquisitiue after Euidence both haue what they ask Euidence enough It is neither meet for God to giue nor man to haue euidence of the Mysteries not of the Truth of the Mysteries in themselues For as on the one side it is not meet that Gods great Maiesty should impart such an euidence who I hope may keep the like distance from his Creatures as Great Monarchs do when they intimate their Command's by only shewing the Seal and signes of Soueraignity to subiects So on the other side it is not fit that man haue euidence of the Mysteries because it is incompatible with Ã
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
Euangelists 6. Whoeuer read's these and the like Authorities cannot but Say the Voice of the Church as it Proceeds from that Oracle is the Voice of God And therefore Diuine certain and infallible Or contrarywise must grant it 's only Humane fallible and may â—r Speake so And it followes first that if the whole Church should err in the most essential Points of Faith God would not be yet Said to deceiue any because his increated Authority Speak's not by it nor is engaged to rescue this his own Spoufe from errour It followes 2. If any one denied either Purgatory or Transubstantiation explicitly defined by the Church and not so clearly expressed in Scripture He would not be guilty of Heresy though he peruersly refused to belieue these Articles precisely vpon this account That the Church Defines them The Inference is Reason also proues the Assertion clear for in doing so He denies not Gods Reuelation because the Churches Definitions no Diuine Testimony are in à lower ranck and much inferiour to all that God has spoken It followes 3. We belieue the Churches Definitions by à very different infused Habit from that whereby we Assent to the Truths reuealed in Scripture and to find such à supernatural and Infallible Habit distinct from Faith when we Assent to the Churches Definitions seem's to me à new learning vnknown to Antiquity 7. Thus much and more well considered which might be Said in behalfe of Christ's glorious Oracle And this one Principle added which all Catholicks grant viz. That the Church and Scripture Speak alwaies the same truths and can neuer be at Variance 8. Why may we not in this present State resolue Diuine Faith into the first Verity Speaking by the Scripture or Infallible Faith may be resolued into Scripture and the Church together Tradition and by his own Oracle the Church also For example We belieue the Sacred Trinity the Incarnation Original Sin c. because God reuealed them in Scripture or first conueyed them by Apostolical Tradition But these Verities which the Apostles and Euangelists long since made Credible are now remote from vs without the Churches reflâ—x Testimony whereby God ascertain's all in this State that both Scripture is Diuine The reason and that his Church speak's the very same Verities in Scripture And consequently we Assent to euery particular vpon à Twofold Motiue or rather vpon this one Formal Obiect ioyntly and indiuisibly Scripture and the Church make but one ioynt indiuisible Motiue taken because Scripture and the Church Assert's them Neither is there the least Difficulty in ioyning one reflex Testimony with another former or anciently deliuered whereof we haue examples in Holy Writ For we all belieue God made à Couenant with Abraham of multiplying his Seed because Eternal Truth said so some Ages before Moses Again we belieue that Verity because the reflex Testimony of Moses reiterat's the same Verity anciently spoken to Abraham Gen. 17. 4. An instance Other Instances of the same nature you haue aboue and more are found in Holy Writ 9. Thus much supposed It 's Methinks easy to Say if all be not de Nomine how the Churches Testimony may in one Sense be called the Formal Obiect of Faith and not in another Consider it as Diuine infallible and God's own Voice proceeding from no humane Authority but from the First Verity speaking by How the Church yeild's to Scripture this Oracle it well merit 's the name of à Formal Obiect Compare it again with the Primary Reuelation which it only compleat's in order to vs and consequently presupposes more Ancient more excellent and all things considered more worthy it must yeild to Scripture And may be called an intrinsecal condition whilst it Declares what anciently was Reuealed 10. Now if any Ask wherein the Excellence and Dignity of Scripture consists when you compare it with the Churches Definitions Diuines answer 1. Euery word and reason in Holy writ is de Fide but not so in the Churches Definitions where the Sense only of the Definitiue sentence has weight as comming from the Holy Ghost's Assistance 2. The Church The excellence and dignity of Scripture has her limits and Defines nothing but what was long since reuealed or necessarily connexed with the ancient Doctrin And vpon this account the Hagiogrophers are deseruedly called our first great Teachers who made first euery Truth they wrote à matter of Faith 3. When she Church Defines or interpret's Compared with the Church Gods word All is done for Scripture and look'd vpon as the end of Her labours But what is performed for another yeild's in worth and weight to that other it is done for as S. Austin obserues Lib. de Magist c. 9. Whoeuer desires more of this Subiect may read Bellar. Lib. 1. de verbo Dei C. 15. and Serrarius in Proleg 6. 7. 9. 12. 11. To solue other difficulties proposed by Sectaries please to Note first This Primary Act of Faith All are called into the Communion of one infallible Church whereby God teaches the true way to Saluation is grounded immediatly vpon the Authority One Primary act of Faith is grounded on Church Authority of this Oracle manifested by her Marks and Supernatural Signes Although yet the Book of Scripture be not admitted as God's word Notwithstanding when it is once owned as Diuine vpon Church Authority I can belieue this Oracles Infallibility with another Act of Faith grounded on Scripture How Scripture also terminates that Faith yet if we make à search into the vltimate Principle or final Resoluent of that very Belief We must as is said aboue come at last to Church Authority whereby Assurance is giuen that such à truth is Scripture 12. Note 2. This General truth supposed of the Church being immediatly Crediblâ— or known by her Motiues as an Oracle which teaches the right way to Saluation it therefore followes not that euery other particular Verity for example the â—â—pes Supremacy the Infallibility of Councils c. can in like manner be first and immediatly Credible or belieued explicitly when I Assent to that General Truth For it is enough that such Particulars be consequently or afterward assented to vpon the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture and the Churches own Proposition as is already declared 13. The Reason is because the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church immediatly induce to belieue that She is How other particular Truths are belieued afterward God's Oracle constituted by Prouidence to guide all in the way of Truth But how or in what manner this Duty is complyed with must be learned by the Practise and Doctrin of the same Church by Scripture and Tradition also Now that it is most Connatural to know first in à General way The Churches Infallibility before we descend to belieue euery Doctrin She teaches in Particular you may well conceiue by the Instance giuen aboue of the blessed Apostles who first acknowledged Christ our Lord
The Roman Catholick Church denies them to be truths in the Sectaries sense But vpon this Account Chiefly that it is impossible to Show where or in what passage of Holy Writ God euer sayd plainly Scripture Contain's All things necessary to saluation Or that such Doctrins as are plainty expressed there without more Comprehend Matter enough to Saluation This cannot passe for an indubitable Principle whilst euident Experience tell 's vs That VVhat Sectaries â—ccount clear Veritios Others do noâ— such Verities as Sectaries hold clear and indisputable are yet to this day Controuerted and not esteemed clear by many who goe vnder the name of Christians Obserue well 4. What Verity can be more clear then the Incarnation of the Eternal word Yet Arians deny it What more clear then the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Yet the Caluinists reiect it Therefore when we Come to Examin which Verities are clearly expressed in Scripture and which not we are thrown into à Labyrinth whilst no other Iudge is made vse of but the bare words of Scripture manifestly peruerted when Opposit to the Interpretation of à Vniuersal Church 5. But here is my least Exception We will Contrary to truth grant gratis That Scripture Contain's all things necessarily to Saluation Withall that the plain Doctrin thereof is matter enough Sectaries clearly conuinced by their own Principles for Beliefe The Sectary yet gain's Nothing vnless He descend's to the Particular Tenets of Protestants Mark my words And truly Assert's These and these Doctrins are plainly set down in Scripture These and these Doctrins I am as Protestant Obliged to belieue vnder pain of Damnation and no more Thus much I say ought to be done which is vtterly Impossible And the Reason is Either those Doctrins layd claim to will not be plain express Scripture Or if plain and express they cease eo ipso to be the particular Tenents of Protestants The last reason of all rest's vpon à Truth already proued and T' is That Protestants haue no Essence of Religion and therefore haue no Faith to resolue 6. In passing you may Ask. What Say we to such Protestants as make the Negatiues now mentioned Articles of their Faith These we dispatch in à word and vrge them to proue their Negatiues by Scripture which is impossible But what is to be done if they Pretend to belieue the Catholick Doctrins the Trinity the Incarnation or any other reuealed Mystery vpon God's diuine Testimony 7. Here we must distinguish between Protestants and Protestants Two sorts of Protestants refuted The older sort belieue the Scriptures Diuinity attesting the Incarnation For example by virtue of à secret and hidden Diuine Spirit of God working in their hearts this being the only light or means whereby that Diuinity is laid open to their intellectual The Priuate Spirited men plainly in à Circle Eyes These ineuitably fall into à Circle for they proue Scripture to be of Diuine inspiration because the Spirit tell 's them so And again they belieue this interiour light or Spirit to be from God moned thereunto by the very light or letter of Scripture not known at all to be Diuine but by this hidden Spirit which is as much vnknown as Scripture without their light But because the recourse to the Priuate Spirit in the Resolution of Faith is amply refuted by euery Polemick Author And now much vnderualued by our latter Sectaries I 'll only briefly Propose one Argument against all that Patronize it 8. Either this Spirit is Scripture or really distinct from A Conuincing Argument against the Priuate Spirit Scripture Grant the first Scripture no Selfe euidence is yet belieued for it Selfe only and so no more is Said but that Scripture is belieued because t' is Scripture without all further Probation If secondly you distinguish this Spirit or light from Scripture it followes that the Diuinity of Gods word is Assented To and belieued Vpon à Motiue which is not Gods word For this supposed Light of the Spirit not at all contained in Scripture is no reuealed word of God and consequently Scripture is belieued for That which is no Scripture 9. The newer Sectaries with whom Mr Stillingfleet Sides suppose à fallible Tradition as à Preparatiue to receiue the meer Books of Scripture which once owned vpon the account Other resolue Faith into the internal Euidence of Scripture of Tradition The Resolution of their Faith is made into the Diuine Light which Shines in the very Doctrin of God's word That is into the rational Euidence thereof So Mr. Stilling P. 226. And P. 222. Discourses thus Though Tradition doth not open our Eyes to see this light yet it present's the Obiect to vs to be seen and that in an vnquestionable manner To giue his Doctrin Tradition Say these Conueyes the Book more Lustre he set's it forth with the sparkling of à Diamond Nay not à man Saith he very probably belieue that à Diamond is sent hiâ— foom à friend vpon the Testimony of à Messenger who brings it and yet be firmly perswaded of it by discerning the Sparklings of it He He would Say Tradition resembles the Messenger that hand 's Scripture to vs but the very innate Splendor and Sparkling of its Doctrin is that which Faith must be finally resolued into without regard had to Tradition 10. This way of resoluing Faith differ's from the Former that it makes the pure Verity of Gods word considered Obiectiuely in it Selfe the last Resoluent or the only Formal Obiect of belieuing How these men differ from the Formar whereas the more aged Protestants superadd to that an internal vital act called the Priuate Spirit or an infused instrinct of Grace whereby the Scripture is clearly discerned to be Diuine and into this Instinct as à Medium Cognitum or the only means to see by which both discouer's the Scriptures Diuinity and it's sense they resolue their Faith This way being already reiected 11. We now Argue against Mr Stillingfleet and Say first The similitude of à Messenger deliuering the Diamond is nothing The Similitude of à Diamond Proofles to the Purpose For were that Diamond found in the streets à skilful Ieweller And who more skilful then Protestants when they read Scripture would soon know its worth by his Art and presently tell you whether the sparkling were Counterfeit or no. Can the Sectary as easily discouer the Diuinity in Scripture by its innate Light and Splendor Speak plainly If The Disparity plain between the Diamond and Scripture he can Tradition no more conduces to its Sparkling then if à Boy first put the Book into our hands or were found by chance in the Highway For as the Diamond Sparkles by it selfe without dependance of the hand which giues it so the Scripture must do if it haue that splendor in it whether Conueyed by Tradition or not Nay if another Scripture were now drop't down from Heauen were the Parity of the Diamond worth any thing
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