Because the Church stand's for us there No Authority Allegeable contrary to the Church can be comparable to it can be no Competition Unles They render our Churches Testimony of no Force by substituting a greater in its place For their sense which is impossible Alas They want Principles to go about such a work And Therfore must Reduce all they talk against us to Fancy only 12. What I would say here may perhaps be more clearly Expressed Thus. If Sectaries have plain Scripture for Fundamentals we have it also and take along with it Those Fathers They Admit of If in Iudgement against Iudgement Spirit against Spirit other Matters now in Controversy They rely on their private judgement when they interpret Scripture our judgement That 's opposit is to say no more as good as Theirs If they plead by the Spirit of Truth working in them we might set our Spirit against Theirs And Ask whether's better Thus far we stand most evidently upon equal Terms with them Now be pleased to observe what I say They have not one plain text of Scripture nor one plain Testimony of any Council or Ancient Father wherby they can so much as Probably offer to Prove That Protestants have Nothing for Their sense of Scripture but Fancy the sense of Scripture owned by Catholicks is Erroneous in points debated between us And Beside the judgement of innumerable Fathers We have also The Authority of a whole learned Church that Approves our sense They have neither Church nor Scripture nor Councils nor Fathers for Theirs Let therfore the world Judge How far they are from convincing our sense of Scripture to be erroneous by any known or received Principle unles their Fancy enter in and pass for a Proof which we utterly Reject You will say If in all controverted matters we make so much of Church Why Church Authority is to be highly esteemed Authority There is no Disputing Against us For the Church will ever stand for its own Doctrin I answer And if we Value not of it so Highly But Admit of our Sectaries Glosses upon Their bare Word We are worse then mad when 'T is evident They cannot prove that sense to be erroneous by a stronger Principle Then our Church Authority is that denies the Errour The Church Therfore fortified with most solid proofs drawn from Scripture Councils Fathers and Tradition most justly stand's for itâ—s own Interpretation And hence I say Whatever Sectaries can allege against it will show it self an impertinency Though Cavils may be raised There is no Rational Disputing against it You have the Reason hereof already Because what ever Sectaries can lay hold on like a Principle or That wherby They may Attempt to prove the Catholick Interpretations fals will Appear more then feeble to stand against The long standing Authority of this one Holy and Catholick Church But of this subject more afterward in the following Discours 13. And thus much of our Protestants strange unsetled Religion And Vndeniable Apostasy both from Church and Scripture We shall se in the next Discours How They recede from Reason also In passing be pleased to take these few Considerations along with you 14. A Religion destitute of all Appearance of any Ancient A Recapitulation of the enormities of Protestant Religion Church to side and symbolize with As Protestants most evidently are Their Recours to the third of fourth first Ages is Ignotum per ignotius and no less and Vnproved then a Supposed whimsy A Religion which hath not one syllable of Scripture for it as 't is evident men of this Profession have not And because they ever glory in Scripture-proof I am forced to tell them They cannot produce one text for Protestancy without Their fallible Glosses if I wrong their cause let them speak out and shame me I 'll suffer the Affront yet fear it not But Remember I call for plain Scripture A Religion which never yet had one General Council to Confirm it no Vniversal Tradition to Warrant it not one Professour before Luther to Own it A Religion which holds the Belief of all Christians to have been Fals for a thousand years together And the Prelates misled by Errour who taught Christians for so vast a time A Religion whose Professours take upon them to Reform others Before They find Their own pretended Reformation arriv'd to any Shadow of Perfection who espy errors in a Church never Discovered Erroneous By Thousands more Ancient and Learned then They. A Religion which hath the very look of Haeresy turn it which way you will which opposeth all men And is opposed by the Rest of Christians which is setled on no other Ground But the bare Vnproved Word of those Vncommissioned Men that Teach it which Changes every year and hath no seeming Principle for a Ground of Constancy not one Motive to make it Rationally credible Such a Religion I say Dishonors God Injures Iesus Christ seduceth poor Souls and as unworthily as weakly stands out against that Ancient Roman Catholick Church which is every way Blamles unless faulty in This that it made Protestants Their Progenitors And the Rest of the world Christians If I here overlash in Asserting too much let our Adversaries come closely to any one Particular and vouchsafe fairly and rationally to make my Errour known THE THIRD DISCOVRS OF The Vnreasonable Proceding of Protestants in some chief Handled Points of Controversy Be pleased to observe what I shall Note Hereafter You shall ever find our Sectaries either sculking in Generalities or supposing what is to be proved or wording it by Scripture misinterpreted or finally making Controversies endles without Appealing to any other Iudge but Themselves THE FIRST CHAPTER Protestants are Vnreasonable whilst They seemingly hold a Catholick Church Distinct from the Roman neither known nor Designable by any 1. THis is an Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church And was Sectaries are required to point at a Catholick Church before Luther so three dayes before Luther deserted the Roman Faith My humble sute is That our New Men will pleas by a plain Designation I ask not for a Definition of the Church to point me out the True Church which then was or now is Holy and Catholick Protestants as I here suppose were not then visible in the world There were 'T is true Arians Pelagians Abyssins Graecians And perhaps some Remainder of Donatists with other Haereticks whether more or fewer Known Haereticks constituted not the Catholick Church yet the Article of our Creed was then true it import's not to our present Question Notwithstanding it is Evident That some Christians then living unanimously Professed Their Belief in a Holy Catholick Church My demand therfore is whether That Believed Article was then True or Fals If fals for want of a true Catholick Church Speak out plainly And say that Christians Believed a Church which then Really was not in Being If True The then Holy Catholick
inconsequent Proceeding of Protestants who must Trust our Church for the Handing down to them Gods written Word Sectaries ill Consequences whilst most Vnreasonably They Reject Her Authority when she Declares what the unwritten Word is I say most Vnreasonable For if it can Deceive in this later it may as well have deceived Christians in the first and given them fals Scripture Wherof se more in the second Discours 6. 'T is true There is Another way of Defining Another way called by Divines Asseveration called by some Divines Asseveratio or The Asserting of a Truth not so Explicitly at least Believed before as when the Church Defines against open Haereticks what was Antecedently of Faith And Herein the Church Proceeds not so much upon a Previous Known Act of Faith as upon the General Owned Principles of Catholick Belief wherunto Theological Discourses drawn from sound Divinity And other Principles partly Evident and partly in a high Measure Morally Certain have Access And are most Prudently Ioined Not That the Definition in it self Relies on those lower Principles But on Gods Gracious Assistance ever with his Church in the Delivery of Truth However Providence will have this way followed as a Vsual and Necessary Condition Because men of Reason in so weighty Matters are not as Sectaries do to Define at random but industriously to use Reason And Proceed on rational Principles But This belongs more to Divinity then to Controversy For I think the Church never yet Defined any thing against Haereticks that was not Antecedently a known and owned Truth of Faith Though not so fully expressed as it often is by the Churches clearer Proposition Thus we say The Real Doctrin of Transubstantiation The Real Doctrin of Transubstantiaton as old as that of the Trinity c. is as old as the Doctrin of The Trinity or the Consubstantiality of the Son with His Eternal Father Though the Words Expressing these Mysteries more significantly and clearly are of a later Date 7. Now to the Objections And one Hinted at above is The Church was solidly Founded in the An Objection Apostles time in all Things necessary to Salvation Therfore These Post-nate Definitions of it are to no Purpose To confirm This Our young Antagonist Ask's Whether the Apostolical Declarations of the Ancient Primitive Of Apostolical Declarations lost Faith were lost in the intermediate Ages or no If not lost Shew them saith He And There is no Need of new Definitions If they were lost in their Passage down the Church now wants them And therfore can Define nothing Were the Play worth the candle I might here Demand of Protestants whether Their Declared Sense This is a Sign of my Body Added Is retorted to Christs Words This is my Body which Sense They suppose to be Apostolical was lost in the intermediate Ages or no If not lost shew us that Apostolical Declaration and 'T is enough But this is impossible If 't was lost or rather never in Being How dare Sectaries make such a Declaration on their own Heads without Producing the Apostles Warrant I Answer The Answer The Church was solidly founded as 'T is now That which is sufficient in one Age Serves not always briefly to the Objection The Church then was solidly Founded just as 'T is now the Doctrin is one and the Same And every Article of it was ever and is now still either explicitly or implicitly Believed Yet These new Declarations are Necessary Because the Proposition of a Doctrin sufficient in one Time or Age Serves not for all Times and Ages when New Difficulties occurr And Haeresies rise up against it The Church therfore ever vigilant and Desirous to quiet all speak's Again more clearly the old Received Verities Causlesly too often Bogled at by Sectaries I say more clearly For 't is one thing to Assert Such a Verity is not at all contained in Scripture or in the Ancient Deposited Different Circumstances require clearer and more ample Declarations Doctrin of the Church And another To say it is so clearly There That in order to us and different Circumstances it needs not at all a further Declaration Sectaries continually Declare Their Sense of Scripture For They have no other Deposited Apostolical Doctrin to Talk of And why may not the Church Authorized by Christ with Better Reason do so too To what is Added to Help on the Objection I have answered Deposited Doctrin following the Church through all Ages is securely preserved The Deposited Doctrin Orally Delivered without writing is not lost But still remain's in the Churches Treasury 'T is as it were Handed down from Age to Age and Inseparably accompanies the Church through all Ages Yea and is kept there Though not in Chists or Coffers as securely as if 't Had been engraven in Brass or Marble And Sectaries must say thus much Sectaries must grant This. if They own Scripture for Gods Word For are not They now as well Assured upon the Churches Testimony or Vnwritten Tradition That St. Iohns Gospel was Indited by the Holy Ghost As if the Church produced a Hand-writing to Evidence that Verity Yes most Assuredly Whoever therfore Dare call into Their urging for a hand writing of Apostolical Doctrin is proved frivolous Question the Churches Authority Asserting a Doctrin Though it Produce no Manual Writing For it May as easily Doubt if it show you One Whether that very Exhibited Evidence be Authentical or no. Let us only Imagin that the Apostle that writ the last Part of the New Testament had exactly set down the whole Canon of Scripture which the Church now Receives Let us Suppose again That very copy to be left in the Hands of some Pious Christians Living in those Days No hand-vvriting distinct from Scripture is comparable to the Churches ovvn Authority and so long Preserved Vntil After Haereticks excluded from the Canon such and such Books of Holy Scripture as Luther lately Did St. Iames Epistle Both they and Luther might more Rationally have doubted of that very written Instrument then any can now Doubt of a whole Churches Authority owning the Canon of Scripture to be as it is No Charter Therfore no written Instrument Though once truly made when the Author is gon can Parallel the Churches Testimony in what it Asserts The The Reason Reason is Because a Manuscript only Tell 's you what it Contains but not Whose it is and though it did so Men might yet question the Forgery of it unles an Authority beyond Exception extrinsecal to the writing take away all Fear of Cozenage and make it Vndoubted Tradition surer then any Manuscript This Reason proves Tradition Necessary in the Church as well for the owning of Scripture as other Verities 8. I have said thus much to show How neer to a Piece of Non-sense our Adversaries Draw when To Cancel the later Definitions of the Church They urge us to produce the old Apostolical Declarations whereby
not so Evidently Credible when He saith He would not believe the Gospel unles the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it The Infallibility of it therfore must by proved by some good Principles extrinsick to Scripture but the Sectary hath not one sound Principle Distinct from the Tradition and Authority of the Church wherby this Infallibility is proved Therfore Scripture in order to Him is not so Infallible as the Church is to the Catholick If any Deny my principle and make the Scriptures Infallibility Discernable by its own light by the Majesty of the style purity of its Doctrin or efficacy it works in the minds of those who read it c. I think there are evident Demonstrations against the Paradox For as I noted Disc 1. C. 2. 12. n. 4. Two things are to be considered in Scripture first the exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words and so much precisely is not the Scriptures total Infallibility which sayes more besides that exteriour language and necessarily implies A Divine Act a Volition or Decree of God wherby the Hagiographers that writ the words were infallibly assisted and determined to record truth and nothing but Truth Now this Divine Volition or Decree becaus it is essential to God and therfore no other but God Himself can be no Object of our senses when we hear or read Scripture Consequently it is to be Discovered by a Discours grounded on Principles distinct from the outward letter of Scripture wherby we may come to a sure Evidence of its Infallibility not at all yet within the reach of our senses And this no Sectary can do as I shall presently make Evident 17. I say Therfore if the Motives now alleged for the Churches Infallibility as Conversions Miracles Vniversality c. induce not immediatly to believe that Church they demonstrate to be Infallible much less can the exteriour words or sintax of Scripture be a fit Medium to Convince any of its Infallibility And to prove this besides what is often noted in the Treatise Chiefly Disc 1. C. 8. n. 7. Ill here only Propose two Questions The first Whether if St. Iohn who was infallibly Assisted had not recorded that short sentence in His Gospel The Word is made flesh but some other not infallibly Assisted by the Spirit of God had written the very same Verity as it were by Chance My Question I say is whether the Sectary that now reads this sentence in S. Iohn Gospel can more Discover an Infallibility in it by force of the outward words then if they had been Casually written by one without Infallible Assistance I think He will not dare to say yes or if He Do I 'll urge Him to prove it by Principles when the outward words are the Very same in both Cases and in like manner clear to all that read them My second Demand may yet perhaps better evidence what I ayme at and is thus Suppose that our Sectaries should put the book of Eclesiastes which they hold Canonical into the hands of twelve learned Gentile Philosophers and with it the book of Wisdome or Eclesiasticus also not held Canonical by them Suppose again They desire these learned and disinterressed men seriously to read these three books and after the reading Sincerely to tell them which of them hath Gods Spirit in it or contains his infallible Verities For this may be easily gathered by the very natural evidence of what they read by the Majesty of the style Efficacy of speaking which appears Clearly enough in the outward letter Thus much don seperate these Philosophers by four and four into three Companies put them into three different cells much after that manner as some say the sevently Interpreters were separated Let them with all sincerity read examin and peruse these Books and if when the work is ended they unanimously accord that a greater Divinity a stronger infallibility appear's in the song of Salomon then in the other two books we will say something is proved and hold it as strange a Miracle as that which S. Austin recounts of the 70. Interpreters Now if Any tell us this light of Scripture though sufficient in it self is not evident to every one that looks on it because the blindnes or perversnes of mens minds may keep them from the Discovery of it The Reply hath no place here for we suppose first these Philosophers to be disinterressed learned upright and sincere as well in their reading as in the judgement they give of it And secondly we will suppose that all those are not blind whom Sectaries make blind nor only those quick sighted I mean themselves whom they will have so 18. To these Questions I add one more it may pass for an Argument Ad hominem against Sectaries who hold all the Definitions of our Church even when they are true to be yet fallible I Ask whether these Quick sighted men are able to Discern the Fallibility of these Definitions by force of the outward words therof only as they Discover the infallibility of Scripture by the Majesty of the style and outward Sintax And mack where the force of the Difficulty lies As Infallibility necessarily implyes Divine Assistance in order to the Truths Delivered in holy Scripture so the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions implyes a want of that Assistance in order to those Definitions I Ask therfore whether as the first is Discernable and visible enough to their Eyes by the very context of the outward letter They will consequently grant that the other also is as clearly visible and Discernable by the very words of the Definition If They Answer yes First they need not hereafter to impugn the Churches Definitions by any other Medium but this that they are without further proof by themselves evidently fallible So much is said by them and it proof enough 2. They may as well say They know when a man tell 's a lye and this by force of his very speaking as that they know the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions by her speaking For if their eyes can Discern the want of Divine Assistance in the one case which really is not wanting they may more easily Discern the want of Truth in the other which really is wanting And if this be not a Paradox there was never any in the world Now contrarywise if they cannot Discover the Churches supposed Fallibility in her Definitions meerly by her Exteriour words because that is a thing invisible I would gladly learn how They come to know the Infallibility of Scripture by the words Therof for that is as much if not more invisible and as far removed from our eyes and senses 19. Some who pittifully suppose Scriptures to be proved Divine and Infallible by the very light which is in them Object first When we see the sun and the vast extent of the light it has we may well infer it comes from that luminous body And may we not say These proportionably inferr from the
is That when a Doctrin pleaseth them Tradition is approved of But if it be contrary to their Fancy then Tradition is of no account or value For example Prayer for the Dead is as well a universal Tradition of both the Greek and Latin Church as to hold that Canon of the Sectaries Bible to be the Word of God yet the one is admitted of And the other set light by And upon what Principle Distinct from unproved Conjectures Do They take and leave as they list Finally it is for want of Principles That in lieu of solid Arguments in every Controversy now handled you have words in stead of Substance margents painted with Greek and Latin now a story told of a Pope or Prelate now a jeer now a jest in handsom language c. And thus they hold on in their Merriments Thoughtles as it seems of an accounting Day to come before a sever Iudge and a long Eternity that follows And to what purpose are these light Skirmishes and petty Doinâ—â— in a serious matter wheron salvation depend's whilst God is dishonored souls are beguiled Christs sacred Truths also infinitly suffer by them who will yet be named Christians 9. I call them here petty Doings For when on the one side I set before my Eyes our Roman Catholick Church once founded by Christ and therfore must hold it most Ancient and confessedly true When again I find it of a vast extent diffused the whole world over And as much renowned as largely Extended When I see it glorious Evidenced by Miracles powerful in the Conversions of Infidels eminent in Sanctity And most profound learning When I consider How it hath stood invincible in the heat of all persecutions and call to mind the Heresies vainquished by it Age after Age To say no more now of other signal Marks wherwith it is made illustrious and visible to all VVhen I say I consider these Truths Methinks evident Reason Tells me that a few slight Cavils cannot much annoy or hurt it No. Either clear Demonstrations or were it possible more then Demonstrations ought to enter here and shake this our strong Fortress Or if they do not Common Prudence obliges me to own this for Christs true Spouse or to Grant which is hideously Against the Grounds of Christianity that there is no such Thing as an Orthodox Church in the world 10. Now on the other side when I cast my Thoughts on a Few late risen Company of Divided Sectaries utterly Destitute of all prudent Motives without Antiquity Miracles Conversions or other Evidences of Credibility when again I seriously ponder how slightly they goe to work against us How weakly They attempt with meer Trifles remote from Proofs and Principles to Vnroot as it were this strong Building of our Catholick Society I stand astonished and must needs say They seem to be men not too thoughtful of Eternity And never can wonder enough at Their boldnes whilst They dare as they do to take pen in hand and presume to write against an Ancient Church that made the world and their own Progenitors Christians But what is Hitherto briefly hinted at will be more largely laid forth in the ensuing Discourses 11. Now it is high time to end an Advertisement and to tell our Adversaries my absolute Resolution It is thus Let who will pretend to Answer this Treatis either in part or whole Nothing shall draw me to Reply unles He that Answers come more closely to Principles then I ever yet saw in Protestant Writer It is a sin to trifle our precious time away in Cavils I 'll hartily thank any that may pleas to Answer upon Grounded Principles but if He fail Herin His labour will be lost and mine hereafter spared All I shall Do if I do so much will be to tell him were He misseth in the Main point which is to come closely to Principles THE INTRODVCTION BEfore we enter upon the following discourses I must need 's have a word with Mr. Poole whose Nullity and Appendix but chiefly the request of a friend induced me to write this Treatise It is very true after one serious perusal of this Nullity I had enough of it and therfore judged it unnecessary and indeed not worth the pains to answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to follow the Author through his Mazes and long wandring parergons I returne him undoubted grounds of true Religion they are undeniable which at least destroy his best Principles and if I mistake not this is fully as much as a Nullity deserves However if he desire more he may probably have it in another Treatise Now if you ask why I took this way of answering if yet you 'l call it an Answer I 'll tell you My ayme is not so much to meddle with this Nullity as to speak for the Catholik cause and prove something which shall not be answered Again It is more then tedious ever to be encountring a few old worn-out Arguments set forth in new dresses which have been confuted a hundred times over Thirdly No small part of this Nullity seem's to be too trivial while later Catholik writers are introduced speaking as Mr. Poole thinks disadvantagiously and against our Faith Now Sixtus Senensis sayes this now Bellarmin that now Stapleton a third thing c. And are these think ye doughty Doings for such an Antagonist that offers to strike at the very root of the Roman Church Alas what he cites thus were all he cites true is a Nullity indeed and a meer nothing for Church Doctrin depends on no mans private opinion But when we make an inspection into these Authors as I have done on several occasions and find them quoted by halfs weighed out of their circumstances mangled and traduced to a sinister sense we must speak truth That cheats will go on their way and rather play at small game then sit out or seem to do nothing Had Protestants any thing like a good cause in hand or Truth on their side they would certainly plead more manfully for it and never like poor people in harvest go thus a gleaning up and down our Authors known for professed Catholiks who little God knows intended to favour Sectaries by such segments as they are pleased to pick up much less to furnish Protestants with armour against Catholik Doctrin But what will ye Sectaries can do no better Yet I must tell you what they ought to do whilst they embrace a Novelty and cast of the old Religion They should make the ancient Canons to roar against our Doctrin they should confound and overwhelm us with undeniable proofs drawn from plain Scripture ancient Councils universal Tradition and the unanimous consent of Fathers Of these we hear no great noise Next and this most concerns them They should also positively prove and establish every Article of Protestant Religion as Protestancy by such plain open and illustrious Authorities then a Bellarmin a Stapleton a Maldonate and others might well follow the rear But to
true But what is this for Protestant Doctrin We ask still by what Signs and Marks of Truth do these new Men prove their particular Faith to be Apostolical Here only lyes the Difficulty never touched on by them Admit therfore at present that they have in their hands the infallible Records of Gods Word they are far of yet from proving their particular Doctrin of Protestancy to be Scripture or the infallible Word of God This is the sole controverted Question between us 10. They finally end Thus much may suffise in general concerning the Protestant way of resolving Faith Very little it seems serves their turn who hitherto never Loct labour to talk of Christian Religion in General medled with that Resolution But have lost their labour by a talking in General of Christian Religion which no more concern's Protestancy then it doth the worst of Haereticks And after this manner They hold on in another Chapter entituled The sense of Fathers in this Controversy Where Iustin Martyr Irenaeus and Clemens Fathers cited to no purpose of Alexandria are cited but to what purpose God only knows Are they quoted to evidence any thing like Protestancy No. The whole-Discours of these Learned Fathers look's another way and never medles with this Novelty Read them as they are either in These Authors with all the Advantages of their Glosses on them or rather in the Originals as I have don exactly you will find them so great Strangers to this new Haeresy That they never thought of it To transcribe again their whole Discours would prove tedious read Iustins words in these Authors Part. 1. Chap. 9. page 264. and add to them the reflection made page 265. What part say they is there now of our Resolution of Faith which is not here in that is in Iustins Testimony asserted I answer Nothing at all as will appear by your own Questions and Answers wholy irrelative to Protestancy Thus then you go on If you ask why you believe there were such men in the Iustin makes nothing for Protestants world as these Prophets wherof Iustin speaks Answer The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it Be is so what is this to Protestancy Can any one probably inferr Because He believes there were such men in the world as Prophet Apostles or Euangelists Therfore he hath the true Doctrin of Weak inferences these Prophets No. For both Arians and Pelagians yeild Assent to that general Truth and so do Catholicks also are all These right in Faith upon that Account precisely Toyes No more then are Protestants 3. If you ask say you why you Believe them to be true Prophets Answ The excellency of their Doctrin joyned with the fulfilling of Prophecies and working Miracles abundantly prove it Prove what for Gods sake No more but this that those Prophets taught excellent Doctrin and wrought Miracles Doth it therfore follow that Protestants Arians and other Haereticks teach such Doctrin or work Miracles No. Herein lyes the Difficulty not so much as glanced at or touched on And thus Nor Clemens Alex. they run on to no purpose for many pages with Testimonies drawn out of Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus which no more relate to Protestancy then those first Words of Genesis do In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth Nay more Clemens cited But Confutes them by these Authors page 273. expresly confutes our Sectaries whilst he requires two things necessary to attain to the true knowledge of true Faith in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Enquiry and Discovery of it The Enquiry is an impulse of the mind say these men for finding Truth out by Signs which are proper to it Discovery is the End and Rest of this Enquiry which lyes in the comprehension of the things which is properly knowledge A most true and admirable Expression Clemens according to these Authors proceds thus Now the Signs by which Truth is Discovered are either Precedent Concomitant or Subsequent The precedent Signs wherby we discover Christ to be the Son of God are the Prophecies declaring his coming The Concomitant were the Testimonies concerning his Birth The subsequent Signs are those Miracles which were published and manifestly shewed to the World after his Ascension c. Most true and Divine Doctrin which is entirely for the Roman Catholick Religion and against Protestants Why We enquire after the precedent Signs wherby their new Religion is discovered We ask for subsequent Signs which were publickly known to the world soon after the broaching of their new Faith and yet cannot hear of any shewed by these new men in confirmation of their Faith Finally we urge for Miracles and other Prudential Motives Evidencing Protestant Religion in the ensuing Chapter but find none Read it and give an impartial judgement CHAP. X. Protestants have no rational Motives wherby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as probable 1. TO prove the Assertion we here friendly demand Whether when Scripture Fathers and the best Authority of former ages Assert That the Marks and Cognisances of Gods revealed Truth are as follow Antiquity A Lawful mission Vnity Efficacy of Doctrin Vniversality Miracles Succession of Bishops Sanctity yes and the very name of Catholik c. My demand I say is whether our new Men will own these old Signs as lawful and approved Manifestations of Truth or disown them If this later They are Compelled to shew them unfit or forceles Arguments for the evidencing of Truth and consequently are obliged to produce others more clear and perswasive for their supposed true Religion which is impossible On the other side if they shall please to own them as lawful Cognisances of Truth My Task is to prove That they have neither the complexum of all these Motives together nor so much as one of them in particular for Protestancy 2. Antiquity granted to Popery for at least a Protestants want Antiquity thousand years and upward Protestants have not Those two Brethren of Iniquity Luther and Calvin first brought this Religion forth as is evident by all known History Before their dayes no man can shew me so much as one Town Village or Houshold of Protestants 3. Lawful Mission most justly and without dispute A lawful Mission is wanting challeng'd by Catholick Doctors These two wretched men had not no more have their followers Enquire after it you will find them all unsent Preachers contrary to the Apostles Doctrin Rom. 10 How shall They preach unles they be sent They never had licence to talk as they did But by their own Will and unknown Spirit which as well authorized Iames Nayler to be Christ as them to be lawful and Apostolical Preachers Say I beseech you when the blessed Apostles first taught the Doctrin of Christ Iesus and by their preaching turn'd Idolatry out of the World Did They only word it Christ and his Apostles were sent and shewed their Mission
If the Churches Interpretation were as fallible as the Arians Christians might follow either as they please were as fallible as the Arians Christians might indifferently Adhere to Either yea and changeably now take one then the other as they please A greater Probability can ballance nothing in this or the like particulars as I shall largely prove hereafter In the mean while by what is now said we may learn first Though Scripture in this and other Mysteries hath its Darknes yet by the good Providence of Almighty God we are provided of a Sure Interpreter which is absolutely Necessary For if Every one interpret according to fancy Haeresy is easily Drawn out of Gods Word And if none interpret Faithfully the Scripture still lyes hid in Obscurity which makes it for that part a Useles Book to Christians The necssity of an infallible Interpreter Learn farther That None can ever know exactly by Human Industry or his Sole pondering the Bible let him be another Salomon for Wisdom what God hath Revealed in these difficil Mysteries of our Faith without an Infallible Interpreter To prove my Assertion I 'll give you one Instance 3. Suppose that two or three most learned Heathen Philosopher well versed in Languages and all Human Literature had this Book of Scripture put into their Hands and were perswaded by the extrinsecal An instance of Philosoohers reading the Bible Authority of all Christians that God here speak's his Eternal Verities Withall That if they read the Book and by their Sole reading without Recours to any Interpreter possess the True sense of it They have True Saving Faith Well They read it and with as much Humility as any Protestant can do yet If They ask of none but Their own Iudgement errour followes Ask of none But their own judgement what it means in the more difficil Passages Tell me I beseech you And here I appeal to the moderate Iudgement of every Christian whether Catholick Arian or Protestant What Faith or Religion would these Philosophers produce out of Sole Scripture Solely Read and pondered by them My Thought is 'T is no more but a Thought That the Result of their Reading would end in Coyning a Religion different from all Others now in Christendom I am very confident They would never pitch upon Protestancy no nor Their doubts would be Endles upon any Sect now extant Alas they would Doubt and Stagger at every hard passage in Scripture yea and by the very Instinct of Nature if they own'd Scripture for Gods Book would humbly Supplicate Those who gave them the Book to lay open the Mysteries therin and Assure them of its meaning in a hundred Places yet none can do this good office for them But One only Society of Christians that layes claim to Infallibility and proves it Demonstratively if Faith be in the World 4. Be it how you will thus much I conclude Our Protestants are in the very same Case without an infallible Interpreter as the Philosophers are with Sectaries are in the very same case without an Infallible Interpreter no Interpreter These make Scripture speak what They think it speaks right or wrong And Protestants do the like whilst They give their sentiment on Mysteries above their Reach without an Infallible Teacher Pray you Reflect Had Christ Iesus and his Apostles never Taught any thing by Word of Mouth But only thrown the Book of Scripture amongst Christians Strange Confusions Had Christ and his Apostles given to Christians a Bible without an Interpreter when They left the World and commanded them to make that use of it which every Private Iudgement thought best what a Religion think ye should we have had at this day in Christianity any or none or a thousand different ones as good as none God only knows I do not Yet will say This is out very present Condition if an infallible Interpreter of Scripture be Rejected We may wrangle to the Dissentions would have followed without hope of union Worlds end but agree in nothing Dispute but conclude nothing we may raise Difficulties one against another But allay none And thus the contest must run on without Redres or Remedy All Appellation here to Antiquity to Councils Fathers Appellation to Antiquity remedies nothing being fallible with Protestants and Tradition help 's nothing Becaus they are Fallible And were they otherwise we vary as highly about the Sentiments of Fathers in every debated point of Controversy as we do about Scripture it self 5. We se thirdly How utterly impossible it is for a Protestant to draw from the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture the True Sense and meaning of Gods Word in any controverted point of Religion The Reason is Scripture never speak's plainly and expresly the Protestants Sense in these debated Controversies observe it in All and you 'll find it so What do they therfore to help themselves They first Reject an Infallible Interpreter and next as the Arians do superadd their own Fallible glosses to make Sectaries make Scripture to speak what They would have it say not what God speak's Scripture speak not what it Truly says But what They would have it say And thus they think Scripture cleared and Their Work don Take here one Instance for many Catholicks and Protestants have been at Variance a hundred years and more about these Sacred Words Matt. 26. This is my Body The different Senses drawn from them are Contradictory And therfore cannot be True This is my Body Really saith the Catholick and here is my internal Faith No saith the Protestant This is my Body figuratively or a Sign of my Body And this is my Belief Arians and Protestants vitiate Scripture after the same manner Mark I beseech Just as the Arian saith I and my Father are one and superadds his Gloss of one in Affection so the Protestant here vitiates the Text by his Gloss and adds to Scripture what God never spoke a Trope a Figure a Sign and I know not what And after This Injury don to the Words He Believes not for Gods Express Word But for his own far-fetcht and dear bought Interpretations which are no more Scripture then if he should tell me That An Example That text of St. Matthew cap. 3. verse 17. This is my beloved Son were to be forcibly stript of its Verity and misinterpreted Thus This is only a Sign or Figure of my Beloved Son No more doth Scripture through the whole Gospel warrant in the least an Improperty of speech in the one Text now cited then in the other I little Regard The Protestant dscourses and glosses contrary to this Mystery of Faith let us have plain Scripture much les their Inferences which are all Human and Fallible O but to say that Christ Body is Really Present under the Species of Bread yea and in a thousand places at Once is an Vnintelligible Mystery Why more Unintelligible then a Trinity of Persons in one Essence
a lawful Syllogism wherby They prove That Their Reason hath ever the good luck the singular Priviledge to fall right on the True sense whilst No Princiciple to prove that Protestants reason hitt's right Others as learned as They swerve from it If here They talk of the Vnction teaching Truth of the Spirit c. They will be urged again for a Principle to prove That these Favors singularly belong to Them and not to Others who Dissent from them But we will wave this Argument And only note how in all those Disputes which our Protestants hold either with Catholicks or Sectaries take for an Instance the Arians the True sense of Scripture is so far of from being a The sense of Scripture when Two Sectaries dispute is Ever the thing in Question received Principle by both these Litigious Parties That it is ever the Thing in Question and must be proved by another own'd and admitted Principle if the Discours stand upon solid ground 3. One example will give you more Light Mr. Poole Assaults an Arian a far weaker Adversary then a 'T is proved by an Instance Catholick with a Scriptural Proof for that High Mystery of our Faith the Sacred Trinity and argues thus Scripture saith Iohn 1. c. 5. 7. There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father Word and Holy Ghost and these three are one But the Sense of this Scripture saith Mr. Poole is That God is one in Essenceâ— and Three Distinct Persons The Father Vnproduced the Son Produced and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Both. Ergo we must admit a Trinity Observe well The Arian Admit's the first Proposition or the Words of Scripture And here is the only Principle agreed on by these two Disputants But utterly denyes the second Viz. The Sense drawn out of these Words And tell 's The Arian admit's of the words of Scripture but denies Mr. Pooles sense his Adversary that this Sense is the very Thing in question but no received Principle And therfore must be proved not supposed against him Proved I say and by Sole Scripture which yet cannot be done Though we turn to all the Texts in the Bible Most justly therfore may the Arian tell Mr. Poole If his Faith fall upon such a Determinate Sense now given He Believes it either Becaus His private Judgement molds Scripture to that Meaning or Becaus He takes it upon the Authority of a Church which he professedly Disowns and will not Believe 4. In reference to what is here said note first That as the True sense of Scripture is supposed and not proved against an Arian by force of Scripture in this particular Mystery so much more it is ever supposed and not proved when Protestants dispute against Catholicks The reason is Their private Judgement Protestants first frame to themselves a Sense of Scripture and then triumph first makes what sense they please which is no received Principle and afterward They vapor like Conquerours as if sole Scripture did the deed and defeated us Upon the great Assurance I have of This my Assertion I chalenge Mr. Poole or any Protestant They have not one Text of Scripture against the Roman Catholick Faith without the mixture of Their private Iudgements to produce one Text against the Roman Catholick Faith which without the Mixture of Their private Judgements or unadmitted Glosses speak's so much as Probably against it The more plausible place they insist on is That of St. Iohn cap. 6. Vnles you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. For communion under both kinds which nevertheles must have twenty Glosses and as many self Iudgements upon it before it can put on a likelyhood of a proof against us 5. Note 2. That whilst the Sense of Scripture lyes under dispute and is not agreed on by the two Parties Why Protestants loose labour when They argue by Scripture at Difference For example a Catholick and Protestant It is but Labour lost in the Protestant to Assault his Adversary with Texts of Scripture For the Catholick Answers Olim possideo prior possideo I have ever believed the sense of Gods Word to be such as you know we Catholicks own And can you my Antagonist What the Catholick answer's perswade your self to drive me out of the Possession of my Ancient Belief by your Sole private Judgement or Those new Glosses you father on Scripture If so A worthy Gentleman who by right of his Ancestors for a thousand years and upward now quietly possesseth his lands May be turn'd out of House and Harbor upon the private Judgement of some New upstart Fellow That Tell 's him He verily thinks the Ancient Writings for his Lands are not wel Understood Therfore he will first do him the favor to explicate them according to his private Opinion though contrary to the Sense hitherto received which done he will drive him out a doors and make him a Beggar This is our very Case 6. Contrarywise when the Sense of Scripture is How we may argue from Scripture agreed on we may Argue as Schoolmen do and draw from it Theological Conclusions which though often Various amongst Divines yet the Principle admitted I mean the Sense of Scripture remain's unquestioned and is maintain'd without Contradiction Without Such an agreed on sense which either Scripture as it often doth Deliver's plainly enough or The common consent of Learned men makes Highly probable or The Church of Christ declares certain 'T is to no more purpose to Dispute out of Scripture then to speak Arabick to an Illiterate Peasant Yet the loose Behavior of our Protestants is such that it lead's them without the guidance of these Lights first to Fancy The Fancy of Sectaries a Sense of their own and then draw strange Conclusions from it So Mr. Poole After he had by his own Interpretation perverted that Text of St. Paul The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth might wel say The Church is not proved Infallible Thus much is noted if the word Reason signify a formal Discours 7. Perhaps Protestants may reply For in Truth it Another Acception of the word Reason refuted is the hardest thing in the world where to have them in their Answers That Reason here imports not any Discours at all But an immediate clear Light Transfused into their Mind when they read Scripture like a Beam shot from the Sun wherby their Eyes as perspicuously discern the most Abstruse Sense in it as men do the Sun by its Light or the first known Principles of nature by Their own Indisputable Evidences Is this Reply think you rational that draws not so much as a Dram of Reason after it For if their new Faith hath set new Eyes in their head It hath not surely pluck't out their Neighbours Eyes who yet I hope may see what is discernable by All. None then ever questioned the Suns-shining at Noon-day or Writ Commentaries on the first
of these Places now cited May be as Protestants understand The bare Saying of Sectaries stand's for no proof so I say The contradictory Proposition is every whit as good The Sense May be as Catholicks understand Who must Therfore whilst we are Both yet supposed to stand as it were on equal Terms Determine what God hath absolutely Revealed in these Scriptures I say absolutely For the question here is not what a Particular man may Imagin God to have Spoken But what He hath de facto Spoken The Reason hereof is clear Because God Speak's not in so weighty a Matter as this is to Try mens Wits or to Hear Them tell him Lord such may be the Sense of your words Faith relies not on what private men think God hath revealed Though I cannot say what it is Nor can our Faith Rely on what we only Think He may have Spoken But on what He hath actually Revealed And we have means thanks be to God To know this Absolute Sense as I shall declare in the 9. Chapter where the Objection is fully solved 5. In the mean time be pleased to reflect first That Protestants Glosses as iniurious to Gods Word as Those of the Arians when meer Fallible men Peremptorily put upon Scripture a Sense which They cannot so much as probably prove But by their own Erring guesses only to be the true meaning of the Holy Ghost and this in a matter which Highly concerns Saluation They plainly Injure Gods Sacred Word Protestants are these fallible men and do so Ergo they injure Gods Word The first Proposition is clear in the Case of Arians who Becaus They peremptorily give a Sense to those Scriptures which relate to the Real Vnity of Three Persons in one Divine Essence the matter is of High importance and cannot prove it But by the force of Their Erring Guesses only They wrong both God and his Word The second Proposition is as Evident For The Proof Protestants absolutely say The Scriptures now cited include not yea positively exclude a perpetual infallibility allowed the Church This sense and 't is a Point of highest Importance For the clearing of it End 's all Controversies they cannot prove But by their own Erring guesses only And therfore injure Scripture in saying God hath spoken that which cannot be so much as probably proved was Spoken 6. Reflect 2. It is not enough that Sectaries tell us upon their own fallible Parole That our Places of Sectaries come not home to the difficulty Scripture May be interpreted as they please or come not home to prove the Churches Infallibility For Admit thus much Gratis They yet convince nothing Because it is one thing to say and God knows only to say it our alleged Scriptures for example that of St. Paul The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth prove To say we prove not our Doctrin is not to say They prove the contrary not a Church Infallible and a quite other positively to Teach and prove it to be Fallible The most they can infer out of thiâ— Negative Such places prove not were all granted they desire is that They give the slip to so many Texts of Scripture or infringe so much force of our Proofs Alas This only is to pull as it Their weak endeavour is to pull down not to build up the Machin of their new Doctrin were so much of a House down But it doth not therfore follow that They positively give in as good Texts to the contrary Sense or Build up the Structure of their new Doctrin concerning the Churches Fallibility To pull down one Proof is not to destroy all we can say we have more Strings to our Bow then one much les is it to build up an opposite Doctrin The Machin these Sectaries would fain build lyes in this one positive Assertion The whole Church is Fallible This say I Fancy only Erect's For it stands unprop't Fancy doth all with them That is it neither is nor can nor shall ever be positively proved And hence 7. Reflect 3. If Protestants who rely totally on Scripture Proof Positively Assert as They do That the whole Church is Fallible They are obliged both in Conscience and all Law of Disputation to prove what They say For Asserenti incumbit probatio Observe my reason When Luther and Sectaries came amongst us and troubled the world They heard the voice of a whole Ancient Church against them owning the infallible Assistance of Gods Directing Spirit for which we now argue The Church pleaded thus Olim possideo prior possideo This Spirit of infallibility I long since have had and yet upon Scripture proof do Believe Well Now enter these Sectaries They first reject Church Authority and then make Scripture speak as Fancy pleases and first Reject the Authority of this Ancient Church next They fall abord with our Scriptures And becaus they are good at Guessing They tell us Verily These Scriptures seem not to prove a Church Infallible Becaus They are able to interpret all to a contrary Sense To this we have Answered Their seeming is no proof Withall That Catholicks as Many and Learned as They both can and do interpret them otherwise Hitherto therfore their cause is nothing Advanced More then is necessary And it is That whilst They positively establish a new coyned Doctrin of a whole Christian Church fallible contrary to what Antiquity ever owned I say 't is necessary That they bring some Positive proof and make good Their unheard of Assertion 8. And here we may have plain dealing if Sectaries Protestant have no Text of Scripture against an Infallible Church please Turn then to your Bible Gentlemen and shew me any Text like this The whole Church of Christ is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The Holy Ghost will not ever Teach it all Truth God hath placed Pastors and Doctors in his Church But such as may suffer us to be carried away with every wind of fals Doctrin c. Such Expressions we read in our Bible for the contrary Verity Have you any thing like them in yours to prove your opposite Asserted Doctrin I say any like them For I Press not to have from you the same Formal Words But will be content with one plain significant Text and we will stand to Scripture Or if Scripture please you not we will accompany you to Councils and Fathers which so much as Meanly makes the whole Church of Christ Fallible Such a Scripture I tell you once more you cannot produce Ergo you only vent your Fancies you talk and prove not you believe a Doctrin which you cannot show was ever Revealed in Gods Word You may perhaps trifle it out and Tell us as you are wont to do of our errors de facto It is nothing to the purpose For What we desire of Sectaries we enquire not here after your proofles Assertions They are Answered a hundred times over nor ask what
of Truth Reside in the late and hardly yet well known Congregation of Protestants Doth he Teach and Interpret Scripture by this Society The Spirit resides noâ— in Protestants of men No Most certainly no For that Society wherin This All-knowing Spirit Presides as Master is Taught infallibly Those He instructs to Interpret Scripture Both Teach and Interpret Infallibly For Truth it self can make none his Instruments and Interpret by them either falsly or fallibly But Protestants Because They profess to be Fallible profess themselves to be Fallible in what ever they Teach and interpret Therfore they ioyntly own themselves to be No Teaching or interpreting Instruments of the Holy Ghost Observe well the Reason This blessed Spirit when it learn's a whole Church what it is to Believe cannot but Interpret Infallibly by those He Teaches to interpret Our Sectaries deny this Grace of Interpreting infallibly to All Societies of Christians The Reason is convincing Therfore they deny it to Themselves For they are amongst These All And in doing so They Divorce their little Company from the Infallible interpreting Spirit of the Holy Ghost Consequently This Spirit leaves them For 't is most evident He Interprets not by such or for such as deny and Abjure his Infallible Interpretation God forbid may Sectaries Reply we Abjure it not But only modestly say We cannot Teach infallibly as he Interprets in our Harts No. To what purpose then doth this Divine Spirit lay up his infallible learning in your Harts if you can never utter it or Teach others after your Instructions secretly received as this Spirit speak's in you infallibly Here is Light indeed closely hid under a Bushel unseen by All Beneficial to None This short Discours can Protestants discover Sophistry in it let them speak totally Evert's their private Spirit And evidences That their Interpretation of Scripture finally comes to no more But to a Fallacy or a self-imagined Fancy All I would say here is summoned up in these few words Protestants confess that they neither Teach nor can Interpret Scripture infallibly Therfore by their own Confession They aro neither Oracles nor Instruments nor Interpreters of the Holy Ghost who Teaches and Interprets by none when â—e delivers Doctrin for a whole Church But by such as do it Infallibly Hence 9. I say 4. One only Society of Christians There is Hell One only Siciety that Teaches Infallibly gates shall not prevail against it or seduce it by Error which Teaches and interprets the Word of God Infallibly This one Dove is Chast This one Spouse is Loyal This one Oracle is Infallible He that Hear 's it hear's Christ He whâ— slight's it slight's Christ and draw's upon him the Malediction of a Separated Heathen and Publican Matt. 18. 17. Si Ecclesiam non audierit c. You do I know prevent my meaning For by this Spouse and Oracle I understand no other But that long standing Ancient Holy and Catholick Roman Church which Which is the Roman Church ever taught the World in foregoing Ages before our Sectaries seâ— footing in it Beside this faithful Oracle I do demonstrate in the 1. Chap. of the next Discours There never was is or shall be any thing like a Catholick Holy Church Now as it is Ecclesia Docens a Church Teaching and consists of Prelates united with one Head Directed by the Holy Ghost it Teaches and interprett Scripture infallibly As it is Ecclesia Discens or the Church Learning it receives and by virtue of the same blessed Spirit both Instruction and Interpretation infallibly 10. The Truth of my Assertion stand's firm upon the undeniable Grounds already laid no less well proved then presupposed Here is the summe of All. A summary of the precedent proofs The wise Providence of God hath left Sufficient means wherby we may know exactly the Sense of his Scripture in matters concerning Saluation whilst Learned men of different Sects are at endles Debates about this Sense and persist most obstinatly in what they have once laid hold on God therfore most assuredly will not have us run on thus in jarr's to the worlds end and conclude nothing There is means then of a Reconciliation afforded if we please But that 's not Scripture alone which cannot interpret it self but lyes still in that ancient darknes as it was first writ nor can it be mans Private Iudgement for that is both Various and Fallible Certainly it is not the Protestants Spirit For this we se changes every year And confessedly is Destitute of the Holy Ghosts Infallible directing Spirit It is no condemned Sect of Ancient Haereicks acknowledged for such both by Catholicks and Protestants Enthusiasm's no man believes Angels interpret not Scripture What then Remains but that we have recours to that One Ancient Holy and Vniversal Roman Church as wel for Instruction as Interpretation By this sole Oracle the Holy Ghost interpret's and teacheth or we must grant which is lamentable that we are turned loos into an inexplicable Labyrinth of Gods deep Secrets revealed in his Word without hope of finding any Exit 11. To prove my Assertion further positively by Scripture and the Authority of Fathers would be both tedious to a Reader and little avail with Sectaries And I wave as much as may be the useles Repetition of so often quoted Authorities who turn of Scripture by far-fetcht Glosses and undervalue Fathers as being fallible Yet while they do so know well enough their own misery at home within their brests which is nothing but a Spirit of Fallibility You find Proofs amply alleged out of Scripture Councils and Fathers to our present matter in our Polemical writers chiefly when they treat of the Iudge of Controversies However one Text though often quoted I will here give you Sectaries may tamper long enough with it before they return a probable Answer 12. The great Apostle of the Gentiles writing to A solid proof from Scripture the Ephesians Cap. 4. after he had warned them of keeping unity in Spirit and Faith also vers 11. Add's And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other Pastors and Doctors c. And why gave he these Teachers The following words Answer For the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the Body of Christ How long are these to continue To the Worlds end until saith Scripture we meet into the unity of Faith and knowledge of the Son of God c. What intention had God in establishing These Apostles Evangelists and Pastors in his Church That now we be not Children fluctuating and carried away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is turned about with every wind of Doctrin in the wickednes of men in craftines to the circumvention of error Thus the Hierarchy The Hierarchy of the Church that Teaches of Christs Teaching Church is constituted And by no other then Truth it self Now I say No Society of Christians
recurr to an Invisible Society of such men now as well exploded by later Protestants as Catholicks 7. A fifth Objection flow's from the pen of a Late Mr. Stillingfleet Writer after this manner Cannot you conceive that there should be a Number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility If not saith he I 'll help your Vnderstanding a little Suppose And it 's only a Supposition That all the members of the Roman Church should be destroyed in one Age do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches sound at least in the Belief of Fundamentals without Infallibility I have answered already No. And given my Reason Becaus a Church A Church separated from Divine Assistance cannot persist stable divorced from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost is pulled from the Center of Truth which supports it and consequently the Doctrin of it must needs reel and totter now as is supposed to rely on no firmer a Hold then on mans unsteedy fallible Reason or on a Testimony meerly Humane and therfore Uncertain Neither have we without this Assistance more Security Without Infallible Assistance no security of fundamentals of true Belief in Matters called Fundamental then others As is clear in condemned Arians who no sooner left the Church directed by this Spirit of Truth But Errours followed them in points most Fundamental And yet like black Ghosts do and will haunt them without Repentance to the Worlds End 8. Before we end this matter I have one Question to propose It is Whether If all the Ancient Fathers A Question proposed to Sectaries that ever lived Had plainly interpreted Scriptures as the Roman Catholick Church now interpret's them contrary to Protestants They would then Disavow Their own Glosses And submit to the undeniable Authority of so many worthy Fathers Might Reason or Religion set one unlucky Adversary aside called Prejudice make the Answer Sectaries would say Yes And do so were The unanimous consent of Fathers against them Grant thus much And say boldly The Authority of The whole Antecedent The Authority of a whole Church more weighty then that of Fathers and this present Roman Catholick Church is in true prudence of greater Force to withdraw Sectaries from their new invented Glosses contrary to it Then if all the Fathers Together Had plainly interpreted Scripture as the Church interpret's Why Nothing on earth can Parallel this Churches Authority much les make it Inferiour to The Fathers only part of the Church the universal consent of Fathers The Reason is These Fathers were only a part of it particular men and Singly considered Fallible But a whole Church Embraceth a greater number and cannot be misled into Errour Nay I say Though we Impiously suppose Were the Church supposed Fallible the Authority of it is as great as the Fathers That this whole Church might swerve from Truth yet the Testimony of it is as great as that of the Fathers who as Protestants say may all err and swerve more easily This Reason is Reinforced if we reflect on one undeniable Truth which is In all controversies now between us Sectaries can pretend no more But thus much only That the sense of some few Fathers only They never pretended all whilst they interpret Scripture is though often obscure more against the Churches interpretation then for it Here is the most they can say with any Conscience Though we grant not so much when the whole Doctrin of a Father is well examined However Gratis Admit of the Supposition at present And se what follows A clear Testimony Though Fallible hath more weight then another that 's Obscure and Fallible Thus much only The Sense of such and such Fathers is doubtful and Sectaries say Fallible The Churches Sense is clear That is you know what it Teaches and Though falsly supposed fallible is yet far more firm then the other Testimony That 's confessedly both obscure and Fallible 9. This Discours convinceth that Sectaries cannot If Sectaries say the more clear Church Doctrin is the more manifest is its Errour They speak without Principles and suppose what is to be proved impugn the Churches sense given of Scripture by any thing that hath the look of a probable Principle For the Church Defend's it self upon two undeniable Grounds The first Positive And 'T is The Churches own Authority nothing can be greater The other Negative Viz. Never any of known credit neither Fathers generally nor Oecumenical Councils much less Scripture Probably clearly contradicted that sense which the Roman Catholick Church Gives of Scripture And here by the way You may se to what an Exigency our new None of undoubted credit Ever clearly contradicted the Churches sense of Scripture men are Driven for want of Principles They say The Roman Catholick Church is Fallible The Fathers are fallible All condemned Haereticks are fallible They themselves are fallible Thus much supposed Tell me I beseech you by what probable Principle can They so much as seemingly show That either They interpret Scripture better then we or That Any of us all ever yet arrived to the True sense of it in controverted If all are Fallible by what Principle can Sectaries prove their Interpretation to be the best matters Which yet is absolutely necessary For we can have no true Faith without the true sense of Scripture You know if the blind lead the blind There is no safe conduct And if the Fallible man Guides the Fallible both may mistake Their way and err grosly You will have no Answer returned to this Difficulty But Sectaries Fancy and Fancy only Or shew that Any had the true sense of Scripture 10. Some may Reply Protestants have the words of Scripture as clear as the Holy Ghost was pleased to Write them in Fundamentals As also the consent of Fathers at least for those Fundamentals They wave other By-Passages of Scripture and care not much A Reply of Sectaries whether their Interpretations be right or wrong I Answer first To say nothing of many Others They They cannot wave all Difficulties cannot wave one Difficulty concerning the Real presence of Christ in the Sacred Eucharist which is either a Fundamental Doctrin or none is Both Scripture and Fathers are in this particular most expresly against them as is proved Hereafter 11. But let this pass I Answer 2. We have as good Scripture as Sectaries can lay claim to in every Point which they call Fundamental And with it the In Fundamentals we are at least equal and in controverted matter far superiour consent of Fathers also In other controverted matters we own the same Scripture they own And moreover have the sense of it Declared by this long standing Church wherin we infinitly surpass them Speak therfore of matters out of controversy or wherin all Agree we are at least equal with them And for others in controversy
proves it in every place Of their Faith Spread abroad c. What Think ye was this not yet written Word of our Lord or the true Analogy of the Thessalonians Faith As well Dilated as Approved of What Finally was that Form of Doctrin commended in the Romans cap. 6. 17 Why Did the Apostle blame the unsetled Galatians for Being so soon Transferred into another Gospel and Denounce Anathema cap. 1. 6. if they believed an Angel Preaching contrary to his former Doctrin All these and many other Passages of Holy Writ manifestly Declare Before the writing of Scripture there was a plat-form of Christian Religion That there was Divine Doctrin Taught by the very Founders of Christianity before the Writing of Scripture There was a Plat-form of Christian Religion made by the very Apostles before they Separated Themselves and began their Preaching to several Nations And to comply with this Rule or Form of Faith Blessed St. Paul Though full of the Holy Ghost went to confer with St. Peter and the rest Gal. 2. 2. Act. 15. 36. Upon it The Apostles Held Councils yea Councils held upon that platform and Scripture writ and as some Grave and Learned Doctors Affirm by the Measure therof the Holy Scriptures were written Se the notes on the Rhems Testament Rom. cap. 12. v. 6. 3. Be it how Sectaries will There was Faith in the World before written Scripture The Apostles who taught it Had their Rule of Doctrin prescribed by a The Apostles had their Rule of Doctrin from a certain Master good Master the Holy Ghost for they Taught not Christian Doctrin upon their own frail Iudgements considered as Men. No they had ever the Guidance and Direction of this Blessed Spirit with them and as His Instruments Delivered so much as this Master according to Christs Promise gave Assistance to and neither more nor less Now those Pious Christians The first pious Christians had their Rule from the Apostles who heard this Apostolical Learning made it most certainly Their Rule Their Measure of Faith Their Analogy and Form of Doctrin Whence I argue This Form or Rule of Oral Doctrin First laid up in the Brests of the Apostles and afterward Delivered to different Nations was neither All set down in Holy Scripture for Volumes would not contain it nor All intierly lost 'T is pitty such a rich Depositum should Perish Therfore it yet Remains somewhere in safe Custody That Doctrin is yet preserved in the Church But no Place is fitter for it then that which the Fathers call Thesaurarium dives the Rich Treasury of the Church where 'T is still Preserved and Those Timothies I mean those Evangelists Those Pastors Those Doctors mentioned Ephes 4. 11. Appointed by Providence to Edify the Mystical Body of Christ The Chief Preservers of this Legacy and Noble Depositum are as Necessity Requires to impart it and make it known to the World by their Definitions Least like Children we be carried away with every Wind of fals Doctrin And The Ground of Tradition herein lyes the very Ground of all Apostolical Tradition This is not mine but the Great Vincentius Lirinensis own Doctrin now cited Where pondering that of the Apostle O Timothy Keep thy Depositum He Asks Quis Est bodie Timotheus nisi vel universa Ecclesia vel specialiter totum corpus Praepositorum c. Who is now or at this The whole Church or Rulers of it preserve this Depositum Day our Timothy But either the Vniversal Church or more specially the Whole Body of those Guides and Rulers set over it that are Themselves to have the intire knowledge of Divine Worship or to infuse it into others c Afterward Quid est hoc Depositum What is this Deposited Doctrin He Answers Id quod tibi creditum est 'T is that which is committed to Thee not that Thou Invent's that which thou hast Received not what Thou hath Fancied of thy own Head It is a thing not of Wit but of Doctrin Non usurpationis propriae not of thy Private Vse Fashion or Practise Sed The Church no Author but Keeper of Divine Doctrin publicae Traditionis But of publick and known Tradition brought to Thee handed to Thee wherof thou art not to be Author sed Custos But a Keeper and Preserver Then he goes on Depositum Custodi Catholicae Fidei Talentum c. 4. And thus you Se we have a Church a Catholik Principles wheron the Church proceed's Talent of Faith committed to it A Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin laid up in its Treasury We have a Moral body of Timothies of Teachers united with one Supream Head and Pastor That Assures us more Explicitly by its Definitions what the Ancient Deposited Doctrin is And Reclaim's us if we swerve from it We have Express Scripture that both A Mystical body of Teachers Gods written and unwritten word Sectaries want all Proves and Approves the Churches Proceeding in Doing so And this Sacred written Word faithfully Interpreted And the unwritten Deposited Word also most Infallibly Proposed is our Form our Rule and perfect Analogy of Faith O Had Sectaries but Half as much For what They boldly Assert contrary to us And because every Man is a Chutch with them They Define more then our Church Defines The Consecrated Host is Bread only a Figure of Christs Body only There are two Sacraments only Works Iustify not but Faith only c. Had I say These men but half Protestants have no Authority for their Definitions so much Authority for their Definitions How would they warble out the Notes of their Novelties But God hath Silenced them For they have neither Church nor Scripture nor Ancient Depositum nor Tradition nor Analogy nor Rule of Faith nor Motives to Make Talk only of a Nullity and an unproved Negative Religion what They Define probable nor Any other Thing to talk of But of a meer Nothing I mean the Nullity of Their unproved Negative Religion 5. What hitherto is said of Catholick Definitions made by Pope and Councils Chiefly Relates to such Matters as have been Anciently without Dispute Revealed yea And believed also Though not perhaps in order One way of Defining to all so Explicitly And this way of Defining some Divines call Propositionem That is a Reproposing of Mysteries formerly Believed whether clearly Deduced Gods unwritten word of equall Authority with his written word out of Gods Word or drawn from undoubted Tradition 'T is the very same For as the Oral Taught Doctrin of the Apostles was and is certain as Doctrin Registred in Scripture so all that really is Gods Vnwritten Word when proposed to us by the Church as such is in Substance of equal Authority and Credit with the Written For it is not the setting down of Truths in Velume or Partchment that Add's more Weight to them or makes them higher Verities And here by the way I cannot but Reflect on the
Ancient Orthodox Church of the Jewes undeniably Profess and believe this Doctrin none can gainsay the Proposition The consent of act Churches a strong Principle The Minor is as certain for no Authority under Heaven plain Scripture excepted can be greater then the Vnanimous Consent of all Curches No contrary judgement is able to struggle with so much strength Therfore put the case first you will The supposition hold's not de facto for no Fathers teach so have what I would say better Evidenced upon a supposition That more then one of the ancient Fathers should expresly Deny a Purgatory whilst all Churches teach the contrary Suppose secondly that God should command me to believe the One or Other And that which prudence evidently Tell 's me is the most What we are obliged to upon the supposition Credible I am obliged if I proceed rationally to Adhere to the Church because it is evidently the stronger Proof and to deny the Fathers Authority Therfore I am bound much more to yeild my Assent now when all Churches Affirm the Doctrin and not one Father Denies it And our very Adversaries must say as much as I prove For do not they own the Holy Book of Scripture to be Gods Word how consequently Sect 〈…〉 es must grant what is now asserted they proced I Dispute not because all Christian Churches in the world do so If therfore that Authority be warrant enough for a Bible it is as weighty for the Doctrin we stand for And this was my Conclusion Perhaps you will say Very An Objection many among the Schismatical Churches Deny a Purgatory Contra. And very many also Deny the Canon of Scripture you Admit of Doth this make the Bible of less esteem among you Know therfore We speak Here of Church Authority and not of Schismaticks receding from a Church weaken not the Churches Doctrin Schismatical Parties receding from those Respective Churches wherof they were once members Know also that the self-Opinion of such Partisans is not to be compared with the Sentiment of a whole Church against them You may Reply Again We are now forced to make use of Schismatical Churches to Defend our Doctrin of Purgatory Answer No such matter We need not their Help but say Salutem ex inimicis nostris when Adversaries agree with us in a Truth it is an Advantage to our cause witnesses upon this account are multiplyed Et vox populi vox Dei if The number of withnesses for a Truth gives some Advantage All teach as we do it is certain we profess no Erroneous Doctrin At least the Argument Ad hominem Against Sectaries hath place who value so much of the Greeks and other Heterodox Christians We care not for more Besides the Greek Church when it was most Orthodox prayed for the Dead in a state of sufferance as is already proved 3. Weigh now well the Reasons Pro and Con. Reasons pro and con are weighed All the Churches in the world Defend a Purgatory that is a place wherin souls are temporally punished No Church reputed Orthodox ever denyed it I say more No Schismatical Church under the Notion of a Church contradicted that Doctrin Therfore our professed Faith is undoubtedly certain upon this very ground or if it be not one may call the primary Articles of our Faith into Question And The Parallel All and none A clear Conviction The second Principle thus you have the first Parallel All Churches stand for our Affirmative No Church Defend's the contrary Negative of Sectaries A most Evident Conviction A powerful Proof against this Heresy 4. The second Principle is S. Austins known Doctrin De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 4. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Consiliis c. What the whole universal Church hold's and was not first instituted by Councils What all believe is Apostolical Tradition but ever in use and retained Recte Creditur is rightly believed to be no other but an Apostolical Tradition But it is most certain that the whole Vniversal Church prayed for souls departed with intention to free them from a temporal Punishment The Greeks the Latins and the Ancient Hebrews Prayed so as is already proved And this had no first Rise from any Decree No Sectary can say when the Church first began to pray for the Dead suffering terment of Councils therfore it is an Apostolical Tradition which Truth Alatius further demonstrat's upon several Occasions Ponder therfore things impartially And ask now what Tradition have Sectaries for their Negative The Dead are not Assisted by Prayer They have none they are here put to silence for neither the Tradition of the whole Church nor of any part of it reputed Orthodox ever favoured Their Opinion or delivered what they teach Make then the Comparison All Tradition is for our Catholick Verity The Parallel and Nothing like Tradition for the contrary Heresy All and nothing make a strange Parallel And so it is at present 5. The third Principle Many Ancient and learned Fathers so interpret those known passages of Holy Scripture interprrted by Fathers a third Principle Scripture usually alleged for a proof of Purgatory that Scripture it self Speak's what the Church Teacheth Not one Father gives such a sense to Scripture as may Ground a positive or absolute Denial of Purgatory I cannot insist upon all Take for an instance that one passage of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. He shall so yet be saved as by fire And know that besides those learned Notes of Bellarmin upon the Text Lib. 1. De Purg. Cap. 5. and the Bellarmin Fathers there quoted most significantly expressing the Catholick sense Leo Alatius produceth others and Page Leo Alatius 311. Cites Manuel Caleca a more Modern Author Lib. 4. Contra Graecos who Saith the place cannot be understood of Hell fire for the Apostle speak's of a fire wherby souls are saved which is not the fire of Hell but a Purging Manuel Caleca his reason fire and by this They are to pass to happines And so much the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Per which insinuates a Passing strongly signifies Thus Caleca who hath much more to our Purpose It is true some Authors think the Apostle speak's of the fire of Tribulation Others though less probably of the last burning of the No Fathers makes Scripture to Deny a Purgatory world but no Father makes the Text or any other of Scripture positively exclusive of Purgatory for This is no Consequence We are to pass through Tribulation and the fire also at the judgement Day Ergo there is no penalty to be endured in a third place Here you have an other Parallel Most learned Fathers interpret The Paralled Scripture Conformably to the Churches Doctrin not one positively favours the Contrary Opinion of Sectaries Iudge you therfore and cast as it were into a ballance the express Sentiment of Many against
None and see where the greatest weight lyes 6. The fourth Principle is the Express Doctrin of The fourth Principle Fathers Themselves as well Greek as Latin whether it be grounded on Scripture on Tradition or both matters not at present Here we only Appeal to the Their Positive Doctrin To transcribe all they have said on this subject would be a long work Bellarmin novv cited cap. 10. hath many Leo Alatius adds other Greek Authors favour the Church Doctrin Greek Authors as well Orthodox as of Schismatical from his 57. page There you have Gennadius the Patriarch St. Epiphanius express to our purpose S. Chrysostom Hom. 69. ad populum and S. Damascen both approving and praysing S. Chrysostoms Doctrin Eustratiâ—s Priest of Constantinople Michaël Glycas a Schismatick Eugenicus Nomophilax adversus Synodum Florentinam Meletius Alexandrinus Epistolâ ad Chios who saith Expresly it is an Apostolical Tradition and grounded also in Scripture To Hold that the Dead have great Assistance by the good works of the Living But let us return to the more known Authority of Fathers S. Denis or some other Grave Author Eccles Hierarch cap 7. parte 3. saith that Dionysius S. Cyril of Hiâ—r S. Chrysostom the venerable Prelate prayes over the Dead to the End that all his sinn's committed through humain frailty may be forgiven him Say I beseech you what signifies this remission of sin's obtainable by the Prayers of the Prelate S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 5. We make Prayers and offer up the dreadful Sacrifice on the Altar for the Dead believing it to be a mighty Help for their souls What can be more plain Popery S. Chrysostom Hom. 21. in Acta Alatius quotes the words in his own language which begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. God saith He hath layd open to us many wayes to salvation Oblations Oblations and Prayers for the Dead Prayers and Alms for the Dead are not things vainly don in their behalf No They were instituted by the Holy Ghost who will 's that we endeavour to help one an other Be most assured the Dead have much profit by our Orizons The Saint hath more to this purpose in his 41. Hom. upon the first of the Corr. Theodoret cited by Alatius page 71. lib. 5. Histor cap. 36. Tell 's us that Theodosius the younger lay prostrate at the Reliques of S. Chrysostom praing for the Souls of his deceased Parents Arcadius and Eudoxiâ— that God would grant them pardon for their Offenses c. Alatius besides These cites Theophylact S. Cyril of Alexandria Metaphrastes and other Greek Authors You have the Latin Fathers Largely quoted by Bellarmin supra cap. 10. And their words are so plain for our Doctrin The Latin Fathers accord also Specially S. Austins that none without violence can draw them to any other sense then what the Church Teaches Most surely you will now expect that Sectaries Answer us with like measure And give in lieu of these Testimonies briefly hinted at others as clear and significant for their Opinion And this They are obliged to when besides the alleged Authorities we have an Ample ancient and learned Church that speaks in the language of the Fathers and Teaches the very Doctrin They Deliver But all is Contrary 7. I 'll tell you a great Truth and 't is worth a serious reflection Sectaries have not so much as one Ancient Father Greek or Latin not one Ancient Writer Sectaries want of Authors reputed Orthodox not one Council new or old not one word of Scripture that either Positively and Expresly Denies a Purgatory or Prayers for the Dead or the relief we now plead for afforded them in a place of Punishment What not one No. Parallel The Parallel therfore many with None and you will se what foundations Our Adversaries Novelties Stand on I say Expresly and Positively being well acquainted with Sectaries Proceding as well in this as in other Controversies Sectaries way of Arguing Here They will first be upon you with their Negative way of Arguing We read no such word as Purgatory in the Ancient Fathers 2. You may have a Company of blind inferences drawn from Scripture and Fathers before the sense of either be Agreed They make Deductions from Scripture before the sense of Scripture is known on 3. As far as Conjectures can reach they will set Glosses enough upon the best Testimonies allegeable out of Scripture or Fathers c. But mark it all this while you have Nothing Express nothing Positive and significant against us And Do they think that a meer Negative Argument hath force enough to overthrow a Doctrin Positively Professed by a whole Church and so many Learned Fathers Can they perswade Themselves that Their Inferences Forced from Scripture or Fathers are of any validity whilst the very sense of both lye under Dispute Take for an instance An Instance that of S. Iohn Apocal. 14. Blessed are the Dead that Dye in our Lord Amodo from hence forth they rest from Their labours The Question is what Amodo relates to whether to the day of every mans Death or to the last Judgement Day whether the Scripture speak's there of perfect Souls only or of others what is meant by that word labours For if it signify the sufferances and persecutions of this present life the Text Proves nothing for our Adversaries Notwithstanding all these Doubts undecided Their Inference goes on And 't is that S. Iohn here Excludes all sufferance in Purgatory Alas such Deductions are too weak to Oppose Weak Deductions an Express owned Doctrin all over the world as is now proved Yet you have no better from these men Nothing Express nothing openly significant Against us 8. I touched in the last place on Sectaries Glosses and interpretations forced on such Testimonies as are usually cited for our Catholick Faith And here How differently Catholicks and Sectaries proceed I will briefly Discover not only their Cheat but moreover shew you how differently we and They proceed as well in this present Controversy as in all other Disputes between us Observe well The Truth is thus When we Produce Scripture Councils or Fathers against their Novelties They make their own Interpretation to be the last and surest Ground wheron The Sectary makes the last ground of his Opinion to be his own Explication The Catholick hath his Religion proved before He Explicates Their maintained Opinion ultimatly relies Contrarywise the Catholick never interpret's Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries but He ground his Gloss on a surer Principle then his sole Explication reaches to I will explicate my self more clearly by one Instance Besides the Authority of our Church and all other Societies called Christian we allege for example St. Denis his Testimony St. Chrysostoms or any other to prove that Prayer for the Dead Avail's much for their comfort and remission of sins that is for the lessening of the pain due to sin
The Sectary interpret's These and the like passages as his own Fancy suggesteth And if this Fancy hit not right He is undon for He hath no surer Principle to rely on either in this or any other Controversy but His own self conceipted Gloss The Reason is He hath no infallible All sure Principles fail Sectaries Church no clear Scripture no undoubted consent of Fathers no Vniversal Tradition distinct from his Gloss that can so much as make it probable Therfore his own unproved interpretation Doth all it is his last Principle and Strongest Hold He never goes Higher nor can advance one step further I am so confident of this Assertion that I challenge our Adversary to come to a just trial in this one Controversy A fair Offer And if He can Answer to our Authorities now quoted upon the Assurance of plain Scripture undoubted Tradition or the plain Consent of Fathers I 'll cry Peccavi and Ask forgivenes of my rashnes Thus they proceed 9. On the Other side when the Catholick interprets Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries against his Faith He never makes his interpretation to be the The last Proof of a Catholick is not his Interpretation greatest light or surest Proof of His Doctrin but most prudently Answers I am bound to interpret your less clear Authority brought Against me becaus I am Assured Aliunde by the strongest Principles Imaginable whether my Gloss hit right or no that my Faith is most certain Christs Church tell 's me so Fathers Confirm it None ever Opposed it but known Hereticks Here saith the Catholick are my last He hath assured Principles to rely on Principles Upon these I rest And can you my Adversary Imagin that I being so well grounded Ought to leave my certain Principles for a Dark sentence or your unproved Conjectures It is impossible You will se this more clearly by one Example The An Instance Catholick Believes a Purgatory The Sectary saith His belief is against Scripture Wisdom 3. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them No such matter Answers the Catholick for if the word Righteous point at such as are perfectly just and need no Purgatory your proof is proofles or if the word Torments particularly signifies as it doth a racking or torturing forced on Malefactors to confess the Truth before a Judge the Text is wide enough from your purpose For no such punishment shall touch the just departed Now mark The Catholicks just Demand saith the Catholick Will you Sir have me to part from clear and certain Principles wheron my Faith relies for a Scripture whilst the very sense of that Scripture is at least doubtful and obscure and therfore may be well explicated without violence no way Contrary to the Doctrin of my Church It would be a sin and a great one against prudence to yeild upon so slight a ground I should make saith He an ill bargain should I as it were exchange the sure Principles A woful Exchange of sure Principles for uncertain Glosses of my Faith for your uncertain Glosses and you have no more Though you read the Text now cited till your eyes be weary 10. Upon the Occasion now offered give me leave to Tell you one great Truth Viz. All of us must Vnavoidibly either firmly Adhere to the Doctrin of our Catholick A great Verity worthy of Reflection Church in these points of Controversy Or may Sectaries Glosses sway with us we shall be sure to Assent to that which is not only an Heresy but according to Ordinary Prudence and clear Principles a thousand times more improbable and Difficil Observe it in our present Controversy Sectaries hold it no improbability to say That the Souls of good men do not enjoy compleat Happines till the Day of Judgement Any thing may pass but Popery yet this very Assertion if we respect Authority The Improbable proceeding of Sectaries and reason also abstracting from Faith is less probable then our Church Doctrin is Those quoted Scriptures prove Nothing to this purpose as we shall show presently for to find mercy at that great Day inferr's not that all Souls must stay out of Heaven till the second Coming of Christ to judgement Note the like strain in other Controversies They will have me to Deny the Infallibility of my Church and will give me in Place of it their own fallible word which I am sure cannot Stand in Competition with the sole Humane Authority of my Church They will have us to deny the Popes Supremacy And what Do they inforce on us in lieu of that Nothing but Their own jarring heads that agree in Nothing And these must Teach and Govern us in place of a Pope They will have me to Disbelieve my Scripture interpreted by the Church and to believe their Interpretations who are both Churchles and Scriptureles Mark well and judge you whether that which Sectaries They would drive us upon greater Improbabilities would Drive us upon be not in a high measure more improbable and difficile then what we now believe and it must needs be so for as I told you the only support of their whole Religion as Protestancy is neither Scripture nor the Consent of Fathers but their own Glosses forced on both without further warrant Follow them closely through all Controversies you will find I speak Truth Contrarywise The Catholicks Security when He interpret's when the Catholick Interpret's He hath ever at hand a certain Principle distinct from his Interpretation which is his security For saith He I must either Interpret an Authority when it is Dubious or desert those Convincing Principles wheron my Faith is grounded which are without Controversy most certain But to do so is madnes and a notorious sin against Prudence Thus much by way of a Notandum Our Adversaries Objections 11. We come now to Combate a little with our Adversaries Objections but the Quarrel will not be long For besides what is refuted Already and some other Parergons not much as I think to the Purpose the remainder may be easily dispatched 12. He saith first Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what They declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation Mark the word Declare and se Sir what a law you lay on A hard Rule given the Fathers the Fathers they must tell their Readers when they write My Masters so much you are to believe on the account of Divine Revelation and so much not or if They fail in this Declaration they may as you seem to say afterwards speak only their own fancies and Imaginations Contra. St. Austins writes of Purgatory and holds it as we shall se presently But Declares not Explicitly that the Doctrin is of Divine Revelation nor Explicitly that it is his own fancy If therfore He Declares neither Explicitly upon what Principle The Argument is
Themselves and the evidence of the former that is of the Churches infallibility not only denyed and Disputed down by Protestants but also questioned by their own Authors You End This Question I chalenge the whole Club of Iesuits solidly to Answer I Answer very catagorically without Clubbing it and say first The Catholick hath more then meer probable Evidence of the Doctrin of the Curches infallibility The Sectary by his own Principles hath not so much as probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Independent of the Church I say 2. Though the Sectary had probable evidence of the Scriptures infallibility yet it is a useles book in his hands 13. The first Assertion contain's two parts I prove the first The Catholick hath a Church evidenced by Vnparallel'd Miracles by conversions of whole Nations from Infidelity to our Christian Verities He hath a Church manifested by all those other Glorious Cognisances of Truth which the Apostolical Church shewed to the world not one is excepted as is proved Disc 1. c. 9. 10. If therfore that Apostolical Church was prudently believed to deliver infallible Doctrin and this before Scripture was writ by the inducements of those illustrious marks and Characters of Truth wherwith it was adorned our Roman Catholick Church that undeniably evidenceth the very like signs is proved upon that Reason to deliver also infallible Doctrin For where there are the same effects and signs of infallible Doctrin the Infallibility of it is as it were witnessed by them otherwise such Motives would be both inefficacious and useles whilst God shewes them for this end that all may give Assent to his infallible Verities taught by that Oracle where they evidently appear and I believe led on by the inducements yet must forsooth only believe uncertainties or fallible Doctrin that may be fals 14. The Doctrin therfore of the Roman Catholick Church is now as well made immediately Credible by vertue of these Motives as the Apostolical Church was before the writing of Scripture And These Motives in order to the Learned and those who prudently seek for Truth first and most immediatly Demonstrate the Church or Those persons that teach infallible Doctrin by whose Authority we learn what and where infallible Truth is professed That these marks and signs immediatly belong to the Persons that Teach infallibly and not to Scripture is undoubted Mark 16. 17. These signs shall follow in my name they shall cast out Divels c. Again not only the Doctor of the Gentils 2. Cor. 12. 12. call's the wonders He wrought Signa Apostolatus sui the marks of his Apostleship but a greater Doctor also Truth it self Iohn 10. 25. when the Jewes would not believe him remitted them to the evidence of his Miracles The works which I do in the name of my Father these give Testimony of me And vers 38. If you will not believe me believe the works Works therfore and wonders Annexed to the persons or Church that Teaches Forceably induce prudent men to believe the certain Doctrin Delivered by them who shew such wonders In a word here is all I would say No Religion is evidently true or fals ex Terminis upon the bare Affirmation of Him that sayes its true or fals Therfore it must have the Evidence of its Credibility manifested before Christians admit of the Doctrin But this Evidence is first manifested by such signs and Miracles as Christ and the Apostles personally shewed to the world and by vertue of them induced Aliens from Truth to believe it as Infallible Doctrin Therfore whatever Church shewes such Miracles the like signs and wonders as Christ and his Apostles manifested plead's as well for the Infallibility of its Doctrin witnessed by such Miracles as the Apostolical Church Did. But the Roman Catholick Church only and no other shewes these Miracles Efficacy of Doctrin Vniversality strange Conversions and other most Convincing Motives Therfore if the first Christians induced by such evidence firmly believed the Apostolical Doctrin to be infallible which was not ex terminis evidently infallible we may now upon the very like Inducements not for the inducements as the last Motive Believe as securely upon our Churches Authority the Doctrin taught by it to be infallible Deny this Evidence of our Motives and we force Sectaries to prove the Denial by as sure Principle as we Assert them Grant them and our Argument is concluding And here you have more them a meer probable Evidence of the Churches infallibility 15. An Other Argument for it besides those Scriptures cited Disc 2. C. 6. n. â— is not only probable but unanswerably Convincing hinted at Disc 1. C. 2. n. 9. Christ as is confessedly granted both by Catholicks and Sectaries sent Pastors up and down the world to teach Christian Doctrin But he never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be fals Ergo He sent them to teach his own infallible Doctrin and Infallibly I prove it He sent none to teach any other Doctrin then that which may be ultimately resolved into Gods infallible veracity revealing Truth But that which is ultimatly resolved into an infallible Veracity can neither be fals nor fallible Doctrin because God as I now said ownes no fallible Doctrin that may be fals Therfore this Resolution of an Act tending fallibly into Devine Revelation is rather Non-sense then Faith I infallible believe Christ to be God and Man because Gods infallible Revelation will have me to believe so For No Infallible Motive applyed to my vnderstanding as it is infallible can draw from me a fallible belief of a Doctrin that 's meerly fallible But All Sectaries whether Arians Donatists or Protestants Teach only fallible Doctrin and fallibly Ex parte Docentis Ergo they Teach not that Doctrin which Christ sent his Ministers to teach or that can be resolved into Gods infallible Veracity revealing Truth Yet most certainly some Christian Pastors by vertue of Christ Mission teach his infallible Doctrin Infallibly and these are the Pastors of the Roman Catholick Church who only lay claim to Infallibility and prove it also as the Apostles Did by the Antecedent Evidence of those Motives which the Church shewes and manifesteth to the world as is now Declared I chalenge Mr. Poole directly and Catagorically to Answer this my Reason without talking any more of Clubbs or running into Generalities and in as few clear words as I Deliver it 16. Now to prove the other part of my Assertion Viz. Sectaries by their own principles have not so much as a probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility without Church Authority Here is my principle The infallibility of Scripture which contains many Difficulties tell 's strange stories and seemingly often speak's contradictions is not by it self or own light so evidently Credible to the Eyes of a Reader as the infallibility of the Apostolical Church was evident by Miracles and Conversions to the Primitive Christians who believed it infallibly At least S. Austin judged it
God might have wrought Miracles by one that was purely Man and not Omnipotent and He did so de facto by his Disciples as He for told them Iohn 14. 12. Majora horum facient that they should do greater wonders Therfore other Principles and none could be more strong then Christs own Testimony besides His Miracles were necessary to beget certain Faith of his Godhead in Believers And so we say The Testimony of the Church Evidenced by signes and wonders is also necessary to beget a full Assurance of the Scriptures Infallibility without it we have no Divine certainty of Gods Word 23. Now I return a second Answer to the Objection and say A person that is not infallible can speak of things suitable to the Divine Nature and above the reach of humane reason of vertue and Godlines c. For not only the book of Herman or Hermes Called the Pastor highly valued of by some Ancient Fathers but other writings also though untruely ascribed to the Apostles often speak Divinely yet never were admitted by the Church as Canonical or Gods Infallible word Nay more Some parts of the Gospel and the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude also were not for a time received as Canonical by the Ancient Church though they spak then as Divinely and were as Insallibly Gods word as they are now the Ancient Church that had eyes as good as Sectaries red them yet Discovered no Infallibility or Divinity in them upon this account that they spak of things suitable to the Divine nature And who sees not but that the books of Wisdom and Eclesiasticus contain as high Doctrin as Divine Precepts as are in Salomons Proverbs or Eclesiastes yet the later are Divine with Sectaries and the former not And here I would willingly learn whether the first Protestants that admitted of the later and rejected the Other as Apocryphal did so because they smel't as it were a Divinity in those they received by the very reading and not in the former I am sure the more learned Protestants give other Reasons For these grounds therfore I say the Argument above is so unreasonable that I wonder men of judgement Ventured to propose it Now if they believe the Scripture to be Infallible because of the Miracles and other wonders internal to the book wrought in confirmation of its Doctrin Make a right Analysis and Ask why they believe these Miracles to be Infallible Scripture and follow them closely till they come to a Propositio Quiescens or an undoubted Principle And you 'l find the very Reason returned you to be the thing in Question Although we granted which is not true that Scripture it self said all things contained in the book are infallibly Gods Word For it would be demanded a new How They know that very Assertion to be Scripture 24. For these Reasons some Sectaries will say The Scriptures infallibility is to be proved by Discours not grounded on the meer light or Majesty therof but by probable Principles extrinsick to it And here is one Argument We know by humane Authority Morally certain that Scripture was writ by holy men Prophets Euangelists and Apostles I answer we know not so much of all the books in Scripture without the Churches Testimony For it is doubtful who writ the books of Iosue and Iudges and it is still in Controversy whether Salomon writ the Proverbs and therfore some not only Catholicks but Sectaries also are of opinion that if we rely on humane and historical Authority only we have greater and more particular Assurance that S. Thomas for example writ his summ of Divinity then we have Assurance of the particular Authors of no few books in Holy Scripture Again though we had this certainty grounded on History yet no man among Sectaries who say all Churches erred before Luther can tell us upon moral certainty whether the first Authentick Originals were afterward Corrupted or no by Ancient Hereticks and the supposed erring Church of Rome Se more of this subiect Disc 2. C. 2. n. 7. 8. Others again may Argue from the Miracles wrought by Scripture immediatly And one was as Baronius recounts that this sacred book in Diocletians time being cast into the fire the flames were forthwith extinguished I Answer first both this and other Miracles were only wrought in the true Church and at most prove which is to be noted that the book is true pious and holy but is far from Convincing that we now only inquire after which is its infallibility For God might have don the like Miracle for a true Christian Catechisme Had Diocletian who desired to rase out all memory of Christianity cast that into the Fire also Others argue from the Accomplishment of Prophesies which proves little without the Testimony of the Church First because the very Prophesies and the fulfilling of them must be proved to be Divine Scripture and this cannot be don abstracting from Church Authority 2. These two things are to be distinguished A power to Prophesy and to write as Hagiographers Did Canonical books One may prophesy who only heares from a Prophet what was told him upon the Prophets own Authority but none can write infallibly Canonical books of Scripture but such as have immediately the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct him In a word here is the last and most true Resolution of all these Difficulties Unles Sectaries rely on our Churches Testimony for the Infallibility of Scripture they are evidently beaten out of all likelihood of other Principles wherby to prove it is infallible Yet this very Principle of the Church in order to them doth little or nothing for reasons clearly alleged Disc 2. C. 2. n. 6. 7. It is needles to repeat them in this place 25. And it is as needles to prove my second Assertion above n. 12. Which is Though Sectaries had Probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility in general yet that doth them no service because it is a useles book in their hands This Proposition is so Copiously proved in the second Discours C. 1. and 2. Where much is said of Sectaries endles dissentions concerning the sense of Scripture though admitted of as Divine that no Unorthodox man shall acquit Himself of the Difficulties there proposed All I 'll do now Though it hath not been my Custome to tire the Reader with long Authorities of Ancient Fathers is to mind him of one only Tertullians Testimony in his book de Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos cap. 19. His words are Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est Rigaltius read's par incertae aut parum certa Nam etsi non evaderet collatio Scripturarum ut utramque partem sisteret ordo rerum desiderabat illud prius proponi quod nunc solum disputandum est quibus competat fides ipsa cujus sint Scripturae à quo per quos quando quibus sit
or vouchsafe to return an Answer He will I hope after a general thought cast on what I intend to prove in the ensuing Discourses take particular Notice also of a few Notes here set down which may perhaps conduce to His better satisfaction 2. Concerning the first We need not to say much My Intent is Chiefly to prove These four Things 1. That Sectaries are Churchles because They acknowledge no infallible Church on earth Yet there are Infallible Teachers and consequently an infallible Church as is Demonstrated in the first Discours 2. That They are as Scriptureles as Churchles and have not one syllable of Gods Word for Protestancy Therfore we treat in the second Discours of Their mangling and misinterpreting Scripture 3. That Their Proceeding is most Vnreasonable in some chief controversies handled in the third Discours 4. We prove in the fourth Discours the Roman Catholick Church to be the only true Church of Christ And there also lay Forth the improbability of Protestant Religion All this is Don to make good what the Title briefly expresses Viz Protestancy is vvithout Principles of Scripture Church and Reason Now a word of what I would have you to Note 3. It is truly lamentable to se how controversies in these our dayes are driven on to nothing but to endles quarrels There is certainly some cause of so long a work which might methinks be brought to a period with less Adoe And what is it think ye Is it because Christs true Religion cannot be made evidently credible to Reason No certainly For that Religion which hath stood invincible in the heat of so many persecutions which hath converted whole Kingdoms and Nations and drawn Millions of souls to it must necessarily appear most evidently Credible to all rational men Is it because a fals Religion cannot be Argued of Falshood No. It is as easy to convince an erroneous Sect of errour as to prove true Religion to be true And Hence I say it is impossible to conceive any Thing like Religion that can neither be Proved evidently credible or manifestly Argued of Falshood The Reason is Because the evident Credibility of true Religion if one only be true in the VVorld takes off from the fals Religion all Prudent credibility and leaves it uttely destitute of Motives founding credibility In a word The euident credibility of Truth makes Falshood highly improbable VVhence I inferr If true Religion be made thus manifestly credible by Almighty God Rational Proofs cannot fail to countenance that which He will have manifestly known Contrarywise such proofs must of necessity be wanting to a fals Religion which God will have to appear both evidently Incredible and Improbable to prudent Reason The Catholick therfore that hold's his Religion at least evidently Credible before He believes and certainly true by his Act of Faith cannot but have Proofs at hand which Do not only clearly evidence the undoubted Credibility of it but also Dash and Discountenance what ever can be said in the Defence of a contrary Errour On the other side The Sectary must of necessity want such grounded Proofs And consequently whether he Defend's his own or impugn's the true Religion All He saith will end at last in meer Cavils and wordy Fallacies You have the Reason Hereof more largely laid forth Disc 1. C. 8. Because God cannot permit in the Presence as it were of his true Religion a fals Sect to appear so much as slightly Probable which ever is and must be inferiour to Truth or rather nothing in the lustre and evidence of Credibility Which is to say in other Terms An Erroneous Sect cannot he made at all Credible to Reason 4. What then is the Reason when the Catholick both supposeth and proves His Religion to be only true and Orthodox that These strifes go endlesly on between us and a few Protestants Scarce any Book though never so solid and learned is set forth by an English Catholick but presently a Thing called an Answer sallies out against it Exceptions are made by Sectaries This They say Proves not That Displeases c. In a word if we believe them All is Answered when God knowes A prudent Reader see 's the main Difficulties waved And very often finds the very state of the Question gtosly mistaken I 'll say my thought freely and humbly submit all I say to the prudent Censure of every learned Catholick As long as Sectaries without a just and rational Reproof it 's all vve can Do are permitted to continue still the strain of writing they constantly follow which is to entertain the Reader with tedious Discourses in general of Christian Religion when Protestancy is that which should be Proved with meer conjectures bare negative Arguments And unproved Propositions with their own forced and violent interpretations when an Authority urgeth In a word with their Guesses and unworthy Cavils seasoned with jeers when nothing els will Doe c. whilst this is Don The close way of Arguing is laid aside They may talk on to the worlds end without fruit to Any but to the Printer only that gains money by their Books You will ask wat Remedy Against this proceding An old Answer sayes much It is When they go about either to prove their own Novelties or to impugn our Catholick Doctrin That we keep them from wandring to far from home and Hold them close to Proofs and Principles these are the Shollers lawes our Rules and Canons Do this and you 'l soon se their long Discourses Shrunk up to little Their large volumes brought to a few sheets of paper Now if they refuse to stand to Principles we must leave them to Fancy And show how they both Disgrace their cause and themselves also 5. By this word Principle or Principles I understand in our present matter a strong rational satisfactory Intellectual light that prudently forceth Reason to acquiesce in a Verity proposed whether it arise from solid grounds of Reason or from great Authority matters little so it be prudently Persvvasive and forceably work on a well disposed understanding Iudges Decide by some measure of it in their equitable Sentences And Schoolmen should not want it in their Opinions But much more is requisite when we speak of Religion wheron salvation Depend's For here a far greater light a better Assurance Surmounting meer Probability is nenessary which cannot be darkned by Fallacies or weakned by Trivial Fetches You have the ground hereof Declared Disc 1. C. 8. Because God that lead's us in this present state to the knowledge of His Revealed Truths not by Enthusiasms or private Illustrations but by prudent inducements suitable to Reason always makes his true Religion so manifest by undubitable Signs Marks and Characters that not only the learned but the more ignorant may come if prudence Guide him to a clear Sight of it by certain Principles We may I think proceed as securely by light enough laid out to Reason in this weighty matter as we do in other great
I answer Admit of this most fals Supposition These Doctrins were not Taught Sectaries found Faith on a Negative No Faith at all can be founded on this Negative Before which will never be They Prove their contrary Doctrin Positively Revealed by Almighty God in Scripture For this Principle stands irrefragably Sure No Revelation No Faith Although the Object Assented to be True All the pains Therfore These men take to reduce Their Reformed Gospel to the Model of the Primitive Church is upon several Respects meer labor lost But upon this Account Chiefly it They cannot shew one of Their Negatives Revealed to any Ancient Orthodox Church faulters most That They cannot show one Negative believed by them to be a Revealed Truth to any Christian Society in the world It is pittiful to hear how they fumble in this Discours We Ask how they prove that the Primitive Church held no Unbloody Sacrifice put this for one example it serves for all Some Answer They find no such thing as a Sacrifice registred in those Ancient Writings Mark the Proof They find it not Ergo it is not to be found Catholicks as The Inferences of Sectaries unconcluding clear Sighted as others find that Doctrin expresly Asserted But becaus Protestants are pleased to Deny all They must and upon their Own word be Thought the Men of more Credit Well But Suppose the Doctrin was not Registred in those Ancient Records Is this Consequence good It was not writ Ergo it was not Taught No certainly Vnles They show all Taught Doctrin was then Writ or Registred But let us falsly Suppose that the Doctrin was neither Writ nor Taught Doth it follow that the Contrary of no Sacrifice now believed by Protestants was a Truth Revealed to that Church or taught by it No. Therfore they are here driven again upon the old Negative And thus it is That Church said nothing of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Which is Hideously Vntrue Ergo Protestants can now Believe no Sacrifice which is Hideously fals and as unlucky a Sequele as This That Church said not whether the Moon be a watery Body full of Rocks Ergo Protestants can Believe the contrary with Divine Faith You will Say we Trifle now For that Church was Perfect in Faith and either held a Sacrific 〈…〉 Denyed it I answer in Real Truth it Plainly and undeniably Held a Sacrifice yet must withal Affirm Though we Falsly suppose And this fals Supposition must be vigilantly regarded that it only Negatively abstracted from such Doctrin yet Protestants are far of from Proving it held Positively the Contrary That is no Sacrifice which yet is Necessary to be Proved if They believe no Sacrifice with Divine Faith 11. They may yet Reply They are Able at least to Produce some Ancient Fathers Clearly Enough Asserting no Unbloody Sacrifice Therfore they prove this Negative and so they can do Others I utterly Deny that clearly Enough and say They have not one Ancient Fathe 〈…〉 nor Council nor any Approved Authority No Ancient Father against an Vnbloody Sacrifice that positively Denyes a Sacrifice All unanimously Taught the contrary as Luther himself confesseth Much less have They Any that makes this their Doctrin a Truth Revealed by Almighty God or ever taught by any Vniversal Church Were therfore these supposed Authorities of Sectaries which are none and Reasons also for no Sacrifice more Numerous and Strong then what the World hath Heard of hitherto They cannot in Conscience suppose them Proofs weighty enough to Beat down the contrary Asserted And Vndeniable Doctrin not only of Fathers But of a Whole Church They cannot Suppose Them powerful enough to Build up such a new Negative of Protestant Religion especially whilst They see before their eyes the Torrent of Antiquity against them and our Answers returned to every Trivial Objection they make O But they can Solve all we Object And we must Take their Word Becaus They say so We also tell them We Solve what they Object and yet are not Believed Do you not se here most pittiful Doings and Controversies made Endles by this Proceeding when each Party saith what it pleaseth and Gain 's no Credit from the Other A Judge my good Friends and an Infallible Judge is here Necessary to Decide Matters between us But thus far evident Reason judgeth And Tell 's you Though you could Solve all we say for the Affirmative of a Sacrifice you are to Seek for a Positive Proof of your Vnproved yet Believed Negative There is no Sacrifice And the like I say of your other Negatives CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to Interpret Scripture Truely One Passage More of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers is Quoted 1. WE come now to Solve more fully the Objection Proposed Chap. 7. n. 2. It was to this Sense A Protestant Delivers what he Conceives to be the Meaning of Scripture So the Catholick doth also and can do no more Both of Them therfore are Glossers The difficulty proposed again Concerning the Interpretation of Scripture the only Difficulty is to know who Glosses better Here is the state of the Question 2. To go on Groundedly We may with our Adversaries leave Suppose That God hath not put a Bible into the Hands of Christians to cause Eternal Debates concerning the Doctrin delivered in it And if this be a Truth We may secondly Suppose God desirous of Vnity in Faith gave us not Scripture to cause eternal Debates That his Wise Providence so earnestly desirous of Unity in Faith amongst Christians hath Afforded some Means wherby we may rightly Attain to the True Sense of his Sacred Word For no man can imagin that Gods Intention is That we only Read without Arriving to the Sense of what we Read or which is wors that we fall into Error by our Reading Providence hath afforded means wherby we may understand Scripture This therfore Providence hath Prevented by one Means or other if carelesly we do not reject it We may thirdly Suppose That God regularly speaking Reveal's to no Private man the deep Sense of Scripture when He Reads and perhaps understands it not By private Illustrations new Enthusiasm's or the Ministery of Angels Therfore Private Illustrations no usual means some other way is Appointed by Providence to come to the True Sense of what He Reads The Reason is True Religion requires a True Interpreter of the Book which founds Religion Otherwise God would have only carelesly as it were Thrown Scripture amongst Christians And bid them Guess as well as they can at the Sense of it They having no other means to know his Meaning These Things Premised 3. I say first The Holy Book of Scripture neither doth Scripture cannot interpret its self nor can so Interpret it self as to bring Men Dissgnting in Faith to an Accord or Acquiescency in High Points of Controversy The Assertion is Evident For could the Book clearly interpret its own Meaning Catholicks Arians Protestants
that Christ Christ Abandoned not the Church He Founded never abandoned the Church He founded For He told us Hell gates should not Prevail against it He gave Assurance of his being with us to the end of the world The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. If therfore Christ stood to his Word and once established the Roman Catholick Church in Truth it is Orthodox still and Preserved in Truth by His special Assistance 3. It is an Evident Verity that God whose Providence never Failed his Church could not permit this Ample and Ancient Moral Body of Catholicks to Cheat the world by its pleading a Possession of Truth if 't had none for a thousand years together when which is deeply to be Pondered there was not any A Truth well to be Pondered other sound Church on Earth for so vast a time to Teach Christians the Orthodox Faith of Iesus Christ 4. We have our quiet Possession Acknowledged by innumerable Votes of most learned Fathers 5. And 'T is a Greater Proof For nothing Scripture excepted can Parallel it The Testimony and warrant of this Ample Catholick Society carries with it our Evidence no less for an actual Prescription Then for the Right and Title of our long pleaded and enioyed Possession And who can suppose that all those Innumerable Professors of this learned Church by whom this Evidence was conveyed Age after Age were all besotted or deluded with Errour 6. And 'T is an Evident Demonstration No Ancient or modern Church reputed Orthodox by the Christian World ever so much as Quarrelled with the Roman Catholick Church or once No Orthodox Church Ever censured us for the want of a just Possession Questioned the Right of Her Possessing Ancient Truths delivered by Christ and his Apostles none Censured it none Condemned it upon any supposed want of a most just Possession but only Known and Professed Hereticks And to these our English Schismaticks Adhere An Inference grounded on these Proofs with these And no other They side If therfore The Foundations of our Church were once laid firm by Christ If He stand to his Promise Expressed in Scripture If his Assistance Fail not the Church Once Established by him If God could not 〈◊〉 this great Moral Body to Deceive Christians by Pleading a Possession of Truth when it had none And when there was no other Orthodox Church to deliver Christian Verities to the world If Finally The Authority of our Church And the Testimonies of most Ancient Fathers may speak in our Cause And this Convincing Proof also have place None Ever Gainsaid our Ancient Possession But know and condemned Hereticks We may well Hope to silence our Adversaries at present or if these Perswasive Reasons with many other Insisted on Hereafter Become insignificant to Their Obdurate Harts when They can not speak a Reasonable word Against our Evidences what shall we Do But Commiserate Their Condition You se How roundly I deal with Sectaries cannot Answer our Proofs Them And say They cannot speak a probable Word Against These Positive Proofs Though whilst we plead Possession it is their Task to Prove who are the Accusers And Charge Heresy on us 10. Observe therfore If they say our Saviour What They are to Prove once setled not the Roman Catholick Church in Truth They are to Prove it If they say He violated His Promise And preserved not the Church He founded in Perpetual Truth They are to prove it If They say We misunderstand the Scriptures now cited They are to Prove If They say our Catholick Church cheated the world for ten whole Ages together by pretending Possession of Apostolical Verities when it had none They are to Prove If they say our Church was once Sound in Faith but failed Afterward They are to Prove And withal Distinctly to point at some other Orthodox Christian Society that Succeeded in the place of the Roman Church now falsly Supposed Fallen into Errour And This will give Sectaries work enough Again If They Slight The Authority and Testimony of our Church Evidenced by most glorious Miracles And other Illustrious Marks of Truth They are to give in Lieu of that a more Valid Testimony a stronger Authority For Their Pretenses which is impossible If Finally They Talk of any Orthodox Church That plainly Censured or Condemned the Roman of Errour and Heresy And Herein we Vrge Them to speak to the Cause the Proof lies still on their side or if they Prove not Believe it our OLIM POSSIDEO is impregnable The Presciption and clear Evidence of a long quiet Possession are our wall of Defence not to be battered or Beaten down by Calumnies 11. Thus much premised You shall se in Brief How The Objections of our Adversary shewed forceles all comes to Nothing Wherwith This late Writer too weakly Oppugn's our Ancient Possession who After His Telling us Part 3. c. 5. Page 627. That the Proof lyes upon us He gives this Reason And let it be His first Objection 12. They who Challenge full and quiet Possession by vertue of immemorial Tradition and succession from Their Ancestours ought to produce the CONVEYANCE of that Tradition from him who alone could invest them in that Possession Mark these Mysterious Words Ought to produce the Conveyance of that Tradition from him c. What signifies This Had He said They ought to Produce a Conveyance warranting the Possession of Truth to be in their Church we would have sent Him back to the Proofs Already Alledged And Here only Insisted on our Tradition But to Demand for a Conveyance of our very The Efficacy and force of Tradition Tradition which is either by it self it s own most manifest and clear Conveyance or must be proved by another clearer Tradition And so in Infinitum Tend's Methinks a little towards Non-sense Truely I know not what the man would be at Would He Have us Think ye to Produce a Letter written by Christ Iesus for Conueyance Here must Signify Charta or No Charter or writ stronger then Tradition Instrumentum wherby it may Appear that the Tradition of our Church is Sound and Orthodox This would signify just Nothing Becaus Sectaries might more justly Cavil at such a writing And say it is Forged Then they can now Except against the greatest Testimony Imaginable of a whole Learned Church that must Give Credit to this Writing if 't have Any Therfore He who can Doubt of this Attestation of a The Reason far Extended Church May more Rationally Doubt of the Writing it self Though it were now actually laid before our Eyes to Read Se more of This Subject Above Chap. 7. n. 7. 8. Perhaps our Adversary will say we are to produce Scripture if not for The Conveyance of our Tradition at least for the Possession of Truth we pretend to I Answer This is now Don Our Proofs are Already given n. 9. 10. where I Tell you that Christ founded the Roman Catholick
cannot be Parallell'd with the Imperceptible Graynes of a beard with Tares peeping up c. However This we can say Certainly so many years since the beard was not gray now it is So many Months since Tares were not now they are Let our Adversaries Proceed with like Evidence against us and say Certainly not doubtfully such Supposed Errours Then were not in the Church but afterward Began and within the precise Compass of so many years But This They cannot probably Hint at The last Instance of a childs Conception is the worst of All For if you know its Birth you know the conception was nine Months before according to the ordinary cours of nature Though if both were hid from us it is a Forceles instance Vnles we suppose that all Trivial Matters must as well be known and stand upon Record as Things of greatest Concernment The late woful Burning of London will I 'll warrant it be Exactly Recorded when the birth of twenty Infants is never thought on and so should the General Ruin of Faith in a whole Church have stood Registred 8. One word more Though These Examples were Could Sectaries shew how such changes might enter the Church that proves not they entred to the Purpose as indeed They are not at most they would only shew and Pittifully enough How such supposed changes might perhaps be made But are far from Proving They were made so De facto For this carries no likely-hood of an Argument with it I 'll Shew you how These Errours might Enter the Church insensibly How these Changes might get in with Silence Ergo it was so Thus they were made De facto A Potentiâ ad actum non valet Consequentia No man can Argue from a An Inference from a meer Possibility to The Act is Null meer Possibility of their Clancular Entrance that in real Truth They entred in Such a manner Sectaries may say They Suppose these changes made upon other Principles And now only shew by Instaâ—â—es How They might get in without Noise and publick Notice Here we may have plain Dealing if it please our Adversaries Shew you Therfore My Good Friends by any Thing like a Solid Proof or Principle That the change we now speak of was Actually made in the Church Say plainly This Supposed Novelty was not in such an Age but afterward And let a solid Proof make good both Their examples neither Prove these pretended novelties introduced nor suppose them proved by any known Principle Assertions And then Your Instances of Tares and Beards growing gray will be to no purpose Because the Changes which you say were made are now upon your Supposition strongly proved Aliunde That is By other solid Grounds and this without the help of these weak instances Here therfore is an Vnanswerable Dilemma for you You either endeavour to show that the Supposed Novelty of the Real Presence entred the Church Because your Examples of Tares and a clock index convinceth the Actual Entrance of it And This Inference as I said now is Non-sense Thus it might Enter Ergo thus it did Enter Or Contrarywise You can clearly Prove that the Church began such a Novelty by undeniable Grounds without Protestants make their own Instances impertinent and forceles depending of these Instances If you do this solidly your instances are worth nothing For if you Convince by an undeniable Principle that the Church brought in this new Doctrin in any Age you need not at all to talk of a gray beard or of Tares peeping up insensibly Because you must now suppose the pretended innovation clearly Proved by other far better and undeniable Grounds Do this and you make your own Instances Eo ipso Null and as impertinent as Forceles For Most An Instance against Them surely No man in his wits will go about to prove that Protestancy for Example came into the world insensibly as a board grows Gray when he can evidently Demonstrate by other undeniable Principles the Palpable Beginning of it And thus it is in the present Controversy 9. One may yet say They cannot 'T is true Demonstratively Evidence the supposed change now in Controversy yet are able upon strong Moral Their pretense to make Novelties in the Church to be highly probable is more then improbable Proofs to make it highly Probable Contra 1. If you make it highly Probable Talk no more of Tares and Beards For one Proof of this nature will be of more Advantage to your cause then the secret peeping up of a Thousand weeds in a garden Contra 2. If this your Assertion be made probable it must stand upon a strong Moral certain Principle wherof none can but most imprudently Doubt Deal Candidly Give us in plain language this High Moral certain Principle wheron your Assertion hath Footing and you 'l Gain much But if after the Offer you Turn us of with words or lead us by a loos Discours to what you may say is Morally Certain Though thousands more learned vow the Contrary you 'l only First Discredit your self and next your Cause much more Speak plainly on Gods Name Here is place for it Make your undoubted Principle known wherby your Assertion is proved And you will do more then Ever Protestant did yet or shall do Hereafter Contra 3. It is a meer whimsy to suppose Proofs highly probable against This ever Taught and unchangeable Doctrin of the Catholick Church which stand's Firm First upon Christs own Express words No proof can be probable that stands against undeniable Principles This is my Body 2. On the Irrefragable Authority of so many most Ancient Fathers that speak not only Dubiously of the Mystery But as clearly Defend it as the Council of Trent Defines it wherof more largely Hereafter To These Principles We Add the Testimony and Express Belief of our whole Learned both pass't and present Roman Catholick Church Too strong a Proof to be Battered or shaken by Empty words Wherfore Every one may Consider what a hard Task Sectaries have in hand if They go about to make Their Contrary Assertion highly Probable First They are Obliged It will be hard to find an Orthodox Christian Society of greater Authority then the Roman Catholick Church to Prove and by a sure Principle That Christ spake improperly or according to Their sense 2. That all or at least most of the Fathers Erred in their Doctrin of the Blessed Sacrament 3. That They quite Overthrow the Roman Catholick Doctrin by the Authority of some other Church that was ever Held by Christians more Orthodox and Apostolical then our Roman Church is All this is to be don not by Talk But by Sober Solid and Vndeniable moral Principles which both Friends and Enemies ought if They be Rational to acknowledge as Principles Morally Certain When Sectaries shall pleas to do what is here plainly required And it must be performed if they speak pertinently Then I shall begin to think That They meer
St. Austin only doubted of one particular punishment it here but only calls such a particular pain into Question as is expiatory of lesser faults because as I told you He held These lesser transgressions usually taken away by sufferances endured in this life Conclude therfore unles this Inference be Good St. Austin doubted whether some faults were punished in Purgatory The Testimony shewed forceles against us Ergo He thought none were Expiated there which is not probable The alleged Testimony is of no force against us yet proves that you read not St. Austin too well Now if you say my Gloss upon this Authority is not certain I answer No more will yours be when you have Interpreted all you can Therfore neither of us yet come to a certain Principle And consequently you must produce a far clearer Authority before you Ask again whether any man in his wits can think that St. Austin spake this of a matter of Faith Supposing all sure for your Interpretation which to me And I think to others also that know Latin and sense will not appear probable It is not my Task to quote A parallel of clear and doubtful passages here at large those most clear Testimonies of St. Austin for our Catholick Verity yet I 'll give you one And wish you to parallel that with all your dubious places lib. 2. de Genesi contra Manichaeos cap 20. fine Those books are of undoubted Authority Qui fortè agrum suum non coluerit c. He that Cultivates not his Sectaries ever suppose meer dubious Testimonies to have more force then most clear ones and the judgement of a whole Church Field but suffers it to be overgrown with thorns hath a Curs on him in all He doth in this life Et post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem Purgatiâ—nis vel poenaâ— aeternam And after this life shall either have a Purgatory or suffer pain for ever Thus the Doctor And every man in his wits it 's your own phrase cannot but think he spake of a matter of Faith when his Doctrin agrees with the Belief of a whole Church See more lib. 21. de Civit. c. 16. Where He speaks of a Purging torment after Death as also in Psal 37. But enough of this point 15. You say 3. Where Any of the Fathers build any Doctrin upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture we have no further reason to believe that Doctrin then we have to Two Propositions more unproved believe that it is the meaning of those places So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of Scriptures which They and we both rely on And you give this reason For since the Fathers pretend to no greater Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrin then such places do afford it is the greatest reason that the argument to perswade us be not the testimony of the Father but the Evidence of the place it self Answ If here be not a piece of most Confused Doctrin confused Learning I never read any Observe well your own propositions as they lye in order First the Fathers are supposed to build a Doctrin upon the sense of doubtful Scripture and then you say you have no further reason to believe that Doctrin then you have to believe that it is the meaning of those places Very Good But I ask by what light can you better come to the true meaning of a doubtful place of Scripture then the Fathers Did If the meaning was How Sectaries may wrong both Scripture and Fathers doubtful to them it is as doubtful to you And if that sense which you draw out of a doubtful place be contrary to the Fathers you wrong both Them and the Text Them because you Oppose their judgement upon a meer uncertainty The Text becaus you will make it speak your sense which it doth not certainly for it is doubtful to you Perhaps you 'l say When the sense is doubtful Neither you nor the Fathers can tell what to make of it and Therfore without further enquiry it will be best to let it alone and remain in its obscurity May this Doctrin pass you need not to believe a great part of Scripture for it is very obscure They cannot contradict the Fathers explicating a doubtful place 2. You are bound in Conscience never to contradict the Fathers interpreting a doubtful passage For and it is very good reason if you will have the Fathers silent in such a case you are to hold your Peace and to say nothing against them Your second Proposition In this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of Scripture which they and we both rely on Seems not to be too full of sense For most assuredly when the Fathers explicate a dubious passage Their judgement tend's to declare the hidden sense of it Why therfore will No sure fixing on a doubtful sense you take their judgement off from such aâ—sense and put yours in room of it Or to what purpose do you talk here of Fixing upon the sense when a place is dubious and neither Church nor Fathers must be believed What is your Fixing good for when you suppose the thing you Fix on to be doubtful and your felves Fallible If you say you must come to a certainty of the sense by Tradition or some other way know that the Church and Fathers had better reason to be acquainted with such lights then any Sectary can have In a word A doubtful place remaining still doubtful or dubioufly explicated can never beget a certain belief in you or any Yet we say when the Church of Christ and Fathers also agree in an Explication When the Church and Fathers interpret all doubt ceaseth the doubt ceaseth and the delivered sense is most certain In your reason For since They c. you leap from the sense of a Doubtful passage to the Evidence of the place it self which seems not pertinent For what hath Evidence to do here when your Discours is only of a doubtful sense When a place is evident we se that as well as you And have with it the sentiment of a whole Church and Consent of Fathers also 16. You say 4. After some Talk of two Reverend Primates which I much heed not That St. Ambrose and others prayed for the Blessed in Heaven Ergo Orizons Old Objections renewed to no purpose for the Dead prove not a Purgatory I wonder you weary mens Eares again with such old worn-out Objections You or your Brethren have been told many and many a time that no Father no Church The Church prayes not for the Saints in Heaven to be released from temporal pain or to have sins remitted Greek or Latin ever prayed that the Saints in Heaven may be freed from any temporal pain or for the Remission of sins yet not only the Fathers
is Given for you They Answer No. It was not his Body but a Sign Only of His Body Given for us Observe well This Interpretation of a Sign Only is a Gloss of Fancy For neither the Word Sign is in Scripture Nor a Sign Only is any Ancient Father We Cite Again that Unanswerable Text of St. Luke This is the Chalice the new Testament in my Blood which Chalice is shed for you And mark the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Case and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Different Case What Answer our Sectaries Marry Beza Tell 's us St. Luke Here either spak a Solacism or a Marginal Note Cre'pt by chance into the Text Here is His best Solution And who Tell 's Mr. Beza so But his own Fancy We Produce moreover Those Testimonies of Ancient Fathers Briefly Hinted at Above And say no Wit of Man can solve Them Chiefly That Authority of St. Cyril Of VVine changed into Blood as water was Once changed into VVine They Answer The Change was only Moral of Wine Deputed to a Holy Use which is Against the very Nature of the Instance And consequently a Strong Thought of Fancy We say No Universal Tradition No Ancient Church ever Opposed the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church concerning this Mystery Herein our Ad 〈…〉 rsaries are Silenced And cannot Design the Orthodox Church that opposed our Doctrin as both We and the whole world beside now oppose their Novelty Parallel therfore the Proceedings of Sectaries Against us A Parallel between their Proceeding and ours Sectaries mangle and pervert most clear Authorities with ours Against them And you will find them to stand upon Quicksand without Principles The very Straits They are put to Demonstrat this Evidently whilst as you have seen They Mangle Pervert Misconstrue and Gloss Every clear Authority cited against Them And We on the other side candidly Admit both of Scripture and Fathers Quoted by Them without Any other Gloss but what the very Text and Context of the Testimonies Allow of 5. And Hence it is that you Always have our Adversaries Sectaries bold in asserting but weak at their Proofs bold in Asserting But Cold Vnmanly and Weak at their Proofs Besides what is now said the true Reason is No Proof can touch much less Vainquish a Verity that Stands firm upon undeniable Principles Plain Scripture the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers undeniable What our Catholick Proofs are Tradition the Authority of a Holy and Vniversal Church and this Negative No Church ever blamed our Doctrin are Strong Supports for the Faith we Profess And can our Sectaries who are as Scriptureles as Fatherles as Fatherles as Churchles and Finally Destitute of All other Principles Think to Dant us with a few Gleancings Gathered Sectaries cannot deny Them now out of This now out of that Ancient Writter when They Evidently se with their Eyes the whole Torrent of Antiquity contrary to Them Can they Perswade Themselves that Because one Theodoret For example Of Theodorets Authority Saith the Mystical Signs after the Sanctification Recede not from Their Nature but Remain in their first Substance Figure and Form are Seen and Touched as Before which words are literally True if we Speak as We Admit of his Words this Author Doth of the visible Accidents of Bread and Wine Can we I say Think that this one Authority Though it were a Hundred times more Difficil Hath Weight enough to turn the Scales Force Enough to Drive us from the Faith which Scripture Church and Fathers most manifestly Deliver It is impossible The obscurer places of Scripture and Fathers are to be Interpreted by the clearer All know when Divines Explicate Scripture or Fathers They Interpret the obscurer Passage by the Clearer And never make the Darker Place to give Light to the more Evident Observe Now. Theodoret saith the Mystical Signs Recede not from their Nature But Remain as before I say so too The only Difficulty is what he Meanes by the Word Signs and Sectaries Glosses without Proof Theodoret cannot be supposed to contradict other most Learned Fathers He is to be Explicated were he obscure by the sense of other Fathers Nature Sectaries Tell us The Sense is Bread and wine Recede not from Their True Substance First This is their Gloss without Proof For the Visible Signs of bread and wine are not the Invisible Substance of Bread and Wine 2. Theodoret in all law of Arguing when His plain Words Force not on us this sense of Sectaries ought to be Catholickly Interpreted And Had we no other Reason but this That it cannot be Reason To make so Learned a Father Though once he stray'd a little to Clash with all Antiquity it were Enough At most His Words are Doubtful And upon that Account capable of Explication is it not Therfore more Just to Explicate Them by the Clear and Vndeniable Doctrin of a Whole Church And other Fathers then to Draw these Fathers from their Open and Manifest Sense to His if it be supposed Obscure as in Truth well Pondered it is not Let Reason Judge Here. 6. By what is said Already We may well pitty the desperate Condition of Sectaries who Pertinaciously Defend an Heresy without so much as a colour of Sectaries want Principles Scripture Church or the General Consent of Fathers For these Principles and none can Parallel them Most evidently Fail our Adversaries Urge them Again and Again to speak more Pertinently to their Cause then is Don hitherto You get nothing but the Old Story told over again And it will never be Better for I se too Plainly Their Humor It is God knows Sectaries Tristing and wherin it Appear's To spend or rather to Mispend their whole Life and Labour in Trifles They Think to Cavil at the Proofs of our Doctrin Establisheth Theirs As if it were sufficient to make their Novelty good Because they can Talk against our Ancient Faith Just as if One to Prove Himself an Honest Man might do it Pithily by calling his Neighbour a Knave 7. I must yet Add one Significant Word more And 'T is very Necessary to lay forth our Adversaries Weaknes as well in This as in All other Controversies Observe Solid Proofs for a Doctrin stand firm and unshaken against all Opponents it VVhen Proofs of a Doctrin Stand on solid Grounds and Principles the Objections Against it are like Fathers cast Against the Wind forceles And return upon the Opponents to their Confusion wherof I think you Have Already seen Enough in this Present Controversy But contrarywise When the Proofs are Meagre Barren and Void of Strength They are ever so with Sectaries The Very Opposite Principles for Truth Dash All Discountenance All and Evidently Shew those Arguments to be Feeble And Truely would our Did Sectaries Proceed Candidly They would se Themselves Convinced Adversaries once Deal Ingeniously Candor would