proue The Assertion 266 CHAP. V. A second Reason showing That if rhe Roman Catholick Church erred but in one Article of Faith thère is now no Fundamental Faith in the world VVere Errour in this Church it is à remediless Euil and cannot be amended by any least of all by Protestants 276 CHAP. VI. Other Euidences of the. Roman Churches Perseuerance in the Primitiue Faith without change or Alteration VVhether wickednes of life necessarily induceth Errour into the Church The Donatists and Protestants Argue and Err alike 285 CHAP. VII Manifest and most vndeniable Miracles peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church only proue Her Orthodox withall show that She still retain's the Primitiue Doctrin 296 CHAP. VIII Miracles euident in the Roman Catholick Church No less induce All now to belieue Her Doctrin Than Apostolical Miracles Anciently Perswaded to belieue that Primitiue Doctrin The Denial of Miracles Impossibilitat's The Conuersion of Iewes and Infidels 302 The Admirable cure wrought by Blessed S. Xauerius in the Famous Citty of Naples vpon à worthy Religious Person called F. Marcellus Mastrilli à Noble man by birth and by Profession of the Society of Iesus The Proof hinted at aboue reassumed 312 CHAP. IX A word to à few Obiections as also to Mr stillingfleets vnworthy Exceptions against that euident Miracle wrought at Zaragosa in Spain 321 CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signes peculiar to the Roman Cathollick Church proue her Orthodox And make Her Doctrin euidently credible These laid forth to Sense and Reason distinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies Inferences drawn from the Doctrin Here deliuered 333 CHAP. XI Christ and his Church made manifest to à Heathen No Prophet comparable to Christ no Church comparable to the Roman Catholick Our glorious Christ Iesus Exhibits à glorious Church Hee is proued the Only true Messias And the Roman Catholick Church His only true Sponse How the Heathen Discourses if rational And Prudent 349 CHAP. XII The Aduersaries of the Roman Catholick Church plead vnreasonably A Discouery of their fallacies The cause of all Errour concerning Religion The only means to remedy Errour 363 Arguments drawn from what is said Reflections made vpon the premised Doctrin 377 CHAP. XIII Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrin Atheists and Hereticks Argue alike The Motiues of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what euer the true Church Proposes A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church 181 A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 387 CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith CHAP. XV. Diuine Faith in this present State of things necessarily requir's à Church infallible The Reason hereof The Church neither Defin's nor can Define by Humane Authority only Her Definitions more than morally certain are Infallible Sectaries Recourse to Moral certainly in Matters of Faith à most frigid Plea Their Fallacy is discouered Obiections Answered 408 Other Obiections proposed by Sectaries Solued More of Moral certainty 419 CHAP. XVI Principles premised to the following Doctrin The Roman Catholick Church is à Church of One Denomination She and no other Society of Christians is Infallible Othet Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth The Infallibility of Councils maintained against Mr Stillingfleets Supposed Truth and Reason There are no Principles whereby Approued Councils can be proued fallible Sectaries Conuinced by their own Doctrin 423 CHAP. XVII More of this subiect A further Search made into Errours called intolerable VVhether the Roman Catholick Church must be supposed by Sectaries to haue already Committed intolerable Errours Or only whether She may for the future Err Intolerably The Doctrin of Protestants proued False And most inconsequent 443 CHAP. XVIII Two Aduersaries mainly Opposit to True Religion The last and most vrgent Proof of the Churches Infallibility taken from the Necessity the Notion and Nature of true Religion Mr Stillingfleets Obiections found weak and weightles Most of them already Proposed and Dissolued by others A short Reflection made vpon some few 452 CHAP. XIX Certain Principles where vpon the Churches Infallibility stand's firm The End of Diuine Reuelation is to teach all Infallibly Euery Doctrin reuealed by the fiast Verity is no less infallible then true It s one thing to teach Truth another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth Sectaries Strangely vngrateful A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Obiections 465 THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith CHAP. I. Some chiefe Contents in this Discourse briefly declared Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Churches infallibility and the Resolution of Faith The Catholick way of resoluing Faith the very same with that of the Primitiue Christians Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse 477 CHAP. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5 th Chapter Part. 1. examined is found VVeightles The weaknes of his Arguments discouered His First and chiefest Argument retorted and solued 483 CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 493 CHAP. IV. More of Mr Stillingfleets Errours Of that odd kind of Faith he seem's to maintain grounded on Moral Certainty VVhat Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue vpon Faith Other Parcels of his Doctrin Examined and refuted Obiections Solued 505 CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauour to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnlearned Cauil 516 CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffing The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communitier and proue Her Infallible The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin no Mark of the Church More Mistakes and Errours discouered Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Belieues but not vpon Diuine the Testimony That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books to be Diuine 523 Whether vve Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Tittle of the Chapter discussed Vpon vvhat ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 534 CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 545 CHAP. VIII The main Difficulty in the Resolution of Faith Proposed VVhat Connexion the Motiues haue vvith the Diuine Reuelation Of their vveight and efficacy God's own Language not imitable by his Enemies Faith transcend's the certainty of all Motiues The main Difficulty solued Of our great Security in Belieuing God Though vve haue not
books of Scripture hee hath not yet so much as moral certainty of that precise Canon he receiues excluding other books which he denies as Scripture For no Orthodox Church no vniuersal Tradition no consent of Fathers no definition of any Council approues his Canon or explodes those books reiected by him therfore the sectaries Canon wherof there is so Much doubt can giue no moral assurance of Gods reuealed verities vnles it were without dispute à liquid truth that their Canon only is Gods word which cannot be supposed whilst so learned and numerous à multitude of Christians oppose it as defectiue and imperfect Yet more Suppose he giues you the exact number of Canonical books hee gain's nothing because the very Doctrin of these books is no more but à Translation and therefore vnlesse the Translator or Printer haue faithfully complyed with their duty and preserued the books in their ancient purity no Protestant can assure himself or any that what we now read is without change or corruption pure in the very necessary points of Faith If you say you compare them with the ancient Original Copies of the Hebrew and Greek I answer the very best Originals men can light on now are no more but meer Transcriptions and consequently may haue been corrupted by the Transcriber The best Originals now extant are only transcriptions the Printer or Librarian Therefore the Sectary hath no Moral certainty of the bare letter in Scripture if he cannot shew vs the hand writing or Autograph's of the Prophets and Apostles wherof there is no danger because he neuer saw any Hence I argue He who hath not infallible certainty of the very letter of Scripture want's infallible certainty of the Doctrin contained in Scripture but the Protestant hath no infallible certainty of the letter of Scripture Therefore he want's infallible certainty of the Doctrin contained in Scripture for no certainty of the letter no An argument against sectaries certainty of the Doctrin drawn from thence But if he has not certainty of the Doctrin he can haue no infallible faith grounded on it Therefore Scripture alone is an unmeet means to teach him what either true Faith or Religion is 2. Mr. Stillingfleet to solve this vnanswerable Argument Part. 1. c. 6. p. 196. saies we beg the Question when we require an infallible Testimony for our belieuing the Canon of scripture yet grants such à certainty as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting and Chap. 7. p. 211. declares himself further thus Giue me leaue to make this supposition that God might not haue giuen this supernatural Assistance to your Church which you pretend makes it infallible whether men through the vniuersal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages might not haue been vndoubtedly certain that the Scripture we haue was the same deliuered by the Apostles I answer if you take leaue to make that supposition licence me to tell you you haue not that certainty of Scripture which Diuine Faith both supposeth and requires And here is one reason to omit others insisted on here after Deny this infallible assurance of the books of Scripture you haue no greater certainty that God endited those words we now read than you haue assurance that Aristotle wrote his Topicks or Caesar his Commentaries And dare you or any say that we receiue Mr. Stilling answer dissatisfactory our Bible vpon no surer ground Or can you Imagin if Christians accept these books vpon à Testimony lesse then vndubitable it may not be suspected that à thousand gross errours haue entred the Copies by the negligence or inaduertency of such as transcribed them Belieue it Were Aristotles Topicks matter of Diuine Faith none would dy after the fallible conueyance of them to our age vpon this perswasion that nothing substantially first writ by that Author hath been changed or altered Since and the same I assert of the Bible vnlesse you say that the words of Scripture were writ in some celestial and incorruptible Matter yet to be read by all or grant which is truth that as God by special Prouidence caused them to be writ pure so also he yet preserues them without blemish and now witnesseth the truth by the Testimony of his infallible Church wherof more largely hereafter At present I will only answer your difficulty about that fallible certainty which you affirm excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting and say first The vniuersal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages neuer approued the intire Canon of your Scripture for not only the present Roman Catholick Church but the ancient councils also receiued books which you reiect This truth is so manifest that it need 's no further proof therefore your Canon want's the approbation of the whole Christian world and consequently you haue not so high à certainty of Scripture as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting I answer 2. And it is à demonstration against Protestants who say the whole Christian world for à thousand years at least erred in Doctrin contrary to the verities of Holy Scriptures for if we goe up from Luther to the 4 th or 5 th age after Christ you 'l find none but condemned erring Hereticks and Roman Catholiks no lesse actually guilty say Sectaries of these professed errours Of praying to Sainâ—s of an vnbloody Sacrifice of the the A further Argument taken from the papists supposed errours real presence c. Thus much supposed I both answer and Argue against you If the whole Christian world was for that vast time so strangely infatuated as to mantain errours contrary to Scripture when the true Doctrin therof no lesse concerned their eternal Saluation then the true letter it cannot possibly be supposed vpon any weak Probability much lesse on such à certainty as excludes all reasonable doubt that these besotted Christians preserued the letter of Scripture pure and intire whose errours are now imagined most gross against the Doctrin contained in God's word Obserue my reason It is much more easy to conceiue if all held corrupted Doctrin that the very letter of Scrtpture was by negligence or ignorance of these Corrupters of Doctrin also corrupted then to imagin the records preserued pure and Millions of Christians to read them and after the reading grosly to mistake Gods verities registred in that book And here I must mind M. Stillingfleet of his proofless and inconsequent way in Arguing 3. You Sr. say first The whole erring multitudes of Christians before Luther preserued Scripture pure yet forsooth these silly men taught one Doctrin after an other contrary to Scripture They perused the book interpreted it yea preached it to their own confusion and condemnation You say 2. It is not possible that Mr. stillingfleets arguments retorted these writings could be extorted out of mens hands by fraud or violence vnder their eyes or suffered to be lost by negligence Yet you make it not only possible but grant the Doctrin therof to haue
one whit but most willingly Silence vs with Gods own plain language This we look for but in lieu of it what haue we Fancies Coniectures Glosses friuolous Discourses And thus forsooth Popery must down I marry and Protestancy be thought the pure and most refined Religion 7. By what is said already you see how vnluckily these men run Sectaries argue improbably out of the way of all probable Arguing whilst Scripture is made so clear that by the light thereof All Controuersies now raised amongst dissenting Christians can be determined Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you no Purgatory no Inuocation of Saints by plain and express Scripture Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you plainly that to deny Purgatory or Transubstantiation is as necessary to Saluation as to deny à Quaternity of Diuine Persons Now if it be not clear in such matters Why keep you à coile about these Negatiues Why do you threaten vs with God's iudgements for mantaining the Contrary Doctrins Why haue you not only made an vproar in the world about Doctrins meerly vnnecessary but more which may lay sorrow at your hearts why haue Negatiue Opinions the cause of Sectaries Separation you shamefully separated your selues from an Ancient Church whereof your Ancestors were members And this is desperately done for à Company of Negatiue Opinions Though it import's not one straw whether they be belieued or no. Contrariwise if you make the Belief of these Non-Articles necessary to Saluation they must be proued by the plain and express word of God which is vtterly impossible and therefore I said right that Scripture cannot end Controuersies between dissenting Christians Catholicks for example and Protestants 8. And thus much in effect our Newer men grant who talk much of à few simple Truths sufficient to saluation called fundamentals Is is not enough saith Dr Taylor in his 2. Disswasiue P. 168. That we are Christians that we put all our hope in God who freely giâ—es vs all things by his Son Iesus Christ That we are redeemed by his Death that we are members of his body in Baptism that he giues vs his spirit that we do no Euil that we do what good we can c. Is not this Faith ruâ—e Righteousness and the Confession of this faith sufficient vnto saluation Obserue well If such à faith of à few Nouellists and the like simple Truths which no Arian denies vnder such general Terms Of Sectaries simple Truths and cannot be proued sufficient by plain Scripture be enough to Saluation what need had Sectaries to Calumniate our ancient Church and expose Christianity to the scorn of Iewes and Atheists for lesser Matters as they think than these fundamentals or few simple truths are Do we disown any of them No. We are Christians as well as they we put our hope in God we say all things are giuen vs by his son Iesus Christ we are redeemed by his Death c. Wherein then lies our Offence O we hold strange Nouelties Inuocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation I dâ—â—y they are Nouelties but be it as you will They are out of the 〈◊〉 â—f your simple Truths and in your Principles no more but Opinions and can you haue such cruel hearts as to persecute vs banish vs and shed our blood for meer Opinions Where is your Châ—rity Again I argue Ad hominem If to hold à Purgatory be only â— Opinion your denying it is no more but an opinion also Therefore you cannot proue your Negatiue by plain and express Scripture for if you do so it well be no longer an Opinion but à 〈◊〉 led Truth and certain Doctrin Conuince this if you can and thâ— tell vs that Scripture decides all Controuersies between vs or his an obligation on vs to belieue more then These few simple Truths 〈◊〉 No Purgatory for example No Transubstantiation or say plainly that Scripture doth not put an end to these Controuersies which Truth is euident by manifest Experience 9. It is strange to see how endlesse Sectaries are and to no purpose at all in quoting Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of Scripture in all things necessary but afterward spoil all with à new Scripture sayes not how many are necessary Whimsey For they make iust so much as they please à few Simple Truths serue the turn to be Necessary and sufficient Here are three insuperable difficulties First They speak without book For God neuer told them in Scripture how many or how few of these Truths are necessary and Sufficient Therefore if I admit this Principle the Protestants sole Word must secure me though I know well that their word is neither à necessary nor à sufficient warrant for my saluation Hence 1. I vrge them to show by plain Scripture the number of these fundamentals precisely necessary 2. I must tell them If Scripture be clear in à few Fundamentals and so much only be necessary and sufficient this reasonable Quaestion may well follow What 's the rest of the Bible good for with them Most certainly the far greater part of it where it speak's not of these few Necessaries may be cast away as vseless and impertinent 3. These Nouellists Pronounce and Proue against themselues in all such Controuersies as are now in debate between them and Catholicks For if Scripture which tell 's vs of all Necessary and Sufficient things to saluation comprised in à few simple Truths whereof there is no strif now omit's whilst it mentions Sectaries proue against themselues these to speak plainly in behalf of our Protestant Opinions Nâ— Sacrifice No Transubstantiation c. With what Conscience can they tell vs and They haue often said it that this Book alone can decide these controuersies and recall vs from Popery to their new mode of Protestancy I would willingly haue Satisfaction to this one difficulty 10. Well To answer all they can pretend to out of the ancient Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of scripture in order to things necessary be pleased to obserue that the learned Tertullian against Marcion but chiefly in his book de Praescript cap. 16. at those words We are not to recurr to Scripture wherein there is no victory or à very vncertain one c. And S. Austin S. Chrisostome with others may perhaps seem to à less diligent Reader to be of contrary iudgements Tertullian now cited saies Scripture is insufficient to decide Controuersies concerning Religion amongst Christians S. Austin De Bapt. Contra Donat lib. 2. C. 6. plead's much for it's sufficiency I say here is no Contrariety both speak well both deliuer Catholick Doctrin Know therefore that Scripture is deuided into two Parts or Sections as you may read in Sixtus Senensis Two parts of Scripture distinguished Lib. 6. Bibl. Annot 152. Who cites S. Chrisostom for it The one vsually called Pars Directa or direct part treat's of the abstruse Mysteries of Christian Faith and this which is Matter of Contest between vs and Sectaries
Principles are here Supposed First that the Markes of the Protestant Church or of its Doctrin lie as these men will haue it in the Purity of Scripture only 2. That their Church Doctrin is either contained in the 39. Articles or implies so much as all called Christians Belieue and no more Though plain Hereticks in many particular Tenets 3. That this Protestant Community as it Teaches is either the whole Church of Christ excluding other Societies or only à Part of the vniuersal Church These Principles Supposed you haue my Demonstration 14. Scripture Marks the true Doctrin of Christs Church but it neither mentioneth nor marks out the Doctrin contained in the 39 Articles for our newer men call these inferiour Truths only And hold them not Registred in God's word Neither doth it Assert so much as darkly that à Mixture of Truth and Falshood such as all Hereticks haue owned and do own is the Doctrin of the true Catholick Church Least of all That à Doctrin common to Arians Protestants and Catholicks is sufficient Scripture disowns Protestancy to Saluation Lastly it saith no where that the Protestant Church containing that reformed Doctrin is by it Self the whole true Church of Christ excluding all other Societies nor so much as à Part of it And this I proue 15 If as reformed it be à Part of the true Catholick Church the Professors of it haue now and had before Luther some Partners who ioyn'd with them in the belief of their reformed Doctrin But before Luther they had not one sole man in the world that belieued as they belieue and so wanted fellowship because neither they nor their Partners were at all in Being Now at this instant they haue no Society of men called à Church run ouer all the world which side 's with them or hold's either the. 39. Articles or à Doctrin common to all Christians to be the true Doctrin of Christ or of his vniuersal Church All this I say is euident And. 16. Hence you see in what plight these men are who pretend to à Church marked and made euident by Scripture and A clear inference against Sectaries when they haue that sacred Book in their hands it is impossible to find so much as one Sentence or syllable in behalfe of Protestancy Those other exteriour Signes of Conuersions Miracles Antiquity c. are of no Account with them And were they otherwise most euidently they belong not to the reformed Doctrin of the English Church Here is à piece of sad newes for Sectaries who haue à Church neither Spoken of in Scripture nor manifested to Reason by one Supernatural wonder So vneuidenced à Thing it is And Consequently vpon à double Account no Church at all 17. The Sectary may reply When he Asserts Scripture Marks the true Church or Her Doctrin the meaning is not that it speak's expresly the Tenets of Protestants but only Saies it is à sufficient Repository of all things necessary to Saluation and deliuers so much plainly What euer therefore is not plainly taught in scripture ceaseth to be necessary Contra. 1. Protestants A Reply Answered granting thus much may seek long before they find Their particular Tenets because Scripture deliuers none of them either expresly or by any clear Deduction Contra. 2. The Iew and Heathen regard not the plainest Truths in Holy Writ before the book be proued Diuine The most plain Verities auaile nothing with them Yet God hath afforded means to draw them to Christianity But it seem's our Sectaries in all their talk of the Scriptures clarity neuer reflect on these Strangers from Christ nor point at the means whereby their Conuersion may bee wrought Contra. 3. The Arian and the Orthodox as highly differ about the sense of plain Scripture as the Protestant and Catholick about the sense of Christs own words This is my body And these differences either touch on fundamental Matters or there are none such in the whole Bible Contra. 4. The Protestant only tells vs what he saith of all things necessary contained in Scripture and speak's his own Sentiment boldly without either proof or Principle 18. Some obiect first God can endite à Book in as plain An Obiection solued words as any man can speak and t' is not supposed that he affected obscurity in his own Scripture already written Contra. 1. If Scripture be not obscure How is it That Christ told the Saduces they mistook the true meaning of it How is it that these Protestant Pillars Luther and Caluin so grosly contradict one an other in their Commentaries made vpon holy Scripture And this in points most material How is it that innumerable others called Christians Professe to reuerence to Read to spend the greatest labour vpon Scripture and when all is done draw out of it plain Contradictions in points as is nâ—w said most Fundamental Contra. 2. We question not what God can do but say he hath not endited Scripture plain de facto S. Peter Epist 2. 3. 16. Speaking of S. Pauls Epistles is my warrant In which saith he Certain things are hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue as also the rest of Scripture to their own perdition And the words relate not only to the Mysterious Matters whereof the Apostle wrote but to his Phrase and forme of writing also Therefore the Greeck Copies haue both in which things and in which Epistles And all Expositors hitherto euen S. Austin haue acknowledged an obscure way of speaking in S. Pauls Epistles chiefly in that to the Romans Yet we are not to say that Truth expressed without harshness God affects Obscurity the word is vnmeet but speak thus His prouidence purposely would haue Scripture deliuered in such à dark manner that all might haue recourse to à liuing Oracle His true Church which speaks more plainly and cannot swerue from any verity in Scripture No offence is giuen to pious ears In à word you haue à Verity expressed with out harshness See S. Austin lib. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 6. And S. Ambrose Epist 44. Again vote Scripture most plain what gain Sectaries by the Clarity when they neither haue plain nor obscure Text through the whole Bible for their Protestancy 19. Hence we Answer to an other petty obiection Scripture say some relates many Things not necessary to Saluation Therefore it cannot be supposed to omit things necessary Contra 1. Ergo it speak's some things of pure Protesstancy or nothing in that Religion as reformed is necessary to Saluation I would willingly haue an express Text for this reformed Nouelty and these few difficulties solued Contra. 2. Though the whole Bible were without dispute most plain or told vs all things necessary yet this neither moues Iew nor Gentil nor drawes any to Christianity without further light as is already proued We haue shown aboue how Scripture contain's all things necessary in the Reflex Part thereof It is now our Task and intent to Mark out the true
ouerthrow any Doctrin of our Church Alas what this Oracle positiuely defin's is à stronger Principle than twenty dubious Authorities of Fathers if any such were in appearance contrary It followes 2. That the Roman Catholick Church must of necessity be either owned Orthodox in all She teaches or cannot be belieued in any thing 8. Wherefore I say à great word If this Church hath deceiued the world in teaching à Purgatory for example neither we nor Sectaries can certainly belieue that Christ was here on earth or Redeemed vs. For Ask why belieue wee this great Mystery If you Answer Scripture reueal's it you are Questioned again How One Errour in the Church Destroyes all Faith know you that Scripture is Gods word which Ex terminis euidences not it self You must Answer Vniuersal Tradition and all the Churches in the world haue owned the Book for Gods word Very good But The Church hitherto supposed most Orthodox among so many Heretical Societies and Her Tradition likewise haue actually deceiued all For She is now Imagined to haue taught the false Doctrins of Purgatory Transubstantiation c. Therefore you cannot belieue Her or any Tradition for erring in one point of Faith She is not belieuable in any This principle stand's firm Much less can you trust to the Doctrin or Tradition of known Heretical Churches whether Arians Pelagians or others For all these haue erred and most grosly Therefore you haue no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture nor can you belieue this one Prime Article Christ dyed for vs by Diuine Faith 9. Let therefore the Sectary labour all that 's possible to contract the fundamentals of Faith into the shortest room Imaginable let him mince them almost to nothing let this one Article Iesus is the Christ be Faith enough for all I say if the Roman Catholick Church speaking in the name of God as She pretends to speak hath taught but one false Article and obliged Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation Purgatory for example none can now vpon any Motiue known to the world firmly belieue That Iesus is the Christ So pernicious is one known errour of the Church that it ruins's all belief of other Articles nor can such à Church be more trusted in any thing She speaks than Scripture relied on were it false in that Article Iesus is the Christ 10. The reason à Priori is All Faith is at last reduced or finally resolued into Gods Diuine Reuelation whether he speaks by this or that Instrument by this or that Oracle imports nothing The Vltimate reason of the Assertion The difference of the Oracle he speaks by diuersifies not faith which alwaies tend's to one Center and rests on one sure Ground Gods Veracity If he speaks by à Prophet that 's his Oracle If by an Apostle he is made an Oracle If by the exteriour words of Scripture they are Oracles if by the Church She is his Oracle Now further Suppose any of these assumed Oracles speaking in the name of God declare à false Doctrin to Christians the Falsity Vltimatly redound's to God who own 's them as Oracles yet by them teaches the world Falsities It fall's out here As if à Prince should send à Legate to à State who speak's in his name and cheat the whole State by his Embassy would not all deseruedly vpon the Supposition more impute the Cheat to the Prince than to the Legate that speaks in his name The parity is exact and proues if either Scripture Prophet Apostle or Church speaking in the name of God deliuers false Doctrin God himself deceiues vs and therefore Rich. de S. Vict. Said well in this sense also Si error est quem credimus c. If we belieue an errour T' is you Great God who haue deceiued vs But if God can once deceiue either immediatly By Himselfe or mediatly by his Oracle The whole Systeme of Christian Faith is desstroyed What I say would bee true Although He should make à solemn protestation of Speaking Truth For euen then he cannot oblige me to belieue because he may deceiue in that very Protestation and deliuer à falsity if the supposition hold 11. Here then is the final Conclusion As subiectiue Faith in à Belieuer is Indiuisible That is it is either wholly good or wolly naught None can haue à piece of Faith without the whole vertue an Could the Church propose one false Article She can bee belieued in nothing Arian cannot belieue Christ to be à Redeemer if He denies the Trinity So if one Matter of Faith proposed by the Church be really Contrary to what She defines None can belieue any thing She teaches For the meer Possibility of deceiuing Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all She proposeth And this proues the Church absolutly infallible not in some points only but in all and euery Doctrin whereof you haue more in the 15 16 and 17 Chapters following 12. Some may reply I suppose all this while the Church made so stedfastly God's Oracle as not to err in any Doctrin She proposes which is Petitio Principy or à begging of the Question Contra. And Ye Gentlemen whilst you impeach Her of Errour Suppose Her Instrumentum diuulsum an Oracle tom as it were from Gods Sspecial Assistance iust as if I shoâ—ld Suppose the words of Scripture separated from the Spirit of truth You suppose Her à fair spouse yet make Her à harlot when and as Often as you please You acknowledge some Church or other find that out where you can to teach Truth yet you like petulant Schollers will forsooth be so wise as to tell her where she misseth in Her Lesson and correct Her for it And you haue done it to the purpose For you haue destroied Her Monasteries rob'd Her Altars prophaned Her Temples abused Her Children banished some and hang'd vp other Are not these fine God deceiues if the Church câ—n Err. Doings Contra. 2. I suppose nothing but what is manifest that Christ euer had à Church on earth once more find it where you can and that God speaks to Christians by this Oracle which he will be with to the end of the world And against which Hell gates shall neuer preuail Now I say if this Church which God not I makes his own Oracle and promises to teach Truth by it can deceiue but in one Matter of Faith God himself deceiues vs And this Church ceaseth Eo ipâ—o to be Catholick yea and God to be the Eternal Truth For it Matters nothing if he can deceiue whether he do it by Scripture or the Church Solue this Argument if you can 13. You may say 2. The whole ground of this Discourse à Fallacy and comes only to thus much If à man once tell à lie he must be thought à lyar in all he speaks So it is The Church speaks an vntruth in some things Ergo it doth so or may do so in all seemes no good consequence Contra.
which only induce to belieue So the Primitiue Christians belieued vpon Christ's A Mistake in the Obiection infallible Testimony and built not their Faith vpon the exteriour Motiues Euident to Sense which meerly considered as Motiues only made his Testimony highly credible to Reason Viz. One Instance which none can boggle at That it was Diuine and infallible For example Some saw Others heard of our sauiours great Miracles of his admirable Sanctity And then discoursed The Man that doth these wonders cannot but be one sent from God It is true he preaches both new and difficult Doctrin to our eares But if he be sent from God we are obliged to Belieue him vpon his word And vpon that Word Their Faith relyed 9. Apply this Instance to the Church you haue all I would Say The Church is euidenced by Miracles Sanctity of life in Millions by Conuersions and the like signal Motiues Here are the Inducements which proue Her Gods Oracle and Clears all the Doctrin highly credible aboue what euer all other Societies called Christians haue Taught Yet our Faith is not built vpon these Motiues considered as Inducements but vpon Her infallible Testimony The Instance now giuen Concerning the most Primitiue Belieuers is so clear That our Aduersaries shall neuer weaken the force of it or shew the least Disparity 10. And thus you se all Mr Stillingfleets talk P. 113 Comes to nothing I desire Saith he to know whether an infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motiues of Credibility Answ And I desire to know whether an A Question answered and retorted Infallible Assent to the Apostles Preaching was grounded on those Motiues which the Primitiue Christians saw or heard of before they belieued what you say I 'll say Briefly Many learned Diuines hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphysically connexed with Gods diuine Testimony speaking by the Church and if that opinion be true the Motiues ground an Infallible Shewed also impertinent Assent but that 's Euidence and no Faith And therefore most impertinent to your following Inference If say you we affirm the Motiues ground an Infallible Assent there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of our Church infallible in order to Diuine faith For we Catholicks you hope will not deny but that there are at least equal Motiues of Credibility to proue the Diuine Authority of the Scriptures as the infallibility of our Church And if so why may not an Infallible assent be giuen to the Scriptures vpon those Motiues of Credibility as well as to our Churches infallibility Answ A strange kind of Argument 11. First Sir you know or should know Catholicks hold with S. Austin That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority How then do you say You hope we will not deny c No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other Treatise also immediatly make Scripture Credible independently of the Churches Tradition No Miracles were euer heard of No Motiues make Scripture euidently credible which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you more Canonical Scripture than that of Iudith which you reiect Did any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of Salomons Canticle that 's Scripture say you and refuse to dye for the Book of Wsdom cast out of your Canon Or was euer any soul sooner conuerted by reading the One than the other These Miracles Sr these Martyrdoms these Conuersions immediatly illustrate the Church and proue not à Part only but Her whole Doctrin to be Independently of Church Authority most Euidently Credible and worthy of belief whilst you se your Signs of Diuinity and no man knowes what imagined motiues in behalf of Scripture as little Euidence the Books you admit as those you reiect That is neither indeed haue any Self-Euidence in them abstracting from Church Authority Your Euidence therefore is à strong fancy and nothing els 12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole Canon or bare letter of Scripture you haue not any so much as probable for the Sense chiefly in Controuerted matters which properly is God's Reuelation without the Churches infallible Interpretation Speak Sr your Conscience plainly What can it auaile you or me to know that the Book we read is God's No Motiues for the Scriptures Sense word Seing innumerable false Religions by peruerse Misinterpretations are drawn from thence if that other Principle Deus â—â— dixit God or Truth it self speaks This and this particular Sense lies in darkness concealed from vs. This Principle then God speak's this Sense being the very vltimate Resoluent and last foundation of Christian Faith must when that Sense is Obscure borrow light from no dark mistaken fallible or doubtful Orade But the bare letter of Scripture is dark and grosly mistaken by Heretiques mans priuate Iudgement is fallible our comparing the Scriptures Passages together is meerly Coniectural and dubious Therefore if the certitude of Faith must rely vpon VVithout the Churches Infallible interpretation what God has spoken I mean the infallible Sense of his sacred word The Oracle which interpret's can be no other but an Infallible Church And here I both Petition and vrge Sectaries to assign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can be built seing all confess we are obliged to belieue that Infallible sense chiefly in matters they call Fundamental This Argument alone could we say no more forceth euery rational man to own à Church absolutely infallible in Her exposition of Scripture 13. From whence also it followes first that Mr Stillingfleet much mistakes Himself when he Saith Both sides I hope agree Our Aduersary mistaken that there are sufficient Motiues of Credibility as to the belief of Scriptures I answer There is not one firm Motiue for the true reuealed Sense and this only is Scripture if we exclude Tradition and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church Bring to light but one and I am satisfyed 14. It followes 2. That that half Tradition owned by Sectaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books of Scripture leaues them wholly Scriptureles and as Faithles The halfe Tradition for the barc letter as if they had no Bible For it neither grounds faith immediatly because it is not God's Reuelation but the fallible Consent of men Nor can it induce as à Motiue to belieue any one particular Article of Christian Religion without further certitude had from the same Churches infallible Tradition and interpretation Not sufficient concerning that most weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning Reiect therefore this infallible Interpreter All of vs iust like Arians Macedonians Donatists desperatly rely vpon the worst Guides Imaginable our own fallacious and vngouernable fancies and will needs learn of such giddy Teachers the pure interpretation of God's Word These we make our Oracles in lieu of Christs Church and in doing so may easily ascribe to God à Doctrin he disdain's to own and
Her Motiues Ascertain's vs that such Books are Diuine I Answer 2. Grant such Motiues may in some weak manner and particular Circumstances conduce to belieue the Scriptures Diuinity yet in this present State when we haue à Church most clearly manifested which both Ascertain's vs of Scripture and the Sense also it would be no less than an vndiscreet rashness to cast off her Authority being the most facile and plainest Rule and in Lieu of Her to rely on another forrain vnfit way of Belieuing by Motiues not half fo clear and far less conuincing 2. Thus some Diuines Teach though à Heathen after à due Consideration of the works in Nature may come to belieue that God will reward Good and punish Euil yet none do Assert That when our Christian Articles are clearly proposed to An Instance him by the Pastors and Teachers of the Church For example That Christ dyed for vs. The dead shall rise again God will reward the iust c. That then if he reiect Church Authority he can belieue the forenamed Articles with Diuine Faith This I Deny And the reason is because that way of belieuing when à It is imprudent to reiect we easiest was of Belieuing more ordinary and facile is proposed Seem's temerarious and imprudent And so it would be should any now when the Church giues vs full Assurance of the Scriptures Diuinity lay aside Her Authority and Say I will alsolutely belieue this or that Truth to be God's word because I Discouer apparent Signs of Diuinity in what I read 3. In the next place Mr Stillingfleet Quarrel 's with à word The Roman Catholick Church which in his opinion is iust as much as to Say The German vniuersal Emperour That is particular and vniuersal together for Roman restrain's or marks out one Church vniuersal includes all Answ It is à meer Quibble exploded by A meer quibble exploded by Fathers the Fathers particularly S. Hierome Apolog. 1. aduersus Ruffin not far from the beginning who call's the Roman Faith the Catholick Faith VVhat Saith he is Ruffinus his Faith It is that there with the Roman Church preuail's or another founded in Origens Writings Si Romanam responderit Ergo Catholici sumus If he Answer 's it is the Roman Faith This Inference is good we both profess the vniuersal Faith Therefore Roman and Vniuersal are here synomimal or words of one Signification which the Apostle clearly Insinuates Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world ouer Again Epist 16. ad Principiam Virg circa medium He showes that the most ancient Saints addressed themselues to to the Roman Church Quasi ad tutissimum communionis suâ— S. Hierom's express Testimonies portum as to à place of refuge or of mutual Communion which was General Publick and belonged to all Yet more When Epist 57. ad Damasum This great Doctor positiuely teaches That he was ioyned in Communion with no other Society of men then such as adhered to Damasus S. Peters Successor where vpon the Church was built And that those who eate the lambe out of this House were prophane Did he think ye speak of any one particular Roman Diocess and not of the vniuersal Catholick Church It is contrary to his Discourse and reason also 4. Se more of this subiect in the Epistle of S. Athanasius to two Popes Iulius and Marcus Read also S. Cyprians Epistle 52. n. 1. Other Fathers Speak with S. Hierome And S. Ambrose De obitu fratris about the middle and know withall The word Roman added to Catholick is not to limit the vniuersal Iurisdiction of that See But to distinguish Orthodox Belieuers from Hereticks who were professed Enemies of the Roman Faith If therefore we may rightly comprise vnder this word Roman all other Christian Societies past or present vnited in Why the Roman Church was called Vniuersal belief with this one Mother Church There is neither Bull nor Solaecism in speech to call the Roman euer One and the same in Faith the vniuersal Church of Christ 5. Page 127. To catch Carholicks in à Circle Mr Stillingfleet Ask's why we belieue Scriptures to be the Word of God If we Affirm vpon this Ground That the Church which is infallible Mr Stilling endeauour more then weak deliuers them so to vs He demand's again and bidd's vs Answer if we can whether t' is possible to belieue the Churches infallibility any other way than because infallible Scriptures Say She is infallible which implies à plain Circle Answ It is very possible For seing Scripture demonstrat's not ex terminis its own Diuinity nor can be made euidently credible by any light internal to catch Catholicks in à Circle to the Book some other infallible Oracle distinct from it must necessarily ascertain vs that the Book is Diuine And the Doctrin there preserued is yet pure as the Apostles wrote it But this Oracle can be no other but the Church which proues Her selfe by Signs and Miracles to speak in Gods name independently of Scripture therefore the first act of Faith whereby we belieue in à General way the Churches infallibility relies not as this Gentleman weakly supposes on Scripture But vpon the Church it Selfe as the most known manifested Oracle And thus the Circle is easily auoyded 6. You will se more clearly what I aime at by one Instance taken from the Primitiue Christians Ask what induced them to belieue the Apostles Infallibility when they Preached All No Circle in the Primitiue Christians Faith Answer They belieued so because those blessed men immediatly proued themselues commissioned Oracles sent from God and made their Doctrin euidently Credible by sensible Signs and Wonders which surpassed the force of Nature Very true Iâ— like manner we belieue the Churches infallibility hauing preuious Motiues as Stronge to belieue that Truth vpon her Authority as euer Christians had to belieue that S. Paul was infallible when he preached If then there was no Vicious Therefore none in our Resolution Circle in those first Christians Faith there can be none in Ours vhilst all of vs haue infallible Oracles manifested by Supernatural Signs to rely on And Those first now mentioned had them before Scripture was written You will say this Discourse seem's to proue we cannot belieue the Churches Infallibility vpon the Scriptures Testimony It has been Answered ouer and ouer supposing Scripture be one admitted as God's sacred Word â—e proue the Churches infallibility so strongly by it against all Aduersaries who own the Book as Diuine that none of them shall euer return à probable answer to our alleged Testimonies 7. But what Saith Mr Stillingfleet Is there no difference between the way of prouing à thing to an Aduersary and resoluing ones own Faith Answer yes But we both resolue and proâ—â— We Resolue the first Act of Faith concerning Scripture How we both resolue and proue the Churches Infallibility into the Churches infallible Authority and belieue that Book to be
belieued S. Iohns Testimony or that our Sauiour Spake those words Here is our solution God long since said the dead shall rise but this Ancient Reuelation being remote from vs if solely considered cannot moue vs to belieue the truth vnless an Infallible Oracle Ascertain vs that God once spake it iust as S. Iohn assures all that Christ said I am the Messias Ask now â—hy Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour vttered those â—ords He will Answer God speaking by S. Iohn an Infallible An Application of the Instance clear in Scripture Oracle Affirms it So I say God speaking by the Church an Infallible Oracle affirm's the Resurrection of the dead O but independently of Church Authority we know the resurrection is reuealed in Scripture Contrariwise we know nothing of our Sauiours words but from S. Iohns Testimony Answ we know indeed the Resurrection is asserted in à Book called Scripture But that the Assertion is Diuine or vttered by Eternal Truth we haue no more Infallible certainty without the Churches Testimony Then if any vulgar Samaritan without Diuine Assistance had said Christ spake those words I am the Messias 23. By what is now briefly touched you se first That as our Sauiours own words and S. Iohns reflex Testimony vpon them concurr Indiuisibly to the Faith of these Aduersaries So the reuealed Verity of the Resurrection in Scripture And the The ancient Reuelation and the Churches reflex Testimony Churches reflex Testimony which infallibly Ascertains vs that it is reuealed may well indiuisibly concurr as one compleat Motiue to our faith whereof more hereafter I say indiuisibly And therefore this Faith vltimatly resolued relies not first vpon Scripture only as our Aduersary conceiues without any relation to the Church and then rest's vpon the Churches Concurr indiuisibly to Faith Testimony as vpon à distinct Formal Obiect but by one simple Tendency it pitches on both together 24. You se 2. It s hard to Say what Mr Stillingfleet would haue when he tells vs. This Principle The Church is infallible must be more credible then the Resurrection of the Dead If We clearly distinguisâ— what our Aduersary Confound's he mean's the Churches Testimony is to vs in this present State the more known and nearest Motiue wherevpon the Faith of that Article is grounded we easily Assent But if he think 's we must first Assent to Scripture which asserts the Resurrection and own that as Diuine or the only Motiue of Faith without all Church Authority attesting it to be Diuine He err's not knowing our Doctrin For we Say no Scripture can be infallible An improper Speech assented to as Diuine independently of the Churches Testimony Again those words More Credible are improper if applyed to the Formal Obiect of Faith For the Formal Obiect terminates Belief the Credibility whereof goes before and is grounded on the preuious Motiues inducing to belieue VVhether we Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Title of the Chapter discussed Vpon what ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 25. In many following Pages we haue little but that the Churches Infallible Testimony must be called the Formal Obiect of Faith whereof something is said aboue And you shall haue more hereafter 26. P. 149. He thinks we Argue like men squaring Circles when on the one side we make Scripture obscure yet on the other giue it light enough to proue the Churches infallibility And then he talk's of an Apocalyptical key hanging at the Churches Scripture Proued Diuine Conuinces the Churches Infallibility girdle able to vnlock all the Secrets in it To the first I haue Answered Thus much Supposed that Scripture is proued Diuine we haue so great light from the seueral Passages thereof to conuince the Churches Infallibility that no glosses of Sectaries shall euer obscure them To the Ieer of the Clauis Apocalyptica I Answer Some one or other must vnlock those high secrets when t' is euident innumerable Heretiques by à wrong key wrest Gods word to most pernicious Senses The Question is whether you Sr or the Church must rurn the key 27. Page 152. After thanks giuen for our Coleworts so often serued â—y Those mute Persons the good Motiues of credibility He is Brisque Ieâ—rs and empty words and in earnest resolute to solue our Argument Asking before hand Whether it be not enâ—ugh to be in à Circle our selues but must â—eed's bring the Apostles into it also Reflect I beseech you We said aboue that the Apostles induced by the Signal works and Miracles of our Sauiour Assented to his sacred Doctrin as most infallible In like manner The Primitiue Christians induced by the works and Miracles of the Apostles belieued them to be infallible The force of our Argument Oracles Therefore we also in this present State hauing Motiues and Miracles of the same weight and Euidence in the Roman Catholick Church Belieue with à firm Assent of Faith that She is God's Oracle and her Doctrin most infallible The short Answer to all this saith Mr Stillingfleet is That the ground why the Christians did Assent to the Apostles Doctrin as true was because God Wholly waued gaue sufficient Euidence that their Testimony was infallible in such things where such infallibility was requisite Pray Consider well whether this be not à gliding or rather à plain running away from the Difficulty We haue vrged all this while the Parity between the Churches Motiues and those of the Apostles We haue proued and yet plead That the Euidence is à like in both The Churches most manifest Signes are The blind se The lame walk The dead rise Diuels are dispossesed c. And these termed by you vnsauory Coleworts and mute good Things were the Apostles Signs also Are not you therefore obliged in all law of Disputation What all law of Disputing requireâ— either to proue and vpon sound Principles indeed That we falsly appropriate such Motiues and Miracles to the Church Or if you cannot disparage so illustrious an Euidence to shew à fault in this Inference The Church is known as well by her Signs to be an infallible Oracle 28. Now mark how we are put off with half an Answer God â—y you gaue sufficient Euidence that the Apostles Testimony was infallible None doubt's it But Say on what want do you find of the very like Euidence in the Church Her Miracles are as manifest Her Conuersions as Numerous and more Her fame as renowned Her name as Catholick finally might we vse your scornful language Her Motiues no mute Persons speak Nothing like an Answer giuen aloud and Her Colewarts are euery whit as good as those were the Apostles serued vp To this you Answer not à word but first tell vs with your Aduersary that the Apostles confirmed their Doctrin with Signs that followed by which Signes all their Heares were bound to aknowledge them for
infallible Oracles And it is very true But we proue the like Signs accompanied and followed the Church in all Ages therefore her Hearers are also bound to acknowledge Her an infallible Oracle also In this place you should haue spoken to the Cause and Shewed Why or vpon what Account those first Signs were so powerful to Proue the Apostles infallible And these latter of the Church lesse pregnant to proue Her infallible This and t' is the main Point you wisely waue For it is vnanswerable and most frigidly tell vs The main point pressed again P. 153. You must be excused as to what followes viz. That those same Motiues moued the Primitiue Christians and vs in our respectiue Times to belieue the Church And why not dear Sr Giue vs the Disparity and we haue done but you cannot If therefore it which cannot be Answered be à bold Attempt to deny the Euidence of the Church we plead for which S. Austin Epist 166. compares with the Sun manifest to all vsque ad terminos ad terrae To the last bounds of the earth it is impossible to weaken the force of our Inference when we Say The Church is proued by her Motiues an infallible Oracle You next Terme this Expression The formal Obiect of faith à Coccysm whereby it appear's how little you are versed in School-Diuinity 29. It seem's in the Page now cited your Aduersary vrges this Argument Ad hominem If à Church be acknowledged An Argument vrged ad hominem infallible in Fundamentals The last reason why you belieue it infallible must rest vpon this Principle That the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much by her Tradition To this you return à most dissatisfactory Answer in these words VVhen you Ask â—s Protestants why we belieue such an Article to be fundamental As fâ—r an Instance Christ will giue Eternal life to them that belieue him The Sectaries Answer â—e Answer not because the Church which is infallible in fundamentals Delieuers it to be so For that were to Answer Idem per Idem But we â—peal to that Common Reason which is in Mankind whether if the Doctrin of Christ be true This can be any other than à fundamental Article of it it being that without which the whole Design of Christian Religion comes to nothing 30. Good Reader ioyn here two things together Mr Stillingfleet believes and Mark the word such an Article to be Fundamental not vpon Scripture or Church Authority for neither makes the Distinction between fundamentals and not fundamentals highly dissatisfactory and why And again before he has proued by any infallible Authority that such à Distinction in his Sense ought to be made He brings in the common Reason of mankind to Iudge in à matter which Catholicks Say is de Subiecto non supponente not capable of Iudicature Because there are no Things in being as he call's fundamentals distinguisable from others of à lower Rank Moreouer And take notice of this He belieues such an Article to be à truth because God reueal's it and belieues it to be à Fundamental Faith stand's not vpon two disserent Motiue Diuine and humane Truth vpon this Motiue that Common reason hold's it so Doth not therefore this one act of Faith rely vpon two heterogeneal Formal Obiect As Faith it is built vpon God's Veraâ—ity as Fundamental Faith it stand's tottering vpon mans fallible reason 31. What followes is as bad or worse It is sufficient Say you That the Church doth deliuer from the Consent of vniuersal Tradition the infallible Rule of Faith which to be sure contain's all things Fundamental in it though She neuer meddles with the deciding what Points are fundamental and what not Pray you Sr Answer Who shall dare to meddle with those fundamentals were they Supposable in Worse Doctrin yet your sense if the Church doth not What must your priuate Iudgement or mine decide here Quo iure by what law or Authority whilst Scripture saies nothing and you will not permit the Church to meddle in the Business were there any such thing to be meddled with Therefore you leaue all to mens priuate Opinions to make what they please fundamental and exclude from Fundamentals euery thing which likes them not And here is your fumbling way of Belieuing no man knows what whilst Their broken kind of Faith the Church tells you that euery thing She Proposes as an Article of faith is Fundamental This impregnable Principle we establish in Lieu of your loose Faith and broken way of Arguing also Lastly you are out in the main Supposition that Scripture only is the Rule of faith But hereof enough is said in the first Discourse 32. The next Thing I meet with worth any Notice is P. 158. Wherevnto we also ioyn his 170. Page It seem's D. Lawd before Mr Stillingfleet wrote his Account was vrged to giue à The main Point concerning Scripture and its sense examined satisfactory Reply to the Question VVhy or vpon what ground Protestants belieue the Books of Scripture to be the VVord of God Scripture alone Sayes not which Books are Canonical much lesse declares their Sense in matters controuerted Sectaries reiect the Churches Infallible Authority And say She is not to tell vs which Books are Scripture or what their sense is though admitted as God's word Is it not very reasonable think ye to A reasonable Demand demand vpon what Ground these men stand when either they belieue Scripture to be the word of God or giue an Assent to the particular doctrins contained in the book For clearing these difficulties you shall haue Mr Stillingfleets own word's P. 170. 33. This Question Saith he how we know Scripture to be Scripture may import tvvo things First how we know that all those books contain God's word in them Or secondly how we know the The substance of Mr Stillingfleets Answer Doctrin Contained in these Books to be Diuine If you then ask me whether it be necessary that I belieue with such à Faith as is built vpon Diuine Testimony that these Books called Scripture contain the Principles of the Iewish and Christian Religion in them which we call God's word I do and shall deny it viz. That This belief is built on any Diuine Testimony and my reason is because I haue sufficient ground for such an Assent without any Diuine Testimony But if you ask me â—â— what ground I belieue the Doctrin to be Diuine which is contained in those books I then Answer affirmatiuely on à Diuine Testimony because God hath giuen abundant Euidence that this Doctrin was of Diuine Reuelation 34. Here are two Assertions The first is That the Books of Scripture contain God's word in them And this cannot belieued vpon any Diuine Testimony Thus much granted It followes ineuitably Though one should pertinaciously reiect the whole Drewes an ill Consequence after it Canon of the old and new Testament or absolutely affirm These Bookt
and all the particular Sentences contained in them are not God's written word He could not yet for such à peruerse Denial be accounted an Heretique I Proue it None can incurr the guilt of Heresy but he who denies à Truth which God has reuealed or which stand's firm vpon à Diuine Testimony But he that denies the Books of Scripture to contain Heresy not incurred though one denyed the Books of Scripture to be Diuine God's Word in them renounceth no Truth reuealed by Almighty God For Saith our Aduersary this is no reuealed Truth nor stand's firm vpon any Diuine Testimony Therefore he is no Heretique Now further if he may without the sin of Heresy deny these Books to be Diuine Seing God neuer said so It is impossible to belieue the Doctrin therein contained to be Diuine vpon any Diuine Testimony yet Mr Stillingfleet thinks he may 35. My Reason is No man vnderstand's by the Books of Scripture which contain the Principles or Doctrin of the Iewish and Christian Religion to be meerly the Paper or Couer of the Books but he must vnderstand if he rightly conceiues VVhat is to be vnderstood by the Books of Scripture what Scripture is the very Principles and Doctrin contained in those writings For example Here is one Principle in the old Testament Gen. 17. 4. God made à Conuenant with Abraham and his seed for euer Another in the New Ioan. 1. 14. The Word is made Flesh. Answer I beseech you Can any man truly affirm that these two Principles the like is of innumerable others contained in Scripture stand not firm vpon God's infallible Testimony when T' is manifest the whole Christian world is obliged to belieue them with à Faith grounded vpon the same infallible Testimony that reuealed them Principles of Religion denyed It was Therefore no little Ouersight in Mr Stillingfleet to Speak here of the Principles of the Iewish and Christian Religion contained in à Book called Scripture And positiuely to Assert these cannot be belieued vpon à Diuine Testimony This certainly is not Defensible 36. Some may yet Reply Two things are here to be considered First the bare letter or outward words of Scripture and these we belieue not vpon Diuine Reuelation but haue them from vniuersal Tradition or the consent of Nations An Answerto such as here diflinguish The second is the Sense or Diuine Doctrine which these outward Signes or exteriour words Conuey to vs. Now this Sense or the interiour Doctrin of Scripture as contradistinct from the bare outward letter we purely belieue vpon the Diuine Testimony casting the Assent giuen to the Words vpon Between the bare words and the sense other forrain Principles I belieue Mr Stillingfleet elswhere Saies some such thing as this or must say it Contra. 1. The meer outward words though pure are no Books of Scripture And as separated from the Sense and interiour Doctrin are neither Principles of the Iewish or Christian Religion nor in rigour God's word For God neuer spake nor inspired others to write words but he iointly conueyed with them his own Sense and Doctrin also And Methinks its very hard to belieue this Doctrin This is my beloued Son as God's sacred words and not to belieue those very words to come from God vpon the same Diuine Motiue which Support's the Doctrin Moses saith our Sauiour Iohn 5. 47. Has written of VVords are Diuine me And if you will not belieue his Writings how will you belieue my Words These outward Signes therefore the very words of truth called by the Apostle 1. Thess 2. 13. Verbum auditus Dei words of hearing or heard are in very deed the VVords of God and consequently may well where none can rationally doubt of their Purity be assented to vpon the same Diuine Testimony with the Doctrine contained in them 37. The Reason is God would haue been the same Verity he now is although he had reuealed nothing that therefore which moues or determin's Belieuers to assent to the truths reuealed is not only his increated Authority but the sincere external Reuelation with it also These Two iointly The First Veritas Speaking is the Obiect of Faith concurr as one Motiue whence it is that the First Verity as Speaking or Reuealing may be rightly called the Formal Obiect of Faith I know Diuines vary about this Question Whether the external Proposition be à partial Motiue with Gods internal Verity or only à necessary condition whereby that Verity the vltimate ground of faith is applyed to Belieuers herein much may be de Nomine But none of them all Say The exteriour Reuelation is assented to vpon one Principle which is not Diuine and that the Doctrine conueyed by it is belieued vpon another most Diuine and infallible This is à nouelty VVhat Sectaries should grand Neither do I see how Sectaries can find that Lustre that Maiesty and Diuinity so often talk'd of in the purest words of holy Writ if they be not owned as God's true words vpon his Diuine Testimony 38. Let vs now briefly examin Mr Stillingfleet's Proposition without depending on what he teaches or must teach concerning the belief of words separated from the Doctrin VVe belieue Saith he the Doctrin contained in the Books of The Doctrin in it selfe examined Scripture vpon à Diuine Testimony because God has giuen abundant Euidence that this Doctrin was or is of Diuine Reuelation Here are three things Distinguishable The Doctrin Belieued The Incarnation for example The Testimony reuealing the matter bebelieued and finally the Euidence whereby that Testimony is brought to light Now all our difficulty is concerning the Euidence of this Diuine Testimony wherevpon we belieue any Mystery and we Ask from whence Mr Stillingfleet takes his Euidence He has you se abundance of it wherewith to proue that God euer Said The Diuine word was made flesh 39. The Question seem's reasonable because this Testimony which all ought to belieue and consequently doth Exist is not it's own Selfe euidence nor can it be euidenced by another Testimony of Scripture wholly as obscure to vs that God spake The Diuine Testimony not its own Self euidence that Truth For so we should goe in insinitum and Proue one dark Testimony by another equally as dark Infallible Tradition not written and the infallible Authority of the Church our Aduersaries reiect And may Say Both though admitted are Obiects of faith and consequently vnder tâ—at Notion appear as little Euident to vs as the Scriptures Testimony is we desire to proue Therefore whateuer is rightly called Euidence in this matter whereby all would discouer an obscure Testimony not yet proued God's word must of necessity be extrinsecal to the Testimony it selfe and if extrinsick no other Euidence can Therefore the Euidence of its Credibility must be taken from extrinfick Motiues Possibly be had but that which arises from the known Motiues of Credibility For by these the Church is proued an Oracle no lesse
I boldly Assert you The reason hereof may iustly cast away that Class of Orthodox Believers and call all rhe Christians in the world according to Sectaries Idolaters or known professed Heretiques Catholicks you se are listed amongst Idolaters because they Adore Christ in the holy Eucharist as the ancient Orthodox Graecians did Those Graecians yet of the Schism pray to Saints that 's plain Idolatry Say Sectaries The ancient and modern Graâ—cians supposed Idolaters The rest of Christians nameable the whole world ouer from Luther to the third or fourth Age whether Macedonians Pelagians or Arians were all professed Heretiques These and none but these Imagined Idolaters and known Heretiques à Monstruous heteroclite Progeny of men essentially constituted Christ's Orthodox Church Therefore he who proues Euidently that Catholicks The rest were Hereticks are Idolaters and rightly supposes All others called Christians to haue been Heretiques Proues and rightly Supposes Christ The Inference clear against Sectaries to haue had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thousand years which is à desperate Improbability deduced from our Sectaries Principle who blush not to charge an ancient Church with that Shameful crime of Idolatry though no Proof meanly probable as we shall se hereafter much lesse Euident vphold's the Calumny 11. Some may here demand why we require to haue these Why Euidence is required supposed Errours and Idolatry of our Church euidently proued against vs Is it not enough to euince this vpon moral Certainty The First Question is easily answered by proposing another of the like nature Would not these Protestants iustly require An Instance taken from Scripture proues what is required Euidence from à new Sect of men should it now start vp and pretend on the one side to belieue in Christ yet on the other as boldly impute errour and Idolatry to the holy Book of Scripture as Sectaries do to the Church They would certainly not be satisfied with lesser proofs then euident Hence it is that we in like manner exact neither Topicks nor guesses but clear Euidence against the supposed errours of our Church and reasonably do so First because She by God's Special Prouidence hath hitherto preserued Scriptures pure without Corruptions in Doctrin 2. Because all must own Scripture as both Diuine and pure vpon the Authority of Christ's Church Therefore It as highly concern's all to defend the purity of Christ's Church as the purity of God's written word it as highly concern's Christians to maintain the purity of Christ's Church as to maintain the purity of Scripture And Consequently if nothing lesse then Euidence can bring that Sacred Book into contempt or Euince it of errour Nothing lesse then Euidence can cast à blemish on the Church which giues vs Scripture and ascertain's all that it is Diuine 12. That other Pretence to moral Certainty is à meer whymsy reiected aboue in the second Discourse The Reason there hinted at much to this sense Conuinceth A Doctrin in Matters of Religion Contrary to the Publick Iudgement of the whole Christian world cannot be morally Certain But what Sectaries The pretence to Moral Certainty refuted Assert Concerning the Errours and Idolatry of the Church is à Doctrin Contrary to the publick Iudgement of the whole Christian world Ergo. I proue the Minor One great part of the Christian world is the Roman Catholick Church She stifly opposes this loud Calumny of Idolatry and errours laid to Her Charge Add herevnto the Sentiment of the Chiefest and the most A Doctrin Contrary to the publick Iudgement of the world known Arch-heretiques Who whilst they were in their wits that is before their wicked Apostasy Iudged as the Church Iudged and belieued as she belieued This Vniuersal Consent of an Euidenced Church together with the Sentiment of Her once Orthodox Members though afterward wilful Reuolters I call Cannot be Morally certain à Iudgement of Christians so publick and vndoubted that nothing Contrary to it can be morally Certain Giue me but one Instance of any Truth reputed Morally certain amongst men which euer What may well be called this publick Iudgement merited that name when witnesses so vniuersal so numerous and well qualified opposed it and I shall acquiesce But this is Impossible 13. Here again fitly comes in what we now Sayd of Holy Scripture Suppose which is true that your Chiefest Arch-hereticks once reuerenced that sacred Book as God's Diuine The Instance concerning Scripture introduced again word with the same high respect as the Roman Catholick Church euer did and yet doth Suppose 2. That Some Abetters of those first wicked men whether Arians Socinians or Others should begin to charge the Book with false Doctrin would such à supposed Calumny thinke ye euer arriue to so high Moral That Sacred Book cannot be iustly calumniated Certainty as to bring Scripture into open Contempt whilst à whole learned Church defend's its purity No the Calumny would not be meanly probable vpon this Ground that neither Probability much less Moral Certainty can stand in force when whilst à whole Church defend's its purity Witnesses of so great worth so vniuersal and numerous oppose it Apply what is here noted to the Church and you will find an exact Parity Both She and her own Arch-aduersaries once maintained Her Doctrin as Sacred and Orthodox Now rise vp à Company of iarring Sectaries who will forsooth haue their Charge of Idolatry and notorious Errours against Her passe for No more can à few iarring Adversaries iustly Calumniate the Church à Moral certain Truth The Assertion cannot arriue to moral certainty before the whole Body of Christians becomes mad and makes Scripture it selfe no lesse an erroneous Book than the Church Idolatrous For here is my Principle With one most certain Assent I hold the Church inerrable and the Scriptures Diuine Destroy the Churches infallibility or Say she hath erred you make Scripture eo ipso à Book of no credit 14. A. second Argument Those who exactly follow the A second Argument taken from the procedure of old Condemned Hereticks strain of all old condemned Heretiques and as wickedly implead the Roman Catholick Church of errour are vpon that account like them that is guilty of horrid Sin and Heresy But Protestants do so Ergo they are guilty of horrid Sin and Heresy The Maior is vnquestionable For if our Modern Sectaries exactly close with the mode of all condemned Heretiques it followes thas as those first Apostates for their malice were guilty of Heresy so also these latter are 15. The Minor is easily proued Your ancient Heretiques Our Sectaries accuse like them rebel and would reform as they did accused as boldly the Roman Church then in Being of errour as our modern Sectaries do the present Church They rebelled against it and deserted it so do our Protestants They sought to reform it so would our Protestants For example The Arians were as earnest to reform the Churches Doctrin
Churches on earth and proue themselues thereby both Faithles and Churchles But enough for à Preface Open and read Approue or condemn as reason shall guide you In case you Condemn please to say VVhy and shew me where I erre in Principles Pardon the faults of the Printer which are many he is à stranger to our Language except against mine boldly if you find any but do it with Charity and still for this I must inculcate again and again Remember Principles Farewel AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR Mr STILLINGFLEET Sr. PLain dealing is the best you shall haue it in this short Advertisement from à friendly Aduersary no Enemy I assure you who desires to do you good against your will If I be rightly informed Both you and some others find your selves dissatisfied vpon this score that your Rational Account as t is called comprehending the Grounds of Protestant Religion remain's yet vntouch't or not answered Before I reply to these complaints I shall take the boldnes to request one fauour at your hands you will much oblige me by it which is to point out that Chapter or Paragraph through your whole Book wherein the hidden treasure of these Protestant Grounds lie and to giue me in à few lines one or two of them plainly set down in halfe à Sheet of paper I speak of Grounds for Protestancy as it is your peculiar Religion distinct from Popery and all known Condemned Hereties Fob me not off I beseech you with any general talk Tell me not I must seek better and shall find For Sr I assure you though I haue made à diligent Search after your Grounds they are yet so far remoued from my sight that I cannot find one Wherefore because you are more Conuersant in your own writings then others and Plus vident oculi quam oculus I beg to be enlightned by you If you fail to do this the world will iudge as I do that you haue abused the Reader with à Title wherevnto nothing in your voluminous Book answer's I mean you haue no more touched vpon Grounds for Protestancy as Protestancy and mark my words then for Arianism or any other false Religion In the perusal of your Book I se what beguiled you You Sr thought to throw that little dirt wherewith some haue furnished you in our faces was enough to make your bad cause Specious and to prop vp your Protestancy as if forsooth to Cavil at vs were to establish your Novelties Know good Sr that both Arians and all other gone Heretiques were as fierce in their Cauils against the Church as you are but did they therefore either ground or establish their false Doctrins contrary to Gods Truths It is à gross errour to think so For as it is one thing foolishly to brandish à Sword and another fitly to vse à Buckler so it is à quite different busines slightly to impugn Catholick Religion and another to defend Protestancy Tht first you haue attempted like your old Heretiques and with as ill success But the second which is to maintain Protestancy or to settle that vpon solid Grounds neither is nor was nor euer shall be done by any wherefore I tell you in this Treatise read it if you please This Protestancy is wholly vngrounded God never revealed one Article of it as Protestancy nor did ever antient or modern Orthodox Church teach so much as one of your Particular Tenets And for this reason I say it s falsly called the reformed Religion hauing neither Essence nor the Properties of Religion belonging to it Now for as much as Concern's your Clamours because you think your Book neglected or not yet Answered First give me leave to tell you it is a great Vanity to rise to so high à conceipt of your selfe or of your Book as if you were the only Defender of your Faith and à greater to publish it to the world what think you Cannot Protestancy be impugned without taking you or your work in hand It s little wisdom to iudge so A Souldier good Sir who intend's to inuade an enemy takes no directions from him how to enter his Country much less busies his thoughts about remouing euery straw or euery little block that lies in his way but marches on as he thinks best to compass his Design To ouerthrow your Protestancy is our Design and you most vnreasonably prescribe what we are to do That is we must either attaque your Fort and meddle with your Account or you think nothing is done Why so I beseech you Grant which is not true that those who haue written since your Account saw light passed by it without much notice they might well do so looking on it as à Block not worth remouing vnless as I say you will haue them to obey your Commands and assault what Outwork you please It is Sr your Cause we more mind then your Account 2. Why do you or some body for you not only shamefully stopp all the Presses in so much that scarse a sheet of paper can appear in publick But moreover why haue you when all liberty is granted to scrible and print what you please omitted to Answer those Bookes which directly impugn your Doctrin That excellent Guide of Controuersies is the One and Protestancy without Principles the other And you haue done this with much vncivil scornful Language with a meer forced Pish from the teeth outward at the end of a Preface as if forsooth you would be thought to Say You Could Answer but vvill not vvbereas the naked truth is at least wise men Iudge so you would Answer but Cannot Sr believe me it would have been much to the purpose and far more satisfactory to your Protestant Brethren had you when you saw your Protestancy to speak moderatly well shaken in those two Books replyed to some particulars and shewed where either the Principles were false or their Discourses failed But you Cowardly quitted the field sate down silent busying your selfe with reprinting a few Sermons whereof the world had no need at all And this t' is thought was done to cloak your Lazines your ignorance or both because you could not Answer yet we are called on to quarrel with you whilst you like a Priuiledged Person exempt your selfe from medling with vs. That is we must speak and you say nothing But Sr let vs come neerer the point and tell you truth Whatever you account substantial in your Book hath been answered by your two scorned Aduersaries and if any thing be yet wanting it is amply supplyed in this Treatise To conceiue what I would proue please to Note There are two wayes in answering a Booke The one is to follow an Author step after step by examining severally each piece of the VVhole The other is to Consider the Principles wherevpon the VVhole relyes shewing them either false in themselues or not connex't with those Conclusions which should follow from them Destroy Principles you destroy all Thus the Motion of à Watch may be spoiled two
wayes either by disordering euery wheel in it à part or by breaking the Spring The fairest Palace ever was is ruine'd if either you separate euery stone from stone or if you vndermine the fundation and blow vp the whole Fabrick though many of the stones strongly Cimented cling yet together The first way of answering by piece-meal is tedious and obscure and as things are with vs by reason of the difficulty in Printing and transmitting Bookes into England almost impossible The other is clear and easy both are satisfactory to euery rational man and I hold the second most necessary For in all our Discourses there must be some firm Principles laid wherevnto we reduce and from whence wè draw what we Assert which seueral wayes of discoursing Compose the two different Methods Analytical and Synthetical obserucd by Philosophers and Divines Neither is the Foundation more necessary to à house or the weight to a clock then Principles are to a Discourse which then is good when the grounds stand firm and the Deductions of the particular Conclusion from them clear But if either the Principles be false and alien or the Deductions not Coherent the whole Discourse fall's to nothing Apply what is here sayd to your Account or rather to the Religion it Asserts and you have all I would Say Your Account Sr was writ to vindicate Protestancy and must stand vpon the same Principles with that Nouelty therefore whatever shak's and ruin's the Principles of Protestancy necessarily shak's and ruin's the Principles of your Account But your Supposed Principles or Grounds of Protestancy are broken yea demonstrated no Grounds at all in the Book intitl'd Protestancy without Principles where they arc proued either false or no Principles peculiar to your Religion as it is distinct from the Doctrin of other Societies called Non-Protestants And consequently when true they haue no Connexion with Protestancy nor can lead in any conclusion for you And where they are false their falsity is laid before your eyes and an vtter subuersion of your Cause and Account with it because neither can stand when your supposed Principles are destroyed or rather found never to have had Being And thus your Book is solidly Answered If you desire to se more ruin yet fallen vpon you read this Treatise and be pleased to reflect vpon these three things in your Account The length of it The Obiections against Catholick Religion and finally your Principles for Protestancy We find two of them but misse the third The length mighty tedious and too often without substance wearies à Reader God help him say I that vndergoes the druggery to turn ouer all the vneuen stuff which lies heap't vp there Your Obiections vsually borrowed from Mr Chillingworth and some other Protestant Writers are for the most part common and such as haue been answered ouer and ouer Where you think them peculiar to your selfe as they lay in my way I haue reioyned and if some be omitted that 's only to Say euery stone in your Fabrick is not touched or medled with But for as much as concerns your Principles in behalfe of Protestancy I Assert Confidently you haue none and vpon this ground I say once more your Account is answered Goe on therefore and vilify the works published against you as you please call them Wool sacks Rats or Flies add more opprobrious language to gain you credit among your simple and too credulous Vulgar with Intelligent Readers you preuail nothing who well perceiue it Matters not to your Intent if those VVool sacks receiue and break the force of your greatest shot against our Church if the Rats gnaw the best ligaments woven in your Account if but one of these flies enter your throat and bereaue you of breath some report of à great man stifled by à Fly And truly it seem's by your deep silence or not answering since these Books came forth that some of the greater sort haue halfe chok'd you But enough To say more after this strain were to rallie like you and to offend the learned world which requires substance in these serious matters without contempt flowting and empty words Had you Sr gone the right way to work you should either haue kept in your disdainful language or taken Protestancy without Principles in hand Shewing where the Author mistook your Principles Or whether his exceptions were blamable because he thought them either Common and not belonging to you that is wholly alien from your cause wholly impertinent to Maintain Protestancy This proceeding had been Satisfactory but difficult and aboue your force Therefore you wisely waued it knowing well it was easier to giâ—e sharp words and snarle at your Aduersaries than to come neer and bite with pinching Arguments My proceeding with you Sr is quite contrary I slight nor your person but say plainly where your great mistake lies in handling Controuersies You run head-long into the deep Mysteries of Faith by the ill conduct of your weak or not well sighted reason and after à few stagg ring thoughts spent in weighing and musing vpon the difficulties which appear to you in the Mysteries you will needs tell vs what 's true what 's false and therefore boldly take and reiect as you like best It is à perplexed way Sr which will neuer make you either Good Christian good Diuine or so much as à mean Proficient in Christ's School In following it you are just like one as I tell you in the Treatise that takes wholsome Pills into his Mouth chewes them find's them bitter and spitt's all out Hence it is you spit at the Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Purgatory c. because forsooth they are distastful to sense and shallow reason And truly Sr it is wonderful that you haue not long since by this procedure cast off the Doctrin of the sacred Trinity For most certainly might sense and weak reason plead the Cause here far greater difficulties would occur against that sublime Mystery then euer Protestants yet proposed against our other Catholick Tenents In a word Sr if you desire satisfaction in matters of Religion busy not your head with the examination of the Diuine Mysteries Considered in themselues they are aboue your reach but contrarywise consider well how and by what means they are made Credible to reason which is done as S. Austin cited afterward tell 's you by first finding out that clear marked and signalized Church whereby God speaks This Oracle once discouered and the Discouery grounded vpon Euidence is easy Hear and Believe Her She is wiser then you and never think to shake so strong à Fortress by devising pcrty Arguments against Her Doctrin no sooner seen then solued because forsooth you cannot Comprehend it But it is high time to end and I shall do so with one word more of good aduice Fooles they say may sometimes give à wise man Counsel Sr if you intend to write any more Consider for your own sake what you write weigh things well in your
far equal that as Mahomet driues all to his belief by the sword the cause is natural so the Church drawes all to it by wit policy and humane learning and this means is altogether as natural Now if you say those first Conuersions were truely effects of grace and wrought by Gods special assistance This sequele is Clear The like made in after ages by the Church far more numerous as difficult and wholly as glorious proceed from the same fountain of Goodnes God's Diuine grace and special Assistance And note I speak here of real Conuersions wrought in Belieuers vpon solid motiues the Church shewes you millions of them not of hypocritical changes pretended hypocritical Conuersions not Valuable for God and Religion when worldly interest has à hand in them These are as soon distringuished by their false lustre as à comet from the sun they last not long but fall like blasing starrs We meddle not with them Thus much of à short digression which makes way to an other querie and 't is as followeth CHAP. V. VVhether all called Christians Belieue intirely Christ's sacred Doctrin And whether meanes be afforded to arriue to the knowledge of true Christian Religion 1. THese questions largely handled in the other Treatise are soon resolued vpon certain Principles I say therfore first All called Christians belieue not truely and intirely Christ Sacred Doctrin and proue it If Hymenaeus and Alexander Timoth. 1. c. 1. 20. once true Belieuers made shipwrack of their Faith if the Arians Monothelits Pelagians Donatists and such known Hereticks named Christians haue fallen also and lost true belief of Christian verities sufficiently proposed This sequel is euident All of them though named Christians haue not Faith intirely good nor indeed any Diuine Faith at all See the other Treatise Disc 3. c. 3. n. 4. 2. I say 2. All and euery one may with ordinary diligence come to the knowledge of the true Christian Religion I proue the Assertion Diuine Faith without which we cannot possibly Means sufficient to know true Religion please God is determinatly necessary to saluation and consequently the Religion where true Faith is taught is also necessary Therefore both these after Ordinary diligence vsed may be known vnlesse we wil say that God first makes such things necessary to saluation and then remoues them so far out of sight that none can know by prudent ordinary diligence what these necessary things are I say necessary to saluation not to dispute with Melchior Canus and others of the necessity of faith to the first iustification of à Sinner This difficulty we waue and Argue 2. God as we now suppose with all Christians yea with Iewes and Turks also is the Author of true Religion which he reuealed to the world for no other end but mans happines and eternal saluation therfore if he desires all to be saued by true Religion which is the final end therof He cannot vnles his Prouidence fail but afford meanes to know where it is professed otherwise which ill beseem's an infinite wisdom he would set vs all on work to gain Heauen by the belief of true Religion and withall leaue vs so in darknes that we cannot with all prudent industry come to the knowledge of it which is to say He will haue vs know the end of Religion and yet conceal the meanes leading to the knowledge of it 3. Again I argue 3. God who obliges not to impossibilities laies à strait command on all to belieue true Religion and not to assent to any fals sect therfore it may be known and clearly distinguished at least from the errours of infidels Iewes and Turks Known I say but how Not by its internal light immediatly for no Religion euer yet was its own self-euidence ex terminis or prudently got admittance because the Professors of it Cryed it vp as true Therfore the credibility of true Religion which must be True Religion is not its own selfe euidence laid open to Reason by force of Conuincing motiues is made as well discernable from Heresy destructiue of saluation as from Turcism or Iudaism yea and may be no lesse clearly discouered by its proper signes and lustre than à true Miracle for example that of S. Peter from Simon Magus Sorcery This cannot be denyed vnles God as I now sayd either command's impossibilities viz to find that out which cannot be found or licenceth vs to embrace any Religion called Christian whether good or bad true or fals it imports not because the best if it can be found is no more but à meer Probability or like vncertain opinions in Philosophy which may be reiected or followed according to euery priuate fancy This execrable Doctrin of the indifference to any Religion learned in the Diuels school is now à daies much in the mouths of many and I fear too deeply rooted in the hearts Nor à thing indifferent of some later Sectaries But of this more here after In the mean time you may conclude If true Religion be in the world it s made discernable not only from Iudaism but Heresy likewise and if it haue this discernibility it can be known if known it induceth an obligation to be belieued with Diuine Faith if it grounds certain Faith Subiectiuely taken in him that belieues it is no Opinion and considered Obiectiuely it implies the highest certainty Imaginable setled on God's Reuelation as is largly proued in the other Treatise Disc 1. c. 5. n. 6. 7. CHAP. VI. Of our Sectaries errour in their search after true Religion As also of Mr. Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing 1. ONe errour common to all condemned Hereticks is in the first place to find out true Religion by the book of holy Scripture alone A most improbable way as the ancient Tertullian learnedly obserues lib de Praescrip cap. 9. 15. but chiefly cap 19. at those words often cited Ergo non ad Scriptuâ—as prouocandum c. The reasons of my Assertion well pondered are most conuincing 1. The Sectary laies hold of à book which he sayes teaches truth and yet knowes not in his Principles nor shall euer know infallibly whether the book he own 's contain's the Doctrin of true Religion or ought to be valued as Gods assured word which is to say in other terms He learn's infallible truths of à Master before he hath infallible certainty of this Masters teaching truth infallibly That the Sectary wants infallible assurance of his book is euident for he saith no word of God written or vnwritten no infallible Tradition no infallible authority on earth ascertain's him of the Scriptures Diuinity So Mr Stillingfleet in seueral places chiefly part 1. c. 6. Pag 170. Therfore he can haue no in fallible Assurance of the Doctrin contained in Sectaries haue not infallible assurance of their Bible Scripture and consequently no Diuine Faith grounded on that Doctrin as I shall shew hereafter How euer grant him an indubitable assurance in à general way of some
embraced Iudaism and therefore S. Hierome in 3. Habacuc call's these three now named Semi-Christianos half Christians followed à middle way between Aquila and Symmachus and translated Scripture with greater Simplicity more agreable to the 70. version 4. An other Edition ascribed to Origen not because he made Origens great industry à new version but with an immense labour to conserue the 70. Greek pure first composed his Tetrapla or à Bible branched into 4. Columns The first contained the 70. version the 2. Aquilas The 3. Symmachus his Translation The 4. that of Theodotion Afterward this great Doctor learning the Hebrew language made his Hexapla that is à bible with 6. Columns The first contained the Hebrew Text the 2. the Hebrew in Greek Characters the other 4. the Version of the 70. of Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion Now because there were two more Greek Versions called the fift and Sixt Editions Origen composed his Octopla or Bible distinguished into 8. Columns If you will haue more of the 5. Edition called by some Hierecuntina or of the Sixt named Nicopolitana as also of the Lucian and Hesychian Lections read Bib Max in Proleg Sect. 18. Cap 9. and Bonfrer in Prol c. 17. These two later were only corrections Doubts relating to these versions of the 70. no new Translations Concerning all these versions many doubts occurr as you may see in the Authors now cited and you will meet with no fewer concerning the Caldee Paraphras of the new Testament called Targum The Syriack version or interpretation of the new Testament extant in that noble laborious work of Arias Montanus called Biblia Regia is not without blemish Se Serrar c. 15. nor the Author of it well known and I belieue our Sectaries will not approue seueral Titles or inscriptions mentioning what was wont to be read on certain feast dayes as on the veneration of the Holy Cross and in certain fasts and the Commemoration of faithful souls departed this life c. 5. To speak here of the many latin Editions and seueral doubts concerning them would be too long work for my designe which is only to point at difficulties concerning both Originals and Translations That ancient one called by S. Austin Itala highly commended lib 2. de Doctr Christi and read in the Church before S. Hieroms time hath no known Author The The Itala version commended by S. Austin more late amongst Catholicks are Santis Pagninus his version of the old Testament out of the Hebrew first corrected by Arias Montanus though the Correction pleaseth not Bonfrerius and it was most pittifully corrupted by that Runnagate Printer Robert Stephen wherof see more in Bib. Max Sect. 20. Cap 2. and Bonfrer Cap. 18 Sect. 1. An other you haue of Isidore Clarius which neither Canus nor others approue A third of Francis Vatablus Doctor of Paris and à sound Catholick but the vngodly Robert Stephen corrupted that version as you may read in Bonfrer and Bib. Max. now cited I mention nothing in this place of the Armenian and Gothick Bibles Se Bib. Max. Sect. 20. cap. 3. And am as silent of the Tygurin version printed anno 1539. by Christopher Froschonerus à most corrupted Translation by Hereticks wherof you may see more in Bib. Max now cited cap. 3. Read also if you please Serrarius cap. 18. 9. 1. Of Sebastian Munsters of Bliblianders of Castalions and the Geneua Translations c. You will find none of them of any account but with Sectaries only 6 Thus much briefly premised for we haue not said half of what might be alleged concerning the doubts and vncertainty of various editions I here appeal to euery distinteressed iudgement Reflection made vpon these doubts and ask whether it be not mighty difficult or rather impossible to say absolutely by the force of our priuate fallible knowledge by witt or humane industry only This book This Edition is Gods true sincere word as it was writ by the Hagiographers And here I must mind Mr Stilling of his not well considered Doctrin who P. 196. seems to own so great certainty of Scripture as excludes the possibility of all reasonable doubting and pag 215. asserts We may be sufficiently assured that there are no Material Corruptions in the books of Scripture without your Churches Testimony Good Sr. leaue of these generalities and tell vs plainly of what Edition you speak What particular version haue you which must be supposed so authentick or so free from all errour as may exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting before you haue the Churches Testimony or toleration for it Name one and much A question proposed to Sectaries is done Will you follow the Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant You see most learned men whose knowledge and Authority is not inferiour to yours say both are corrupted and thus much alone weakens the certainty you pretend to Will you admit of the 70. Translation as pure and Authentick Be pleased to reconcile the Antilogies between that and the Hebrew Text or say that the Septuagint though euer of great veneration in the Church hath its errours Will you plead for what Aquila or Symmachus haue done These are euidently corrupted and in points most Material touching Christ our Lord. Will you say that all Copies none excepted all Translations whether Greek or Latin now extant are pure Scripture in the Materials of Faith and manners It is highly improbable and therefore hitherto we come to no Solid Principle to no certainty which excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting O saith Mr Stilling to proue that no Material Corruptions stained the Scripture now extant We that is Sectaries diligently compare the present Copies with the most ancient M S S. we obserue the citations of Of sectaries Comparing Scripture with the more ancient Copies those ancient Fathers who liued when some Autograph's were extant and then most likely we haue the pure word of God You compare Pray you answer were there not others in the Catholick Church before Sectaries troubled the world as industrious in comparing Copies and Manuscripts together as you haue lately been Was S. Hierom think you negligent in this particular Or did the Primitiue Church before S. Hierom when it read that ancient Edition called Itala and preferred it before all other Lections fail to examin which Copy was best Yet more If we come to later times and ponder well what diligence what vigilancy what industry attended the Correction of the Sixtin and Clementine Bibles Sectaries may blush at their Oscitancy and too sleight Cauils at our Vulgar latin Read the preface to Sixtus 5. Edition Antwerp print 1599. with other reflections made in Bib Max Sect 20. c. 4. and you will see so great à care and industry vsed in this correction that humanly speaking more could not be desired 7. Many Copies and old M S S. were at the Popes command sought for and brought to Rome Not only some chief and selected Cardinals in the time of Pope
None can question whether the Doctrin be Diuine when the Person who declared it to the world was so Diuine and extraordinary à Person holy in his conuersation wrought vnparalled miracles rose from death to life conuersed with his Disciples and gaue euidence of their fidelity by laying down The question Still begged their liues to attest the Truth c. Contra. 1. Replies the Heathen Here is again the same Petitio principii for either you belieue these particulars because Scripture record's them and then you suppose Scripture to be true and Diuine which he denies or because fallible men report them you own no infallible tradition and this aduances not your cause at all for the Turks and those of China talk as much of their Mahomet and Confusius vpon fallible and perhaps false reports also for yet the Heathen knowes not what Religion is true And next wonders why you speak of miracles of power ouer euil spirits of men laying down their liues c. when you Sectaries either deny or slight all the miracles euidently done in the Catholick Church as also the power She manifest's in casting out Diuels c. And if we mention Martyrs Catholicks haue more who layd down their liues in defense of the Doctrin of this one Church than suffered for Christ whilst the Apostles preach't to the world You hint some thing at miracles like one half affraid to meddle with such Motiues and say these wonders proue the truth of Apostolical Doctrin Pray you Sr Answer When you plead by miracles Doe you only allow those which Scripture relates or others By what miracles Sectaries plead also known by History and humane Authority If you rely on the first you suppose what now is in Question Viz. That Scripture is infallible and of Diuine inspiration If you own miracles registred in Ecclesiastical history and the liues of Saints you haue as I now said of Martyrs à greater number wrought in the Roman Catholick Church in the ages after Christ than were done whilst he and his Apostles liued Slight such à Cloud of witnesses as attest these later wonders and speak no more as you doe of any certainty grounded vpon the report of honest men Own them vpon humane authority as morally indubitable and you proue by virtue of these Miracles that the Doctrin of the Catholick Church is still Apostolical and Orthodox 12. Now here by the way I must lay open your fallacy A dilemma which forceth Sectaries to à vicious Circle when you recurr to miracles recounted in Scripture only and reiect others wrought by the Church Thus I argue Either you suppose and belieue the Doctrin of Scripture to be Diuine because you find the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles recorded there and propose these as the first Motiue and inducement of your belieuing Scripture or independently of Scripture Miracles you proue the Doctrin to be Diuine yea and the very miracles recounted there to be indited by the Holy Ghost If you belieue the Diuinity of Scripture induced therevnto by Miracles related in that Holy book you aduance nothing for all you say is that you proue Scripture Diuine because it recounts these wonders which are as obscure to à Heathen as the Diuinity or the sacred Doctrin of Scripture is Therefore you make à most vicious Circle for you proue the Diuinity of Scripture by Miracles internal to the book and the Miracles themselues not otherwise known by the Diuinity of Scripture Now if you say you know the Scriptures Diuinity antecedently or before you recurr to Miracles related there Scripture-Miracles are vseles to your purpose for if the supposition stand They are yet no more but obiects of Faith and therefore cannot serue you as motiues and inducements to belieue that very Diuinity which is now supposed known aliunde and most sufficiently without them 13. One may ask if God had neuer done any other Miracles but such as Scripture relates whether these are not sufficient to work belief in all The Heathen answers negatiuely and makes them insufficient because Scripture is not proued Miracles related in Scripture Conuince not à Heathen Diuine by them And all may answer so if Scripture be not otherwise first proued Diuine before we haue recourse to miracles internal to the book Howeuer admit gratis they were sufficient the most you can inferr is That the Primitiue Church which shewed them was Orthodox but whether any other Church yet preserues the same pure Doctrin may bee well questioned by à Heathen And here in passing you may note à singular Prouidence of God who age after age has illustrated his Church with most manifest and vndoubted miracles whereof more largely hereafter Disc 2. C. 8. 14. You say lastly That which God chiefly requires from à Heathen is the belief of the Truth and Diuinity of his Doctrin He answers he is ready to do so when you proue the Doctrin to be Diuinely inspired and infallible But hitherto you handle things so faintly that though the matter you treat be excellent in it self yet your proofs most disatisfactory come not home to conuince it Your mishap is iust like that of an ill lawyer who has à good cause in hand but knowes not how to handle it Your whole Method is vnmethodical your proofs prooflesse your iumbling most intolerable In à word you giue no rational A Good Cause ill handled by Mr Stillingfleet account of the reasonableness of the Truth of the Diuinity or of the infallibility of Christs Doctrin Therefore saith the Heathen I 'le suspend my iudgement till I meet with à more knowing Aduersary who I hope will not proue Truth by simply saying he speaks it but Conuince it vpon vndeniable Principles 15. But our Heathen hath not yet done with Mr Stilling for he saith plainly Though all the proofs hitherto hinted at might pass or were supposed valid yet there is not one word spoken to the purpose in behalf of Protestancy If you wonder at the bold Assertion ponder well his reason You Mr Stilling haue treated all this while of the excellency and reasonablenes of Christian Religion considered no man knowes how Pray you lurk not in such General terms but tell me particularly what Christian Religion is thus good excellent and reasonable If good and excellent it must be now found in the world Is it Arianism Pelagianism Donatism Quakerism These sects profess Christianity Are they all excellent and reasonable Affirm it openly if you dare Perhaps you will say no. Is it Popery By no means For may your word be taken it mantains false Our Aduersary Cannot say which à mong so many Religions is excellent and reasonable and erroneous Doctrin and that 's neither excellent nor reasonable Is it Protestancy Yes surely This is the excellent and reasonable Religion And is it possible Can you perswade your self without further proof than your own prooflesse word that the perfect draught or Idea of Christianity lies so fair
an Oracle of truth whilst all it teaches now is fallible and may be false 7. Hence I argue What Scripture saith is true Scripture here speaks of à Church founded by Christ of an Ancient Visible An Argument drawn from what is now said Society of Her perpetual Pastors without interruption of à Church conuerting Nations c. Therefore it speak's Truth and points at à sure Oracle marked with the notes we plead for who euer then admit's Scripture must ioyntly own these Marks and Signatures of the true Church But yee Sectaries admit Scripture and haue no such Marked Church with Antiquity continuance of Pastors c. Ergo you are not members of the true Church which must necessarily be found in some other Society of Christians 8. Here by the way we must preuent à triuial Obiection For some less knowing Aduersary may reply Wee destroy our own Ground and now proue the Marks of the Church by Scripture whereas we suppose the Scripture first proued to be of Diuine Inspiration because the Church manifested by her Marks and Motiues saith so 9. I Answer we proue the Marks of the Church and the Form of her essential Doctrin also by Scripture But how Vpon à Supposition that the Book be first proued Diuine by Church Authority Thus much done it is an excellent Principle But not Primum indemonstrabile it s own Self-Euidence Or first indemonstrable Principle This Truth is clear For no man goes about to conuert à Iew by alleging Passages out of the new Testament or to draw à Heathen to Christianity by any thing written either in the old or new Scripture As therefore that Scripture not the first in demonstrable Principle man would not be well in his wits who hopes to conuert à Protestant by meerly alleging the Definitions of the Council of Trent which he slights so he would be as sensles did he hope to conuert à Heathen by Scripture only as much vnderualued by him as the present Definitions of the Church are by Protestants Hence you see how Scripture is à Principle against Sectaries who admit it and reiect an infallible Church By Scripture we Argue and conuince them of errour might the words Thereof bear their proper sense without fancied Glosses Yet if we make à right Analysis it is not the first indemonstrable Principle but Per Modum suppositionis only that is it must be either supposed or proued Diuine 10. I say yet more Though both the Iew and Heathen owned Scripture as it truly is à Book indited by the Holy Ghost Though it were so there yet remains à difficulty not to bee solued yet they haue but made one step as it were towards Christianity For when such men look well about them and find Scripture differently sensed by so many iarring Heads as haue it in their hands by Arians Socinians Quakers Protestants c. Catholicks dissent from them all where can I beseech you these half Christians whether Iewes or Heathens securely rest With whom can they rationally vnite Themselues whose sense must they belieue and own as the vndoubted meaning of the Holy Ghost To doe any thing prudently in so weighty à Matter is impossible Vnless they first come to the knowledge of Christs true Church which as well Ascertain's them of the Scriptures sense in all Controuerted points of Faith as it doth of the Book 's Diuinity Now further It is not possible to know the true sense of Scripture but by the Church it is not possible to know the Church but by her Marks the essential Doctrin Thereof no more mark 's it self as true than Scripture Doctrin denotes its own Diuinity The Sectary therefore that rob's the Church of her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles Conuersions Perpetuity c. is guilty of three hainous crimes at once 11. First he makes the Conuersion of à Iew to Christianity Sectaries make the Conuersion of Iewes impossible most impossible I 'le show you how The Iew Admit's of the old Testament and drawes from euery passage which speak's of Christ and the Church à Sense quite different from that which Christians own The Protestant admit's both the Old and New Scripture And as we may Suppose is at à hot dispute with à Iew concerning Christian Religion First saith the Iew Lay Sir your New Testament aside which is no Principle with me Because it neither euidences it Self immediatly to be Gods word nor can you proue it Diuine vpon any sure ground extrinsecal to the Book Therefore we must Argue by à Principle common to vs both The old Testament only You read There I read also You know the Original language so do I You compare Text with Text I doe the like You Gloss and I Gloss against you Yet after all is done you draw one sense out of this very Scripture and would proue Christ to be the true Messias I draw from thence an other quite Contrary And say He is not My demand is whether Christ The Assertion proued whom you Adore hath prouided men of better means Than your Glosses and mine are whereby we may certainly know what the sense of this Scripture is If he haue done so it can be nothing but à Church manifested by Supernatural Signes and miracles for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthusiasms if the guidance of à Church be wanting we are all left in darkness And know not what Sense to make of Scripture and this ill beseems the Goodnes of à Sauiour who as you say came to enlighten the world and teach all truth which is not done For he leaues Reason in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church is It may well be the Protestant will except against his Aduersaries Glosses but He is soon silenced for Saith the Iew you good man when you treat with Papists interpret Scripture as you please and why may not I proceed so with you And vse the like liberty 12. The second crime committed by the Protestant who depriues the Church of Her external Signes is that he Eclipses that great light of the world which as Origen saith shines to all And make it as Obscure as some Protestants make their Church inuisible before Luther What I say is certain For no man can find the Church by reason when all rational Motiues are What Sectaries are guilty of taken from it And held impertinent to illustrate that great moral Body Hence you see the third sin of Sectaries relating to Scripture This Book also loseth all credit with Christians because it Euidenceth not its own Diuinity nor can any Signalised Church tell vs it is Diuine or certainly declare the true sense thereof to either learned or vnlearned 13. My last argument against the Protestant is no Topick nor bare Probability but à plain Demonstration The Title saith This reformed man has no Christian Doctrin made credible to The last conuincing Argument Reason whilst he belieues as Protestant To proue the Assertion Three
presseth this point most efficaciously Lib. de vnit Eccles. Cap. 2. Quaestiâ— inter nos versatur vbi sit Ecclesiá vtrum apud nos aut illos Here lies the main Business where the Church is whether with vs or them Again Epist 163. Quaritur vtrum vestra an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei We demand whether yours or ours be the Church of God which must be known saith Optat. Mileuit Lib. 2. By Her Marks and Characters And therefore we said aboue though S. Austin made vse of Scripture against the Donatists it was not done to decide euery particular Controuersy by the bare and obscure words of that holy Book No. The profound How Scripture manifests the Church Doctor aymed not at such impossibilities his whole drift being to teach the Donatists à great Verity which we all subscribe to viz. That Scripture once admitted as Gods word without Dispute clearly demonstrat's the Church by Her visible sensible Marks Antiquity Miracles Conuersions Digito demonstrari potest We can point at Her with our finger Saith S. Austin The Church therefore thus manifested we haue enough and rely on Her as à faithful Oracle in euery Doctrin She professeth Se Cardinal de Richelieu Traitte pour conuertâ—r ceux c. Lib. 2. C. 7. § Cest encore Where he exactly renders S. Anstins meaning conformable to what we deliuered Disc 1. C. 14. n. 10. 21. The last Inference If all are bound to embrace true Religion All haue also with the obligation means to know where it is taught But the means to know this lies not in the essential Verity thereof for that is no Self-euidence or manifestly true ex Terminis The means to know it is not found in the high Mysteries of Faith for these far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding remain yet in darkness without More light Scripture alone makes not its own Diuinity known and though it did so And the Heathen owned it as most Diuine yet when he euidently discouer's that dissenting Christians Sense the book quite contrary waies he has not the means to learn what true Religion is or where it is taught Thus then He must Discours or belieue nothing 22. God that 's Truth reueal's the Verities of true Religion If so some vnited Society of men teaches what euer God reueal's for Angels are not our Doctors I find Saith the Rational man great Signes of truth amongst the Christians and after The Heathens prudent Disâ—ourse many à serious thought Cast vpon à Matter of highest Concern I sind also that all those Signes as Antiquity Vniuersallity à visible Succession of Pastors euident Miracles which cannot but proceed from God belong to one only Christian Society the Roman Catholick Church I se moreouer à strange benign Prouidence held forth in preseruing Her from innumerable attempts of Aduersaries No Iew no Heathen no Heretick can show the like Signal Marks and Proofs of Gods loue as this one Catholick Oracle demonstrat's Therefore all other Societies are false Sects misled by erring Prophets according to Christs own Prediction Math. 24. For there shall rise false Christs though they clamour neuer so loud Ecce hic est and Conclusâ—on Christus Loe we preach Christ and his truths Thus Reason test's satisfied yet because the Heathen see 's who le Armies banding against the Church and rationally hold's their Arguments like theer cause very weak He is desirous to haue the Fallacy of some chiefe Aduersaries laid forth to his reason For your Satisfaction be pleased to read the following chapter CHAP. XII The Aduersaries of the Roman Catholick Church plead vnreasonably A Discouery of their fallacies The cause of all Errour concerning Religion The only means to remedy Errour 1. THe enemies of the Roman Catholick Church are chiefly reduced to these four Classes to Atheists Heathens Iewes and Hereticks A word briefly of their fallacies in order Some Atheists there haue been and perhaps Lucian was one that to cast off all thought of Religion more expresly denyed Diuine Prouidence than they did the Existency of à God And à chief The Atheistâ— Plea Argument to omit others of less weight is much to this sense A Numen Infinitly wise and powerful shewes his careful Prouidence in gouerning the world But an euident Principle opposes this careful Prouidence and no contrary Principle of equal strength Seem's to establish it Therefore reason well denies Prouidence Now here is the euident Principle The Oppression of iust men manifest to our eyes the preuailing of the wicked against the iust of Turks against Christians to say nothing of other much visible Confusion and Discorder proue à neglect of Prouidence and no contrary Principle half so strong or euident conninces it none counterpoises the weight of this clear proof now hinted at ergo Reason reasonably denies Prouidence Thus the Atheist The Pagan Argues That Religion is false which holds Mysteries ridiculous and impossible but Christians How the Heathens and Iewes Argue teach that God is one Essence and three Persons Both seem impossible The Iewes vapour against à crucified Sauiour and lay its vnworthy God to become man and to dye ignominiously vpon à Cross Lastly our modern Sectaries that own Christ come limping after the rest and except much against the Roman Catholick Church She Say they has changed the ancient Articles of the Primitiue Faith and introduced Nouelties in lieu of them She maintains errours contrary to sense in Her Doctrin of Transubstantiation And much more seem's amiss 2. I say first All these and the like Arguments are meer vnsound Paralogisms and proue iust nothing against Prouidence against Christ or the Romam Catholick Church Before I discouer the fallacies be pleased to note 1. That God whose existence we haue proued Disc 1. C. 2. is à Being incomprehensible and far transcend's the reach of our narrow Capacities The very Gentile Philosophers owned the truth agreeing in this Principle That humane reason is as weak to know what God and diuine Mysteries are as an owle is to behold the Sun at noon-day Note 2. Reason in man often too bold enters into Diuine Mysteries though conscious it walks in à Labyrinth not so much as Principles prâ—mised to solue these Obiections half-sighted in the search it makes and this less than Half-insight into Diuine truths is the cause of Atheism of all Heresy and the most gross errours now raigning in the world The Apostle 2. Tim. 3. 7. Point's at the misled Semper discentes They are alwaies learning but neuer come to the knowledge of truth Note 3. Reason in the inuestigation of Religion and Diuine verities may tend two different waies Directly and Reflexly Direct reason as is now said fall's vpon some great Mystery in faith finds it harsh yea most difficult to be vnderstood and What follows The faint man with his feeble reason either reiect's the Mystery or remain's so perplexed in the search that he can resolue nothing His procedure is iust like
of that weak Declaration it appear's no other to me but As things are proposed so they are to all that belieue weak and fallible And none on earth can vnbeguile me or Propose it with greater certainty Because all are now Supposed fallible in their Teaching 8. One Instance may yet clear my meaning The Protestant reads Christs Sacred words Matt. 26. This is my Body And Proposes what he conceiues to be belieuable by Faith But An Instance doth it fallibly Imagin that the Roman Catholick Church also could Say no more for Her Doctrin or the Sense of those Words But as the Protestant doth so fallibly that all might be False it is clear That none whether Catholick or Protestant can haue Certainty of the Doctrin which Christ our Lord deliuered in that one short Sentence Why Both declare their fallible Sentiments only and Fallibly concerning the Sacrament So far their teaching reaches and not farther Therefore the Faith which should be had of the Mystery dwindles into nothing but into à fallible Opinion by virtue of that imperfect Teaching 9. Hence we learn that à Doctrin though infallible in Gods word without more Help makes no man though he be à Prodigy of wit an Infallible Teacher The reason is Infallibility Scripture alone makes no man infallible And why Proceed's not from Scripture easily misinterpreted but immediatly from Gods special Assistance And this Assistance which fixes an Assumed Oracle vpon Truth vnerrably no malice can wrest to falshood Now that the Book of Scripture as dayly Experience teaches is horridly peruerted to à Sinister sense needs no proof For all know what ruin Hereticks haue to the vttermost of their Power endeuoured to make of the chief Articles of our Christian Faith though they aknowledged Scripture to be God's Diuine Word There is scarce One which remain's Vnperuerted Some Deny the Necessity of Diuine Grace Others that great Mystery of the Incarnation Others an Equality in the Diuine Persons Others our Sauiours two Wills Diuine and Humane Thus the Pelagians the Antitrinitarians the Apollinarians and Monothelits taught and deceiued The world And when Scripture is Alleged in behalf of euery Orthodox Truth All you haue from them is à return of ouerthwart Glosses Grace must signify what the Pelagians please The VVord made Flesh How abused what the Antitrinitarians fancy and so of the rest Whence it is Euident that Scripture Alone without more light clears not sufficiently its own Truths For here you Se the most Primary Atticles disowned and Consequently Scripture abused by Priuate Spirits which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's reuealed Doctrin 10. We Catholicks require à further Help One faithful Oracle to teach which in this contest about the Sense of Gods What Catholicks require besides the bare Letter of Scripture Word end 's all Strife and Saies both plainly and infallibly Thus and thus an Infinite Verity speaks in Scripture Yet Sectaries are offended with vs because we can assert without hesitancy VVe belieue infallibly what Truth it Selfe Reueal's infallibly Nay more They are angry with God for hauing done them the greatest fauour Imaginable For to put à Period to these endles A signal Mercy of God makes sectaries offended debates raised among Christians To teach all Infallibly by his own vnerring Oracle what may and ought to be belieued Infallibly is à signal Mercy for which due Thanks can neuer be rendred Disowne the Mercy we liue and shall liue in à Spirit of Contention to the worlds end 11. Now if you Ask why the Church after She has proposed the Sense and verity of Scripture more easily beget's infallible Faith in Her Children Than the bare letter of Gods word can doe without Her I Answer The facility Diuine assistance Supposed arises from the Clarity of Her teaching known to all Vniuersally whether Orthodox or others Whence it is that few of our Aduersaries scarce moue any doubt concerning the Sense of the Churches vniuersal receiued Doctrin for that 's plain but chiefly Question the Truth of it Whereas all is contrary in our contest with the forenamed Hereticks For there is no Dispute whether Scripture be true What is chiefly debated with Sectaries The debate only being what it Saith or what the Sense of Gods sacred word is Here we fight in darkness before the Church Speak's and Declares Her Sense And if She be diuinely Assisted to teach truth as is already and shall be more amply proued in the sequele Discourse that doubt also ceases and vanishes into nothing 12. In the mean while Some may Object 1. The greatest part of Christian Doctrin is now agreed on and Supposed by Catholicks and Protestanss both true and infallible what necessity then haue we of any other Oracle besides Scripture to teach infallibly Answ The Agreement is Null and the Supposition destroies it self if all that taught Christian Doctrin since the Apostles time teach it fallibly For How could any An Obiection Answered agree in this That such and such à Doctrin is both true and infallible when He or They yea all that teach may because fallible erre in their very teaching and call that infallible Doctrin without Assurance giuen of its Infallibility Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible not infallible ex Terminis We must ioyntly own with that an Oracle which Proposes these Verities infallibly or can belieue nothing And by this you Se the Supposition destroies it Selfe For The Sectaries Supposition destroyes it selfe to Suppose à Doctrin infallible when none can Propose it answerably to its Merit as infallible or infallibly is as implicatory as to Suppose without Proof the Starrs in Heauen equal in number and from thence to Inferr they are to be iudged equal The Parity holds exactly 13. Obiect 2. Whoeuer though fallible Deliuers by chance Infallible Christian Doctrin Teaches the very sence that Christ taught Answ Very true But he giues no Assurance Aunother Errour of Sectaries That he doth so For à fallible Deliuery of à Truth as yet only Supposed not Proued infallible raises it no higher but to such à State of Vncertainty that one may iustly doubt whether it be Christ's infallible Doctrin or no. 14. Obiect 3. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity may well conuey vnto à Hearer that which God has Reuealed For why may not an infallible Verity as Reuealed though fallibly Proposed haue influence vpon Faith and work in Belieuers à most firm Assent Answ It is vtterly vmpossible For à fallible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Proposed as infallible by any neither Supposes the Truth Certain vpon other principles and this is euer to be noted nor makes it infallible It Supposes no Truth taught infalliby for Protestants Say None now can teach so All Doctors being fallible And most euidently Sectaries clearly conuinced it makes not that Verity infallible For the Verity as reuealed was antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching
that Euery one may perceiue the Aduersary I treat with clearly refuted THE FIRST CHAPTER Some chiefe Contents in this Discourse briefly declared Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Churches infallibility and the Resolution of Faith The Catholick way of resoluing Faith the very same with that of the Primitiue Christians Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse 1. IN the following Chapters we first remoue such difficulties as may seem to obstruct the Clearest Resolution What this third Disceurse Contain's And all along discouer Mr Stillingfleets Errorus viz. Chiefly those most apparent in his 5. Chapter 2. We examin what Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue ouer Faith 3. Necessary Principles are premised much auailing to Conceiue the true Analysis 4. We Shew wherein the Main Difficulty lies in this Resolution Omitted by Mr Stillingfleet and solue it 5. The whole Progress of Faith is Explained in order to its last Resolution 6. The true Analysis is giuen in two Propositions Here we also treat of the Euidence of Credibility and solue the Sectaries Obiections 7. This question is proposed VVhether the Churches Testimony may be Called the Formal Obiect of Faith 8. We Ask what is meant by this word Reason And enquire how far true Reason Conduces to end Controuersies 9. Protestancy is proued à most vnreasonable Religion 2. Mr Stillingfleet Part 1. C. 5. P. 109. offer 's at much it is to discouer strange ill Consequences yea grand Absurdities Our Aduersaries bold aduenture if Faith be resolued by the Churches Infallibility and seem's some what ouer-heated in carrying on the cause against his Adversary Let any man saith he iudge whether this be not the most compendious way to ouerthrow the belief of Christianity There is hardly any thing more really destructiue to Christianity or that has à greater tendency to Atheism than the Modern pretence to Infallibility The vnreasonablenes of it is so great that I know not whether I may abstain from calling it ridiculous And much more to this Sense 3. It seems by what I read in Mr Stillingfleet T. C. whose Book I had not then seen said that Catholicks in this present What his Aduersary asserted State resolue their Faith after the very same manner as the Israëlits anciently and the Primitiue Christians resolued Theirs If he said that he Spake à Truth not only defensible but so Sound and Irrefragable that Mr Stillingfleet to vse his own pretty Phrase like one vnder an Ephialtes Shall tumble groan tosse this way and that and yet not rid himself of the vexation 4. The Doctrin I find plainly deliuered and the Instances of the ancient Israelits and the Primitiue Christians so well made vse of for the Catholick Resolution by our learned Countryman Thomas Baâ—on Southwell Analysis Fidei Disp 4. and 5. That here I must needs insert some Part of it because it much auailes to Conceiue the easiest way of resoluing Faith And well penetrated so vtterly defeates what Mr Stillingfleet has that Is Sound Doctrin much more is not requisite to make void his forceles Obiections 5. F. Southwel therefore Analysis Fidei now cited c 〈…〉 n. 18. Speak's much to this sense Had one asked à 〈◊〉 Belieuer in Moses his time after the 〈…〉 uch was written Why belieue you that God is iust wiâ—e faithful in his Promises Or if you will haue one particular why Adam sinned How the Israelits questioned about faith in Paradise He would haue answered Scripture Saith sâ— But if again demanded How know you that Scripture is God's Diuine word Would he think ye haue Answered I se that by the very light and Sparkling of the Letter It is impossible as shall be proued afterward Thus therefore He would haue replyed Moses our great Prophet Affirm's it or rather God speaking by the mouth of Moses laies that Verity open to vs And vpon that ground I belieue it So we read Deuteâ— 1. 3. Moses spake to the Children of Israel all which God had commanded him to say to them Now if thirdly Questioned How Wâ—uld â—aue answered Proue you that Moyses was à true Prophet or God's Oracle He could not haue satisfied by alledging Scripture without à Vicious Circle but would haue Said This truth is immediatly and most euidently Credible by it Selfe for the Wisdom Sanctity and Power of working Miracles manifest to all eyes proue to Reason that Moses is à great Prophet 5. In like manner Catholicks proceed in their Resolution of Faith Demanded why we belieue the Mystery of the Incarnation it is Answered Scripture Assert's it Ask again why we belieue the Diuinity of that Book called Scripture It is replyed The Church ascertain's of That But how do we know that the Church herein deliuer's Truth It is Answered if we Speak of knowledge preuious to Faith Those admirable Signes of Diuinity mentioned aboue and manifest in this one Oracle Viz. The Sanctity of life the Contempt of the world Catholicks in this present State return the very same Answer the c 〈…〉 ed Austerity of Pennance the height of Contemplation apparent in thousands and thousands And aboue all the glorious Miracles most illustrious in this one Society of Christians proue it an Oracle so euidently credible That we cannot if prudent and manifest Reason guides vs but as firmly belieue what euer this Oracle teaches as the Israelits belieued Moses and the Prophets One only Differenâ—â— aduantagious for vs. Here is only the difference And the Aduantage is ours that in Lieu of Moses we haue an ample Church Inumerable multitudes in place of one Seruant of God The incomparable greater light I mean the Pillar and Ground of truth the Catholick Church diffused the whole world ouer 6. Answerable to this Doctrin the primitiue Christians resolued their Faith after the Canon of Scripture was written Ask therefore why these first conuerted People whether Iewes or Gentils belieued Christ to be the true Messias the Son of God and Sauiour of the world They might haue Answered We read this and much more in Holy Scripture But how know you that these Scriptures are not suppositious or fained as some Gospels haue been We belieue this Say They The Primitiue Christians way of resoluing Faith vpon the vndoubted Testimony of those blessed men the Apostles who both taught vs and wrote that holy Book Yet more How know you that those Apostles were not Cheats for there haue been false Prophets and Apostles but men Authorized by Almighty God to teach and write his holy Verities Had they replyed We proue this by Scripture it self the Circle would haue been ineuitable For to Say Scripture is Gods word because the Apostles Assert it and to Say the Apostles were infallible Oracles of Truth because Scripture affirm's that is to Proue Idem per Idem And implies à most vicious Circulation 7. Their Answer then must haue been for there is no other The manifest Miracles wrought by the Apostles Their
become Heretiques by it The very hazard men run in this wilful Course is an open Iniury to the Supremest Verity vnauoidable in out Sectaries Principles 15. And here by the way you se the Vanity of that pernicious Doctrin published by them wherewith the world is Sectaries pernicious Doctrin cheated Viz. The Sense of Scripture is plain enough euen to the vnlearned in things necessary to Saluation in other matters not necessary à right Faith an vnerring Guide an infallible Interpreter See◠vseles and superfluous As if forsooth the Arians Pelagians Nestorians had not grosly erred in Points most necessary though Concerning the Clearness of Scripture they read the same plain Scripture which we all read Did the◠that supposed Clearness nothing secure them from Heresy in Necessaries Why should it I beseech you rescue Sectaries wholly as fallible from gross errours in other matters when the words of Scripture are more express against them than against the worst of Arians But hereof enough is said aboue 16. It followes 3. That no Christian has stability in Faith but the Roman Catholick for the most which others no members of this Church can know if yet they know so much is That the Books of Scripture are Gods word but with this half piece of imperfect Learning they neither know nor can belieue one particular Article of Christian Faith because that other The Roman Catholick only has Stability in Faith Principle the last Resoluent of all Belief God speaks infallibly this very Sense has no influence ouer their Assent and therefore is reiected by them as impertinent to ground Faith vpon One instance will giue you more light 17. The Arian and Protestant agree thus farr That those words Iohn 1. 5. 9. Three giue Testimony in heauen c. are Diuine Both Arians and Protestestants want à Stability Scripture yet so vary about the meaning and the difference is in à matter most fundamental that the One Assent's to the sacred Trinity for these words which yet the Other impiously denies Say now vpon what infallible Principle doth the Protestants faith stand more firm than that of the Arian Will Mr Stillingfleet say the Scripture is Clear The Arian takes him off that Plea and endeauours to obscure the passage by adding to it no small number of his Arian Glosses Next And why he Argues thus ad hominem and thinks no wrong at all done Can yee Sectaries belieue that your glosses laid vpon those Scriptures which Catholicks produce against you are strong enough to diuert and peruert the Sense or Interpretation of their Vniuersal Church and shall my glosses opposite to your Doctrin haue no force to diuert or weaken the late priuate inuented Sense of à few Lutherans What law is there for this I call it late and priuate as it comes from you for you How the Arian argues against Sectaries disdain to ground it vpon any Church Authority absolutly infallible in all She teaches Therefore it is your own Priuate Sense and not the Churches O but the Church of Rome in this particular interpret's Scripture faithfully though She err's in other matters Pitiful That is She hitt's right when You 'l giue leaue and misses when you think otherwise 18. One may Say again The whole Orthodox world euer proued the Mysterious Trinity from that alleged Passage of Scripture Contra Replies the Arian I and my Adherents who deny the Mystery hold our Selues as precious à Part of the His Argument Conuinces Orthodox world as you Protestants doe And hope we expound Scripture by the help of our priuate Reasoning and comparing Texts together as well as you Why not I beseech you Or giue à Disparity But say on And the contest is ended Haue you any Oracle which more infallibly Ascertain's you of that Sense of Scripture to be as you gloss then we haue who giue it à quite contrary Interpretation For hitherto we are both alike and expound all by our priuate Iudgements Grant such an Oracle Distinct from Scripture whereby you haue Assurance of God's meaning darkly expressed in those words you become plane Papists Own not Any Infallible you cast your Selues vpon as great Vncertainties as we Arians are thrown who expound Scripture by our own natural Discourse No infallible Church therefore no Stability No Orthodox world without an Infallible Church in faith no Stability in faith that specious word of an Orthodox VVorld Signifies nothing For this I Defend and haue Proued it if all Churches be fallible in their Definitions there neither is nor euer was since Christs time any such thing in being as an Orthodox VVorld 19. It followes 4. That as it has euer been the proper Mark or Character of all faithful Belieuers to yeild Submission The distinct Marks of true Belieuers and All Hereticks to the Churches Doctrin though weak reason conceiues it difficult so Contrarywise stubbornly to resist Church Authority has euer been inseparably the Mark and Badge of all Heretiques whether ancient or modern With this virulent Spirit they began to Oppose God's Oracle and held on for à time But as S. Austin obserues at last ended in shame Conterentur saith the Saint the battered Rock of the Catholick hitherto stand's firm maugre that Violence And their Scattered forces routed and broken as experience tells vs are brought to nothing CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 1. WHat followes in Mr Stillingfleets 3. or 4 next Pages seem's so slight that the very most is refuted by the grounds already established Yet to Comply with the mans humour we must follow him further How Saith He can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be Infallible when The sirst Argument retorted that infallibility is attempted to be proued only by the motiues of Credibility I Answer Iust as you make the Assent of the Primitiue Christians giuen to the Apostles preaching infallible So I make the Assent to the Churches Testimony infallible The Motiues are alike in both Cases if not greater for the Church 2. He Obiects 2. If Diuine Faith cannot be built vpon the Motiues prouing the Doctrin of Christ what sense is there that it should be built vpon those Motiues which proue our Churches infallibility Here is the old Mistake again I Answer therefore Diuine Faith is not built vpon the Motiues inducing to belieue but vpon the Infallible Testimony of Christ and his Church The Motiues ground the Iudgement of Credibility The Infallible Testimony Support's The second is à gross Mistake Diuine Faith Now if by this word Built you mean no more but rationally To induce I say none in this present State can be induced to belieue Christ's Doctrin reuealed in Scripture in case he reiect's the Authority of that euidenced Church which
of Diuine Inspiration because this Otacle saith so Then we Argue vpon à Principle proued by vs and supposed though not proued by Sectaries The Principle is Scripture is God's word We read the book which all Christians Say is Diuine And proue also from it the Churches infallibility against our Aduersaries Ex probatis concessis That the book is Diuine Here is no danger of à Circle nor any fault in this way of Arguing 8. Yet Mr Stillingfleet makes his Exceptions and will needs haue the Circle goe on against vs. You proue Saith he the Churches infallibility from such Passages Super hanc Petram Pasce oues c. But how come you to know infallibly A reply retorâ—ed that the Sense of those places is as you belieue For your Aduersaries deny any such thing as infallibility proued out of them I may Answer first by proposing the like Question How do these Aduersaries know that their contrary sense is exactly the true Meaning of the Holy Ghost Will they tell vs they think so here is all we haue from them what am I better for that When the Donatists Pelagians and all Heretiques can think as boldly as any Protestant And by their deluded thoughts vnsense as we se by experience the most choise and sacred Passages in holy writ To whom then shall we recurr in case the Sense be doubtful I Answer to the Church O saith Mr Stillingfleet Here we are got into à Circle again and though his own words see them in the page cited fine giue no force to his Probation yet I 'le help them on to all the Strength his meaning is capable of He should therefore Another Reply Answered Argue thus We belieue the Churches infallibility because the true sense of Scripture sayes she is infallible Again We belieue this very Sense of Scripture to be infallibly true because the infallible Church saith so I haue Answered The first Act of Faith wherwith we belieue the Churches infallibility is not at all founded vpon the true Sense of Scripture as yet not known in illo signo to be so much as Diuine but vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediatly credible 9. Now if we Speak of another Distinct consequent and more explicite act of Faith when we belieue the Churches infallibility vpon this ground That She declares the Scriptures geâ—â—in Sense which proues Her an infallible Oracle There is no difficulty at all Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is vltimatly resolued into and therefore again belieued vpon the same infallible Authority The sense of Scripture resolued and belieued of the Church or rather vpon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus iointly taken They ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles As if we first belieued the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation And then Vpon Scripture and Church Authority ioyntly again belieued the Churches Interpretation to be infallible because the Sense of Scripture known aliunde or without Depending on Church Authority Saith she is infallible This cannot be if Scripture and the Churches Interpretation Indiuisibly concurr to this lotter act of Faith whereof we now speak 10. Here then is à Dilemma that clear's all and free 's vs from the least Shadow of à Circle We either know or belieue the Scriptures Sense independently of the Churches infallible The Assertion Clearâ—d Interpretation or receiue it vpon her infallible Authority Grant the first There is no danger of à Circle for in case that Truth were know vpon à sure Principle distinct from the Church it would be another new and as strong à Probation of her Infallibility as if an Angel sent from Heauen should interpret Scripture to the Catholick Sense And then we might Assent to the Churches Infallibility vpon two disparate Principles which proue not one another The one Ordinary the Churches own Interpretation The other independent and extraordinary Should an Angel or Prophet sent from God interpret Say 2. We belieue the Sense of Scripture vpon the This way no two Propositions to make à Circle of Churches own infallible Authority There are no two imaginable Propositions to make à Circle of whilst that Sense internal to the letter can not be infallibly propounded otherwise then by the Church 11. Page 128. I find an vnlearned Obiection much to this Sense We Catholicks destroy all Possibility of auoiding à Circle if we proue by the Motiues of credibilty no new Reuelations Distinct from the old And this we Pretend not to For A weak Obiection in effect solued we only seek to euince by these Motiues à Diuine Assistance with the Church in euery thing She Defines but this Assistance cannot be proued from any other ground but only from the Promises made in Scripture Therefore we are still in à Circle For we belieue the Scriptures infallible because of the Churches Testimony and we belieue the Church infallible because of the Promises in Repeated Again Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church so as to secure Her from all Errour Here in Effect is the same Obiection repeated again Therefore I Answer We belieue not in the first place the Churches infallible Assistance moued therevnto by the Promises in Scripture For this first General Act of Faith wholly relies vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture because Her Testimony One Instance clear's all is made most Credible to reason by conuincing Motiues before we belieue that She is insallibly Assisted All must Say what I now Assert For before Scripture was written The Primitiue Christians belieued infallible Assistance granted the Apostles in euery Doctrin they taught being induced to belieue so by the Signes and Miracles which those blessed men Euidenced In like manner we in this present State answerable to the Procedure of these Christians hauing the same Motiues manifest in the Church may well be induced to belieue That She both now is and euer was no lesse Assisted by the Holy Ghost to speak Truth then the Apostles were for as much as concern's the Substance and Verity of her Doctrin CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffling The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communities and proue Her Infallible The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin no Mark of the Church More Mistakes and Errours discouered Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Belieues but not vpon Diuine the Testimony That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books to be Diuine 1. IN the next place Mr Stillingfleet labours to solue his Aduersaries main Argument the Substance whereof The substance of the Argument is As Christ and his Apostles proued themselues Oracles sent from God by their works Signes and Miracles Again as the Primitiue Christians
Euangelists 6. Whoeuer read's these and the like Authorities cannot but Say the Voice of the Church as it Proceeds from that Oracle is the Voice of God And therefore Diuine certain and infallible Or contrarywise must grant it 's only Humane fallible and may â—r Speake so And it followes first that if the whole Church should err in the most essential Points of Faith God would not be yet Said to deceiue any because his increated Authority Speak's not by it nor is engaged to rescue this his own Spoufe from errour It followes 2. If any one denied either Purgatory or Transubstantiation explicitly defined by the Church and not so clearly expressed in Scripture He would not be guilty of Heresy though he peruersly refused to belieue these Articles precisely vpon this account That the Church Defines them The Inference is Reason also proues the Assertion clear for in doing so He denies not Gods Reuelation because the Churches Definitions no Diuine Testimony are in à lower ranck and much inferiour to all that God has spoken It followes 3. We belieue the Churches Definitions by à very different infused Habit from that whereby we Assent to the Truths reuealed in Scripture and to find such à supernatural and Infallible Habit distinct from Faith when we Assent to the Churches Definitions seem's to me à new learning vnknown to Antiquity 7. Thus much and more well considered which might be Said in behalfe of Christ's glorious Oracle And this one Principle added which all Catholicks grant viz. That the Church and Scripture Speak alwaies the same truths and can neuer be at Variance 8. Why may we not in this present State resolue Diuine Faith into the first Verity Speaking by the Scripture or Infallible Faith may be resolued into Scripture and the Church together Tradition and by his own Oracle the Church also For example We belieue the Sacred Trinity the Incarnation Original Sin c. because God reuealed them in Scripture or first conueyed them by Apostolical Tradition But these Verities which the Apostles and Euangelists long since made Credible are now remote from vs without the Churches reflâ—x Testimony whereby God ascertain's all in this State that both Scripture is Diuine The reason and that his Church speak's the very same Verities in Scripture And consequently we Assent to euery particular vpon à Twofold Motiue or rather vpon this one Formal Obiect ioyntly and indiuisibly Scripture and the Church make but one ioynt indiuisible Motiue taken because Scripture and the Church Assert's them Neither is there the least Difficulty in ioyning one reflex Testimony with another former or anciently deliuered whereof we haue examples in Holy Writ For we all belieue God made à Couenant with Abraham of multiplying his Seed because Eternal Truth said so some Ages before Moses Again we belieue that Verity because the reflex Testimony of Moses reiterat's the same Verity anciently spoken to Abraham Gen. 17. 4. An instance Other Instances of the same nature you haue aboue and more are found in Holy Writ 9. Thus much supposed It 's Methinks easy to Say if all be not de Nomine how the Churches Testimony may in one Sense be called the Formal Obiect of Faith and not in another Consider it as Diuine infallible and God's own Voice proceeding from no humane Authority but from the First Verity speaking by How the Church yeild's to Scripture this Oracle it well merit 's the name of à Formal Obiect Compare it again with the Primary Reuelation which it only compleat's in order to vs and consequently presupposes more Ancient more excellent and all things considered more worthy it must yeild to Scripture And may be called an intrinsecal condition whilst it Declares what anciently was Reuealed 10. Now if any Ask wherein the Excellence and Dignity of Scripture consists when you compare it with the Churches Definitions Diuines answer 1. Euery word and reason in Holy writ is de Fide but not so in the Churches Definitions where the Sense only of the Definitiue sentence has weight as comming from the Holy Ghost's Assistance 2. The Church The excellence and dignity of Scripture has her limits and Defines nothing but what was long since reuealed or necessarily connexed with the ancient Doctrin And vpon this account the Hagiogrophers are deseruedly called our first great Teachers who made first euery Truth they wrote à matter of Faith 3. When she Church Defines or interpret's Compared with the Church Gods word All is done for Scripture and look'd vpon as the end of Her labours But what is performed for another yeild's in worth and weight to that other it is done for as S. Austin obserues Lib. de Magist c. 9. Whoeuer desires more of this Subiect may read Bellar. Lib. 1. de verbo Dei C. 15. and Serrarius in Proleg 6. 7. 9. 12. 11. To solue other difficulties proposed by Sectaries please to Note first This Primary Act of Faith All are called into the Communion of one infallible Church whereby God teaches the true way to Saluation is grounded immediatly vpon the Authority One Primary act of Faith is grounded on Church Authority of this Oracle manifested by her Marks and Supernatural Signes Although yet the Book of Scripture be not admitted as God's word Notwithstanding when it is once owned as Diuine vpon Church Authority I can belieue this Oracles Infallibility with another Act of Faith grounded on Scripture How Scripture also terminates that Faith yet if we make à search into the vltimate Principle or final Resoluent of that very Belief We must as is said aboue come at last to Church Authority whereby Assurance is giuen that such à truth is Scripture 12. Note 2. This General truth supposed of the Church being immediatly Crediblâ— or known by her Motiues as an Oracle which teaches the right way to Saluation it therefore followes not that euery other particular Verity for example the â—â—pes Supremacy the Infallibility of Councils c. can in like manner be first and immediatly Credible or belieued explicitly when I Assent to that General Truth For it is enough that such Particulars be consequently or afterward assented to vpon the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture and the Churches own Proposition as is already declared 13. The Reason is because the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church immediatly induce to belieue that She is How other particular Truths are belieued afterward God's Oracle constituted by Prouidence to guide all in the way of Truth But how or in what manner this Duty is complyed with must be learned by the Practise and Doctrin of the same Church by Scripture and Tradition also Now that it is most Connatural to know first in à General way The Churches Infallibility before we descend to belieue euery Doctrin She teaches in Particular you may well conceiue by the Instance giuen aboue of the blessed Apostles who first acknowledged Christ our Lord
The Roman Catholick Church denies them to be truths in the Sectaries sense But vpon this Account Chiefly that it is impossible to Show where or in what passage of Holy Writ God euer sayd plainly Scripture Contain's All things necessary to saluation Or that such Doctrins as are plainty expressed there without more Comprehend Matter enough to Saluation This cannot passe for an indubitable Principle whilst euident Experience tell 's vs That VVhat Sectaries â—ccount clear Veritios Others do noâ— such Verities as Sectaries hold clear and indisputable are yet to this day Controuerted and not esteemed clear by many who goe vnder the name of Christians Obserue well 4. What Verity can be more clear then the Incarnation of the Eternal word Yet Arians deny it What more clear then the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Yet the Caluinists reiect it Therefore when we Come to Examin which Verities are clearly expressed in Scripture and which not we are thrown into à Labyrinth whilst no other Iudge is made vse of but the bare words of Scripture manifestly peruerted when Opposit to the Interpretation of à Vniuersal Church 5. But here is my least Exception We will Contrary to truth grant gratis That Scripture Contain's all things necessarily to Saluation Withall that the plain Doctrin thereof is matter enough Sectaries clearly conuinced by their own Principles for Beliefe The Sectary yet gain's Nothing vnless He descend's to the Particular Tenets of Protestants Mark my words And truly Assert's These and these Doctrins are plainly set down in Scripture These and these Doctrins I am as Protestant Obliged to belieue vnder pain of Damnation and no more Thus much I say ought to be done which is vtterly Impossible And the Reason is Either those Doctrins layd claim to will not be plain express Scripture Or if plain and express they cease eo ipso to be the particular Tenents of Protestants The last reason of all rest's vpon à Truth already proued and T' is That Protestants haue no Essence of Religion and therefore haue no Faith to resolue 6. In passing you may Ask. What Say we to such Protestants as make the Negatiues now mentioned Articles of their Faith These we dispatch in à word and vrge them to proue their Negatiues by Scripture which is impossible But what is to be done if they Pretend to belieue the Catholick Doctrins the Trinity the Incarnation or any other reuealed Mystery vpon God's diuine Testimony 7. Here we must distinguish between Protestants and Protestants Two sorts of Protestants refuted The older sort belieue the Scriptures Diuinity attesting the Incarnation For example by virtue of à secret and hidden Diuine Spirit of God working in their hearts this being the only light or means whereby that Diuinity is laid open to their intellectual The Priuate Spirited men plainly in à Circle Eyes These ineuitably fall into à Circle for they proue Scripture to be of Diuine inspiration because the Spirit tell 's them so And again they belieue this interiour light or Spirit to be from God moned thereunto by the very light or letter of Scripture not known at all to be Diuine but by this hidden Spirit which is as much vnknown as Scripture without their light But because the recourse to the Priuate Spirit in the Resolution of Faith is amply refuted by euery Polemick Author And now much vnderualued by our latter Sectaries I 'll only briefly Propose one Argument against all that Patronize it 8. Either this Spirit is Scripture or really distinct from A Conuincing Argument against the Priuate Spirit Scripture Grant the first Scripture no Selfe euidence is yet belieued for it Selfe only and so no more is Said but that Scripture is belieued because t' is Scripture without all further Probation If secondly you distinguish this Spirit or light from Scripture it followes that the Diuinity of Gods word is Assented To and belieued Vpon à Motiue which is not Gods word For this supposed Light of the Spirit not at all contained in Scripture is no reuealed word of God and consequently Scripture is belieued for That which is no Scripture 9. The newer Sectaries with whom Mr Stillingfleet Sides suppose à fallible Tradition as à Preparatiue to receiue the meer Books of Scripture which once owned vpon the account Other resolue Faith into the internal Euidence of Scripture of Tradition The Resolution of their Faith is made into the Diuine Light which Shines in the very Doctrin of God's word That is into the rational Euidence thereof So Mr. Stilling P. 226. And P. 222. Discourses thus Though Tradition doth not open our Eyes to see this light yet it present's the Obiect to vs to be seen and that in an vnquestionable manner To giue his Doctrin Tradition Say these Conueyes the Book more Lustre he set's it forth with the sparkling of à Diamond Nay not à man Saith he very probably belieue that à Diamond is sent hiâ— foom à friend vpon the Testimony of à Messenger who brings it and yet be firmly perswaded of it by discerning the Sparklings of it He He would Say Tradition resembles the Messenger that hand 's Scripture to vs but the very innate Splendor and Sparkling of its Doctrin is that which Faith must be finally resolued into without regard had to Tradition 10. This way of resoluing Faith differ's from the Former that it makes the pure Verity of Gods word considered Obiectiuely in it Selfe the last Resoluent or the only Formal Obiect of belieuing How these men differ from the Formar whereas the more aged Protestants superadd to that an internal vital act called the Priuate Spirit or an infused instrinct of Grace whereby the Scripture is clearly discerned to be Diuine and into this Instinct as à Medium Cognitum or the only means to see by which both discouer's the Scriptures Diuinity and it's sense they resolue their Faith This way being already reiected 11. We now Argue against Mr Stillingfleet and Say first The similitude of à Messenger deliuering the Diamond is nothing The Similitude of à Diamond Proofles to the Purpose For were that Diamond found in the streets à skilful Ieweller And who more skilful then Protestants when they read Scripture would soon know its worth by his Art and presently tell you whether the sparkling were Counterfeit or no. Can the Sectary as easily discouer the Diuinity in Scripture by its innate Light and Splendor Speak plainly If The Disparity plain between the Diamond and Scripture he can Tradition no more conduces to its Sparkling then if à Boy first put the Book into our hands or were found by chance in the Highway For as the Diamond Sparkles by it selfe without dependance of the hand which giues it so the Scripture must do if it haue that splendor in it whether Conueyed by Tradition or not Nay if another Scripture were now drop't down from Heauen were the Parity of the Diamond worth any thing
concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Eternal Father The Pelagians as busy to cancel Original sin The Donatists as Zealous to perswade men that the true Church was not vniuersally Therefore their sin and Apostasy the very same extended as euer Protestants were earnest busy and Zâ—alous to haue this present Church reformed in her Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Adoting the Sacred Host praying to Saints And what els you will Now I Subsume 16. But all these Accusers all these rebellious Reformers Because all tend to the destruction of Christ's true Church as like as like can be to one another are wicked and ayme at the Ruin of Christs true Church which is Manifest For had euery one of them done what they desired or reformed according to their Capricious humours There had not been at this day any Orthodox Church in the world Now here in my Question which certainly deserues à candid Answer If all Heretiques A difficult question proposed ancient and Modern reform the Church according to their particular Sentiments most euidently Christs true Church is destroyed Why therefore should I or any if we were yet to seek à better Religion rather adhere to the Reformation of à fallible Protestant than to that other of à fallible Arian or à Pelagian You Shall haue à Strange Answer 17 We are told when the Arians went about to reform the Church was pure but now Her known corruptions force Sectaries out of true loue to their Souls at least to reform themselues Our Sectaries Answer is an vnproued Supposition If the Church will learn Her duty by their good example She may if not She must remain in her errours Answ Is not this more then ridiculous First to make an vnproued Supposition their Proof and then to say nothing but what both the Arians and other Heretiques haue put in their mouths and And contain's nothing but what your old Heretiques taught then to Speak taught them to speak For did not these wicked men pretend as dear loue to their Souls Did they not Clamour as loud against the Churches imagined errours in those ancient dayes as euer Protestants haue done in these latter Say therefore why should the Protestants Reformation be esteemed more secure and Orthodox than what the Arians endeauored to introduce It will be hard to Answer whilst this Principle stand's firm If all reform the Church is ruined 18. Some may Reply Protestants without all doubt who haue diuorced themselues from the Church therefore clamour so loud because they haue strong Proofs at hand whereby to Another Reply examined euince that that once faithfull oracle is now guilty of notorious errours which no Arian could then do Answ Here is the main Point I would willingly be at and haue examined to the bottom I therefore press these Nouellists to pitch vpon some one particular Sectaries are vrged to pitch vpon Some particular controuersy Controuersy Transubstantiation for example or this now debated point of Idolatry in adoring the Consecrated Host and vrge them first to Argue by the plain words of Holy Scripture When all they can Say is said I will demonstrate that the Arians produce Passages of holy Scripture far more significant might we rest in the meer sound of words for their Heresy The sound of words in Scripture more plain for Arians then for Protestants than euer Protestant alleged against Transubstantiation or any other Catholick Tenet 'T is true your Arians make little account of any Authority but what seem's to them plain Scripture or appear's deducible from Scripture and this was the old Protestant way But our Newer men haue some respect to the Consent of Fathers and an ancient Church These we presse to dispute closely in Forme and to make our supposed errours or Sectaries Obiections hitherto Proposed haue been solued their Contrary pretended truths known by virtue of any one receiued Principle It is Answered thus much is done in their Books already set forth We Reply All their Obiections hitherto proposed haue been as fully and clearly solued as either they or we solue the Arguments of Atheists against God and the Iewes Cauils against Christ Or if they haue any new ones yet in store which require further satisfaction it is certainly most easy to propose them in good Form This done I will engage they shall no sooner appear in publick then haue à full and satisfactory refutation 19. We are told again such and such Books published Sectaries pretence of Books not answered reiected by Protestants haue not been answered As if forsooth all Books set forth by Catholicks were refuted In â word here you haue all It is very true the Cauils The Ieers and tedious length of some books haue not been answered with the like Cauils Ieers and length But what 's this to our purpose whilst we vrge for Arguments whereby it may appear to à disinteressed what hath been answered by Catholicks and what not Iudgement that Catholicks haue forsaken the ancient Orthodox Faith And that Protestants now lately had the singular Priuiledge of setling Religion right on its old firm foundations All Arguments hitherto proposed of this nature or which tend to infringe any particular Catholick Doctrin haue been dissolued and torn in preces ouer and ouer Or if as I now said there yet remain any vnanswered our Adversaries may vouchsafe to let vs hear them 20. Sectaries reply We haue indeed offerred to solue their Obiections as also to attaque Protestancy with many Arguments An other plea of Sectaries but as our Solutions are slight so our Arguments against them seem light and forceles Call me to mind one or two only 21. They haue been told If the Roman Catholick Church be fallible and Protestants as fallible Iewes and Gentils may Arguments vnderâ—alued by them as forceless iustly Scorn Christianity when they se à fallible Protestant attempt to settle an erring Papist in the right way to Saluation or à fallible Papist to do the like on an erring Protestant whilst neither the one nor other can know infallibly which is the right way to Saluation They haue been told 2. To make Scripture alone Though most Conuincing the sole Rule or Iudge in Controuersies encreases the Scorn of these Aliens from Christ who hold it more then ridiculous to appeal to à Iudge for the Decision of their doubts when none of them after the appeal made can Certainly know what the Iudge Of Sectaries unreasonable appeal to Scripture alone Speak's or this Rule of Scripture regulates What I say is manifect for So various and discordant are all rhese in their Interpretations of God's word that the Arians auouch it Speak's Arianism Protestants Protestanism Papists Popery Pelagians Pelagianism and so of the rest Imagin I beseech you that two who accuse one another of high Treason Should come before à Iudge and desire to haue the final sentence pronounced against the Criminal person
propose an Argument for the Vulgar Latin which Mr stilling shall not answer In what euer Society of Christians we find faith intirely true we haue there Authentick Scripture But from Luthers time vpward to the 4. or 5. age faith intirely true was only found in the Roman Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians Therefore the Roman Catholick Church which read so many ages the Vulgar Latin as Authentick had true Scripture I proue An argument prouing the Vulgar Latin Authentick the Minor wherin only is difficulty If the Roman Church erred for so vast à time in any point of Diuine Faith there was no faith intirely true the whole Christian world ouer because all other Societies denominated Christians were known condemned Hereticks and consequently had not true faith Therefore either the Catholick Roman Church enioy'd that blessing or we must grant à want of faith for ten ages the whole world ouer But if this Church had Faith intirely true it preserued also Authentick Scripture for where true faith is there you haue true Scripture If not it followes that wee haue no assurance at all either of the one or other Therefore if all Churches vniuersally erred in points of faith no Church can giue so much assurance of authentick Scripture as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting See more here of in the other Treatise Discours 2. c. 2. n. 8. 13. Now we are to solue à difficulty which may arise from our former discourse where 't is said If one rely on humane authority which is fallible and may be false so much mistrust so A difficulty proposed and solued many doubts occurr concening the Originals and various Lections that none can haue indubitable assurance of Scripture How therfore could the Church without moral certainty and greater too had of the Authentick books antecedently to the Councils declaration determin so peremptorily this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick yea and to preferr it before other Latin Copies I might here first by the way demand vpon what certainty can the Sectary prefer his Edition take which hee will before the Vulgar Latin What euer moral assurance he has independently of the Churche's Testimony for his Bible the Church has greater for Hers. But to solue the difficulty positiuely I say the Church after all moral diligence proceeded in this particular vpon an The Catholike Principle ascertaining Scripture vndeniable Principle which is that God by special Prouidence preserued as well Scripture free from Material corruption as Church Doctrin pure and orthodox in both wee Catholiks rely on peculiar Prouidence and all must do so vnless they will rob Christ's Sponse of all the treasure she has and violently take from her not only Orthodox Faith but Scripture also The Church therefore in her Declaration depended not on à meer Moral fallible certainty which may be false but vpon infallible Tradition This gaue indubitable assurance of the Scriptures purity free from all material errour Here is her last Principle And thus you see à vast difference between the Church and Sectaries The Church plead's possession of Authentick Scripture vpon Gods gracious Prouidence and hath it warranted by indubitable Tradition the Sectary reiect's this infallible ground and run's away with no man knowes what Certainty and in doing so cast's himself vpon the greatest doubts imaginable concerning scripture 14. Perhaps you will say Mr Stilling p. 213. relies in this matter on the vniuersal consent of all Christians and Therefore includes the Testimony of the Roman Catholick Church I answer first Hee hath not the consent of this Church for all those Editions He approues and Consequently the greatest part of à vniuersal consent fail's I answer 2. He Sectaries Cannot rely on the Churches infallible Testimony neither doth nor can remaining Protestant admit of the Catholiks surest Testimony or Tradition for our Church own 's in this most weighty matter an infallible certain Tradition Mr Stilling reiect's that therefore he hath nothing from our Church which fauours his Assertion drawn from the most assured consent of all Christians concerning Authentick Scripture And here by the way I cannot but take notice of this Gentlemans weightles obiection Pag. 216. who grants there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from Tradition But think not to fob vs off saith he with the Tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages with the Tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick c. with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Answ I verily perswade my selfe He The surest principle to know ancient tradition speak's not as he think 's for tell me vpon what surer Principle can men now possibly be better informed of Church-tradition in all ages then by the tradition of the present Church You see He slights the Testimony of two or three Fathers needed we relief from them and I am sure the vnanimous agreement of all Fathers makes no where the consent of the Church in all antecedent ages contrary to our present Churches Tradition From whom therefore shall we learn On what vndubitable Principle can we rest or say such was the Tradition concerning Scripture in pas't ages but from the present Churches Testimony It is impossible to pitch on any other Proof which is surer or half so sure 15. What followes is yet worse Fob vs not off with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick Good Sr. designe you or name plainly that Catholick Church distinct from the Roman Catholick in all ages and to vse your own words we shall extol you for the only person that euer did any thing memorable on your side but if you do not this as I know you cannot for all other before Luther were professed Hereticks 't is you that iuggles and fob's vs off with meer empty words He still goes on thus worse and worse If I should once see you proue the A weak Argument reâ—orted infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints the Sacrifice of the mass c. by as an vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is wherby we receiue Scriptures I shall yeild my self vp as à Trophey to your braue attempts Contra 1. ad Hominem If I should once see you proue all Churches fallible the Pope no supream head No Inuocation of Saints no veneration of Images no Sacrifice of the Mass c. and the rest of your negatiue Articles If I could once see you proue two Sacraments only Iustification by faith only Christs not real presence in the Holy Eucharist by as vnquestionable and vniuersal Tradition as that is whereby Scripture is receiued we would yeild also to your braue attempts Answer this if you can or for bear hereafter to weary à reader with euident improbabilities And mark well why I call them so 16. Haue we not à more vnquestionable
vniuersal Tradition for the books of Scripture if Tradition be drawn from the voice of all called Christians whether Catholicks or Hereticks then there is for the very primary Articles of true Catholick Faith A Trinity for example the Incarnation the necessity of Tradition more and Lesse vniuersal Grace Original sin c. Yes most assuredly for innumerable Sectaries admitted Scripture and yet denyed these essential Articles therefore as their Denial made the consent and tradition of all called Christians less vniuersal for such Doctrins so their admitting Scripture with others heightned that Tradition or made it more general Say now Sr. Had those Hereticks argued as you do how little would they haue gained If we should once see you proue à Trinity Or Original sin c. by as vniuersal à Tradition as that is whereby Scriptures are receiued we would acquiese but this is not possible for both you and wee admit Scripture and consequently make that tradition more vniuersal yet we deny your primary Doctrins and therefore all tradition is not so ample for your Doctrins as for the books of Scripture Here is your vnreasonable reasoning Mr. Stilling You know well Hereticks who owned Scripture with vs denied à Sacrifice of Mass An vnreasonable way of aryuing Inuocation of Saints and other Catholick Articles and you 'l haue vs to take à tradition from these men to vphold the Doctrins they denyed Iust as if an Arian should bid me proue à Trinity from all Tradition euen of his Church when he admit's Scripture and denies à Trinity If you reply you vrge vs not to bring in the tradition of all known Aduersaries of the Catholick Church for these now named Articles but only the vniuersal Tradition of the Catholick Church in all ages we haue already answerd that 's best known by the present Churches Testimony no other proof can parallel it And thus much of the Authenticalnesse of our Vulgar Edition free from all material Corruption A further difficulty may yet be moued concerning lesser faults and the preferring it before all other Latin Copies CHAP. VIII How necessary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in the Church A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles Of Mr Stillinfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 1. NOte first It was very meete to haue among so much confusion and various sections of Latin Copies one certain approued and set forth by the mother Church to the end her Children might be vnius labij of one tongue and speak one language in their reading preaching and publick expounding One lection of scripture necessary Holy Scripture Note 2. Though the Council of Trent sess 4. declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick and preferr's it before all other latin Editions Quae circumferuntur which are now abroad it doth not thereby detract any thing from the credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew and Greek Copies whereof Authors dispute whether they be pure or no whilst the Church is silent and defin's nothing Neither doth the Council reiect the Version of the Septuagint or that ancient Latin Copy called Itala read in the Church before S. Hierom as Vnauthentick in any material point for this Argument is conuincing to the contrary As it is madnes to say Christs Church had not true Scripture since S. Hieroms time so is it à desperate improbability The Church had in all ages true Scripture to assert She wanted that in the ages before S. Hierom which is to say The Church had euer authentick Scripture Moreouer shall we think yee iudge that God whose Prouidence neuer failed suffered his own spouse to be beguiled with false Scripture for 15. ages and that now towards the end of the world he will prouide vs of à purer book by the hands and help of à few scattered Sectaries 2. Note 3. Translations may be faulty three wayes chiefly 1. More ambiguity and darknes may lye in à translated word than in the Original and this fault if any is remediless because the latin or à Vulgar language reacheth not alwais to the full Energy and signification of an Hebrew or Greek expression wherof you haue some examples in that learned Preface to the English Rhems Testament anno 1600. 2. Corruptions How Transtations may be faulty may creep into à Version by the inaduertancy or ignorance of the Translator who is neither supposed prophet nor infallible and thus Authors say that S. Hierom though prodigiously learned was not euery way infallibly secured from lesser errours yet this Prouidence God hath for the good of his Church that he will nor permit any considerable deprauation to remain in all Copies If therefore one be faulty all cannot be thought so and the faults of one by carefully comparing it with many and à diligent inspection into other Copies may be corrected See Greg. de Valent lib. 8. Analy C. 5. puncto 4. 3 dly Lesser deprauations often enter à version through the mistakes of Printers Librarians c. Of these you had many in the Vulgar Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles and they are scarse auoidable chiefly after seueral reimpressions as we daily see in other books Thus much premised 3. Listen à little to Mr Stilling strange inconsequences and groundles exceptions against the Corrections of Sixtus and Clement He saith the one Bible differs from the other as Of Mr Stilling 〈◊〉 gâ—â—und 〈◊〉 exceptions appears by those who haue taken the pains to Compare them in some thousands of places A great number indeed But the first question will bee whether these Pain-takers ought to be belieued vpon their bare word without further examination This Sr. you suppose which cannot well pass before the particulars come to the test and bear the censure of your Aduersaries wholly as learned as you haue any But say on Are these supposed differences any more but like the racings of the skin or do they giue any mortal wound to the Vital part of Scripture If you only assert the first you may not only Cauil at your English Bibles but also at all the latin translations vsed in the Church both before and after S. Hieroms time for they haue some verbal differences which you may call petty and inconsiderable faults Now if you assert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are Materially corrupted in points of Faith and manners or to vse your phrase Vitally wounded what is become I beseech you of that peculiar hand of Prouidence you own in preseruing the authentick Copies of religion safe to our dayes Or which much imports you to answer by what other more authentick Copy can you without endles disputes and vncertainties correct the Vulgar This one particular will giue you work enough before you come to à certain decision of the difficulty In à word because I think many know not too well all that concern's these two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles I
is not like the Turks Alcoran stuffed with fooleries but as I am informed some who liued long there and knew the language well say it contain's most excellent moral precepts tending to the preseruation of iustice and à Ciuil life The Iew denies the new Testament The Arian and others the sense of our Scripture How therefore can Scripture alone proue efficacious to conuert these aliens from Christ or be supposed à fit means obliging all to belieue when yet they know not without more light what they are to belieue or why An other way therefore must be found out whereof more afterward In the mean while 9. I truely stand astonished when I consider how pittifully Mr stillingfleet return's no probable Answer Mr Stilling endeauours to soule this most conuincing Argument Read him who will Part. 1. Chap. 6. from page 175. to P. 179. and he shall find him tediously running on but ner'e à whit more forward in his iourney where he ends then at the beginning T is all à long à pure Petitio principij and worse The Question moued is How the Protestant can conuert à Heathen or proue infallibly that the Bible is Gods word Mr Stilling Answers his Lord Primate vndertakes not this task in the first place nor offer 's to Conuince à Heathen that the Bible must be infallibly belieued to be Gods word No but first the excellency and reasonablenes of Christian Religion Considered in it self is to be proued by shewing that the precepts of it are iust the promises such as may induce any reasonable man to the practise of those precepts that the whole Doctrin is very wisely contriued that nothing is vain and impertinent in it that those things which seem most hard to belieue in this Doctrin are not such things â—s might haue been spared out of it as though God did intend only to puzzle mens reason with them And thus he goes on in his draught or Idea of Christianity and so proues the Truth of Christianity by telling à Heathen What it is or what it teaches The Heathen most iustly except's against These proofs so may à Christian too if no more be said and professes all this talk hitherto besides à meer begging the Question seem's to him à pure cheat and fallacy You proceed strangely saith the Heathen for what is à supposed He makes à meer supposition his Proof verity amongst you Christians you turn into à proof against me that denies your supposition You labour to take my difficulties away by proposing to me those very things which cause them Mark well .. You first make the excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion in it selfe à fit medium to proue Scripture Gods infallible word wheras that supposed reasonableness of your Religion is as dark and obscure to me who am no Christian as the infallibility of your Bibles Doctrin Therefore you proue one vnknown thing by an other wholly as much vnknown I deny both your Bible and reasonableness of your Religion proue the one or both or you speak not one word to the purpose 10. You suppose 2. à Principle which neither Catholick nor protestant euer yet owned viz. That that which you call Christian Religion is known ex terminis to be true by à meer declaration of its Doctrin wheras no Doctrin euen the most Primitiue was euer made discernable from errour by à bare saying it was true without Euidence of Credibility laid forth to reason before beliefe some precedent Euidence of its credibility laid forth to reason And therefore you are told in the other Treatise against Mr Poole â— 21. That if Christ and his Apostles had appeared in the world and only preach't the high Mysteries of our Faith or spoken as you do of the excellence and reasonablenes of its precepts or promises without further euidence they would haue no more drawn Iewes or Gentils to their Doctrin then twelue little Children could now draw vs to the belief of many other verities not yet reuealed had God inspired them to teach without miracles or any other supernatural wonders My reason is As the Bible euidences not it self to be Diuine scripture so the intrinsecal reasonableness of Christianity is no first euidence to it selfe both therefore must bee proued by Clearer Principles Belieue it Had Christ and his Apostles only insisted vpon the reasonableness of Christianity the very Iewes would haue silenced them alleging greater preuious euidence for their Religion shewed by Moses and the Prophets 3. Saith the Heathen because you dare not meddle with the motiues of Credibility which you Scornfully call à Grand Salad too often serued vp by Papists you speak at random when you giue me no other satisfaction to my difficulties than by telling me they are worth nothing You Affirm 4. Nothing is impertinent in Christian Religion I answer The belief of à Trinity of God made an Infant Your whole story of à Serpent tempting Eue and of Sampson Mr. stilling proofs found weightless with your Mysterious book of Apocalyps seem to my humane vnderstanding not only impertinent but improbable You tell me 5. of Christian Religion agreeing with those books you call the Bible That is you would say the Christian Doctrin of the Bible agrees with the book which is idem per idem and therefore highty dissatisfactory vnless you proue both the Bible and Doctrin by further Arguments You say 6. The Heathen ought to belieue some thing besides that he hath heard or seen vpon the report of honest men He answers he doth so farr as those reports moue him to assent and therefore denies not the matter of fact that there was once such à person in the world as Christ but because you say all this Testimony is no more but moral and may be false the Heathens belief goes no higher Iust so the Turks belieue there was such à man as Mahomet the Chineses such à man as Confusius but what get we by iudging there were such persons as these in the world Doth it here vpon follow all they taught Nothing yet proued was true or infallible Doctrin No such matter You say 7. The Heathen must belieue that Christ dyed rose again wrought many miracles and sent his Apostles to preach his Doctrin c. He answers these being Articles of your faith registred in Scripture you Sr either vrge him to belieue them as you ought to doe certainly and infallibly and this you cannot exact for you belieue them because they are in Scripture and yet you haue not proued to the Heathen so much as probably that Scripture is of Diuine inspiration Therefore you suppose what he denies and pittifully beg the Question 11. Or. 2. You will haue him yeild an assent to them vpon the humane testimony of many Christians which you say is fallible and may be false and that auail's nothing for thus the Turks belieue the Alcoran the Chineses their bible vpon the Testimony of innumerable witnesses You say 8.
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
of the Mass Colain Print 1620. dedicated to our late Soueraign Charles the first then Prince of wales Tract 2. Sect. 8. P. 208. and sect 11. page chiefly 252. Hauing perused both the Gentleman wondred his little book passed ouer so slightly the main thing considerable in this Dialogue and that no word of answer was returned to the obseruations of Mr. Brereley adding it would do well to make the truth à little better known which is my intent at present 13. First it cannot be doubted but that the Eutychian Two Contrary positions Heretick concealed vnder the name of Eranistes held our Lords whole Sacred body after his Ascension changed into his Diuinity Contrariwise Theoderet called Orthodoxus oppugn's the Heresy and saith Christs body remain's as it was before true humane nature most glorious and not conuerted into the Diuinity Again all who haue read the Dialogue know well that the context to our present purpose is as followes After the Orthodox had professed his belief of the Holy Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ Eranistes the Heretick begin's his plea. In good time has't thou mentioned these Diuine Mysteries for from them I will shew Where the Hereticks seek's aduantage thee that our Lord's body is changed into an other nature Answer therefore to my question Ortho. I will answer Eran How call'st thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest Ortho I may not speak plainly for it is likely some are present not yet admitted to the Mysteries Eran Answer darkly or aenigmatically Ortho It is yet when offered that meat which is made vp of such seeds Eran And how do we call the other sign or Symbole Ortho That is also à common name which signifies à kind of drink or cup. Eran But after the Sanctification how dos't thou call them Ortho The body and blood of Christ Eran And dos't thou belieue that thâ—â— What the Orthodox and the Heretick belieued receiues't the body and blood of Christ Ortho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I belieue Here vpon Eranistes infer's As therefore the Symbols of our Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests inuocation and after his inuocation are changed and made other things euen so the Lords body is changed into the Diuine substance 14. Stay à little Gentle Reader and speak your thoughts freely Is it not euident from this part of the Dialogue the rest you shall haue presently that both the Heretick and the Orthodox did here suppose the verity of Christs real presence in the sacrament as à known Doctrin receiued in the Church The Heretick supposed it otherwise he had been more than sensless to haue proued his pretended Transubstantiation of Christs humane nature into the Godhead by vrging à parity taken from that other Doctrin of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body His inference had been without life most languishing had he drawn the false Doctrin of his conceited change from an other as false viz. From no real change made in the bread after consecration For how lame an inference would this haue been Bread in the Sacrament remain's as it was before substantially bread only deputed to à holy vse that is not really changeâ— The Heretick supposes à true Change in bread according to the Catholick Principle at all yet from thence I will conclude that Christs humane nature is really changed into the substance of his Diuinity As who should say Because bread is not substantially changed into Christs body I will infer that the humane nature is changed into the Godhead which is pure nonsense And as greâ— Nonsense would it haue been had he only supposed the extrinsid sacramental change of Protestants or from thence drawn his inference that Christs body was really changed into his Diuinity For the most which can be inferred out of this sacramental changâ— only is that Christ's humane nature admit's in like manner oâ— some new extrinsecal denomination 15. Now that Theoderet or the Orthodox supposes also the known Doctrin of the Church in this Mystery is manifest vpon these grounds 1. You see how he was prouoked by the Heretick to deny the real presence and change of bread into Christs body After sanctification how do'st thou call them Again Do'st thou belieue that thou takes the body and blood of Christ c Obserue I beseech you Might not Theoderet thus strongly pressed haue quite ouerthrown his Aduersaries argument had he belieued as Protestants belieue that the inward substance of bread is not changed into Christs body For vpon this supposition he should haue replied Thou ask'st me what these things are after sanctification I answer they are substantially bread Theoderet also supposes à real change and wine though signes of Christs body and blood I answer I take not Orally the true body and blood of Christ but bread and wine only made à Sacrament If therefore they still remain bread and wine as before I acquit my self clearly and render thy argument forcelesse for thou cans't not infer because I and the Church hold bread and wine not substantially changed in the Sacrament That Christs humane nature is really and substantially changed into the Diuinity But Theoderet as you hear return's no such answer but positiuely asserts the contrary plainly enough They are the body and blood of Christ I receiue that body and blood c. Though he warily forbeares to express the change too significantly because perhaps of some present not yet admitted to the Mysteries Again And here is my 2. ground Theoderet who was an Orthodox Father penned this Dialogue and therefore as the learned Brereley obserues neither could nor would haue propounded Clear reasons proue that supposâ—tion the hereticks Argument vpon the Churches then receiued Doctrin of Transubstantiation which we see manifestly done had that Doctrin been then strange vnknown or reputed false Much less could he haue wrote as he doth That the Symbols after the Priest's inuocation are changed and made other things had our Sectaries Doctrin of no Transubstantiation been then taught by the Church and reputed true 3. Theoderet's great circumspection was needlesse I may not speak openly for it is likely some are present c. If he had belieued no other presence of Christ in the Sacrament than that which Protestants call Sacramental He might well without scruple in that opinion haue declared their sense and said openly The Sacrament before consecration was à plain piece of bread and so it is substantially bread afterward Thou speakest improperly Erâ—nistes whilst thou supposest the Symbols changed and made other things I tell thee they are not changed intrinsecally but totally remain in their inward substance as they were only signifying Christ body and blood as they are deputed to à holy vse Thus the Orthodox should haue both answered and excepted against his Aduersary had Protestant Doctrin been in those dayes owned by Christians but he goes on in à quite different
Ponderation of my Replies is so far to iudge between vs. But here is not all I must Say more Though I am as fallible in excepting against His glosses as he is in making them yet my Faith depend's not vpon my Exceptions but vpon the Doctrin of my Church The express words of Scripture and Fathers These oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe But all that Mr Stilling hath for his Faith is only the vncertainty of his own No man builds faith vpon his own Glosses coniectures ancient Church he has none nor express Scripture nor one Clear sentence of any Ancient Father And will hee Dare to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his Glosses or the opinion he would mantain by them vpon no other Ground but his weak Coniectures I appeal to his own Conscience for an Answer Well Be it how you will thus much is euident and T' is the only thing I aime at in this whole Discourse if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Aduersaries of different Religions when no surer Principle is at hand to rely on but the fallible Glosses of the One and à contrary fallible combating with those Glosses in the Other they may both as the world goes now sit long at the sport before one Controuersy Other mean◠to end Controuersies then meer Glosses be ended Therefore God as I said aboue has Prouided vs of an easier way to end these weighty difficulties or we may All turn Scepticks Some may say The old mode of the World was to dispute by Scripture and Fathers dare we reiect this way of arguing as insufficient Answ No truely It is an excellent way amongst Christians though insignificant to Heathens when the Aduerse Parties can Clear the sense of Scripture and Fathers vpon certain Principles But if the very sense of Scripture and Fathers be called into Question As now à daies it is by Sectaries We must of necessity haue Recourse to an other more Clear easy and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vse among the Holy Fathers Whereof more afterward In the Interim the ensuing Chapter may giue you entertainment CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 1. THis Assertion not slightly proued in the other Treatise Disc 2. C. 4. I hold so certain That the wit of man shall not rationally contradict it And to giue yet more light to what is there said Be pleased to exclude or mentally only to cast aside All thought of an vnerring Church of her infallible Tradition al so of the Definitions of General Councils For all these which Sectaries hold fallible are Essential to an vnerring Church If any such thing be in the world whereof we shall Treat afterward Next look about you And consider well what remain's to end Controuersies withall or to regulate Diuine Faith You haue VVhat Principles Sectaries Can Pretend to distinct from an Infallible Church first Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à Iew partly reiects Yet with such Aliens from Christ à Christian can argue rationally yea and clearly conuince them as I shall proue in the second Discourse After Scripture you haue the sublime Mysteries of Faith the Fathers Doctrin laid forth in their Volumes and the History of the Church Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries besides their priuate Spirit which can be no more à sound Principle to them than the contrary Spirit is to Their Aduersaries 2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end any Controuersy by these Principles without an infallible Church And be pleased euer to attend to the Aduersary he Treat's with If he attempt's to do good on à Heathen by Scripture or bring 's in the Reasonableness of Christian Religion The Heathen and Iew also laugh at his Folly And wish him to proue his Book to be Diuine If he proues that by the Vniuersal Tradition of all Called Christians the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him as I may hereafter about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition but desires him to goe among the Chineses and lay his Bible down by That book which their supposed Prophet Confusius wrote full of excellent Moral Precepts Thus much done the Contest Begin's The Sectary saith his Bible is Authorized by à great Prophet called Christ A learned Bonzius Answer 's and his is also Authorized by à great Prophet called Confusius The Sectary saith all Christians own his book vpon à neuer interrupted The Protestants Contest with ◠Heathen Concerning the Bible Tradition to be indited by the Spirit of Truth The Bonzius replies All China of à mighty vast Extent age after age hath the like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible What followes but that These two Aduersaries peruse their Bibles The Bonzius read's ours and Reasonably ask's whether the Sectary can infallibly proue such strange Mysteries as are registred there for example à Trinity the Incarnation of the Diuine word to be Truths Reuealed by Almighty God The Sectary answers All the infallible certainty he hath of these particular Verities lastly Relies only vpon Scripture it selfe For what euer Principle can be imagined distinct from that written word whether Church or Tradition is Fallible and may deceiue If so saith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me Because you proue the Mysteries contained there by that which causes my doubt or is the matter in Question for you say all I read is of Diuine inspiration because your Bible relates them and therefore make that à proof of your Doctrin which is the Matter in question or causes my doubt O saith the Sectary read on with Humility and you will find that the very Maiesty of the style the Energy of the words will quit you of doubting And to ease you of too much pains know we Protestants hold That the Belief of à very few chief Articles or simple Truths as that Iesus is the Christ The Diuine Word is incarnated c is faith enough to gain Heauen Contra The Heathen except's against the Protestants plea. Replies the Heathen I see no other Maiesty in the Style of your Bible than in mine and other pious books The exteriour Syntax or ioyning of words together is common to all such Writings But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man knowes what splendor shining in the bare Letter when you say that shines not to Pagans but only to those who haue the Spirit of God and are the Elect amongst you Now to what you Add of à few chief Articles necessary to be belieued and no more I answer first Your Scripture saith no such Thing nor tell 's me or you which Articles are necessary which not and if it did so you are only where you were before in darkness
Tertullian reiect's and hold's insufficient to end disputes And so doth S. Austin also Epistola 49. Ad Deo gratias The other named Pars reflexa and the clearer which speak's of the Foundation of Christian Religion of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world ouer of its marks and Signes of its Perpetuity and infallible Assistance of Nations flocking to it c. This part I say the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word is so perspicuous and clear that it silences all Sectaries and euidently subuert's their Errours But to tell me it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Transubstantiation the number of Sacraments c. And the very sense of Scripture which should end all is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties To assert this I say is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience And therefore I will extort this confession from our Aduersaries may they please to answer that as they shall neuer proue one of their Protestant Opinions so they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin by clear and express Scripture 11. Some obiect S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian S. Austin's Discourse with an Arian who faith Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum c. Bâ—rnob neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou to the Authority of the other Let vs contend by the Authorities of scripture which are common witnesses to vs both Here two things seem clear First That S. Austin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council as Sectaries do now the Church 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to conuince an Arian A word only in passing Dare the Sectary offer thus much or dispute with the Catholick for the supposed Obserue the question here proposed Truths of pure Protestancy or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus I would willingly see some attempt made this way but am sure He will not dare to do it Because he saith His Protestancy or these Negatiues are not reuealed but only à number of inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controuersies when the Protestant ingenuously grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the sufficiency of Scripture help not the Sectary at all Irenaeus for example call's it the Rule of Faith S. Austin A Diuine Sectaries quote Fathers to no purpose Balance Theophilus Alex A firm foundation Gerson A Sufficient and infallible Rule Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part yea and of the obscurer also when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle But what makes all this for pure Protestancy or for its Negatiue Opinions Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith whereof it is vtterly silent Doth it weigh such Negatiues or tell vs what they are worth Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures vs out No Sacrifice on the Altar No purgatory No Transubstantiation Toyes trifles There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposit Verities of Catholick Religion or in behalf of Protestancy Therefore though S. Austin appeald to Scripture against an Arian and had his reasons for it yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent when after their Appeal they find not one sentence for Protestancy or against Catholick Doctrin Now to S. Austin 12. I say first The Saint reiected not the Authority of the Why S. Austin waued the Nicene Council Nicene Council which he euer honourd but only waued that as an vnmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus who no more regarded the Nicene Definitions than Sectaries now do the Council of Trent Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions Thus our Catholick Witers haue answered à hundred times yet we must haue this Crambe recocta serued vp again as à new vnsauory Obiection I say 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter which he Saith is à body without à Soul but to the true genuine Sense Thereof which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuersal consent of Christ's vnerring Church For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin to belieue the Churches sense of Scripture and to belieue Scripture it self which most manifestly commend's vnto vs Church Authority Had then the Saint argued thus against his Aduersary He had conuinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conuiction Council yet thou cans't not deny but that Scripture commend's à Church founded by Christ diffused the whole world ouer what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the sense of Scripture That is the sense of the Holy Ghost And can be no other for à Church which swerues from the true sense of Gods word is no Church founded by Christ But the Vniuersael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy errour Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers stand's opposit to thee also And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it self 13. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture God in Essence and three distinct Persons not so plainly expressed there He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduersary of errour None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself Lib. contra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith viz. of Baptism conferred by Hereticks which though not clearly expressed in Scripture is yet held à true and valid Sacrament His words are Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum c. Although no example of this thing the validity of Baptism by Hereticks can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by vs in this particular Cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesia when we now do that which pleases or is agreable to the Vniuersal Church which Church the Authority of Scripture it self commend's Vt quoniam As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue whilst it commend's the Church and euery one fear 's to be deceiued in the obscurity of this Question Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat Let him consult the Vniuersal Church
to life And for three you haue more reuiued by an other of His holy Order I mean that admirable Saint Vincentius Ferrerius So the pious and learned S. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence Recounts in his Histpry 3. Part lib. 23. And who dares say that so great à Doctor And most modest Prelate was so Frontless as to write that we read not long after the death of S. Vincentius without Assurance and Certainty The whole world would haue decryed the Folly Had it been à Fourb an Imposture or à fabulous Story 7. By what is now said of These and other infinit Operations of grace which I am forced to omit you may inferr first That the Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church are not inferiour to those done by the Apostles And consequently if our Our Sauiours Prophesy falfilled in the Churches Miracles Sauiours Prophesy was seen manifestly fulfilled in those first Apostolical Wonders it hath been also as effectually accomplished in these latter of the Church I say in the Roman Catholick Church For all those now named whom God priuiledged with the Grace of working Miracles were of the same vnion in Faith with this Church and no other It followes 2. That Humane Faith when no iust Exception comes against it But the fool-hardy Spirit of vnbelieuing Heathens and Hereticks giues Mortal Assurance of Miracles The Miracles of our Sauiour euidence this Truth He raised Lazarus from death Iohn 11. A Touch of his garment cured the infirm woman Matt. 9. He restored sight to à blind man Iohn 9. Obserue I beseech you All Iewry beheld not these Wonders But some only Yet they were wrought for the good of All and without doubt proued conuincing Arguments of Christ's great power to innumerable who actually saw them not But only heard of them and Assented to what they heard vpon Miracles made Credible vpon humane Authority humane Authority prudently credible Therefore our Sauiour Supposed That humane Faith and this before the writing of Scripture was à Sufficient Means to conuey to others à Moral certainty of his Miracles I say yet more If God euer efficaciously intended to worck à true Miracle since the Creation of the world by any of his creatures Humane Faith was and yet is the First and most Connatural way of Conueying it to the knowledge of others Who therefore excepts against this vsual course of Prouidence destroies à Principle of Nature and can belieue nothing of Supernatural Effects but what he either sees with his own eyes or find's registred in Holy Writ 8. Ask now How many Austins How many Chrysostoms how many Cyrills how many Bedes and Bernards haue vpon their Credit and Reputation assured vs of Miracles wrought in the Roman Church only like to those in the Primitiue Age They are numberless Did Christ our Lord restore life to the dead sight to the blind health to the sick The Professors of our Catholick Church by his virtue haue done the very same and the Miracles are more numerous But now and here is the chief demand Were our Sauiours glorious Works made Credible to Authority alleged thousands no Eye-witnesses vpon Humane faith and Authority before Scripture registred them So it is Behold we haue our Austins our Iustins our Basils our Bernards vnexceptionably plain for the Churches Miracles and none can without Impudency and the violation of all humane Credit probably Cauil at what these haue written None can without making very Saints Impostors and guilty of that enormous sin of grosly deceiuing Posterity pare away so much as any substantial parcel of what is Recorded Therefore vnless all humane Faith perish its desperate rashness to deny most glorious Miracles to haue been in the Roman Catholick Church which was my Assertion 9. And to confirm it more I Ask why do Sectaries to disgrace our Miracles introduce I know not what Stories of the Heathens wonders Are these credible or no If not reiect them boldly as Impertinences If Credible it seems humane Faith is of some weight with Sectaries when they read of the Heathens fopperies though of no Account for true Miracles wrought by the Church of Christ Again this Faith is much worth with these men when to lay à foul Aspersion on à Pope Sectaries in Consequences or Prelate they fill their Books with à hundred petty Stories whether true or false imports little Herein their easy Beliefe swallowes all But if à Father or Choise Historian mention à Miracle its à Fourb à dream à fiction and what not 10. One word more and I end A meer pretended Humane Authority which really is not And therefore nothing worth is shamefully made vse of to patronize that crying Sin of Sectaries Schism Our Church Say they Changed Her ancient Faith the Charge at most relies on History or Humane Faith God neuer told them so For example The Lateran Council first brought in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation some Pope or other first inuented Purgatory c. Suppose all this were as true as t' is hideously false History or nothing must make it good and yet in our present case it is no warrant for known Miracles Thus Faith riseth and fall's in value as our New mens fancy pleases Belieue it had blessed S. Ambrose cited aboue in lieu of that Miraculous Cure wrought on à blind man at Millan when Himself was present and innumerable of that Citty saw the wonder related à stroy preiudicial to either Pope or Clergy How often think you would that haue been told and reiterated in the Writings os Sectaries But now when Hee speaks of à supernatural Work of grace done at the Reliques of the holy Martyrs Geruasius Humane Faith now Valuable now not with Sectaries and Protasius not à word is said No all passes in Silence as if Christs own Marks and the Churches glory vndoubted Miracles deserued no Memory but Contrarywise Scorn and contempt 11. I said in the Assertion that the grace of true Miracles meaning such as exactly Answer to our Sauiours glorious works is proper and peculiar to the Roman Church only The proof hereof is easy First Sectaries pretend not to work Miracles For they say that power ceased long since though I might here mind them of Caluins great wonder and really it was à strange one For whereas God's Saints restored life to the dead this great Sinner hauing perswaded one Bruleus of Ostun to fain himself dead depriued the poor wretch of his life Or rather God Caluins Miracle to lay open the fraud and Hypocrisy of both the one and other turned the Fiction into à Verity for really Bruleus who Counterfeited himself dead to get Caluin the renown of working Miracles was after all the Ministers long prayer found dead indeed The story is known and writ not only by Hierome Bolsec in Vita Calvini C. 13. But by others also And here I wish Sectaries to giue some credit to humane Authority 12. Now as Protestants disclaim Miracles so do
And because it is here impossible to descend to all particular controuersies we will fall vpon one only much debated one serues for all Viz whether Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation be Orthodox Doctrin The truth yet lies in darkness there is no Self-Euidence either in the Affirmatiue or Negatiue T' is yet no more but doubtful or à meer Perhaps whether the Protestants or we Speak Truth Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is Where the difficulty lies yet obscure to vs both and as little euidenceth it Self as the Verity we enquire after By what means then can we raise our selues aboue this state of Doubting to so great à degree of certainty as to Say without fear Transubstantiation is Orthodox Doctrin And the contrary is not so 10. The Catholick to waue in this place other proofs recur's to his Church And saith this Publick euidenced Oracle as well raises him to à State of certainty for his Tenet as the euidenced Primitiue Church rais'd the first belieuing Christians from their doubts to Security For the like full euidence alwayes lead's to How the Catholick Peoceed's a like certainty of Belief The Protestant hauing reiected our present euidenced Church hopes well and will needs find flawes and falsity too in Her Doctrin not by confronting Her Euidence or denoting an other Church As ample as ancient as miraculous as She is which held his Doctrin for this though it should be pleaded if we come to à clear Decision is vnpleadable because the Protestant has no such Oracle What 's done therefore I 'll tell you and you may iustly wonder He shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's though there is no such matter to launch into the vast Ocean of Scripture Councils volumes of Fathers ancient Records and thinks The Sectary takes à Contrary way to carry on his cause this way Here He pick 's vp one dark Sentence of à Father and triumph's with that There on another Here vpon the least hint giuen he Snarles at one piece of Popery there at another Here he guesses and there he misses In à word the man is busily idle doth much and iust nothing run's on but is out of his way utterly lost without the guidance of God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the Labyrinth And if you Ask why he is out I Answer his Errour lies here that both in this and all other Controuersies he makes his false Suppositions to pass for proofs against euidence 11. You shall see what I here Assert Made Good To proue no Transubstantiation the Se ary read's Scripture Fathers Antiquity or what els you will Be it so He read's but not alone For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's also Mark now The One after his reading glosses so doth the other The One compares Passage with Passage so doth the other The One discourses So doth the other But when all is done and here lies the mischief the Protestant imposes one sense vpon the perused Testimonies and the Catholick another Which leaues him in State of doubting quite contrary This dayly Experience teaches viz. That we differ not so much about the words we read as about the sense of Scripture and Fathers Therefore this also is Euident That the Protestant aduances not his Doctrin if yet he get so high aboue the degree of guessing only whilst he pleads by his glossed Scripture and Fathers For as long as the Catholick wholly as learned and conscientious as He is and an ample Church besides opposes his far-fetch'd Sense out of the Fathers He cannot without Impudency and making à false Supposition to pass for his Proof cry it vp as certain Now further As the sense he drawes from Scripture and the Fathers is no more but at most doubtful I say improbable so his Assertion concerning no Transubstantiation or what euer els he holds contrary to the Roman Catholick faith is wholly as much wauering or purely doubtful But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak What euer is doubtful grounds not Faith either to ground any Christian Tenet vpon or to Contrast with the Roman Catholick Church whose Doctrin is indisputably made euidently credible Therefore unless à weake Vncertainty can reuerse Euident Credibility the Sectaries Plea against the Church is not only improbable but highly improbable 12. To conclude this Point Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma It is possible to Denote and point at another Church which without dispute taught Protestant Doctrin and opposed ours as Ancient as large and euery way as Euidenced to sense and reason as the Roman Catholick Church is Or it is not possible If possible controuersies are strangely ended for proue A Dilemma me once such à Church I say plainly There is no such thing as true Faith in the world worthy defense Why Because if the Supposition hold's two different Churches euidenced à like equally as ancient as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Miracles clash with one another Say and Vnsay approue and condemn The one condemn's Protestancy The other Popery One will haue Transubstantiation belieued The other not which is as wholly destructiue of Christian Faith as if Scripture it self should plainly Speak Contradictions 13. On the other side If the Sectary can neither name nor point at à Chutch euery way as euidenced as the Roman Catholick No euidenced Protestant Church no pleading for Protestancy which expresly propugned Protestancy and opposed Popery He shall neuer utter probable word against any one Article of our Catholick Faith For throw an euidenced Protestant Church out of the world All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin or against vs will either End in à slight discharge of à few scattered vnweighed Sentences of holy Fathers no sooner read than Answered or as we dayly Experience in gross Mistakes and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrin And can these think ye extinguish the visible Lustre of our Chureh can these lessen the euident Credibility of Her Doctrin or bring so known and owned an Oracle into open disgrace or publick Disreputation It is impossible The most vigorous Abbettors of Protestancy may not only blush to Assert it but will be bafled did we once liue to see the happy day when our iust cause might be proposed and heard in à Publick Dispute before Learned and impartial Iudges A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick and hold him much more wise Learned and moderate then some late voluminous Writers haue been yet because Truth will out I must not dissemble but Speak truth And therefore Say in à word His whole attempt against the Roman Catholick Church is weake And the feebleness of it Cannot but appear to euery Reader that penetrat's the force of the Principles already established My wish indeed was to haue Vnderstood his meaning better in some particular passages For
Council either break vp and Define nothing Or if à Definition issues forth that only shall be defined which is certain and infallible Thus much is granted Yet I deny the Consequence and Say The Argument drawn from Hostility Conuinces Here is my reason That Imagined Râ—presentatiue consist's as we now suppose of Arians Protestants Catholicks Socinians and all other called Christians For these as some think Collectiuely taken make vp the diffused Church of Christ more ample than the Roman Or if so many The Argument taken From Hostility Conuinces Constitute it not Let Sectaries please to tell vs what Christians are to be excluded or precisely how many are the Members of this diffused Catholick Body In the mean while vouchsafe to Consider the force of my Argument grounded vpon an implacable Hostility 17. This whole diffused Moral Body euidently maintain's Contradictions For example Christ is the highest God Christ is not the highest God Our Lords Sacred Body is substantially present in the Eucharist That Body is not substantially present As therefore this large Society of Christians now supposed but one great Church holds contradictions So it must be granted that the Representatiue of it also hold's the same Contradictions Or ceaseth â—o ipsâ— to Represent the whole Diffused Moral Body 18. Hence one of these three Sequels ineuitably followes The first If this Representatiue still continues to Represent which is euer to be noted and proceed's to à Definition answerable to the Sentiment of the large Moral Body in Diuision it necessarily Defines the contradictions of those Churches to The Reasons and Proofs of my Assertion be Orthodox Doctrin and were this done There is More then Hostility enough For thus impossible Contradictions are both Definable and Belieuable Or it followes 2. that our imagined Representatiue break 's vp and leaues all points in Controuersy as Wholly vndecided as they were before And this which implies an endles Hostility would I think be the Result of that Council And vpon that Account appear à ridiculons Representatiue Or. 3. This followes That some one Part or other in the Representatiue must lay down Arms and acknowledge one Church of One Denomination absolutly infallible in whose Sentence all are to rest VVithout this Acquiescency in one Orthodox and Infallible Church Errours in Faith goe on as S. Austin Speak's what we Assert we see hitherto in à remedilesse condition This truth S. Austin Lib. de symb ad Catecâ—um C. 6. Saw well where He speak's profoundly to my present purpose Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta Ecclesia vna c. She and she only is the holy the one Church the Catholick Church which fights against all Heresies She may fight but cannot be foiled And Might I here Digress à little I could Demonstrate That neuer Heresy yet of any Fame in the world appeared since Christs time but it was Crushed censured and condemned by one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church to whose Sentence the very best of Christians dutifully Submitted relying on our Sauiours secure Promise Hell gates cannot preuail against that Oracle 19. A. 3. Obiection Scripture alone though all Churches were fallible is sufficient to teach infallible Faith necessary to Saluation Answ Of all Obiections proposable this is least worth For had Scripture that sufficiency it may I hope be yet Enquired VVhether the Church also which cannot clash with Scripture has the like Prerogatiue of infallibility Scripture was infallible when the Apostles preached and yet their Preaching was as infallible as The words they wrote But here is not my greatest Exception I say Scripture and all the Verities in it goe to wrack if the Church be fabllible For grant this we haue no infallible Certainty of the Scriptures Canon of it's substantial Purity or Immunity from corruption of it's true Scripture with out the Churches infallible Testimony loseth force Sense in à hundred controuerted passages VVe cannot belieue that Christ is God or That his Ascent into Heauen was real and not à vain Vision We Cannot belieue what Sacraments are nor know the number of them without the Church Therefore vnless this Principle stand vnshaken It is immediatly more certain that the Church manifested by Her Marks is Gods own Oracle Than That Scripture setting Church Authority aside is Gods word we can belieue nothing For who see 's not but that very Book would soon haue been out of credit had not God by special Assistance preserued as well it 's Doctrin pure in Mens hearts as He preserued the words in Velume or parchment And this by the means of à watchful liuing Oracle his infallible Church 20. Again and this Reason conuinceth Were Scripture iudged sufficient to teach Saluifical Faith compleatly independently of the Church Or were the Church when that Iudgement is held not only errable but actually erroneous How can any hauing The Assertion is proued these two iudgements Scripture Infallibly â—eaches Faith compleatly The Church because erroneous fail's in this Duty Account himself à Heathen or Publican as our Lord Saith though he absolutely refuse to hear the Church His refusal Certainly is prudent and defensible vpon this ground That Scripture doth all learns him enough Therefore none can oblige him to hear the Church which may mislead and Propound false Doctrins For no man in his wits will listen to à Fallible Oracle whilst he has another at hand that teaches all Truths infallibly 21. If you reply Such an one is at least obliged to hear the Church in Fundamentals but not in others The Intelligent Person Asks whether Protestants who lay that obligation A Reply answered vpon him of belieuing fundamentals only own that Assertion sâ— infallible that to belieue the Distinction is an Article of their Faith If they say it is à fundamental Article and that he is obliged to belieue so Protestants doe not only maintain one infallible fundamental Point peculiar to themselues disowned by the Roman Catholick Church for She certainly reiect's the Distinction The Sectary Câ—nuicted of Errour but moreouer now become infallible Oracles in à Matter of greatest Importance which cannot pass because they are Professedly fallible in all they teach Therefore may truth haue place the Dictinction giuen between fundamentals is both Vnfundamental and fallible Doctrin And so without More we are freed from all Obligation of belieuing the Church for that Distinction failing to be à fundamental truth The Church is absolutly fallible in fundamental Doctrin Well then may we not hear Her at all without any Note of being looked on as Heathens and Publicans 22. Some perhaps great Patrons of Christian Liberty and freedom of mind in matters of Faith may obiect 4. The Church cannot exercise Her Authority ouer mens Iudgements or oblige any to an internal Assent Her power being limited and to thus much only as to order and regulate the Exteriour A Reflection made vpon Christian Libertins for this end that Vnity and peace May be preserued without
medled with it Which therefore can not make it Infallible By what is said you se our Sectaries Supposition of some Christian Doctrin acknowledged infallible is pure Sophistry for none can Assure them so much if All that teach it be fallible The very Apostolical Doctrin respectiuely to vs now liuing loses i'ts Infallibility if this Supposition stands That all Teachers are fallible Now we Proceed to à Second Argument and Discourse thus 15. If the whole Church the like is of any General approued The Churches Infallibility further proued Council can err She may not only traitorously betray Her Trust But moreouer doe so much Mischief to Christians by vniting all in Errour That they must remain in it without redress or remedy For if the Church may mistake whilst She Teaches No man on earth can be rationally Supposed wiser than She is nor goe about to Vnbeguile the deceiued by Her The Euil here hinted at is so Notoriously horrid the Perplerity it causes so Great that either Church Doctrin vnauoydably becomes despicable whilst euery one may iustly Quarrel with it Or this Principle must stand vnshaken that the Church cannot teach à Falshood 16. Some Sectaries seing the Force of this vnanswerable Argument hold the Church Diffusiue infallible in fundamentals Yet neither name nor can name those Christians who constitute an infallible Church larger than the Roman whereof enough Sectaries Oppose The Infallibility of Councils without reason is said both in this and the other Treatise In the next place their whole Strife is to Oppose the Infallibility of the Churches Representatiues in her General Councils But methinks inconsequently For what euer Reason proues Immunity from Errour in that diffused Moral Body Conuinces as forcibly the like Priuiledge in its Representatiues Which are not Conuened to deceiue But to teach God's reuealed Verities 17. Mr. Stillingfleet Part. 3. C. 1. 2. P. 506. After à larger Prologue to very little Substance Tell 's vs. It is not any high challenge of Infallâ—bility in any Person or council which must put an end to Controuersies For nothing but Truth and Reason can euer do it and the more men pretend to vnreasonable wayes of deciding them instead of ending One they beget many I say contrary If the Church and Her Councils be infallible Controuersies are ended without more Adoe For all know vpon that Supposition What to belieue and what to reiect And if they be not Owned infallible there is no such thing or things in being as Truth and Reason which can put an end to Controuersies To explicate the Assertion is to proue it 18. Doe then no more but cast away all thought of an Infallible The Infallibility of Councils asserted Church as also of Her infallible Councils It is clear that euery Doctrin Taught since the Apostles time has been deliuered Fallibly T is clear likewise All that teach it at this day highly dissenting among them selues Teach fallibly Imagin now that two aduerse Parties Ten learned Protestants on the one Side And as many learned Catholicks on the Other meet together and seriously Discuss this Point whether Protestancy or Catholick Doctrin as opposed to Protestancy be the true Religion the like is if any particular Controuersy fall vnder Debate I say the Attempt to decide any one controuerted matter is Vain and Impossible if both Church and Councils be Supposed fallible And consequently Mr. Stillingfleets Truth and Reason are no more but meer insignificant Words The Reason is Whilst fallible men pIead for Religion vpon Principles as fallible as they are that Argue the Result of that Dispute necessarily carried on by Arguments and reasoning purely fallible can end in nothing but in dissatisfactory Topicks if yet it come so far But this is so and obserue well The Protestant plead's The weaknes of two parties pleading fallibly for his Tenents or oppugn's our Doctrin and doth it fallibly The Catholick Answers and fallibly too The Protestant Replies but hath no infallible Principle to ground his Reply vpon no more hath the Catholick if the Supposition hold's any other Answer but what 's Vngrounded and Fallible Say I beseech you do not both Parties busied in this Contest vpon vncertainties run on in Darkness Haue we yet the least hope of Satisfaction Or so much as the Truth we all seek for yet discouered in this weak skirmish Whilst Fallible men and Fallible Arguments and Fallible Principles are the only Support of the whole Discourse Most euidently no. All are left where they were before in à deep Perplexity 19. I Said iust now If we we exclude an Infallible Church and her approued Councils Truth and Reason vanish to nothing and that no Principle remain's whereby these Contests of Religion can be ended To proue the Assertion further I first vrge the Protestant to name the last certain Principle or that vltimate Sectaries are vrged to name the last Iudge in these Debates Iudge in whose Sentence he dare Acquiese and Say positiuely vpon this Principle we must both rely This shall Define whether you my Aduersary or I yours defend Truth The man will not for stark shame name Himself nor any priuate Person on earth for Iudge He cannot recurr to an Inferiour Council and Oppose that against One Generally receiued the Whole world ouer He will not adhere to à Schismatical and Heretical Church and plead by Her in defence of his Doctrin against an Oracle neuer yet taxed or tainted of Errour Or if he doth so he gain 's nothing For all those are as fallible as the two Parties now in contest Where then is the Sectaries Sure Principle or last Iudge to stand to in these Debates Or whither will he goe to find out his yet Vndiscoured Truth and Reason Will his refuge be to Scripture It help 's nothing in this Case not only because Scripture omit's to speak either explicitly of the half of such And cannot pitch on any Controuersies as are now agitated But vpon this Account Chiefly That if the Church and Councils be fallible the Book it self becomes à most fallible Principle to all For neither Catholicks nor Protestants nor Arians nor any can Say with Assurance â—uch and Such is the vndoubted â—ense of Gods word in Controuerted Matters if the Churches Iudgement be set light by and look't on as fallible Yet I 'll Say thus much Were the Church fallible Sectaries may well blush first to decry Her Sense of Scripture and then to set vp the far inferiour and fallible interpretation of euery single Person against the Church 20. Some may Reply The grand Principle of Protestants The grand Principle of Protestants reiected is that Scripture in things necessary to Saluation appeares plain to all who vse ordinary Diligence to vnderstand it wherein certainly their Truth and Reason may be found Contra. And I Press not in this place the Vncertainty of the Principle which is as disputable as any other Protestant Tenet But Say more it is wholly
All skilful and well spirited Protestants might without any Tradition know it to be God's word This double resolution Supposed 12. Yet more Our Aduersaries maintain à twofold Resolution of Faith First into the Books of Scripture and these Books fallible Tradition without any Diuine light seen as yet Conueyes to vs For Tradition as they say is not Diuine 2. â—to the internal light of the Doctrin contained in the Books And into this light of Doctrin they Resolue their Faith not â—to Tradition 13. Now here you shall haue an vnanswerable Dilemma The Tradition which only Conueyes the Books as Contradistinct from the internal Doctrin makes that very Diuine Doctrin to sparkle we Argue against Sectaries more than it would sparkle without Tradition Or not If â—ot The light the Splendor the internal Lustre of that Doctrin Considered as Doctrin is and must be independent of Tradition and Shine as I now said by it Selfe as à Diamond doth though the Books were found in the Streets Contrarywise if the Tradition of the Books Augments in the least or makes the internal Doctrin there contained to appear more Diuine than it would appear without Tradition That very Tradition must be à ioint Motiue wherevpon we belieue the Diuinity of Scripture I proue it demonstratiuely That â—hich laies before the intellectual Eye of à Belieuer the Lustre light and Sparkling of the internal Doctrin contained in Scripture is the true cause or à Partial Motiue at least The force of the Argument why He belieues that Doctrin Tradition doth this Ergo it is à Partial Motiue why he belieues the Doctrin Or if it â—ail's not at all to discouer that Lustre of the Doctrin the pretious Diamond of Scripture may be well discouered and known without Tradition I would willingly hear what our Adâ—ersaries can reply to this very plain and as I think no triuial Obiection without reminding vs of their killing flies 14. To Say more in this place is needles hauing proued in the other Treatise that the Maiesty and sparkling of Scripture what the true Maiesty of Scripture is lies not in the exteriour Syntax or in any outward Connexion of words common to other pious Books But Contrarywise in the Special Assistance wherewith God directed the Hagiographers to write as also in his own Diuine Volition which Seal'd and approued all that 's Writ as Verities issuing from no other fountain but from Truth it selfe Herein consist's the Dignity worth and Maiesty of Holy Scripture 15. Now because that Diuine Assistance and God's internal Volition whereby Scripture is approued as most sacred are no Obiects of sense It necessarily followes that none can discouer The true Excellence not discouerable by our exteriour Sonses the true Excellence of that Holy Book by any Inspection though most diligently made into the Syntax or outward words of it only Hence I said Had. S. Iohn not at all recorded that truth in his Gospel The word is made flesh buâ— some other without Diuine Assistance had left the Verity written in Velume The words and Truth also would haue been the very same now and then yet very different in their value if Considered as Proceeding from the Spirit of truth in the one case and from no Diuine Assistance in the other 16. By this its plain that the Maiesty of Scripture lies not in any expression of outward words Howeuer admit gratis it did doth that Majesty think yee help any to vnderstand its Though the Maâ—esty of Scripture lay in the words true Sense in Matters controuerted Euidently no. For manifest experience teaches that whole Multitudes of dissenting Christians both read and Reuerence the same bare letter Yea and haue the same Majesty of words laid open to their view yet so notoriously oppose one another and in Points most fundamental concerning the genuin Sense thereof that plain contradictions That would not auail to vnderstand the Sense are forced out of this sacred Book after their Reading But enough of this is said aboue And much more you haue of Mr Stillingfleets strange way of Resoiuing the Protestants faith in the other Treatise Discourse 1. C. 9. Where you may see that Protestancy is neuer medled with nor brought to any better Resolution by him than Arianism or à worser Heresy Yet I Say he took the right Course for in real Truth Protestants haue no Faith to resolue which truth will better appear in the following Chapter where we examin whether true Religion Can be found out by Reason CHAP. XIV The Mistakes of some Sectaries in this Controuersy It s necessary to distinguish between true Reason and fallacious Reasoning Priuate Reason liable to Errour Principles presupposed to the Decision of this Question Reason easily finds out true Religion by à rational Euidence preuious to Faith 1. SOme who endeauour to make à Friendly Agreement The Attempt of some Sectaries between Reason and Religion wholly omit to discusse the mainest point of all which concern's Christianity And T' is in à word to tell vs whether amongst those innumerable Religions now swarming in the world whereof certainly many are false and Only is true men by the force of prudent who Omit the main Business concerning Religion Reason can come to the Knowledge of the true One. This is the Vnum necâ—ssarium worth our knowledge indeed For what auailes it to hear of an Agreement between Reason and Religion if I cannot by the light of Reason find out that Religionwhich God hath established It would be but à comfortles Word should One Say Sir There is à rich Inheritance in the world belonging to you but neither you nor I nor any other after all diligence vsed can tell you where or what it is 2. This and it is à grand Omission may be well grounded The ground of their Omission on another errour these Authors Maintain who first make à Religion according to their own Phansy and then offer to Shew the Reasonableness of it Wheras All iustly expect to haue at least in à General way some Hint of that full Doctrin which Christian Religion comprises before we Cry it vp as reasonable or yeild our Assent to it Thus much neither is nor can be done by any Sectary And mark how we are left dissatisfyed 3. After some general Duties pointed at which belong to Their Distinction of Fundamentals and others improbable natural Religion we hear of à Distinction between the Fundamentals of Faith and Others Then we are told that All the Fundamentals are contained in the Apostles Creed And that if we go beyond the Creed for the Essentials of Faith none can Say where we shall stop Answ Sr you are told in this Treatise where the stop is to be made And there also you will find this late Inuented Distinction of Fundamentals and no Fundamentals cast away as vnsound Doctrin All I will Say at present is that you build vpon Sand you make à meer fancied Supposition