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
The iudgement of Credibility not attained by examining the Mysteries of Faith he come to this setled iudgement All I read not euidently true ex terminis is yet indubitably so Now this iudgement is not first got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the Church teaches No. There is à farr easier way whereby reason after à further discourse concludes that either God hath cheated the world by the Miracles the sanctity The blood shedding of Martyrs and all those conuersions wrought by the Church or we must grant That what the Church teaches is true And this general iudgement arising immediatly from à due Ponderation of the motiues of Faith which is Science disposeth an vnderstanding to belieue this great Truth God speaks his eternal verities by that Church be it yet where you will which Christ Iesus founded And in this sense we say à general Notion or knowledge of the Church manifested by supernatural signes is vsually necessary to the belief of euery particular Doctrin deliuered by it and consequently particular Doctrins can be no first mark or sign of this Oracle Thus much is here briefly hinted at to solue the obiection Hereafter the whole Analysis shall be most particularly discussed in its due place 4. A. 2. inference True Religion is first found by its marks The true Church is known before we can know the books of scripture and cognisances before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture can be owned as Diuine We come therefore to à knowledge of these incorrupt books by the help of that Christian Society where true Religion is taught and cannot first know where true Religion is by the books of scripture only I say First know For without all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the sense is once admitted vpon the authority of Christs Church we argue and forceably as the Fathers anciently did against Sectaries by Scripture But all such arguments presuppose the Books proued Diuine and sacred The reason of the inference is These Books only contain à simple narration of our Christian verities which both Iewes and Gentils slight therefore though we cry neuer so loud Scripture is Diuine and written by the Holy Ghost we effect nothing with these Aliens from Christ vnless we first conuince the truth by proofs distinct from Scripture it self And as little is No disputing by Scripture only without the Canon and sense be agreed on done if Christians of à different belief dispute by Scripture when neither the Canon nor the sense is agreed on For example Marcion produceth his Bible The Arian his and his sense A third à Scripture without S. Iames Epistle or that to the Hebrewes Our Sectaries Crowd in with their book whilst others as learned reiect their Canon and much more that sense they force from it in à hundred passages What is to be done in this Confusion Must wee admit of Marcions Bible or submit to our Sectaries Canon and new sense also No certainly it Cannot be expected Perhaps they will say we are to dispute the question and rigidly examin who hath the true Canon and sense of Scripture They or wee This ends the difference Very good But say on I beseech you And first giue vs à sure Principle à doubtful one in so weighty à matter help 's little which may bear vp the controuersy and at last end it for vnless this principle be agreed on the result of our dispute will be nothing but à fruitles wrangling O the Fathers and Antiquity well pondered cannot but decide the debate I answer may we iudge by the effect the assertion is most vntrue The ancient Fathers peruerted by sectaries end not Controuersies For haue not we and Sectaries now read and pondered the Fathers and Antiquity for one whole age what can be alleged on both sides as well for the Canon as the sense hath been said and after all are we not still as much at variance as farr off from ending the controuersy as when we began it Say Now but vpon à solid Principle who is in fault The Sectary thinks wee vnderstand not the Fathers and we are sure he abuseth them with farr fetch 't glosses He saith their words are clear for his sence and we profess the Contrary Hitherto we come to nothing like à Principle The Controuersy therefore driuen on no further but to the sectaries bare Yea and our No hangs yet in the ayre wholly vndecided The reason is Though the Fathers words be neuer so plain for our Catholick verities yet after the Sectary hath laid his glosses vpon them they are most vnworthily made by him as doubtful and à matter of as great contest as the very sense of Scripture is which both of vs would haue cleared by the Fathers testimony That is There is as much adoe may Sectaries glosses haue place to vnderstand what à Father teaches concerning the sense of scripture as to vnderstand Scripture it self before we haue recourse to the Fathers To recurre therefore to their interpretation in Controuerted matters whilst Sectaries as much darken that by their glosses as they obscure the Scripture we dispute about is The matter in Dispute no meet Principle to end it euidently à most vnfit way to end any Controuersy vnless that which is the very matter of Dispute between vs can be supposed à meet and sufficient means to end it which is impossible Now if the sectary blames vs because we reiect that sense he drawes from either Scripture or the Fathers and he also reiect ours what haue we but wrangling Both parties hitherto only word it and stand chafing at one an other without Principles God therefore hath prouided vs à surer and easier way to end debates about Religion whereof more in the sequele Chapters CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 1. NOte first If God as I said aboue once established true Religion among Christians He made it so discernable from all false sects that it may be found out by prudent reason Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertull. lib. 1. de Testimonio animae It s more known then any other learning For to say on the one side That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the world which shall not perish and on the other to assert it cannot be proued or found out is first to cast à blemish on Prouidence and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it because none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reason or rational arguments Note 2. The Doctrin of Christ which essentially constitutes true Religion stand's most firm vpon
and both as you see stand opposite to Mr Stilling weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason 6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome In. 1. Cor hom 24. Other Authorities Chrisostom Pachasius Damascan who saith The kingly body in heauen is set before vs on earth We touch it and do not only touch it but eate it This body the barbarous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling Thou add's the Saint See'st him not now in the manger but on the Altar not held in à womans arms but by à Priest present c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg he explain's himself further Truly this table supplies the place of the manger for here also is our Lords body laid Paschasius à latin author who liued about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence à nd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. Sanguine Dm'i that the Centurist's Cent. 9. C. 4. Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen Pag 288. and other Sectaries charge him with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christs body No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. whose discours on this subiect though long is most significant As bread saith he naturally meat and wine and water by drink are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drink 's So this bread proposed the wine and water also by the inuocation and comming of the Holy Ghost are in à miraculous manner conuerted into Christs body and blood neither are they two but one and the same Our Lord himself hath said This is not à sign of my body but my body This is not à sign of my blood but my blood Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. reiects the Doctrin and call's this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. Iohn Damascen slight and fabulous sodo other Sectaries with him also 7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr clear noted First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who liued with our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn seem's to me vnanswerable Epist ad Smirnen not far from the beginning They saith he that is certain Sacramentarians admit not Eucharists and oblations because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins and his Father graciously raised from the dead So Theoderet 12. ages since Tom. 4. Dialogo 3. reads And Iaac Vossius who followes the Florentine Copy differs little or rather nothing at all None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear 8. The second authority as pregnant is taken out of S. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for Christians vsually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant Apology Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour by the word of God was made flesh and haed for our saluation flesh and blood so also after the same manner we are taught that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with thanksgiuing of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ which was Incarnate And for proof hereof he allegeth Christs own words This is my body This is my blood Thus S. Iustin speak's who liued not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin I know some Sectaries Cauil at the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by transmutation The sectaries Cauil answered and think Iustin held the Eucharist to be food for the body but his sense is clear for he saith only That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation is made after consecration the very body of Christ and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus Pag 368. translates Iustins S. Iustin's true sense words out of the Greek thus Sumimus autem hunc panem hunc potum non vt Communem sed eo modo quo edocti sumus Iesum Christum seruatorem nostrum habuisse pro salute nostra carnem sanguinem sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro sanguis aluntur post benedictionem ipsius esse carnem sanguinem Domini That is in plain English The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incarnate Sauiour Conformable hereunto Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenaeus aduersus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. Iustins words Sic per verbum precationis gratiarum actionis sacratam ab ipso alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes sanguinem Illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse didicimus The Interpreter also I follow significantly renders the same sense Alimoniam vnde c. The food from whence from which or where with we are nourished this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate Iesus Well but admit that Iustine call's the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies How some Fathers call the Eucharist Nourishment to the body he makes it not therefore Corporal food but Spiritual which nourishes them to à ioyful resurrection or to immortality and thus the other Fathers chiefly S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus finem speakes Quomodo saith he rursus dicunt c How do these Hereticks plead again that our flesh shall come to corruption and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord where with it is nourished Again Sic corpora nostra c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are not corruptible hauing hope of à ioyful resurrection But enough of these authorities Whoeuer desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his 2. book of the Holy Eucharist Out of what is said already I argue 9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also haue most impiously betrayed Christs cause in deliuering false Doctrin contrary to sense and reason or worthily defended à Christian verity Grant this second we haue our intent But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief and impiously erred in their expressions Ponder first what à frontles impudence accompanies the reply Next make this true inference It is impossible that such à supposed vniuersal errour should euer be rased out of A Conuincing Argument the minds of men by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à receiued Principle For what proofs or vndoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture our Tradition the sentiment of the Church and the iudgement
your Glosses To point at his Church and Councils which taught Protestancy to an Orthodox Church The world was neuer without one Say therefore in Gods name where or when was such an Orthodox Christian Society in Being that positiuely taught no Transubstantiation No sacrifice of the Mass No inuocation of Saints c Where or when were your Councils which positiuely defined these Doctrins c You may Answer and truely You haue indeed neither Church nor Councils Nor Tradition Express for these your Negatiues Very right Therefore I wrong you not in saying your whole Cause subsist's vpon Coniectures cauils And Glosses Because now you cast your selues into an Impossibility of pleading by any better Principles than meer guesses are Thus much supposed Say I beseech you What auail's it if when an Authority is plain for Popery that you can by à nimble gloss darken it Or if obscure You haue A Fiat lux at hand and can charm it into so much Clarity as may suffice to dazle the eyes of à vulgar Reader What Satisfaction haue I here or what gain you by this Proceeding when you know we haue more witnesses ready to attest yea to dye for our Catholick Verities than you haue hairs on your head or Glosses in your book What gain you to your cause could you missinterpret all the Fathers that euer wrote when you without the warrant of any Orthodox Society haue yet à whole learned Church Her Councils and Tradition against you And all the store of Ammunition left you to attaque this great Oracle of Truth is very small no more God knowes but à without them no satisfaction is giuen flash of lightning borrowed from the Ignis fatuus of your far-fetcht Glosses Gloss on Cauil on coniecture on to the worlds end As long as no known or Owned Principle distinct from Glosses and coniectures Support's them You only beat the aire or to vse à pretty late phrase amongst you lapwing-like Pew most when furthest from the nest I mean you are most fierce to end Controuersies when you are furthest off from Principles which only can end them 8. Thus then you should proceed had not God and Truth silenced you I E. S. B. D. declare to you honest Papists That in the Sixth or seauenth age after Christ His true Orthodox Church positiuely taught no Transubstantiation Such à Council either in former or later Ages expresly defined so Then and before also Church Tradition was vniuersally for my Doctrin And thus much I can make good to the learnedest Romanist among you Wonder not Therefore when you quote your Iustins your Cyprians your Chrisostoms seemingly contrary to my Church Doctrin That I interpret all I am forced to doe so or against conscience must desert my old Mother Church Her Councils How Sectaries ought to plead and Tradition likewise From which You haue too licentiously swerued to side with your Iustins and I know not who els Could the Sectary plead after this manner His Glosses would haue force But he neuer meddles with the First main Business That is neuer ground 's his Doctrin vpon any thing like à satisfactory Principle But as if He minded to tire Ones patience run's on headlong with Glosses When he has no Principled Doctrin to Gloss for Iust as if One should tell his neighbour Sir you lye And this I auerr to your face Though I want where withall to proue my Saying true In all these Controuersies Sectaries are so pertly vnciuil as to giue the Lie to à whole Church And what supports the Boldnes Haue they any other Church more Orthodox Councils more learned Tradition more vniuersal to proue we lye than our Church our Tradition And Councils are which say we speak truth Nothing at all like them We here challenge them to speak to the cause and controuersies are ended What then remain's to plead with Plain Scripture Not à word Fathers plain Not one O yes Tertullian is drawn in to help at à dead lift so is Theoderet And one or two more Very true But he is à glossed Tertullian à glossed Theoderet c. Separate then these Glosses from the Fathers genuin Doctrin giue them the Sectary to manage you see him in open field compleatly armed ready to encounter Church Councils Tradition And all the other Principles of the Catholick world Are not Glosses think Glosses strangely powerful with Sectaries ye strong and prodigiously powerful which haue not only force to plead against à whole Church But more ouer to implead her of palpable errour This Church is supposed to haue changed Her ancient Doctrin And Sectaries will reform it not by recurring to any other more Orthodox Society of Christians But by meer guesses and Glosses That is The Fallible Glosses and gueses of men confessedly fallible must reform à Church which hold's Her selfe infallible And proues it also 9. Thus it is Christian Reader I speak plainly And can defend my Assertion Besides meer begging the Question in all Disputes besides Cauils And weak coniectures The Sectary hath no more left him to oppose our Catholick Tenets but meer vnprincipled Glosses I neither word it nor wrong Protestants in saying thus much Peruse if you please their writings chiefly Mr Stillingfleets Account you will find when the Churches Infallibility or Transubstantiation c. Happen to be handled That Glosses laid on the Authorities vsually quoted for Catholick Doctrin euer take vp the most room And which is worse yea pitiful in à Rational Defender of Protestancy You shall neuer find through this whole Book waue Cauils coniectures and Glosses one sound Principle laid plainly forth nor so much as hinted at in behalf of any Protestant Article What think ye Shall Yet Most weak and feeble Christians who would fain haue à Church to liue in see the old House of God pulled down by vnhandy Glossers before They haue à better built vp And well setled on good Foundations Pulled down What say I Alas our Glossers haue not strengh to vntile it much less force to demolish that long slanding Fortress Yet Glosses chiefly And t' is à sad thought for the Sectary support his vndefensible Schism made in the desperate quarrel against that Church which gaue his Ancestors Baptism These only there is no more must plead in behalf of his inhuman and barbarous Reformation These finally must answer before an Impartial Iudge at that great day of Doom for all his merciless cruelty practised vpon the deceased and some yet liuing Catholicks Sad thoughts I say they are to goe to bed with to rise with to banquet with which like Ghosts will haunt him to his dying day And lay Torment at his restles hart in his greatest iollities And more in the houre of death 10. After all you see the Conclusion and an end put to Controuersies The Conclusion against Sectaries If no Orthodox Church vphold's this Protestancy or any article of it which is euident No Councils nor Tradition can support
and that this Resurrection is meant in divers passages of Scripture But they deny the Resurrection of the body after Death Ergo it will be the Safest to deny the article of the Resurrection Again Dissenting parties as Iewes Turcks and Sectaries agree with Catholicks that there is but one God Ergo by virtue of this Principle men will be bound to deny the Trinity Lastly Dissenting parties Agree fully with vs That Christ is man but Hereticks deny His Godhead Therefore it will be safest belieuing that Christ is meer man And not God Answer With much wearisomness do I read these more than pitiful improbable inferences Not one of them arises from Premises which lead in any thing like your Conclusion Reduce but Premises put which infer no Conclusion one to right Form one serues for all and you will see your folly Thus it is That Doctrin in which Catholicks and Hereticks agree is safe and true Doctrin Catholicks and Hereticks agree in this Doctrin that Christ is man but not man only ergo that is safe and true Doctrin Here is the utmost your Premises can infer And I grant all Christ is truly man So I grant the Doctrin of à Resurrection from sin of one God only to be most sound and Catholick But here is your grand mistake and open fallacy with it You seem to perswade the Reader that because Hereticks agree so far with the Church Therefore it is safe to deny what euer other Doctrin She maintains Sr She maintains the Truths now mentioned yet not only Those But many more And herein there is no Agreement consequently no good conclusion for you vpon any agreed Principle For thus much only followes from thence That so far as we Agree so far true Doctrin is taught Apply this to our present matter and all is plain You and we agree thus far that Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick Religion Most true We dissent from you concerning the Charge of Superstitions An ather fallacy discouered and gross Errours imposed on vs from this you can infer no Conclusion against vs vpon the Principle of Agreement now Supposed in the other Doctrin of Saluation which goes on roundly without all contradiction I would say We agree about Saluation and that 's à Truth we differ in other points here we must dispute vpon other Grounds And lay that agreed on Principle aside for immediatly it lead's in no conclusion in such matters 31. Shall I now tell you where your whole Fallacy lies It lurk's in that pretty Term Safest For you thought to infuse into it this Sense So much Doctrin as we and Hereticks agree in is only the Safest But no more As if we Catholicks held what euer other Tenet is out of the compass of that agreed-on Doctrin implies both Vnsafety and Vncertainty You grosly mistake We hold euery other Point of Catholick Religion wherin you and we dissent wholly as Safe and certain as That is we both agree in For I tell you once more our Safety and certainty depend not vpon any Hereticks consent If then you would rack That Principle we and Arians agree to this unto ward sense So much Doctrin The Principle of Agreement abused precisely is the safest we agree in And no more Or That our maintaining that agreed-on Doctrin to be safe excludes other Catholick verities from being So Wee neither agree with the Arian nor any other Heterodox But utterly disclaim The Principle and consequently say you can draw no Conclusion at all from it against vs. Sense the Principle and all is clear Hereticks and we agree That Christ is man That sense contains certain Doctrin O but the meaning may be He is so purely man that he is not God Giue it this sense we agree not but reject the Principle as Heretical which therefore inferr's nothing like à conclusion against vs. All is contrary in the other agreed on Principle Concerning the Saluation of Catholicks For that as I said now Though it serue not immediatly to end other debates touching Purgatory Praâ—ing to Saints c. yet it drawes with it à long train of notable consequences For if we may be saued we haue true Faith in our Church true Hope true Chatity true Repentance And what euer is necessary to attain saluation More of Mr. Stillingfleets Mistakes briefly discouered 32. I 'le only briefly hint all the rest which followes from your Page 623. to the end of the Chapter To touch them is enough to take off the little strength they haue You ask first Why you ought to belieue that which both Parties agree in I Answer because you must belieue in some Church which is either your own or Two questions answered the Roman Catholick Or Both Both grant the Catholick may be saued what would you haue more You Ask again If the consenting parties may agree in à falshood what euidence haue you but that the agreed on Principle is one of those Falshoods I haue answered 1. If the Principle bee supposed false you might haue roundly said so at the beginning and spared all your superfluous labour spent to no purpose in this fourth Chapter I Answered 2. The true Church euen when Protestants consent to it cannot Agree in à falshood for the true Church speaks truth And He or They who side with it cannot swerue from truth in that You say 3. It ought to be à safe Principle indeed and no vncertain Topical Argument which men should venture their souls vpon Answ If men must be saued in the true Church be it yet where you will And in this we All agree none can in conscience call the Doctrin of it Topical or vncertain as shall be proued afterward In the mean while Say I beseech you Church Doctrin Miscalled Topical what safer Principle haue you to rely on in this weightly matter of Saluation which will not be more Topical Than that is which the true Church teaches And you approue You know or should know there was neuer any true Church since Christianity began which denied Saluation to the Romam Catholick Nay all Orthodox Christians euer granted it You side with all these Orthodox Christians and what greater Authority can there be on earth Yet this Principle must be called by you Topical and vncertain Say then what 's more certain Will you leave the voice and vote of all Orthodox Professors and run to Scripture Alas The whole book Saith no where so much as seemingly That you Protestants are in the Safe way of Saluation And we Catholicks not What euer Argument therefore is drawn from Scripture will be à lesse satisfactory Principle yea none at all And infinitly more Topical in order to saue you Than what the church teaches and you hold with it is to save vs. Now if you let goe this Principle of plain Scripture as you must or I 'le vrge you lo produce that plain Text which saues you and Damn's Catholicks you haue nothing left
no For this we believe by Faith And know not Scientifically Yet they plainly Mark out the great Oracle whereby God speaks to the world And therefore wonder not that Sectaries striue so earnestly to Obscure the euidence Their design is to take from vs the clearest Principle which must end Controversies Why Sectaries endoauour to obs 〈…〉 â—he Churches Lustre For cast oncâ— off à Church manifested by Antiquity Miracles Conuersions c. Nothing remains to regulate Faith but the dark and yet vnsensed Letter of Scripture which is most grosly abused by the one or other dissenting Party who force vpon it quite contrary Senses And by what means can any one come to the knowledge of Him or these that abuse it if Church Authority be excluded or decide not in this most weighty matter VVe need not saith Mr Thorndicke in his Book of Forbearance P. 2. The Heresies of the Primitiue times to tell vs what Irreligious pretenses may be set forth in Scripture Phrase Our own Fanatiks would furnish sport enough with the Foolâ—riâ—s they pretend as from Gods Spirit because they can dâ—liuer their Nonsense in the Phrase of Scripture Again This two edged sword of holy Scripture may proue an edged tool to cut their sâ—ins with who take vpon them and haue not skill to handle it Much better were it say I were the Abuse or ill handling of the Book only found among à few Fanaticks But the euil is spread further you Gentlemen are all alike whether Fanaticks or Protestants that handle gloss and interpret Scripture by Priuate reason conttary to the Iudgement of an uniuersal euidenced Church 13. A third Truth The Church thus manifested by Her Marks which are Obiects of Sense and induce reason to iudge that She only is Gods Oracle Catholicks neuer call into doubt Her Essential owned Doctrin nor seek for further Euidence thereof because there is none in this present State But humbly submit to all she Teaches This Euidence then once attained which ariseth from the Churches Marks And hath drawn Millions to belieâ—e her Doctrin We next turn to our Bible and learn there that the Language of these Motiues for etiam factâ— What these Motiues Speak loquitur Deus saith S. Austin aboue God speaks by his works and the Language of his own written word is one and the same That is what these Inducements point at God expresly deliuers in holy Scripture Obserue an exact parallel 14. The Antiquity of our Church and here is one sensible Mark we plead by giues Assurance that the first Founder was our Lord Iesus Christ No Sectary call's this truth into Question and the Gospel confirms it Luc. 24. 48. Beginning from Hierusalem c. Her Constant Perseuerance visible in all Ages God reueals in Scripture proues Her indeficiency And this is manifest in Scripture A Citty placed on à Mountain Hell gates shall not preuail against Her Om 〈…〉 m etiam infidelium oculis exhibetur saith S. Austin Lib. Con. Crescon C. 63. The Church is so well seen by all that the very Pagans cannot contradict Her She showes you à continued Succession of her Popes Bishops and Pastors from the beginning and Scripture also Ephes 4. 11. And he gaue some Apostles c. long since foretold it She giues in à clear Euidence of Her Miracles through euery age Our Blessed Sauiour prophesied it should be so Iohn 14. 12. Maiora horum facient They shall work greater wonders None can deny most Miraculous Conuersions of Kingdomes and Nations to Her Faith and the Prophesies of Christ's Church fulfilled Prophets euery where Proclaim the truth Many Nations shall flock to Her Zachar. 2. 11. She Shewes how Her Doctrin was propagated through the whole world And therefore is called the Visible Catholick or Vniuersal Church Scripture also Confirm's it Doâ—ete omnes gentes Teach all Nations Dominabitur à mari vsque ad mare She shall raign from sea to sea Finally to say much in few words which might be further amplifyed Is it true which the Church demonstrates that Hereticks as Arians Nestorians Pelagians Eutichyans Lutherans and Caluinists once Professed Catholicks shamefully abandoned Her Vnion and for that Cause iustly deserued the reproachful name of Hereticks and Separatists Scripture Foretell's vs of the Breach and Apostacy Iohn 1. 2. 19. Ex nobis prodierunt They left vs went out from vs. for had they been of vs they would haue remained And thus both Church and Heresy are visibly pointed at by clear Marks and Gods written word also Videndum it is the Expression of Optat. Mileuit Lib. 1. à little after the middle Quis in radice â—um toto orbe â—aâ—serit quis foras exierit We are to see who They were that continued in the root with the whole world and who parted from it We are to see who erected another Chair distinct from that which was before Call these and boldly Hereticks straglers from the Church and the Verities of Christs Gospel And here by the way we vrge our Nouellists to point at à visible Sectaries Vrged to Answer Orthodox Society which the Supposed erring Church of Rome abandoned as clearly as we lay forth to them the time the place the circumstances not only of their own impious Reuolt But of all other more ancient Hereticks from this Catholick Society Could the Sectary do thus much Hee might speak more confidently 15. To end the matter now in hand You see by what is said already If Christs words haue weight Math. 18. 16. In ore duorum vel trium Stet omne verbum That Truth stand's firm vpon the Testimony of two or three vnexceptionable Witnessess Wee here introduce two Testimonies in behalf of our Church which none can except against Gods own voice speaking to reason by Miracles and the Motiues now mentioned is the One And his own sacred reuealed word which most significantly teaches what these Motiues speak is the Other Hence I say Sectaries cannot dispute against this Church without proofs drawn from Motiues as strong and Scriptures as clear as are now alleged in our behalf We press them again and again to giue in their Euidence and seriously demand whether Protestancy was confessedly founded by Christ Or but once owned Orthodox by any sound Christians Sectaries Grauelled at Euery Question As all acknowledge the foundation of the Roman Catholick and the Orthodoxism of it to haue been established by Christ our Lord. We further enquire after à visible Succession of their Pastors after their visible Miracles their visible Conuersions made in foregoing Ages Nothing is answered nothing is or can be pleaded nothing in à word is returned probable Therefore Protestancy is an vneuidenced Religion no Motiues countenance the Nouelty no Scripture speaks for it and Consequently cannot but be in the highest degree improbable 16. A fourth Truth A Church which weares as it were Gods own Liuery and beares the Signatures of Divine Authority in Her Miracles Prodigious Conuersions
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
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
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
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
Iudaism or Turcism bee erroneous and improbable 1. WEE here exclude professed Atheists vowed enemies of all Religion And now treat with other Aduersaries but very briefly they are either Heathens Turks or Iewes list if you please with These all condemned Hereticks as Arians Pelagians Donatists and the like rabble of Aliens from truth who really deserue not the name of Christians Heathens now of no account 2. The Gentils or Heathens that adored many Gods as Mars Iupiter Apollo and therfore plain Idolaters because they make deceased men Gods are now of no account in the world Turks Iewes Christians and all other decry their vanity or to speak in S. Chrisostoms worts ipsius Christi virtute dissipati sunt They are wasted dissolued and brought to nothing by the virtue of Christ our Sauiours preaching Diuturnitate temporum perierunt Time has worn them out we need say no more 3. Turkcism which hath gained à great part of the world and à far greater then euer any particular Heresy gained is euidently no more but an open Tyranny The sword no word of God doth all Power and carnal pleasures which corrupted nature easily embraceth vphold this Religion More cruelty followes the Professors of it then Iustice fidelity or any moral virtue yet moral virtue grounded in nature euer accompanies true Religion Again and here is à Demonstration against Turkeism Mahomet who held himself à Prophet only and no God appeared some centuries after Christ yea and owned both A demonstration against Turkeism Christ and Moyses to haue been great Prophets sent from God Hence I argue If sent from God the Doctrin they deliuered was true Therfore Mahomets Alcoran is false which contradict's not only Christs Doctrin but that also of Moses and the Prophets The contradiction is euident by the Alcoran and the inference Ergo The Alcoran contradict's God himself speaking truth by these Prophets is as clear Therfore either God contradict's him self saying one thing by these Prophets and reuoking it by Mahomet which is impossible or Mahomet is à lyar Yet more Let Mahomet iudge as he pleaseth of Christ and the Prophets He and his are obliged to satisfy one Demand viz. What Doctrin that was wherby men were saued before his preaching And I speak of Doctrin not of Ceremonies or temporal positiue Lawes He will not say all from Adam to his dayes were damned for want of true Doctrin nor can he haue recours to the Multiplicity of Gods owned by Heathens these He reiects Therfore he must acknowledge true Doctrin taught before his being in the world but this Doctrin Moses Christ and the Prophets truely deliuered or there was none taught in the world This saued souls anciently therfore if belieued it saues them still once it was true therfore it is now and will be euer so But Mahomet opposeth him self to this true reuealed Doctrin therfore He opposeth God speaking by these Oracles Hence I argue Mahomets errour Very late opposite to ancient truth A Religion which began fifty ages after truth was taught in the world and expresly contradict's that taught truth is false Mahomets Religion is euidently such ergo it is false I say that contradict's the ancient true Doctrin to preuent an obiection which may arise out of ignorance For some may say Christ our Lord long after Moses and the Prophets deliuered Doctrin contrary to them therfore the Argument against Mahomet conuinceth not I answer It is one thing to reueal Truth à new not anciently belieued and an other to abrogate ancient receiued verities Christ besides cancelling the Ceremonial law deliuered more truths then were explicitly declared by the Prophets but neuer contradicted any Doctrin proceeding from God by the mouth of his Prophets as Mahomet did Hence S. Austin and other Fathers Affirm that Christs Church reuerences the Doctrin of Moses and the Prophets and that faith hath euer been the same from the beginning of the world 4. The Iewes who make their Religion most ancient are notwithstanding clearly conuinced of errour and here is my first The Iewes à dispersed People without essence or form of Religion Argument A People dispersed vp and down the world that haue had now for 16. ages neither Essence nor Form of true Religion nor the effects or fruits of it cannot profess true Religion and consequently are not the lawful heires of the Prophets ancient Faith But the Iewes are thus euidently dispersed and want the Essence the Form and effects of Religion Ergo. I proue the Minor A sacrifice essential to Religion which could not according to their law be offered but in Hierusalem only A Temple and Priests also euidently fail them for no Sacrifice no Priest Iudges Prophets and miracles cognisances also of true Religion which neuer failed in their greatest Captiuities now by the iust iudgement of God leaue them therfore the very Form and order of Religion wholy reuersed manifest this people once Populum iam non populum heretofore blessed now accursed for their obstinacy And if we speak of other effects or fruits of Religion their Thalmudick Fables their vnsatiable auarice their cheating and Cozening others their open Hypocricy for gain They exteriourly profess any Religion now Catholicks now Protestants now Arians or what you will These effects I say demonstrate à want of the very Soul of the life of virtue and Religion in them All which is manifest to our eyes and senses 5. To add force to this most weighty Argument S. Cyprian chiefly in his first book Aduers Iudaeos shewes all along how Their dereliction foretold in scripture they were fortold by the very law and ancient Prophets of their losing Religion and future dereliction after Christs comming viz. That Their first lawes and carnal circumcision were to cease and à new law with spiritual circumcision to succeed Isay 8. Mich. 4. That an other order and à new Testament should be giuen Ier. 31. That the old Pastors were to leaue of their teaching and new Doctors come in their place Ier. 3. and. 31. That no other but Christ himself was to be the true Temple and house of God 2. Reg. 7. That the old sacrifices of lambes and beasts should not be offered Isay 1. That the old Priesthood was 〈◊〉 and à new Priest and king raign for euer Ps 109. 1. Reg ◠That the greater People the Iewes should become the lesse and the Gentils far lesser become greater Gen. 15. Osee 2. That à Church once barren should haue more Children than the Synogogue euer had Isa 5. 4. vpon those words Iucundare sterilis Thus S. Cyprian through those seueral short chapters of his first book And we see all these prophesies literally fulfilled after the comming of our Sauiour and the establishment of the Christian Church Those hearts are stupid and eyes blind that perceiue not the Iewish synogogue vtterly abandoned Yet more If you will see this Christian verity amply laid forth read the 9. chapter of Daniel where the
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
been lost and peruerted by fraud negligence violence or all together You say 3. These ancient Christians were professed enemies to the corrupters of the Bible yet you hold them dear friends to the deprauers of Gods verities registred in the Bible You say 4. The interest of eternal Saluation made these Christians careful to preserue the Bible in its first integrity And yet you make them supinly careles in preseruing the verities contained in Scripture as highly necessary to saluation You say 5. The eternal concerns of all Christians so depended vpon the safe preseruation of these Sacred Records that if they were not true we are all most miserable And I reply The eternal concerns of all Christians as highly depend's on the pure Doctrin of Scripture as on the outward secured Records for what auails it to haue pure Records and draw poyson out of them You grant the whole world was miserably infatuated with false Doctrin for ten whole ages though it had the letter of Scripture pure and yet the purity of that book preuented not the misery of mischieuous errours You say 6. When once I see à whole Corporation content to burn the publick Charter and substitute à And further vrged against him new one in its place and this not to be suspected or discouered When I shall see à Magna Charta foisted and neither King nor People be sensible of such à cheat when all the world shall conspire to deceiue themselues and their Children I may then suspect such an imposture as to the Scripture but not before Answ Ex ore tuo te Iudico and retort the Argument in your own words When. I see not only à whole Corporation but à whole ample learned Church wast or depraue the old Legacy of Christ sacred Truths bequeathed to it and a new learning substituted in its place and this change not to be suspected and discouered when I shall see that Magnum Depositum of his Doctrin once committed to the Church escare to be foisted and neither King nor Prelate nor People found sensible of the cheat when all the world shall conspire to deceiue themselues and their children by teaching fals Doctrin in place of Christs verities Then I shall and must in prudence suspect an imposture à change an alteration in the very book of Scripture This later you shamfully grant to haue happened when vpon the pretence of hideous errours you abandoned all other Christian Societies in the world and vnfortunatly made à Schism with Luther from the true Roman Catholick Church therefore you may not only weakly suspect but must most iustly fear the first which is that you haue not true Scripture 4. Hence I say what euer Argument proues the book of Scripture hitherto preserued pure proues likewise the Doctrin of the present Church as faithfully transmitted and Conueyed pure from An inference from what is sayd age to age to our very dayes Contrariwise if there were any Principle as there is none whereby this Doctrin could be shew'd false or stained All might if reason haue place ioyntly acknowledge à non-assurance of the Scriptures purity For that Corrupters of Christs Doctrin may more Easily Corrupt the words of scripture Church which may lose true faith and Corrupt Christ's Doctrin may more easily lose or corrupt Christ's Scripture vnlesse you grant which is horridly impious that Gods special Prouidence had only care to keep à Bible incorrupt and at last like one careless permitted the Doctrin of that book wheron Saluation essentially depend's to be extorted out of the hearts of all Christians for à thousand yeares together Ponder these truths Mr Stilling and Confesse ingenuously if your Principles hold good you haue not so much as any probable certainty of your Bible 5. Perhaps one may say if the letter of Scripture be corrupted the very foundation of Faith is shaken but if supposed pure and vnaltered though all Christians Papists and Hereticks erred in the Doctrin therof yet they may be reclaimed from errour by the pure Euangelical preachers now swarming in England Pittiful what no help then for à besotted world before these late men appeared who here speak at random They first tell vs vpon à meer supposition without any semblance of proof that Scripture was euer preserued pure though all Christians abused its Doctrin wheras we contend vpon most grounded reasons that if all erred in the doctrin drawn from Scripture the letter cannot be supposed pure because à Church carelesly negligent in the preseruation of Christs Doctrin cannot be thought careful enough in preseruing the true Records of his Doctrin Now the Answer without proof is though all erred Doctrinally yet none of them maimed or marred the Bible which besides à Moral impossibility implies à pure begging of the Question See more of this particular in the other Treatise Disc 2. c. 2. n. 8. Again If these Euangelical men pretend to Conuince vs of our errours What sectaries are obliged to by à pure book of Scripture they are obliged to shew vs some one Copie at least wherof we may haue such certainty as excludes à Possibility of all doubting But this no Protestant can do who If God assisted the Transcribers of scripture much more he assist's the Church reiect's all editions now extant except perhaps his own The Vulgar latin which Mr Stillingfleet call's the great Diana of Rome of high credit in the Church for à thousand years pleaseth not The Clementine and Sixtine Bibles not different in any Material point touching Faith are vnderualued Set these aside I desire Mr Still or any Protestant to show me à Copy whose Authenticalness is so agreed on by the consent of all Christians as may exclude reasonable doubting of its purity It is vtterly impossible If these men answer we must haue recourse to the Autograph's or ancient Manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek I deny their supposition for these now extant are no first Originals in à word no more but Transcriptions What greater security therefore haue we of such copies then of the Vulgar latin vnlesse you say that the Transcriber who euer he was because he wrote Hebrew Caldee or Greek could not tell à lye or was determined to follow in euery Material point of Faith the Hagiographers Copy most faithfully Grant this and I Argue If God by special Prouidence so assisted the memory the will and hands of these Transcribers as to write nothing but what was exactly found in the first Original Scripture with much more reason will He euer assist his Church to admit or approue of no Scripture nor Doctrin but what is genuine pure and Orthodox 6. To reinforce this argument I licence Mr Stilling to chuse amongst so many lections of the new Testament as he saith are collected by Robert Stephen one or two he likes best and then I demand whether that lection agrees with the vulgar latin or differ's from it If 't agree there is no reason to quarrel with
the Vulgar if it be different in any material point we are cast vpon the greatest vncertainties immaginable for the dispute will then be whether that Copie which he followes ought to be preferred before the Vulgar Latin And here Sr. you and I must come to clear Principles Wee say first The Vulgar latin translated or at least Corrected at Pope Damasus Command by that learned and profound Doctor S. Hierom hath been read in the Church The vulgar latin of long vse in the Church without reproof for à thousand years and vpward None but one Rufinus and this only at the beginning whilst S. Hierom liued excepted against it S. Austin all know Lib. de ciuit 18. c. 4. 3. highly commend's S. Hieroms great labours and learning in the three tongues Not any in the ensuing ages found the work reprehensible innumerable worthy Authors haue approued it And now O strange time à few Nouellists whose whole industry is only to pull down to build nothing disdainfully call it Romes great Diana Be pleased Sr. to answer and giue me as strong à proof for the Authenticalness of that Copy you follow if any difference be as I giue you for our Latin Translation If you say the S. Hierom defended against Cauils Copy you follow is not the same which S. Hierom vsed it is more then you know He had as many lections and perhaps more than you haue seen and can you say which he followed and which he did not Well But suppose he made vse of an other Copy different from what pleaseth you the Question is whether that be of lesse credit then yours And this sole point cannot be decided in your fauour by any probable Principle If you say S. Hieroms Translation seem's contrary to the Authentick Greek Copies I answer first you do not only auouch more then you know but vtter an improbability for if there had been any Material difference between his Translation and the Greek he made vse of innumerable learned Doctors in the Catholick Church would haue espied the errour and discouered it before you were born Pray you remember your own discours P. 215. and. 216. where you say you may be sufficiently assured that no Material corruption is in the Books of Scripture without our Churches Testimony because Catholiks of old were alwayes as vigilant to preserue the Scriptures purity as Hereticks ready to depraue it For you say when Marcion began to clip the Text Irenaeus presently took notice and rebuked him and so did Tertullian and Epiphanius respectiuely to others who rescued Scripture from the violent hands of such as attempted to falsify it Lay then yours on your brest and once speak ingenuously can you perswade your self if any considerable errour had been in our Vulgar Edition either contrary Catholick authors would haue noted errours in the vulgar had there been any to Faith or Good manners that those many worthy learned Catholicks in the ages after S. Hierom would not haue noted it and released it from Corruption What For à thousand years was there no Irenaeus no Tertullian no Epiphanius no Ambrose c. that took notice of so important à matter whereon the saluation of souls depended Again And this Argument euer pinches was there no Irenaeus no Tertullian in all those ages when they saw the Doctrin of Scripture go to ruin by these supposed erring Papists that rescued the Doctrin from errour as they did the letter of scripture from corruption 7. You tell vs. 2. That among those multitudes of lections in the new Testament obserued by Robert Stephen which were perhaps occasioned in the general dispersion of Copies by the Multitudes of Transcriptions through the ignorance or carelesness of the Transcribers there are none which seem material or intrench vpon the integrity of Scripture as à rule of Faith and manners They are therefore say you but racings of the skin but no wounds of any vital part And is it possible Can you find more then such racings in the Vulgar Latin can you discouer à wound in any vital part therof I challenge you to speak to the cause in this particular but I know you cannot Why therefore may not the Vulgar bee admitted amongst the rest The reason of my assertion is You cannot find such à wound in the Vulgar vnless you produce à Copy of Scripture more genuine and pure without Dispute but this whether you haue recourse to the Greek or any Latin translation will be more doubted of by whole multitudes of learned men then the vulgar now read in the Church Therefore you cannot come to so much certainty of any Scripture as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting Which truth seem's so euident ad hominem that it needs no further proof but this only The Sectary saith our Vulgar translation is not pure we say and proue it his English Bibles different from the Greek in the new Testament are Corrupted see many of these errours noted before the Rhems Testament Therefore if the Protestant reiect's the now Authentick latin Edition he has no such certainty of any The vulgar Latin reiected Protestants haue not Certainty of any Translation Translation extant as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting vnless he makes his own parties opinion for what he saith vndubitable and our contrary assertion improbable which is foul play 8. Some sectary may reply He excepts not against the Vulgar Latin which is our Sixtine and Clementine Bible as guilty of any Material errour but of lesser faults only and with such charitable eyes hee look's on all other versions Thus much integrity I hope Sectaries must approue the Vulgar latin Bible Mr. Stilling allowes it p 216. where he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Diuine Prouidence in preseruing the Authentick Records of Scripture safe to our dayes By the way it 's pitty he omitted to note also the like prouidence in preseruing the Doctrin of Scripture pure so long But hereof we haue said enough already All therefore I note at present is 1. If God shewed à particular Prouidence in preseruing Scripture pure to our dayes the Vulgar Latin according to Mr Stilling Cannot be guilty of any material errour for were it guilty this peculiar Prouidence would haue failed in the great moral body of the Roman Catholick Church which hath read this Scripture and held it incorrupt for ten whole ages And Consequently Mr Stilling must acknowledge à want of special Prouidence in order to the preseruation of all authentick Records euery where Grant thus much and no Sectary can haue so great moral assurance of scripture as excludes all reasonable doubting for if God hath permitted à whole ample Church to be deluded with à Bible notably corrupted The Certainty of Scripture which excludes all reasonable doubting fail's the sectary who either must admit of an other latin Translation distinct from ours or haue recourse to the Greek Text but he approues of no latin Translation as
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
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
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
indubitable Principles appliable to the Belieuers reason If therefore à Want be found of such proofs and doubts arise whether Christ's Doctrin be taught or no None can by doubtful or ambiguous Proofs of true Religion easy and Conuincing Principles only absolutly say This is Christs Doctrin and Consequently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightines of the matter that is they are clear conuincing and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting Thus much supposed 2. I say first who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox when the matter is of Controuersy and cannot The sectaries proofs as dark as his Doctrin bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle then the particular assertion is which should be proued argues improbably The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so that is he neuer goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is which should be proued therefore he Argues improbably 3. To proue the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies Take à veiw of all our Protestant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask what Protestant dare appear and venture to proue That Faith only iustifies The like I say of his other negatiue Articles Of no real Presence of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass c. I absolutly affirm He cannot make one of these Articles good by any vndoubted Principle or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer than that dark article is which should be proued One reason is These Doctrins opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also are not euidently known as truths by the light of One reason of our Assertion nature or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years agone and Consequently no vniuersal tradition is for them The only difficulty is whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers generally patronize such Doctrins And to fauour Sectaries all that 's possible we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible but withall assure them it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book and the impossibility will be thus manifested As long as these men cannot proue their new Doctrin to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted but vpon less sure grounds or less assured tradition so long their doctrin is naught and stands vnprincipled But this is so as we shall see presently And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick The difference beween the proofs of Catholiks and Protestants and Protestant The first proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine the Church assures him of both but the Sectary euer fall's short in this and cannot giue you so strong à proof for his particular Doctrin as he doth for the very letter of his book which he supposes teaches that Doctrin 4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth and take one particular Controuersy we cannot insist on all and ask the Protestant How he proues that the real presence of Christs sacred body as Catholicks assert is not expressed in the literal sense of those words This is my body His negatiue assertion most euidently is not there in plain terms We therefore vrge him to make it good by à proof that 's clear or more conuincing than his own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is And is he not obliged think yee to produce à strong proof indeed when he hath so many powerful Aduersaries to contrast with 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers vsually cited by Authors opposite to him 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church for both Churches mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day 4. The express Doctrin of general Councils which define our Doctrin positiuely and The grounds of our Catholick Tenets condemn the figuratiue presence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery related by authors of most indubitable credit These are no slight grounds of our Doctrin Let vs see by what strong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them or which is immediatly to my purpose proues his new negatiue Position Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist Not one word in the whole Bible is like it much contrary Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him No. What euer sense he drawes from thence seemingly to his purpose will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle as his own improbable position is and therefore most vnfit to perswade it Has he as vniuersal Tradition or the vnanimous consent of Fathers for his negatiue or for that sense he would force out of Scripture as he and we haue for the letter of the Text now cited Nothing at all And to show you how iustly I propose this question call to mind what Mr The Sectary answers not to any Stilling exact's of his Aduersary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should saith he once see you proue the infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints c. by as vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is whereby we receiue the Scriptures I would extoll you for the only person that euer did any thing considerable on your side Thus he speakes after this precaution giuen Think not to fob vs off with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catholik with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Your own words Mr Stilling shall here condemn you The Question is whether your Negatiue Christ is not really present in the Eucharist as Catholiks affirm be Orthodox Doctrin We exact as rigid à proof from you as you demand of vs but fob vs not off with your own talk Tradition you haue none nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers but giue vs the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time as What we iustly require of Sectaries clear for your negatiue as you demand of vs for the articles now mentioned Or if this be too much giue vs but only the indubitable sentiment of any Church reputed Orthodox four or fiue hundred years past for this your sense and assertion and I will applaud you as à most singular person But this you shall doe when you haue turned all faith out of the world that is neuer I say therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
into blood as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine Consequently they renounce both the parity and open sense of the words And which is euer to be noted wilfully do so when they haue nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on Contrariwise the Catholick in this debate denies no express sense of any Fathers Testimony but only makes Inquiry into the Signification of words which are confessedly dubious Take here one instance Gelasius saith The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be First I make no account of this Gelasius Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi Contra Eutich He was not that holy Pope so called but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl Howeuer these two particles substance and nature may ex placito indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massinesse of bread and wine for natural qualities which flow from an Essence haue or often sustain as was noted aboue the name of that Essence they come from Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious sense but only contends that Nature and substance may signify as is most Of Gelasius How much his authority is worth vsual the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be And he giues this signification to these two words because Scripture Church and the Fathers wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends forceth him to it And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine Thus much may be said if that authority were worth any thing Read I beseech you Brereley In his Lyturgy of the Masse cited aboue pag 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined and that in very truth this Gelasius who euer he was speaking against the Eutichians as Theoderet did vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also Open the book and read you will be satisfyed I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Obiections 18. There is yet an other Reply Sectaries may say we suppose all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin The Supposition is denied because they quote t' is true not many but some Fathers and Scripture also to countenance their new opinion By the way here is occasion again to reflect on what is often noted viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers and they explicate all They cite also and we do the like and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other we are as much iarring as we were before without hope of ending Controuersies this way Now my Answer to the first part of the Obiection is We Catholicks suppose nothing but only The answer to an other reply take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church which was neuer censured by any Orthodox society of Christians Vpon these Principles therefore Scripture Church and Fathers we stand immoueable To that which followes I Answer Sectaries haue not one syllable of Scripture in fauour of their Nouelty and to omit à rehearsal of those triuial Arguments drawn from certain passages where they conceiue the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine c. I conuince my Assertion by the positiue ground abready established which none shall ouerthrow If this be the true sense of Scripture when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solue it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament Christ who is aboue in heauen is not really present on the Altar but in his sign only Or that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread only deputed to à holy vse If this I say be the true sense of Gods word Christs Orthodox Church expresly deliuered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luthers Reuolt for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth But no Orthodox Church then taught so or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture or Malicious and concealed it from Christians our Sectaries sense is not Scripture To confirm this Reason All know that the Roman Catholick Church then as well as now absolutly renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture and for that cause was not say they Orthodox in this particular Doctrin but no other Church confessedly Orthodox taught it at that time Therefore it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning All I would say is briefly laid forth thus 19. The true Church of Christs euer deliuers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters so much Protestants grant But No true Church deliuered this their sense three or four ages before Luthers reuolt Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost but à whimsy lately inuented This Argument I hold demonstratiue You will perhaps ask What is that these men can pretend to hauing neither Scripture nor Orthodox Church to rely on I 'le tell you in à word They allege How Sectaries endeauour te solue it first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers which the Catholick admit's not in the sense of Nouellists yet according to the clear plain and obuious signification of words as is now declared and He prudently giues this signification to ambiguous words because the Doctrin he owns stand's firm vpon other indubitable Principles Scripture Church and Fathers The Sectary euidently wants such Principles and therefore vapors as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities The next thing relyed on is much worse and purely nothing but fancy He reads Scripture and those euident Testimonies of Fathers as manifest for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it and these forsooth he endeauours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses without the least shadow of any distinct Principle which giues so much as à Colour to his fancied interpretations You shall see this truth most manifestly proued in the ensuing Chapter CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubious and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as vnwilling to catch flies as Mr Stilling is to kill them T' is his own phrase yet I must do so in some measure or permit à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort wauing many of lesser moment and I doe thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores For I am well assured If our
of this particular Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate Thus S. Austin himselfe Answers most profoundly S. Austin And he giues an Answer to the present difficulty viz. That if the Obscurer Part of Scripture speak not plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick the Heretick is to address himself to the Church and learn by Her what the sense of Scripture is Without light borrowed from the Church we haue only words about these high Mysteries but not fully sensed words chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries whose glosses depraue the plainest Passages in Holy writ as the Protestant doth Christ's clear Proposition This is my body If therefore we go on in such à contest with words not fully sensed we may well end our liues as S. Austin notes before we end one Controuersy 14. And thus you see as the One Part of Scripture is à body without à soul before it be receiued by the Church so the Other Part is also before it be both receiued and sensed by this Oracle of Truth Vpon this ground all those other Testimonies vsually alleged by Sectaries out of S. Austin against the Donatists Of Optatus Meleuitanus and S. Chrysostom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly solued for here is S. Austins Principle The sense of Scripture intended The sense of Scripture and the Church alwaies the same by the Holy Ghost and the sense of Christs true Church concerning Scripture can neuer clash but is one and the same If therefore I know the sense of the Church I haue with it the sense of Scripture also but with this difference That what Scripture often expresses less clearly Christ's Church deliuers more fully and Explicitly Whence it followes that if the Churches sense conclude against these Sectaries the Scriptures sense where it is obscure is in like manner concluding 15. You may obiect Scripture is in the noblest manner infallible For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly and may well be à distinct Rule or Principle from that sense which the Church giues of it Why therefore should not Sectaries haue recourse to that first and noblest Principle without relying on the Churches interpretation I haue answered because they know not guess they may and miss what Scripture saies in à hundred difficult Passages Therefore they are to recurr to the Church or must make vse of their own fancies to sense it The Argument purely fallacious is much to this sense Christ our Lord when he taught his Disciples was in the noblest manner infallible being Truth it self the Apostles were only infallible in their teaching and An Obiection answered further Explanation of those Verities they learn'd by à Singular Grace or participation of Infallibility Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the first sure Principle Christ's own words flowing from the Fountain of infallibility without depending on the Apostles Doctrin not so eminently infallible Now be pleased to hear S. Austin pondering those words Psal 57. Alienati sunt peccatores c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Christ and the Church and solues the Difficulty Ex veritatis ore ag 〈…〉 Christum ipsam veritatem Taught by the mouth of Truth I acknowledge Christ Truth it self ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam participem veritatis And by the same mouth of Truth I acknowledge the Church partaking also of Verity That is I own the Church to be not Truth it self not Scripture it self but à Copartner of Truth with Christ and Scripture I own it to be not Infallibility it self yet so eminently infallible by à singular grace or participated Infallibility That to dispute against it is most insolent madness Witness the same S. Austin Epist. 118. C. 5. ad Ian If he dare to do so Saith the Saint Serm 14. de verbis Apost C. 18. or rus◠violently against this impregnable wall of the Church let him know his doom ipse confringitur He is shattered in pieces Hence you see first that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary to the Churches sense giuen of Scripture without thwarting Scripture it self You see 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles looking as it were different waies but one and the same in order to our direction and regulating Faith whereof Scripture and the Church in order to all is one Principle more Hereafter 16. In the mean while you may ask why our Sectaries keep such à Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things necessary It is hard to say what they driue at For if all this pretended clarity diffused it self through euery passage of Holy writ worse it is for them and to their vtter confusion Obserue My reason The more clear Scripture is made by Nouellists the greater is their shame whilst they cannot proue by it's supposed clarity so much as one Protestant Doctrin nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholick Faith Therefore nothing is gained this way Nay all is los t by Their casting off Church Authority when after that wicked Fact clear Scripture leaues them as Scripturelesse as Their own malice has made them Churchlesse It is true I see some Colour for their Pretence to Scripture and thus it is Like men lawlesse they haue shaken of all other receiued Principles of Christian Religion Speak of à Church She is fallible and has actually erred Cite Fathers some pitifully gloss them others roundly reiect them as men meerly Fallible Mention Tradition the very word is odious Now for stark shame whilst they bear the name of Christians it is hard to throw away all Christian Principles What 's done therefore Why Sectaries take recourse to the bare letter of Scripture I 'le tell you They lay hold of à body without à Soul I mean the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Sense and this is all that 's left them I say without the sense whereof you haue seen enough already for when the sense of God's word is controuerted between them and vs and their sense run's contrary to the receiued Church Doctrin no probable Principle can make it defensible and vpon this Ground I said right They are as Scripturelesse as Churchlesse All this is most true and I well vnderstand it But why these men labour so earnestly to make the Bible plain when not so much as one plain passage is found there for Protestancy or against our Catholick Doctrin is à Riddle aboue my reach I vnderstand it not Let then as much as you will of the book be clear whilst the Clarity fauour 's not one of our Sectaries forged Nouelties nor Contradict's one of our Catholick Tenets it neither help 's the Protestant nor hurt 's the Catholick In the next Discourse we shall treat of the Church and more oportunely solue there à few obiections of Sectaries CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate Faith 1. THe next Principle after Scripture we named the
what auail's it to haue à Church garded from vniust dealing in Matters of Trust if you make it lyable to Errour in the main Essential which is true Faith the very ground of Saluation And Principle cause also of iust proceeding amongst Christians Perhaps these men will say S. Cyprian in his Elogium respected only the first Romans commended by the Apostle not Those who liued in his An other Gloss refuted time Contra 1. That is not only said without Proof but improbably falsifies the Saints express words Eos esse Romanos as is now noted Contra. 2. If S. Cyprian only relate to the Romans whom the Apostle taught what need is there to keep à coile about the signification of Perfidia when those first Christians had for their Instructor an Infallible Apostle If therefore S. Paul could not err in faith Perfidia may well exclude all misbelief or errour in Matters of Faith from that Apostolical Church And here we make way to discouer the Bishops leuity in his second Gloss. 8. Suppose saith he it be granted that Perfidia Signifies errour in faith or Doctrin yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely but with à respect to those first Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle Contra 1. Vpon what certain Principle doth this confident Assertion stand It belongs not absolutely to the Roman Church Proue thus much by à sure Principle and something is said to the purpose But without à solid Probation we look on it as à whimsey only or à thought of fancy Yet more What mean's his Lordship by those dark words With à respect to those first Romans Will he say that the first Romans were infallible in Faith and make those others to whom S. Cyprian wrote fallible This must be his meaning or nothing A second and third Gloss reiected For if both were equally infallible or both alike fallible he gains nothing by the word Respect to the first Romans Therefore he must hold that ancient Church of Rome to be more infallibly founded in Faith than the later Romans were to whom S. Cyprian wrote Admit this He makes the Saint not only to flatter à whole Church but to speak Nonsense also For in effect he saith thus much Your Ancestors the Romans were so secured from errour in Faith that they could not decline from Christ's Doctrin but you now are in à very tottering Condition for you may swerue from the Faith of your Ancestors you may perhaps belieue as they did and perhaps not Howeuer I will sooth you vp and praise you as à Church impossible to erre with an Ad quos Perfidia habere non possit accessum You are men so faithfull that no Misbelief can touch you The last Gloss of the Bishop is thus S. Cyprians Elogium seem's rather à Rhetorical insinuation than à Dogmatical Assertion Mark the proofles word Seem's t' is only à thought of my Lords fancy which I am sure seem's far from à dogmatical Assertion What That à Saint and worthy Bishop should Rhetorick it in so weighty à Matter But enough of this nothing 9. To make something doe at last Mr Stilling Page 317. laies his Gloss by my Lord's and has à good opinion of it To Mr Stilling misinterpretation giue every man his due it is better than any of the Bishops He sayes in à word after à relation of the present state of Rome at that time when those Schismaticks Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither that Perfidia may well denote the Falsness and treacherous dealing of those two Persons who seemed good Catholicks but were not so and sought to ioyn in Communion with Cornelius and the Catholick Party but meant it not Now such Iuglers should haue no Access to the Principal Church or to those Romans whose Faith the Apostle so highly extolled so that Perfidia Respects not the Romans nor excludes Errour from that Church but laies falshood as was well deserued on those Schismaticks This I take to be Mr Stilling meaning Contra. 1. The Gloss euery one sees violently strained makes the allusion between Fides and Persidia Both Strained and inconsistent with S. Cyprians sense insignificant 2. It is inconsistent with the Authors whole sense who speak's not of perfidious men but of Falshood and Vntruth which could not haue Access to that principal Church For it is euident that perfidious persons as Mr Stilling tell 's the Story actually had Access And therefore could certainly haue it when Fortunatus and Felicissimus came to Rome 3. Make the most you can of this Gloss it reaches no further but to à meer far-fetcht Guess and what is gained by That Can Mr Stilling establish his Opinion of the Churches fallibility on no surer grounds Can he hope to driue me by guesses and Glosses not only from the Obuious sense of these words but also from the clear Expressions of innumerable other Fathers who stand openly for an infallible Church It is à disperate Improbability Yet so it is These selfconceited Glosses and nothing els Vphold Protestancy in euery controuerted Matter The infinite number of them and the Stories Mr Stilling tell 's to no purpose at all so enlarge his Rational account That if you fling these away you may easily put the remainder of that Book into à smal Decimo sexto 10. Be pleased to obserue à little We say and Christ said it before vs Hell gates should not preuail against the Church founded Glosses opposed to manifest Proofs by Diuine Prouidence But fancied Glosses disputes it at last into à Possibility of being peruerted by Hell and Heresy also We say it is the Pillar and ground of Truth but Glosses laid vpon these words must be thought so strong as to shake it all in pieces We say Christ will be with his Spouse to the end of the world Hold there say Sectaries our Glosses tell you No For this promise was only Conditionally True in all that succeeded the Apostles A fitting Assistance we allow it such as pleases our fancies But no more We say with S. Cyprian S. Hierome S. Irenaeus and other Fathers that the Church neuer depart's from what She once held that in Her is the Rule and square of Faith that in Her is the Spirit of God That She is the welspring of truth The dwelling place of Faith c. But à companie of Glosses spoil all this Doctrin And so rack the sense of these clear Expressions that one may boldly swear the Gloss and Text are sworn enemies CHAP. XVII VVhy the Glosses of Sectaries are impertinent and weightles Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers Of his vnskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry Charged on Catholicks 1. MVch is said in the Other Treatise Disc 4. C. 4. n. 8. of our Protestants Glosses Here you haue à further discouery of their weakness And t' is the only thing aym'd at in this And the precedent Chapters In à word thus I conclude That man who in Matters of Controuersies defend's à Doctrin
vpon no surer grounds then meer doubtful And vncertain Glosses are added to Scripture and the Fathers which An assertion clearly laid forth seem contrary to his Doctrin most euidently stand's vnprincipl'd proceed's weakly and proues nothing But the Protestant makes his weak and doubtful Glosses charged on such Authorities as are produced for our Catholick Tenets the sole Support the only Proof of his contrary Doctrin Therefore He proceeds vnreasonably and proues nothing You shall see this euidenced in the present Matter now briefly hinted at of the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Mr Stilling Asserts She is fallible I ask how He proues the Assertion What By express Scripture vniuersal Tradition the vnanimous Consent of Fathers the Definitions of any ancient Church or Council These are excellent Principles Could He settle How Sectaries proceed to weaken it his opinion vpon all or vpon any one of them we haue done and must yeild But he proceed's strangely and I must needs tell you How The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn from the Fathers in behalfe of the Churches infallibility And thereby to establish his Position She is fallible I demand how can our Proofs be weakned His Answer must be for he has no other I will so tamper with these your alleged Texts that at last I 'le make them proue nothing for your Churches Infallibility And consequently I may hold my Contrary Position of her Fallibility very well established The inference is worth nothing but let it pass I Ask. 3. What is it he will tamper withall or how can he make null those manifest Texts which clearly lye open to euery eye east on the Fathers And euince as we shall see hereafter that the Church is infallible Mr Stillinfleets strain through his whole book For Facta loquuntur return's the best Answer My Guesses saith he And Glosses laid on the Fathers when seemingly contrary to Protestant Doctrin Shall make them speak another language no way fauouring the Churches infallibility 2. Here we come to the point And demand in the last place Whether these Glosses are so clearly their Own Selfe-Euidence that by their very light they lay à Truth before an vnderstanding Their Gloâ—ses no selfe Euidence not to be contradicted For example Whether S. Cyprian in the Passage now cited gaue only as Mr Stilling saith à tast of his old office of à Rhetorician And spake not dogmatically Is this I say an vndeniable Truth Most euidently no. For stretch it to the furthest it can be no more but à most doubtful and vncertain Gloss I say t' is highly improbable Now be pleased to reflect The Assertion concerning the Churches fallibility is no Self-euidenced Truth nor clear Ex terminis no more is our contrary Doctrin of the Churches infallibility To giue it Therefore proof and weight these Glosses are cast vpon the Fathers who seemingly at least fauour infallibility But these very Glosses which should do that seruice are as vneuident as vncertain And doubtful as the very Doctrin is They should enlighten and lend proof too Ergo they aduance not at all the Doctrin concerning the Churches fallibility For proofs which are as vncertain as the very Doctrin is which should be proued can neuer raise that to à greater measure of certainty than it had before such proofs were thought of Please to mark what I say The Doctrin of the Churches fallibility here supposed by Sectaries is vncertain and for that reason lies in it's Vneuidence vntil solid Proofs clear it or expel both the vneuidence and vncertainty But these Glosses when they appear are as vneuident and vncertain as the Doctrin is Therefore they cannot raise the Doctrin to any higher degree of certainty than to meer vneuidence and vncertainty I would haue this noted For it is à ground whereby I shal show hereafter Protestancy to be à most improbable Religion And Therefore will deliuer it once more in these plainer Terms If the Sectary has no surer Principle whereon to found his yet vneuidenced opinion of the Churches fallibility then Doubtful Glosses laid on Scripture The force of our Argument more significantly expressed and Fathers as euidently he has not And These Glosses which should proue that Doctrin be as deuoid of strength as remote from Principles as vncertain or doubtful as that very yet vneuidenced Doctrin is It followes clearly That both the Doctrin and the Glosses fall to nothing but only subsist by fancy which is à real Truth From all now said I inferr that whoeuer interpret's must haue his Doctrin firmly grounded vpon certain Principles distinct from his own interpretations as the Catholick euer hath or nothing is proued 3. Mr Stilling may reply His intention whilst he interpret's these Fathers is not to proue immediatly his own Opinion of the Churches fallibility but only to show our alleged Testimonies come not home or want force to proue Her infallible Now to shew our proofs forceles in order to what we hold is not to make good his contrary Assertion For these two things are very different Our Aduersaries reply refuted To make null our proofs And to establish his own Doctrin Answ I grant they are different But neither is nor can be done Not the first Because these Glosses are no Sâ—lf-euident prouing That the Fathers sense is rightly hit on And Principles distinct from these Glosses whereby it may be shown what Doctrin the Fathers deliuered in this particular Mr Stilling hath not any so much as meanly probable To the second I Answer If He offer 's not to proue his Tenet of the Churches fallibility by the little strength these glosses haue I auouch it boldly All further Probations fail him and for that reason he is either forced to make vse of such poor stuff to proue withall or must sit down silent And grant his Tenet cannot be proued He may perhaps tell vs our Church has erred de facto Ergo it is fallible And here is his Principle I Answer it s no Principle to me but an Heresy And as Asserted by him 't is as much yea more doubtful than all his glosses are laid together He may reply 3. His Glosses may at least be thought probable I vtterly deny that And here is my ground Solely considered they euidence not their own probability But need further proof and probable Principles to rely on But such proofs are wanting to found Probability vpon Therefore these glosses are supposed only not proued probable Had Mr Stilling plain Scripture any Orthodox Church or Fathers clear for the Doctrin maintained by him He might well talk of the strength Of his Glosses but to make Glosses probable The Sectaries Glosses not so much as Probable when no probable ground supports the Doctrin for Whose sake he Glosses is not only lost labour but share 's much of Non-sense Again Were these Glosses probable which I shall neuer grant our Answers to them are at least as probable And what gain 's
Tabernacle placed iâ— the sun Ipsa est Ecclesia saith S. Austin Epist 166. In sole posita The Church is placed in the sun Hoc est in manifestatione omnibus noâ—a vsque ad terminos terrae That is She is known by Her own apparent and manifest Euidence all the whole world ouer And because no one Father touches this point with greater Energy than S. Austin Hear yet more Tract 1. m. 1. Ioan Possumus digito c. S. Austins Iudgement concerning The Churches Euidence we can point at the Church and demonstrate it with à finger and They are blind who see it not Lib. 2. contra Crescon Cap. 36. Extat Ecclesia The Church is in Being apparently clear and conspicuous to all Again Lib 2. Contra Petil C. 32. Neminem latet verae Ecclesia The Church of Christ lies hid to none And Lib Contra crescon C. 63. The Church so clearly presents it self to all sort of men euen to Infidels that it stopp's the mouths of Pagans c. See also this great Doctor pondering those words of the. 30. Psalm Qui videbant me foras fugerunt c. Obscurius faith Hee dixerunt Prophetae de Christo quam de Ecclesiâ c. The Prophets haue spoken more darkly of Christ than of the Church And I think this was done because they saw in spirit that men would make Parties against the Church and not contend so much concerning Christ ready to contend about the Church Christ almost euery where was preached by the Prophets in some hidden or couered Mystery Ecclesia apertè but the Church was pointed at so clearly that all might see it and those also who were to bee against it I waue other Authorities for t' is tedious to proue à Manifest Truth or here to transcribe plainer Testimonies relating to this subiect Thus much premised 7. I say first Though Church Doctrin be more clearly expressed by the Church chiefly in all Matters of Controuersy than in Scripture For example you know the Church deliuers the An Assertion concerning Church Doctrin Consubstantiallity of the eternal Son with greater clarity than Scripture expresseth that Truth Yet no man can proue to reason this clearer Doctrin to be immediatly true vpon this sole ground Mark my precise words that the Church teaches it My meaning is The Church yet not manifested to bee God's Oracle by marks extrinsecal to its Doctrin leaues Reason so in suspence that it Cannot say This is the Oracle which teaches Truth or that the Doctrin of this not yet euidenced Society is Diuine and Orthodox The Assertion is so amply proued aboue that it is needles to press the Arguments further in this place All I say now is that we discourse in like manner of Scripture and Church Doctrin precisely considered as Essential Doctrin not yet made Credible by The Doctrin of Scripture or The Church not Proued true by Saying its true signes and Motiues As therefore the Verities of Scripture are not known to be Diuine Ex terminis because I read them in that Holy book But must haue them proued Diuine vpon à certain Principle distinct from Scripture So the Verities of the Church are not known Ex terminis to be certain before I proue the Church by Clear Motiues to be the Oracle of Truth whereby God speaks to Christians what I Assert is euident in Christ our Lord and his Apostles when they first began to preach For neither Iew nor Gentil belieued that Sacred Doctrin vpon their bare preaching Nay It scandalized the one and seemed à foolery to the other But when they saw it confirmed by Euident Signes and Wonders by eminent Sanctity of life by vndeniable Miracles and other Signal marks which the Author of Religion laid open to Reason Both Iewes and Gentils were gained moued to belieue by Such Inducements no less prudent than forceably perswasiue 8. The reason of all à Priori giuen aboue euinces thus much None can indubitably and immediatly own the Doctrin of either Church or Scripture as true and Orthodox but by one of these two means Either the light of natural Reason discouers that Truth Or it must be known by Faith Reason alone too weak to comprehend the Sublime Mysteries reuealed in Holy writ or taught by the Church boggles at all And left to it self reiects The reason of our Assertion at least the harder Mysteries as is manifest in both Iewes and Gentils Now to know them by obscure Faith is wholly impossible vnless one haue sufficient Assurance before hand grounded on other prudent extrinsecal Principles That both Scripture and the Church teach Diuine and certain Doctrin To know thus much the Rational man must discourse And in this present state of things first find out the Church by her Marks and Signes visible to all If reason complies not with this duty the Faith we draw from thence is no Faith but à precipitous foolish Credulity For who can prudently assent to the high Mysteries of Christianity vnlesse Reason first see it is prudent to do so This is what the Apostle deliuer's in few but most pithy words Scio cui credidi certus sum That is I first know why I am to belieue by Reason and then stedfastly belieue without further reasoning But enough of this in the Chapter cited aboue 9. The. 2. Proposition If the Doctrin of Christ's Church precisely considered according to its Essence bee not ex exterminis manifestly true or proues not immediatly that the Church is Orthodox vpon Her own meer saying that She teaches Truth It is euident She must be proued Gods Oracle by Motiues extrinsecal to Her Doctrin Now these Motiues purely considered as Inducements to belieue are not Articles of Faith but sensible reasonable and of such weight that they powerfully incline euery The Church first proued Orthodox by rational Motiues well disposed vnderstanding to this rational assent As God anciently spake by Moses by Christ and his Apostles So he now also speak's by his own true Church And lead's men vnder her safe Conduct to Saluation 10. The ground of my Assertion is no less euident than the very Position it selfe First Christ himself neuer proued his Doctrin true by meerly saying it was so but confirmed it by signes and wonders which made it immediatly credible as is sayd already So also did his Apostles And so doth the true Church to this day 2. Vnless Christians haue those prudent Inducements preuiously applied to reason before they belieue the Holy Catholick Church The wise prouidence of God must be supposed so neglectiue as not to let men know after à prudent and diligent search which or where his true Church is Though Scripture Compares it to à glorious Sun most visible to all And the Fathers say they are blind that see it not 3. All those Millions of Christians who belieued the true Church who liued and dyed happily in it innumerable shed their blood for the verities of it were not
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
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.
neuer censured Church be Supposed guilty after the whole world held her blamless and has iudged well of Her condemnations pas't vpon Hereticks Compare I say the Authority of the Church time out of mind proued Innocent with the Authority of Hereticks known most guilty There can be no Parallel may we precisely respect Authority Wherefore if the Opposition of Hereticks hath any force Their charge against the Church must stand vpon Strong proofs and sound Principles distinct from Their own voting Her Delinquent These Principles we seek for in all our Disputes with Protestants yet hitherto neuer heard of Any and belieue it Wee hold their own Authority of no greater weight than that of Arians or of any other condemned Hereticks 8. Others quite driuen off all ground of rational Arguing will needs fasten Errours vpon our Church because forsooth in such an Age the 9 th For example after Christ or There about some Popes were less good and People much debauched An other simple Plea Then most likely was the Nick of time Say these to bring in Transubstantiation the Popes Supremacy and what other Errour you will Answ A most pitiful Plea not worth the paper it blot's I shall not so much refute it for it merit 's not the labour As Shew how it destroyes the Belief of all Christian Religion 9. Pray you consider Christianity in the greatest Latitude Imaginable Call Arians Donatists Protestants And Catholicks also Christians Grant which is true that there haue been very wicked men amongst these different Professors I say if this Argument haue weight Some few Popes and many People were not good for one Age chiefly Ergo debauchery in manners more then probably brought in false Doctrins vnder the Notion of Christian Truths A Iew or Gentil may Argue as well and infer that Viciousness of life hath destroyed all Truth among Christians if euer They had any For why should lewdness haue less force to Subuert all Truth taught by the Church of Rome than some only It hath say Sectaries brought in much Errour Therefore saith the Iew it may as well haue corrupted all Christ Doctrin 10. To reinforce this Argument I told you aboue if the Church of Rome had but once proposed one Article to be belieued by Diuine Faith which is false She is not to be reiected and proued unreasonable credited in any thing If you Reply it is euident That though false in many Tenets She yet taught some Articles true As that Christ is our Redeemer The Iew Answers and so do I too She Taught and teaches so still but that This is Truth if debauchery of life bee ineuitably connexed with false Doctrin shall neuer be made Probable For this Church is either entierly sound in Doctrin or Entirely deluded One may Say Scripture is euidently plain for some Primary Articles of Christian belief Answ The Iew scorn's the Reply and maintain's this Truth as I also do If it be once proued that the Church of Rome imposed on the Christian world Falshood in place of Truth Transubstantiation The Sacrifice on the Altar c. She may as easily haue corrupted the whole Bible and made that Book false in à hundred important Passages whereof enough is said in the other Treatise No true Church Therefore no Probability of true Scripture 11. Let vs now proceed to others called Christians the most known Arch-hereticks you will haue the same Conclusion Arius for example à stubborn proud Fellow had many Associates like Himself yea and certainly taught some Doctrins false Therefore Saith the Iew All He deliuered was false also The Diuel learned Luther to broach His new Gospel and the mans enormous Viciousness is known to the world by as credible Authors as Platina or Nico de Clemangijs who make Popes and People so impious Therefore all that Luther taught cannot but bee vpon the Argument proposed most iustly excepted against An other Simple Argument reiected as pernicious Doctrin For gross Errours like à Torrent follow Deprauation in manners Caluins Pride Deceipt and Cousenage to say nothing of that hidious Sin for which he was branded are vpon Record And all know what Rebellion what tragical Doings ensued vpon the wicked mans Apostasy Who then can harbour so much as à good thought of any Doctrin He taught euen that Christ dyed for vs Hence saith the Iew if Wickednes of life and Errours in Doctrin be such inseparable Companions And all Sects or Religions nameable haue had Professors wicked Farewel Christianity yea and Christ Himself also For if the Impiety of some lead's Erroneous Doctrins into à whole Moral Body that one crying Sin of Iudas might more easily haue corrupted the First Apostolical Colledge smal in Number Than the incomparable lesse defects of Popes depraue the great Moral Body of the Church O but Christ secured the other Apostles from Errour Answ So he doth his Church And the Iew will as soon belieue the one as the other who Argues thus 12. Christianity was neuer without Sin Ergo neuer without Errour if the Argumâ—nt haue force When Therefore these new men Say Wickedness of life Compared with the losse of Faith Gods Prouidence seem's equally concerned to preserue the Church from things equally Pernicious But viciousnes of life is as pernicious to Christianity and as destructâ—ue to the End of it as Errours in Doctrin They know not what they Say The Argument is euery way defectiue 13. First it s vtterly False that Wickednes is so pernicious as Errours against Christian Doctrin For Errours destroies Faith the ground of Saluation and immedeatly opposeth Gods Infinite Veracity Wickednes in Manners destroies Grace and other Supernatural virtues yet leaues the Foundation vnshaken Again By what law do these men Suppose that God preserued not his Church Holy in those dayes Doth it follow because some were wicked that She lost all Sanctity Will they Say if the English Church had euer Sanctity in it All vanished into Smoak in the late dissentions and deplorable Tumults There were neuer such Doings at Rome in the worst of daies as England then Shewed to the world O but there were then many Holy and Godly men that suffered Be it so at present I loue not to recriminate For one of yours Holy we had Thousands in that Particular Abuse can not unhallow the Church Age you except against the whole world ouer in England Germany Spain France Denmark c. most humble pious virtuous and profoundly learned What do you think that à few Abuses in Italy not half so bad as you make them can Vnhallow an ample Church Yet here lies the Strength of your weak Argument The iniquity of some chiefly of Popes and Prelates ruins not sanctity only But moreouer induceth Errour into the whole Moral Body of Christ You iust proceed as if One should atattempt to proue that à goodly Building which yet visibly stands fair to the Eye and firm on Sure foundations is all shattered and pulled down
they so Confidently gaue out That hee should lose his life at Iapan and dye à Martyr Reflect I The Calumny reiected The Miracle proued true beseech you Had it not been in the highest measure imprudent nay more than à foolish Presumption of those Fathers to haue filled all mens eares with that Prophetical Speech vpon meer future vncertainties The performance whereof all know well was liable to à thousand Disasters and Casualities in that immense voyage from Europe to the furthest parts of the world Speak impartially How easily Might Marcellus none of the strongest Constitutions haue dyed in the way What if Pirates had seized on the Ship and cast him ouer board What if the Vessel had perished by Tempest with the virtuous Man and other Passengers How much scorned would the Fathers haue been who certainly were neuer so strangely besotted as to expose themselues and the reputation of their Order to à publick contempt vpon meer Contingencies and weak Coniectures Hence I infer They had by virtue of S. Xauerius Prophesy à high Moral Assurance of the euent The Prophesy spoken some years before Marcellus his Martyrdom was true And the real Effect of his death proued it true neither Diuel nor Mortal man could certainly foretel Things so remote and yet God wrought the Miracle to come God therefore was the Author of that Prediction And Consequently His Diuine power by the means of the Saint wrought the Miracle 30. It s high time novv to reassume vvhat I began vvith and said above When Iewes and Gentils read our scriptures which with them may well deserue as much credit as Humane faith giues to Caesars Commentaries or any other History When they find in that Sacred book how strangely Christianity was first established and introduced by the virtue of our Sauiours glorious Wonders When they fall lower and see though still vpon Humane Faith an euident Continuance of the very like Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church through euery Age. The Conuiction is by good law so strong the The Proofs hinted at aboue vrged Proofs for vndeniable Miracles so manifest to the dullest Gentile that He may as well deny as Lipsius Saith the Sun to shine as doubt of those most glorious visible wonders vnquestionable in this one Society of Christians And this hold's true Although no more but Humane faith resting on most Certain Authority inform's vs of these Miracles For such à Faith as great Diuines Obserue often comes to so clear à degree of The weight of humane Faith Certitude that you may well call it an vndubitable kind of Euiden◠How certainly do we hold it is S. Austins Instance lib. 6. Confess C. 3. that we are born of such and such Parents How certainly do we belieue and vpon humane Authority Saith Snares Tom. 1. de Incarn Disp 31. Sect. 2. That Titus and Vespasianus destroyed Hierusalem And can any Cordial man Question if He lay preiudice aside but that true and most glorious Miracles haue been as certainly wrought in the Church as that those two Emperours destroyed Hierusalem or that such are our Parents I appeal to euery ones Conscience for Answer 31. By all now said vve see first that vvhat euer can be proposed against our Churches Miracles hath like force against Christ's ovvn glorious works And I challenge Protestants to hint but at one Argument which doth not equally strike at Sectaries iustly reprehensible And why both We see 2. How Hideous à Sin Sectaries commit who Scornfully slight all those known and most euident Miracles wrought among Christians since the Apostles times By this their vnworthy Procedure they rob Christ's Spouse of Her greatest Glory falsify His own sacred words Prophesying of greater wonders than he did And finally make the Conuersion of Ievves and Heathens to Christianity impossible For giue me à naked Church vvithout Signes without Marks vvithout Motiues inducing to truth and the most conuincing Signe of all is the Glory of Miracles Nothing remain's proposable to à poor Infidel that 's meet to conuince his Reason But the bare letter of Scripture or the essential Doctrin of the Church vvhich solely considered more affrights weak Reason naturally auerse from high Mysteries than brings it to any Submission or Acquiescency I say therefore the sin of Sectaries is grieuous Whilst Miracles are slighted by doing so they slight the Church yea Christ himself and hasten apace to Atheism CHAP. IX A word to à few Obiections as also to Mr stillingfleets vnworthy Exceptions against that euident Miracle wrought at Zaragosa in Spain 1. THe obiections are as few as fallacious and cannot be otherwise when as t' is said All of them proue as much that 's iust nothing against our Sauiours own Miracles as against those of the Roman Catholick Church To see this truth manifested and difficulties vanish into nothing be pleased to afford à little Attention 2. The Sectary may Obiect first None of vs all know One obiection what strange effects nature can produce in certain circumstances nor what Povver the Diuel has to work Miracles when therefore Scripture forwarn's vs. 2. Thess 2. Of Antichrists great Prodigies as also of False-Christs and false-Prophets appearing with Signes and wonders Matt. 24. We may iustly suspect if nature alone cannot doe such works that the Diuel had à hand in most of our Church Miracles Contra. 1. And You see Found weak and friuolous first the Argument Equally oppugn's Christs own Miracles licenceth both Iewes and Gentils to slight him as à false-Prophet and his glorious vvonders also Contra. 2. Not one of these False-Prophets once raised the dead to life nor after their own death did any thing like à Miracle as the departed Saints of Gods Church haue done most frequently by à touch of their Reliques only which Truth of mighty vveight deserues Reflexion and refutes what euer Donatist or Coniurer can say in behalf of counterfeit Miracles Contra. 3. And obserue well the Obiection None knowes what nature or the Diuel can doe c. What then I beseech you May one inferr from our not knowing the Diuels power that this euil Spirit hath actually wrought all the Miracles recorded in Scripture and Ecclesiastical History To Assert this we must not only know how farr his power reaches but more haue Assurance also Of his actually doing such Wonders And thus much manifestly improbable neither is nor can be ascertained vpon the weakest Principle within the compass of nature or grace We vsually say the Diuel appear's with à Clouen foot That is you may easily discern his Villainy And we know he neuer cast's out euil Spirits like Himself from possessed Persons which yet hath been done and frequently in God's Church Miracles aboue the power of Diuels Church He can it is true if we belieue History take vp the Deuided Parts of à dead man and act with them for à while But there is no such Motion no such Operations in the dead
7. To end this point between S. Austin and the Donatist as also between Catholicks and Protestants I say all Controuersies are fully tried and happily ended by Scripture only But how Not because any can pretend to find euery Tenet of Faith clearly set down in so many express Terms of holy Writ For the Protestant How Scripture decides all Controuersies pretend's not to so much in behalf of his Doctrin But thus the Orthodox discourses with S. Austin Scripture euidently points at the Church of IESVS Christ known by Her Marks and manifest Signes by Her Antiquity Her large Spread ouer the whole world by the Succession of Her Pastors and Doctors Miracles and the like Signal Motiues Thus much once clearly laid forth in the written Word that Holy Book remit's him to the Church Clearly marked commend's Her faith S. Austin and command's him to hear and learn what euer She teaches 8. Whence it is that our profound Doctor Disputing the Case whether the Baptized by Hereticks were to be rebaptized laboured not to decide the Question by any express words in holy Scripture wholly silent in this particular But contrarywise teaches that the Church which is diffused all ouer and no Party of Donatists shut vp in à corner of Afrique was to giue Sentence herein For She is that great Oracle which Scripture commend's Read Lib. 2. de Bapt. C. 4. And de Vnit Eccles. C. 22. Thus briefly you see the true difference between the Protestant and Catholick The first has not à word of Scripture for his Tenets much less any Orthodox euidenced Church The Catholick relies on à Church spread the whole world ouer known by The Catholicks stronge hold Miracles Conuersions c. And Scripture command's him firmly to belieue what euer She Proposes as Faith Qui vos audit me audit Whoeuer hears the Church hears Christ And in this Sense Scripture manifesting Gods own Oracle which cannot but propose truth end 's all Controuersies 9. A 4 th Obiection Iulian the Apostata as S. Gregory Nazian Orat. 1. in Iulian And Theoder Lib 3. Histo C. 3. attest droue away Diuels with the Sign of the Cross Therefore wicked men can doe Miracles And why may not Almighty God A fourth Obiection solued for Reasons best known to his infinite wisdom do strange wonders and permit an Arian to Say All are wrought to Confirm his false Doctrin Contra. Both Parts of the Obiection equally impugn the Primitiue Miracles of Christ and the Apostles To the first I answer An Heretick may work à Miracle to proue Catholick Doctrin but neuer to make his own False Opinion probable The Reason is God who is Truth and Goodnes it self can no more deceiue by his ovvn VVorks than by his ovvn VVords Sicut humana consuetudo saith S. Austin Epist 49. verbis Diuina potentia etiam factis loquitur As man speak's by words so God speak's by his works But the Works or Wonders now Spoken of because supernatural proceed from God And as is God can no more deceiue by his ovvn Works then by by Words supposed deceiue Therefore it ill beseem's an Infinit Truth and Goodnes to do them Vpon this Ground I say likewise Diuine Prouidence will neuer permit his own glorious Works Seals and Signes of Truth to be abused by wicked men But of this particular I intend to speak more largely hereafter 10. Wee now Come to Mr. Stillingfleets Cauils you haue some of them Part. 1. C. 5. p. 134. And 135. Where he doth not Mr Stillingfleets Cauils answered so much impugne Miracles as would haue them done by such Persons as he likes well of Popes for example that pretend to infallibility And if which is easy we produce many wrought by Holy Popes His next Querie perhaps may be Why all all of them are not Miraculous men alike In à word I like not to search into the depth of Gods secret Counsel And therefore briefly discourse of persons fauoured with such Graces as S. Austin doth of different Places Tom. 2. Epist 137 to his Clergy and people at Hippo where he proposeth this Question Quare in alijs locus haec miracula fiant non in alijs Why are Miracles done in some places and not in others VVe haue known some wrought at Millan â—n Africa though full of Saints Bodies not so He return's this wise Answer grounded on the Apostles wotds 1. Cor. 12. Non omnes Sancti c. All saints haue not the Gift of curing diseases all discern not spirits ita nec in omnibus memorijs Sanctorum c. So God And first why God works Miracles by some and not by others who divides his Graces according to his own best will doth not these wonders at the Memory of euery Saint And who dare enter into his secret Counsel or ask why he doth so Why raised he three dead men by S. Dominick and not one we know of by S. Austin Dividit propria unicuique prout vult He is Lord and distributes his own fauours as he pleaseth And thus we Answer Mr. Stillingfleet who next Saith some thing of Miracles done in Corners What can the man mean Are all the wonders wrought at Loreto Compostella Sichem and other places seen to innumerable and All vpon certain record to be callid Corner Miracles Be pleased to hear worse yet 11. Page 135. Think not saith Mr. Stillingfleet VVe are of such easy faith that the pretended growing out of à leg in Spain or any of your famous Miracles wrought by your Priests in Italie will persvvade vs Mr Stillingfleets vnjust exceptions against the Miracle wrought at Zaragosa to believe your Church infallible Again after his Talk of Diuels doing no feats when Opposers are by He utters this scornful language It is an easâ— thing for à Stump to grow à leg in its passage from Spain hither For fama crescit eundo And in despite of Truth cast's out too much bitter venom to obscure à Glorious work of God wrought by the Intercession of our Blessed Lady vpon à young man at Caesar Augusta or Zaragosa in Spain where you haue her miraculous Statua Set on à Marble Pillar And for that reason is called Neustra Sennora del Pilari It is one of the most euident and clearest Miracles vvhich I belieue hath been done in the memory of any man now liuing I haue the whole Printed Relation by me both Latin and Dutch vvritten by Peter Neurat Doctor of Phisick and dedicated to his Excellence Don Francisco Marquis of Caretto and Grana Embassador Extraordinary from the Emperour to His Catholick Maiesty The Substance whereof is thus 12. Ego ab Caesaraugusta Venio c. I come from Zaragosa and bring tydings of à Miracle not heard of in any age A young man had his leg cut of and buried which was Miraculously restored again by the Intercession of the most Sacred virgin My Lord I here present you with à Gift it is not mine but our
Blessed Ladies to whom immortal thanks are due for the fauour Giuen at Madrid Ibid. Mart. Anno 1642. I haue besides the Licence of the Vicar General Don Gabriel de Aldama appointing the whole Narration to be Printed which begins Nos el Licenciado Consultor del Sanctâ— officio c. Subscribed Lic D. Gahriel de Aldama And vnderwritten Por su mandado Martin de Lual Notariâ— 13. Yet more I haue the Attestation of Hieronimus Brizids Testimonies of that Stupendious Miracle who had order from the Vicar General to pervse and censure the vvhole Relation presented to the said Vicar Dâ— Gabriel de Aldama Legi saith he libellum de stupendo Miracâ—lâ—â—stro saeculo inaudito Diuae Virginis de Pilari quod verum esse scio c. I haue read the little book concerning that stupendious and strange Miracle in this our Age of our Blessed Lady of Pilari which I know to â—e true I knew the youth at Caesaraugusta or Zaragosa when he had but one leg and there begged Almes at the Church door I saw him afterwards at Madrid whither he came at the command of his Catholick Maiesty and saw him going on both leggs I saw the Mark which the Blessed Virgin had left where the leg was cut of And not only I but all the Fathers of the Imperial Colledge beheld this I might add vpon certain Relation innumerable other Eye-witnesses and of noble Men too then in the court of Spain I knevv the young mans Parents I knevv the Chirurgion that cut of the leg Giuen at Madrid 12. Mart. 1642. Vnderwritten Hieronimus Brizids 14. We may add herevnto the Approbation of F. Ioseph Crespo The licence of His Catholick Maiesty Prior of S. Martins Monastery in Madrid who knew as he saith this Miracle to be most true and witnessed it vnder his own hand 4. Martij 1642. Lastly Facultas Regia or his Catholick Maiesties Licence is thus annexed Signata à D. Augustino de Arteaga Cannizares Scriba Camerae Regiae You shall see presently how rigidly the Miracle was examined and afterward approued by the Lord Arch-Bishop of Zaragosa The particulars whereof are briefly as follow 15. This young man called Michael Ioannes Pellicer about nineteen Who this young man vvas years of age was born at Calanda à Village in Aragon Son to Michael Pellicer à Husbandman and Mary Blasco Inhabitants of that Village Whilst he serued his Vncle Iames Blasco His right leg broken being in à Cart loaden with wheat by chance fell down and one of the wheels ran ouer his right leg and broke it His Vncle and Friends being poor Conueyed him first to the Hospital He was Carried to the great Hospital at Saragosa at Valentia where remedies were applyed but without success Thence brought to the great Hospital at Zaragosa Hee was Committed to the care of Iohn de Estanga à most expert Surgeon and publick Professor of Phisick who finding the His leg cut offingnâ— legw holly rotten cut if of four fingers below the knee and buried it When the wound was some what healed the lame maâ— went on Crutches to our Ladies Church and there both begged Almes and earnestly implored the Blessed Virgins fauorable Assistance He was well known to all there for the space of two whole years In the year of our Lord 1640. He went back to his Parents at Calenda and going vp and down as well as he could begged sustenance for Himself and poor Parents 16. On the 19. day of March Anno 1640. well wearied with gathering vp Hay sitting with his Father Mother and two others he laid aside his crutch and went to bed About à 11. of the Clock that night his Mother entring the chamber where he was found one in the bed with two feet and suspecting him to be some souldier for then à whole troop lodged in the Village presently ran to her Husband who came in knew his son well wakened him out of sleep 17. On à sudden the yet not too well awaked youth brake Was Miraculously restored forth into these words I dreamed I was in our Ladies Chappel of Pilari and annointell my leg with the oyle of the Lamp burning there The poor Father ouerioyed replyed Render my Child immortal thanks to God our Blessed Lady hath restored thee thy leg Hitherto the youth before his Father spake reflected not on the Miracle All this noysed abroad drew in many Eye-witnesses that night and the next day more who accompanied the young man to the Church where to the end all might behold the The Miracle diuulged Miracle His foot which yet stood much wrested to one side came before à Multitude of people to its ovvn natural Posture and those who saw him the day before wanting one leg obserued him now walking strongly on two sound and whole 18. Thus much noted by à publick Scribe and spread abroad soon after called the youth to Caesaraugusta Where he had his Iudges assembled witnesses examined Lawyers pleading and the Was rigidly examined whole cause most rigidly discussed All which performed The most Illustrious Lord Arch-Bishop of Zaragosa D. Petro Apaolaza publickly gaue Sentence the 27. day of April Anno 1642. The sentence finally giuen that the restoring of that leg was à Work aboue the force of nature and therefore might without doubt be deseruedly esteemed A prodigious Miracle Those who attested the same after due examination and subscribed their names were as follow 19. Don Antonio Xauirre Prior of S. Christina D. Ioannes Perat official of the Metropolitan Church at Zaragoca Don Subscribed by many Virto de Vera Archdeacon there Don Ioan Plano à Frago also Official D. Philip Bardaxi Interpreter of the sacred Canons D. Didacus Chueca Canon of Caesar augusta D. Martinus Irribarne Canon and Reader there F. Bartholomeus Foyas Prouincial of S. Francis order F. Antonius Ortin Prouincial of the Minims of S. Francis de Paula D. Dominicus Cebrian the first Reader of Diuinity at Zaragosa The sentence Published giuen was published and declared by great Doctors of the Canon and Ciuil law D. Aegidius Fuster and Michael Cypres à publick Notory also It was signed by D. Antonius Albert Zaporta the Apostolical Notary and chief scribe of the Ecclesiastical And now extant in the Spanish Annals Court at Caesar Augusta D. Thomas Tamayo de Vargas the Kings Historiographer of Spain and the Indies has published it in his Annals extant in the Spanish language Printed at Alcala 20. The Relation end 's thus Videant haeretici an hoc tam facile c. Let Hereticks look well to it whether they can as easily The end of the Relation slight this and other strange Miracles done in our time among the Indians as they scorn the restoring of S. Iohn Damascens hand at the Intercession of our Blessed Lady This we novv speak of is Testifyed by Eye-witnesses Both Spaniards and French vvere Spectators The vvhole cause lasted long vnder
to intail Church Liuings vpon Luthers Progeny open Rebels against the Church The world neuer heard of greater Iniustlce 22. Now lastly if we speak of different Sects and endles Diuisions in points of Doctrin Most vndoubtedly the Dissentions are greater the Sects more numerous amongst Protestants professing Christianity than among the very Iewes that profess Iudaism A iust iudgement of God A clear Mark of his Indignation set vpon both The Sin of the one for deserting Christ Diuisions more amongst sectaries then Iewes hath scattered that People vp and down the world And the Sin of Sectaries for their deserting an Ancient Church hath more scattered and diuided them into endles erroneous and most iarring opinions Vpon these grounds therefore That Protestants belieue not an Oracle signed with the Marks of our Lord Iesus Christ That they reiect à Church clearly Prophesied of in holy VVrit That they lie hid in vneuidenced Conuenticles And broach Doctrins slighted the whole world ouer That their open iniustice and robbery cryes to heauen for reuenge Practically I say They renounce Christ Church and all Christianity with it Thus much of the Churches Euidence against Sectaries we now proceed to à further consideration 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 CHrist and his Church are so easily laid forth to à Heathen That grant once the Existence of à Power Omnipotent and Infinitly wise in the Gouerment of this world the main work is done Reason if it contradict's not Euidence soon finds out the A Deity supposed what the Heathen would Learn is easily learned One and Other Now if as S. Cyprian Discourses it be à most hainous Offence Eum nescire velle quem ignorare non poterant not to know God whom all cannot But know In like manner say I it must needs imply à Supine negligence in our present State when Christianity is diffused all Nations ouer not to come to the true knowledge of Christ and his Church whilst neither can be concealed The Heathen then that Own 's à God and desires to serue him is supposed to demand of Christians How or in what way due Honour may be rendred to that infinit Being For Answer please to bear in mind these Principles rightly called three stronge Euidences 2. First True Religion whereby we yeild Honour and due Submission to God euer beares the Ensigns of it's Author And Three principles showes by certain Marks it proceeds from God No Iew nor Gentile no Heretick can deny the Principle deliuered in these general Terms though Disputes may arises concerning some particular Motiues 2. A greater Euidence of Credibility in Religion is à certain Matk of its Truth For whoeuer whether Heathen Iew or Christian own 's that matter of Fact of Moses preuailing against the Aegyptian Magicians Or of S. Peters Miracle set against that of Simon Magus See's well by the force of greater Euidence That the Prophet and Apostle maintained Truth against these Sorcerers A third Principle If there be not à Of the Greater rational Euidence for Gods Truth greater excess of rational Euidence or à stronger Conuiction in behalf of true Religion than fdr Sects vnorthodox or false God is frustrated of his End And can oblige none to embrace true Religion For this Obligation necessarily ceaseth if à Spurious Faith could match the Orthodox Religion Or Outuie it in those glorious Wonders which God euidences And hath manifestly appropriated to His own reuealed Truths only See more Hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 8. Thus much premised 3. VVe here Represent in the first place our Glorious Lord Jesus Christ the great Master and Author of Catholick Religion and Ask what credit the Heathen giues to that holy book we call Scripture or to one Part thereof which recount's the prodigious wonders wrought by our Sauiour Wil he own them vpon Humane faith for we urge him not yet to belieue infallibly as Authentick or as well deseruing Credit as Caesars Commentaries or any other receiued History If he grants we Infer These Miracles far aboue the Power of nature were Gods own works and manifestly testifyed that none since the world began whether Heathen Iew or Heretick euer paralleld Christ our Lord in the like VVonders Now if he wholly flights the Authority of that Book we proceed further vpon Euidence The Heathen conuinced by the manifest Signes of Gods power eÌ„nough and lay before him those manifest Effects which in â short time followed our Sauiours Preaching most apparent in the first Propagation of the Gospel and continual encrease of it Herein the Marks the Ensigns of à Diuine Power clear to sense speak openly without contradiction viz. That no ancient Prophet no Heathen no Iew no Heretick euer opposed sensuallity so strongly as Christ our Lotd did yet he gained Millions to submit to his law No Prophet no Heathen no Heretick preached more difficult Mysteries Yet as the World sees He hath drawn whole Kingdoms and Nations to belieue his Doctrin And if you go on or Ask by what Instrumâ—nts this admirable work was happily accomplished The Answer is ready Twelue poor Fishermen friendles vnlearned despicable in the eyes of worldlings were the chief Oracles These made the incredulous Belieueâ—s Strangers to Christ his own Domesticks Lofty Spirits Submiss to his law No Heathen can doubt of such known Effects signal Euidences of Gods power cooperating with Christ and the sirst Euangelical Preachers But because this Argument is most fully handled in the 4. and 5. Chapters of the first Discourse I petition the Reader to return thither And once more to peruse that Discourse which I hold vnanswerable and most conuincing for our present intent 4. To add yet more in behalf of our Glorious Redeemer and the verity of Catholick Religion for proue the one you proue the other I Propose à second Question to the Heathen and Ask Whether our Blessed Lord who called himself the long expected Messias and the true Son of God Spake Truth or contrarywise most impudently Assumed to himself that so An vnanswerable Dilemma high Prerogatiue Grant the first He was indeed the true Son of God and the wonders he wrought were Gods own works Therefore Christian Faith stands firm vpon Eternal Truth manifested by most glorious Signes Say 2. That Impostor like Hee falsly made himself the Son of God when he was no more but à Cheat. It followes first That either God positiuely intended to draw the world into gross Errour by his Perfidious Preaching which is horrid to think or we must grant that his Gracious Prouidence long before this day should by one euident Sign or other by some Notorious Mark of dishonour haue made manifest
and his Church though sublime and difficult was miraculously Spread the whole world ouer when you Demonstrate how manifestly Diuine prouidence hath Age after Age Honoured Christ and his Church and seuerely Chastised the professed Enemies of both When finally you make it manifest that there is no Vnion no Form no fashion of Religion in any Society now on earth but in How the Heathen is Conuinced the Roman Catholick Church only Then the Heathen if reasonable and desirous to learn Truth must confess that God speaks Truth by this one Catholick Oracle only Or there is no such thing as à reuealed Verity taught in the world 16. Out of what is said already I infer first If that Maxim of Philosophy he vndoubted Frustra sit per plura c. It is needles to multiply many proofs in behalf of à Verity when one most clearly conuinceth it This Argument alone drawn from the glorious Marks of our Catholick Church which cannot but proceed from God proues Her his own faithful Oracle With these Signes we haue the thing signified These in à General way settle in euery reasonable vnderstanding this fundamental Truth God speak's to the world by his euidenced Church I say in à General way For as the visible works in nature proue this General Truth Ipse fecit nos c. A mighty power made vs we made The efficacy of Church Motiues not our Selues though as yet none comes thereby to an explicit knowledge of many Perfections in God So the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church conuince this General Truth also That the same Power which made Nature giues being to these the same Power which preserues nature preserues these glorious Signes for our instruction And Consequently it followes That as the visible world is proued Gods own work so this visible glorious marked Church is proued his own Oracle Though yet neither the Heathen nor any knowes euery particular Doctrin which God teaches by the Church In like manner great Diuines assert that Christs own Disciples owned first our blessed Lord as the true Messias and à great Prophet Ioan. 1. 41. Inuenimus Messiam We haue found the Messias before they learned the other high Mysteries of his being the natural Son of God the second Person of the Blessed Trinity the Redeemer of Israel c. see Suares 3. Part. Tom. 2. Dispu 31. Sest 4. 17. A second Inference The General Truth now spoken of well established God teaches the world by à Church Signed with Supernatural wonders All further disputes cease concerning the particular Doctrins She teaches though sublime and aboue the reach of our weak Capacities For none whether Heathen Iew or Heretick can boggle at à Doctrin which God reueal's How reason discourses vpon these Euident Motiues But God saith prudent Reason reueal's such and such Truths The Incarnation of the Diuine word the Trinity Original sin c. by à Church which most pressing Motiues euince to be His own Oracle Therefore it is my duty to Submit and belieue euery Doctrin She proposes 18. The Ground hereof seem's clear For as there can be no endles Progress or going on in Infinitum in the intrinsecal formal Obiect of Faith because Faith at last rest's vpon one sure Principle An infinite Verity So we can haue no endles Process in the extrinsick Lights and Motiues whereby we are induced to fix à firm Belief vpon that one sure Principle Therefore in what euer Society of men Reason finds these Motiues it rest's without further Enquiry after stronger which cannot be found But most euidently reason finds them in one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church as is now proued and prudently resteth there as vpon lights which immediatly manifest the Church Scripture not so immediatly Credible as the Church and make Her Doctrin euidently credible Scripture t' is true is the obiect of Faith but not so immediatly credible as the Church for independently of Scripture I can belieue the Church as the first Christians did before the Book was written but men generally in this present State cannot belieue Scripture without the Churches Testimony As is already and shall hereafter be proued more at large 19. A third Inference Who euer pretend's to à Doctrin reuealed in Scripture and hold's it of Faith has either à Church which teaches it euidenced by the Marks of our Lord Iesus Christ or He publisheth à falshood Which is to say in other Terms If the euidenced Church of Christ positiuely own 's not or reiects such à Doctrin that Doctrin Eo ipso is spurious forged and not de Fide Hence it is that when our Blessed Lord Commissoned the Disciples to Preach his sacred Verities Math. 28. 19. Goe and teach all Nations Hee sent them abroad with the Characters Marks and Ensigns of his own Preaching Mark 16. 2. Our Lord working with all and confirming the word with Signs that followed And here by the way I can neuer sufficiently admire the open folly of Sectaries that wholly Churchless A lawful Mission required to teach our Christian truths will yet needs perswade vs into new opinions vpon their own bare word That they teach truth It is impossible Nay I say more Although which is false they should speak Truth they ought not Churchless as they are to be listned vnto For suppose one should present himself as an Embassadour from à Prince to à forreign State but without Credentials or Authentick letters iustifying his Embassage no State can or will admit him though he speaks truth He must not only do so but show his Authentick Commission that he speaks truth deliuered by the Princes own order or he is sent back vnreceiued in the quality of an Embassadour In like manner I say No more can any one essentially vncommissioned pretend to teach Christs Doctrin whilst he is not sent to teach by Christs own euidenced Oracle than this vncommissioned An Instance Legate to speak in his Princes name Many à man knowes the law well and is fit enough to pronounce à iust Sentence yet sitt's not on the Bench nor giues it because he is not Authorised to do so And thus we discours of all Hereticks no members of the euidenced Church though as I said they deliuer truth by chance they yet deserue not the hearing wanting power and Authority to teach it 20. S. Cyprian Epist. 2. Speak's very pertinently to our present purpose Quod vero ad Nauatiani personam pertinent c. For as much as concerns Nouatians Person I would dear Brother haue you know in the first place we are not to be curious concerning what he saies when he teaches out of the Church S. Cyprian Confirm's the Doctrin Quisquis ille est qualiscunque est Christianus non est qui in Christi Ecclesiâ non est Whoeuer or of what condition soeuer he be is no Christian that is not in the Church of Christ And hence S. Austin in his frequent Disputes with the Donatists
presseth this point most efficaciously Lib. de vnit Eccles. Cap. 2. Quaestiâ— inter nos versatur vbi sit Ecclesiá vtrum apud nos aut illos Here lies the main Business where the Church is whether with vs or them Again Epist 163. Quaritur vtrum vestra an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei We demand whether yours or ours be the Church of God which must be known saith Optat. Mileuit Lib. 2. By Her Marks and Characters And therefore we said aboue though S. Austin made vse of Scripture against the Donatists it was not done to decide euery particular Controuersy by the bare and obscure words of that holy Book No. The profound How Scripture manifests the Church Doctor aymed not at such impossibilities his whole drift being to teach the Donatists à great Verity which we all subscribe to viz. That Scripture once admitted as Gods word without Dispute clearly demonstrat's the Church by Her visible sensible Marks Antiquity Miracles Conuersions Digito demonstrari potest We can point at Her with our finger Saith S. Austin The Church therefore thus manifested we haue enough and rely on Her as à faithful Oracle in euery Doctrin She professeth Se Cardinal de Richelieu Traitte pour conuertâ—r ceux c. Lib. 2. C. 7. § Cest encore Where he exactly renders S. Anstins meaning conformable to what we deliuered Disc 1. C. 14. n. 10. 21. The last Inference If all are bound to embrace true Religion All haue also with the obligation means to know where it is taught But the means to know this lies not in the essential Verity thereof for that is no Self-euidence or manifestly true ex Terminis The means to know it is not found in the high Mysteries of Faith for these far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding remain yet in darkness without More light Scripture alone makes not its own Diuinity known and though it did so And the Heathen owned it as most Diuine yet when he euidently discouer's that dissenting Christians Sense the book quite contrary waies he has not the means to learn what true Religion is or where it is taught Thus then He must Discours or belieue nothing 22. God that 's Truth reueal's the Verities of true Religion If so some vnited Society of men teaches what euer God reueal's for Angels are not our Doctors I find Saith the Rational man great Signes of truth amongst the Christians and after The Heathens prudent Disâ—ourse many à serious thought Cast vpon à Matter of highest Concern I sind also that all those Signes as Antiquity Vniuersallity à visible Succession of Pastors euident Miracles which cannot but proceed from God belong to one only Christian Society the Roman Catholick Church I se moreouer à strange benign Prouidence held forth in preseruing Her from innumerable attempts of Aduersaries No Iew no Heathen no Heretick can show the like Signal Marks and Proofs of Gods loue as this one Catholick Oracle demonstrat's Therefore all other Societies are false Sects misled by erring Prophets according to Christs own Prediction Math. 24. For there shall rise false Christs though they clamour neuer so loud Ecce hic est and Conclusâ—on Christus Loe we preach Christ and his truths Thus Reason test's satisfied yet because the Heathen see 's who le Armies banding against the Church and rationally hold's their Arguments like theer cause very weak He is desirous to haue the Fallacy of some chiefe Aduersaries laid forth to his reason For your Satisfaction be pleased to read the following chapter CHAP. XII The Aduersaries of the Roman Catholick Church plead vnreasonably A Discouery of their fallacies The cause of all Errour concerning Religion The only means to remedy Errour 1. THe enemies of the Roman Catholick Church are chiefly reduced to these four Classes to Atheists Heathens Iewes and Hereticks A word briefly of their fallacies in order Some Atheists there haue been and perhaps Lucian was one that to cast off all thought of Religion more expresly denyed Diuine Prouidence than they did the Existency of à God And à chief The Atheistâ— Plea Argument to omit others of less weight is much to this sense A Numen Infinitly wise and powerful shewes his careful Prouidence in gouerning the world But an euident Principle opposes this careful Prouidence and no contrary Principle of equal strength Seem's to establish it Therefore reason well denies Prouidence Now here is the euident Principle The Oppression of iust men manifest to our eyes the preuailing of the wicked against the iust of Turks against Christians to say nothing of other much visible Confusion and Discorder proue à neglect of Prouidence and no contrary Principle half so strong or euident conninces it none counterpoises the weight of this clear proof now hinted at ergo Reason reasonably denies Prouidence Thus the Atheist The Pagan Argues That Religion is false which holds Mysteries ridiculous and impossible but Christians How the Heathens and Iewes Argue teach that God is one Essence and three Persons Both seem impossible The Iewes vapour against à crucified Sauiour and lay its vnworthy God to become man and to dye ignominiously vpon à Cross Lastly our modern Sectaries that own Christ come limping after the rest and except much against the Roman Catholick Church She Say they has changed the ancient Articles of the Primitiue Faith and introduced Nouelties in lieu of them She maintains errours contrary to sense in Her Doctrin of Transubstantiation And much more seem's amiss 2. I say first All these and the like Arguments are meer vnsound Paralogisms and proue iust nothing against Prouidence against Christ or the Romam Catholick Church Before I discouer the fallacies be pleased to note 1. That God whose existence we haue proued Disc 1. C. 2. is à Being incomprehensible and far transcend's the reach of our narrow Capacities The very Gentile Philosophers owned the truth agreeing in this Principle That humane reason is as weak to know what God and diuine Mysteries are as an owle is to behold the Sun at noon-day Note 2. Reason in man often too bold enters into Diuine Mysteries though conscious it walks in à Labyrinth not so much as Principles prâ—mised to solue these Obiections half-sighted in the search it makes and this less than Half-insight into Diuine truths is the cause of Atheism of all Heresy and the most gross errours now raigning in the world The Apostle 2. Tim. 3. 7. Point's at the misled Semper discentes They are alwaies learning but neuer come to the knowledge of truth Note 3. Reason in the inuestigation of Religion and Diuine verities may tend two different waies Directly and Reflexly Direct reason as is now said fall's vpon some great Mystery in faith finds it harsh yea most difficult to be vnderstood and What follows The faint man with his feeble reason either reiect's the Mystery or remain's so perplexed in the search that he can resolue nothing His procedure is iust like
And because it is here impossible to descend to all particular controuersies we will fall vpon one only much debated one serues for all Viz whether Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation be Orthodox Doctrin The truth yet lies in darkness there is no Self-Euidence either in the Affirmatiue or Negatiue T' is yet no more but doubtful or à meer Perhaps whether the Protestants or we Speak Truth Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is Where the difficulty lies yet obscure to vs both and as little euidenceth it Self as the Verity we enquire after By what means then can we raise our selues aboue this state of Doubting to so great à degree of certainty as to Say without fear Transubstantiation is Orthodox Doctrin And the contrary is not so 10. The Catholick to waue in this place other proofs recur's to his Church And saith this Publick euidenced Oracle as well raises him to à State of certainty for his Tenet as the euidenced Primitiue Church rais'd the first belieuing Christians from their doubts to Security For the like full euidence alwayes lead's to How the Catholick Peoceed's a like certainty of Belief The Protestant hauing reiected our present euidenced Church hopes well and will needs find flawes and falsity too in Her Doctrin not by confronting Her Euidence or denoting an other Church As ample as ancient as miraculous as She is which held his Doctrin for this though it should be pleaded if we come to à clear Decision is vnpleadable because the Protestant has no such Oracle What 's done therefore I 'll tell you and you may iustly wonder He shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's though there is no such matter to launch into the vast Ocean of Scripture Councils volumes of Fathers ancient Records and thinks The Sectary takes à Contrary way to carry on his cause this way Here He pick 's vp one dark Sentence of à Father and triumph's with that There on another Here vpon the least hint giuen he Snarles at one piece of Popery there at another Here he guesses and there he misses In à word the man is busily idle doth much and iust nothing run's on but is out of his way utterly lost without the guidance of God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the Labyrinth And if you Ask why he is out I Answer his Errour lies here that both in this and all other Controuersies he makes his false Suppositions to pass for proofs against euidence 11. You shall see what I here Assert Made Good To proue no Transubstantiation the Se ary read's Scripture Fathers Antiquity or what els you will Be it so He read's but not alone For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's also Mark now The One after his reading glosses so doth the other The One compares Passage with Passage so doth the other The One discourses So doth the other But when all is done and here lies the mischief the Protestant imposes one sense vpon the perused Testimonies and the Catholick another Which leaues him in State of doubting quite contrary This dayly Experience teaches viz. That we differ not so much about the words we read as about the sense of Scripture and Fathers Therefore this also is Euident That the Protestant aduances not his Doctrin if yet he get so high aboue the degree of guessing only whilst he pleads by his glossed Scripture and Fathers For as long as the Catholick wholly as learned and conscientious as He is and an ample Church besides opposes his far-fetch'd Sense out of the Fathers He cannot without Impudency and making à false Supposition to pass for his Proof cry it vp as certain Now further As the sense he drawes from Scripture and the Fathers is no more but at most doubtful I say improbable so his Assertion concerning no Transubstantiation or what euer els he holds contrary to the Roman Catholick faith is wholly as much wauering or purely doubtful But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak What euer is doubtful grounds not Faith either to ground any Christian Tenet vpon or to Contrast with the Roman Catholick Church whose Doctrin is indisputably made euidently credible Therefore unless à weake Vncertainty can reuerse Euident Credibility the Sectaries Plea against the Church is not only improbable but highly improbable 12. To conclude this Point Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma It is possible to Denote and point at another Church which without dispute taught Protestant Doctrin and opposed ours as Ancient as large and euery way as Euidenced to sense and reason as the Roman Catholick Church is Or it is not possible If possible controuersies are strangely ended for proue A Dilemma me once such à Church I say plainly There is no such thing as true Faith in the world worthy defense Why Because if the Supposition hold's two different Churches euidenced à like equally as ancient as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Miracles clash with one another Say and Vnsay approue and condemn The one condemn's Protestancy The other Popery One will haue Transubstantiation belieued The other not which is as wholly destructiue of Christian Faith as if Scripture it self should plainly Speak Contradictions 13. On the other side If the Sectary can neither name nor point at à Chutch euery way as euidenced as the Roman Catholick No euidenced Protestant Church no pleading for Protestancy which expresly propugned Protestancy and opposed Popery He shall neuer utter probable word against any one Article of our Catholick Faith For throw an euidenced Protestant Church out of the world All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin or against vs will either End in à slight discharge of à few scattered vnweighed Sentences of holy Fathers no sooner read than Answered or as we dayly Experience in gross Mistakes and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrin And can these think ye extinguish the visible Lustre of our Chureh can these lessen the euident Credibility of Her Doctrin or bring so known and owned an Oracle into open disgrace or publick Disreputation It is impossible The most vigorous Abbettors of Protestancy may not only blush to Assert it but will be bafled did we once liue to see the happy day when our iust cause might be proposed and heard in à Publick Dispute before Learned and impartial Iudges A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick and hold him much more wise Learned and moderate then some late voluminous Writers haue been yet because Truth will out I must not dissemble but Speak truth And therefore Say in à word His whole attempt against the Roman Catholick Church is weake And the feebleness of it Cannot but appear to euery Reader that penetrat's the force of the Principles already established My wish indeed was to haue Vnderstood his meaning better in some particular passages For
here and there he seem's to me à little obscure yea to build with one hand and to Pull down with the other How euer by what is clear we haue enough and may well refute his Errours 15. Page 19. In the Book now cited He takes leaue to blame all those who declare in behalf of the Protestant Church that it depart's or Separat's from the Church of Rome For Saith he seeing it hath bin granted in and by this Church euer since the Reformation that there is and alwayes was saluation to be had in the Church of Rome as à true Church though corrupted I am very confident that no Church can Separate from the Church of Rome but they must make Themselues thereby Schismaticks before God I grant 1. Such are Schismaticks as leaue this Church I grant 2. Saluation was and will euer be had in this Church Yet say 3. It is Calumny yea à plain Contradiction to grant Saluation attainable in this Church and to impeach Her of Errour or corrupted Do rin The Calumny Church Motiues either proue that Oracle pure in all She teaches or in Nothing is vnquestionable because the Marks the signes and exteriour Euidence of our Church already insisted on either proue her Gods Oracle as sound and faithful in all She teaches as the Primitiue Church was or conuince nothing What then can these Aduersaries ayme at Will they grant Her no less illvstrious in Marks and Motiues which induce to faith than the Apostical Church was and yet make Her à Monster à harlot and prefidiously false in proposing Faith Haue so many learned Doctors Age after Age taught Her Doctrin so many Martyts shed their blood In defense of it so many Saints wrought glorious Miracles to confirm it and after all can it vpon no proof but vpon à vain and most vniust Supposition be called false and vnorthodox Nothing can be more extrauagant You must therefore either deny the Euidence we plead by which is vndeniable or own this Church entirely sound in euery Doctrin proposed as Faith Whence it is that when Iewes Gentils and Hereticks conuert themselues to Catholick Religion drawn thervnto by the light of euident Motiues they frankly belieue no Part but all Church Doctrin without Exception And the Reason of belieuing thus Wholly and not The Reason of belieuing entirely and not by halfes by halfs is giuen aboue C. 5. 6. where we Demonstrate that if the Roman Catholick Church has erred in the proposal but of one Point of Faith and obliged Christians to belieue that vnder pain of Damnation She is not only traiterous to Christ and therefore can be belieued in nothing But moreouer at this present day there is no true Faith professed in the Christian world Contrarywise if She be true and vnerrable in all teaches She is to be belieued in euery Article without reserue 16. Now to the double Contradiction in the words alleged It is granted Saith Mr. Thorndicke that there is and alwayes was Saluation to be had in the Church of Rome as à true Church though corrupted I Answer this is implicatory For if true She is not corrupted in Doctrin or if corrupted in Doctrin She is not true Vnless one makes by meer fancy à Chimera of the Catholick Church and sayes à true Church may be corrupted which is impossible for truth excludes corruption Therefore no Orthodox Christian euer owned à Church partly true partly false You Sr say 2. Saluation may be had in this Church Very good Ergo Her Faith is sound able to produce The Contradiction euinced against this Author in euery soul Repentance the loue and fear of God and what euer els is necessary to acquire Heauen Or if it want this Essential Perfection and bring not men to à security of Saluation it is no Faith at all and consequently Catholicks must be damned for want of diuine Faith hauing no true Church to belieue in See more Disc 1. C. 21. n. 7. Finally wheras you Assert No Church can Separate from the Church of Rome but they must make themselues thereby Schismatieks before God The Inference Sr is true but most clear against your Selfe And proues that both you and the Protestant Party are Schismaticks before God and man too For this matter of Fact Viz. That you Separated from Protestants proued Schismaticks and rebelled against the Roman Catholick Church is as euident as That England once Catholick communicated with Rome in Points of Faith in the vse of Rites Liturgies Sacraments And afterward diuorced it self from that Communion Reply or tell vs you had cause to do so and so far only receded from this Church as She receded from Her Ancient purity You make again à false Supposition your Proof your self Iudge in à cause you haue nothing to doe with And the louely Spouse of Christ loyal and perfidious Chast and à harlot with one breath 17. Yet one word more You say the Church of Rome is à true Church wherin Saluation is had though corrupted One clear Inference against Mr Thorndick Hence I Argue Either you in England are now at this instant separated from this Church as it is True or not If separated from it as true the Reformation belongs to you only you are to cancel your own Errours according to the form of Doctrin in our Church for She if true is so far pure that she cannot be reformed And thus much you seem to grant P. 33. It is out of loue to the Reformation that I insist vpon such à Principle as may serue to re-vnite vs with the Church of Rome being well assured that we can neuer be well reunited with our Selues otherwise That not only the Reformation but the common Christianity must needs beâ—lost in the Diuisions which which will neuer haue an end otherwise What is this to say but to wish the English Church reformed by the Roman Catholick Therefore something if these quoted words bear sense is amiss not in the Roman but in the English Church which needs Reformation Now on the other side if you say the Roman Catholick was and is à true Church Another Inference as clear and that the English also is altogether as true as she or hath not separated from the Roman in matter of true Doctrin it followes ineuitably if the Supposition hold's that neither of them needs Reformation in matter of Truth for here we speak not of Rites and Ceremonies which are alterable To what purpose then is it to talk of reforming either Church in point of Truth when both are Supposed so true that neither can be reformed nor differ if true in faith from one another 18. Perhaps you may yea and must reply if your Discourse haue sense Though they are true in Doctrins called fundamental yet both haue their lesser corruptions and these need Reformation This is all that can be Asserted For if both are false in fundamentals neither of them at this day is the Orthodox
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
principio In the beginning What is that Word saith another which was with God or how was it with God Was it One real thing Essential to him or meerly à breath à Word terminated vpon creatures without which nothing was made All know though the Arians had à Church to teach yet with that sure Rule of faith they mangled and misvsed this very passage of the Gospel Therefore difficulties much more would molest these Philosophers hauing no Oracle to interpret And as many would arise concerning other Scriptures relating to the sacred Trinity Original Sin and the like Mysteries 9. Now here is my reflection and I think euery Intelligent An application made to Sectaries person will speak as I doe Iust so much as these Philosophers haue to gloss with and descant vpon So much Sectaries may challenge but no more if we seuer Scripture from the Churches Interpretation Both haue à Body without life words without sense difficulties proposable concerning their reading but none to Answer them 10. The only difference between them is That the Philosophers yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no Schoole to go to Sectaries haue both yet run as it were from Schoole with half à Lesson with one part and t' is The difference between them and the Philophers much the obscurer part of Diuine Learning only the bare Texts I mean of holy Scripture shutting out the Churches infallible Sense And what haue you in lieu of this light which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Christians The weak and errable Sentiments of a few disvnited Sectaries And is this all we can rely on Do we belieue the Trinity the Incarnation and other high Mysteries so obscurely expressed in Gods word that innumerable haue mistaken the true Sense because à Luther à Caluin or their followers expound Whether Luthers followers or an Ancient Church is to teach it Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches Interpretation which has euer taught the world The One or Other must haue influence vpon Faith if we will belieue But most manifestly the first men only of yesterday and fallible are not our Doctors Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Ascertains vs of the Scriptures Sense of its Truth and infallible Doctrin also 11. Two things necessarily follow from this Discourse The one That Protestants Shew themselues strangely vngrateful because Sectaries manifestly vngrateful And why they slight an Oracle which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Christian Faith for in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scripture vpholds that true Assent they yeild to the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity So much is granted Or not Grant it I Ask. Why disdain they to hear this Church in other matters If you deny Their Submission to this and the like Mysteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible dissatisfactory thoughts and glosses Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitiue Churches interpretation and ground their Assent vpon Her Doctrin Nothing is got this way For the most Primitiue Recourse to the Primitiue Church friuolous exposition of Scripture was no more infallible than what the latter Church or Councils haue Defined But enough is said aboue of this Chasing all Controuersies vp to the Primitiue Ages 12. The second Inference is If God has not made Religion à matter of eternal Debate If all are obliged to belieue by diuine Faith the very truths yea the same infallible truths which God has reuealed and no other of à lower or slighter Rank If he has reuealed them for this end that all may be Ascertain'd A second Inference of their intrinsecal Worth That is of being both Diuine and infallible If the whole Christian world remain's not at this day in Errour or is not cast vpon vncertainties what to belieue If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed Doctrin stand's and subsist's firmly ioyned together in God the first Verity impossible to be separated there And if Finally as T' is there true and infallible all are obliged to learn it Nothing can be more manifest then that diuine Prouidence has established and impowred Some Oracle to teach and propose that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and Nâ—tion as it is both true and infallible 13. Thus much Supposed and proued All further Questions The Oracle teaching truth cannot be questioned concerning the Oracle ceases For it neither is nor can be another but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to interpret Scripture faithfully to rescue Gods truths from the lewd misusage of Hereticks Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abuse Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches our Faith is sound Catholick and Apostolical But if Scripture by reason of its Obscurity deceiues any or the Church could deuiate from the sincere interpretation of Gods truths there registred The Very life of true Religion is lost Faith vanishes into errour 14. Who euer seriously Consider's what is already said in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets scattered Mr Stillingfleets Obiections weightles Obiections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils vtterly void of strength Some worthy person of our Nation who he is I know not in his Guide of Controuersies Disc 3. has so broken and vanquished the little force they haue that I may well supersede all further labour herein There is not one Obiection proposed but T' is either first euidently retorted vpon Mr Stillingfleet Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Question Or 3. Impugn's all Councils Or 4. Appears so slight at the very first view that it deserues no Answer What can be more slight then to tell vs as he doth P. 508. That we He Speak's not truth are absolutely auerse from free Councils because we condemn all other Bishops but those of our Church without suffering them to plead for themselues in any Indifferent Council It is hard to say what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent Councils for he fetters all with so many Conditions that neuer any was yet found in the Church so qualified as he would haue it Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter as also P. 557. You will se what I assert Manifest It is true we condemn A Calumny for à Proof all heteredox Bishops and doth not Mr Stillingsleet recriminate and condemn ours But to say we suffer none to plead for Themselues in à free Council is à flat Calumny vnless that only be free which some bodies fancy makes free and no other A word now to one or two Obiections 15. If you saith Mr Stillingsleet require an Assent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible There must be an antecedent Assent to this Proposition That whatsoeuer Councils decree is infallible I first retort the Argument If you require an Assent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting Or hold That the conuened there deliuered true Doctrin There must be an The first Argument retorted
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
infallibly the Infallible Testimony of the Apostles Preaching with à Diuine Infallible Assent Most certainly they Did. Yet the Infallibility of that Testimony was not known if we speak strictly of Knowledge but by Motiues of Credibility which were no Obiect of their Faith vnless you make faith to be Science The Argument retorted but Inducements only to belieue Ergo this very Primitiue Faith was vnreasonable because it was an infallible Assent built vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of that Euidence whereby those pious men were moued to belieue Hence You Se though the Motiues which illustrate the Church were in themselues fallible and not Metaphysically conexed with the Diuine Testimony yet Faith grounded on that Testimony cannot but be certain and infallible and consequently must Transcend or goe beyond all the degrees of Certitude appearing in the prerequired Motiues Mr Stillingfleet reply's This is to require Infallibility in the Conclusion where the Premises are only probable Answ He err's not knowing the nature of Faith which Discourses not like to Science For example Make this Sillogism Whateuer God reueal's is True but God reueal's the Incarnation of the Diuine VVord Ergo that is true The difficulty only is in the Minor But God reueal's which cannot be proued by another belieued Article of Faith wholly as obscure to vs as the Incarnation is I say proued by Reason because the same difficulty will be as much moued again Concerning the Proof of that second belieued Article as concerning the first of the Incarnation and so in Infinitum And Shew'd Proofles Therefore all rational Proofs auailing to beget Faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were in another Region more clear yet less certain than the reuealed Mystery is we assent to by Faith 4. Now to our Purpose We hold this an Article of Faith The Church is God's infallible Oracle And therefore Say antecedently Rational Proofs for the Churches infallibility to Faith it cannot be proued by Arguments as obscure or of the same Infallible certainty with Faith For then Faith would be superfluous or rather we should belieue by à firm and infallible Assent before we do belieue vpon the Motiue of Gods infallible Reuelation which is impossible Hence it is that when we goe about Haue not the certainty of Faith 〈◊〉 the Infallibility of the Church independently of Scripture Yea and also independently of all belieuâ—d Church Doctrin We must necessarily Euince this rationallâ— by reflex Arguments and Motiues extrinsecal to what we Belieue which are not of the same certainty with Supernatural Faith it self Now these Arguments what these Motiues Proue founded vpon the Motiues of Credibility can goe no further stretch them to the vtmost But only to proue this great verity That what euer we belieue either of Scripture or of the Church is most euidently Credible aboue all things proposable to the contrary And this great light the learned at least haue before they yeild an infallible Assent vpon Diuine Reuelation to the very Doctrin of the Church or Scripture either 5. I Say 2. Mr Stillingfleet and all Sectaries whilst They Belieue with an Infallible Assent the most fundamental Articles in Sectaries goe beyond that Euidence whereby they are induced to belieue Scripture goe beyond all Proportion of that Euidence whereby they are induced to Belieue And consequently must Solve their own â—eak Argument yet strong Ad hominem against them If I Euince not this Truth blame me boldly And obserue my Proof 6. The Sectary belieues that Verity which S. Iohn expresses in this short Sentence The word was made Flesh That is he belieues the Incarnation of the Son of God with an Assent so infallible that it cannot only be false but that he would not disbelieue it vpon any reason Proposable Though an Angel should preach Contrary But neither this Act of Faith nor its Formal Obiect the Diuine Reuelation are ex terminis euidently true Quoad â—s yet must be proued â—uidently Credible to reason or Faith becomes vnreasonable and rash For Qui cito credit leuis est corde Now further None can proue this by another Act or Article of Faith no more its own Self-euidence than the belieued Incarnation The Assertion Proued is All therefore which can be done is to make it euidently Credible by Motiues extrinsecal to Belief by vniuersal Tradition and the Consent of innumerable learned men who haue both conueyed vnto vs the Words as Diuine Scripture and the genuine Sense of them also But this very humane Tradition this exteriour Consent of all or what other Motiues can be Imagined preuious to Faith because fallible may deceiue Yet by the help of such fallible Motiues Mr Stillingfleets Our Aduersary Clearly Conuinced Faith if it rest's vpon the Diuine Reuelation is raised higher and stand's firmer vpon that Ground than the Euidence of his Motiues can induce to Therefore he makes the conclusion surer than the Premises And goes beyond all Proportion and degree of fallible Euidence preambulatory to his certain Belief What I Assert is manifest For by Faith he The Conuiction Manifest Sayes the Incarnation is so infallibly true that it cannot be false Yet all the Motiues which induce him to belieue Say Possibly it may be false or exclude not à Possibility of falshood And if this be not to Transcend all Proportion of his acquired Euidence nothing is to goe beyond it 7. The Argument will be yet more clear if proposed after this manner Mr Stillingfleet infallibly belieues the truth of that Scripture now Quoted I Ask by what means can he know That this very belieued Truth is à Diuine Verity or Scripture The Answer may be That 's known vpon Tradition or the publique Authority of all not only Christians but others also who haue conueyed the Book to vs. Very Another most Conuincing Proof good But this Publick Authority this Conueyance or what euer Tradition you will is either of equal infallible certainty with the Belieued Truth of Scripture Or less and much weaker If less and weaker Mr Stillingfleets Faith goes beyond all propotion and degrees of his preuious acquired Euidence Not to be answered And it be of equal infallible Certaintly That is If he belieues as infallibly the Conueyance of those Words For or Vpon Gods Diuine Testimony as he belieues the Doctrin there contained to be à Diuine Truth He makes one Article of Faith the Proof of another and euidently incurrs the Circle obiected to Catholicks as shall appear afterward When we examin his 170. Page and refute his Errour concerning the Moral Certainty of Faith 8. Now to the Obiection It is not possible That the Assent in matters of Faith rise higher or stand firmer than the Assent to the Testimony is vpon which those things are belieued Answer Very true But know Sr we Assent to matters of Faith vpon Gods Diuine Testimony and not for the Motiues
Reicted firm in the Primitiue Belieuers were to as little Purpose as if one should raise the dead to perswade vs that the Sun shines or if we speak of Moral certainty that there haue been such men in the world as Pompey and Iulius Casar which is enormously vntrue 15. Contrariwise if he Saith This rational Euidence necessarily implies à preuious intellectual Discourse grounded on prudent Motiues distinct from the Verity of Christs Doctrin He first cashier's his own fancied Euidence And 2. must Andretorted Answer to the Instances proposed And. 3. Assent to this true vniuersal Proposition Viz. That neuer any belieued or can belieue if we abstract from priuate Reuelations without Motiues distinct from Christs Doctrin fit to induce Faith And an Infallible Testimony to ground Faith vpon Thus the Samaritan woman and those who heard her Relation being first induced by precedent signes to iudge that Christ was à Prophet I perceiue thou art à Prophet Saies the Text and perhaps his Goodnes added more interiour light to strengthen those Signes firmly belieued vpon his infallible word Iesus said to her I am â—e Prudent Motiues and an Infallible Oracle Necessary to all Faith the Messias that speaks with thee Neither can any Instance be giuen where true Faith is But you haue with that very Faith Prudent Motiues Proposed to reason as Inducements And besides an Infallible Oracle to ground it vpon O but euery immediate Propounder of the Diuine Testimony is not infallible Be it so at present What matters that If he leads me to one which giues me à clearer Euidence of Credibility and proues Himselfe by Motiues aboue the force of nature God's Oracle 16. Some thing of this nature we haue in the first Conuersion of Christs Disciples Iohn 1. 44. Philip Saith the A Proof taken from the Conuersions of Christ's Disciples Text meeting with Nathanaël told him We haue found Iesus the son of Ioseph of Nazareth whom Moses in the Law and the Prophâ—s 〈◊〉 of Nathanaël wondred What can there be any good from Nazareth Philip answered Veni vide Come and se Drawing neer He vnderstood that our Sauiour knew his Interiour where in there was no Guile and beheld him vnder the fig-tree before he was called Thus enlightened by Signs aboue the natural knowledge of man forthwith that true Profession of his Faith followed Rabbi thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel In like manner it may easily fall out if one not very learned treat with another wholly illiterate yet The Application morally honest that has heard little of Christ or his Church He who would instruct Sayes no more But Veni vide Come I will bring you to an Oracle right able to teach you we call it the Catholick Church She can show you who laid Her foundations firm She will conuince your vnderstanding by the efficacy of such Motiues Miracles Conuersions and Sanctity of life which far surpass the power of natural causes Now after you haue seen and heard what I Say to be most true Belieue not vpon my word for I only point at the Oracle but vpon the Churches own Testimony She is without Guile and cannot deceiue you 17. And here by the way you se how differently the Sectary How differently the Catholick Doctors and Sectaries proceed and Catholick proceed in the Conuersions of an Vnbelieuer whether Heathen or other The first only open's à Bible and without further Motiues but what are found there bidd's him read the Book This yet vnconuerted man Saies the sense is dark He vnderstand's it not The Catholick on the other side Proposes à Church euidenced by the very same Marks and Signes whereby our Sauiour and his Apostles were In the Conuersion of Vnbelieuers manifested to be Oracles sent from God This Church both proues that the Bible is of Diuine Inspiration And mereouer declares its Sense in all controuerted Passages Finally after Her Motiues laid foâ—th She remit's euery one to Christs own words He that hears you hears me and our Sauiour remit's vs to his Eternal Father for he Assures all Iohn 7. 16. That the Doctrin deliuered by him was not his but his Fathers that sent him And here is the last ground of all Diuine Faith which stand's fast vpon three strong Principles neuer yet at variance with one another The Church Christ our Lord and God the first Verity Consider I beseech you which of the two Teachers proceed's more rationally 18. You se moreouer those Instances of the Brittans and The Instances of Barbanians proued forceles Barbarians brought to nothing For suppose first which some Authors assert that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles Preached in Brittany or England Or that S. Paul Simon Cananaus surnamed the Zealous Aristobulus à Roman and S. Ioseph of Arimathia performed that Apostolical function there whether so or no I dispute not Suppose again And herein all agree that England receiued the Christian faith very early For it is as certain that King Lucius and his Subiects were conuerted by S. Damianus and his Associates sent to preach by that holy Pope and Martyr Elutherius about one hundred and eighty years after Christ As The reason here of it is indubitable that the English Saxons were afterward Conuerted by S. Augustin and his followers sent by S. Gregory the great in the six Century to do that most worthy and laudable Duty Vpon these Suppositions you see that the first Preachers were Apostolical men and priuiledged by our Sauiour to work Miracles Mark 16. 20. Those others in the two following Conuersions receiued their Commission from Popes held à strict Vnion with the Roman Catholick Church and finally made their Doctrin euidently Credible by great Sanctity and other Signal wonders as known History recounts 19. Some may reply All these Conuersions would haue been easily wrought had those Preachers only made our Sauiours Miracles known and done none Themselues I Answer first Done they were and preiudiced nothing but rather highly aduanced the Glory of our Sauiours wonders Yea and as experience A Reply Answered teaches yet notably facilitate the Conuersion of Infidels euery where when God is pleased to work them by his Seruants Therefore the Apostles were impowred not only to Testify that the Messias did Miracles but moreouer to do the like themselues And for this reason Almighty God has euer hitherto preserued and will hereafter preserue that singular Grace of working Miracles in the Church I Answer 2. None can haue infallible Assurance either of our Sauiours Miracles or of any other Verity recorded in Scripture independently of some actual liuing actual infallible and most clear euidenced Oracle by Signes aboue the Prudent Motiues induce to Faith and An Infallible Oracle support it force of Nature which in this present State is the Church And therefore I said à great Truth That Diuine Faith had in all Ages that necessary Expedient of rational Motiues
To lay Faith as low as may be to remoue it from its own Center and fasten it vpon no man knowes what moral ground 's Finally to introduce à new weak and vncouth way of belieuing is the best seruice Mr Stillingfleet can do for God and Christians But Ad rem 9. I Say first Protestants haue no grounds distinct from the Diuine Testimony whereby to discouer any one particular Truth which God has reuealed I proue the Assertion These supposed Grounds are either reduced to the rational Euidence of Christian Religion already refuted as laid forth by Mr Stillingfleet Or to the Doctrin contained in Scripture And this Saith He. Page The Doctrin refuted 170. VVe belieue by Faith vpon à Diuine Testimony which therefore is not the antecedent Reason or ground Why we belieue it For no verity Assented to by Faith can as assented to be the preuious Reason of our Assent or à rational ground iuducing to belieue Therefore we said our Sauiours Miracles belieued by Faith when Rational Inducements to Faith are euer presupposed to Beliefe we read Scripture are not the Inducements to belieue them because an Inducement to Faith is euer presupposed and not inuolued in the Act of belieuing But it is needles to Say more of this For no man in his wits if Questioned by either Iew or Gentil why he belieues the Sacred Trinity can for the last Answer tell him He belieues so because â—e belieues it or because he read's that Mystery in à book called Scripture Now besides these proofles Inducements there are no other imaginable whereby the Diuine Testimony can be Discouered conueyd or applyed to Belieuers but only those known Catholick Motiues as Miracles Sanctity Conuersions Church Motiues Slighted of Nations c which illustrate the Vniuersal Roman Church And these Mr Stillingfleet scornfully call's mute things à grand Salad too often serued vp found very dry and insipid Therefore he has no rational Inducement morally Certain for any one Article of Christian Religion much less for the Tenets of Protestants 10. I Say 2. If the Grounds or Motiues inducing to belieue let these be what this Aduersary pleases haue Infallible connexion with the Diuine Testimony or conuince vpon Metaphysical Certitude that God speak's the Truths we belieue The Assent giuen to the Motiues is not moral but highly infallible Contrarywise if all Motiues preuious Faith cannot be built on Fallible Motiues to beliefe be supposed so fallible that they may deceiue Faith neither is nor can be built vpon them Therefore Mr Stillingfleet Err's in Saying The nearest and most proper Resolution of Faith is into the Grounds inducing to belieue that such à Testimony is Diuine 11. To proue the Assertion I demand Whether God obliges all to belieue his reuealed verities vpon his vnerring Testimony as the only Formal Obiect or to belieue for Motiues extrinsecal to that Testimony which though morally certain may possibly Deceiue Grant the first Faith stand's fast The Assertion proued vpon its own foundation the Diuine Testimony Say 2. It is iointly built on Motiues as the nearest and most proper Obiect which in rigour may deceiue it hangs as it were Vpon two Heterogeneal Principles The One most firm and Infallible The Other weak and fallible Viz. Motiues which being fallible cannot but contribute as much Weakness to Belief as the infallible Testimony giues it Certainty And so these two Principles by their different Influence Doe and Vndoe build and destroy wind on and wind off The one imparts infallible Certainty the other staikes it away and makes Faith no more but à fluctuating moral and fallible Assent 12. To aduance this Proof yet further I Ask Again if all Diuine Reuelation were by à supposed Impossibility not infallible but only morally certain whether then Christians could belieue the reuealed Mysteries with à Faith as certain as they now elicite vpon Reuelation Answer Tea That Perfection of infallibility essential to Gods Reuelation would then be vseles and impertinent to Support Faith Answer The Proof further explained conuinceth No or Say Faith if the Hypothesis stand's would not be Diuine and certain I infer Ergo it is neither Diuine nor certain De facto My reason is So far and not further Gods infallible Testimony or the Diuine Reuelation has influence vpon Faith as fallible motiues Apply it to Belieuers or giue it leaue might one speak so to Support that Assent But these fallible Motiues which immediatly apply the Reuelation to Belieuers permit it not to raise that Act to any greater certitude than only moral which may be false Therefore the Reuelation de facto communicates no more Certainty to Beliefe than if it were only morally and not infallibly certain For here is our Aduersaries Principle According to the Proofs and grounds whereby we discouer the Diuine Testimony to be in Being We belieue But all these Proofs and grounds Say only Morally and Fallibly that the Testimony is now in Being Therefore faith also can be no more but only Moral Fallible and liable to Errour 13. Hence it followes first That neither the very Apostles Ill Consequences deduced out of nor any other Belieuers euer fince that time had any surer faith than only moral which may be false It followes 2. That the Truth of all Christian Religion inuolues in it à Possibility of salshood For being applyed or proposed to vs vpon Sectaries Doctrin grounds only fallible and moral we are to iudge of it according to the Exigency and Merit of such weak grounds And therefore can esteem it no better than fallible It followes 3. And this I would haue noted That Faith in these mens Principles tend's not absolutely into the Diuine Reuelation but only with doubt and fear or meerly conditionally For euery man may rationally Say Lord if you haue reuealed this truth Christ is the true Messias I belieue it as vndoubtedly true but the certainty I haue thereof is only Setled vpon Motiues which They make Faith à Conditional Assent may deceiue me Therefore my faith can be no more but Hypothetical or conditional to this Sense If you haue reuealed it I belieue if not I reiect it Hence you se it were much better could not the difficulty be otherwise solued to Say the Motiues preuious to Faith conuince with Metaphysical certainty that God speak's by his Scripture and Church Than to make the Reuelation so strengthles that it can because weakned by fallible Motiues contribute no other certainty to Belief but what is Moral and may be false 14. And thus much Mr Stillingfleet could he proced consequently This Aduersary Proceed's not Consequently as he doth not should Assert For if as he saith considering the Nature of things moral Certainty be as great or beget's as firm an Assent as any Mathematical or physical certainty what is it that fright 's the man from allowing Infallible certainty to Faith Or what gain's he to Substitute in Lieu of
that another certainty which he call's Moral For if these two certainties be equally as strong it is Senless to establish the One and reiect the Other but the truth is in matters of beliefe moral certitude has no place as is largely proued aboue 15. Against this Discourse one may first Obiect God can An Obiection proposed oblige all either to belieue what is reuealed as infallible true to vs So that there can be no possible Deception in our Belief Or. 2. He may oblige vs to belieue His reuealed Verities meerly according to the efficacy of such Proofs as intimate to vs that God Speak's And why may not Mr Stillingf build his Faith vpon such Grounds or motiues as the nearest foundation though the vltimate Principle of belieuing be the Diuine Reuelation I haue partly Answered Either those Motiues conuince withall Of no force if the Motiues be infallible Metaphysical certitude that the Reuelation doth actually Exist and than the Difficulty ceaseth for the Assent yeilded to them is infallible Or contrarywise They are as Mr Stillingfleet supposes fallible And may stand with all their Lustre though the Reuelation really were not in Being Speak So It is most clear such Motiues cannot support Faith For all which right reason can draw from them if not absolutely infallible is thus much only That our Christian Verities according to Prudence If fallible they vphold not Faith are euidently credible But by virtue of that Iudgement we reach not as yet to the infallibility of the Diuine Testimony Therefore if God obliges all de facto to ground Faith vpon his infallible Testimony which cannot deceiue He iointly Obliges vs not to The reason hereof ground it vpon fallible Motiues which may deceiue and stand as Mr Stillingfleet will haue it although God had neuer reuealed any Christian Verity Again If we are obliged to free Christian Religion from all Possibility of falshood That is if God will haue vs to belieue it as absolutely infallible We cannot without wrong done to his infinite Verity Say he obliges vs to settle faith vpon Motiues only morally certain or absolutly fallible for thus He would oblige vs to belieue that as his own Truth which possibly may not be Truth but contrarywise à lie à falshood an Errour 16. 2. Obiect Now De facto in this present State there is no Difficulty For all iudge though the Motiues be fallible yet A second Obiection Solued God has reuealed our Christian verities Answ All do not iudge so But admit some do They iudge so by their infallible Assent of Faith terminated vpon the Verities as reuealed But antecedently to to beliefe none can iudge they are infallible reuealed truths whilst Motiues only fallible ground that Iudgement 17. A 3. Obiection Suppose Eternal truth had neuer reuealed A third proposed by no Sectary more difficult the sacred Trinity the like is of any other Mystery Suppose also that the whole System of Motiues had then stood in the same vigour and force as now they appear to vs Would not God and prudence haue obliged vs in that case to belieue as firmly the Trinity as we now belieue it I answer If the Supposition implies no Contradiction as I verily think it doth at least many hold so Prudence would then haue laid vpon vs an Obligation of firmly belieuing But what followes from hence Thus much only That poor Mortals not seing the depth of things would haue been invincibly deceiued But Deception is remote from God for his wisdom penetrat's all Truth and his Goodnes could not vpon the Supposition haue obliged any Solued The ground of the Solution to belieue à falshood or that to be which really is not Therefore he could not in the Case now supposed haue afforded Diuine Assistance to make Faith supernatural because the Obiect by errour apprehended belieuable really was not Thus much is true and God might haue obliged vs to judge That the Motiues would then haue made the Mysteries evidently credible though they were not yea and perhaps further to belieue Conditionally As is said aboue 18. A. 4 th Obiection This Proposition is true We belieue for the Motiues Or we proue that God Speak's because the Motiues apply and conuey the Diuine Testimony to vs. I distinguish the Proposition We belieue for the Motiues as Inducements to settle Faith vpon another Obiect Viz. God's Testimony I grant A fourth Obiestion solued it We belieue for the Motiues That is We ground our faith vpon them as either the nearest or more remote Obiect Why we belieue I Deny it Thus the will loues good because the vnderstanding apprehend's or conueyes good to it yet loues not the by à clear Instance knowledge which conueyes it Fire laid neer to fewel burn's the approximation burn's not but is only Conditio applicans à necessary condition applying heat which burn's So we say the Motiues auaile to make it most credible that God speak's But no more ground Faith than approximation burn's or the knowledge when we prosecute Good is the Obiect of loue 19. And here by the way you se Mr Stillingfleets constant Mr Stilling Constant Errour discouereds Errour who makes the Motiues inducing to Faith the foundation of it That is in other Terms He Confound's the Iudgement whereby we Assert the reuealed Mysteries are euidently Credible with the Assent of Faith it self And will needs haue the formal Obiect wherevpon Faith is built not only to be the Diuine Reuelation but the Motiues also though they can do no more but 〈…〉 ace the VVill guided by reason to settle belief vpon the infallibility of the first Reuealer CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauor to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnleaaned Cauil 1. FRom the Page last cited to P. 123. I find nothing in Mr Stillingfleet worth any larger Answer than is giuen already Here He tells vs That many things in Christian Religion are to be belieued before we can Imagin any such thing as an infallible Testimony of our Church It is hard to guess at his meaning for he names not one Article thus Assented to Perhaps he would His meaning obscure Say That the Verities reuealed in some books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper Signatures or Motiues as the Harmony Sanctity and Maiesty of the Style may be belieued without the Testimony of an Infallible Church If so I Answer first All this Harmony or Maiesty considered only as Obiects of Sense or as preuioussly known by their Natural Euidence thus far and not further they bear the name of Motiues auaile not to belieue any Verity in Scripture if the infallibility of the Church be reiected And therefore we said aboue this Sanctity and Harmony The Church reiected no Maiesty in Scripture can gain Beliefe are assented to by Faith only after the Church immediatly Euidenced by
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
Infallible then those first Masters of Christianity were Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is constrained whether he will or no if he giues in any thing like Euidence to make vse of these good mute things the Motiues of Credibility which he scornfully call's Coleworts too often serued vp or shall neuer proue that God once said The Diuine word is made flesh Which is to Say He must first euidence à Church before he Proues those words Diuine 40. It may be replyed His Euidence for the whole Book of Scripture and euery particular sentence in it is taken from the fallible Tradition of all called Christians and others also no Christians I Say fallible For he owns none Diuine or Infallible Tallible Tradition no sufficient Euidence Contra. 1. The Scripture was acknowledged Diuine before men agreed so vniuersally that it was Diuine Tradition therefore which is rather an Effect of our Christian Beliefe concerning Scripture then à proof of it presupposes some other more clear foregoing Euidence whereby the Book was anciently owned as Diuine This we enquire after and very reasonably because the Chineses haue à vniuersal Tradition for their Bible and the Turks for their Alcoran one also general yet such à humane fallible and weak Tradition proues not those Books to be Diuine Contra. 2. And here is an An Argument ad hominem Argument ad Hominem If Mr Stillingfleet belieues the Testimonies of Scripture Infallible vpon fallible Tradition which may be false he makes his Conclusion concerning the belief of euery Passage in Holy Writ far more sure then the Premises are which lead in the Conclusion And this Doctrin he reiect's aboue as improbable Contra. 3. He has neither vniuersal Sectaries haue no vniuersal fallible tradition for their Seripture Tradition for the Protestants Canon of Scripture disowned by more then half of the Christian world much lesse for its true Sense wherein dissenting Christians so much vary that none of them all can Say vpon humane or fallible Tradition what the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is and consequently this very Tradition as also Mr Stillingfleets double Resolution of Faith into the Books of Scripture and into the Doctrin or Sense come iust to nothing 41. Page 158. He Argues the whole Church consist's of men subiect to errour That is All the Parts are liable to mistake Ergo the whole Church cannot possibly be infallible A faslacious Obiection Solued in and of it selfe Answ Lay open these couered Terms In and Of it selfe The Argument loses force I Say therefore Men meerly considered as nature has made them fallible in order to belieue Supernaturally haue In and Of themselues no immunity from errour yet taken vnder another Notion as they constitute à Church they are infallible That is There was is and will euer be à Church Teaching and à Church Taught Infallible So that all shall neuer err in Faith You may easily reioyn This or that man these or those Multitudes may wilfully abandon Christ's Doctrin Too true God knows And if so They are no more members of the Church but Heretiques or Infidels Again If you run Some may err All the Church cannot ouer the rest of Christians remaining Orthodox whether Pastors or People and Say these may also fall from Faith I Answer Some may All cannot because God has promised euer to preserue à Church in Being I mean faithful Teachers and faithful Belieuers to the end of the world And must not Sectaries acknowledge thus much who hold à Church infallible in Fundamentals which vpon that account cannot wholly err 42. Mr Stillingfleet Answer 's Though the Authority of the whole Church be not Diuine yet she cannot err in Fundamentals because she is tyed to the vse of means Say Good Sir who tyes Her to this infa 〈…〉 ble vse of Mean's if the whole Moral Body and euery Member of it be fallible Grant that God by his special Assistance ties Her fast She is for that reason infallible and must Vse the means Take from Her diuine Assistance and Say She is only guided by the erring Conceptions of fallible men She may easily swerue from the Means and reuolt from Christ And thus the fallacy is cleared You The fallacy discouerid Sr Suppose the Infallibility must be taken from the right vse of means whercas the contrary is true Viz. Therefore Sâ—e rightly vses the means because She is antecedently preserued infallible by Diuine Assistance You suppose again that all the Parts of this They rightly vse the Means because antecedently made Infallible Assisted Church are fallible And we Say no For as long as they continue members of it So long as the Pastors lawfully commissioned teach in Christ's name and the faithful belieue their infallible Doctrin There will be euer such à Church on earth So long they are all infallible If any fall from Faith whether few or many These eo ipso cease to be Members of this Mystical Body yet the Church fail's not for the failing of some infer's not à possible Failure in all The want of this Distinction caused your errour 43. And thus hauing remoued such weak difficulties out of the way thought great ones in that 5th chapter which to an Difficulties remoued we proceed to the Resolution an vnwary Reader may seem to Obstruct the Catholick Resolution of Faith We will in the following Discourse first Premise some Principles much auailing to conceiue the easiest Resolution and next declare where the chiefest difficulty lies which Mr Stillingf has not done and finally endeauour to solue it without the least danger of any vicious Circle Afterward we shall proue that Protestants haue no Faith at all to resolue CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 1. THe first Principle God who is an Infinite verity and speak's not to stones can by à Diuine Language proper to himselfe so make his interiour mind and sincere God's proper language meaning known to rational creatures that all vpon hearing His voyce may without hesitation indubitably Say Thus God Iudges this be Speak's which granted All are obliged both readily and firmly to yeild assent to so great à Maiesty for his own Authority Known to all The reason hereof is clear If God can speak to Mortals and for this end that he be vnderstood there arises an obligation in euery one to belieue him without fear or doubt Or in case it be impossible after all humane industry vsed to learn what he speak's none can absolutely belieue him 2. A. 2. Principle Then and not otherwise this external Language is certainly known to come from God when it is spoken in his name and so fairely appear's by its own Signatures Lustre and Wonders to proceed from him That all must confess
Credibility of Scripture is not grounded vpon any vniuersal fallible Consent but stand's firm vpon other stronger antecedent Motiues Nay it cannot Originally depend therevpon Seing that Consent is an Effect of those other preuious Motiues as S. Austin often cited fully and most amply declares Be it how will 4. The greatest Difficulty yet remain's for if we enquire of The Sectarles Plea taken from any vniuersal fallible Consent is groundless Sectaries where we may find this common Consent we haue but à very slippery Foundation to stand vpon Because not only Heretiques of old denied the greatest part of Scripture But to come to chese neerer times the Machiauellians and Socinians also called Christians hold many things in that Sacred Book so far aboue all humane reach that they Say it is vnworthy God to require from any à firm beliefe of them Add herevnto the multitudes of Heathens Iewes and Turks who imcomparably whole Multitudes against Sectaries surpass Christians in number All these you know Vnanimously reiect our Scriptures How then can the far lesser number of Witnesses agreeing in one consent Plead so much as probably against such multitudes of Opponents If no other motiue be alleged in behalfe of the Scriptures Credibility but only the Consent of few against many 5. But to silence all Sectaries hereafter Who insist so much vpon this vniuersal Consent we will here gratis suppose the Argument drawn from thence to be most conuincing Yet withall Assert it so little aduantages the pretences of Protestants That Sectaries plainly Conuinced it vtterly ruin's their vndefensible Cause For where haue these men any vniuersal Agreement of Christians for their Canon of Scripture Where haue they it in behalf of their iarring Opinions Where for their Negatiue Articles Where for their particular Sense of Scripture which not only the Roman Catholick Church but others also reiect as false vngrounded and Heretical If therefore this Common consent for the Bible Obserue the Proofs were more Vniuersal then it is it help 's not Sectaries whils't their singular Opinions their Canon and Sense And in à word their whole Religion as Protestancy is so particular to Them selues That the rest of Christians ashamed to own it will be no Partners with them 6. And thus you see where the Weaknes of this whole Plea lies They will haue à vniuersal Consent for the bare letter of Scripture Let that be so It s nothing to the purpose if afterward without any thing like à Vniuersal agreement they misinterpret the Book and make it speak what God neuer meant But this is done and I proue it vpon an vndeniable ground thus The Book of Scripture misinterpreted Proues nothing Whilst these men cannot name or Design à Church reputed Orthodox fiue or six Ages since which as vniuersally maintained their new Doctrin as She then owned the old letter of the Bible They misinterpret the Book And gain no more But Sectaries do So and t is proued by vrging that vniuersal Consent for the meer letter then the Arians â—r worst of Heretiques gain But to name such à Church for their Nouelties is imposible and consequently no less impossible to resolue one Article of Protestancy into God's Diuine Testimony expressed in Scripture 7. A 2. Obiection Christians faith seem's not resoluable into the Diuine Testimony speaking by the Church because How the Chutch is both the Truth belieaed And the Motiue also why we belieue the Church is Res credita ot the Material Obiect belieued Witness that Article of our Creed I belieue the Holy Catholick Church Therefore it cannot be Ratio Credendi or the Formal Obiect which moues to belieue I Answer first Sectaries must solue this Difficulty For is not the very Doctrin contained in Scripture according to them the Res Credita or the Material Obiect belieued The Incarnation I hope whereof we read in Scripture the like may be said of euery other Mystery is the Truth belieued with such à faith as they haue And the Sectaries must solue this difficulty very same Word of God wherein thefe Truths are contained is also the Ratio Credendi or Formal Obiect mouing to belieue For demand why they Assent to the Incarnation T' is Answered because God has reuealed it in Scripture No other Motiue can be pretended Therefore the same Scripture differently considered is both the Material Obiect or Verity belieued and likewise the Formal which moues to belieue And thus we Say The Churches Proposition Or rather God speaking by the Church may well be the Truth belieued and à Motiue also why we belieue wherein there is no Difficulty at all Take here one Instance in known Philosophy which teaches that light both terminates our Vision and so considered is the Material Obiect seen withall it moues By two Instances we ciear what is asserted the Power to see it and vpon that Account is rightly called the Formal Obiect In Acts of Faith you haue the like Instance For example When the Iewes Assented to the ancient Prophets vttering these words Haec dicit Dominus c. Our Lord speak's thus They belieued that God spake by the mouth of those Prophets it was one of the Materal obiects Assented to by Faith and they belieued also for those Prophets words as God's own Voice and had respect to them as to à Formal obiect Why they belieued 8. A 3. Obiection If the Church be the Primum Credibile or the first Belieuable Oracle whereby God speak's to all How and in what Order we belieue the truths Proposed by the Church in this present State We are to declare how and in what order those Truths are deliuered by it which all are obliged to belieue And this cannot be done without Confusion and perhaps danger of à Circle also We haue partly Answered aboue where it is said That as the Apostles after the Knowledge had of our Sauiours Miracles belieued first in à General way He was the true Messias So we in this present State induced by all the Motiues of Credibility already laid forth belieue first in General That this Manifested Oracle is Christs own Spouse This general Assent first precedes which infallibly teaches the right way to Saluation And this truth we Assent to immediatly vpon the Churches Proposition or rather vpon God's Testimony speaking by the Church without depending on Scripture Iust as the Apostles belieued Christ our Lord to be the true Messias vpon his own Testimony proued Credible by Miracles and other Signal Wonders Thus far there is no Confusion at all nor any danger of à vicious Circle Now further This General truth admitted we proceed to the Beliefe of other particular Verities proposed and herein also follow the Apostles Steps and practise who assented to euery single Article which our Sauiour deliuered afterward vpon his own Word Why therefore may not we also Afterward we descend to other particulars belieue euery particular
after our priuate perusing those few ancient Records left vs end our debate whilst you 'l turn them to one Sense and I to another Nouel Reason shall end all Catho That I wish for But quit me yet of one Scruple What if your priuate Reason be byassed one way and mine another Or what if you Iudge that Reasonable which I doe not Here the Nouellist like one struck dumb spake not à word 13. Yet the Discourse might well haue gone on for I would haue further inquired whether to do as all the Christians what is to be Iudged reasonable in the world learned and vnlearned haue done be not reasonable None can deny it Then I would haue inferred But all these Innumerable Christians The very Apostles themselues and others haue vpon prudent Motiues Constantly iudged it reasonable to submit to Mysteries aboue the reach of humane Reason Ergo that must pass as à reasonable Principle But the Reason cannot be taken from the very Act The Euidence of Credibility not taken from Faith of submission For that is Faith nor from any Euidence in the Mystery belieued or obscurely proposed nor finally from Scripture alone for that Book Considered in it selfe is not its own Euidence Therefore the Euidence of Credibility Or the Euidence Proposed to Reason is extrinsecal to what euer I belieue and fundamentally lies in the Marks and Signatures of Christs own manifested Church 14. Hence I Conclude with this Dilemma and hold it vnanswerable Either God has set before all Mens Eyes An Oracle which now teaches truth most discernable by clear Marks and Motiues from all false erring Societies Or omitted to do so Grant the first Reason is as much obliged to belieue A Conuincing Dilemma that Signalized Oracle now As the Primitiue Christians were anciently bound to belieue the Apostles Say Contrary There is no such Marked Oracle distinguishable from erring Sectaries Reason is left in à Labyrinth and shall neuer find out true Religion Wherefore Protestants who seemingly stand for Reason and slight the Doctrin of our Euidenced Sectaries vnreasonable Church are the men amongst all other most vnreasonable and as dayly experience teaches meer Scepticks in matter of Religion 15. A 5th Inference The readiest way to conuince à Sectary How they are easily Conuinced and one though no great Clerk may easily do it is in the first place at least to waue that long tedious work of handling particular Controuersies which depend vpon Authority and to plead by Reason Thus I would Argue and haue often done so with good Success You as à Protestant lay claim to à reasonable Reformation and consequently to à Reasonable Religion Say I beseech you from whence haue you the Moral Euidence which makes this Reformation Credible to Reason I speak not yet of it's Truth for Euidence of Credibility e 〈…〉 preced's the anouching of it true We Catholicks proceed candidly Euidence of Credibility is first to be laid forth and propose to the reason of euery one learned and vnlearned the very Marks and Signs of truth manifest in our Church which Christ our Lord and the Apostles euidenced to the sirst Conuerted Christians You set vp à new faced Religion and when that 's done put it out of Countenance because Reason sees nothing in it which has appearance of Credibility You auouch it true before you make it Credible which Sectaries auouch their reformation true before it be made Credible is to put the Conclusion before the Premises 16. One perhaps will Say first The reason of your Reformation stand's vpon this rational Ground that wee Catholicks were deformed or out of all right fashion in our Religion Lamentable And are you the doughty Doctors that must mend what was marred and prescribe à new Model of Religion Can you Say what is or what is not Catholicism It is too much Boldnes not only to teach more learned then They make à false supposition their Proof you Selues But à high Iniury also to make à meer Supposition and very false too to pass for à rational Proof You know wee deny your improbable Supposition And you vpon no Principle call it reasonable Howeuer Suppose the falshood that wee are out of Fashion doth it therefore follow that you are got into the right Mode of Religion No truly If the Supposition stand's wee are both out And both need à new Reformation 17. Some may yet Reply Sectaries regard not that new coyned word of Euident Credibility à Term wholly Popish They endeauour to proue the Truth of Protestancy by Scripture and Fathers And to do so much is more than to make it Credible Contra. 1. Were it possible as it is not to proue the truth of Protestancy That 's besides the matter here in hand They are still besides the matter now agitated whilst wee only Treat of ending Controuersies by Reason Now all know that Authority whose Credibility must first be Euidenced before it haue weight precisely considered as Authority is not the Reason here spoken of For Example I Assent to the Mystery of the Incarnation vpon Gods own Authority that 's Faith but no rational Inducement to belieue What we demand of Sectaries is to haue the rational Motiues which induce to belieue this Protestancy laid open before the Eyes of rational men Herein we require Satisfaction but haue none 18. Contra. 2. Could these men proue their Protestancy by If the Reformation could be proued true Scripture and Fathers it should Methinks be very easy to point at an Orthodox Church which Six Ages since publickly owned the particular Tenets of it Here is my Reason Whateuer Doctrin the Scripture and Fathers teach the Orthodox Church conceal's not but openly Professeth She is not ashamed if Orthodox to teach what God has reuealed Now further Some Orthodox Church must haue owned it Had such à Church euer owned this Reformation it must either haue been like an inuisible Ghost not perceptible which our Newer Sectaries Disclaim or contrarywise discernable by the like Marks and Signatures of the Apostolical Church And if their Doctrin was euer taught by it They are to talk no more of its Truth before Its Credibility be euidenced to Reason by the Marks and Signs of that Church which is now supposed to haue taught pure Protestancy That is in à word They are first obliged to Say plainly what Articles of Faith Protestants as Protestants hold Essential to their Religion And then to make so much Doctrin and no more first Credible then true by the known Authority of an Orthodox Church But This is impossible Hence 19. And it is the last Inference whereby one grand Cheat of our Sectaries is discouered Long haue we inquired but without Satifaction Where their Church was before Luther The Common Answer returned by some latter Protestants making little Account of an inuisible Church is much to this Sense Our Church was there where it now is and where it alwayes
haue neither Inference nor Principle In very reallity neither true Consequence nor Consequentia No Inference because it s à meer Tautology or à bare repetition of what the Doctor had formerly asserted without Proof or Probability And Consequently far enough from the Nature of either Principle or Inference Had the Doctor brought in any thing like an Inference He Should haue Said Vpon such and such grounds already established It followes that these and what Should be proued these particular Doctrins of Protestants are true and immediatly deduced from this or that Principle But he totally abandon's the Protestants Faith and leaues his Fellow-sectaries as faithless as they were before he wrote these Principles The True Inference therefore or all that followes is that he hath lost his whole Labour 2. The. 2. Inference The Infallibility of that Society of men yet no Inference who call themselues the Catholick Church must be examined by the same Faculties in Man the same Rules of trial the same Motiues c. Answ Here is no Inference but the same thing repeated again which for the substance lies in his 6th Principle what Reason is to examin Now if we Speak of this Doctrin considered in it Selfe we easily grant that the rational faculties in men both may and ought to examin by the Light of prudent Motiues what Society of Christians is Infallible as also what Diuine Reuelation is made euidently Credible to Reason But herein à double Caution seem's necessary The first That Sectaries assume not to themselues the sole Faculty of examining and iudging but leaue to others à share of it also The second A twofold Caution to be obserued Prouiso is that Reason in this Search go not beyond its Bounds but pitch vpon that which is Reasons proper Obiect I mean vpon those Signatures of God's own Visible Wonders already explained These two Conditions obserued All is well Sectaries will soon Se their Errour 3. The. 3. Inference deduced out of no Principle falsly No want of Motiues and Miracles in the Church Supposes but proues not the want of Miracles and other conuincing Motiues in Roman Catholick Church It is largely refuted vpon seueral Occasions in euery one of these three Discourses 4. The fourth Inference From whence it comes I know not is thus The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and reason which any Church obtrudes vpon the Faith of men The greater reason men will haue to reiect the A Speech like that of Iewes and Arians Pretence of Infallibility in that Church as à grand imposture Answ Had à Iew who hold's it against Sense and Reason to belieue that God became an Infant Or had an Arian that denyes the Trinity because the Mystery seem's repugnant to his weak Reason Spoken after this manner None would haue much wondred But that à Doctor who pretend's to belieue these Fundamentals of Christian Religion Cannot find roome enough in his head for reason and Faith in euery particular the Church Teaches argues some little want both of the One and Other But say on what is it he boggles at O à Consecrated Wafer appear's to be bread and is not bread this is repugnant Sense beguiled to sense and reason Contra. Those two Angels that came to Lot Gen. 19. appeared to the Sodomits like mortal men but were not so Was not Reason here vpon the suggestion of Sense How rectifyed beguiled And are not both these faculties now rectifyed in vs by what we read in Holy Writ which ascertain's vs they were not men but Angels Thus it fall's out in the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament Wherefore I Say Were it not that God Speaking by Scripture and the Church assures vs that what we se is not substantianly bread the whole world would guided by outward Appearances hold it bread as those wicked Citizens iudged Lots entertained Guests to be men and not Angels But when eternal Truth interposes his Authority and tell 's vs by his own Oracles what is here contained vnder the Forms of bread is God in this Mystery interposes his Auâ—hâ—rity and vnbeguils reason not bread but Christ's Sacred body Reason yeilds vpon this most prudent Ground It is the highest reason in the world to belieue God though by reason we know not how things are Here is our Principle not possibly to be reuersed vnless the Doctor proues his Contrary Doctrin by the Authority of another Scripture or some other Church more euidenced by Supernatural Wonders and Consequently more Orthodox than the Roman Catholick Church is You may read the First Discourse C. 12. n. 4. where its Proued that the immediate Obiect of Sense Ceases not to be in this Mystery 5. Wherefore I Infer that if the Doctor would haue the Infallibility of that Church reiected as à grand Imposture because A hint giued to Iewes and Arians to reiect the Scriptures Infallibility it obtrudes vpon vs Doctrins in his Opinion repugnant to Sense and reason He ought also by good Consequence to Inuite both Iewes and Arians to reiect the Infallibility of Scripture as à grand Imposture where it Speak's of the Incarnation and the Sacred Trinity for certainly these Mysteries are far more aboue all Mens weak Reason then this other of the Blessed Sacrament is 6. The Doctors 5th and 6th Inferences deserue no such names because they are not deducible from any Principles being Vntrue Assertions in place of Inferences only his own plain Assertions and most vntrue Say I beseech you From what Principles can He infer That to disown à Church which teaches Doctrin aboue the reach of weak Reason is not to Question the Veracity of God but to adhere to that in what he hath reuealed in Scripture How can this be done Whilst the whole No knowing what Scriptâ—re Speaks without an Infallible Church world see 's the holy Book of Scripture so variously Sensed by dissenting men called Christians that none can conclude vpon any clear Principle which sense is true which false without owing à Church Infallible I Say aboue the reach of weak reason But not repugnant as the Doctor supposes For no Catholick Verity can be repugnant to Euident reason though much aboue it In à word That Doctrin is repugnant to Reason from whence two Contradictions clearly follow now I vrge the Doctor to giue vs any thing like à Contradiction in the Mystery already What 's Contrary to Reason mentioned of the blessed Sacrament That Doctrin is aboue Reason which cannot be known by the ayde of natural Principles only And thus the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity of the Incarnation of Original sin and Transubstantiation also are so far remoued from our natural faculties that none but God only can discouer them by his Supernatural Reuelation The 6th Inference And What 's aboue it where the Doctor tell 's vs That the Church of Rome neither is the Catholick Church nor any sound
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