assumed Corps as haue been seen in many Miraculously restored to life Be it how you will We are sure God can doe yea and hath done great Miracles when therefore all imaginable Circumstances forceably induce vs to belieue that they are his own glorious works it is I hope more wisdom to Ascribe them to an Omnipotent Power than to Father them vpon Diuels 3. Some who plainly see it s à degree of madness to doubt of so much humane faith as Testifies of Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church grant many haue been done But then Obiect 2. God did them to manifest that Christ is the true Messias or to work à Belief in vs of so much Doctrin only as is Common to all Christians but not to confirm our Popish Errours of Praying to Saints Purgatory c. Contra. This Argument also impugn's our Sauiours great Miracles which were not wrought one may say to confirm all the Doctrin he taught but à Part or parcel of it only Contra. 2. If Miracles Mark out à Doctrin common to all or confirm so much truth And no more It seem's strange that Arians Pelagians and Protestants work not Miracles as frequently as the Church doth For these men own à Doctrin common to all Christians yet show none of these wonders Contra. 3. There is not one Miracles truly alleged for euery Doctrin the Church teaches Doctrin taught by our Church and held erroneous by Sectaries which is not Sealed Signed and Attested by euident Miracles We haue innumerable for Christs Real and substantial Presence in the Eucharist As many for the Inuocation of Saints as also for the Honour due to holy Reliques Innumerable proue that third place of Purgatory c. All these may good Authors deserue Credit are vpon vndoubted Record And what iust Exception haue Sectaries against so great Authority I 'le tell you Their own incredulous Humour Here is all Whereas could they speak to the cause they should giue vs weight for weight and Oppose what we Allege in behalf of Miracles vpon grounded Principles That is they Should euince positiuely that our Authors are meer Cheats and fain Stories when we read of Miracles wrought in confirmation of praying to Saints the Real Presence And this in all law of Disputation they are obliged to do vpon solid Proofs indeed distinct from their own Incredulity or à meer Saying Such Records are false But do what ye will Sectaries can neuer be driuen to dispute vpon Principles 4. A third Obiection S. Austin Lib. de Vnit Ecclesiae Saith We therefore say not we belieue because so many wonders are done all the world ouer in holy places for what euer we find in this kind Ideo sunt approbanda quia in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ fiunt are to be approued S. Austin alleged against Miracles Speak's nothing for Sectaries because they are wrought in the Catholick Church Hitherto the obiection is of no force For the Saint only Saies No new Miracles ought to gain certain credit But such only as are wrought in the Church or such as confirm Her Doctrin or finally haue the Churches Approbation Now because he disputes against the Donatists and supposeth the Church known vpon other grounds expressed in Scripture Her Vnity Chiefly and vniuersal extent ouer the world before these latter Miracles were heard of Let us Saith S. Austin waue this Plea of Miracles you Donatists allege yours and I mine and Argue by Scripture only and see what Church Scripture commend's antecedently known before these latter Miracles came to our knowledge Which is to say though the after Particular Miracles added to others formerly done may much strengthen our Faith yet absolutly How the Saint pleaded against the Donatists Speaking Faith depend's not of them Because the Church we belieue in is sufficiently manifested by Her Vnity Perpâ—tuity and Vniuersallity expressed in Scripture Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta hac firmamenta Here in sies all we haue to Say Whilst we contest with you Donatists that own Scripture with vs yet Cauil at our Miracles Who euer read's this one Chapter exactly And drawes any other sense from the whole Context than what is now briefly hinted at will much oblige me may he please to discouer it 5. One yet may Obiect S. Austin Saith more and it seem's much against vs. Non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt The Catholick Church is not vpon that Account manifested to you Donatists because these Miracles are wrought in it I Answer 1. The words vnderstood as Sectaries interpret Euert as wholly the Miracles of our Sauiour who said If you will not belieue me belieue my Works 2. The Sectaries sense impugn's also the express Doctrin of S. Austin de Vtilit Credendi C. â—7 Where He Asserts that Hereticks are condemned by the Maiesty of Miracles Besides Their sense is nothing to the purpose because in this very Passage He speak's of latter Miracles known to S. Ambrose at Millan And Saith Hee will no more insist on These than permit the Donatists to talk of their False-visions For the Church is sufficiently manifested without them vpon à Surer Principle the Holy Scripture which the Donatists admitted and therefore Why Heâ— waued the proof of Miracles with the Donatists whilst They pretended to Miracles as well as S. Austin did Hee prudently waued that Discours and Argued by Scripture only leauing Miracles to their own worth and weight I Say to their ovvn vveight which is gathered from this great Doctors Discourse 6. Our Lord Iesus saith he arose from the dead and manifested Himself to his Disciples and offered his sacred body to be touched by their hands yet least that might be thought à fallacy he iudged it meet to confirm his Resurrection more Principally by the Testimony of the law the Prophets and Psalms showing All things were now accomplished â—n him Whence I inferr as the touching his Sacred body was Proof enough though not the chiefest of his Resurrection when Scripture was at hand to make that most manifest So Miracles also The true Reason giuen wrought in the Church manifest that Oracle but not Principally to the Donatists who ought to haue belieued more firmly the Churches Doctrin vpon that one potent Proof of the Apostle 1. Tim 3. 15. The Pillar and ground of Truth than for all the latter wonders done in the Church Yet these haue à mighty force and are stronge Inducements so far as Motiues can reach but not the chief and Principal cause of any mans Belief or Assent Read then S. Austin's words thus The Church is not made manifest by her latter Miracles to à Donatist who Cauils at such wonders but Principally by Scripture which he admit's and will like Protestants be tryed by You haue the Saints full Sense and à great Truth with it whereof there can be no doubt at all when Lib. Contra Epist Fundamentâ— C. 4. 5. He Demonstrat's the Church by Her Miracles
short chapters The work is admirable and most expresse for Christianity In the first The Excellent discourse of Marrochianus conuerted to Christianity Chapter he laies forth the horrid Transgressions of the Iewes their Idolatry and killing of the Prophets and saith Gods wrath was appeased for these sins as Scripture assures vs when our people saith he were set at liberty But now we haue been dispersed and scattered à thousand yeares and more and Gods indignation yet followes vs euery where nec in Prophetis promittitur finis and there is no end promissed in the Prophets be cause of our wickednes And if you ask what enormous guilt that was He answers in his 6. Chapter pondering these words of the Prophet Amos c. 2. vpon three crimes of Iuda I will Conuert or as the Rabbi reads transferam put away but vpon the fourth I will not conuert because they haue sold the iust for silver Paueo Domine I tremble saith Marrochianus when I read this sentence for this iust man was not Ioseph sold into Aegypt nor the fourth hainous wickednes which he proues manifestly but was the iust Lord Iesus whom the Iewes sold for silver and here is the greatest and most crying sin for which we are punished In the 19. Chap. I cannot insist on all He saith that Prophesy of Zach C. 13. strike the shepheard and his sheep shall be dispersed was fulfilled when the Israelites smit that great Pastor of the Apostles Iesus then it was that they anciently his flock were scattered vp and down the face of the earth and that the Apostles succeeded in the place of our Prophets For since that Time we Iewes haue had no Pastors no Prophets no visions no sacrifice no obseruance of Moses law no Holocaust no form of Religion c. Thus he discourses through seueral Chapters and in the last the 27. after he had declared what great respect the very Turcks and Saracens shew to Iesus Christ and his blessed Mother Mary Of Christ their Alcoram saith that He is the true Messias yea and preferr His Genealogy before Mahomets for Mahomets parents were Idolaters and had their Origen from Agar the handmaid Christ descended by à lineal succession from Isaac and the Prophets by à right line to the blessed virgins birth The Alcoran more ouer saith that Elisi in the Arabick tongue 't is Iesus knew all things the whole book 's of Moses the secrets of mens hearts had power giuen him to work Miracles to cure all diseases to cast out Diuels and therfore own him as à mighty great Prophet and the true Messias Much honor and respect also is giuen by the Turks to our blessed Lady as you may read in that Chapter After I say à larger Discours of these two subiects our Christian Samuel concludes that the Iewes haue been à deserted People for à thousand yeares we may add 600 to them The Turks Iewes abandoned yet daily increase by the force of armes and Christians also strangly propagate by the power and virtue of Christ both oppose vs. Nos autem nihil proficimus testimonium multorum stat contra nos we Israelits yet aduance nothing in so much that the malediction of Ruben light 's vpon vs. Non crescas we are still and shall be ignominious we prosper not Such is the iudgement of God against vs. This and much more Marrochianus deliuered Six ages since against his Nation CHAP. III. Christianity as it stands in opposition to Iewes Turks Infidels and Heretickes is the only true Religion 1. THe Assertion is an euident Inference out of the former discours for if true Religion be in the world and not found amongst Heathens Turks or Iewes Those only called Christians enioy that blessing or there is no Religion at all in being Though the Proposition stand's firm on this sole proof yet ' I le strengthen it with two Conuincing Arguments The The first Argument first Where we euidently find the marks cognisances and signes of true Religion there it is but Christs Doctrin only which we call Christianity is vndeniably manifested by clear signes and cognisances of truth and therfore is the true Religion I proue the Minor A cause is best known by its effects the tree by its fruits the sun by its light Faith by its works and the Existence of God by the emanation of his creatures But no other Religion whether it be that of Iewes Turks or Heathens euer shewed to the world the like effects of Truth the like glorious Miracles the like austerity of life the like contempt of transitory Goods the like efficacy of Doctrin or brought so many Infidels from incredulity so many from sensuallity to à holy virtuous life as Christ and his Apostles gained soon after the first promulgation of the Gospel Therfore these most illustrious marks and cognisances of Christianity as clearly conuince that God deliuered truth by the Preaching of our blessed Lord and his Elect Apostles as any effect in nature demonstrat's the cause it comes from The Marks are manifest to our eyes and senses and plead most powerfully for our Christian Doctrin No other sect falsly called Religion has euidenced the like signes and this I am sure no Christian can deny 2. A second argument is so weighty in the behalfe of Christs sacred Doctrin that though we had no knowledge of God or Prouidence vpon other Principles that which I am now to propose would make both most vndoubted I argue therfore That An Other taken from the miraculous propagation of Christian Religion Religion whose Author Founder and chief Preseruer is God we here suppose with Iewes and Turks the actual existence of à Deity is manifestly the true Religion for God cannot found or teach falshood but Christian Religion as taught by Christ and his Apostles had and has God for its Author Founder and Preseruer therfore it is the only true Religion I proue the Minor A Religion drawn into à law of liuing holily which Miraculously began and was spred the whole world ouer aboue the power and force of nature is manifestly from God and subsist's by Diuine virtue only Diuels neuer help't in so pious à work but our Holy Christian Religion was and is still thus miraculously spred and preserued also all Nations ouer aboue the power and force of nature therfore it is from God and subsists by his Diuine virtue To proue that it began miraculously and was propagated aboue the power and Four things Considerable in the propagation of the Gospel force of nature we are to ponder these four things 1. The sublime Doctrin of Christian Religion 2. The condition of those first Masters who taught it and in what difficult circumstances 3. The Quality and number of souls gained to belieue it 4. By what means they were induced to Assent Obserue well You will find in euery particular à Prodigious work aboue the force of nature and no other but Gods powerful hand concurring with it Thus
so high as to giue fall satisfaction herein though he is pleased to plead euidence drawn from sense and reason against the B. Sacrament as if forsooth the full portion of both were like à legacy Mr stillingfleet argues Improbably bequeathed him and à few Sectaries whilst so many Fathers so many Schoolmen soo many profound Doctors of our renowned Church must haue no small share allowed in either but are as you see censured like men sensless and vnreasonable 2. Say I beseech you Who can perswade himself that those three worthy eminent Cardinals Bellarmin Perron and Richelieu all haue writ on this subiect and are famous the whole world ouer for their great wisdom and learning who dare I say without à measureless audacity cast these could we vrge no more into the Catalogue of dull sensles and vnreasonable men None would haue ventured on such à vast improbability but one who either knowes not or cares not what he saies Now add to these the consent and acknowledgment of the whole Orthodox world you may iustly say it is much harder or there is more violence offered to mans vnderstanding in conceiuing that God who is essential Verity and therefore inclined to preserue the Church he founded in truth should permit all those millions of Christians who haue belieued the Real presence to be so long deceiued in their Faith than to submit vpon so great authority to the very mystery we belieue Reason more rack'd by denying then belieuing the Mistery For by submitting to the mystery we proceed rationally and prudently iudge that an infinite power can do more than our weak capacities reach vnto but if we say his Goodnes hath permitted the Church to be seduced by à gross errour age after age or that so many Christians haue been cheated into à false belief of so high à Mystery we force our vnderstandings more we clash with an euident Principle and must assert that God has no care of his Church or of mans saluation The blame therefore if we be in errour would at last redound to God as I shall amply proue in the next Discourse 3. Thus much noted Let vs look à little into the strength of Mr Stillingf weak argument which must run thus What I see seem's or is bread to the Eye and tast yet t' is not bread but Christs sacred body therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense One distinction ouerthrowes this lame discourse I answer in à word What I see seems or is the inward substance of bread I deny it What I see seems yea really is the outward accidents or species of bread I grant that Therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense I deny the consequence The Argument purely fallacious supposeth Our Aduersaries fallacy solued the immediate obiect of our sense to be the inward substance of bread which yet as euery Puny knowes is not so in common Philosophy for the immediate obiect of the Eye is colour or light and so much remain's after consecration as well as other accidents doe but these sensible obiects are in known Philosophy distinct from the inward substance of bread which is not immediatly visible tangible or tastable Mr Stilling therefore gain's little by this dreaming way of arguing Now à word to his plea of Reason 4. He may say Reason tell 's me there is bread still after consecration Why so surely the answer must be because sense vpon the discouery of its immediate obiects colour quantity c. induceth reason to conclude there is bread vnder these accidents I answer Reason thus far would well conclude were it not that à stronger Principle enters here which ouerawes as it were weak reason and bids it yeild Pray you tell me Did not sense and reason also assure Christs Disciples Matth 14. before S. Peter was seen walking on the water that that liquid substance could not bear vp à weighty body without sinking yes most assuredly yet they saw him walk and reason following the guidance of their eyes checked that other natural discourse and acknowledged à Miracle And thus weak reason must yeild in the present Mystery when à Stronge Principles where vpon our Faith relies stronger Principle interuen's and forceth it to submit Thanks be to God Habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem 1. Petr. 2. we haue yet à stronger Principle to vp hold our cause than weak discourse is The spirit of eternal truth The express words of Christ which the wit of man shall neuer draw to any other sense but what we Catholicks own 2. The constant professed Doctrin of the two Churches Greek and Latin yea and I say more of all other called Christians as is now declared 3. Might we here introduce the known Testimonies of most ancient Fathers They are so numerous and so fully significant that would à Catholick study to set down the truth of this Doctrin he cannot do it in clearer language 5. Good God saith S. Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerd Cap. 4. What à wonderful miracle is this how great is Gods loue towards mankind Behold who sitreth aboue with his Father in one and the same moment of time is touched by the hands of vs all and giueth himself to such as are desirous to receiue and imbrace him Theophilact c. 4. in 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation The ancient Fathers speak in our behalfe although to vs it seem's bread Because we are weak and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appears but in the essence and substance it is not bread Again Christ said not this is à figure but this is my body for by an ineffable operation bread is changed c. Indeed it appears Bread but it is really flesh Yet more How often do the Fathers S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Chrisostome and others exhort vs not to come vnto the Eucharist as vnto simple bread and wine for say they it is the body and blood of Christ according to our Lords affirmation Although sense suggest the Contrary yet let faith confirm thee Iudge not of the thing by thy tast c. Again know this and with full certitude belieue that the bread seen is not bread though it seems so to the tast but the body of Christ and that wine seen is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the blood of Christ Though saith S. Chrisostome what we see seem's to our sense and thinking to be bread Let Gods saying This is my body Master our sense and reason Let vs doe this in all things especially in the Mysteries not regarding alone the things which lie before vs but holding fast to his words For by his words we cannot be-cousened our senses may be deceiued his words cannot be vntrue our sense is often time beguiled c. Thus these Fathers known to euery one to omit in numerable others speak and belieue thus the Church of Christ speaks and belieues also
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
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
Christians who are to learn it as Infallible But Sectaries do So That is they vnnaturely turn A Conuincing â—eason hereof Gods infallible Doctrin out of its own intrinsecal Certainty and Say its only Morally Certain to vs Therefore they wrong that first Verity and abuse all Christians This Principle alone Proues the Churches Infallibility And vtterly ruin's the Protestants Pretence to Moral Certainty whereof you Shall haue More hereafter 25. Now to deal fairely with Mr Stillingfleet let vs at present falsely Suppose Moral Certainty à sufficient ground of Faith Were Church Doctrin only Morally certain Sectaries yet gain Nothing what Good for Gods sake get Protestants by that Can They tell vs where the Church is whose Doctrin must be reputed only morally certain The Arians call themselues à Church so do the Graecians the Protestants likewise and finally so do Catholicks Are all these different iarring Doctrins Morally certain Euidently No. For the Professors of them maintain Contradictions vtterly Destructiue both of Moral and all other Certainty Some One Society therefore teaches it For more than One if diuided in faith cannot This One must be Signalized and pointed out which no Protestant can do For if he name his own Church he hath the whole world against him and will be forced to proue his Assertion vpon indubitable Principles And if he point at the Roman Catholick Church he ruin's his own cause For two opposite Churches cannot teach Doctrin morally Certain Now if he can point at no Church of One Denomination teaching Doctrin Morally certain This certainty is only an insignificant word in the aire appliable to no Christian Society 26. A second obiection The Motiues of Credibility though commonly held only Inducements morally certain so Denote the true Church that all may find it out Therefore though Church Doctrin were only morally Certain and not Infallible it may sufficiently lead to belieue that Doctrin which God has Reuealed Answ Here is neither Parity nor any Inference consequential Faith relies not vpon Motiues inducing to Beliefe And the want of distinguishing between the Credibility of Reuealed Doctrin and its Truth breed's the Confusion The Motiues then only make the Doctrin euidently Credible and remit vs to the Church which teaches Truth She proposes the Doctrin and vpon Her Proposition Faith relies which therefore must be infallible not vpon the Motiues too weak to Support Faith In à word here is all I would say God Reueal's truth infallibly the Motiues in à General way manifest the Church where truth is taught the Church thus Signalized Proposes Truth infallibly And vpon Her infallible Proposition not for the Motiues Christians belieue Infallibly 27. A third Obiection If the Churches Proposition be infallible or if God speaks by the Church As he anciently did by the Prophets and Apostles And She likewise Speak's in his name Whateuer this Oracle Proposes may be called the Voice of God and Consequently the Formal Obiect of Faith I Answer no hurt at all were it so For perhaps in this present State of things few Articles of Faith are or can be belieued independently of the Churches Proposition At least it is very easy to say I Belieue the Sacred Trinity because God anciently Reuealed it to whether the Churches Proposition may be Call'd the Obiect of Faith the Apostles and also because the Church now Testifies that the Mystery was anciently Reuealed Howeuer we here waue this Doctrin and Say The Churches Proposition though absolutely infallible is not properly speaking the Formal Obiect of Faith Though much may be de Nomine First because it is meerly Accidental not Essential to Faith to be proposed by the Church by this or that Oracle For Christ our Lord at his first Preaching was not the Church yet he Proposed Articles to be Belieued and most Infallibly 2. Diuines by the word Formal Obiect vsually vnderstand the Ancient infallible Reuelation made to the Prophets and Apostles And not the Churches Proposition which though it be an Intrinsick Essential and Necessary Condition compleating and Applying the Ancient Reuelation to Belieuers yet Principally it Terminates not Faith Now to be an essential Condition nothing at all impairs the Churches Infallibility Thus much is said to solue the Obiection though the Matter t' is true is capable of higher Speculation but Sectaries like not Speculatiue Learning 28. A fourth Obiection The Churches Infallibility seem's chiefly Asserted vpon this Ground that She is to be Heard and Obeyed which proues nothing For Iudges Gouernours and Parents The Disparity between Gouernours Commanding and the Church defining are to be heard and obeyed though all are fallible Answ A most silly Obiection The very Matter wherein These and the Church are to be Obeyed Shewes the disparity For No Ciuil Magistrate pretend's to regulate Faith or to Define what God Reueal's This the Church and She only is impowred to do To crush Heresies as they rise vp and to establish without Erring the contrary Truths which cannot be effected the matter being so Sublime without the infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost Now we are to Proceed to the main Business in hand 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 Other 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 1. WE here first Premise three certain Principles One that the Doctrin of all Churches seuerally Denominated One Principle importing the Disunion in Faiih from their Authors as Arianism from the Arians Protestancy from Protestants Christian Verities from Christ our Lord â—s not in the whole or totally considered vnder One Notion of Christian Doctrin either True or Infallible For in this whole diffuâ—ed Body We euidently find Contradictions The Arians conâ—adict Protestants These Set against Arians And the Catholick Church Opposes both Therefore All of them maintain neither One nor true nor infallible Catholick Doctrin And consequently infallibility ceases in the VVhole when the seueral Parts stand in an implacable Opposition with One another 2. A. 2. Principle If all Churches which Contradict One another are not infallible One only and of one Denomination Another Principle must be infallible or none at all can be so For example Catholicks and Protestants teach Contrary Doctrin the like is of all other dissenting Societies both Parties cannot be infallible Therefore the One is so or Neither Now further Protestantâ— disclaim the Prerogatiue of teaching infallibly whence it followes First That the Roman Catholick Church enioyes that Priuiledge or there is no such thing on earth as an infallible Church Secondly this is Consequent It is the same to Say The Roman Catholick Church is infallible as to Say that God yet Preserues an infallible Church in Being This
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
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
Both I suppose are not guilty The Iudge speaks once and no more but these two at discord agree not Their vnreasonable proceeding declared by one Instance about the main point which â— the true meaning of his Sentence may not Both return home as wise as they came and contend till Dooms Day vnless some other Iudge break 's off the quarrel and sayes plainly Thou art the Traitour 22 This is our very case either we or Protestants betray This Discourse driuen home and applyed to these two dissenting Parties Gods truths The one or other Party Contradict's the first Verity and boldly auerres he Speak's what he never Spake We appeal to Holy Scripture and would haue our Debates decided by that Oracle Two or three Passages He that hear's you hears me The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth He that hears not the Church let him be as à Heathen c. literally taken denote the guilty Party But our Sectaries tell vs we mistake the Scriptures meaning They Sectaries cast themselues into in extricable difficulties vary from vs in the main Point concerning the very Sense of our Iudges Sentence Is it not therefore euident that they must either recurre to some other Tribunal for à final decision or Secondly ingenuously Confesse they are the men who will not haue the traiterous Party discouered Or lastly acknowledge Controuersies can haue no End and that God has not left any means on earth whereby the notorious Deprauers of his reuealed Truths may be known One only Instance will giue more light to what I haue sayd 23. We and Sectaries appeal to Christs sacred words This is my Body We vnderstand them literally and strongly plead our cause what different senses are made of Christs own words alleging for vs not only the Authority of the western and eastern Churches but if need were of the Lutherans also They reiect all yea Say we grosly mistake the sense of Christ's words and therefore hold vs the Traitours that commit grosse Idolatry in the sight of God and Angels Consider good Reader are not such Aduersaries obliged to plead their Cause before How the Catholick plead's this Iudge of Scripture by à Church as vniversal by witnesses as Faithful by an Authority as great as we produce against them or to confesse ingeniously This Controuersy cannot be decided They may 'T is true Oppose the Caluinists to Lutherans but to Sectaries allege nothing for their Sense denote à Church either Latin or Greek that maintained their Opinion of the Eucharist Shall neuer be made so much as meanly Probable O yes the Primitiue Church taught as they teach Contra. It s vtterly vntrue as is largely proued in the first Discourse Again that 's à thlng yet in Controuersy and therefore far from being à manifest sentence against vs yet their Clamours against our Idolatry are manifest and as iniurious as manifest 24. These and yet far more forceable Arguments proposed by Catholick Authors against Protestancy our Aduersaries call Flies Small Grains gnawing of Rats c. We wholly Contrary hold them conuincing and the cause we defend most iust Here both Parties Stick in the hight of their heats Stiffe in their wayes without yeilding to one another Is it not therefore full time and reasonable think A Iudge distinct from Scripture proued absolutly necessary ye to appeal to some Iudge distinct from Scriptureâ— by whose just Sentence it may appear whether we old Papists or our young Nouellists are the guilty men that impiously oppose God's truths 25. You se whilst the sense of Scripture and Fathers is not agreed on we are aduanced no further but only to quarrel as if Contention is not the last end of writing Controuersies Contention were the final end of writing Controuersies Or as if an eternal Debate were desired and after that to haue nothing decided For this sole Reason A Iudge is absolutely necessary though our Aduersaries will hear of none hauing an horrour to admit of any Churches Iudgement whereby the cause now in debate may be happily ended Yet if we follow the Rule of Catholicks appeal to one Iudge Reason what can be more Satisfactory then to appeal to Church Authority in this weighty matter We Catholicks stand to the Sentence of our own euidenced vniuersal Church She is our Protestants are forced to appeal to another of equal Authority or their Cause is lost Iudge Are not Sectaries therefore obliged if their Arguments against vs be thought solid and their cause good to appeal to the Iudgement of some other Church as euidenced by Miracles and as vniuersal as ours is which once taught as they teach and publickly decryed our supposed Errours 26. What we now propose seem's reasonable because Protestants most certainly aâ— they defend Protestanism will not pretend to publish à Doctrin with à strict obligation laid on their They cannot pretend to teaâ—h à Doctrin which no ancient Church euer taught Partizans to acquiese in it which no Orthodox Church euer taught or if any Church euer taught so This must be as clearly euidenced as it is euident that the Roman Catholick Church taught Popery seuen or eight Ages since Here in à word is the true trial of their whole Cause Denote Point out or name an Orthodox Church which owned this Protestancy fiue or six Centuries since Controuersies are ended But if it be as it is most impossible to name such à Church The Abetters of Protestancy Sectaries proue themselues heretiques only follow the strain and Method of all Condemned Hereticks and proue themselues by their own procedure Heretiques That is They plead against Catholick Doctrin by false Calumnies weak Cauils lame coniectures vnsensed Scriptures and Calumnies their only Defensâ— abused Fathers without any Church Authority to rely on And thus all your ancient Heretiques haue Proceeded 27. Wherefore to conclude I Say in à word Protestancy Protestancy proued an Improbable Religion as Protestancy is à most improbable Religion or to speak more plainly no Religion at all The ground of my Assertion will be best laid forth in these few words No ancient vniuersal Church no Orthodox Christians in any part of the world euer taught Protestancy Ergo its improbable Nay more no Heretical Society The ground of our Assertion of men euer taught that whole Doctrin Therefore it is an vnpatronized Nouelty reiected by the Vniuersal Christian world whether Orthodox or others And Hence it is that whateuer Protestants can Say in behalfe of their own Tenets or Contrary to Catholick Doctrin comes to no more but to improbable and vnproued Suppositions Obserue I beseech you 28. They tell vs the Roman Catholick Church once true deserted Improbable Suppositions the only Proofs of Sectaries the Ancient Faith we vrge them to proue the Assertion and with good reason because neither ancient Church nor any sound Christian euer said so before themselues And what Answer haue we The
wayes either by disordering euery wheel in it à part or by breaking the Spring The fairest Palace ever was is ruine'd if either you separate euery stone from stone or if you vndermine the fundation and blow vp the whole Fabrick though many of the stones strongly Cimented cling yet together The first way of answering by piece-meal is tedious and obscure and as things are with vs by reason of the difficulty in Printing and transmitting Bookes into England almost impossible The other is clear and easy both are satisfactory to euery rational man and I hold the second most necessary For in all our Discourses there must be some firm Principles laid wherevnto we reduce and from whence wè draw what we Assert which seueral wayes of discoursing Compose the two different Methods Analytical and Synthetical obserucd by Philosophers and Divines Neither is the Foundation more necessary to à house or the weight to a clock then Principles are to a Discourse which then is good when the grounds stand firm and the Deductions of the particular Conclusion from them clear But if either the Principles be false and alien or the Deductions not Coherent the whole Discourse fall's to nothing Apply what is here sayd to your Account or rather to the Religion it Asserts and you have all I would Say Your Account Sr was writ to vindicate Protestancy and must stand vpon the same Principles with that Nouelty therefore whatever shak's and ruin's the Principles of Protestancy necessarily shak's and ruin's the Principles of your Account But your Supposed Principles or Grounds of Protestancy are broken yea demonstrated no Grounds at all in the Book intitl'd Protestancy without Principles where they arc proued either false or no Principles peculiar to your Religion as it is distinct from the Doctrin of other Societies called Non-Protestants And consequently when true they haue no Connexion with Protestancy nor can lead in any conclusion for you And where they are false their falsity is laid before your eyes and an vtter subuersion of your Cause and Account with it because neither can stand when your supposed Principles are destroyed or rather found never to have had Being And thus your Book is solidly Answered If you desire to se more ruin yet fallen vpon you read this Treatise and be pleased to reflect vpon these three things in your Account The length of it The Obiections against Catholick Religion and finally your Principles for Protestancy We find two of them but misse the third The length mighty tedious and too often without substance wearies à Reader God help him say I that vndergoes the druggery to turn ouer all the vneuen stuff which lies heap't vp there Your Obiections vsually borrowed from Mr Chillingworth and some other Protestant Writers are for the most part common and such as haue been answered ouer and ouer Where you think them peculiar to your selfe as they lay in my way I haue reioyned and if some be omitted that 's only to Say euery stone in your Fabrick is not touched or medled with But for as much as concerns your Principles in behalfe of Protestancy I Assert Confidently you haue none and vpon this ground I say once more your Account is answered Goe on therefore and vilify the works published against you as you please call them Wool sacks Rats or Flies add more opprobrious language to gain you credit among your simple and too credulous Vulgar with Intelligent Readers you preuail nothing who well perceiue it Matters not to your Intent if those VVool sacks receiue and break the force of your greatest shot against our Church if the Rats gnaw the best ligaments woven in your Account if but one of these flies enter your throat and bereaue you of breath some report of à great man stifled by à Fly And truly it seem's by your deep silence or not answering since these Books came forth that some of the greater sort haue halfe chok'd you But enough To say more after this strain were to rallie like you and to offend the learned world which requires substance in these serious matters without contempt flowting and empty words Had you Sr gone the right way to work you should either haue kept in your disdainful language or taken Protestancy without Principles in hand Shewing where the Author mistook your Principles Or whether his exceptions were blamable because he thought them either Common and not belonging to you that is wholly alien from your cause wholly impertinent to Maintain Protestancy This proceeding had been Satisfactory but difficult and aboue your force Therefore you wisely waued it knowing well it was easier to giâ—e sharp words and snarle at your Aduersaries than to come neer and bite with pinching Arguments My proceeding with you Sr is quite contrary I slight nor your person but say plainly where your great mistake lies in handling Controuersies You run head-long into the deep Mysteries of Faith by the ill conduct of your weak or not well sighted reason and after à few stagg ring thoughts spent in weighing and musing vpon the difficulties which appear to you in the Mysteries you will needs tell vs what 's true what 's false and therefore boldly take and reiect as you like best It is à perplexed way Sr which will neuer make you either Good Christian good Diuine or so much as à mean Proficient in Christ's School In following it you are just like one as I tell you in the Treatise that takes wholsome Pills into his Mouth chewes them find's them bitter and spitt's all out Hence it is you spit at the Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Purgatory c. because forsooth they are distastful to sense and shallow reason And truly Sr it is wonderful that you haue not long since by this procedure cast off the Doctrin of the sacred Trinity For most certainly might sense and weak reason plead the Cause here far greater difficulties would occur against that sublime Mystery then euer Protestants yet proposed against our other Catholick Tenents In a word Sr if you desire satisfaction in matters of Religion busy not your head with the examination of the Diuine Mysteries Considered in themselues they are aboue your reach but contrarywise consider well how and by what means they are made Credible to reason which is done as S. Austin cited afterward tell 's you by first finding out that clear marked and signalized Church whereby God speaks This Oracle once discouered and the Discouery grounded vpon Euidence is easy Hear and Believe Her She is wiser then you and never think to shake so strong à Fortress by devising pcrty Arguments against Her Doctrin no sooner seen then solued because forsooth you cannot Comprehend it But it is high time to end and I shall do so with one word more of good aduice Fooles they say may sometimes give à wise man Counsel Sr if you intend to write any more Consider for your own sake what you write weigh things well in your
is not like the Turks Alcoran stuffed with fooleries but as I am informed some who liued long there and knew the language well say it contain's most excellent moral precepts tending to the preseruation of iustice and à Ciuil life The Iew denies the new Testament The Arian and others the sense of our Scripture How therefore can Scripture alone proue efficacious to conuert these aliens from Christ or be supposed à fit means obliging all to belieue when yet they know not without more light what they are to belieue or why An other way therefore must be found out whereof more afterward In the mean while 9. I truely stand astonished when I consider how pittifully Mr stillingfleet return's no probable Answer Mr Stilling endeauours to soule this most conuincing Argument Read him who will Part. 1. Chap. 6. from page 175. to P. 179. and he shall find him tediously running on but ner'e à whit more forward in his iourney where he ends then at the beginning T is all à long à pure Petitio principij and worse The Question moued is How the Protestant can conuert à Heathen or proue infallibly that the Bible is Gods word Mr Stilling Answers his Lord Primate vndertakes not this task in the first place nor offer 's to Conuince à Heathen that the Bible must be infallibly belieued to be Gods word No but first the excellency and reasonablenes of Christian Religion Considered in it self is to be proued by shewing that the precepts of it are iust the promises such as may induce any reasonable man to the practise of those precepts that the whole Doctrin is very wisely contriued that nothing is vain and impertinent in it that those things which seem most hard to belieue in this Doctrin are not such things â—s might haue been spared out of it as though God did intend only to puzzle mens reason with them And thus he goes on in his draught or Idea of Christianity and so proues the Truth of Christianity by telling à Heathen What it is or what it teaches The Heathen most iustly except's against These proofs so may à Christian too if no more be said and professes all this talk hitherto besides à meer begging the Question seem's to him à pure cheat and fallacy You proceed strangely saith the Heathen for what is à supposed He makes à meer supposition his Proof verity amongst you Christians you turn into à proof against me that denies your supposition You labour to take my difficulties away by proposing to me those very things which cause them Mark well .. You first make the excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion in it selfe à fit medium to proue Scripture Gods infallible word wheras that supposed reasonableness of your Religion is as dark and obscure to me who am no Christian as the infallibility of your Bibles Doctrin Therefore you proue one vnknown thing by an other wholly as much vnknown I deny both your Bible and reasonableness of your Religion proue the one or both or you speak not one word to the purpose 10. You suppose 2. à Principle which neither Catholick nor protestant euer yet owned viz. That that which you call Christian Religion is known ex terminis to be true by à meer declaration of its Doctrin wheras no Doctrin euen the most Primitiue was euer made discernable from errour by à bare saying it was true without Euidence of Credibility laid forth to reason before beliefe some precedent Euidence of its credibility laid forth to reason And therefore you are told in the other Treatise against Mr Poole â— 21. That if Christ and his Apostles had appeared in the world and only preach't the high Mysteries of our Faith or spoken as you do of the excellence and reasonablenes of its precepts or promises without further euidence they would haue no more drawn Iewes or Gentils to their Doctrin then twelue little Children could now draw vs to the belief of many other verities not yet reuealed had God inspired them to teach without miracles or any other supernatural wonders My reason is As the Bible euidences not it self to be Diuine scripture so the intrinsecal reasonableness of Christianity is no first euidence to it selfe both therefore must bee proued by Clearer Principles Belieue it Had Christ and his Apostles only insisted vpon the reasonableness of Christianity the very Iewes would haue silenced them alleging greater preuious euidence for their Religion shewed by Moses and the Prophets 3. Saith the Heathen because you dare not meddle with the motiues of Credibility which you Scornfully call à Grand Salad too often serued vp by Papists you speak at random when you giue me no other satisfaction to my difficulties than by telling me they are worth nothing You Affirm 4. Nothing is impertinent in Christian Religion I answer The belief of à Trinity of God made an Infant Your whole story of à Serpent tempting Eue and of Sampson Mr. stilling proofs found weightless with your Mysterious book of Apocalyps seem to my humane vnderstanding not only impertinent but improbable You tell me 5. of Christian Religion agreeing with those books you call the Bible That is you would say the Christian Doctrin of the Bible agrees with the book which is idem per idem and therefore highty dissatisfactory vnless you proue both the Bible and Doctrin by further Arguments You say 6. The Heathen ought to belieue some thing besides that he hath heard or seen vpon the report of honest men He answers he doth so farr as those reports moue him to assent and therefore denies not the matter of fact that there was once such à person in the world as Christ but because you say all this Testimony is no more but moral and may be false the Heathens belief goes no higher Iust so the Turks belieue there was such à man as Mahomet the Chineses such à man as Confusius but what get we by iudging there were such persons as these in the world Doth it here vpon follow all they taught Nothing yet proued was true or infallible Doctrin No such matter You say 7. The Heathen must belieue that Christ dyed rose again wrought many miracles and sent his Apostles to preach his Doctrin c. He answers these being Articles of your faith registred in Scripture you Sr either vrge him to belieue them as you ought to doe certainly and infallibly and this you cannot exact for you belieue them because they are in Scripture and yet you haue not proued to the Heathen so much as probably that Scripture is of Diuine inspiration Therefore you suppose what he denies and pittifully beg the Question 11. Or. 2. You will haue him yeild an assent to them vpon the humane testimony of many Christians which you say is fallible and may be false and that auail's nothing for thus the Turks belieue the Alcoran the Chineses their bible vpon the Testimony of innumerable witnesses You say 8.
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
can cite Snares as if he fauored your late inuented Accidental mutation for you say he affirms these expressions of Fathers are more accommodated to that Sr. I haue read this learned Author in the place you quote 3. part Disp 50. sect 3. and perused also his 4 th Section where he Snares abused treat's largely of the Conuersion of bread into Christs body and expresly mantain's à Real action necessary in this Conuersion and calls the change Real and Substantial and it must be called so when the Terminus à quo and ad quem are as they are in this Mystery Real and Substantial T' is true he cites Diuines who say the Adduction of Christs body vnder the formes of bread is sufficient to verify à Real change Bread ceasing to be because of Christs body present without à new action or production terminated vpon that body and it is à probable opinion in Schools but as remote from your Accidental extrinsecal mutation as Heauen is from earth and to as Little purpose as an other wise question is when you Ask whether those who are changed by Regeneration A quaestion answered may be said to be Transubstantiated by it Friuolous Sr. when the Terminus ad quem in conuersions is substance it beares properly the denomination of Transubstantiation or Transelementation when it s meerly an Accident or quality as in Regeneration the denomination followes the nature of the quality produced and is rightly called an intrinsecal accidental change but not Transubstantiation Had you reflected on what is here said your pretty Criticism where you torture à poor Greek word and learnedly examin whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Gregory comes from the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might well haue been spared I giue you your Choise take whether you will your cause lies where it was nothing at all aduanced But really I am weary of this sport which is more irksome to me then to kill the flies you so often talk of Howeuer I must haue patience and briefly say à word to one or two authorities more pitifully abused by you 13. That known passage of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Catech The Testimony of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 4. occurr's next in your 573. page The words are He Christ our Lord changed water into wine at cana in Galilee by his sole will and is he not worthy to be belieued that he changed wine into blood For if inuited to à marriage he wrought then that stupendious Miracle viz of changing water into wine shall we not Confess that much more he has giuen his body and blood to the Sons of the Spouse wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let vs take with all certainty the body and blood of Christ And he giues this reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For vnder the Type or Species of bread his body is giuen thee and vnder the type or species of wine his blood is giuen thee that by taking this body and blood of Christ thou mayst be made partaker of his body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so we shall be Christophori Carrying Christ when we receiue his body and blood into our members Soon after he saith Do not therefore consider this as meer bread and meer wine for it is the body and blood All along most clear and significant of Câ—rist according to his own words for although sense suggest that it is bread and wine yet let faith Confirm thee and do not iudge of the thing by thy tast but hold this most certain by thy Faith that the body and blood of our Lord are giuen thee so that there arise no doubt at all in thee Again towards the end of this 4. Catechesis he repeat's and most energetically the verity he would haue vs learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Knowing and holding it most certain that the bread which is seen by vs is not bread but the body of Christ and the wine which is seen by vs although it seem to the sense of our tast to be wine The Church Speak's not in clearer terms yet is it not wine but the blood of Christ Thus this ancient Father and worthy Bishop speaks so significantly that the witt of man shall neuer force on him any other sense but that which the Roman Catholick Church taught in the Council of Trent and teaches to this day 14. Now listen à little to Mr Stilling glosses and say in Conscience whether they haue so much as à seeming probability Mr stilling glosses improbable First he tells vs it is euident and it was for his purpose to cry Euidence at the begining that Cyrills design here is to perswade the Catechumens from whom the Mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed that the bread and wine were not meer common Elements but designed for à higher vse to â—xhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Is this Sr your Euidence Is it euident that Cyril here intended to instruct the Catechumens only We read that the Saint was à laborious Preacher and complyed with that Charitable duty euery Sunday and day in Lent Surely all who heard him were not Catechumens and why may not these instructions contain part of that Doctrin he publickly deliuered to his Auditors All you can proue is that his first Catechesis was to the lately Baptized but that this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only is not probable Turn to the Edition of S. Cyril Paris print 1609. You will find after the Dedicatory Epistle vnder this Title De scriptis Cyrill That in his last fiue Mystagogical institutions he gaue solid food and explicated the Diuine Mysteries of our Faith of Baptism Chrism the Eucharist and that great Sacrifice of the Mass which Certainly belong to Christians of riper knowledge than Catechumens were Again I' ft be euident that S Cyrill is made to mâ—sse of his ayme the Saint in this Catechesis concealed the Mysterious presence of Christ in the Sacrament He missed extreamly of his intent for no Catholick can speak now with greater clearity of the Mystery or more fully express the Churches sense then S. Cyril did aboue thirteen ages since Yet one word Say I beseech you what need was there then of concealing this Mysterious presence i' ft be no more but as you say à piece of bread deputed to à holy vse or à meer sign of Christs body present Such à Mystery requires no secrecy at all Catechumens might as well haue heard of it without torturing their vnderstandings as now they hear of the Sacrament of Baptism Lastly is it euident that S. Cyril aimed at nothing but to show that bread and wine were not meer common Elements but things designed for à higher vse or as you say to Exhibiâ— the body of Christ to Belieuers T is improbable First because you add that to the Text which
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
it If no Councils nor Tradition support it It has no Principled Doctrin If no Principled Doctrin No Moral certainty If no Moral certainty for meer groundles Glosses cannot giue Any against all the Powerful Motiues of our Church there is no Probability in it If no Probability The whole Reformation must be reduced to fancy only There we found it And there leaue it 11. Now if any except against our casting off Protestancy from the meanest degree of Probability induced to Iudge otherwise vpon this ground That many learned men defend it I haue Answered aboue Meer Probability is insufficient to support Christian Truths Here I both answer and Ask. 2. where were the many learned Defenders of this new Faith when one Luther stood vp alone against the whole Christian world And first broached his Protestancy If at that time there was no Authority nor reason for the Nouelty Process of time hath gained it neither Look then into its Rise or First beginning you 'l find it vnsound at the bottom yea vtterly improbable vpon this certain Principle That the Singular Doctrin of one disgusted Rebel against à whole Church and Thousands more pious and learned then Himselfe can merit no Belief but deserues what it has to be Anathematized 12. We must yet insist à little vpon this Point And lay forth the Vanity of our Aduersaries pretence to Probability which done you shall see controuersies are ended Sectaries May say Protestancy improbable If their own Authority makes not Protestancy Morally certain it cannot but raise it to à high degree of Probability We deny this And shall presently Ask why their Authority more aduanceth this Religion to Probability than the meer Authority of Arians bring 's Arianism to Probability At present we do not only oppose the voice and vote of the Roman Catholick Church against this Plea But the Authority also of Graecians Abyssins and all other called Christians who with one vnanimous Consent decry Protestancy as improbable Compare therefore votes with votes Authority with Authority There is no Parallel For for one that defend's it you haue hundreds yea Thousands that Contradict the Nouelty Thus much is indisputably Euident if we precisely Consider Authority as it were in Abstracto or oppose the Votes of dissenting Parties against it But here is not all We must goe further And distinguish well between à bare Authority and a rational grounded Authority For this is an vndeniable Truth Reasonable Principles euer precede or are presupposed when Religion is pleaded for To the consequent Authority of those whether many or few that Teach or Profess it Hence all say If the first conuerted Iewes to Christianity Had not had most weighty Inducements proposed to reason before they deserted Iudaism and belieued in Christ The change had been most imprudent Nay all had been obliged as is proued in the 4. Chapter To hold on in that Profession still without Alteration So necessary it is to haue rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Religion before the Professors allow it either Moral certainty or so much as Probability Thus much premised 13. We draw Sectaries from all Self-Voting or further pleading by their own Authority And force them in this Contest if Sectaries drawn off their own Selfe voting Protestancy be defensible not to say but to proue by Principles distinct from their own bare votes These two Propositions 1. That God who is Truth it self And once laid his Truths the foundation of the Roman Catholick Church permitted that faithful Oracle to become Traiterous to teach Idolatry to tell the world loud Lies for à thousand yeares together And that all this happened when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to vnbeguile Those poor deluded Christians The second Proposition to be proued is That these Millions of souls learned and vnlearned who firmly belieued this Church And dyed happily in it were All mad All Idolaters All besotted and seduced What the Sectary is to Prou◠by Fooleries And which is à Paradox aboue Expression That à knot of late vnknown Nouellists pretending to Reformation dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themselues To make these supposed mad wise The Idolatrous Orthodox the besotted Reasonable The Seduced right in Faith again And that this was and is yet done vpon à meer proofles Supposition that we are mad and besotted which stand's on no Principles And for that reason is contradicted by the vast number of most knowing Catholicks And the whole Multitude of Christians Besides 14. When these two Propositions are made probable vpon good Principles Wee shall listen to our Sectaries Authority But if they fumble herein Only talk and proue nothing Wee reiect their vngrounded Authority And say The more votes they multiply without Proofs the less weight they haue You shall yet see how weightles Their Authority is might we here insist longer vpon one Matter of fact which ends all Controuersies In à word All know the great Controuersy between Protestants and Catholicks comes to this Whether they or we teach The difficulty proposed between Catholicks and Protestants Apostolical Doctrin Whether they or we lay forth the genuine sense of holy Scripture Neither Party saw or heard the Apostles Preach Neither pretend's now to Enthusiasms or priuate Reuelations concerning that Doctrin The whole cause therefore is to be tried and decided by Witnesses of foregoing Ages such Testimonies and Tradition must clear this Matter of fact A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Pastors without Doctors without Witnesses teaching that sense and Doctrin which the one or other Party stand's for is here both vseles and impertinent If then The Protestant makes his Doctrin Apostolical His sense of Scripture Orthodox The Catholick replies Be pleased to giue in your last Euidence produce your Witnesses your Pastors And Doctors Four Ages since That taught as you teach And sensed Scripture as you sense it My Church add's the Catholick euidently demonstrates à continued succession of Her Pastors that taught as I belieue as shall be proued hereafter And shewes as clearly à Succesion of the same Doctrin and Faith with these Pastors Her Antiquity is vndoubted and her pleading Possession in preseruing the true Sense of Scripture and Apostolical Doctrin is as great as any King on earth can shew for the Possession of the Crown he weares Now saith the Catholick Wee examin your pedegree of Pastors and Doctors And after some few Ascents by à The first plead by Principles the others not Retrogradation come at last to the year 1517. There we find and most euidently à Luther or Caluin To be the first men in the world that professed Protestanism that interpreted Scripture as you interpret or owned your Religion With these late Runagates you must stop No man on earth can aduance or bring your Genealogy further Therefore to speak in the words of the Ancient Optatus Meliuitan Lib. 2. Contra Parmen At that time you were sons
leaue them without excuse to silence them for euer Here is an vn answerable Dilemma Either the marks now kinted at are admitted or reiected Suppose them owned as clear cognisances of the true Church or of Her Orthodox Doctrin we most justly urge Protestants to proue what I know will neuer be made probable Viz. To shew That they had à Church three or four Ages since inuested in the signes and marks now mentioned On the other side if which is usual such marks be slighted as unmeet to manifest the true Church it must bee granted They haue no euidenced Church and Consequently no true Doctrin with it Hence I Argue Who euer belieues in an uneuidenced Church destitue of all Signes and marks of truth belieues in no true Church The Protestant belieues in such an vneuidenced Church Therefore he belieues in no Church But he who belieues in no Church belieues à Doctrin more than improbable or absolutely false And this is fancy or worse than fancy 3. What answer think ye do Sectaries return to this Argument They return no probable Answer A strange one indeed They tell vs the only Mark of the Church lies not in any external Notes but appear's in the written word of God and the Purity of Scripture So Alstedius Lib. de notis Ecclesia C. 29. Whitaker Contro 2. 9. 5. C 17. and Mr Stillingfleet here and there seem's well pleased with the fancy Contra. 1. The Church had her Marks besore Scripture was written what euer sensible Signes Then distinguished that holy Society from all heretical Conuenticles makes it yet known to the world and Still as clearly point's it out For the writing of Scripture nothing at all obscured the exteriour lustre of those Signes or prudent Motiues Contra. 2. A Mark which makes an obscure thing known is euer more clear and sensible than that is which is marked by it The Church Say Sectaries The Church more clearly manifested than Scripture is obscure and must be first known by Diuine Scripture But this very Diuinity of Scripture is more obscure than the Church For it is not its own Self-euidence nor known ex terminis to be Diuine Therefore vnless this Diuinity be made manifest by an other light it cannot giue to all the first notice of the Church which appeares More clearly to sense and reason by its own Signes than Scripture doth 4. Hence it followes 1. That Scripture which should first mark out the Church cannot do it being more obfcure than the thing marked by it It followes 2. That the Church thus marked is its own Self-euidence not Farther demonstrable to Reason Who euer therefore depriues the Church of her external Motiues or takes from her the glory of Miracles of Antiquity Conuersions c. Shall long grope in the dark before Hee find's either Church or Scripture You will say Scripture known by the vniuersal Tradition of Christians may well mark out and first discouer the true Church Tradition being à thing most known and Sensible to all Contra. This very Tradition either supposes à Church signalized with other Of what weight pleading Tradition is rational Motiues or excludes them And imports no more but the bare Consent of Christians that accept of Scripture as Gods Diuine word Grant the first we haue all that 's wished Plead only by the Second or tell à Heathen who may be gained to belieue the Church That all Christians vniuersally own Scripture as Diuine and mention nothing of Miracles or other Motiues manifest in the Church He will soon reply The Chineses haue also vniuersal Tradition or à general consent of à People largely diffused for their Bible The Turks haue it for their Alcoran yet such à Tradition alone is no Mark of God's word or the true Church Why then should it be à mark to Christians if no more be said 5. And the Heathen easily makes his Plea good by this conuincing Reason à Priori Before this vniuersal Tradition was before you so many Christians agreed in the Belief of your Bible the Doctrin Thereof was made credible vpon other Motiues These Motiues are not now extinguished or of lesser account because you haue agreed on the Scriptures Diuinity Nay they The Heathēs exceptions against Tradition only must be presupposed to haue been before you agreed For this Agreement is not the cause of the Bibles credibility but an effect of the same That is Therefore so many Christians haue agreed by à vniuersal Consent that Scripture is Gods word because it was made credible to Reason Antecedently to an Agreement so vniuersal But the ground of this Agreement was no other but the Authority of the Orthodox Church gloriously euidenced by the Lustre of her Signes and Motiues c. This Principle alone vtterly ruins Mr Stillingfleets Resolution of Faith as shall be made clear in an other place 6. Again saith the Heathen you Protestants discours not probably you iust proceed as one doth who laies Colours before à blind man and bid's him iudge of them You say that both I and Iewes are blind and cannot discouer the light which lies in the Scriptures Diuinity If this be so how can you imagin that I may find out the true Church by the light of Scripture though admitted vpon Tradition which I can no more look on than an owle on the Sun at Noon-day Neither will it help you at all if you Say Scripture interpreted both Mark 's and manifest's the true Church For I must first know that Scripture is Diuine before I giue credit to any Interpreter And though I were ascertained of that Diuinity yet I am still to seek whether your Interpretation or the Arians be better and this I cannot know without à sure Rule extrinsick to Scripture And all fallible Interpretation Yet the Heathen hath not done but pinches the Protestant shrewdly Admit saith he that Scripture Mark 's out the Church and giues vs the first Euidence of it when it tells vs. The Church is à Citty built vpon à Mountain and founded on à Rock That all Nations shall flock to it That Christ will be with it to the end of the world That it euer had and will haue Pastors Visible He clearly conuinces Sectaries and audible till we all meet in one Vnity of Faith That it is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. Can you my good Protestants show me such à Church belonging to you three or four Ages since when you had not one single man in the world professing your Protestant Religion Where was then your Protestant Citty visible on à Mountain What Rock stood it on in those daies when it was not in being What Nations what Iewes what Gentils did it then conuert to your Nouelties How was Christ then with it and taught it all Truth when there was no such Church to learn his Doctrin Giue me à Catologue of your Visible Pastors at that time or tell me how your Church was then à Pillar
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
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