by Her Definition So St. Iohn Believed the Incarnation of the Divine Word for His Definition Verbum Caro factum est The Word is made Flesh Though without Doubt He Assented to the Mystery and by Divine Faith also Before He writ His Gospel But enough of these Forceles Arguments long since Proposed and solved which only give a Testimony of Sectaries ready will to offer at something and weaknes with it to do nothing For you se clearly They cannot press us with a real Difficulty CHAP. VIII Protestants are Vnreasonable in the Defense of Their late Manifest and Vndoubted Schism 1. SEctaries Are no where more unluckily out of the Compass of Reason Then in Their Discourses of Schism I shall endeavor to make The Assertion good in the ensuing Chapters 2. To Proceed clearly First it is most certain Martin Luthers first Separation That Martin Luther And His Associats once Roman Catholicks Separated Themselves from the Communion of that Ancient Church which gave rhem Baptism About the Year 1517. 2. It is as Evident that our following Sectaries Vphold still And Stifly Defend that Actual Separation made by Luther as a Necessary Sectaries Defense of it lawfull Fact And well Don. 3. It is no less clear That as Luther when He first began his Revolt from the Church stood all Alone without ioyning Himself to any visible Society of Christians then extant in the Christian World So it is now as Manifest That our Protestants to This very Day stand Sectaries yet stand solitarily Alone not united with Any Christian Society also a solitary Society alone owning no Fellowship Vnion or Communication of Lyturgies Rites or Sacraments with any Church Through the Vniversal World They forsake Catholicks They forsake Graecians Arians Abyssins Nestorians Socinians and All the rest of Christians 3. My first Proposition If ever Schism was in the World or can Possibly be conceived Protestants are most The first Proposition Evidently guilty of a Formal Seperation from all other Christian Churches which Denominates them Formal Separatists or in plain English Schismaticks The Assertion is so clear that it needs no Proof For say I beseech You If any man in England now Starting up with a few Followers at his heels should utterly Deny our Gracious Sovereign to be Supream Head of that Kingdom as also Abjure the Salutary Laws there in Cours Or Finally should So make Himself and Associats a Body a part That all Obedience and Submission were The case of Rebels in a Kingdom compared with Protestants Schism shaken of Respectively to both King and Gouvernment c. Would not this Man Think ye Highly Merit the Title of a Rebel or in Civil Affairs of a most Uncivil and ungracious Schismatick Yes most undoubtedly This is our very Case England All the World Know's Once owned The Pope of Rome not only For the first Patriarch But Supream What England anciently was Head of the Vniversal Church It Admitted of this Churches Disciplin and Laws And yeilded Obedience to Them It communicated with the Roman Church As well in Points of Faith as in the use of Rites Liturgies and Sacraments Yet All These And in a short Time were Shaken of Luther And our Late men to How it Revoked from the Church this Day make Themselves a Body a Part And to Add more to the bargain as yet joyn with no other Society of Christians either in Faith Disciplin or And yet is joyned to no other Society of Christians The like Communion of Rites and Sacraments Therfore if a Schism can be conceived Define Schism how you Will This both was And is still the highest Degree of a plain Formal Schism and Separation from an Ancient Church that Ever yet appeared in the World 4. To Solve this unanswerable Difficulty Our Later men are pleased to Play in a Matter most serious Sectaries play in a serious Matter with an ungrounded Distinction with a Pretty Distinction which Intricates Them more Then they are aware of First then Distinguish Say They between an Actual and Causal Separation next Apply it thus And you have the Truth We Protestants made an Actual Separation from the Church of Rome 'T is granted And so are Though the word is Harsh the Formal Schismaticks But you Papists are the Causal Separatists That is Ye gave the true Cause of our Parting from you And Therfore are the Schismaticks before God For Schism is Theirs who give the first Cause of it And not Theirs who make the Actual Breach upon a Grounded And most just Cause as We have Don. Thus our new Doctors Discours But how Vnreasonably We shall Declare presently In the mean while You Intolerable Boldnes in Luther and His Followers to accuse and condemn an Ancient Church without Power oâ— Iurisdiction se one wretched Luther And a mean Handful of Followers so pertly Bold so Audacioufly Impertinent As not only to Accuse a whole Ample Ancient and Learned Church But more without Power Authority or any Iurisdiction over it You Se Them also sit as Iudges in a Cause They Had nothing to Do with And Then Inauditâ causâ Proceed to a Sentence And condemn it of Errours And Causal Schism And can Reason Think ye Enter here or ever Countenance such a Proceeding It is Impossible Had But a spark of Reason lived in These Novellists They Ought to have Such suspected Accusers could not be Iudges known that Accusers so Vnvaluable so few and so Rationally Suspected of Malice Could be no fit Judges in so Grave and Weighty a Matter They ought to have owned this very Fact a most Desperate one First Openly to Rebel And then without any Other A most Desperate Fact first to Rebel and then to suppose without Proof They had Reason for their Rebellion Proof But Their own Proofles VVord Tacitly to Suppose They had great Reason For their Rebellion Had reason Regulated Here They should have Laid forth the supposed Evidences of their Charge against our Church to a Third Impartial Judge They Talk of an Vniversal Church Distinct from the Roman why did They not Appeal to This And then Acquiesce in some other Sentence and Judgement Better then Their own But to Accuse so vast a Society of Ancient Christians as we are And know not WHY To Condemn it of Errour and know not WHERFORE And This before no other Tribunal but Themselves who were the Rebels Savor's so strongly of Sawcinâ—s The very Method held in our Protestants condemnation was Illegal and contemptible and Selfconceipted Pride That the very Method Held in the Condemnation Makes all to look upon it as Naught Foul Illegal and Contemptible 5. To Prosecute further this most Necessary Point Thus much I will Say and wish All may well Consider it It is most Evident That This Actual Breach with Rome This Rupture This Rent This Rebellion This The Formal Separation of Sectaries from an Ancient Church is Evident Divorce
that Christ Christ Abandoned not the Church He Founded never abandoned the Church He founded For He told us Hell gates should not Prevail against it He gave Assurance of his being with us to the end of the world The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. If therfore Christ stood to his Word and once established the Roman Catholick Church in Truth it is Orthodox still and Preserved in Truth by His special Assistance 3. It is an Evident Verity that God whose Providence never Failed his Church could not permit this Ample and Ancient Moral Body of Catholicks to Cheat the world by its pleading a Possession of Truth if 't had none for a thousand years together when which is deeply to be Pondered there was not any A Truth well to be Pondered other sound Church on Earth for so vast a time to Teach Christians the Orthodox Faith of Iesus Christ 4. We have our quiet Possession Acknowledged by innumerable Votes of most learned Fathers 5. And 'T is a Greater Proof For nothing Scripture excepted can Parallel it The Testimony and warrant of this Ample Catholick Society carries with it our Evidence no less for an actual Prescription Then for the Right and Title of our long pleaded and enioyed Possession And who can suppose that all those Innumerable Professors of this learned Church by whom this Evidence was conveyed Age after Age were all besotted or deluded with Errour 6. And 'T is an Evident Demonstration No Ancient or modern Church reputed Orthodox by the Christian World ever so much as Quarrelled with the Roman Catholick Church or once No Orthodox Church Ever censured us for the want of a just Possession Questioned the Right of Her Possessing Ancient Truths delivered by Christ and his Apostles none Censured it none Condemned it upon any supposed want of a most just Possession but only Known and Professed Hereticks And to these our English Schismaticks Adhere An Inference grounded on these Proofs with these And no other They side If therfore The Foundations of our Church were once laid firm by Christ If He stand to his Promise Expressed in Scripture If his Assistance Fail not the Church Once Established by him If God could not 〈◊〉 this great Moral Body to Deceive Christians by Pleading a Possession of Truth when it had none And when there was no other Orthodox Church to deliver Christian Verities to the world If Finally The Authority of our Church And the Testimonies of most Ancient Fathers may speak in our Cause And this Convincing Proof also have place None Ever Gainsaid our Ancient Possession But know and condemned Hereticks We may well Hope to silence our Adversaries at present or if these Perswasive Reasons with many other Insisted on Hereafter Become insignificant to Their Obdurate Harts when They can not speak a Reasonable word Against our Evidences what shall we Do But Commiserate Their Condition You se How roundly I deal with Sectaries cannot Answer our Proofs Them And say They cannot speak a probable Word Against These Positive Proofs Though whilst we plead Possession it is their Task to Prove who are the Accusers And Charge Heresy on us 10. Observe therfore If they say our Saviour What They are to Prove once setled not the Roman Catholick Church in Truth They are to Prove it If they say He violated His Promise And preserved not the Church He founded in Perpetual Truth They are to prove it If They say We misunderstand the Scriptures now cited They are to Prove If They say our Catholick Church cheated the world for ten whole Ages together by pretending Possession of Apostolical Verities when it had none They are to Prove If they say our Church was once Sound in Faith but failed Afterward They are to Prove And withal Distinctly to point at some other Orthodox Christian Society that Succeeded in the place of the Roman Church now falsly Supposed Fallen into Errour And This will give Sectaries work enough Again If They Slight The Authority and Testimony of our Church Evidenced by most glorious Miracles And other Illustrious Marks of Truth They are to give in Lieu of that a more Valid Testimony a stronger Authority For Their Pretenses which is impossible If Finally They Talk of any Orthodox Church That plainly Censured or Condemned the Roman of Errour and Heresy And Herein we Vrge Them to speak to the Cause the Proof lies still on their side or if they Prove not Believe it our OLIM POSSIDEO is impregnable The Presciption and clear Evidence of a long quiet Possession are our wall of Defence not to be battered or Beaten down by Calumnies 11. Thus much premised You shall se in Brief How The Objections of our Adversary shewed forceles all comes to Nothing Wherwith This late Writer too weakly Oppugn's our Ancient Possession who After His Telling us Part 3. c. 5. Page 627. That the Proof lyes upon us He gives this Reason And let it be His first Objection 12. They who Challenge full and quiet Possession by vertue of immemorial Tradition and succession from Their Ancestours ought to produce the CONVEYANCE of that Tradition from him who alone could invest them in that Possession Mark these Mysterious Words Ought to produce the Conveyance of that Tradition from him c. What signifies This Had He said They ought to Produce a Conveyance warranting the Possession of Truth to be in their Church we would have sent Him back to the Proofs Already Alledged And Here only Insisted on our Tradition But to Demand for a Conveyance of our very The Efficacy and force of Tradition Tradition which is either by it self it s own most manifest and clear Conveyance or must be proved by another clearer Tradition And so in Infinitum Tend's Methinks a little towards Non-sense Truely I know not what the man would be at Would He Have us Think ye to Produce a Letter written by Christ Iesus for Conueyance Here must Signify Charta or No Charter or writ stronger then Tradition Instrumentum wherby it may Appear that the Tradition of our Church is Sound and Orthodox This would signify just Nothing Becaus Sectaries might more justly Cavil at such a writing And say it is Forged Then they can now Except against the greatest Testimony Imaginable of a whole Learned Church that must Give Credit to this Writing if 't have Any Therfore He who can Doubt of this Attestation of a The Reason far Extended Church May more Rationally Doubt of the Writing it self Though it were now actually laid before our Eyes to Read Se more of This Subject Above Chap. 7. n. 7. 8. Perhaps our Adversary will say we are to produce Scripture if not for The Conveyance of our Tradition at least for the Possession of Truth we pretend to I Answer This is now Don Our Proofs are Already given n. 9. 10. where I Tell you that Christ founded the Roman Catholick
Force them to Acknowledge what I say to be most True when they can allâ—ge nothing probably for their Novelty against our Plain Scripture Against the Ancient Doctrin of a Vniversal Learned Church And the Authority of so many Fathers now Cited 8. We might yet entertain you with One or Two Difficult â— drawn from the weak Reason of Sectaries solved Difficulties more Drawn from Reason Wherat our Adversaries Measuring Gods Power by their own Wit or Fancy Stumble not a Little One is A Body cannot be in two Places at Once Just so the Peasant Thinks the sun cannot be bigger then a Broad Sieve Because never learning Mathematiks He Measures All by his silly Imagination And so the Sectary Doth Here Because He is no Scholler in Christs School But ad Rem Who Tell 's Him that a Body cannot be in two Places at once Hath God Revealed this in Scripture Nitâ—her Faith nor Philosophy against th being of a Body in two places No But Philosophy Teaches it What Philosophy Aristotles No For the Received Doctrin of his School is That a Body to say nothing of a Soule That is in two places Head and Feet at Once Individually Considered by it Self is no more Actually It s own Local Presence or Place Then the Organ of the Eye is of it Self its own Actual Vision Or Fire A Body is not by it self it s own local presence An other Argument of Sectaries ungrounded by it self Actually Heat This is common Philosophy if That of Sectaries be Better let them Vouchsafe to Learn us Otherwise Not by Saying it is Better But by some Clear and Vndeniable Principle 9. An other Argument is Drawn from the Great Indignities wherunto Christs Sacred Body is lyable if it be in the Holy Sacrament As That a Mouse or Wors Creature may Eat it Vp c. Here we may Justly Exclame with St. Austin upon another Occasion lib. 22. de Civit. c. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis Omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas c. Se with what Slight Arguments Mans weak Wit Opposeth Gods Omnipotency Speak therfore Truth Is it not a greater The pretended Indignities of Sectaries shewed â—rivolous Indignity that Christ Permitt's a Sinner to Receive him with a filthy conscience Then That He lics in the Stomach of a Rat or Mouse Say yet Had a worm Suk't his Precious Blood when it was shed on the Ground in his Passion or a Spider bit his Sacred flesh in the Crib of Bethlem Would that Indignity think ye Have Forced men from a Belief of his Real true Body These are childish Arguments not worth the Answering And here you have almost an End of a Digression which I Think cannot be well Answered 10. I Exceed not in saying It cannot be Answered Some points Briefly touched on wherunto Sectaries are desired to Answer And therfore Tell our Adversaries if it shall please them to Reply They are first to Prove and by certain Principle that Christs Sacred Words now Alleged for our Catholick Verity are Misunderstood by us And ought to have Their Determinate sense of a Sign Figure Metonymy and no Other What we here Require is most Reasonable For if my Faith fall upon Their sense They are obliged to Prove it Revealed by Almighty God Otherwise Vpon sound Principles Contrary to all Reason They 'l Vrge me to Believe what an infinit Verity never Spak 2. They are to Prove And by a clear Principle also That in such an Age after Christ There was an Orthodox Church that Believed their Doctrin of a Sign Figure Metonymy Only c. And Publikly Opposed ours of Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist To do this More is required then to cite a few broken Sentences of Fathers half Abused and wholy Maimed Sentences of Fathers Proofles weighed out of Their Circumstances All which put together Come not neer to a Probable much less to a Certain Principle That 's able to Evert the undeniable clear Catholick Doctrin of other Fathers And the Authority of our whole learned Church with Them 3. They are not only to Interpret the Fathers now Alleged For Fancy without Proof may pervert the clearest Words God ever Spak But when Their Interpretation When Sectaries Interpret the Fathers They are obliged to prove their Interpretation is made They must Shew it grounded upon a contrary Received Principle as Strong as the Express Words of those Fathers are 4. They are to Show That Christ our Lord when He uttered those sacred words to His Disciples This is my Body And then foresaw the universal supposed Errour of Believing his Real Presence in the Eucharist would follow in all Orthodox Churches And from no other Cause but His own Express and significant Speaking They are I say Obliged to Prove And by an undeniable Principle that He shut up in the clearest Proposition He ever uttered that Dark sense which They draw from it And that He did so to Deceive the World Sectaries grant Christians to have been universally Deceived What Sectaries Grant in their Belief of the Real Presence And that the supposed Errour Arose from Christs plain words is Evident For the whole Catholick Church that Believes this Mystery doth so Because Truth it self said plainly vvithout Reserve This is my Body Finally That Christ our Lord would speak as He did is Manifest by the Gospel And that He then foresaw the Supposed Vniversal Errour would be also Believed by force of His words in the greatest part of Christendom is most Vndubitable Because of the perfect Knowledge He had of Future Things 5. May it please Sectaries to Proceed candidly They are to cast a serious Reflection on pass't Ages and Ponder well who those were that Patronized Their Doctrin and Opposed ours They are to compare and justly to Ballance their Obscure Scripture vvith our clear Texts The vveak Testimonies of Their misconstrued Fathers with our contrary now Quoted Authorities Their Novelty with our Ancient Believed Faith The sentiment of their little late Congregation concerning this Mystery with the Judgement and Belief of our long standing Roman Church c. And if when All is Don They can come to a sound Principle Wherby it may Appear to every Rational man That their Scripture Fathers and Church Authority Outweigh as it were Ours Or have more force to establish their Novelty then what is now Alleged to make our Catholick Doctrin most stably sure We will begin to Think They may more laudably write Controversies Hereafter But if contrarywise you find Them Gravelled at every Difficulty now Proposed and hear nothing distinctly Replyed to upon undoubted Principles or Further confuted then a loos wandring Discours will carry on a Weak Cause I 'll once more crave Their Pardon and Plainly Say Our Arguments and Reasons cannot be Ansvvered CHAP. VIII The Conclusion The Churches Evidence 1. WE have seen Enough in the Precedent Discourses That True Religion is not as Sectaries make Protestancy
of these Places now cited May be as Protestants understand The bare Saying of Sectaries stand's for no proof so I say The contradictory Proposition is every whit as good The Sense May be as Catholicks understand Who must Therfore whilst we are Both yet supposed to stand as it were on equal Terms Determine what God hath absolutely Revealed in these Scriptures I say absolutely For the question here is not what a Particular man may Imagin God to have Spoken But what He hath de facto Spoken The Reason hereof is clear Because God Speak's not in so weighty a Matter as this is to Try mens Wits or to Hear Them tell him Lord such may be the Sense of your words Faith relies not on what private men think God hath revealed Though I cannot say what it is Nor can our Faith Rely on what we only Think He may have Spoken But on what He hath actually Revealed And we have means thanks be to God To know this Absolute Sense as I shall declare in the 9. Chapter where the Objection is fully solved 5. In the mean time be pleased to reflect first That Protestants Glosses as iniurious to Gods Word as Those of the Arians when meer Fallible men Peremptorily put upon Scripture a Sense which They cannot so much as probably prove But by their own Erring guesses only to be the true meaning of the Holy Ghost and this in a matter which Highly concerns Saluation They plainly Injure Gods Sacred Word Protestants are these fallible men and do so Ergo they injure Gods Word The first Proposition is clear in the Case of Arians who Becaus They peremptorily give a Sense to those Scriptures which relate to the Real Vnity of Three Persons in one Divine Essence the matter is of High importance and cannot prove it But by the force of Their Erring Guesses only They wrong both God and his Word The second Proposition is as Evident For The Proof Protestants absolutely say The Scriptures now cited include not yea positively exclude a perpetual infallibility allowed the Church This sense and 't is a Point of highest Importance For the clearing of it End 's all Controversies they cannot prove But by their own Erring guesses only And therfore injure Scripture in saying God hath spoken that which cannot be so much as probably proved was Spoken 6. Reflect 2. It is not enough that Sectaries tell us upon their own fallible Parole That our Places of Sectaries come not home to the difficulty Scripture May be interpreted as they please or come not home to prove the Churches Infallibility For Admit thus much Gratis They yet convince nothing Because it is one thing to say and God knows only to say it our alleged Scriptures for example that of St. Paul The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth prove To say we prove not our Doctrin is not to say They prove the contrary not a Church Infallible and a quite other positively to Teach and prove it to be Fallible The most they can infer out of thiâ— Negative Such places prove not were all granted they desire is that They give the slip to so many Texts of Scripture or infringe so much force of our Proofs Alas This only is to pull as it Their weak endeavour is to pull down not to build up the Machin of their new Doctrin were so much of a House down But it doth not therfore follow that They positively give in as good Texts to the contrary Sense or Build up the Structure of their new Doctrin concerning the Churches Fallibility To pull down one Proof is not to destroy all we can say we have more Strings to our Bow then one much les is it to build up an opposite Doctrin The Machin these Sectaries would fain build lyes in this one positive Assertion The whole Church is Fallible This say I Fancy only Erect's For it stands unprop't Fancy doth all with them That is it neither is nor can nor shall ever be positively proved And hence 7. Reflect 3. If Protestants who rely totally on Scripture Proof Positively Assert as They do That the whole Church is Fallible They are obliged both in Conscience and all Law of Disputation to prove what They say For Asserenti incumbit probatio Observe my reason When Luther and Sectaries came amongst us and troubled the world They heard the voice of a whole Ancient Church against them owning the infallible Assistance of Gods Directing Spirit for which we now argue The Church pleaded thus Olim possideo prior possideo This Spirit of infallibility I long since have had and yet upon Scripture proof do Believe Well Now enter these Sectaries They first reject Church Authority and then make Scripture speak as Fancy pleases and first Reject the Authority of this Ancient Church next They fall abord with our Scriptures And becaus they are good at Guessing They tell us Verily These Scriptures seem not to prove a Church Infallible Becaus They are able to interpret all to a contrary Sense To this we have Answered Their seeming is no proof Withall That Catholicks as Many and Learned as They both can and do interpret them otherwise Hitherto therfore their cause is nothing Advanced More then is necessary And it is That whilst They positively establish a new coyned Doctrin of a whole Christian Church fallible contrary to what Antiquity ever owned I say 't is necessary That they bring some Positive proof and make good Their unheard of Assertion 8. And here we may have plain dealing if Sectaries Protestant have no Text of Scripture against an Infallible Church please Turn then to your Bible Gentlemen and shew me any Text like this The whole Church of Christ is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The Holy Ghost will not ever Teach it all Truth God hath placed Pastors and Doctors in his Church But such as may suffer us to be carried away with every wind of fals Doctrin c. Such Expressions we read in our Bible for the contrary Verity Have you any thing like them in yours to prove your opposite Asserted Doctrin I say any like them For I Press not to have from you the same Formal Words But will be content with one plain significant Text and we will stand to Scripture Or if Scripture please you not we will accompany you to Councils and Fathers which so much as Meanly makes the whole Church of Christ Fallible Such a Scripture I tell you once more you cannot produce Ergo you only vent your Fancies you talk and prove not you believe a Doctrin which you cannot show was ever Revealed in Gods Word You may perhaps trifle it out and Tell us as you are wont to do of our errors de facto It is nothing to the purpose For What we desire of Sectaries we enquire not here after your proofles Assertions They are Answered a hundred times over nor ask what
Authority have force to weaken our Churches Doctrin Nothing Therfore less Then The Clear and Vnanimous Consent of These Ancient Worthies truly Pillars of our Church can be Admitted of as a Received Principle We stand to this and the other now named Principles Thus much Premised we pass on to the Trial of Protestants Proofs CHAP. IX Protestants Cannot make Good Their Charge Against the Roman Catholick Church Concerning Causal Schism 1. THe Assertion saith thus Much. There neither is nor can be Proof against the Roman Catholick Church wherby it is made Guilty of Errour And Therfore none can Rationally Say That this Church was or is The cause of Schism in Protestants The Reason Hereof is best laid forth in these Few Words Proofs against Proofs fail when Principles are wanting this Church cannot But Fail when Received Principles are wanting to Support Them But Received Principles are Here evidently wanting To Sectaries in Their Charge Against our Church Therfore Their Proofs must Fail and Consequently when they are Resolved can come to no more but to meer Proofles Calumnies 2. To Show you That all Principles Fail them in This Matter You shall Se how Ingeniously we Proceed We Licence our Adversaries to make Vse of all the One plain Dealing with Sectaries Principles which the whole Christian World Own 's as Vndoubted Will They Please to have Recours to well Grounded Reason to plain speaking-Scripture without Glosses to the Vnanimous consent of Fathers or Definitions of Councils and Vniversal Tradition We are contented And will Acquiesce All we seek For is to Exclude Their own Proofles Word from entring in as a Received Principle You Se here is Liberty Enough And The Liberty given Them we Allow it withall Petition Them for Almighty Gods sake That they will Vouchsafe to Deal candidly with us And take to any One or More of These now named Principles and Dispute closely in Form Either Provided they will Dispute in Form by Syllogisms or That known shorter way of Enthymems By this Procedure we shall se the Rise and Progress of their Discours the Validity of Their Arguing whether it be Convincing and Finally rest on a Received Principle or contrarywise Lame and Deficient Reason is reason to all sorts of men and Though we are Papists we yet know well what Reason and Evidence is May it therfore Pleas our new Doctors to Begin with that Common Principle to us both of Holy Scripture Their Argument if to the Purpose cannot But be much to this Sense What Scripture saith is true But Scripture saith The Roman Catholick Church is at least lyable to Errour Ergo it may Their Argument from Scripture Ends after the First Syllogism err We deny the Minor And Expect a Second Syllogism to Prove it which Shall be more Fumbling and Proofles Then this very Minor that is Fals. I am so confident of this my Assertion That I in treat our Adversaries to Go on in Form And Prove Their Minor if Their Cause be good the Labour is not great And let us have the Honor to Answer Them Again They may Argue What Ancient Councils Define And And will be as Forceles if drawn from Fathers Holy Fathers unanimously Teach is True But These Say the Catholick Church of Rome Hath Erred or can err Ergo. We here Deny The Minor Also which shall never be Proved by a second Syllogism either Evidently or Probably In the mean while And let Them Remember so much Their Formal Schism is not only probable But Evident Though the Proofs fall short to Evidence the Pretended Cause of it 3. Some Perhaps will Say This way of Arguing doth not the Deed. No. They will go Otherwise If they will come to particular Controversies to work and Descend to Particular Controversies And shew us how Council hath Contradicted Council How Transubstantiation Purgatory Praying to Saints worshiping of Images c. are late Novelties Introduced into our Church Here They Hope to have us upon an Advantage And With such Doughty Doings They are able to make our Church Guilty of Causal Schism And Acquit Themselves of the Formal Crime Observe a Shuffling And Know Before we Catholicks are like to get a Sight of our Evidenced Errours We must Travel far And run over All those long Worn-out Controversies which have Troubled the world And to no Purpose For a Hundred years and More However we are Content We are willing may it pleas them to Dispute in Form and bring Arguments to Principles May it Pleas our Adversaries first to begin with one particular Controversy And so closely to follow the Matter by a continued Arguing in Form That at last They bring their Discours to a sure Owned Principle But I well Foresee Because Conscious of their want of Principles to ground a Convincing Discours on They 'l not Hear to this Proposition Therfore to leave Them without Excuse I 'll Propose another way Another way proposed Which every man shall judge most Reasonable Let them vouchsafe at least to Set down Plainly one of Their Protestant Tenents conrrary to our Catholick Doctrin For Example Transubstantiation is a New Invented Opinion lately brought into the Roman Church And then So closely to Give us the last and strongest Grounds They have for the Assertion without long tedious Discourses that nothing Appear superfluous Much may be said in a little compas Their Vndoubted Scriptures if any be aâ— Hand Their Ancient Councils Their consent of Fathers Their Ancient Tradition And which I highly Value of some Ancient Orthodox Church Authority Must of Necessity enter here to Vphold their Assertion if 't be Defensible This Don. I 'll Engage to The Authors Engagement Place against what ever Sectaries Allege The contrary Proofs of our Catholick Religion for Transubstantiation And Add to them the Testimony of our Learned Church And if These put in just Ballance or compared with the Other Do not in the Judgement of every Disinteressed Scholler Quite Outweigh all that Protestants can say Against us I 'll here Promise never to Trouble them more with Controversies But if on the Otherside you evidently find These men after all their Noise of introduced Novelties so cut of from Proofs so profoundly silenced That They cannot What will appear by this way of trial bring to light so much as one Passage of Scripture nor one Ancient Council nor the Vnanimons consent of Fathers no nor one clear Sentence of a Father And least of All Any Ancient Orthodox Church contrary to our Doctrin or that Plainly and Positively Defends Theirs You will I Hope Bear with me if I say once more Their new Opinion Relies on Fancy And that I Mistook not when I called this Treatise Protestancy without Principles I say that Positively Defends their Doctrin For I would have Them Know Their Negative way of Arguing We Read not forsooth of the Word Transubstantiation will if it Appear once more on Paper look
true Catholick Church which is ever assisted by the Holy Ghost can be tepugnant to any Superiour Rule and therfore touch not Catholicks in the least manner But if you speak of the Decisions of your English Church which because fallible may be repugnant you license your self by your own Principles to disobey it And look you to that You say 3. The judge is Constituted by God in the Church not for the Command of mens Consciences but for the regulation of their Actions and Preservation of peace in the Church which is not Violated by mens inward and unknown Sentiments but by their External demeanour and sensible Effects of them Answ Most pittiful Doctrin What is all the preaching of Sectaries Come to no more but only to teach how the Exteriour Actions of men are to be regulated and peace may be preserved This Truely more be longs to the Iustiâ—ies of Peace in their Several Districts then to Ministers if therfore they goe no deeper into Consciences by their Doctrin they certainly preach not the Word of God for I read Heb. 4. 12. the Word of God is lively and forcible and more persing then any two Edged Sword and reaching unto the Division of the soule and Spirit of the ioynts also and the Marrows c. And these men go no further then only to give instructions concerning the Exteriour Regulation of Actions or preserving of Peace If therfore their Hearers were very Hypocrits Iewes or Arians in hart and only demeaned themselves fairly in the Exteriour like Protestants Ministers are not to medle with them but leave them to their own Consciences without Check or reproof wherof se more Disc 3. C. 7. â— 17. 18. Now if Mr. Poole will find some Mystery in the words he useth Command of mens Consciences let him read S. Paul to Titus 2. 15. Haec loquere Speak these things and rebuke Cum omni Imperio with all Command and Authority And so Pastors should Speak to Consciences Cum Imperio in Gods cause and people should obey them The Apostle gives the reason Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates your Guides or Commanders for they watch as being to render an account for your Souls And if they must render an account of Souls they may certainly speak like Prelates to their very interiour Consciences 29. Page 41. you say the Scriptures of the old and now Testament are the Infallible rule and ground of Faith Answ They are so Faithfully interpreted Se Disc 2. C. 4. where you have your Errours Discovered and the Objection fully Answered You say again Vniversal Tradition rightly understood is of great use and like a channel wherby Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us Answ the Parenthesis which alone is refuted in the Discours now cited the rest of your Assertion hath no hurt in it But you add a Mysterious piece of Divinity where you distinguish between Rem Tradiâ—am the thing Delivered Traditionem and the Tradition or Delivery of it and say Papists by Tradition understand the first that is res tradita Answ either I understand not you or you which is more likely misconceive the Doctrin of Catholicks For they distinguish between Tradition and the thing Delivered For example The Baptizing of Infants the keeping of Sunday in place of the Sabbath are Objectively Doctrins delivered and the Testimony Consent and Acknowledgment of the whole Universal Church witnessing these Verities are rightly called the formal Tradition therfore you mistake our Doctrin It is true as this word Faith sometimes signifies the matter revealed by Almighty God And most properly the internal Assent we yeild to the Revelation so this word Tradition may also signify either the Doctrin delivered or the formal Delivery of it but this makes not to your purpose You say again Tradition taken for the vehicle or conveyance of the books of Scripture is in some sort necessary to bring the Rule to you yet is no more a part of the Rule then a Basquet is Nourishment wherin bread is brought to feed on Here is your learned instance Believe it Sir if you take the Basket and find Nothing but a stone in it you will have a poore dinner And if you make Tradition minutely like the Basket in some sort necessary you may well have a stone for bread that is no Scripture given you for Scripture Tradition therfore whether part of the Rule or no is absolutely a necessary conveyance and must be Infallible 30. Page 44. you tell us Scripture is the Object only rule and standard of Faith by which all Controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged Answer The Proposition is only your own bare word Scripture alone can be no rule without an Infallible Interpreter as is proved Disc 2. c. 4. And had we no more to say but thus much that Scripture proves nor it self to be Infallible it were enough But grant which you yet Convince not that it is infallibly Gods Word an insuperable difficulty remains to be decided And it is whether you Sectaries know so exactly the sense of Scripture in all controverted matters that your fallible Glosses are to be stood to contrary to the judgement of a learned Ancient Church Hence I say you talk at random when page 48. you tell us There is enough delivered in Scripture by which all Controversies might be ended would men be humble studious and Self denying Lay your hand on your hart and speak your conscience can you judge this to be true Or can you perswade your self that none are to be found within the limits of this Ancient Church as humble as learned and studious as a few Ministers are in England Why vent you such Paradoxes without proof or so much as a probability You say again page 48. after some parergons of conditional and absolute power That if the Church be sufficient to end all Controversies because all must submit to its decrees and Doctrin the Scripture in like manner may be said to be sufficient because all are obliged to submit to the Decrees and Doctrin therof I Answer all are to do so when they know by an infallible Interpreter what the Scriptures Teaches but this in controverted matters is ever the difficulty You say it speak's one thing and we say the contrary therfore Scripture alone which is as silent now as it was Sixteene ages since is a less meet Meanes to end these Contentions Contrariwise the Church proposeth all shee teaches with the greatest clarity and if any doubt occurr is ready able and sufficient to declare it self further Scripture that hitherto never ended any difference between us cannot do so For a further satisfaction read the 5. Ch. of the 3. Discours 31. We return now to your 44. page where you tell us First Tradition is the Vehicle to conveigh the rule of Scripture to us 2. Reason is the instrument or Eye wherby you apprehend and se the Rule 3. The Spirit of God is the Eye-salve that annoints
or vouchsafe to return an Answer He will I hope after a general thought cast on what I intend to prove in the ensuing Discourses take particular Notice also of a few Notes here set down which may perhaps conduce to His better satisfaction 2. Concerning the first We need not to say much My Intent is Chiefly to prove These four Things 1. That Sectaries are Churchles because They acknowledge no infallible Church on earth Yet there are Infallible Teachers and consequently an infallible Church as is Demonstrated in the first Discours 2. That They are as Scriptureles as Churchles and have not one syllable of Gods Word for Protestancy Therfore we treat in the second Discours of Their mangling and misinterpreting Scripture 3. That Their Proceeding is most Vnreasonable in some chief controversies handled in the third Discours 4. We prove in the fourth Discours the Roman Catholick Church to be the only true Church of Christ And there also lay Forth the improbability of Protestant Religion All this is Don to make good what the Title briefly expresses Viz Protestancy is vvithout Principles of Scripture Church and Reason Now a word of what I would have you to Note 3. It is truly lamentable to se how controversies in these our dayes are driven on to nothing but to endles quarrels There is certainly some cause of so long a work which might methinks be brought to a period with less Adoe And what is it think ye Is it because Christs true Religion cannot be made evidently credible to Reason No certainly For that Religion which hath stood invincible in the heat of so many persecutions which hath converted whole Kingdoms and Nations and drawn Millions of souls to it must necessarily appear most evidently Credible to all rational men Is it because a fals Religion cannot be Argued of Falshood No. It is as easy to convince an erroneous Sect of errour as to prove true Religion to be true And Hence I say it is impossible to conceive any Thing like Religion that can neither be Proved evidently credible or manifestly Argued of Falshood The Reason is Because the evident Credibility of true Religion if one only be true in the VVorld takes off from the fals Religion all Prudent credibility and leaves it uttely destitute of Motives founding credibility In a word The euident credibility of Truth makes Falshood highly improbable VVhence I inferr If true Religion be made thus manifestly credible by Almighty God Rational Proofs cannot fail to countenance that which He will have manifestly known Contrarywise such proofs must of necessity be wanting to a fals Religion which God will have to appear both evidently Incredible and Improbable to prudent Reason The Catholick therfore that hold's his Religion at least evidently Credible before He believes and certainly true by his Act of Faith cannot but have Proofs at hand which Do not only clearly evidence the undoubted Credibility of it but also Dash and Discountenance what ever can be said in the Defence of a contrary Errour On the other side The Sectary must of necessity want such grounded Proofs And consequently whether he Defend's his own or impugn's the true Religion All He saith will end at last in meer Cavils and wordy Fallacies You have the Reason Hereof more largely laid forth Disc 1. C. 8. Because God cannot permit in the Presence as it were of his true Religion a fals Sect to appear so much as slightly Probable which ever is and must be inferiour to Truth or rather nothing in the lustre and evidence of Credibility Which is to say in other Terms An Erroneous Sect cannot he made at all Credible to Reason 4. What then is the Reason when the Catholick both supposeth and proves His Religion to be only true and Orthodox that These strifes go endlesly on between us and a few Protestants Scarce any Book though never so solid and learned is set forth by an English Catholick but presently a Thing called an Answer sallies out against it Exceptions are made by Sectaries This They say Proves not That Displeases c. In a word if we believe them All is Answered when God knowes A prudent Reader see 's the main Difficulties waved And very often finds the very state of the Question gtosly mistaken I 'll say my thought freely and humbly submit all I say to the prudent Censure of every learned Catholick As long as Sectaries without a just and rational Reproof it 's all vve can Do are permitted to continue still the strain of writing they constantly follow which is to entertain the Reader with tedious Discourses in general of Christian Religion when Protestancy is that which should be Proved with meer conjectures bare negative Arguments And unproved Propositions with their own forced and violent interpretations when an Authority urgeth In a word with their Guesses and unworthy Cavils seasoned with jeers when nothing els will Doe c. whilst this is Don The close way of Arguing is laid aside They may talk on to the worlds end without fruit to Any but to the Printer only that gains money by their Books You will ask wat Remedy Against this proceding An old Answer sayes much It is When they go about either to prove their own Novelties or to impugn our Catholick Doctrin That we keep them from wandring to far from home and Hold them close to Proofs and Principles these are the Shollers lawes our Rules and Canons Do this and you 'l soon se their long Discourses Shrunk up to little Their large volumes brought to a few sheets of paper Now if they refuse to stand to Principles we must leave them to Fancy And show how they both Disgrace their cause and themselves also 5. By this word Principle or Principles I understand in our present matter a strong rational satisfactory Intellectual light that prudently forceth Reason to acquiesce in a Verity proposed whether it arise from solid grounds of Reason or from great Authority matters little so it be prudently Persvvasive and forceably work on a well disposed understanding Iudges Decide by some measure of it in their equitable Sentences And Schoolmen should not want it in their Opinions But much more is requisite when we speak of Religion wheron salvation Depend's For here a far greater light a better Assurance Surmounting meer Probability is nenessary which cannot be darkned by Fallacies or weakned by Trivial Fetches You have the ground hereof Declared Disc 1. C. 8. Because God that lead's us in this present state to the knowledge of His Revealed Truths not by Enthusiasms or private Illustrations but by prudent inducements suitable to Reason always makes his true Religion so manifest by undubitable Signs Marks and Characters that not only the learned but the more ignorant may come if prudence Guide him to a clear Sight of it by certain Principles We may I think proceed as securely by light enough laid out to Reason in this weighty matter as we do in other great
nothing probable for an Objection as soon solved as seen is far off from the nature of a sound Principle We say therfore if to pray for one an other Here on Earth lessens not Christs Honor there is no danger of lessening it by our recours had to the Saints in Heaven now in a most Glorious and happy Condition And thus no less a Doctor then S. Hierom Adversus vigilantium Paris print 1609. pag. 590. Solves the Difficulty at those words Dicis in libello tuo c. Thou Vigilantius saith in thy Book that whilst we live we may pray for one another but after Death no Prayer is heard for Any Here is the Objection Mark S. Hieroms Answer Si Apostoli Martyres adhuc in corpore constituti possunt orare pro ceteris quando pro se debent esse soliciti quanto magis post coronas victorias triumphos If the Apostles and Martyrs yet living in a mortal body can pray for others when they are solicitous for themselves much more can they do that Charity after their Crowns Victories and Triumphs He goes on Vnus homo Moyses c. That one Moyses obtained pardon for thousands Exod. 32. And the first Martyr S. Stephen living prayed for his Persecutors Act. 7. Et postquam cum Christo esse coeperint minus valebunt And what shall they be able to do less now when they are glorious with Christ in Heaven Meliorque erit vigilantius cams vivens quam ille leo mortuus And can thou Vigilantius a living Dog be better then that dead Lyon He alludes to S. Paul that prayed for others whilst he lived Tu vigilans dormis dormiens scribis I tell thee Vigilantius waking thou sleep's and sleeping writ's these things against prayer to Saints Thus S. Hierom. And not only S. Austin lib. 22. de Civit. c. 8. to omit innumerable others Approves the Doctrin but that worthy Bishop also S. Greg Nyssen in his Oration of S. Theodore Martyr Paris print 1615. page 1011. and 1017. confirms the Practice of it Pray for us saith S. Gregory addressing himself by an earnest Petition to S. Theodore when the Scythians threatned a war to the Country make intercession to him who is our common King and Lord. As you are a souldier fight for us and defend us And as a Martyr speak freely for your fellovv servants here A few lines after And if more Prayer be needful assemble together the vvhole Quire of your Brethren Martyrs and joyntly intercede for us Put S. Peter in mind move S. Paul and the beloved Disciple of our Lord S. Iohn that they be solicitous for the Churches vvhere once they vvore Chains passed dangers and finally Dyed Say now what lessening is here of Christs Honor by the prayer of this Ancient Saint and most learned Prelate Or what answer can be returned to these three Authorities The other Difficulty is as forceles For if Scctaries can explicate how the blessed Soul of our Saviour in Heaven hear's our Prayers which I hope they will not Deny I speak of his Sanctified created Soul all Difficulty ceaseth in the present Controversy How They hear is opinion se Bell. cap. 20. n. Argumentum tertium But That they Hear is certain Doctrin 7. Now if Sectaries tell us They can so explicate These Fathers as to make their words insignificant to our Purpose I would first learn what can be said to S. Hierom S. Austin and S. Gregory now cited But this is not all for I am to assure them further That their explications when contrary to the Doctrin of a whole Church as also to the obvious sense of either Scripture or Fathers quoted by us are so far off from being Principles that they merit not the name of mean probabilities which Truth is more amply Declared Discours 4. c. 4. n. 8. 9. Where I prove that no Interpretation of Sectaries can be Allowed of unles it rely on an extrinsick Ground much surer then His Gloss is that interpret's which therfore must be plain Scripture The undoubted consent of Fathers Vniversal Tradition or such like convincing Principles Hence I said when the Catholick Interprets a dubious or Difficil Passage He never makes his Gloss to be the ultimate Proof of his Doctrin But supposeth that proved by stronger Principles distinct from His Interpretation All is contrary with the Sectary who makes His Gloss to do all to be the last and surest ground of his Opinion without the Support of any better Proof then his own word is And thus much is evident in other Controversies now Debated between us as you will see Hereafter 8. From this want of clear Principles all the too manifest and most Discernable Faint proceeding of our Adversaries in matters now controverted shewes it self so openly that one with half an Eye may Discover it It is From want of Principles That they now begin to be weary of Protestancy and hold that a Faith Common to all Sectaries is sufficient to Saluation if this may Pass They need not herafter to stand more for Protestancy then Arianism or for any other condemned Heresy For the same Principles were there Any would make both Sects equally Credible Hence it also is That you have them ever Cavilling at our Religion and 'T is the easiest thing in the world to Find fault Yea and to cavil at the verities of Holy Scripture it self you se Arians do so but still you find them wanting in that which concern's them most which is to bring their Novelties to the grounds of either Scripture or any Ancient Church Doctrin Herin they are as mute as Fishes and say not a word It is from want of Principles That when they explicate a Council or Father alleged against them They are tediously long about little that is in relating the circumstances to be as They would have Them but whether they hit right is ever a matter of Dispute and nothing like a received Principle From hence it also is That when They make such and such Doctrins to be Inâ—oâ—ations Praying to Saints Purgatory or what els you will The very last ground They standon comes to nothing but Negative Arguments weak Conjectures blind Guesses Fancy and meer Vncertainties It is From the want of Principles That when we produce undeniable History for innumerable Miracles wrought in our Church An odd Answer is at hand They cannot believe them as if forsooth Their Parole or meer Vnbelief had force enough to make null all that is writ of this subject by most approved Authors From want of Principles it is That they ever place against our clear Authorities no more but meer uncertain Testimonies And pick out of our Writers all they can pilfer for Their Advantage wheras if they had a good cause in hand and sound Principles to rely on They should beat down the Doctrin of long standing Church 〈◊〉 by undeniable Proofs taken from Scripture Councils and consent of Fathers wherof more presently From hence it also
from our Protestants Principles where you se enough I say it once more of their great sin and Haeresy CHAP. IV. Replyes to these Arguments are answered 1. ONe perhaps may be God surely will never permit all the Pastors of Christianity to erre and deceive the world at least this is no Consequence They may erre Ergo they do and will actually erre for many things may be which never will be I answer and many things actually happen Answer to Objections which were never suspected would be and why may not this diffused Errour be one of them who knows the contrary In Protestants principles we have the greatest Presumption imaginable for this actual errour of all For they say That ample and ancient Church of Rome and all condemned Haereticks with it erred set then these aside it is impossible to design plainly such Christian Teachers as never de facto erred 2. The very possibility yes and facility also of All falling into Errour makes the actuality of it fearfully doubtful now men had been mad to loose both Lives and Goods to dye ignominiously on Gibbets for any doubtful and uncertain Doctrin The Apostle put other thoughts in the primitive Martyrs hearts other words in their mouths Scio cui credidi certus sum I know who I believe and am certain No Hearers therfore can certainly rely on any doubtful and uncertain Religion 2. The second reply Admit that all Christian Pastors Second Reply teach erroneous Doctrin yet no great mischief followes for Those who hear them are either conscious of the Falsity And if so they are not to believe their Teachers or They erre invincibly which is a blameles Errour and Therfore cannot in justice be held an Offence The first part of the Reply supposes some instructed Christians wiser then all their Teachers together which is an Impertinency never heard of The second touches not the difficulty for here we blame not such as may perhaps invincibly erre But say That the blame goes higher and is unworthily cast on God who obliges Christians to believe the Pastors of a Catholick Church and yet gives them such disabled ones that all of them may erre universally and teach Doctrin contrary to his revealed Truths Here lyes the mystery of iniquity upheld Protestants Mystery of iniquity by Protestants and the uglines of it appears in this wrethched Assertion God will have me to believe a Catholick Church yet this whole Catholick Church that is all the They cast blame upon God Pastors all the Councils all the Fathers Doctors and Prelates of this Church may teach me such false Doctrin as God never intended I should learn They may if fallible teach us that Christ is not God that Heaven is not a place of Eternal Happines nor Hell an abode of Eternal torments Such Haeresies have been spread by Those who went under the name of Christians and why may not I beseech you all Christian Pastors abuse the world as much if Gods gracious ordinance concerning the Churches infallibility faill us 3. A third reply It is one Thing to teach Truth Teaching Truth infallibly and another to teach it infallibly Put therfore the case That Almighty God foresaw from Eternity that though all Pastors of the Church potentiâ antecedente antecedently might erre yet some at least ex suppositione consequenti or consequently would not erre but teach Christian Verities faithfully Suppose I say only thus much We have sufficient Assurance of Truth actually taught in the world without that Previous infallible Assistance we plead for which seems here useles for if either man or Angel Delivers a Verity it matters nothing whether it arise from a Fallible or infallible cause Our Faith therfore hath strength enough if it rely on Truth actually Taught though the Teacher wants infallibility I answer If God foresaw that all the Pastors of his Church would not erre or teach false Doctrin This Verity is either revealed to Christians as a Divine Truth or no if not we make that revealed which is not revealed and consequently can ground no Assurance on it if it be revealed and known to us this very Revelation viz All the Pastors of the Church shall not erre is an undoubted Principle which assented to by true Faith is our Security Because such a Faith supposeth the contrary Actual errour of all essentially excluded by virtue of Gods Revelation For it is impossible that God tell us this Truth All the Pastors of my Church shall not erre in any age and yet in sensu composito of this Revelation permit them to erre universally Observe in one Instance the security we have by force of such a Revelation 4. Suppose that God had revealed to Isaac that his Father Abraham would not sacrifice him and withall that Isaac firmly believed that Verity He had been as indubitably secured from dying at that time as if Abrahams hands had been tyed in chains or wholy made impotent to give a fatal blow Now mark the Application As Gods Eternal Prevision of Abrahams not taking Isaacs life away Antecedently supposed the cause therof actually also foreseen antecedently I say in a foregoing signe os nature so likewise it is in our present case when from Eternity he knew that all the Pastors of his Church would not actually err and revealed this Truth in time His All-seing wisdom Previously pro priori signo rationis foresaw also the total cause of their actual not Erring which cause as I have already proved was not the power of mans weak variable and mistaking Reason But the most certain Principle of Gods special and Divine Assistance When therfore God as the Objection supposeth revealed that Verity All shall not err he did not only by virtue of his Revelation impossibilitate the contrary universal errour bur warranted more that all of them because prevented by special Assistance could not erre And this is what Scripture Energitically tells us of Hell gates not prevailing against the Church of Christs Being with the Church to te end of the world wherof more hereafter In the interim you see that Christian Christian Faith relies on Truth taught by an Infallible Oracle Faith doth not only rely on a meer contingent or hap hazard Delivery of Truth but on Truth taught by an Assisted and infallible Oracle which All must assert or grant that although Christ himself by a supposed Impossibility had been fallible in No certitude of Truth had Christ and his Apostles taught it Fallibly his Preaching or the Apostles likewise fallible in Their writting Scripture and only because lyable to errour had delivered Gods Verities contingently by chance Christian Religion might yet have stood as firme and unshaken as now it is which is a horrid and an unheard of Haeresy 5. A fourth reply We cannot prove by good reason if we set aside some ambiguous Passages of Scripture which only seemingly say the contrary that the immediate Proponent of true certain Christian Faith Catholiks
describing the number also and given good Scripture for both which cannot be don 2. That Faith only Iustifies 3. That after he hath better pondered the Text of St. Peter 2. 3. 16. He prove by Scripture the Plainess of it in all necessary Points to Salvation A fourth proof concerning the Canon and Certainty of Scripture would choak Mr. Poole But I 'll not give him so undigestible a pill may He pleas to satisfy the three former Demands by Scripture only without Glosses and ungrounded Inferences drawn from what he thinks to be Gods Word But is not 6. Some perhaps may ask why all this time whilst we have Discoursed of Scripture of its Certainty of its Sense and Regulating Faith c. None of Mr. Pooles Arguments against us are taken notice of Hath he none or do I Dissemble them I answer The man hath nothing like an Objection To prove Scripture to be the Word of God He Relyes on the Confession and Testimony of Catholicks This Mr. Poole hath nothing like Arguments we have Refuted above To prove it uncorrupt in the Essentials of Faith He Tell 's us that by looking into the Nature and quality of those Various Lections which are pleaded as Evidences of Corruption we shall quickly find them to be in Matters of les Moment It seem's They are little Becaus Mr. Poole without Proof will have them so I could shew him great ones in the Protestant Bible But let them pas And be pleased to note how poorly he shifts of the Difficulty That Presses The Difficulty is concerning the best Originals which Protestants have hitherto met with none of them I believe ever yet saw the Autograph or Hand-writing of either an Euangelist or Apostle These Originals I say cannot be proved Uncorrupt if that Church which had them in Custody for a thousand years brought in a Deluge of Errors into the Christian World Finally to prove that a Protestant hath a Sufficient Assurance of Understanding the Sense of Scripture in things Necessary to Saluation He allegeth Gods Promise Iohn 7. If any man will do his will he shall know of the Doctrin whether it be of God But Protestants do Gods will thus much must be added or the Proof stands on one Leg and Papist Do not Gods will Ergo Those have Assurance of the true Sense of Scripture and These have not Here is the doughty Argument and that which follows is as weightles Protestants saith He have the Assurance of Reason Papists have no more and if that will not do They have the Assurance of the Spirit which God promiseth Luk 11. Here is work enough for another Chapter Yet in passing I cannot but reflect on a mistaken quotation Mr. Poole misquotes Sixtus Senensis in Mr. Poole page 230. where he cites Sixtus Senensis And both err's in the Annotation and Doctrin of Sixtus concerning the Clarity of Scripture Sixtus Therfore libre 6. Annotat. 152. not 151. as Mr. Poole Quotes § Quod autem Answering an Objection of St. Chrysostom plainly Afferts that when Scripture is said to be clear 't is not to be referred to the Whole Bible but to a Part of it only wherfore saith He St. Chrysostom divides Scripture into two Classes The One contains the hidden and abstruse Mysteries of Gods deep Wisdom And this part is not clear at all thus much Mr. Poole conceil's Altera sectio The other Section or Part of it compriseth the First and chiefest Principles of all things to be Believed and Chief Precepts of living And so much is clear Observe well The first and Chiefest Principles of things to be Believed infer no Clarity in every Particular revealed Mystery For He that believes this one Principle of Faith That the Church is Holy and the Pillar of Truth Hath a First great Principle and may learn by it all Truth If you please to se how Mr. Poole abuseth Sixtus read him in the page now cited It were most easy to Take him tripping in other Citations But that is not my task at present This only came in by Chance CHAP. V. The Reason of private men and their private Spirit cannot interpret Scripture 1. MR. Poole told us above That Protestants have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture Happy They if they were the only Reasonable men in the World But why are not Papists as Reasonable Why should the Pelagians the Arians or Honest Quakers be left out of the list of Rational men Or if These would Monopolize the Assurance of Reason to Themselves for their Sence of Scripture Why are They not to be Credited upon their Parole as well as Protestants For their proof is to say They have it crede quod habes habes and so will an Arian or Quaker say too Admit Were Reason allowed of to sentence the Sense of Scripture we must know whose reason hitt's right therfore which is fals that Reason be allowed of as Judge or an Iustrument to sentence the Sense of Scripture where it speaks obscurely We are nothing Advanced nor one whit the Wiser unles we know whose Reason it is that hitt's right on the Sense Now all of them most evidently do not so unles we impiously say that God hath revealed Contradictions in Scripture Becaus these mens Reason draws contradictory Senses out of Scripture and in All do not Interpret Scripture truely High Points of Faith also Say then good Mr. Poole whose Reason must yeild and to whom Must an Arians submit to yours or yours to an Arian Whose Reason must yeild and to whom whilst we vary about the sense Must mine bend to yours or yours to Mine Or may we all hold on to the day of Doom as Devided in Faith as we are in Iudgements concerning the Sense of Scripture Allow once of these Endles and Eternal jarrs in Religion here on Earth which this one Principle of Following private Reason establisheth and you may seek for another Heaven then Christ hath promised to the Children of Peace Hereafter That is for none at all God forgive these late Tumultuous Spirits the True cause of our wofull Dissentions But let us go on And 2. Pray you tell me when Protestants say They have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture in controverted Points of Faith E. G. The Trinity what signifies this word Reason with them Doth it import a Formal Discours much of that nature as Schoolmen use when they establish their Tenents in Divinity Sectaries are to say what this word Reason signifies If so the Principle of this Discours must be admitted of and own'd by the two Advers parties when by Reason only They plead for the True sense of Scripture And the Conclusion of the Discours must If a formal Discours two Advers parties must agree on a Principle be drawn from Premises founded on This received Principle Thus much supposed I might here ask first Upon what known and admitted Principle Do our Protestants ground
from an Ancient Church This Formal Schism Cover all as much as is possible under the smoother Term of an Actual Separation is as clear on our Protestants Side As the Suns Shining at Noon day like Dirt it lyes at their Doors and They will never be Able to Sweep it away But to Say That Catholicks laid such Nastines There But to say that Rome was cause of it is a meer unproved Calumnie or That Rome caused This Sehism neither is nor shall be any more then a meer Supposed Whimsy An Vnproved Calumny As long as Truth is in the World 6. Say therfore I Beseech you Good Dear Countrymen Why was the Roman Catholick Church the Cause of your Schism Why Separated you your Selves from it You Answer A multitude of Corruptions What Sectaries allege as cause of their breach of Superstitions of new Forged Articles in Faith of Innovations and I know not what more made you leave this Church so Far as it had receded from its Ancient Purity Very good The Charge Drawn up goes High And is evidently Hainous But Say on Are your The Question is whether Proofs answer to the Charge Proofs Answerably as Strong or Equally Evident To make the Charge good Against this Church Both Accused and Condemned by you Or which Comes much to one Are these Proofs as Manifest To justify your Formal Schism as 'T is evident that you Made it Such an Evident charge Or are as manifest to justify that Formal Rupture as 'T is Evident it was made against a Church and so Tragical a Separation from it Acted by you Must both in Law and Conscience Be Supported and Born up by Evidence The Weightines of the Matter Requires it Weak feeming Probabilities meer crazy and Conjectural Arguments Atheists Vent such against God and Jewes against Christ are Here too Slight and Forceles Either to Acquit you of your Weak crazy Conjectures prove Nothing most sinful Formal Schism or To make us Guilty of the Causal 7. Come therfore Let us not word it Longer But go closely to Work We Appeal to Reason and undoubted Principles in this Controversy These and not Talk nor meer Conjectures must Vphold your Proofs if you have any Against our Ancient Church To Proceed Therfore clearly 8. Note first That the Supposed Errours charged on Errours charged on our Church are not Evident ex Terminis the Roman Catholick Church by Protestants are not like the first Principles in Nature Evident ex Terminis By their own Light Their Evidence Therfore if any be must be laid forth in a Solid and Convincing Discours And This Discours if Convincing is to be Driven on by a Medium which either by it self is or doth at last Rest on some Therfore must be proved by Discours reduced to owned Principles Known and Owned Principle Owned I say and Admitted of not by the One or Other Dissenting Party But Common to them Both. If such Principles Fail or the Discours which is carried on Derives not Strength and Certitude from Them The Force of Arguing turned either into a Roving Talk or Clamours is Lost Becomes Lame Deficient and Vnconcluding 9. Note 2. Whilst Sectaries by Imputing Errour to the Roman Catholick Church make it the Cause The Self-saying of Sectaries is excluded from being a Proof of Their Formal Schism They are not to Suppose That Their own bare Assertion or Saying We have Erred can be either Proof strong enough Or any Thing like a satisfactory Reason in This matter For their Saying is no Received Principle I Note thus much on set Purpose Becaus I really Perceive a strange Humour in our Protestant Writers You have in their Books Protestants Humor In Writing Controversies 'T is true Difficulties now and then hinted at Words multiplied Much Talk in General Intricate Discourses carried on in Darknes And This to Amuse a vulgar Reader weak Conjectures Enough now Drawn from This now from That Vnevidenced Authority Margents charged with Greek and Latin And Learned Margents They are or must be Thought so But after All you se the main Difficulties waved you Find Nothing Proved Nothing clearly Reduced to They bring nothing to undoubted Principles any other Owned Principle But Their own Proofles word and Bare Assertion In so much that I am Apt to Believe if I think Amiss God forgive me All that Protestants Aym at in their Polemical Writings is only to Keep up Talk in the World And Glory when They have the last Word in a Controversy whether a Proved Word or no it Imports not so it can be said They have Answered 10. Note 3. If As we Both must and will exclude The Principles They are to Rely on whilst They condemn our Church of Errour the Self-saying and Own-voting of Protestants from the Nature of a Rational Proof whilst They Accuse and Condemn our Church of Errours They are Necessitated to have Recours to other Principles And I think There can be none better nor more Free from all Exception Then These I now Name 1. Plain speaking Scripture 2. The Vnanimous Consent of Fathers Add to These if you Pleas the Indubitable Definitions of Ancient Councils 3. Vniversal Tradition Proofs which run on in good Form and Finally Rest on These or the like Foundations are Solid Undeniable and concluding If They swerve from such Grounds They Become both Faint and Forceles And cannot But Participate much of Fancy which we utterly Reject 11. By the Recours to Plain Scripture We Exclude All weak and unproved Glosses of Sectaries By Recurring Exceptions justly made Against Protestants to the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers we Highly Except Against an Vnworthy Proceeding of Protestants who if by Chance They meet with a Patch or maimed Sentence of a Father which because Dubious seemingly Makes for Them They Triumph as if the Victory were Theirs Soft and fair Say I There is no such matter For no Doctrin Doubtfully Delivered by a Father and 'T is then doubtful when it justly may Admit of Different Interpretations Can Pass For a Received Principle Principles are clear Much less hath it force to Blemish the Purity of an Ancient learned Church whose sole Authority is greater Then The Dubious sentiment of a Fatherless then the clear Iudgement of the Church can be the Dubious Sentiment of any one Father And Thus much our Adversaries must Acknowledge For Though a whole Torrent of Fathers undeniably Comes against Them As is most evident in Twenty Controversies Take for Example that one of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Dayly Offered up in the Church Or the Real Presence They Answer Forsooth the Fathers were Sectaries Reject the Evident Testimony of Fathers when most clear against them and fight with a dubious Testimony of one or two Fathers against the Church men and Had Their Errours c. Why then I Beseech you when One or Two of Them Speak only Doubtfully in a Controversy I Grant no more should Their
Disciplina quâ fiunt Christiani Vbi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianorum The sense of this whole sentence is this We are not therfore to appeal to Scriptures nor are our debates to be determined here wherin there is no victory or a very uncertain one For although there were no Collation or comparing of places together that might stay the two Advers parts yet the order of things requires this to be first proposed which is now only to be disputed viz. To whom the Faith appertains wherof the Scriptures are From whom and by whom when and by what Persons that Discipline is wherby they were made Christians For where there appeares the Truth of Discipline that is as Macereus and Pamelius interpret the Rule and of Christian Faith there you shall have the Truth of Scriptures the Interpretation of it likewise and of all Christian Tradition Observe well The whole context of these words saith first that debates can never be ended by Scripture only 2. That before we Dispute by Scripture we ought to know and by other Reasons who those are to whom Scripture belong's 3. That where the Discipline or Rule of Christian Faith is previously known by other grounds distinct from Scripture there you have the True Interpretation of Scripture and all Christian Tradition After a full ponderation of these words I leave any man to Judge that loves Truth whether that Doctrin be not here most remarkably expressed which is taught and mantained by the Roman Catholick Church 26. Mr. Poole from his 12. page to his 37. hath no work for me for his whole strain is to run on in cavils and finding fault with such Arguments of Catholicks as He forsooth judges inefficacious to prove the Churches Infallibility whereas God knows Had He had where withall to do it He should have gon a contrary way and proved positively by Scripture Fathers and Tradition the Churches Fallibility but Herein He is silent because in real Truth He hath nothing to say The ground of the Churches Infallibility which Mr. Poole never toucheth on is briefly hinted at above n. 15. and further laid forth Disc 1. c. 1. and 2. and I desire an express Answer to it Now and then He hath something against the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who with him are fallible because they speak of the Churches Infallibility and the good man never reflect's that he and his little book are far more fallible I wave such trifles 27. Page 37. He begins with his Distinctions of the Judge and rule of Faith and saith first The supream and truely Infallible Judge of all Controversies is God and Christ. Very Good but nothing is yet Done unles you fallible man can say in all the Differences between us what God and Christ speak what is judged for you and against us which is so far from being a Truth proved that in Every Controversy it is the very thing in Question and meerly supposed by you without either Proof or Principle You say again The External and political Judges to wit the Governours of the Church are subordinate to the supream Judge Answ Very true But what then Marry this followes that if they really contradict the supreme Judges sentence They must give their subjects leave to argue whether it be right in the sight of God Hold Sir a little If you rationally contradict them you must first prove your self wiser then these subordinate Judges are and Evidence their Errours by undoubted Principles which is impossible For either these Judges are Infallible or fallible if you grant the first you cannot rationally contradict them And if they be fallible How dare you a private fallible man speak contrary when your very Contradiction is no better then their opposite Assertion is I mean purely and poorly Fallible In a word without any certain Principle to rely on which you shall never have you too boldly take leave to oppose your Judges and make your self a Rebel by it You say 3. There is in Every particular Person a secret Judge which is called Reason or Conscience I must Ask once more what then Have not Arians Pelagians Quaquers and all other Sectaries reason as well as you What therfore this Instrument of reason can apprehend judge and work in you after your fashion it doth the like in these other after Their fashion Do you not therfore se how little you advance your cause by talking of your Reason which unles it be Evidenced by sure Principles to be better then that of your Adversaries proves just nothing And add what private Spirit you pleas to help your Reason out They will talk as much of their contrary Spirit to help theirs These two points are so largely declared and proved Disc 2. c. 5. that I believe your Answer to them will prove unreasonable 28. Page 40. You goe first very warily to work for no man knowes what you would say Then you are manly resolute in your Decisions We willingly acknowledge say you and reverently esteem the true and rightful Governors of the Church orderly assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whose decisions are to be highly valued c. Here is no man knowes what Pray you speak out and name more clearly the Church you reverently esteem of Tell us who these true and rightful Governors of it are and do not put us of with an old piece of a long since rejected Doctrin They are those who hold closely to the Truths of Scripture for we must know who these are Finally say when Councels are regularly assembled not according to your Fancy but which will be a long work for you let us have lawes prescribed wherby we may know by sure Principles more particularly without this general talk when Councels are orderly assembled or unorderly A word now to your resolute Definitions You say first this Judge of the Church is not infallible but subject to errour Answer And so are you Sir also fallible when you oppose your self to the Judgement of a Church whether it be your own English Church or the Roman Catholick If therfore the Judgement of both Churches were supposed fallible as the one is not your singular Judgement is no more but fallible also and what gain you by that Thus much only You Contradict the Church fallibly and the Church again Contradicts you fallibly and thus you may remain Contradicting one another to the Worlds End without the Decision of one Controversy unles you make it Evident by undoubted Principles that you are to judge the Church when you please and the Church is not to medle with you or your Iudgement You say 2. this judge of the Church being subject to higher Authority and tyed to a higher rule if its Decisions be Manifestly repugnant to that Superiour Rule they are not to be obeyed Answ You purely suppose what should be proved Viz. That the Decisions of the