Fathers cited in that Chapter yeilded up their reason notwithstanding that strong insinuation of sense to the Contrary And must not the Dr do so also had he either seen our Lord Iesus à little Infant in Bethlem or those Angels that appeared to Lot Genesis 19 He would certainly have judged upon the suggestion of what he saw that Christ our Lord was only man and not God and that those Angels were mortal men and not Angels yet had he then known by Divine Revelation that Christ was truly God and that those Angels were only men in appearance as the Eucharist is seemingly bread would he not think ye forthwith have rejected that fallacious suggestion of his sight and firmly assented to the Divine Revelation Nay more doth not the Dr tell us in his Account P. 574. that we are not to look on bread and wine as naked Signs but as Signa efficacia and that there is à real Presence of Christ in and with those signs to the Souls of the Believers This unexplicated Presence of Christ in and with bread be it what you will is as much contrary to Sence as Christs real Presence is under the accidents of bread I prove my assertion These outward Accidents of bread either essentially exclude the presence of all other things from being there or permit that God may by his omnipotent power put unde◠them annother Substance In case they be essentially incompatible with any other Substance but bread how dare D◠Still tell us so asseverantly that there is in and with bread to the souls of Believers à real presence of Christ such Souls I suppose believe not meer phansies Now if the Accidents essentially exclude not another substance I hope Christ's sacred body may be as well present with them as that real presence is which the Dr assert's O! but we Catholicks destroy the substance of bread That is not at all pertinent to Protestants boggle not at the possibility of the change our present purpose neither doth the truth hereof belong to the judgement of sense but only to Gods omnipotent power For here is the only difficulty whether God by his absolute power can conceil the real presence of our Saviours sacred body under the Accidents of bread The Divel more skilful in natural things then the Dr perswaded himself Matt 4. that our Saviour could turn stones into bread Why therefore may not we believe upon the greatest Authority I mean God's own express word that he changed bread into flesh The learnedest Protestants that ever writ boggle not at the possibility of this change but only Question the matter of fact whether God has done as we believe Wherein most certainly we have the upper hand if plain Scripture the general consent of Fathers and the Authority of all Orthodox Churches cited in the last Treatise may plead our cause and be admitted as sound Principles against the errour of à few Sectaries Thus much premised we goe on and will examin more of the Dr's strange Discourse laid forth in his Account Part. 1. c. 5. P. 118. It is worth some reflection though I think never Dr rambled on like him 3 The whole substance comes to this Sense is sometimes deceived or to speak properly reason upon the suggestion of sense err's Ergo it may alwaies err and be deceived in its proper obiect Or thus Those of Sodom judged Angels appearing like men to be really men and not Angels Ergo they might rationally think that all they met with in the Streets were Angels concealed under the outward shape of men Why so Because forsooth after that one Illusion they were in reason never to make use of their senses afterward upon any other obiect for fear of the like deceipt Herein lies the whole strength of the Dr's weak talk If saith he what I se and all others se to be bread be not really bread by The whole Strength of the Dr's weak discourse what means can our faculties difference truth from falshood I answer most easily For although it be à truth that that which appear's bread in the Holy Eucharist be not really bread yet it is à meer dream to inferr from thence that every mountain I cast my eyes upon is not really à Mountain but in appearance only and consequently in the Dr ' s judgement à falshood for what Consequence is this God wrought à Miraculous change upon bread therefore He doth the like all the world over and perhaps changes whole Castles whole Towns yea the whole Ocean into other substances at least there is no security to the contrary and therefore we may all justly question whether we inhabit real Houses and doubt whether the fair City of London be raised to the great splendour it hath upon real Materials as wood and stones but rather upon such Materials in appearance A mad discourse if ever any was which more ruin's all the Cities in the world then the last dismal fire destroyed noble London 4 Mark well Courteous Reader the force of my Argument I do not by What is to be noted in my Argument what is hitherto said goe about to prove the Conversion of bread into Christ's sacred body that is cleared upon other grounds but only proceed upon à Supposition and assert if our Saviour wrought that Conversion and changed bread into his body The Dr ' s Discourse is worse then Nonsence who out of one Miraculous change where he thinks our senses are beguiled will force upon us an illusion so universal that no man hereafter ought to trust his eyes and tast when he eates his Diner Herein lies his gross mistake which yet to his no little disgrace he run's on with in the following Instances 5 Tell me saith he what assurance could The Dr's Instances the Apostles have of the Resurrection of Christ's individual body from the grave but the judgement of Sense Or had S. Thomas believed Transubstantiation might he not have thought our Saviour some invisible Spirit hid under those external accidents of his body because Hoc est corpus meum had told him and the other Disciples that the external accidents might remain where the substance is changed I passe by his Catacresis judgement of sense for sense makes no Judgement and say had the Disciples been so childish as to have argued like the Dr our wise Saviour would have soon vanquished that senceless plea and told them My good Disciples I assured you at my last supper that the bread I took into my hands I changed into my body this must be supposed or Dr Still Argument becomes forceles but did I ever yet tell you that the body you now behold with your Eyes is only à Spectre or an apparition of my body No upon what ground then or by what Authority can you rationally infer out of my working one miracle upon bread that How Christ might have rebuked his Disciples had they pleaded like the Dr. I must do the like now upon
plain Impostor's and unexcusable Lyars Let us se how the Reader will rellish this desperate and Heathenish Proposition Yet worse followes and it is that Antichrist's Signes and wonders may most justly be preferred before any true Miracle registred by the Fathers for this false Prophet will exhibit Miracles specious in appearance though false Christ's Church saith this Doctor Never shewed any really true No. All are Fourbs Lies Fictions Impostures and what not 14 A third cheat lies in à strange art he uses very suitable to Arheistical humours who believe nothing and it is thus To disparage these wonderful works of God he fail's in his main enterprise observe it well He rejects all Church Miracles as fourbs Ought not the Dr I beseech you to exchange Principles with us A third Cheat in denying all and proving nothing and prove what he denies by as great Authority as we allege for the contrary Affirmative of their being undoubted Truths This the Godly man never attempts but be cause he will have Miracles appear ridiculous he thinks his spiteful jeering at them proof enough to decry all as incredible despicable and contemptible Jeers fit well men of his humour who hold fast to what they see and feel loath to trouble their braines with more but jeers Shall not serve his turn and therefore I shall ever urge him when we plead for Miracles by unexceptionable Witnesses to prove them false or to grant the fact attested 15 A fourth Cheat undermin's the most connatural way of conveying truth either absent or past to mans understanding and is called Humane Faith which has great weight when A fourth Cheat under 〈…〉 all Humane Faith no just exception comes against it but the Fool-hardy spirit of unbelieving Heathens and Hereticks Our Saviour's own Miracles before the writing of Scripture were thus conveyed to many who saw them not and judged prudently Credible upon Humane Authority This Principle grounded in nature and approved by Christ the Dr wholly invalidates for though our Cyrills our Basils our Austins our Bernards Bedes and innumerable others recount indubitable Miracles though they point at the time when and the place where they were wrought though they tell you such and such Eye-witnesses saw them such Cures were done by the Reliques of Saints yet Impostors they are for their pains and guilty of that enormous Sin of impudently deceiving the world Pray you consider Would not those poor Shepherds thinke ye present at our Saviours birth have gained Credit had they told the Inhabitants neer Bethlem what they Saw and heard that night And shall not the word of S. Ambrose or S. Austin be taken while both recount Miracles seen with their own eyes Did that blind man cured by our Saviour Iohn 9. perswade the Jewes upon his own and Parents Testimony that he was their Son and born blinde And shall not à far greater number of Eye-witnesses that knew Iohn Clement born What force Humane Faith has monstrously lame and whole multitudes saw him in an Instant Miraculously cured in our Ladies Chappel at Montaigue work upon the Dr's dull Incredulity and induce him to believe upon humane faith this most strange and evident wonder obtained by the Intercession of the Mother of God It happened in July Anno 1603 in the Presence as I said of many Eye-witnesses and forthwith became publick in Print and Pulpit Sundry of the Gentlemen who attended the Earle of Hereford at that time An Evidens clear Miracle wrought as Montague Lord Ambassadour from England saw and conferred with the Party and received Satisfaction both from him and other publick Testimonies given of the Cure Thus Brereley Protest Apolog speak's Tract 2. c. 3. Sect. 7. Subd 5. Page with me 544. And the learned Iustus Lipsius then living at Lovain not far from Montaigu relates most largely the whole Story in his Book intituled Diva Sichimiensis sive Aspricollis Antwerp print 1605. C. 45. 16 Now because I only gave à glance at this Miracle Reas and Relig. Disc 2. c. 8. n. 17 whereof the Dr takes no notice I will here very briefly set down the Substance as Lipsius relates it Erat saith he Bruxellae c. There was at Beuxells Iohn Clement Son to Iames Clement Vpon Iohn Clement amply related by Lipsius born lame weak and of à monstruous misshapen body his leggs and feet contracted were turned upward so that his knees and thighes joyned close to his brest and belly That lump of his body gathered round like à Ball made the poor Patient unfit to stand lie down or walk and for that reason alwaies sate forced by the help of his hands and two Crutches to push himself forward whereupon the People who dayly gave this Iohn reliefe usually called him in their vulgar language Hansken in 't schotelken Little Iohn in à dish In this afflicted condition often hearing of the great Miracles wrought at Montague he hoped to find help and comfort in that holy place whither he was carried in à wagon and having confessed his Sins performed his Penance The whole manner of the cure declared and received the Blessed Sacrament feeling him self full of pain he endeavoured to creep out of the Church for à little refreshment of Air but could not stir VVhether he would or no he was forced to remain that whole day in the same place Evening comming on Solemn Laudes were sung and this Patient as he sate before the high Altar felt him self lifted up from the ground when behold his contracted and wrested feet wholly loose were stretched out then also the doublet wherin his body was bound burst assunder and he in à moment stood bolt up Other cloaths being brought his strength and vigour more and more encreased his small dryed leggs were then filled with flesh and bloud And which is another wonder à wound in his head which he had received 15. dayes before yet wide open shut it selfe close together in that very time he was cured This whole multitudes What Iudgement the bost physilians made of it saw This at his return to Lovain and Bruxells he related when People ran out to see and meet him c. I have saith Lipsius heard the most expert Physitians of no easy Faith exclaime and openly profess that this cure vvas vvrought by the povverful hand of God above the force of nature 17 Please now couteous Reader to parallel this Miracle with that of the blind man in the Gospel and ask what disparity can the Dr give between them or what exceptions can he make to this latter strange wonder Will he say Iohn Clement was à Counterfeit It 's Impudence Hundred and hundreds knew him in this miserable condition twenty yeares together after his Mothers death who as Lipsius notes ventre exsecto dyed at his birth Caeso Will he say those many Eye-witnesses who beheld him cured in à moment of time were All Exceptions made against the Miracle wrought on Iohn
without all hope of bettering it The Assertion stand's firm upon this ground No man can rationally charge errour upon à whole Church never censured by any in former Ages but known and condemned Hereticks without Principles more convincing vveighty and ponderous than the Churches Sole Authority is But there are no Principles in Being powerful enough to uphold any such discourse and not to make long vvork about à manifest Truth pray tell me vvhither can the Dr goe for Principles vvhereby the Church is proved so much as liable to errour Will he take recourse to the unanimous consent of Fathers The attempt is desperate while they generally teach quite contrary Doctrin as is amply proved in my two last Treatises Nay more can the Dr produce Se Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 14. n. 10. â—1 one ancient Father who saies plainly the Roman Catholick Church can err I will return him hearty thanks if he point out one but suppose which is false one or two glance at any such thing have their doubtful words thinke ye force enough to Counterpoise the Authority of So renowned an Oracle as this Church is Say I beseech you what if one or two English Dr's should boldly tell us that the nine and thirty Articles are matters of Divine Faith and that all vvho teach the Doctrin are by Divine Assistance made Infallible Oracles is this sufficient to overthrow the Sentiment of the vvhole English Church vvhich hold's Herselfe fallible in delivering the Doctrin She maintains No certainly Much less say I can the Authority of one or two Fathers only supposed not proved of à different opinion in judging the Roman Catholick Church errable availe one whit to make it probable that She is guilty of errour or liable to it when contrary to Protestants both She and all the learned Dr's of one Faith with her boldly assert She cannot erre Hence I infer that no Authority taken from this or that ancient Father much less from this or that private man can rationally oppose the Church in her just claim to Infallibility The next Principle the Dr and others use to rely on is taken from General Councils approved by the Church How I beseech you or in what manner Did any Council ever yet expressly define that the Church can err You will say no but these Councils contradict one another and no infallible Oracle doth so The weakest Pretence and least worth of any For doth not Holy Scripture also seemingly speak contradictions in many Passages You will say though they appear like Contradictions yet learned men have already cleared such Antilogies Besides Scripture is God's word and all know that God cannot contradict himselfe Very right this is my Answer also The learned of our Church have over and over cleared all such passages in Councils as appear to some short sighted eyes contradictions from all opposition and we more assuredly know that the Roman Catholick Church is God's own infallible Oracle than any Sectary can shew by reason that Scripture is the word of God or written by Divine Inspiration Please now to compare Principles together The Dr impeaches this Church of errour and takes his proofs from the seeming Contradictions of Councils A Catholick Adversary no less learned than he solves all the Dr Obiects The Church while these two Combatants are hot at vvork stand's by and positively declares She never delivered contrary Doctrin in any of her Councils Here is the Clear Catholick Principle Against this Principle the Dr makes his exceptions which thousands and thousands as learned as he judge to be feeble forceless and long since ruined Fallacies The Question is now and t is worth the while to drive it on further because it is most useful in all debates with Sectaries The Question I say is vvho shall judge in this Contest between the Church and this Dr vvith all his exceptions Have vve means to know vvho speaks truth in so vveighty à matter and upon vvhom the errour lies To clear this you shall se how indifferently I proceed I will as yet neither suppose the Church nor the Dr blamable but leave this to the just trial of some Iudge let that Iudge be named and much is done The Church never censured by any Orthodox Christian and defended by the most learned in the world think 's her own Authority worth something and powerful enough to bear up her cause against à single Dr with all his crew of Sectaries but let that be yet disputable whither will the Dr lead us for à final Sentence in this yet debatable case Has he any ancient Church any consent of Fathers any one word of Scripture any received Tradition whereby he evinces the Church errable in her Councils These are excellent Principles but I absolutely assert he has none of them not one vvas ever yet produced by him nor shall hereafter be brought to light while the world stands as is clearly made out both in this and my former Treatises Contrarywise it is certain that the Church and all her learned Doctors plead strongly by every one of these Principles therefore She stand's upon surer grounds than the Dr vvho as I now said has none of them The Dr may reply These very Scriptures and Fathers the Church plead's by for her not erring are only doubtful proofs and therefore convince nothing I answer if these be doubtful the Dr's Assertion vvhile he saith They are doubtful is I am sure no selfe-evident Truth but either utterly false or at least fearfully doubtful and therefore must be proved by à stronger Principle than his own proofless vvord Leave us not now Mr Dr in darkness give us I beseech you some light of that Principle or ultimate proof vvhereby it may appear that you speak truth or so much as Sence vvhen you tell us All our proofs alledged in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility are doubtfull and controverted Name the Church the Fathers or Councils Scripture you have none that speak as you do You may introduce Sectaries vvho say so but they come unarmed vvithout Scripture Church-authority Fathers or Tradition and to these men of yesterday vve oppose thousands more ancient on our side Thus Mr Dr we proceed in every other particular Controversy and will shew you when you please so non-plus't and soon driven to an end of all discourse for want of Principles that the ultimate proofs of your Assertions whether you defend Protestancy or impugn This great truth I intend to enlarge further upon another Occasion Catholick Religion Shall at last be brought to nothing but to your own bare naked and unproved Assertions themselves which stand tottering unprincipled Now that you may se I speak seriously I challenge you once more to discusse with me this particular Question concerning the Churches Infallibility and if after all you have said or can say I make not vvhat is here asserted manifest I vvill acknowledge my errour before the vvhole vvorld The ground I stand upon is
this Title to his 8. Chapter The Churches How the Dr juggles in his Account Infallibility not proved from Scripture whereas this or the like Title could he have made it good had bin to the purpose The Churches fallibility proved by Scripture That first Title only gives occasion and he doth no more to interpret and gloss such Scriptures as are usually alleged for the Churches Infallibility but the second would have obliged him to produce positive Scripture whereby that Oracle is proved fallible This he waves and must wave because there is no such Testimony in the whole Bible You will say if the Dr makes it ou◠that the Churches Infallibility is no◠proved by Scripture He◠evinces Her fallible Very false Doctrin for the Church was proved Infallible before Scripture appeared in the world an◠yet is proved infallible independently of Scripture But let this pass How wil◠the Dr make it out that Scripture proves not the Churches Infallibility whilst I allege Testimonies as plain fo◠this Catholick Tenet as the Dr ca◠produce for any fundamental Article o◠Christian Faith For example Chri◠saies I am with you alwaies to the ◠of the world The Conforter the Holy Gho◠shall abide with you for ever The words as fully express à continual assistance granted the Successors of the Apostles and that for ever as any Text in the whole Bible proves the Mystery of the Incarnation Now all the Dr doth or can doe by way of Answer to these passages is after his wonted fashion to gloss them as you may se in his Account P. chiefly 254. And cannot an Arian as nimbly gloss the strongest Text allegable for the Incarnation For example I and my Father are one as the Dr glosses this Text. I am with you alwaies c. I yeild saith the Bishop cited in that page à continual Assistance granted the Apostles and their Successors in Christs promises but in à different degree For it was of continual and Infallible Assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of Continual and fitting Assistance yet not Infallible Mark the gloss no Scripture God knowes and note likewise how the Arian keep 's him company I grant saith he à unity or Oneness between the Father and Son not in nature or Essence but in love and affection only and that 's à fitting unity the other in nature appear's unbeseeming God yea Impossible 6 Thus you have two fallible Glossers Dr Stil and Dr Arian delivering their fallible sentiments But how a poor The Dr and an Arian gloss scripture alike Christian who would fain learn what Christ hath infallibly taught can be one whit the wiser by his hearing such men talk is à riddle to me and every one besides For I think there is none but can easily argue thus That fitting Assistance maintained by you Mr Dr which excludes infallible assistance is no more Gods express word or the Doctrin of any Orthodox Church than that fitting unity excluding à real unity maintained by an Arian is God's word or the Doctrin of any orthodox Church Or if it be produce your Scripture What is it then A conceited gloss which stand's unprincipled by it selfe Observe I beseech you We enquire whether the Church be not proved Infallible by the plain sence of Christs words now cited I am with you alwaies to the end of the world the Dr and his Bishop say no because Her assistance is à sitting one but not Infallible Here is their last proof and 't is no more but their own weak Assertion that gives all the strength to the thing which should be proved and consequently nothing like Christs Doctrin that ever stand's firm upon undubitable Principles Nay more That whole blundering discourse held on by the Dr in his Account P. 255. amount's to thus much only that now and then he hint's at something which should be proved but never proves it And were he only once faulty in this dissatisfactory proceeding it might pass but I must say more to unbeguile those who read the Dr and make this great truth known to all Viz. That when he handles these matters of Faith and either opposes our Catholick Tenets or goes about to establish his Protestancy the beginning the progress and end of his discourse are naked and destitute of proofs Neither Scripture nor Church Authority speak in his behalfe whence it is that Cavils jeers drollery and impertinent excursions take up the greatest room in his writings glosses you have without end but no Principled Doctrin to gloss for How easy were it had the Dr any thing like à good cause in hand to prove his gloss of à fitting but fallible Assistance by Scripture or Church Doctrin But we need not feare for I tell him when that 's done the Arian will advance his gloss as farr and altogether as wisely unhinge one prime Article of Christian faith CHAP. III. Doctor Stillingfleets Rule and ground of faith proved no Rule It lessens not in the least the Churches Infallibility 1 OUr Dr by what I read in this first Part chiefly build's his whole Religion upon the sufficiency of Scripture easily understood in Necessaries by à Faculty that every man hath of discerning of truth and falshood wherein he much cleaves to Socinianism and followes exactly the steps of Mr Chilingworth Here and there he recurr's to Gods Grace and to other helps but saies not plainly what those helps are neither can he while his whole endeavour is to exclude the Church from being the Rule or ground of Faith 2 In behalfe of Scripture he laies down this Proposition P. 99. Although we cannot argue against any particular way of Revelation from the necessary Attributes of God yet such à way of writing being made choice of by him we may justly say that it is repugnant to the nature of the designe and the Wisdom and Goodnes of God to give Infallible assistance to persons in writing his will for the benefit of mankind if these writings may not be understood by all persons who sincerely endeavour to know the meaning of them in all such things as are necessary for their Salvation From this Principle he would conclude that if those writings may be understood by all persons its needles to rely on any Church whether fallible or infallible for our instruction in necessaries because Scripture alone without the Church is the Master-Teacher and à faculty granted every man of discerning truth and falshood which cannot but hit right upon these necessaries knowes them all 3 This Principle learnedly refuted by the Ingenious Author of Errour-Nonplus't P. 81. supposes what neither is proved Dr Still rule of Faith proved no rule nor ever shall be made probable Viz. That an infinit Wisdom and Goodness hath made choise of à Bible only with this design that his will be known in things necessary to salvation which is no more but à vain Supposition For if eternal Wisdom besides the means of written Scripture hath
those obscure Terms What are Necessaries to Salvation he only mean that none can tell How many Necessaries are he speak's à truth in his own Principles but nothing to the present purpose for here we only enquire whether the Guides of God's Church are not impowred to deliver infallibly so much as one particular Necessary which they believe infallibly No saith the Dr because Scripture is so clear in Necessaries that no man who sincerely desires to know them shall be deceived I answer first Were it ten times clearer the perspicuity hinder's not these Guides from declaring infallibly what Scripture speaks infallibly The most that can be inferred from hence were all true as its false is that the Churches Guides need not to declare any thing but that their declaration therefore ceases to be infallible shall never be probably made out 1 Answer 2. The Dr grosly mistakes for most evident experience teaches that thousands and thousands called Christians are deceived who sincerely desire to know what is Necessary to Salvation Is it not manifest as I said above that the Arians Pelagians c. Or the Dr with his Partizans run on in à false beliefe of Necessaries This matter of fact supposed the Question proposed above return's again VVhat means hath Christ left whereby all may certainly know the deluded or erring Party And this proves the Scripture obscure or not perspicuous in all Necessaries unlesse the Dr infuses à clarity into it which no mans eyes ever yet saw but his own and à few Sectaries with him The next pretty whimsy is that he knowes no reason for useing the Term Infallibility yet i' ft be applyed to Infallible Believers of Necessaries he asserts it in that sence Is not this right as it should be He has no reason for useing the Term but great reason to use the thing signified by the term Let this passe the worst is yet to come 7 The Guides of the Church saith he P. 141. Supposing the same sincerity shall enioy the same Priviledge with Rusticks That is they may believe Infallibly as Rusticks doe yet none can Teach Infallibly First this Answers not my difficulty above when I ask'd if these Guides and the Illiterate under their charge ponder Scripture and use all sincere endeavour to understand its meaning yet mainly differ in the beliefe of Necessaries what remedy in such à case Is not our Dr obliged to propose some fair easy means whereby these Guides and people may be united in one faith or at least to tell us on which party whether Pastors or People the blame lies to the end all may avoid them Scripture most evidently makes not the blamable known nor unit's all in one Faith An infallible Church is rejected the discerning Faculty of dissenting men run's as we se contrary wayes Therefore all may believe as they Judge whether true or false or suspend their beliefe untill Dr Still laies down à better rule To that other part I say the Guides of the Church can teach infallibly the Necessaries they believe and I still insist upon Necessaries only The reason is given already To believe the Infallible Truth of à Divine Revelation expressing à Necessary is absolutely necessary to Salvation but this neither Scripture it selfe nor the discerning faculty of any fallible man can declare or make known therefore the Guides of The reason why the Guides of the Church teach infallibly the Church impowred by Christ to instruct qui vos audit me audit are to declare the Truth the Infallible truth and sence of every Revelation relating to Necessaries Now further If this declaration be so fallible that it may be false neither Jewes nor Gentils nor Christians yet seeking after these main truths can come to any acquiescency For what have they to lean upon in the least degree Satisfactory While fallible men agitate the cause fallible Discourses carry it on and fallible Principles are the only support of all that is or can be controverted Please to se this Argument further enlarged Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 16. n. â—8 whereunto our good Dr return's no Answer 8 Next vouchsafe to cast an eye vpon his 147 page and consider how lamely he handles à matter of greatest importance VVe are Saith Dr Still far from denying all reasonable and just Authority to be given to the Guides of the Church Very general talk Perhaps that Authority must be only reasonable which he judges reasonable But of what Church doth the Gentleman speak here The Arians and Protestants have their dissenting Churches will you have the Arians follow their Guides and the Protestants theirs Herein he resolves nothing but sometimes remit's us to the Primitive Church which breeds endless disputes because we yet agree not what that Church taught nor shall ever learn but by the voice and Tradition of the present Catholick Church Have yet patience to hear the Dr. VVe say that their Authority that is of the Guides of some Church but God only knowes which it is not being absolute is confined to some known rule O this Rule would doe us noble service but the mischiefe is our shuffling Dr clap's it under lock and key like à lewel worth hiding You have it by the name of some known Rule though no body yet knowes what it is or where to find it He cannot in this place mean Scripture for its sence is most unknown and the bare letter as we have seen causes open hostility no lesse between the Guides of the Church and refractory subjects than The Drs general talk of unknown rules enlightens none amongst the Guides of two dissenting Churches In à word If Dr Still shall please to lay down à plain certain rule whereby all dissenting Christians may be brought to one true Faith even in Necessaries he will deserve immortal renown and do more then all the Hereticks since Christs time have done But to perform this his intrigues concerning Some Rule and no man knowes what Rule can never doe his business whereof more presently Now listen well to the end of his Discourse VVhere there is à rule for them he mean's the Guides of the Church to proceed by there is à rule for others to judge of their proceedings and consequently men must exercise their judgements about the matters they the Guides determin whether they be agreable to that rule or not 9 Still we are put off with general words One rule it seem's is allowed the Guides of the Church to proceed by an other if the Layity dissent to judge of their Guides proceedings Yet no man must know in particular what these Rules are Is not all this tattle something and nothing empty stuff without substance But say on What if these two Imagined Rules breed everlasting jarrs between the Guides and the Guided who is to yeild and to whom Or rather we ask what means hath Christ appointed to end these differences by If he say no dissentions can arise either about Necessaries or any other
Age to Nazareth Dalmatia or Italy that slightly mention it Writers and witnesses you have none deep Silence therefore and this Silence and à destructive Negative the only grounds of Protestancy destructive Negative No man though most inquisitive ever vvrote of Protestancy in former Ages are the best and only Supports of it We have often demanded Satisfaction to this particular yet never had it nor shall hereafter have any whereof I am so Confident that I challenge the Dr to Discuss this one particular with me in à Treatise apart and I desire he would consider upon it 6. It may be he will answer the Essentials of Protestancy were carried hither and all the Not one Essential of Protestancy in the whole Bible world over with Holy Scripture I have prevented this Cavil in the place now cited and told the Dr it is impossible to find in the whole Bible so much as one Essential Tenet of this Religion as it is Protestancy or called à reformed Religion which point I also engage to examin with him when he pleases I answer 2. More numerous and far graver Authors to say nothing of Church Authority contradict this phansied conveyance of Protestancy with Scripture than ever opposed the Translation of our Ladies cell from Nazareth Perhaps the Dr will Say The difficulty now agitated concern's not Religion which is à thing wholly Spiritual and depend's not on History as the Translation of à house doth No good Dr rub your forhead à little When you Simply talk of that ancient Faith from whence the Roman Church once swerved must not you either pretend History for your Assertion and tell us when or in what Age it swerved or speak Non-sense Again Spiritual things Religion chiefly are both real and of greatest concern and ought we not A pure Evasion rejected to enquire how and when they are conveyed to us Should now à new Sect of Hereticks arise and set abroad à new Learning like yours never heard of before shall we not demand think ye as Tertullian did Anciently Qui estis vos Who are you Vnde from whence came you Shew your Commission what Authority sent you to preach c These Questions we propose to you concerning the Conveyance of Protestancy into these Parts of the world and you answer nothing therefore you must either help out your cause with this Negative What Protestants are forced to grant No ancient writer ever took notice of it and so by your own Principle make it Contemptible or ingenuously confess the truth that Luthers mad brains brew'd it first broach'd it and poysoned Posterity with it You may say Some Parallel this Machine of Protestancy hath with the Holy house of Loreto that it stand's unsupported or without any Foundations If this be Miraculous or make for its Credit I am content but in passing consider how unlike it is upon another Score The Chappel of Loreto hath stood where it is well nigh four hundred years without repair or the alteration of one Stone but this unsteedy Church How different the Protestant Church is from the Chappel at Loreto of Protestancy in the compass of one Age endlesly tampered with changes almost every year in so much that the old and new Structure of it are nothing like one another 7. Now to the Obiection proposed above I answer Had none within the compasse of that fourth Century after the year 1000 left à memory of this Chappels Translation the Silence of Dante 's Petrach and Boccace would The Obiection Proposed above answered have had more weight but when as Silv Petr Sanct P. 35. notes well Three Popes Benedict the 12 Vrban the 6 and Boniface the 9 much about that time positively maintain the truth of this Miracle as appear's by their Apostolical letters the Silence of those others being meerly à Negative Argument prejudiceth not the cause at all One reason of their Silence was the afflicted and much disturbed State of Italy in those dayes caused first by the absence of popes from Rome who early in that Age repaired to Avignon and made their Residence there full seventy years Another might arise from that long Schism of fourty years to say nothing of the ruin and Two reasons of Some Authors Silence destruction which followed in Italy upon the bitter Enmity between those Guelphi and the Gibellins well known to the world These and some other distractions as Silvester observes P. 28. much lessened the fame of this Chappels translation at the beginning neither can it be any wonder if three Writers in that Age not fully as yet informed of all particulars silently pass't it over when besides those Monuments of piety erected by Count Frangipanius and the Authority of the Popes now named we have other witnesses clear and indubitable for this matter of fact CHAP. IV. More witnesses produced for the Chappels Translation VVhether Baronius proves Pope Ioan to have never been by à Negative Argument or Silence meerly Of the Dr's gross Errours and unworthy dealing 1. BEsides the Testimonies already alleged for the Translation of this Chappel the fame of so great à wonder alwaies continued in Picenum by à never interrupted Tradition where Age after Age Parents taught their Children and Masters their Schollers how and in what manner the Chappel was Miraculously transported and I hope Tradition in such matters may have some weight with our Dr. 2. A whole book was set forth in Print by the express command of the Bishop of Recanati wherein the several Transmigrations of this house are recorded Petra Sancta P. 28. remit's the Reader to the book though as yet I have not seen it 3. Flavius Blondus in his Italiâ illustratâ treating of Picenum P. 339. tell 's you where the house stand's call's it Celeberrimum gloriosae Virginis Sacellum the most renowned Chappel of the glorious Virgin and adds this as à most certain and irrefragable proof for it that such as by their Vowes and earnest prayers sought assistance at Loreto have by the Intercession of God's Sacred Mother most certainly been heard and obtained many favours there 1. The Dr cannot let this Testimony pass without Shuffling and abusing the Author Three frauds I observe in his Answer First he saith Blondus was Secretary to Eugenius the 4.th about the year 1450 à good competent time after the Miracle was said to be wrought whereas Bellarmine de Scriptor Eccles testifies that Blondus Continued Three frauds discovered in the Dr. his Story from Anno. 407. to his own time Anno. 1400. though he lived till the year 1440 ten years short of the Dr's 1450 neither was Eugenius alive in that year 1450. being made Pope Anno 1431 and sate 15 years 11. months and 12 dayes and I am sure Blondus most likely not then living was no Secretary to à dead Pope By all you may see the Dr's pretty clinch About the year 1450. 2. He tells us All Blondus saith is only that there was Ã
Authority boy'd them up or patronized their cause But no such Opposition was made No. They contented themselves with the Angels Chappel which they had under their charge Anno 1626. and convinced by Evidence frankly acknowledged the Translation of the house to Loreto to be most true and so likewise doth the whole Church of God witness Quaresmius C. 4. fine Popes saith he have granted great Indulgences and Priviledges So likevvise doth quaresmius to the Holy house of Loreto the frequent Concourse of People still honour it God most certainly hath wrought great Miracles there and done the like even in this at Nazareth And though saith he the Translation of the house of Loreto may in some things seem contrary to Sense which is fallacious yet Sense of lesse value ought to be postposed and all due respect given to the judgement of the most wise who never called the Miraculous Translation into The Translation never called into question Question Among these wise he numbers at the beginning of his 4.th Chapter Canisius Mantuanus and stiles him Lauilatissimum Theologum à worthy Divine Hieronymus Angelita Secretary to the Common wealth of Recanati More Authors quoted à most diligent and sincere man witness his whole book of the house of Loreto Baronius Rutilius Benzonius and finally Franciscus Alcarotus in Itinerario terrae Sanctae besides many more cited by these Authors 20. By all now said you see the Dr's fraudulent The Dr's fraud discovered and unjust Proceeding when he asks How the Church of the Annuntiation at Nazareth should be removed to Italy and yet remain still at Nazareth by the constant Tradition of the Eastern parts Has this man any Conscience think ye when upon à meer cheat he would perswade the Reader that our Ladies Chappel was never translated to Italy and to his eternal discredit ground 's the Cheat upon à gross errour in not distinguishing between the Church of the Annuntiation and the translated Chappel To take where his cheat lies away all shift and evasion He either makes the Church of the Annuntiation one and the same with the Chappel of Loreto or different If the Same All Authors as you have heard flatly contradict him and there is no Tradition constant or unconstant for that If which is most true they are distinct Chappels his Question is no less fraudulent than impertinent for suppose à distinction of these two Chappels the one may well remain at Nazareth as it doth and yet no way clash with the Translation of the other to Loreto as we have amply proved already Be it how you will the Dr is Shamefully out for if our Ladies Cell where she was Saluted by the Angel be at Loreto we have our intent and if it still remaine at Nazareth the Dr's Scruples of an old house lasting so long without decay and escaping ruin in the The Dr clearly convinced General devastation made by Vespasian are senceless and signify nothing but thus much only that the Dr writes he knowes not what 21. The second Cheat concern's the commensuration made between the Angels Chappel and the ancient foundations of our Ladies Another cheat concerning the Commensuration made cleared by Novaria Chamber found larger saith the Dr than the Angels Chappel We ask here for à further discovery of his fraud what he mean's by the Angels Chappel If he Speak of the house of Loreto and this he must mean or nothing his errour is intolerable as is now made out In case he would only Say that the old foundations of our Ladies Chappel are larger than the Angels Chappel built upon them Thomas à Novaria hath given à full account thereof and told you that the Angels Chappel drawn in à little by reason of an addition laid to the old foundations of our Ladies translated house Non adaequatur to use his words answer's not exactly and this makes not at all for the Dr's purpose yet clearly laies open his malice or ignorance if not both together 22. Ponder now courteous Reader on the one side the proofs produced for the Miraculous Translation of the Sacred house of Loreto weigh well on the other how pittifully the Dr fumbles while he impugn's it You have not from him so much as one Argument Arguments alledged for the Chappels Translation clear and urgent excepting à few Negatives brought against it You have not one Author alledged that call's the Miracle into doubt and though hereafter he quotes some Catholick writers that in his eyes seem to question such and such à Story yet in his handling the present Relation of Loreto he is wholly silent and gives you none but himselfe calling it an incredible fiction Against these the Dr let 's flie à few jeers and dissatisfactory Negatives Ponder I say these things well and you will se how powerfully truth outfaces falshood and must conclude with Petra Sanctae P. 39. Those seem not men in their wits that boggle at so clear à Miracle What saith this Author Will these Hereticks upon the Authority of Pliny Lâ—h 2. C. 8. believe by humane faith that two Mountains neer Modena rose up violently justled one another and again returned to their old Postures Can they believe because What wonders Hereticks own upon humane Faith Authors say it that some Cities in Syria seated upon Mountains were thrown six miles off into à Plain and there remain'd entire without dammage and here doubt whether God can remove à little house from place to place In doing so they must either Question his Omnipotency and this is madness or scruple the fidelity of Authors already produced which are not inferiour but far more Credible than either Pliny or Theophanes CHAP. V. The Dr's Frivolus Objections against the Miracles wrought at Loreto dissolved A word of his other frauds 1. TO insist in this place upon the evident known Miracles wrought by the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin at Loreto or to mention the Donaries offered there as Testimonies of gratitude would be only à Transcription of what Tursellin and other writers have amply performed to my hands In à word Our Saviours own Miracles The blind see the lame walk men possessed with Divels free'd c. have Our Saviours own Miracles Manifest at Loreto been manifestly done at Loreto To relate all or halfe would require à Volume I must therefore wave them and remit you to Tursellin for further Satisfaction my task being only to encounter the Dr's more than Childish Caviles against some few he quarrels with One related by Tursellin lib. 2. c. 18. is briefly thus 2. A certain Priest of Dalmatia taken by the Turks was urged to renounce his Religion but would not still calling upon Christ and the Sacred Virgin whereupon the barbarous Turks threatned to pull out his bowels if he did not curse them both which by no threats he would do but contrarywise made à vow to our Lady at Loreto that if he lived he
for I am weary in following such weightless stuff yet in the next page you have more of it where he blames me as one sensless because I say n. 12. that fewer Motives may serve to induce young Beginners seldom molested with difficulties against Faith witness S. Austin cited above Ceteram turbam c than will convince the more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding to our high Christian Mysteries And is not this exactly verifyed in Luther Calvin and innumerable others who when Beginners easily submitted to all the Church teaches yet afterward when more learned they found unless they tell the world loud lies Motives to disswade them from their first Faith Such men therefore seduced by fallacious Arguments or rather by their own malice should have been better grounded in that one Principle whereon all Christian Doctrin wholly depend's the Infallibility of Christs true Church 15 P. 414. I meet with à jeer because I hold Protes without Princ Disc 1. c. 2. n. 3. That every Bishop or Pastor though not personally infallible yet when he is lawfully sent to teach and speak's in the name of God and the Church considered as à member conioyned with the Infallible Church may be said to teach infallibly An admirable speculation replies the Dr and so saith he may every one in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as à member conjoyned with truth A conjunction with God's word implies Vnion with the Church or every Sectary as à member conjoyned with God's word Reflect Mr Dr is every one we meet in the streets à Bishop or Pastor commissioned to teach infallibly Christs Verities of such Pastors I speak and not of your street men Or can à Sectary be à member conjoyned with Gods word It is impossible for to say Sectary is to suppose him separated from God's word which therefore destroies your Imagined infallible conjunction and makes your Speculation not admirable but ridiculous Again and here is à solution to the Argument more amply laid forth Disc 3. c. 3. n. 17. 19. and before that c. 2. n. 12 A conjunction with truth or Gods word necessarily implies in this present State a conjunction with the Church for without the Testimony of this Oracle previously assented to we have no infallible assurance that such books are divinely inspired or what the sence of them is in all controverted passages therefore to suppose an Infallible conjunction with truth or God's word independently of Church-authority is to suppose light taken from darkness or the last Resolvent of Faith in order to us not to ground it at all But saith the Dr the Question is whether such à Prelate or Pastor may be divided from God's infallible Another difficulty Solved truth If he can what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such à conditional Infallibility whereof he can have no assurance I answer the common received Doctrin of the Church being known and divulged in every Catechism it is easily known when à Renegado such an one as the Bishop of Spalato was abandon's the Church In case of any rational mistrust or doubt because wolves sometimes appear like lambs Prudence direct's timorous Consciences to advise with their Pastors or others more learned then themselves 16 P. 415. The Dr applaudes his good fortune in meeting with an Adversary that mistakes his so well explicated Rational Evidence of Christian Religion Of the Dr's vain applauding himselfe and à long talk followes of hewers of difficulties and water-drawers of the Seraphims feathers and S. Laurenc'es Gridiron to what purpose I know not My hope is before this next Chapter be ended to make it manifest that the Dr neither understand's what is meant by rational Evidence nor has any thing like it for Protestant Religion CHAP. IX Dr Stilling pretended Evidence for Christian Religion proved nothing like Evidence His Evidence taken from Sense in the Mystery of the holy Eucharist demonstrated Sensless How vainly he endeavour's to prove by Miracles related in Scripture the Truth of the Doctrin there registred A word of his Tradition and many other errours 1 THe Dr P. 416 goes about to explain what is meant by his rational Evidence of Christian Religion and ground 's it upon the unquestionable assurance which we have of matters of fact and the Miracles wrought by Christ as à great part of this rational Evidence which is destroyed by our Doctrin of Transubstantiation Soon after he complain's of our silent passing over these things the Schools having found no answers to such Arguments What will The Dr's unworthy proceeding not this man say in points remote from us when in à plain matter of fact he beguiles his Reader with most loud untruths Let any one peruse my last Treatise Disc 1. c. 9. n. 11. 12. In that Discourse of à Heathen with à Christian he will find the first difficulty largely handled and solved where I say the Dr either believes our Saviours unparallaled Miracles because Scripture relates them and then he supposes Scripture to be Divine or inspired by the Holy Ghost which the Heathen denies and therefore wishes that Divine inspiration to be proved by Arguments extrinsical to the Doctrin delivered in Scripture Or contrarywise he proves those Miracles to have been upon the Fallible report of men liable to errour the Dr own 's no Tradition Infallible and this advances not his cause at all for do not the Turk's speak as much of Mahomets Miracles upon fallible and perhaps false reports also Thus the Heathen argues and rationally too not yet knowing what Religion to embrace Here in à word you have the substance of all I then said and I think my Argument thus delivered convinces VVhoever proves Christian Religion to be assuredly true by Motives as obscure as the very Doctrin of Christian Religion is either evinces nothing or makes à vicious An Argument proposed Circle But thus the Dr proceeds whose rational Evidence or unquestionable assurance of Christian Religion is proved by matters of fact Miracles I mean wrought by Christ which Miracles are as obscure to à Heathen and as much obiects of Faith to Christians as the very Doctrin of Christ is recorded in Scripture Therefore he proves nothing Se more hereof n. 12. cited 2 The other piece of the Dr ' s rational Evidence taken from Sense which he The Drs Argument taken from the Holy Eucharist both here and formely Solved thinks the Doctrin of Transubstantiation destroies I then reflected on and fully answered Reas. and Râ—lig c. 12. n. 3. where I say the immediate obiect of Sense remain's after consecration unchangeable as before It is true reason upon the suggestion of sense might well conclude that the substance of bread is there also were there not another Stronger Principle then sense which overawes us Christ's own words This is my body which cause reason to submit Thus S. Chrisostom S. Cyril of Hierusalem with innumerable ancient