Thing And is This your Belief Yes Out with your Bible Therfore And Shew me as Many clear Texts of Holy Writ where That which Christ gave to His Disciples in his last Supper is called Natural Bread a Sign Only a Figure Token or Type only of his Body For This is the Doctrin you say we ought to Believe As I have now Quoted for the Contrary where it is called Christ Body and Blood Though you Suppose This to be the Doctrin We must not Believe Believe it These expressions This is my Body which is given for you This The words of our Saviour are plain and most Significant is the Chalice in my Blood which shall be shed for you are most Open And Significant Language Answer Me with Other Texts as Significant For your Faith or to this Sense This is not my Body But a Sign Only of my Body which is given For you Speak Plainly was it a Sign or a Figure Only of Christ That He blessed Lord Sacrificed on the Cross Was it a Sign or Figure only of Him That Judas Betrayed or that Suffered For our sins No. It was his Iudas betrayed not a sign of Christ Body but Christ himself very real Body and this Body Truth that cannot Err saith He gave to his Disciples Once more I have right to Demand Give me Text for Text or Cast your Scriptures in a Pair of Scales for a Trope Figure and Sign Only and Lay mine now Quoted By Them for the Reality of Christs Body Present And Let that Side of the Ballance Fall where you find most Weight of Gods Word You will soon Perceive Nothing in Scripture of signes and figures only How Light your Heresy is Compared with Truth And that without further Dispute it Flyes up to Fancy For There is not in the whole Bible so much as one Syllable of these Signes Only of these Figures of these Metonymies or any such Language 8. We se Moreover If Sectaries Speak Truth The Conclusion Fall's on Them with a greater Weight then They Imagined For it Followes That Christ our Lord Hath not only Spoken more Significantly and Expresly the Doctrin He would not have to be Believed Then the other which They say is to be Believed But also That He obligeth us to Believe a Sectaries would have us to believe a Docttin contrary to express Scripture Doctrin And by force of Scripture Which Clear Scripture is so far from Expressing That it Expresly Teaches the Contrary to what They Say All Ought to Believe I might yet Propose this Argument in other Terms and Perhaps with greater Force after this Manner If Christ Delivered that Doctrin more Plainly The Argument is proposed in other Terms which Sectaries Suppose to be Fals and Less clearly Yea not at All The contrary Doctrin which They Suppose to be True They who ground All Their Belief on Scripture must either Interpret the plainer Scripture by the more Obscure yes and I say by no Scripture at All And this is pure Fancy Or will be forced not so much to Misinterpret as plainly to Deny the Obvious and Open Sense of Christs own Words And This is wors then Fancy And here by If by a supposed impossibility Catholicks were deceived in Their Faith the way you may gather 3. If Catholicks who Believe the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist Be Deceived in their Faith They may without Blame Impute the Errour to no other cause But to the plain Speaking of our Saviour and most Justly say Si error est quem credimus à te decepti sumus If we are Deceived 'T is you Blessed Lord who have don it You Tell They might justly blame Christs plain words us This is my Body which is given for you This is my Blood shed for many c. You never uttered the least syllable in your Scripture of a Sign Only of a Trope Figure or symbol Only Say therfore most imparrial Judge Wherin are we guilty whilst We Expresly Believe what you To say that Christ beguil's us or that we are beguiled by him is Blasphemy Expresly Teach And Reject a Novelty which None But Hereticks Brought into the World To Affirm that Christ intended to Beguile us by his too Plain Speaking of this Mystery is open Blasphemy And to Say we are beguiled by him is no Less An Impiety The Answer if Sectaries pretend we do not anderstand Christs words 9. All that Sectaries can Pretend for Their Cause Against this Discours is That we yet Arrive not to the True meaning of Christs sacred Words And Therfore They are ready to Teach us Very Good We are content to learn what is Truth But Before they Begin Their Teaching it will be best for Them To Reflect that we have here a Proposition This is my Body c. And because Christ Delivered It 'T is most True Therfore we have a Subject also This school terms are necessary in the present occasion we have a copula EST IS And a Predicate or Attribute My Body Now If our Adversaries will Vouchsafe to Teach Let Them first Please to Give us Plainly the Total Object of Christs Proposition And Say what that The total Object of Christs Proposition it to be declared Predicate was which He then Connected with the Subject HOC or THIS Did He say natural Bread remaining bread was his Body No 'T is most Fals. Did he say by an Identical Enunciation His Body was his Body No. Did He Say that what He pointed at was By the Energy of his Words made Really his Body No it is too plain Popery and Christ Say they never Spoke it How then shall we Learn what he truely Asserted or find a Subject Copula Sectaries can find no Truth in the proposition unles they first abuse his sacred words and Predicate in this Proposition They Answer And here is their best Instruction it is Impossible to find either Truth or these three Things in it Unles They first Abuse the Words And Say Hoc est Here Sitts Christs Body or That this Bread Per commumunicationem Idiomatum is Christs Body or That this Bread was made a natural Body by the Omnipotent Word of Christ or Finally Say To Omit other Glosses And This sense best Pleaseth Modern Sectaries That the Word Est Imports not Is or any Identity between Hoc and Corpus But Renders an other Sense and only Availes as much As if you sayd Significat This Signifies Christs Body Read therfore the Gospel thus This is my Body id est This Natural bread Signifies or is a Sign a Figure of my Body And we are Right We have the Genuine Sense of his Proposition Thus they Teach us 10. Here you shall se a Powerful work of Fancy A work of Fancy And a mighty injury don to Christ. And the Greatest Wrong Don I think to Christ that ever entred into a Christians Hart. To lay open This sin of Sectaries I
Assent and with like The Center of Faith Reverence Upon this Motive of Gods Revealing Word True Christian Faith Relies Mille Clypei pendent ex eâ omnis armatura fortium Here they meet together Concentred as it were in This One Vndeceived and Vndeceiving Verity Do I therfore Believe Christ to be We Believe all â—like upon Gods Word the True Messias Becaus God saith it I must also Believe Baptism the Eucharist and other Revealed Truths when after a sufficient Proposal I know That the same God Speak's Them For if his Word Prevail with me to Credit him in the one It is as Powerful and pressing to force as I may say Faith from me in the Other A further Reason is Because a Another Reason right Act of Faith setled on this Motive is a Virtual and Implicit Belief not of one Article But of all other which the Motive Own 's or Vphold's You se therfore none can truly Believe in Christ who Denies the least Verity Sufficiently proposed that God Reveals For as the True Belief of one Article implyes a Belief of All so Believe all â—â— none at â—â—ll the Denial of One implyes a Denial of all Other And thus Christian Faith consists in INDIVISIBILI And is either Wholy had or Wholy lost which is the True Cause why Protestants have no Faith And must Iumble as They do Why Protestants have no Faith and stagger in their Doctrin concerning fundamental's in Their Doctrin concerning the Essentials of it And finally have never yet discover'd nor shall hereafter if we seclude the Roman Any Thing like a Catholick Church before Luther 5. For These Reasons now alleged Perhaps Some will say That After a Belief in Christ and a General owning of Scripture we must Descend to more Particulars A Reply to little purpose And explicitely Assent to all that Express Scripture plainly Delivers And we will Adhere to the very Words without Dispute If we do so We Admit of all That God clearly Reveal's and Take it upon his Authority without Interpretation Answer Here is a fair Promise of Nothing For Who can tell when Scripture speaks plainly who can Assure us without Dispute when Scripture speak s plainly Both Catholicks and Protestants Dissent in this very Principle Those say it Speak's plainly for the Real Presence of Christs Sacred Body in the Eucharist For Remission of Sins by a Priest The matter still in Dispute For Iustification by Good Works For Extream-Vnction For the Infallibility of the Church c. These Deny all And do what we can to hinder them will upon their own Fancies Force into Gods Word certain violent Glosses which God never Spake You se Therfore That when we Descend to the Particular Expressions of Scripture Concerning the Particular Doctrins of it we are at a stand and cannot go forward For Sectaries will have no Judge on Earth to Appeal to in These Doubts If they say the Ancient A Iudge necessary to determine c. Church shall Judge We are as I told you as Far from Home as Before And as much Differ about the Sentiments of that Church as we do about the Sense of Scripture And thus it ever fall's out Otherwise Controversies are Endles Either we must Drive Controversies Between us to Endles Quarrels or yeild to what our Protestants say or Finally Commiserate their sad Condition Becaus they will not Acquiesce in a Judge upon Earth that as well Ascertain's us of the Meaning as it doth of the very Books of Scripture Without this Judge we may contract to the Worlds End and never be Wiser 6. You se this plainly in that Instance Proposed above out of St. Hierom. For according to plain Scripture if one strike us on the right cheek we must Turn to him the other also We are to Abstain from eating of Blood and Things strangled We are not to have two Coats nor carry Money with us c. None can Deny But that God Speaks These Verities Although they seem light to us Buthow to understand them is to be learned from some Infallible Interpreter of Scripture which Scripture obscure when Seemingly Clear in Words Protestants Reject when all know that very often where Scripture seem's Clear in Words There it is more deep in Sense and most Obscure CHAP. IV. The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants concerning Fundamentals in Faith are Proved Vnreasonable 1. WE need not here to Discuss too largely This Point of Fundamentals most Learnedly examined by Catholick Writers For if we Reflect well on what is Proved in the precedent Chapter There is enough said to Silence All Adversaries and to satisfy every Rational Mans doubts in This Question 2. We Catholicks Speak plainly and Assert Although an Explicit Belief in God as a Rewarder of Good and a Punisher of Evil yea as some Divines hold of The Catholick Doctrin Christ also After the Promulgation of the Gospel Be Primary Fundamental Points of Faith Becaus Necessitate medij Every one is obliged to Believe Them Explicitly Yet withall we say That the Least Article Revealed by Almighty God when it is Sufficiently Proposed grows to be so far Fundamental That none can Deny or Doubt of it without Damnable Sin And in this Sense there is no Distinction between Points Fundamental and not Fundamental The reason hereof Already given Relies upon this Certain Principle What ever God Reveal's is equally to be believ'd What God Speak's whether the Material Object be little or great After the Charge laid on us to Believe is to be Admitted of with equal Certitude and Reverence For it is not The less or more Weight of Things Revealed That distinguishes Submission to Gods Veracity gives true value to Faith our Faith or makes it less or more Valuable But that which set's the true Price upon it is the Submission we yeild by it to Gods Veracity Now because this Veracity is one and equally the same in what ever is Revealed By consequence we Say That Faith upon the Account of that Submission is equally Good Solid and Valuable This I Note in Opposition to Sectaries Faith not to be measured by the Diversity of Things revealed Who For ought I can yet learn Measure their Faith not so much By the Excellency of the FORMAL OBJECT as by the different Nature of Things Revealed Which Becaus considered in themselves They often vary in worth Protestants Think that the Degrees of their Faith may answerably be less or more various according as the Object requires It is an Errour The Reason For as it is certain That when God Speak's to us The Highest Truth imaginable Speak's so it is as certain That He is to be Heard by us with Highest Respect and Reverence whether the Matter be great or Small 3. What is here said supposeth a Sufficient Proposition of Revealed Verities which without doubt are not equally Clear to all Capacities if we Descend to the Explicit
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
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
years Together That they took no notice of These now Imagined Roman Errours by any Publick Censure or Condemnation But contrarywise Permitted Rome to Revel to Countenance Errour Yea and to be quite carried Away with the Slight Doctrin as They suppose of an Vnbloody Sacrifice of the Real Presence of Purgatory c. Only Forsooth one Martin Luther and our Protestants had such quick eyes as to Se Them and upon the sight to Hold themselves Obliged in conscience to make an eternal Divorce from this Church wherin they were Baptized Observe here not only Paradox upon Paradox But also a whole Heap of Impossibilities pack't together Our New men saw These too plain and visible Errours But this large Vigilant Church saw Them Protestants make Themselves more wise vigilant and zealous then then their large Catholick Church not They were so Sensible of the Honour of Christian Faith as to Condemn Them But this great Church was so Sensles as to Dissemble All. They now Separate Spurn and Kik at this Church As Antichristian But That Ample Catholick Society did never so much as put a Mark of Dishonour on Rome For want of true Doctrin If ever such a Mark Note Censure Private or Publick Act Issued out from an Vniversal Church Against the Church of Rome Let them speak And I 'll be silent Hereafter If not it is A Strange Boldnes To make Themselves more Wise Zealous and Vigilant then that Vniversal Church was which Here to their Prejudice They own Becaus forsooth Rome must loos the Title of the Church Vniversal 2. Our Protestants therfore must grant there is no Denying it That Either This Vniversal Church had lost Her Eyes or was more then Impiously Negligent over the Charge committed to Her which was to Teach to Instruct to Reprehend and Crush Heresies as They Appeared Or which is the Real Truth That They find Fault with Errours which never were Now Here Observe an Other great Advantage given against Themselves And How They Honor Rome and Disgrace Their own imagined and more Vniversal Church The Diligence of the Roman Church compared with the Negligence of Their great Imagined Catholick Church The Church of Rome was Vigilant And as the World knows Ever Ready Age after Age to Suppress Heresies as they Rose up and Declare Against Them Witnes the Condemned Arians Nestorians Monothelits c. But this imagined Vniversal Church was so Sleepy and Vnconcerned as to Permit one Particular Church For Rome They say was no more To Own and strongly to Foment Those very Errours And this without so much as a word of Reproof which Caused our Conscionable and tender Hearted Protestants to Schismatize as they did and Bid Adieu to Rome For ever A strange Tendernes of Conscience The tender Conscience of Protestants Indeed which to take of the Guilt of Schism from Themselves doth not only cast an Eternal Ignominy upon this Vast Imagined Church But makes it also Sinful and Damnable For Dissembling so long with Errours which caused at last our Protestants Schism 3. What can they reply to this Argument Will they say This Great Society of Christians had not power to contrast with the Roman Church The whole is greater then a Part and Rome They say If Yet so much Was only Part of that Vniversal Society However If Power was wanting where was A vast improbability That one Luther can be supposed to have had more knowledge and Zeal then this whole Church the zeal of this Church Can one Luther and His few Associats Be Supposed to have had more zeal Then flamed in the Harts of so many Pastors and Doctors For ten Ages Together They may Reply The Church of Rome was ever Held sound in Fundamentals Though not every way Right in Faith Therfore this great Church Thought it better patiently to wink at these lesser Faults then to raise a Tempest in the Christian World not A Reply easily calmed Observe first How These men when They have said much and Proved nothing know every Thing without new Revelations First They know where this vast Church was Though no body ever yet Heard of it 2. What it Thought 3. Vpon what Motives it Dissembled so long c. But let all this Pass My Answer is Ex ore tuo te judico Did this Church Prudently wink at these less Protestants ought to have proceeded as Their Imagined Church Did. Supposed Errours Becaus not Fundamental nor Destructive of Saluation Why did not our good Protestants do so also Did it Hold it safer to sit down Quietly Then to raise a Tempest amongst Christians Why did not our Protestants take to the farâ—e Cours also In Doing so They had made Themselves as well Inheritors of their Fore-fathers Peace and Wisdom as They now are of their Lands But to Disown the better Inheritance to Condemn their Ancestours and a whole Church beside of Errour To make a violent Bustle a hideous Tumult in the Christian World upon Little Causes is in a Their open Injustice and plain Rebellion is undeniable word open Injustice And flat Rebellion I say upon Little Causes For in Kingdoms and Common-wealths where the Laws are without Exception good it is hard to find the Practical Government so free from all Misdemeanours But that you will have Eyes enough to Espy Them and Harts ready upon very Little Feeling to Clamour against Them Yet Licencence once these Malcontents to Rebel when they feel a little Smart and Adieu say I to all Loyalty Civil Government Licence Malcontents to rebel upon little Agrievances and all Government is destroyed is Destroyed both Regal and Other Admit therfore That there Had been Abuses in the Church of Rome as also which is Fals it had Failed in Non-fundamentals of Faith Yet Evident Reason shewes the Schism made by Protestants to be Vnexcusable For as that man Commit's an Vnexcusable Crime who for little Agrievances in a Kingdom wherin He is born Openly Rebels against it So He Commits a higher Offence if for petty Faults He Rebell 's against an Ancient Church wherin he was Baptized Now it was as Clear to the First Schismatizing Protestants That the Church of Rome was the Mother Church that gave them Baptism as it is clear to any Subject in the World That such a Kingdom first gave him Life Vnpardonable Therfore is the Crime of Schism iâ— cannot suppose a just Cause Schism in Every one which can never Suppose a just Cause And thus much not only the Holy Fathers do but our Protestants also Must Confess For to Tell me on the one side That the Church of Rome hath All A Paradox The Church of Rome want's Nothing Necessary to Saluation yet it is Necessary to Saluation to leave it Things Necessary to Saluation And yet on the Other to Assert It is Necessary to Saluation to leave it when it want's nothing Necessary is Implicatory in Terms Yea and Gives Liberty to Protestants to Leave their own
Nor Protestants of Their Schism on us are Vnequitable and Grievous We therfore who Rebel will sit upon the Bench and Iudge so The Kingdom Believe it is to Decide in such Cases and not the The Church is to Iudge in this Cause of Schism Rebel's And so the Church is to Judge you As it did the Arians And not you The Church Your Complaint of unequitable Conditions imposed on you is only an Unproved Fancy begot in your Non-age when you never Heard good Word of Rome Passion still foment's it Sophistry Advanceth it but All will not Do. Most truely That Talk of unjust Conditions The Plea of unjust Conditions only a Mask of an injustifiable Schism is Meerly a mask to Cover an Unjustifiable Schism a Pretense to Defend what cannot be Defended Pull the Visard of which is don by putting you to the Proof of your Talk and the Proposition Appears in its own Likenes Ugly and Deformed 4. The fourth Proposition Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture Reason and Tradition That such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion The not communicating with that Society which requires those things cannot incurr the guilt of Schism Here wants a Minor which I shall supply with a contradictory Proposition thus But there is no sufficient Evidence from Scripture Reason and Tradition That such Things Imposed on Protestants by the Church of Rome are Vnreasonable Conditions of Christian Communion Therfore Protestants not A General task of unreasonable conditions Proofles Communicating with that Ancient Society which justly requires those Things cannot but make them Guilty of Schism Who must now judge between us Or Finally say whether that Major or This contrary Minor carries the greater weight of Truth with it The first is What Sectaries say in this Proposition Any Heretick may Assert and as probably only a Supposed and an unproved Assertion That both Arians and all condemned Hereticks may vent against us The Minor is Grounded upon the acknowledged Ancient Purity of our Church Which Vnles clear Evidence Overtrow it cannot but Defend it self as strongly Against such Calumnies upon its own Prepossessed Right and Innocency As the best of Kingdoms doth against a company of known Rebels When Therfore These Novellists Pretend to have sufficient Evidence from Scripture Reason and Tradition What Sectaries are Obliged to do by more then Talk only for Vnreasonable Conditions imposed They are Obliged to Descend to Particulars And make the Charge Good by valid Proofs reducible at last to Ovvned and allovved of Principles amongst Christians If this be not Don They may Vapour against our Church as the Iews Do against Christ But shall never Advance so far They make Controversies Endles as to a vveak Probability or make an End of one sole Controversy And mark what Doings we have Here. They vvill have no Iudge on Earth Clear Principles Fail Them in every Controversy And yet we must Hear and only in a General way Of sufficient Evidence Dravvn from Scripture Reason and Tradition Against our Vnreasonable Conditions If there be such Evidence Shew it And let us se the Ovvned Principles wheron it lastly Relies But truely So much Ill luck Follow 's them That Their want of Principles only Causeth Proofles Talk you never find a Controversy solidly handled or brought when They go about to Prove their own Doctrin Positively to any thing like a Proof or Principle And They are as unfortunate when They Oppugn Ours 5. The fifth Proposition By how much the Societies are greater which are agreed in not Communicating with a Church imposing such conditions By how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger By so much Suppositions without Proofs What are these Abuses Who is to reform the more justifiable is the Reformation of any Church from those Abuses and the setling the bonds of Christian Communion without them Here is the Thesis And a Thing like an Hypothesis comes limping After as well as it can Thus. On these grounds the Church of Rome Imposing unlawful conditions of Communion it was Necessary not to communicate with her and on the Church of Englands power to reform it self by assistance of the supream power it was lawful and justifiable not only to redress those Abuses but to settle the Church upon its proper and true Foundations So that the Church of Rome's imposing unlawful conditions of communion is the reason why we They pretend to settle and have no Ground to build on do not communicate with Her and the Church of Englands power to govern and take care of her self is the Reason of our ioyning together in the service of God upon the Principles of our Reformation Did you ever Hear men Vapour much What are these Principles Name one Talk much Suppose much and Prove just nothing Here you have them Observe it We Hear a Noise of Vnlawful imposed Conditions of great Abuses in our Church of the English Churches Power to Redress these Abuses Yet no man Knows nor shall ever know by any solid Proof what these Conditions and Abuses are Much less That a few Protestants have power to Redress Were there Abuses in the Church Protestants have not Principles to redress them them were there any such in the Church wherof more Hereafter 6. At present to Answer the Difficulty I will say two Things The first If the Power Number or Largenes of these pretended Reformers justify Their Reformation it 's more then evident That a Far greater Power Number and Largenes of those who Oppose it makes More Oppose these Sectaries Reformation then approve it it Vnjustifiable Now not only Catholicks But all the Christians in the World Altogether more Powerfull Larger and Learneder then a few Protestants Stifly Oppose this late Reformation as an Heretical and Schismatical Novelty Therfore that little Justification which their own Power and Largenes Gain 's to Protestancy is not only much weakened But made Null by a greater Power that withstands it I say 2. This Proposition is utterly Fals and Becaus Fals cannot be Proved Viz. That by how much Societies are greater It is not true that by how much Sectaries are more Numerous and greater by so much more Their Schism is Iustifiable and their Power larger in Agreeing not to Communicate with an Ancient Church wherin They vvere Baptized By so much more Iustifiable is their Pretented Reformation For the Society of Arians which Agreed in not Communicating with the Church of Rome was more Numerous Greater and Powerful then ever Ptotestants were in England They had their Emperours Their Bishops Their Councils Their Churches and a World of Followers Say therfore I Beseech you did their This Truth is clear in the Arians Number Power or Greatnes Iustify either their Heresy or Schism Or doth the greater Power and Number of Agreeing Rebels in a Kingdom against Their lawful Sovereign Justify that Treason You
And in Rebels also of a Common-wealth will Say The Arians Erred But Protestants hit right on the Roman Abuses and this makes their Reformation Iustifiable Meer Proofles empty Words The Proofles Talk of Sectaries For do you not se and evidently That all you Speak to this sense is a wretched Supposition and a pure Begging of the Question And Becaus it is so can either We or any third Indifferent Judge Believe you sooner speaking in your own Cause then credit an Arian that will say the very same For his Heresy O But Confessedly both Catholicks and Protestants acknowledge the Arians to be Hereticks And as Confessedly both Catholicks and Arians yes And all other Sectaries Say also you are Hereticks What Therfore get you by this Reply Will you Tell us next That you are Better at your Proofs against us then the Arians are The Arians laugh at you And say with Truth This very Assertion is Proofles Believe it Though the Arguments of Arians against our Ancient Church wherof they were once Members The Arguments of Arians are more difficile Then ever Protestants yet Proposed against our Church Doctrin are both Deficient and Strengthles yet They go far deeper into Difficulties vvhich look more manly On 't then vvâ—at hitherto any Protestant hath Proposed against us If you say This is my own unproved Assertion I will first Appeal to the Iudgement of any Indifferent and Vnconcerned Scholler for sentence in the case Next if this like you not Be you first Pleased to Propose one of the strongest Arguments you have Against any particular The Grounds of the Assertion are declared Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church One I say and in Form which may at last be Driven to an ovvned Principle And then Though I do Anathematize The Heresy I shall Advance an Other in Behalf of the Arians And if this in the Judgement of every good Scholler do not more Puzzle you in your own Principles then yours me against the Church I 'll Sectaries cannot solve the Arians Arguments without recurring to our Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture yeild up the cause Here is fair Play offered The ground of my Assertion is first Becaus Protestants cannot so much as Probably solve the Arians Difficulties without Recurring to the Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture vvhich they Reject 2. Neither Catholicks nor any can solve them Otherwise then only Negatively That is by shewing they do not Convince But to Infringe their Force Positively Or To Evidence them fals Abstracting from Tradition and The Reason why Arians Difficulties are harder then those of Protestants Negatively and Positively Protestants Arguments are Solved the Authority of the Church which is more the Proof of Catholick Doctrin then a Direct Solution to difficulties is Impossible Now on the Other side Protestants can Propose no Difficulty Against us for Protestancy But we will first Shew it Negatively Vnconcluding And next by Positive Proofs break in pieces the Seeming Force of it For example They Argue against the Real Presence A body cannot be in One Example Hereof tvvo places at Once We Show first Negatively that their Argument concludes not and then Introduce Positive Proofs partly drawn from Gods Omnipotency partly from other Undeniable Grounds Which both weaken and Dead the Argument And thus we Proceed with them in Other Controversies Concerning the Popes Supremacy Praying to Saints Purgatory c. 7. I have Complained all along of our Adversaries Asserting much and Proving Nothing You will yet se more of this Proceeding in some who Think They strongly Vindicate the Church of England from the Guilt of Schism CHAP. XV. More of These Authors Confused Doctrin is Refuted 1. IN a Chapter Intituled Protestants not Guilty of Mr. Stillingfleet Schism The Catholick Opponent Argues If the Roman Church was corrupted in Doctrin it Follow 's That for many Ages before Luther there was not one Visible and Orthodox Church throughout the whole World And consequently during that Time Every good Christian was obliged in some point or other to Contradict the Doctrin and Desert the Communion of all Visible Churches in the World Which If all particular Churches were corrupted in Doctrin the whole Catholick Church was also corrupted I say cannot but Imply a Leaving of And also a strong Opposition Against the Church Catholick What ever this Catholick Church be For this Catholick Society is not a Chimaera in the Ayr But is Essentially Constituted of either Pure or Particular tainted Churches Now our Adversaries say All particular Churches throughout the whole World were tainted Ergo what ever is meant by the Catholick Church was also corrupt and Therfore upon the Supposition men are obliged to desert the Communion of the Catholick Church He Grant's no particular Church was free from Errour They say all Churches had erred It is necessary to separate from all erring Churches therfore as necessary to separate from the whole Catholick Church What Sectaries Reply Tainted Yet more I am Obliged to Desert all Corrupted Churches Therfore I am obliged to Abandon the Communion of the Church Catholick After much Talk and Quibling about the Meaning of one Visible Church and the Errours of particular Churches whether Several or the same in particular Societies of Christians c. These men Grant That there was not One Church of any Distinct Communion from others free from Errours The Arians the Nestorians the Eutychians the Greeks the Abyssins Hussits And finally Catholicks Had Erred Therfore all the Churches in the World consequently the Catholick Church had erred before Luther But it is Necessary to Separate from the Communion of all Erring Churches Therfore 'T is as Necessary to Separate from the Communion of the whole Catholick Church 2. To This Argument They Answer There can be no Separation from the whole Church But in such Things vvherin the Vnity of the vvhole Church lyes c. Novv vvhen men Separate from the Errours of all particular Churches They do not Separate from the vvhole Becaus those Things vvhich one Separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make them all put together to be the vvhole or Catholick Church For a further Explanation They tell us Two Things may be Considered in all particular Churches One that Belongs to them as a Church The other that belongs to them as a particular Church What belongs to them as a Church Implyes the Common Ligaments or grounds of Vnion betvveen all particular Churches vvhich taken all Together make up the Catholick Church Novv these vvhich belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the Essence of a Church vvithout them And therfore supposing That I should Separate from all particular Churches I do not Separate from the communion of the whole Church Vnles it be for something without Which those could be no Churches 3. Here in brief is their Confused Vnproved and This Doctrin of Sectaries confused
unproved Fancy 12. Yet more And this is to Show you the strange Grant what Sectaries would have Nothing is Proved weaknes of our Adversaries whole Discours Let us suppose this falsity of a true Catholick Church in Luthers Days much wider Then the Roman withal that the Roman was only a corrupted Part of that more Ample Church Believe it These men are yet far enough from Proving their Intent For Admit upon the Supposition That the Church of Rome Draws the bounds of Catholick Communion within Her self and Confin's all Truth within Her own Community This is only Her own particular Opinion which Draws no more Confines no more Then Protestants do now For do Protestants pretend as much to have Christs verities taught by Them as Catholicks Do not They Prosess that the Doctrin of Christ is more Purely and less Erroneously taught in England at this Day Then in any other Society of Christians That Dissent's from Them Yes Here then is as much Drawing of Truth to Themselves and this Drawing consequently implyes a great Division from that Fancied And consequently They Divide Themselves from their Catholick Church Catholick Church Which I am sure Never Taught that the Gospel of Christ is Preached most purely and without Errour amongst a few English Protestants Meer Opinions Therfore of particular Churches as long as the General Doctrin of all Christians Stand's unshaken Cannot in these mens Principles Vnchurch any Christian Society or if They can both They I mean our Protestants And all other Sectaries are Vnchurched Becaus all of them Believe more then the General Essentials of Faith Exact of any Christian 13. It may be Answered Though they believe more Yea And particularly hold That Christs Doctrin is more purely Taught and believed in England Then in other places Yet this is not a Necessary Condition of Communion with them No I hope it is a To have Communion with Protestants is without Doubt necessary to Believe something of pure Protestancy Necessary condition of Communion with Protestants Though Vnnecessary for Communion with that other Fancied Vniversal Church and the General Doctrin Therof The Reason is No man can be more a Protestant unles He Believe All particular owned Articles of that Religion as Pure and Orthodox Then a good Papist and not Believe what that Church particularly Teacheth 14. Now Becaus we are got thus far into a Matter wherin I Hold our Adversaries much Overseen I would A Question proposed not to be Answered by Sectaries gladly have a clear Answer to this one Question Viz. Whether after a due Proposal it be absolutely Necessary to Saluation to Communicate with Protestants That is Firmly to Believe any one Article of our Protestants Reformed Faith as it is Protestancy For example Two Sacraments only no Real Presence no Sacrifice or what els you will If they Answer Yes Then I Infer The Belief of that Doctrin Vniversal and If Doctrin Common â—â— all be not sufficient something of Protestancy must be owned necessary Common to all Christians is not Enough to Saluation For now They require more Viz a Belief of some Doctrin peculiar to Protestancy as it is reformed Contrarywise if they Grant nothing within the Bounds of pure Protestancy to be a Doctrin of such absolute Necessity to Saluation it follows Evidently Though a Protestant after a perfect knowledge had of his Religion as Reformed doth both Abjure and Anathematize that particular If Nothing of Protestancy be accounted of as Necessary one may abjure all that Religion and yet be a Faithful Believer Doctrin And Believ's only with a General Faith Common to Arians and all other Hereticks He may yet be saved Becaus the Belief of no one Article within the Compass of Protestancy Avail's him one whit to Saluation If so Tell me I beseech you what a Religion have we Here Shall we say That the Authors and Professors of Protestancy have made a shameful Bustle to bring in a Novelty which must be called the true Reformed Religion And now Hear theâ— Teach That is Teaches nothing Necessary to Saluation Grant thus much and Throw Protestancy A shameful Schism about Protestancy that Teaches nothing necessary to Saluation out of the World Men may be saved without it 15. Some Perhaps will Reply Protestants at least judge That amongst the many Religions which now swarm in the World Their reformed Novelty is one of the best and the Securest way to Heaven Alas We We Ask not what Protestants Iudge but demand for a Proof of that Iudgement enquire not what They Meer fallible Men Judge Every Heretick speak's favorably in his own Cause But we go further and Ask into what Vndoubted Principle that Judgement is finally Resolved or Whether These men withall the Judgement and Learning They have are able Solidly and Rationally to Prove that Their particular Articles of Protestancy rest firmly and Rely upon the Object of all Faith Which is Gods certain and If Protestants can resolve the Belief of their particular Articles into Divine Revelation it will be Necessary to Saluation Divine Revelation If this can be Don the particular Tenents of Protestancy are as Certain and consequently the Belief of Them as Necessary to Saluation As is the belief of that General Doctrin which all Christians Own The Reason is clear Becaus the Testimony the Authority of the same God and the same Eternal Verity as now we must Suppose Warrant 's as well the One as the Other Again If They say And They must say it God hath not revealed in the whole Bible one Article of Protestancy and therfore the Belief of not one reformed Article is Necessary to Saluation It follows That this Religion Thus Separated If not Protestancy is no part of Christian Religion from the true center of Divine Faith Gods infallible Revelation is no Christian Religion at all But stands tottering on Fancy and fancy only which is a great Verity 16. Occasionally I here Answer to a Trivial Objection of others that much Extol the Clemency of Protestants who like Papists do not Excommunicate all that believe not as They Believe Good Reason say I For why should they Excommunicate any for not Believing a Religion which is built on Fancy Could they judge in Conscience or Assure us That what they hold as Sectaries were Revealed by The want of Zeal in Sectaries for Protestancy God Necessary to Saluation or worth Believing They should so far stand for Gods Cause and set so great a Value on it as to Induce all even by spiritual Menaces it is a Sweeter way Then to Deprive Men of their Lives and Fortunes to embrace Their Novelties But Alas The real Guilt of Schism which lyes like lead at their Harts makes them most frigid in Advancing a Religion laid hold on by meer chance and a most unfortunate Casuality Almighty God soften these concealed Harts by sorrowful Repentance and Forgive all Sectaries Their double great sin both
will not Insist much on their High Contempt of These sacred Words Which in a vulgar and Obvious Sense are as Fals as if I should now say Holding a Paper in my Hands This is my Body But This I must urge to their Confusion And wish All to takâ— Notice of it If the Interpretation now made of the Proposition be true Doctrin it Evidently Followes That Christ spoke so contrary to his Sectaries must say that Christ beguiled the whole Orthodox Christian world by the most Serious words he ever spok mind That He Hath beguiled the whole Orthodox Christian World By the most serious Words He ever uttered in this Mortal Life I 'll show you how Christ say Sectaries Before He spake those words This is my Body c. Had only this internal Act or Judgement in his mind That which I will now give to my Disciples Shall be nothing but Bread only or a bare Sign and Figure of my Body for Sectaries Suppose He never intended to make bread his Body yet hear how They make Christ to speak As it were contrary to his Thought I will Saith Eternal Truth Though I know That that shall be Bread only which I am to give my Disciples Mark the injury They make Christ to say That was his Body which really was not Three Things Evident in the Principles of Sectaries The first that Christ spoke improperly The second that in the Moment He spak He Foresaw a universal pretended Errour would follow in all Orthodox Churches The Third that this universal pretended Errour would proceed from no other Cause but from his improper speaking All Churches Orthodox believed the Real presence So Unluckily Express my self by Outward Words as to Miscal the Sign by the name of the Thing Signified and Avouch that to be my Body which Really shall not be my Body But is here all No. Christ intended more in these mens Opinion and Sayd in Effect thus much Though I now Foresee That an universal Errour will Follow Through all the reputed Orthodox Churches of Christendom upon my Dark and Improper Language yet I will speak as I do Obscurely And Beguile Them I know all will be Beguiled Because all will Mistake my Meaning And Believe That to be my Body which Really is not Thus I foresee They will err And the very Emphasis of my words will Cause this now pretended Vniversal Errour among Them Therfore They cannot But leave off to be Orthodox For a Church Erring in so Weighty a Matter Or That Adores a Piece of bread for God is Absolutely Vnorthodox and Hideously Fals. Sectaries you se grant that Christ spak thus Darkly And that by Doing so He hath Drawn all the Reputed true Churches on earth into This Persuasion is a most Evident Truth For there was never Any Church Acknowledged True in the world But such as litterally Vnderstood his Proposition in its Plain and obvious Sense And consequently All Churches Believed the Real Presence of his sacred Body in the holy Eucharist Though Sectaries say all Erred in that Belief I Say All for so Lanfrancus Speaks in his last book against Berengarius Omnes qui Christianos se esse dici laetantur All who are Glad of the Reality and Name of Christians Glory in this That they Receive in the Sacrament the True Flesh and Blood of Christ which was born of the Virgin Ask of all whether Graecians Armenians or of what other Nation soever Vno ore hanc fidem se testantur babere All of Them with Vnanimous consent openly Witnes That they have this Faith Now if our Adversaries Slight so Worthy an Author let them produce but one as Ancient and learned as Lanfrancus was That saith as much for the owning of Their novelty of a Trope Sign Figure only c. And I will be Satisfied 11. And Here we come to the last Triall of our Sectaries Cause Which is to shew you the High Improbability of their new Fancied Opinion And therfore we are in the next Place to Drive Them of All possible Ground to stand on And Demonstrate That The last Trial of our Sectaries cause which is to lay Forth the improbability of their new Opinion They have not so much as a likelyhood of any undoubted Principle wherby we may Learn That Christ our Lord Spake improperly in the Passages now Quoted or That his Words have any other Sense then what they Expresly Signify Which is our Catholick Doctrin CHAP. VI. Sectaries without either Proofs or Principles VVrest Christs VVords to an Improper Sense And vent an Heresy upon meer Fancy 1. NOte first when Christ our Lord said This is my body c. And used the like or more significant Expressions Registred by the other Evangelists He did not only Institute the Noblest of Sacraments But made also his VVill and Testament He Published a Law The Nature of a noble Sacrament Christs own will a Dogmatical Verity gave a Command Hoc facite Do this At least all Acknowledge That He Delivered a Dogmatical Verity Concerning our Christian Faith And did This in such grave Circumstances And to such Persons His own Dear Disciples That the Time Place and Persons to whom He Spak Required no Dark But most Plain and Proper Language As therfore no Man makes his last And other grave circumstances require plain and proper Language VVill Publisheth a Law Layes an Express Command on any or Delivers a Truth which All are to Learn Vnder Tropes Figures Metonymies or such Obscurities Thefe have place in the Dark Speaking of Prophets and serve well to set forth an Oration But contrarywise in obvious Vulgar and Intelligible VVords So much Less can it be Supposed when Christ our Lord spak of these Serious Matters That He Delivered his Mind in Obscure Metaphors Tropes or any such Expressions Vnles as I noted above We certainly Knew by more Christ could not speak so obscurely of this Mystery without clearing all in other passages of Holy writ plain Scripture Then our Saviours words are now cited That Though He beguile us Here with Tropes and Metaphors Yet in other Passages of Holy Writ He clear's all These dark Expressions by a contrary language And Speak's more Significantly for these Signes of Sectaries Then He doth for our Catholick Doctrin Vnles I say such Texts be at Hand Nothing can Force us from that Express Sense which the Gospel most Significantly Deliver's concerning this Mystery 2. Note 2. Sectaries Advance their Cause nothing at all when They tell us that the word EST sometimes Though the particle Est in some Propositions may be Interpreted it Signifies Imports as much as if We said Signifies As when you se a Picture of Caesar on a wall and Say This is Caesar The seed is Signifies the Word of God c. Could this be proved it is not enough More is required for They are Obliged to Show And by an Vndeniable Principle if my Faith Rely on their Gloss
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
1. WHat I would say now of this Subject As also of the just Exceptions one might make against our Sectaries writing Controversies Cannot be Expressed in few words Their Faults and Failings being as they are no less numerous then looking different Faults of Sectaries wayes at once In a word Besides Their Corruptions and self-conceipted Glosses wherof there is no end you have first Gross Mistakes 2. Pretty Peevish jeers harmles things for they hurt no body and give the Printer work 3. No little ignorance 4. Meer Suppositions for Proofs 5. Much unsincere Dealing when They slightly handle Controversies and slily dissemble such Proofs as make for our Catholick Verities The last Defect but this is both remediles and Transcendent They never bring Assertions to Principles nor give us weight for weight I mean Authority Answerable to our Authorities in any one debated Question 2. These faults and many more I have Discovered Mr. Stillingfleet in a short Chapter of a late Writer part 3. chap. 6. pag. 638. Where he treat's of Purgatory The shortnes made me read it for where you have length and little substance with it one is soon wearied To be brief therfore 3. Our Adversary in that 6. Chapter were he would Ieers begin the work say something of the sense of Fathers Concerning Purgatory first Begin's with his Ieers and call's Purgatory the great Diana of our Church And why Diana pray you What has that Dea Sylvarum or Hunting-Goddess to do with Purgatory or Purgatory with Her Well but this Diana He sayes besides Casualities and Deodands brings great Revenues into the Church in so much that she 's grown fat by the sins of the People And which Kill 's all Spalatensis whose Authority is as good as Luthers Confirms the Doctrin Is not this think ye a piece of Profound Divinity with the rest that follows of Hell's Suburbs and bidding Adieu to Indulgences and years of Iubil◠But 'T is The jest is ended enough you se how little the jest is worth I leave it Surely You 'll have him more in earnest now 4. He tell 's us therfore After his quoting the Council Mistakes follow of Trent that the Guilt of Mortal sin being remitted by the merits of Christ The Punishment is supposed still to remain Here is either a Mistake ignorance or both For All know when the guilt of a mortal God cannot de potentiâ ordinariâ punish a sin eternally which is not and some Deny it possible de potentiâ absolutâ Sin is remitted which is an exigency or an intrinsick condignity to Eternal punishment that punishment eo ipso is remitted with the guilt unles you say that God can punish a sin which is not and this for ever It is true an exchange from the eternal to a temporal punishment is made by Almighty God through the merits of Christ Iesus when the due means prescribed for Remission is used by the Penitent And this temporal punishment is to be satisfied For here or in Purgatory 5. He states next the Controversy between the Greeks and Latin Church upon this subject and saith The main thing objected by the Greeks against the Latins vvas this temporary punishment for sin in a future state Sir I must now speak to you and say your Assertion is an unproved supposition And very untrue as will presently Mistakes in Stating the Question appear Neither doth the Apology you so blindly quote Ed. Salm. so much as Probably favour it Mark your own Translation We own no Purgatory fire nor any temporal punishment by fire The contest therfore was not concerning a temporal punishment precisely Considered For The Greek Church never denyed a punishment but about the particular Pain by fire And this purgation by fire some of them perhaps might think though most weakly slackned the Obscurity endeavours of the Diligent if your quotation be true for I wonder why you run to Ed. Salmas when you No man here knowes what Ed. Salmas signifies have at hand the Parisian the Venetian the Cullen Editions with others Now that which I Assert is without Dispute most certain as Appears by the very Definition of the Council of Florence under Eugenius the Fourth where the Greeks with their Emperour and Patriarch of Constantinople met and Consenting to the Latins Defined thus Item definimus si vere The Councils Definition Poenitentes in Dei charitate decesserint c. Also we Define if those who are truly Penitent and depart this life in the love of God and yet have omitted the worthy fruits of pennance for their sins committed eorum animas poenis Purgatoriis purgari that such soules are purged by the pains of Purgatory Thus much you might have read in Alfonsus à Castro whom you cite lib. 12. Tit. Purgat at the end of the Title And therfore when Alfonsus at the Beginning therof attributes Alfonsus à Castro explicated the Denial of Purgatory to the Greeks He must either mean if he contradict not himself that some of them only denyed it or that most denyed a place of torment by Fire For How can He say that the Greeks Denyed all future punishment in Purgatory when He expresly Grants they Defined the contrary Nay He saith more that the Greeks then assembled in that Council published a book Ad probandum Purgatorij locum to prove the place of Purgatory which book was printed at Basil both in Greek and Latin And here by the way you may Observe another fraud of Sectaries who if they find a piece of a sentence seemingly favorable for them that 's layd hold on and whatever clear's the Expression or makes against their Dissembling of Difficulties proper to Sectaries mistaking it That 's waved and dissembled But let us go on You Oppose against the Councils Definition Marcus Eugenius utterly refusing to subscribe it What is it to the purpose whether He did or no Was his sole vote Enough to unvote or make null the sentiment of a whole Council O say you He would never have don so Had all the Controversy The authority of Marcus Eugenius weightles been whether the Fire was real or Metaphorical How know you that but by your proosles Guesses only Besides that was not the Controversy 6. You still go on a Guessing The Greeks indeed say you Do not Believe that any Souls enjoy the Beatifical vision before the Day of Iudgement And on that account they Allow of prayer for the Dead not with any respect to a Deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory but to the participation of their happines at the great Day Answer More Mistakes and Errours You have here as many foul mistakes and Errours as there are words And First tell me who Those Greeks were that Denyed souls the Beatifical Vision before the Day of Judgement Your Indefinite Proposition The Greeks do not Believe c. Seem's to include all And this you must intend if you speak to the
purpose for to say that some few here and there were of that Opinion is no Advantage to your Cause Now to shew you how untrue this part of your Assertion A few of that Opinion is no Advantage is as also the rest that followes withall to confirm what is alleged out of the Council of Florence Ill give you the Testimony of a most Erudite Author Leo Alatius a Graecian born and one better versed in Leo Alatius a most Learned Author the knowledge of the Greek Church then we Ilanders can be so remote from it Sir Believe it had you red one only book of this Author I 'll now quote it to say nothing of his other works Chiefly Contra Hottingerum you would never have writ this 6. Chapter against Purgatory For He doth not only ridd out of the way those vulgar Objections you Propose not one I am sure is omitted but also acquit's himself of far Greater And as behoves a Scholler so strongly maintains our Catholick Verity by undeniable Principles that none shall Hereafter speak probably against it 7. To the matter therfore now in hand Leo Alatius in his Book entituled De utriusque Ecclesiae Occidentalis Orientalis perpetuâ in Dogmate de Purgatorio Consensione Printed at Rome Anno 1655. and Dedicated to Pope Alexander the VII page 243. n. 34. which begin's Hic vero paululum immorandum Declares out of the Acts of the Council of Florence what the Greeks thought of Purgatory The Dispute Concerning Purgatory fire between the Greeks and the Latins fire what perswasion they were wrought into after much Dispute had with the Latins And finally with what judgement they returned into Greece Cum Ferrarae saith He adhuc Synodus esset c. when the Synod was yet at Ferrara the 4. of June The Question of Purgatory fire was propounded The Latins shewed first that such soules as have venial Sins are purged by a Purgatory fire receive help And are freed from those pains by the prayers of Priests by the Sacrifice What the Latins Asserted of the Mass Almes giving and other pious works 2. That the souls of Saints are in Heaven present to the blessed Trinity and there enjoy all Happines Therfore They distinguished three different places Of the just in Heaven of the Damned in Hell and of a third sort suffering in Purgatory till all be satisfied for The Greeks saith Alatius Hearing what was alleged by the Latins out of the Holy Scripture and Fathers said they would return an Answer to every particular Therfore on the 14. of Iune Bessario the Nicene Metropolitan gave in writing the Greeks What the Greeks Answered Opinion and expounded that Passage of the Apostle contrary to the sentiment of the Latins yet Confessed The Greeks held a temporal punishment due to souls not perfectly purged And that these go in locum tenebricosum The Greeks acknowledge a place of punishment though not by fire locum moeroris into a dark place of Grief of Sorrow and Pain yea and are freed from that torment by the Sacrifices of Priests and Charitable Alms deeds But still He said the torment is not by fire The Difference therfore between the Greeks and Latins was that those Confess a place of Pain and Sorrow sed non per ignem not by fire The Latins contrary stood for a Purgatory by Fire All this passed before the Definition of the Council And therfore you se how untrue your Assertion is viz. That the Greeks Allow not of prayer for the Dead with any respect to a Deliverance of souls out of Purgatory pains For here the contrary is professed by them Again wheras you say the Greeks believe not that any More Mistakes concerning the Greeks souls enjoy the beatifical vision in Heaven before the Day of Iudgement Alatius page 245. fine plainly contradict's you Affirming that the Greek Church believes the contrary Although He Adds nonnulles esse There are some The Opinion of some is not the Iudgement of a whole Church of that Opinion but the voice of some few I hope gives us not the sentiment of their whole Church At last saith my Author page 246. After much contention and Delay made by the Greeks a whole day long from morning till Six at night They met again the 27. of Iulij and debates being ended Firmarunt they established this Truth Sanctorum animas ut animas The Greeks granted the beatifical vision to souls before the day of Iudgement ad perfectam pervenisse beatitudinem in resurrectione tamen perfectiorem consecuturas cum propriis corporibus fulgebunt ut Sol c. That the Souls of Saints come to perfect happines yet in the Resurrection they are to enjoy a more perfect felicity because of their bodies when these shall shine like the Sun c. Finally in the 25. and last Session Three things were concluded The first that the souls of Saints are perfectly happy quoad Animas The second Souls of great sinners are Endlesly miserable Now for the third state of souls which they called Medias They voted The last Decision of Both Difficulties such to be in a place of Torment but contended not whether it was fire Darknes or any like grievous torment and These They said after a perfect purgation vvere to enter in the Society of the Blessed and se the very essence of God sine ullo medio that is immediatly To confirm both these Verities He produceth the last profession of Faith which Ioseph the Patriarch of Constantinople The Profession of Faith made by the Patriarch of Constantinople made of this subject in these Few but pithy words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I confess a a Purgatory of souls And He Added that the Greek and Latin Church were not Devided upon any account of Purgatory Finally page 249. Alatius recounts with what judgement the Greeks returned concerning With what Iudgement the Greeks returned Home Purgatory which appears saith He by their Rituals It was that souls not perfectly cleansed are purged in a place of Torment and receive benefit by the prayers of the living as is now Declared 8. It would be a long work to prosecute All that our Learned Author hath of this Subject Whoever desires more may read him chiefly from the first page to the 42. where He shewes first the mistakes of some Writers that thought the Greeks absolutely Denyed Purgatory And with these Sir you may ranck How some Latins were beguiled that say the Greeks absolutely Deny Purgatory your unquoted Authors pag. 640. But Alatius Disrank's them all Declares the ground of their Errour And shewes how they were deceived by the vvritings of some Schismatical Graecians whose Authority saith He Avail's as little to prove that the Greek Church Denyed Purgatory As if one should now cite Luther Calvin or Ochinus and believe them when they go about to recount the supposed Errours of the Roman Church Stulte enim