These Words Precisely force not on us any Memory of his sacred Body or Blood Present But only Mind us of his Action of Sacrificing in his last Supper However to Satisfy our Adverfaries be pleased A Disguised Prince may be Remembred though present with his Nobles only to put this supposition That a Prince were with his Nobles in a Disguised weed And Would not appear to their Senses but Disguised Might they not well Although they knew otherwise He were their Conceiled Prince and Present not Only Reverence and Adore him But also make a Commemoration of Him Most certainly yes This is our Case As therfore that which we call a Sign requires not A Sign requires not the absence of the thing signified the Absence of the thing signified For the Ark of the Covenant was a Sign of God Present and the Dove Descending on Christ was a Sign of the Holy Ghost Present So likewise a Remembrance or Commemoration Implyes no Necessity of his Absence that is Remembred Finally We may Remember our Lord and Saviour as He is in Heaven absent whilst He Feed's and feast's us here on Earth with his precious Body and Blood on the Altar The Objection therfore is Forceles every way 16. They Object 3. This Sacrament is called Bread Answ But never Bakers Bread after the The Sacrament is not called Bakers bread Words of Consecration Fancy only say's so and no Proof Again 'T is called Bread becaus it 's made of Bread as Man is called Dust because made of Dust Such Objections are Trivial 17. They Object 4. The Breaking of Bread strongly Calvin saith Breaking of Bread is Sacrificing argues 'T is plain Bread Though Deputed to a Holy Vse Answ The Breaking here is Sacrificing as Calvin Himself confesseth The Argument though it Proves just nothing is seemingly more for Luthers Opinion of Bread and Flesh together then for our Sectaries 18. They Object 5. Christ is called a Vine a Rock and a Doore Answ What then Put a Minor Proposition to these Words and Se How weak a Conclusion A weak Inference of Sectaries Followes Is it any Consequence that because figurative Speeches are in Scripture sometimes Therfore all we Read there must be Tropes and Metaphors We know and the whole world knowes also by other Principles that These are Tropes And we evidently know by as assured Principles that Mr BODY GIVEN FOR YOU MY BLOOD SHED FOR MANY Are no figurative Locutions 19. They Object 6. The Cup is called the Fruit The legal and Sacramental Cup Distinguished of the Vine therfore it is not Blood Answ 1. It may be called Heavenly Wine as Christ called himself Heavenly Bread c. But the true Solution is There were two Cupps on the Table that night before our Saviour suffered the Legal and the Eucharistical or Sacramental Cup That 's called the Fruit of the Vine This not 20. They Object 7. Some places of Scripture The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life The flesh Profiteth nothing All did eat the same Spiritual Food and all drank the same Spiritual Drink Answ Nothing But meer Fancy or something Wors can Draw these Texts to the sense of Sectaries The open and plain Meaning of Christs words without Violence offered to them easily Gathered By the whole Context is The sense of Christs own words is clear by the whole context of the Gospel Thus. I have spoken to you of Divine and Spiritual Matters conducing to Eternal Happines But your Thoughts are still on Earth As if I were to cut off certain Pieces of my Body and give them you to Eat so S. Austin explicates this Place it is not so saith our Saviour I spak of that more Hidden Mystery of the Sacrament If Sectaries can prove the contrary let the◠them do by a sure Principle which Being Believed and Spiritually Vnderstood will Quicken you and Give you Eternal life The Flesh therfore That is a Carnal Vnderstanding of my words Profit 's Nothing c. This is the Genuin and candid sense of Christs Expression For it were a Blasphemy to say that his sacred Body Profit 's none I Answer To The other Passage of S. Paul It s an Errour to judge That the Jewes Received no less the Substance The Apostles words misonderstood by Sectaries and Benefits of Christs Graces in Their Figures Then We do in our Sacraments The Apostle Intimates no such Thing But only Saith They all the Hebrewes among Themselves good and bad Eat the same Meat and Drank of the same Rock which was a Figure of Christ Now Pray you Tell me Do all Calvinists Good and Bad when They Receive Christ by the Mouth of their Faith Equally participate of his Graces Or were There any such Ample Promises Annexed to the Eating of Manna in the Desert and Drinking the Wather Issuing out of that Rock as are now made to the Sacraments of the New Law No. They were Egena elementa Barren Elements for so Scripture speak's You 'l Ask Why Then doth the Apostle call the Manna and Water Spiritual Food Why the Apostle call's Manna Spiritual Food and Drink I Answer They are called so not Becaus they Produced Grace as our Sacraments Do But becaus They had a Spiritual Signification And were caused by a Special supernatural Providence contrary to the Ordinary Cours of nature 21. They Object 8. Such ought to be the Way of Receiving this Food of the blessed Sacrament as is An Objection concerning the way and manner of Receiving showed null Answerable to the Quality of the Food and End for which we take it But both the Food it self to wit Divine Grace and the Final end of it which is a Union of the soul with Christ are purely Spiritual Therfore the Way or Mode of Receiving it must be Proportionably Spiritual But no Mode or Way of Taking it can be more Fit or Spiritual then Faith Therfore we are to Receive it by Faith Only as the meetest Instrument Answ The Objection no less improper in Speech then simply Fallacious Distinguisheth not rightly Between the Immediate Cause of Grace the effect of Sectaries distinguish not rightly between the cause of Grace the effect it self and the Disposition necessary to receiving Grace and the Disposition necessary to Receive this Effect Fruitfully The immediate cause of grace is Christs sacred Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine Now to say That his Body is the Way or Manner of Receiving our Spiritual Nutriment is an Impropriety in Speech And to say Again That this Body ought to be Ejusdem planè rationis of the self same Nature with the Spiritual Food it Causeth or That a Corporal thing cannot be Ordained to Produce a Spiritual Effect is most untrue For the water in Baptism A material thing can cause Spiritual Grace produceth grace in the Baptized yet is Corporeal the Corporeal visible Effusion of Christs sacred Blood in his Passion
or vouchsafe to return an Answer He will I hope after a general thought cast on what I intend to prove in the ensuing Discourses take particular Notice also of a few Notes here set down which may perhaps conduce to His better satisfaction 2. Concerning the first We need not to say much My Intent is Chiefly to prove These four Things 1. That Sectaries are Churchles because They acknowledge no infallible Church on earth Yet there are Infallible Teachers and consequently an infallible Church as is Demonstrated in the first Discours 2. That They are as Scriptureles as Churchles and have not one syllable of Gods Word for Protestancy Therfore we treat in the second Discours of Their mangling and misinterpreting Scripture 3. That Their Proceeding is most Vnreasonable in some chief controversies handled in the third Discours 4. We prove in the fourth Discours the Roman Catholick Church to be the only true Church of Christ And there also lay Forth the improbability of Protestant Religion All this is Don to make good what the Title briefly expresses Viz Protestancy is vvithout Principles of Scripture Church and Reason Now a word of what I would have you to Note 3. It is truly lamentable to se how controversies in these our dayes are driven on to nothing but to endles quarrels There is certainly some cause of so long a work which might methinks be brought to a period with less Adoe And what is it think ye Is it because Christs true Religion cannot be made evidently credible to Reason No certainly For that Religion which hath stood invincible in the heat of so many persecutions which hath converted whole Kingdoms and Nations and drawn Millions of souls to it must necessarily appear most evidently Credible to all rational men Is it because a fals Religion cannot be Argued of Falshood No. It is as easy to convince an erroneous Sect of errour as to prove true Religion to be true And Hence I say it is impossible to conceive any Thing like Religion that can neither be Proved evidently credible or manifestly Argued of Falshood The Reason is Because the evident Credibility of true Religion if one only be true in the VVorld takes off from the fals Religion all Prudent credibility and leaves it uttely destitute of Motives founding credibility In a word The euident credibility of Truth makes Falshood highly improbable VVhence I inferr If true Religion be made thus manifestly credible by Almighty God Rational Proofs cannot fail to countenance that which He will have manifestly known Contrarywise such proofs must of necessity be wanting to a fals Religion which God will have to appear both evidently Incredible and Improbable to prudent Reason The Catholick therfore that hold's his Religion at least evidently Credible before He believes and certainly true by his Act of Faith cannot but have Proofs at hand which Do not only clearly evidence the undoubted Credibility of it but also Dash and Discountenance what ever can be said in the Defence of a contrary Errour On the other side The Sectary must of necessity want such grounded Proofs And consequently whether he Defend's his own or impugn's the true Religion All He saith will end at last in meer Cavils and wordy Fallacies You have the Reason Hereof more largely laid forth Disc 1. C. 8. Because God cannot permit in the Presence as it were of his true Religion a fals Sect to appear so much as slightly Probable which ever is and must be inferiour to Truth or rather nothing in the lustre and evidence of Credibility Which is to say in other Terms An Erroneous Sect cannot he made at all Credible to Reason 4. What then is the Reason when the Catholick both supposeth and proves His Religion to be only true and Orthodox that These strifes go endlesly on between us and a few Protestants Scarce any Book though never so solid and learned is set forth by an English Catholick but presently a Thing called an Answer sallies out against it Exceptions are made by Sectaries This They say Proves not That Displeases c. In a word if we believe them All is Answered when God knowes A prudent Reader see 's the main Difficulties waved And very often finds the very state of the Question gtosly mistaken I 'll say my thought freely and humbly submit all I say to the prudent Censure of every learned Catholick As long as Sectaries without a just and rational Reproof it 's all vve can Do are permitted to continue still the strain of writing they constantly follow which is to entertain the Reader with tedious Discourses in general of Christian Religion when Protestancy is that which should be Proved with meer conjectures bare negative Arguments And unproved Propositions with their own forced and violent interpretations when an Authority urgeth In a word with their Guesses and unworthy Cavils seasoned with jeers when nothing els will Doe c. whilst this is Don The close way of Arguing is laid aside They may talk on to the worlds end without fruit to Any but to the Printer only that gains money by their Books You will ask wat Remedy Against this proceding An old Answer sayes much It is When they go about either to prove their own Novelties or to impugn our Catholick Doctrin That we keep them from wandring to far from home and Hold them close to Proofs and Principles these are the Shollers lawes our Rules and Canons Do this and you 'l soon se their long Discourses Shrunk up to little Their large volumes brought to a few sheets of paper Now if they refuse to stand to Principles we must leave them to Fancy And show how they both Disgrace their cause and themselves also 5. By this word Principle or Principles I understand in our present matter a strong rational satisfactory Intellectual light that prudently forceth Reason to acquiesce in a Verity proposed whether it arise from solid grounds of Reason or from great Authority matters little so it be prudently Persvvasive and forceably work on a well disposed understanding Iudges Decide by some measure of it in their equitable Sentences And Schoolmen should not want it in their Opinions But much more is requisite when we speak of Religion wheron salvation Depend's For here a far greater light a better Assurance Surmounting meer Probability is nenessary which cannot be darkned by Fallacies or weakned by Trivial Fetches You have the ground hereof Declared Disc 1. C. 8. Because God that lead's us in this present state to the knowledge of His Revealed Truths not by Enthusiasms or private Illustrations but by prudent inducements suitable to Reason always makes his true Religion so manifest by undubitable Signs Marks and Characters that not only the learned but the more ignorant may come if prudence Guide him to a clear Sight of it by certain Principles We may I think proceed as securely by light enough laid out to Reason in this weighty matter as we do in other great
knowes not the Object wheron it Relyes and therfore cannot be Certain Answer It is a Catechresis or an Abuse in Speech to say That either Faith or any other intellectual operation knowes its Object The understanding informed by these vital Acts knowes if we speak properly Yet if we go on in that vulgar Language significant enough Faith can no more Scientifically prove or know its Object then Science as Science can believe its Object I say Faith as Faith no more Scientifically knowes or proves its Object then Science as Science Believes what it knowes This proves That certainly Believes whilst it Resteth immediatly upon Gods Revelation which is most amply proved by the Preambulatory Motives now touched on Neither can Faith Scientifically know or prove its Object without loosing an Essential Predicate which is Obscurity All therfore who destroy not the very Nature of Faith must allow it the greatest Certainty under heaven Faith both obscure and certain and withall grant as the Apostle doth that it is Argumentum non apparentium of a dark and obscure Tendency 14. You will reply again The Mode then and Tendency of Faith unto its Object is here supposed Obscure and that Previous judgement of Credibility after all possible weighing of those Motives which do manifest the Credibility of this Truth God speaks by the Church is no more but Morally certain Ergo the Belief of that Truth stands still wavering upon Vncertainties I answer If these Motives have an infallible Connexion with Divine Revelation That is If they clearly convince that God cannot but de facto speak to Christians after so many Signs and wonders The Iudgement Previous to Faith is Metaphysically certain However give it a lesser Certainty we must yet say with the Prophet Testimonia tua credibilia The Motives bring Reason to an invariable State of Believing facta sunt nimis These motives well considered bring Reason to an invariable State of Believing in so much That none can Disbelieve without Sin and Madnes Again we must say That Judgement which throughly penetrat's them Evacuat's both Doubt and Fear to the Contrary and far exceed's all Degrees of Probability which gives Reason the Freedom to Alter an Opinion when Stronger Proofs come against it But no Real Proof whatever is capable to Overthrow No real proof can weaken this Iudgement the Certainty of this Judgement though Fallacies may puzzle it Call it then as you please Moral or Metaphysical Evidence it hath proved its own Strength for never Any without it since Christianity began either rightly believed in Christ or Church 15. This Judgement therfore which like an Interiour voyce supposing the Exteriour Proposition of the Church summon's us to hear or like a Light that discover's Gods own Language delivered by Revelation makes the Language once dark clear enough to us Now being thus manifested we lay hold on it and yeild Assent to the Revelation for it self and not for the antecedent Motives And because this Revelation is without Dispute more infallible then any Truth in Nature it cannot but Answerably as I said above impart and contribute a Stronger Certainty to Faith then the most evident Principles do to any Science Vpon this strong Fortresse then Christian Religion stands firm which undoubtedly implyes a greater Certainty then only Moral And I think our Adversaries will say so too Sectaries own a Faith more then morally certain who though They take the Canon of Scripture upon Moral Certainty yet they Believe the particular Revealed Mysteries contained in that Book with a far surer Assent then what is only moral Moral Certainty therfore necessarily help 's to Faith though Faith Instances how moral certainty help 's to Faith ultimately Relyes not on it Thus you know the will loves Good either Real or Apparent yet need 's not to love the cognition which represents goodnes For that is only conditio applicans a condition applying the Object to the Power but no Cause of Love I may also adhere to a Doctrin in St. Austin for St. Austins Authority upon the Moral certain Word of one who tells me This great Doctor saith so Why therfore may I not induced by far Stronger Motives to believe this Truth God speaks by his Church Adhere only to his Revelation without touching on the Motives which serve well as Conditions to Apply that Object to the Power yet want the Strength of a formal Object to support Faith But more of this Subject in another Treatise where we shall show that the Certainty of Faith at least unevident in respect of the material Object is not so much a Speculative as a Prudent submissive and Practical Certainty CHAP. VI. Faith only morally certain is no Faith Protestants have no Moral certainty of Protestant Religion 1. LEt us here suppose contrary to Truth that all Religion brought to a just Trial comes to no more but to a High Moral certainty which Though it implyes no absolute Impossibility of being False yet is so strong That none considering the great Evidence we have for Christianity can without madnes Practically doubt or hold it otherwise then it is most Morally certain Put the case then That we arrive to this Degree of Certitude only you will ask why is not such a Faith stedfast enough and very sufficient to Saluation Thus far if I mistake not some Neoteriks make Faith certain and strip it of all further infallibility I answer A Faith only Morally certain is no Faith and prove my Assertion That wheron all Moral Certainty imaginable Essentially depend's is fallible and may Deceive us That That wheron Faith relyes is infallible That wheron Moral Certainty depend's is fallible wheron true Faith Essentially depends which is Divine Revelation is infallible and cannot Deceive Ergo what ever ground 's a Moral certainty only which may deceive is as unproportionate to uphold true Faith as Revelation owned as Divine is unfit to ground a fallible Opinion As long therfore as the Object of pure Moral Certainty becomes not Gods Revelation which can never be so long Faith cannot rely on it Or if it do rest here it Mistakes its Object and call's tbat Revelation which is none The ultimate Reason of this Discours stands Two sure Principles firm upon these two Principles 1. All moral Certainty may be False 2. Gods Revelation Because it is Infallible as God Essentially excludes that weaker Degree of Certitude and cannot be false which is to say in plainer Terms God neither doth nor can speak any thing only morally certain 2. That all Moral certainty may be false is evident For invent the strongest imaginable as This is distinguished from Physical or Metaphysical Certainty and say what you will within that compas Viz. Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in Being Or That when one in a large Citty sitt's imprisoned at noon-day and hears no body yet saith Most surely all the Inhabitants of this place are neither dead nor asleep
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
the Plea of Possession and be tryed by the Law I Answer It 's a strange Piece of an Argument The Question ought not to be removed from the Plea of Possession And say it must not be removed Vnles you can Show by your Logick That when A Man hath two Good Proofs for a Verity He ought not to make use of both but is to Content Himself with the one only Thus it is We prove the Churches Infallibility by significant Scripture as a Possessor Bonae Fidei proves the Right to His Lands by his Ancient Writings And An Instance as He Add's to His Writings a just Possession So we plead Also Possession in our Case Why therfore should we throw Away this second proof taken from Possession unles An Evident Law Come Against it which we expect from you but Fear it not Sir you Possess a Benefice And can if need be show How you came by it whether it be a Writing or some Thing equivalent it Imports not You have beside the Possession of it Suppose now Any One would Endeavour to Disturbe you or Doubt of your supposed Right You would Plead both These Titles Would you not Answer This and your Objection is solved 17. A Fifth Objection page 628. Lyes I know not How wrap't up in twenty Obscurities It is much to This sense We must prove that there is no other way to Interpret the Law of Christ but by our Church Withall That the Church cannot come into a Possession of Any Thing but what was Originally Given Her by the Legislator Mark upon what Duties we are Sectaries put us on Duties which they cannot Comply with Put. We must prove And by the â—aw For Here is the last Trial with These men that our Church Interpret's faithfully whilst They sit Down speechles as it were in their own Cause And must not prove That their Church Interpret's better Moreover Note also by the way How the whole Question is The Question is removed from the Law to Interpretations now removed from the Law and comes to This Issue whether Our Interpretation or Theirs be more Conformable to Gods Word Most certainly Their Interpretation is worth little becaus confessedly fallible And Therfore Proceed's not from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost As is Amply Declared The proof lies on our Adversaries Disc 2. c. 9. n. 7. 8. 9. where we propose the Difficulty And Prove That One Only Oracle Christs own Spouse which is Assisted by the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture Infallibily Now if our Adversary Except's Against our Scriptures And Reasons there Alleged The Task of Proving will ly on Him For He must either Prove That our Proofs are Proofles or That His Far surpass them in worth And a clearer Evidence And He will find an Insuperable Difficulty in Both. All I say now is Though the Interpretation of our Church were Fallible it is as good as yours And if we respect its Age which gives some Preheminence it may be Accounted much better We have largely Answered to the other part of the Objection in the whole first Discours And Proved that the Church cannot Come into the Possession of Any Doctrin but what is Allowed of by the Legislator It 's otherwise A fallible Church may boldly Err. I am sure with your Church which becaus Fallible may Alter when and as often As Sectaries Pleas. To end Our Adversary Should have known that the Matter now Debated Depend's not Immediatly on the Churches Infallibility for Here is our Immediate Plea The Church was Once true And ever since its first Foundation Pleaded Constantly this quiet Possession of Truth Ergo unles that first ground be shaken And this Pleading Possession be Evidently Disproved it ought to be supposed true still And thus You se how the obligation of Proving lyes irremovably on our Adversaries 19. There yet Remain some other wordy Objections but I wave them becaus They are solved And in real Truth are meer Suppositions and no Proofs Sometimes They will Have Tradition to be Proved which is its Own manifest Proof Sometimes They tell us that a bare Possession in matters of Religion is a sensles Plea They suppose we have no more Somtimes that we are plainly the Imposers And They Not Aggressors And both are supposed I pass these and now hasten to one Objection more solved in a Third Proposition CHAP. XII An other Objection And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism 1. SOme may Argue further And say we have A simple Objection hitherto Supposed a Wrong Principle Viz. That our Errours are to be shewed us Evidently which is not so For it is Enough to make them known by strong Moral Proofs These sufficiently Convince us as Guiltly And Clear Them of the crime of Schism Neither can we have stronger Arguments Then moral in this Matter Becaus Principles of Faith are not Evident in Themselves All Discours Therfore built on Them must Fall short of Metaphysical Evidence Observe in Passing If our Protestants As They think Bring strong moral Arguments Against our Supposed Errours We give Them As Good as They Bring And clear our Cause by as strong good moral Solutions to those Arguments They say the one and we the other Who must be Believed Or Who must Judge here And if Again They hold themselves by Force of such moral Proofs Acquit of Schism which all Sectaries Pretend to we Charge it again on them By far more valid Arguments Who Iudges now Who is to be Believed Neither of us yet For Hitherto we only Talk without Principles Yet the Catholick hath his Principle in Readines A LONG ANCIENT POSSESSION now insisted on The Catholick Answer founded on a certain Principle which is eleven Points of the Law But By what good Law do our Protestants take this Right from him or Turn him out of Possession By what strong moral Proof grounded on an undubitable moral Principle can They convince us of Errours and clear Themselves of Schism I 'll Tell you and 't is a Truth They have neither We would Gladly Hear of Protestants Proofs against us reduced to sound Principles Proof nor Principle to rely on But their own Proofles word If I wrong them They can Right Themselselves and convince me by good Arguments in Form To what is Added of the Vnevidence of Faith I Answer Though the Principles Therof For example the Words of Scripture or the Definitions of Councils want Metaphysical Evidence in themselves Becaus only revealed Principles of Faith once admitted of may ground a certain Conclusion Truths Yet They are certain And once Admitted of as Certain can Ground a Discours which if well Deduced need 's no more to Faulter or Deviate from good Form then if we Argued out of Euclid's Principles Thus much per transennam Now to answer the Argumen Home Here is 2. My Third Proposition Protestants Cannot so much as Probably Acquit Themselves of Schism nor Probably impeach
the Roman Catholick Church of Errour Causal of Their Schism I prove the first part of my Assertion No Probability can Acquit them of Schism when Evidence layes That crime on them But this is True And to prove the Assumption I will not Here Tell Them Evidence layes the Crime of Schism on Protestants How Improbable it is That This Schism which took its Rise from one Discontented Luther and a Disgusted Prince can have any Good in it The cause from whence it came look's like naught And the Doleful Effect which Followed wors Nor will I urge Again How Improbable it is That this one Prince and one Fryar of lives confessedly Vicious can be Supposed to have gon About any Work of God or Piety when meer Passion Hurried them on to struggle Against Their own Consciences Against a whole Church And the Faith of their Deceased Ancestours These Considerations I 'll wave 3. Yet I cannot But Note how improbable it is To Suppose That All those learned Councils which Anciently Taught Christianity All those Learned Bishops Those Doctors Those Religious who like Stars Beautified the Terrestrial Heaven of the Roman Catholick It is improbable to say that Sectaries Discovered Errours in the Church unseen by Thousands more learned and numerous then They. Church for a Thousand years Together Had notwithstanding Their Vigilancy such a Mist cast before Their Eyes as not to Discover Those Palpable Gross Errours which our Protestants have now so lately Espied Say Therfore the Question is worth Answering How came it to pass That our Protestants first saw these Errours And upon that Monstruous Sight Quitted Rome whilst Others As Sharp-sighted as Numerous And learned as They Saw none of them for many Ages Before Speak probably Why for example Did not so Eminent a Saint and Doctor as St. Gregory the Great was or his Clergy so many following Innocents so many Clements so many Vrbans se these Errours and upon the Discovery Separate themselves long since from this supposed Erring Church I would hear their Answer If they except Against These Becaus They were Popes I Ask Why at least Did not so many Bernards so many Malachies so many Bennets so many Anselms so many Kings so many Princes whose Temporal interest God knows lay not in Adoring Rome with innumerable Others long Agoe Desert This Supposed Erring Church and Revolt from it as Luther did Is it not a Degree of Madnes to Suppose That All These Learned and innumerable Professors must either be supposed stupidly blind or wickedly Hypocritical These Worthy Powerful and Learned Professors of the Catholick Faith were either so Stupidly Blind as not to have seen Such Errours or so Wickedly Hypocritical as to Have Winked at them After a clear Discovery I say more The Professors of this Church were so far of from not Seing those Doctrins which Protestants now call Errours For example The offering up of Sacrifice For the Dead Praying to Saints c. That the Denial of them was Positively condemned as Heretical in Foregoing Sectaries None shall ever Probably Answer this Question no more then give Satisfaction to an Other Viz. 4. When this Schism was first made by a few Disgusted men in England Why did so many not only in that Iland Though temporally Vndon for their The Opposition made so Vniversally against this Schism proves it monstruous pains But innumerable more in the Christian World abroad Stand up Against it and Oppose it on its first Appearance as a most Pernicious Novelty All these condemned it as Heretical and Held the Broachers of it for Hereticks Now had either Goodnes Reason or Religion accompanied this Schism it should have rather Gained an Vniversal Applaus from Others more numerous and learned then those were who Began it But all was contrary it Appeared like another Ismaël Manus eius contra omnes manus omnium contra eum as Opposit to All so Vniversally Opposed by All And how could these few Abberters of it When The intolerable Pride of Sectaries this foul Work first Began without intolerable Pride Think Themselves Wiser in Patronizing it Then the Rest of the Christian World in Condemning it 5. Here then is my first Argument Against this Schism A new Sect Schism or Heresy call it what A new Doctrin never heard of before and so Vniversally Opposed cannot be sound and Catholick you will which was never Heard of before in the World And on its first Appearance met with an Vniversal Opposition made by All other Christians who then Lived Cannot be from God or Sound and Approved Doctrin But thus the Schism of Protestants was at its first Rise Vniversally Opposed And is so yet Ergo it cannot be from God or sound Doctrin The Major is Evident in the cases of Arius Pelagius and other Hereticks For the universal Dislike As is clear in the cases of former Hereticks and Opposition Raised Against These Schisms and Heresies were even Antecedently to Their Condemnation in Councils Proof enough against them And if our Adversaries Require more to wit a Council condemnation We have it Also They cannot in Justice make Any more Exception Against the Council of Trent Then Arius made against the Nicene Council The Minor is as clear for all Christians who then were in being Condemned the English Heresy and Schism Graecians Disliked it and do so to this Day Arians Abyssins Nestorians c. And most of all Catholicks oppose it so far That not one will Believe as Protestants Do. So True it is Manus omnium contra eum All banded against this Novelty Therfore it cannot be from God or approved Doctrin Now. That our Protestants since their first Rise have Gained the company of some few Iarring and Dissenting Brethren Proves Nothing For Arius in time Got more and I believe had them better united in Doctrin Then These ever will be CHAP. XIII A Second Argument Against this Schism Of Sectaries Cavils Concerning Errours Entring the Church Insensibly 1. I Argue 2. Protestants seemingly at least Own An Argument ad Hominem against Sectaries a Holy Vniversal Catholick Church before Luther of a very large Extent which comprised a Generality of Christians Over and Above the number of Roman Catholicks This Church was surely that Hierusalem mentioned by the Prophet upon whose Wales Watchmen were placed And were by Duty to Speak in Gods Cause when his Honor was Concerned In this Church we shall Certainly find Those Vigilant Pastors Doctors and Teachers Ephes 4. Who Perfect Saints and still Edify the Mystical Body of Christ to the end That we be Protestants highly Disgrace that large Catholick Church which They own not carried Away by every wind of Doctrin c. Now I Assume But with our Protestants leave All the Watchmen all the Pastors all the Teachers of this Ample and far Extended Church were so Carelesly asleep so Negligent and Forgetful of their Duty For the vast interval of a Thousand
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
to us to be grounded on Scripture In this Sectaries always fail The new mode of Sectaries interpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion Here is the sequel of Sectaries We Catholicks Prove not what we assert therfore they make the contrary Doctrin an Article of their new Faith Faith cannot rely on such Negatives Of the means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture The Holy Ghost only speaking by the Oracle of the Church Interpret's Scripture infallibly in those matters which concern the general belief of all Protestants who profess themselves to be fallible in what ever they teach are no Instruments assumed by the Holy Ghost to teach and interpret infallibly Gods Word No Sectary can judge the Church but the Church is to judge all Sectaries THE THIRD DISCOVRS Of the unreasonable proceeding of Protestants in some Chief matters of Controversy PRotestants who seemingly hold a Catholick Church before Luther larger then the Roman Catholick Church and cannot design it Proceed unreasonably and must falsify that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church Before Luther there were no Christians in the world for a thousand years at least but Roman Catholicks and known Hereticks neither those Catholicks alone as Protestants say nor the known Hereticks nor both together constituted the true Catholick Church therfore there was no true Catholick Church on earth for so vast a time No abstract Doctrin common to all who are named Christians is sufficient to constitute Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet is confuted and his Doctrin shewed improbable Faith in Christ only as a Redeemer is insufficient to Saluation A more explicite Faith of other particulars is proved Necessary If Catholicks and Sectaries are right in the fundamentals of Faith all the pretended Reformation of Protestants comes to a slight work about Non Essentials which may have made Things wors then before It is not the less or more weight of things revealed that makes Faith less or more valued of but the Submission we yeild to Gods Veracity which is one and of equal Authority in what ever he Reveal's Though a Distinction were granted between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Yet Protestants cannot so much as probably sever the Fundamentals from the others by any known Principle If there be no Catholick Church owned at least infallible in Fundamentals all Faith both of Christ and Creed may perish before the world end 's And if there be such an Infallible Church in Fundamentals Sectaries ought to design it and say to whom that Spirit is granted in what subject it resides c. A Protestant who so far Denies Christs true Church That he cannot say where it is and endeavour's to reform others before he have certainty of his own half well made Reformation cannot probably go about to withdraw a prudent Catholick from his Religion Some Propositions of Mr. Stillingfleet are examined His Discours of Fundamentals destroy's Protestant Religion He Speaks of the Being of a Church and saith not precisely how much Doctrin constitutes that Being He cannot name any Orthodox Church that ever Excepted against the Articles believed by the Church of Rome He makes the Negative Articles of the English Church not to be Articles of Faith but only inferiour Truths held only in order to peace and tranquillity His Church therfore is essentially Hypocritical which may believe one thing and must profess an other Though Protestants were very Papists in hart yea and Anathematized all These Negative Articles They may be looked on as Blessed Children of this new Negative Church if their Exteriour be fairly Protestant-like He makes his Church no more an English Church then a Church of Arians and of all condemned Hereticks He saith the English Church makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian world and of Rome it self The Assertion is Evidently Vntrue For no Orthodox Church no Heretical Society no Consent â—f the whole Christian World Ever taught That a Doctrin wherin all Christians agree is sufficient to Saluation When Sectaries Say Christs gave to his Disciples a Sign only of his Body This very Doctrin is either an Article of Their Faith or one of their Inferiour Truths If the first They believe that which never had the approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it self If the second be granted They have no Divine Faith at all of the Blessed Sacrament The Nullity of our Adversaries ground 's is declared though the Church made new Articles of Faith If we speak rigourously The Church makes no new Articles but only declares more Explicitly what was anciently believed The Fathers call the Church a rich Treasury wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is securely preserved The Analogy of Faith is explicated There was a Platform of Christian Religion before Scripture was Writ and the Apostles separated Themselves and Preach't to several Nations Sectaries who seemingly acquiesce in the Judgement of one or two Ancient Fathers most inconsequently reject the Authority of a Learned General Council that is of greater weight and Estimation If the Churches Definitions are therfore to be thought fallible because men declare them and all men are lyars much more are our Sectaries Novelties and Glosses on Scripture to be valued of as Fallible upon the same ground These fallible men tell me my Churches Doctrin is fallible suppose falsly it were so it is altogether as good as this very fallible Proposition is that sayes 'T is Fallible and if which is true it be infallible it is much better No man that holds His Religion fallible can probably endeavour to convert an other though the contrary Religion Professed by this other be acknowledged to be no more but fallible Much less can he persecute Him for not yeilding Assent to a fallible Religion All the Storms of persecution raised against Catholicks are not upon any account of want of Faith but for this sole cause that we will not believe one thing and force our Consciences to Profess an other Which is to say we are persecuted becaus we will not be Hypocrits The Vnreasonablenes of Protestants Schism laid forth from the VIII Chap. of the third Discours to the XV. THe Separation of Protestants from the Roman Catholick Church is as plain and manifest a sinful Schism as ever was Decryed Rebellion in a Kingdom or any Violation of a Countries Right The formal Schism of Sectaries is evident but the Causal charged on Catholicks is no more but an unproved Calumny Proofs brought to received Principles fail Sectaries whilst they make the Roman Church to be the cause of their Formal Schism The supposed errours charged on the Roman Catholick Church by Sectaries are not like the first Principles in nature Evident ex terminis and therfore must be proved by a Discours grounded on certain Principles We Licence Sectaries in their Discours against us to make use of all Imaginable sound Principles Scripture Fathers Tradition or what They pleas and only exclude