Truth For all their Ministers are fallible What kind of Elect are these who have Certainty of Grace but no certainty of Truth with it Now if on the other side they hold it impossible That the whole Church may desert Gods Truths They grant what we ask And must say it hath the infallible Assistance we plead for The Reason hereof I have amply delivered in the former Discours Chap. 3. Becaus al the Human Science Wit or Learning in Nature alone can no more Secure a Church God preserves his Church aâ— Sound in Truth as Sanctified by Grace from Error Then give it Grace God therfore doth and will ever graciously prevent it with both these Blessings And as Infallibly keep it Sound in Truth as Holy and Sanctified CHAP. VII More of this Subject 1. BY what is said in this short Digression you se how pittifully our new men mangle the Text now Cited I am with you Always to the End of the World Hear their Gloss Yes say They. This Promise was made to the Apostles and their Successors But in a different degree For it was of continual and infallible Assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of continual and fitting assistance but not infallible The like is repeated afterward Protestants trivial Distinction of Fitting and infallible Assistance when They ask What we say to this Marry Sr I say it 's nothing to the Purpose For you neither declare what this fitting continual assistance granted these Successors as distinct from the other allowed the Apostles is nor can you declare these different Degrees And though you did so contrary to the They still run on in Generals Churches sense you only vent your own feeble and fallible Sentiments without Proof which I neither ought nor can in Prudence Believe To be plain Therfore be pleased to Answer Hath God Revealed to you what this fitting and continual Assistance granted the Apostles Successors is No. Doth any Ancient Council or Unanimous consent of Fathers Mince These Words and Dogmatize here as you do or only mention a Presence of the Spirit of consolation and Grace excluding infallible Assistance No. All is contrary as I could demonstrate were it here my task to prove Truth against you but this is done by others as 't is to force you to prove what your Fancy only vents against it And mark how Fancy goe's to work Christ saith I am with you always to the end of the World That is saith your Fancy He is present by his Spirit by a fitting Assistance But not by an Assistance Infallible This gloss Not by infallible Assistance is your own For neither Gods Word nor Vniversal Church nor General Council nor the Consent of Fathers nor Antiquity ever uttered any Thing like it Grant therfore it be Vnreasonable as you say to put your Party to prove a Negative Viz. That any of the Fathers denyed this place to extend to infallibility I am sure it is most Reasonable to force you to a Proof of your own Affirmative For you doctrinally Teach That Christ in this place Allows no certain Infallibility to his Church This because positively asserted is positively to be made good by a more strenuous Proof then Fancy only You say again Those of your Party only delivered what they Conceived to be the Meaning of this and other Places of Fathers which do no more then prove the Perpetuity of the Church What They conceived weak fallible Men Pray Sectaries Conceipts instead of Proofs what am I the better for their Conceipts Must I change my Ancient Faith for the Rowling and never agreeing Fancies of a few Ministers Why may not an Arian or Pelagian if sole conceiving can do it as well gain me to his party as a Protestant to His who Thinks that the Church is Fallible To that of the Fathers I Answer Their indubitable owning a Church Perpetual Evidently could we say no more supposeth a Church constantly True and Holy And the Constant Truth of it implyes infallible Assistance as is already proved 2. Protestants may yet reply They deliver what An Objection they conceive to be the Sense of Christs Words I am with you always c. Catholicks can do no more and Mark well As the words do not explicitly exclude Infallible Assistance from the Church always so neither do They explicitly include it For Christ saith not explicitly I will be always with you to the End of the World by my Infallible Assistance This then the case stands They Restrain Christs Promise and we see to Extend it too far They we say come to short of the Sense by cutting of Infallible Assistance We Catholicks They say go beyond the Bounds and add more to the Text than Christ Spoke Both of us therfore are Glossers and why is not Their Gloss as Orthodox as Ours Here is a better Objection then any hitherto proposed The Solution of it Ends all Controversies And the Solution might easily end all Controversies would Sectaries pleas to wave a few Self-conceipts and prudently Acquiesce to Reason whilst Truth plead's againsts their Errors 3. First then though I press not much this Point Sectaries have no Reason to prefer their Interpretations 't is evident That we Catholicks are the Elder Brothers as Numerous at least as They and to speak modestly as Learned Why therfore when both They and We interpret Scripture and stand as it were equally ballanced becaus 't is yet supposed uncertain who guesseth better why is not I say Our Interpretation could we prove no more as good as Theirs contrary to us If They prefer Their Gloss before Ours something of Weight beside meer Fancy must turn the Scales and Ballance more for them then us We alwayes ask for this greater Poyse in controverted To these of Catholicks matters and can get no answer 4. Secondly I must necessarily here Note an unworthy An unworthy proceeding of Sectaries proceeding of Sectaries with us when we Produce Scripture Fathers or Councils for Catholick Doctrin Their humor and 't is a a strange one run's on thus First They begin with their Glosses and labor to pervert that Sense which the Catholick owns And if after much Trifling they can Disguise this Sense or Twine it of â—â—om the Catholick Meaning They hold the Work done and cry Victory Mark in our present matter Their Frigid way of Arguing and it is alike in all other Controversies That Text say They The Holy Ghost will teach you all Truth may be Restrained to the Apostles only That other The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith may have the Sense They allow of and no more This Promise of our Saviour I will be with you always c. May exclude Infallibility And when They bring the Close of a Point debated to their own Self-seeming it may be They think all safe Wheras 't is most evident that nothing is yet so much as probably concluded For as They say The Sense
vapour with a few broken fragments I 'll espyed in these Modern Authors and worse applyed without attending to their whole drift antecedent and consequent and think to defeat an Ancient Church with such trivial Doings is so slight a way of schirmishing that it deserves no counterblow but pitty and compassion That incomparable Author of the Protestants Apology learn's them anohter way of arguing whilst he doth not only shew the endles clashing of Sectaries amongst themselves but moreover solidly proves our Catholik Doctrin positively and this by the most satisfactory and undeniable Principles that a lover of Truth can wish for Thus these new men should defend their cause and it is no fault of ours that they trifle it out and do no better We charge enough upon them and could they well acquit themselves they would certainly go more closely to work and answer directly We say and will prove it That that Doctrin which they believe as Protestants contrary to the Roman Catholik Faith is evidently no part of any Christian belief but a meer Opinion grounded on fancy only We say and will prove it that this new Religion of Protestancy hath all the marks and characters of heresy following it which can be thought on not one is wanting for if Arius of old who quited the ancient Roman Church and banded against it was upon that account both schismatick and heretick our Sectaries are in eâdem nave and have done so their cause and case in other matters is the very same 2. As Arius stood all alone at his first rise opposite to the rest of Christians and was opposed by all so were they also both opposite and opposed by all 3. As he began without commission to broach his Novelties against the ancient Faith so are they as wholy uncōmissioned to preach Theirs And here we give them matter enough to work on and conjure them to produce their commission 4. As Arius supported by secular power vented what ever he pleased without curb or any superiour law to check him and therfore fell into desperate Extravagancies so are our new men lawles also and submit to none but their own fancy and self-judgement Finally as Arius without warrant of the Church interpreted Scripture as his own weak reason taught him just so do our Sectaries here only is the difference That he had a plausible sound of Scripture-words for his heresy Protestants have neither sound nor syllable nor sense through the whole Bible for one article of Protestancy as Protestancy This I shall make good hereafter Here is charge enough drawn up against them but by what satisfactory known and received Principles which force reason to acquiesce and we make a search after these they can acquit themselves or rationally answer is a heavy difficulty I 'll tell you in a word and remember it they shall never answer by any thing that hath the look of a rational proof or a received Principle No Their own sole proofles word wheron the whole machin of Protestancy is built upholds what ever they teach They have no more They say 't is true they left the ancient Roman Church because it left it self but yet stick close to the Primitive Doctrin Observe it They are here both Accusers of us and Iudges in their own cause Their proofles word doth all without reducing it to any known or certain owned Principle Not one Council not one Canon no ancient Tradition no consent of Fathers can they produce wherby particular men are lycensed to rise up against an Ancient Mother Church and condemn it of false Doctrin They will tell you that they stood all alone when Luther rose up yet taught forsooth the true Gospel of Iesus Christ and we must believe them Here is the last Propositio quiescens They say so To what we charge against their uncommissioned Authority to preach as they did you have the like uncommissioned answer The Lord sent them abroad and the Truth they taught secures them But of these weak wordy replyes I have said to much in this short Digression Let us now retourn to Mr. Poole And I must say all he hath vented in his Nullity or Appendix against us comes to no more but to a most weak assault of a feeble Adversary for this man who endeavorus to prove that both Church and Councils and what else you can mention are fallible can never assume to himself or tye to any Community he joyns with the Spirit of Infallibility For if the infallibility of the Church of Rome must down down say I also with the infallibility of the Protestant Church of the Grecian Church and of all other societies of Christians With some of these Mr. Poole is listed and therfore I cannot but hold him and his Adherents men of no more then of a fallible Religion Hence I argue Suppose which is utterly false that the Church or all Churches all Councils all Fathers are fallible and that Christian Religion as it is taught by these is likewise fallible Admit also that I were to embrace one of these many fallible Religions which I shall never do will not prudence dictate if I have no other certainty then these meer uncertainties to rely on that it is better to hold where I am and stick to my ancient Religion glorious with innumerable Martyrs Doctors Confessors c. then to give up my Faith to Mr. Pooles post-nate fallible Religion and false discours How therfore can this man so much as once endeavour to draw me or any of my more ancient and universal Religion though supposed fallible to another new one which lyes sick of the same disease totters and reel's as much as mine if not more and in a word is fallible Of two evils the lesse is to be chosen It is an evil without doubt to have no Religion certain yet if I were to choose one of two uncertain Religions and could by no certain Teacher learn which of them is worse being both naught I would either pitch where I list and as my fancy lead's me or rather choose none at all knowing wel that a ruin of all Faith followes the renouncing of certainty in Religion But of this more hereafter In the interim I would know of Mr. Poole whether this strange and unheard of Proposition Christian Religion as it is taught and delivered by all Pastors Doctors c. is fallible be subjectively in him that speak's it an infallible Assertion or fallible If the first we have an English Pope I mean Mr. Poole who without either Scripture Church or Council can speak infallibly in matters of Faith If that formal Proposition be fallible it fall's of it self without further proof to nothing and renders this sense I. M. P. say by a fallible Assertion that Christian Religion is fallible which feeble Assertion and the weaker it is the worse it is for him cannot at all startle me or any who upon the Authority of thousands more learned than he to say no more hold one
Religion and but one only certain and infallible Perhaps he will say that though his Proposition be fallible yet it is highly probable against the pretended Infallibility of the Roman Church no other society of Christians laying claim to infallibility Mark by the way what this Adversary drives at It is to tell the world a word of comfort viz. That Christ Iesus hath now no certain and infallible Religion taught or learned in the whole Christian world And to make this most fallible and false Proposition good he back 's it by another of his own as false and fallible viz. It is at least highly probable that the Church of Rome is fallible Pray you on what leggs doth this high supposed probability stand I 'll tell you it stands only on Mr. Pooles weak thoughts and unwarranted word more you have not For never did any ancient Council or universal Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers hold it a thing highly probable that either Christian Religion or the Catholik Church of Rome is fallible Doth the Scripture favour any where this wild Assertion No not one syllable is found to that purpose we have texts enough to the contrary some I shall quote on a fitter occasion You will ask what then is it that Mr. Pooles proves against us in the fourth Chapter of his Nullity I answer just nothing His whole strain is thus After much tampering with those convincing places of holy Scripture usually alledged for the Churches Infallibility and spoiling all with his fallible fancies he goes negatively to work and tell 's us Such and such texts turned out of their genuine sense by his glosses come not home nor prove any Church infallible and it is no wonder for as perverted by him they are none of Gods Scripture but his own scribled whimsies Take here one instance for many that text of S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. 15. where the Church is stiled the pillar and ground of Truth seem's plain enough open and significant for the Catholik sense Now comes Mr. Poole with his glosses page 86. and saith perhaps here may be an Ellipsis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be writ for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if so Timothy was the pillar not the Church Again The Church here spoken of may be that wherin Timothy was placed not the Roman 3. The term of pillar notes the solidity not the infallibility of the Church 4. It may note the Churches Duty not her practise with a long c. Observe wel Vpon these wretched fallible suppositions Mr. Poole seem's to conclude that those words are unconcluding for the Infallibility of any Christian society Put I ask by what Authority must I suppose his Ellipsis or that the Church spoken of was Timothy's Church not the Vniversal That the term pillar notes not the Infallibility c Doth God speak thus in Scripture or rather doth not Mr. Poole vent these wild Fancies without Scripture or any unquestioned Authority This later is most evident And can he think by such farfetcht glosses either to rob the Apostle of his plain obvious sense or to make me believe that his guesses hit right on Gods true meaning delivered in this text If he reply the meaning may be as he guesses I answer and it may not be as he guesses Who is here to judge between us Who can tell me that Mr. Pools May be is a prop sure enough to build my faith upon He is therfore to show positively by a Propositio quiescens that is by some cogent proof and undoubted Authority that S. Pauls words must be understood as he glosses and consequently is obliged to make good some one of these desperate Propositions Christ Iesus hath now no infallible Religion taught or learned in the Christian world All Christian Societies are fallible That holy and universal Church mentioned in the Creed is fallible c. But to wave such proofs to lay hold on a Text in Scripture and torture it as he pleaseth and after the misusage to tell us the Text proves nothing is only to sport with Gods Word and say that Scripture made no Scripture by whole heaps of fallible glosses is proofles The foundation is good but the superstructure is naught Give me the strongest place in Scripture for any Article of Christian faith I can by pidling at the Text with unevidenced glosses both so pervert and poyson the words that at last they speak haeresy Yet on such unproved conjectures Protestant Religion stands and can never have better footing while Gods unwritten Word is rejected and no infallible Teacher is allowed of that learn's us Truth One word more and I end Had those two Gallants Luther and Calvin when they took upon them to reform the darkned world of Popery thus allarm'd their Hearers My Masters We Preach indeed a new Gospel upon the best conjectures we are able but you must know that all we say is fallible How sick would such a saying have made the strongest stomack amongst them For if fallible if uncertain Doctrin it was none of Christ Iesus Doctrin and therfore stood in need of a more pure refining And how know our Protestants but that yet a new sort of People may start-up and make it their task to reform all the fallible Reformers that have troubled the world since Luthers dayes Had I no other just exception against our Protestants but thus much only That they yet know not where about They are in their reformation and because fallible can never know whether for example the thing they have in hand be yet a meer Embrio of Religion or of a more perfect shape a new layd egg or a hatcht chicken whether they themselves are yet only Novices Proficients or Masters in the trade of Reformation I say were there no more This alone would fright me from ever being Protestant Believe it the Professors of an uncertain and endles reformable Religion shall never come to settlement till they renounce the cheat and Believe as the Apostle teaches ad Gal. 1. 8. Licet nos c. Altough we or Angel from heaven preach otherwise to you then we have preached to you let him be accursed which is fully to say Believe him not And here by the way observe how destructive these words are of an uncertain and fallible teaching in matters of Religion for admit which Mr. Poole grants that all Christian Communities all Councils all Fathers all Tradition c. deliver only Fallible Doctrin that is Doctrin lyable to errour I only may not but am obliged to disbelieve this Truth of S. Paul and believe him or an Angel sent from heaven if either of them preached contrary to this fallible Learning Why Doctrin that is fallible may be false but the preaching of an Angel sent from heaven cannot be false and therfore is more certain then Christian Doctrin that may be false But I am obliged to quit the lesse certain Doctrin for the most certain preaching of an Angel
can be proved by Scripture Again No man call's into doubt the Objective Verities contained in Scripture known as such But here is the difficulty whether the new invented Interpretations made on Scripture by Sectaries be true or false and if false They have no Infallible Oracle to amend the Errour as the Catholick Teacher hath 5. I answer secondly S. Paul methinks layes foundation enough to solve the Objection Rom. 10. 15. How shall They preach unles they he sent Why therfore may we not assert That every Catechist every Preacher that hath a lawful Mission and is sent by the Infallible Church to preach Christs sacred Doctrin if he preach that Doctrin which Christ and his Church approves of is then under that Notion of a Member conjoyned with an Infallible Church Infallible in his Teaching Though all vulgar taught Doctrin is not such Now Ministers who are unsent men and therfore divorced from this infallible Moral Body cannot but talk as they do Fallibly 6. I would not have any to mistake my meaning Know therfore first I do not say That this or that Pastor purely considered as a Pastor is infallible in all he Teaches Nor secondly That either Councils assembled or particular Bishops are by any intrinsick inherent quality elevated to a state of Insallibility But thirdly I affirm That God who according to Christs promise will ever guide his Church in Truth cannot permit All the Pastors and Teachers in it to swerve from Carholick Doctrin For if so The whole Catholick Church might erre which is contrary to Pastors lawfully sent teach Infallible Doctrin infallibly Christs promise Hence I say fourthly Every Bishop or Pastor though not Personally infallible yet when he is sent to preach Christs Doctrin and complies with his Duty That is when he Teaches Nothing but what he hath commission to teach in the Name of God and his Church such a man I say considered as a nember conjoyned with an Infallible Church in the Delivery of Christs Verities may be sayd to teach infallibly For upon this supposition he doth not only speak Truth as it were by chance An Haeretick may do so But more as he speak's in the name of God and his Church He teaches as the Church teacheth that is infallibly The Reason is Manifest in Catholick Principles Because the Holy Ghost ever Assists some Pastors in the Catholick Church to teach true Christian Doctrin and 't is as certain that Those he Assists teach it infallibly Therfore a Pastor Prelate or Bishop that Delivers Christs Doctrin as is now declared teaches Infallibly You will say This Pastor or that Bishop may trough malice ignorance Objections answered or both swerve from Truth I grant it but then he teaches not as one of Gods Ministers not complies with his Mission You will say again Thus much at least followes out of this Principle That a Bishop when he Teaches as lawfully sent is at that instant as infallible as the Pope when he Defines in Council or to speak in Mr. Pooles homely language hath a Pope in his belly I answer Every faithful Bishop may have as Infallible Faith as the Pope what wonder is it therfore if when he Teaches as both Pope and the Church teach he be then sayd to Teach infallibly Yet there is a great Disparity between the Pope and particular Pastors Bishops c. For no particular Bishop can make any new Declarations of Faith obligeing all Christians to believe The Pope with a Council can do so No particular Bishop precisely considered as such is infallible For he may Teach to day as one lawfully sent and to morrow erre by ignorance yea and Malice also But the Pope considered as Pope and Christs Vicar on Earth can never Define in Councils but Infallibly and therfore his Assistance is in a higher measure certain and supereminently Infallible 7. The last ground of this Doctrin which great Devines The whole Church consisting of Pastors c. is infallible assert is That the whole Church of Christ which consists of Pastors and Hearers of Teachers and Learners Antecedently to Pope and Council Conciliarily assembled together is infallible For the Promises of Christ ever Assisting the Church Primarily belong to this whole moral Body which cannot erre Against this Church Hell gates shall never prevail with it The Spirit of Truth shall re main foor ever c. Now this Infallibility cannot but remain and stand fast in the members of this mystical Body not in Pastors only for it avails little that These teach infallibly if none learn their infallible Doctrin nor in Hearers only because they learn not infallible Doctrin without a Teacher Infallibility then accompanies both Pastors and Hearers How Pastors and Hearers are infallible As therfore These believing Hearers conjoyned in Faith with this infallible Church are under That notion infallible no Catholick can deny it so likewise these Believing Pastors as conjoynd in Doctrin with this unerring Church and Teaching what the Church Teaches under that notion are infallible in their Doctrin Yet as I now intimated there is a great Difference between the Representative Church of a Pope and Council lawfully and Conciliarily assembled and particular Pastors Particular Christians and Particular Churches For the Representative Particular Pastors may erre Church because of the powerful Assistance of the Holy Ghost cannot swerve from Truth in its Definitions but this Pastor that Teacher that Particular Church may swerve altogether cannot though under the notion of a Pastor sent to teach the Infallible Doctrin of Christ and his Church he Teaches infallibly Separate him from this moral Body he looseth Assistance and cannot but teach Fallibly though he speak Truth by chance consequently he is none of Christs Teachers for Christ never impowred any to teach Fallible Doctrin that may be false You will say separate a Minister from the Truth of the Gospel and he is also no Teacher Alas he separat's himself For he hath no Mission to preach as he doth and moreover Professeth that he can teach nothing infallibly But of this more afferward In the interim 8. To cut of all reply to the Argument I propose it thus No man that is by nature lyable to errour or wants God's special Divine Assistance in his teaching and Positively renounceth all infallible Societies of Christian Teachers can teach with certainty Christs Infallible Doctrin But all men now at least in being are by nature lyable to errour want this special Assistance in their Teaching and must as Mr. Poole will have it positively renounce all infallible Societies of Christian Teachers Therfore no man can Teach with certainty or deliver the Infallible Doctrin of Christ The Major is evident For he who by nature is lyable to errour and hath not infallible Men wanting infallible Assistance to teach cannot deliver Christs Doctrin infallibly Assistance to Teach infallibly or wants the Guidance of an infallible Society to Direct him may as easily erre and
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
of these Places now cited May be as Protestants understand The bare Saying of Sectaries stand's for no proof so I say The contradictory Proposition is every whit as good The Sense May be as Catholicks understand Who must Therfore whilst we are Both yet supposed to stand as it were on equal Terms Determine what God hath absolutely Revealed in these Scriptures I say absolutely For the question here is not what a Particular man may Imagin God to have Spoken But what He hath de facto Spoken The Reason hereof is clear Because God Speak's not in so weighty a Matter as this is to Try mens Wits or to Hear Them tell him Lord such may be the Sense of your words Faith relies not on what private men think God hath revealed Though I cannot say what it is Nor can our Faith Rely on what we only Think He may have Spoken But on what He hath actually Revealed And we have means thanks be to God To know this Absolute Sense as I shall declare in the 9. Chapter where the Objection is fully solved 5. In the mean time be pleased to reflect first That Protestants Glosses as iniurious to Gods Word as Those of the Arians when meer Fallible men Peremptorily put upon Scripture a Sense which They cannot so much as probably prove But by their own Erring guesses only to be the true meaning of the Holy Ghost and this in a matter which Highly concerns Saluation They plainly Injure Gods Sacred Word Protestants are these fallible men and do so Ergo they injure Gods Word The first Proposition is clear in the Case of Arians who Becaus They peremptorily give a Sense to those Scriptures which relate to the Real Vnity of Three Persons in one Divine Essence the matter is of High importance and cannot prove it But by the force of Their Erring Guesses only They wrong both God and his Word The second Proposition is as Evident For The Proof Protestants absolutely say The Scriptures now cited include not yea positively exclude a perpetual infallibility allowed the Church This sense and 't is a Point of highest Importance For the clearing of it End 's all Controversies they cannot prove But by their own Erring guesses only And therfore injure Scripture in saying God hath spoken that which cannot be so much as probably proved was Spoken 6. Reflect 2. It is not enough that Sectaries tell us upon their own fallible Parole That our Places of Sectaries come not home to the difficulty Scripture May be interpreted as they please or come not home to prove the Churches Infallibility For Admit thus much Gratis They yet convince nothing Because it is one thing to say and God knows only to say it our alleged Scriptures for example that of St. Paul The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth prove To say we prove not our Doctrin is not to say They prove the contrary not a Church Infallible and a quite other positively to Teach and prove it to be Fallible The most they can infer out of thiâ— Negative Such places prove not were all granted they desire is that They give the slip to so many Texts of Scripture or infringe so much force of our Proofs Alas This only is to pull as it Their weak endeavour is to pull down not to build up the Machin of their new Doctrin were so much of a House down But it doth not therfore follow that They positively give in as good Texts to the contrary Sense or Build up the Structure of their new Doctrin concerning the Churches Fallibility To pull down one Proof is not to destroy all we can say we have more Strings to our Bow then one much les is it to build up an opposite Doctrin The Machin these Sectaries would fain build lyes in this one positive Assertion The whole Church is Fallible This say I Fancy only Erect's For it stands unprop't Fancy doth all with them That is it neither is nor can nor shall ever be positively proved And hence 7. Reflect 3. If Protestants who rely totally on Scripture Proof Positively Assert as They do That the whole Church is Fallible They are obliged both in Conscience and all Law of Disputation to prove what They say For Asserenti incumbit probatio Observe my reason When Luther and Sectaries came amongst us and troubled the world They heard the voice of a whole Ancient Church against them owning the infallible Assistance of Gods Directing Spirit for which we now argue The Church pleaded thus Olim possideo prior possideo This Spirit of infallibility I long since have had and yet upon Scripture proof do Believe Well Now enter these Sectaries They first reject Church Authority and then make Scripture speak as Fancy pleases and first Reject the Authority of this Ancient Church next They fall abord with our Scriptures And becaus they are good at Guessing They tell us Verily These Scriptures seem not to prove a Church Infallible Becaus They are able to interpret all to a contrary Sense To this we have Answered Their seeming is no proof Withall That Catholicks as Many and Learned as They both can and do interpret them otherwise Hitherto therfore their cause is nothing Advanced More then is necessary And it is That whilst They positively establish a new coyned Doctrin of a whole Christian Church fallible contrary to what Antiquity ever owned I say 't is necessary That they bring some Positive proof and make good Their unheard of Assertion 8. And here we may have plain dealing if Sectaries Protestant have no Text of Scripture against an Infallible Church please Turn then to your Bible Gentlemen and shew me any Text like this The whole Church of Christ is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The Holy Ghost will not ever Teach it all Truth God hath placed Pastors and Doctors in his Church But such as may suffer us to be carried away with every wind of fals Doctrin c. Such Expressions we read in our Bible for the contrary Verity Have you any thing like them in yours to prove your opposite Asserted Doctrin I say any like them For I Press not to have from you the same Formal Words But will be content with one plain significant Text and we will stand to Scripture Or if Scripture please you not we will accompany you to Councils and Fathers which so much as Meanly makes the whole Church of Christ Fallible Such a Scripture I tell you once more you cannot produce Ergo you only vent your Fancies you talk and prove not you believe a Doctrin which you cannot show was ever Revealed in Gods Word You may perhaps trifle it out and Tell us as you are wont to do of our errors de facto It is nothing to the purpose For What we desire of Sectaries we enquire not here after your proofles Assertions They are Answered a hundred times over nor ask what
recurr to an Invisible Society of such men now as well exploded by later Protestants as Catholicks 7. A fifth Objection flow's from the pen of a Late Mr. Stillingfleet Writer after this manner Cannot you conceive that there should be a Number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility If not saith he I 'll help your Vnderstanding a little Suppose And it 's only a Supposition That all the members of the Roman Church should be destroyed in one Age do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches sound at least in the Belief of Fundamentals without Infallibility I have answered already No. And given my Reason Becaus a Church A Church separated from Divine Assistance cannot persist stable divorced from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost is pulled from the Center of Truth which supports it and consequently the Doctrin of it must needs reel and totter now as is supposed to rely on no firmer a Hold then on mans unsteedy fallible Reason or on a Testimony meerly Humane and therfore Uncertain Neither have we without this Assistance more Security Without Infallible Assistance no security of fundamentals of true Belief in Matters called Fundamental then others As is clear in condemned Arians who no sooner left the Church directed by this Spirit of Truth But Errours followed them in points most Fundamental And yet like black Ghosts do and will haunt them without Repentance to the Worlds End 8. Before we end this matter I have one Question to propose It is Whether If all the Ancient Fathers A Question proposed to Sectaries that ever lived Had plainly interpreted Scriptures as the Roman Catholick Church now interpret's them contrary to Protestants They would then Disavow Their own Glosses And submit to the undeniable Authority of so many worthy Fathers Might Reason or Religion set one unlucky Adversary aside called Prejudice make the Answer Sectaries would say Yes And do so were The unanimous consent of Fathers against them Grant thus much And say boldly The Authority of The whole Antecedent The Authority of a whole Church more weighty then that of Fathers and this present Roman Catholick Church is in true prudence of greater Force to withdraw Sectaries from their new invented Glosses contrary to it Then if all the Fathers Together Had plainly interpreted Scripture as the Church interpret's Why Nothing on earth can Parallel this Churches Authority much les make it Inferiour to The Fathers only part of the Church the universal consent of Fathers The Reason is These Fathers were only a part of it particular men and Singly considered Fallible But a whole Church Embraceth a greater number and cannot be misled into Errour Nay I say Though we Impiously suppose Were the Church supposed Fallible the Authority of it is as great as the Fathers That this whole Church might swerve from Truth yet the Testimony of it is as great as that of the Fathers who as Protestants say may all err and swerve more easily This Reason is Reinforced if we reflect on one undeniable Truth which is In all controversies now between us Sectaries can pretend no more But thus much only That the sense of some few Fathers only They never pretended all whilst they interpret Scripture is though often obscure more against the Churches interpretation then for it Here is the most they can say with any Conscience Though we grant not so much when the whole Doctrin of a Father is well examined However Gratis Admit of the Supposition at present And se what follows A clear Testimony Though Fallible hath more weight then another that 's Obscure and Fallible Thus much only The Sense of such and such Fathers is doubtful and Sectaries say Fallible The Churches Sense is clear That is you know what it Teaches and Though falsly supposed fallible is yet far more firm then the other Testimony That 's confessedly both obscure and Fallible 9. This Discours convinceth that Sectaries cannot If Sectaries say the more clear Church Doctrin is the more manifest is its Errour They speak without Principles and suppose what is to be proved impugn the Churches sense given of Scripture by any thing that hath the look of a probable Principle For the Church Defend's it self upon two undeniable Grounds The first Positive And 'T is The Churches own Authority nothing can be greater The other Negative Viz. Never any of known credit neither Fathers generally nor Oecumenical Councils much less Scripture Probably clearly contradicted that sense which the Roman Catholick Church Gives of Scripture And here by the way You may se to what an Exigency our new None of undoubted credit Ever clearly contradicted the Churches sense of Scripture men are Driven for want of Principles They say The Roman Catholick Church is Fallible The Fathers are fallible All condemned Haereticks are fallible They themselves are fallible Thus much supposed Tell me I beseech you by what probable Principle can They so much as seemingly show That either They interpret Scripture better then we or That Any of us all ever yet arrived to the True sense of it in controverted If all are Fallible by what Principle can Sectaries prove their Interpretation to be the best matters Which yet is absolutely necessary For we can have no true Faith without the true sense of Scripture You know if the blind lead the blind There is no safe conduct And if the Fallible man Guides the Fallible both may mistake Their way and err grosly You will have no Answer returned to this Difficulty But Sectaries Fancy and Fancy only Or shew that Any had the true sense of Scripture 10. Some may Reply Protestants have the words of Scripture as clear as the Holy Ghost was pleased to Write them in Fundamentals As also the consent of Fathers at least for those Fundamentals They wave other By-Passages of Scripture and care not much A Reply of Sectaries whether their Interpretations be right or wrong I Answer first To say nothing of many Others They They cannot wave all Difficulties cannot wave one Difficulty concerning the Real presence of Christ in the Sacred Eucharist which is either a Fundamental Doctrin or none is Both Scripture and Fathers are in this particular most expresly against them as is proved Hereafter 11. But let this pass I Answer 2. We have as good Scripture as Sectaries can lay claim to in every Point which they call Fundamental And with it the In Fundamentals we are at least equal and in controverted matter far superiour consent of Fathers also In other controverted matters we own the same Scripture they own And moreover have the sense of it Declared by this long standing Church wherin we infinitly surpass them Speak therfore of matters out of controversy or wherin all Agree we are at least equal with them And for others in controversy
Church which Verified the Belief of that Article can be plainly and without fumbling Designed Say then on Gods name what Christians had we who constituted the Holy Catholick Church Nor Papists according to Protestants nor the later Graecians in Those Dayes Papists you say were all in a Deluge of Errour which made Luther to leave them Our later Graecians held and hold still a True Mass Sacrifice the Real Presence Praying to Saints Prayers for the Dead c. They therfore contrary to our Sectaries were neither the Holy nor Vniversal Church None say Sectaries but gross erring men were in the world before Luther Much les were Arians Abyssins Pelagians Monotbelits or all of them together Now besides such erring men There were no other in the World If Therfore the Vniversal Church be Essentially made up of Particular Churches as truely it is For there is no Vniversale à parte rei And all Particular Churches Nameable in those dayes grosly Erred it follows evidently That then no Holy Catholick Church could be Believed Since Those times Our Protestants came in Protestants only are not the Holy Vniversal Church And will They if That Article of our Creed was Fals in the last Age verify it now and stile Themselves the only Vniversal Church I am Confident They will not Donatize so far or dare to do so The Question Therfore Proposed deserves an exact Answer Viz. Where or amongst what Christians shall we find the The Question proposed deserves a clear Answer Holy Vniversal Church Then free from notable Errour 2. Can our Novellists Rationally say That All those who rightly Believed in Christ constituted the Holy Vniversal Church If so The Reply is too general An abstract belief in Christ insufficient to constitute true Catholick Faith and we ask again Who Those were and urge to have the Particular Communities Specified That Catholickly Believed in Christ We demand moreover what they mean by that Belief in Christ Was it enough to Confes Him to be the True Messus Our Redeemer our Master or to acknowledge his Death his Resurrection without Believing more of his Doctrin Surely More is required and necessary to Saluation no. For first God never spake those other Excellent Verities registred in Scripture whether Dogmatical or relating to manners in vain But to good Purpose And with Intention That They should besides that abstracted Faith in Christ both be harken'd to and Believed after a Sufficient Proposal Again Were the later Graecians who firmly Believed in Christ and held never the les Almost all the Tenents of the Roman Catholick Church Catholick Believers also If so Papists can in no Iustice be excluded from that Communion Perhaps you will say you do not exclude them No. Why then have you hanged them upon Gibbets meerly for being Papists If you Answer you do so upon the Account of their Particular Errors then hang up a number of your own Ministers who confessedly have more Errors among them Or if petty Differences in Points of Faith may be pardoned in the One why are they so severely punished in the Other But ad rem 3. Say plainly And Answer Categorically without Arians and Pelagians believed in Christ Shuffling Were Arians Pelagians Nestorians Monothelits Parts and Members of the Holy Catholick Church For they believed in Christ and owned him for their Redeemer Master and Doctor yea and admitted of Scripture also If you Affirm it Then there never were nor can be Haeresies in the Christian Yet were cast out of the Church as Hareticks world whilst Christ is acknowledged in this General Way and consequently the Ancient Councils Dealt most unjustly with these men in casting them out of the Churches Communion And proclaiming them Haereticks Beside observe I pray you what a pretty Church is here made up of men irreconciliable in their Disputes Is this think ye that Holy Vniversal A Church compounded of hideous dissenting Members is not Christs Church and Vnited Society of Christians which Christ Iesus cimented together in one Faith who do nothing but clash one with another And will he own this for his Spouse when he comes to Iudge the World Yet farther No Doctrin proper to Particular Sectaries as Arianism is to Arians Pelagianism to Pelagians Protestanism to Protestants can Becaus bound up within the narrow compass of these Communities deserve No Doctrine peculiar to Sectaries can be Catholick the Name or Notion of either Holy Vniversal or Catholick Doctrin Prescind therfore from these particular Doctrins or lay them aside which as Protestants must say did not Vnchurch them my Demand is and it shall never be Answered wherin Consists the Protestants cannot answer the Question Remainder of that Doctrin which implyes the pure Essentials of Christian Religion joyns men together in one Faith and makes them true members of the Holy and Vniversal Church 4. Will You hear as I think the best Answer of some newer Protestants They may say Who ever Believes in Christ and Scripture and ioyns in that Belief which was Vniversally owned by the whole Christian World before Luther is right in Faith and a Member of the Holy Vniversal Church Though perhaps He Believes with his tainted Church some Errours A most wretched The first Answer refuted and unproved Assertion For who ever yet maintain'd That a Society of Christians owning some Doctrin True as all have don and more perhaps Fals is a part of the True Holy Catholick Church We say Bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu A Faith Therfore Truely good is Intierly good Any Falsity Spoil's it And then most when 'T is vitiated with notable Errours Tell me if Scripture A Church vitiated with gross errours is no more a Church Then the Bible notably corrupted is Gods word were Corrupted in some Points of Consequence would you own the whole Bible for Gods Word No certainly How then can we own That for Christs True Church which is corrupted with Fals Doctrin You will say We must take the Good without the Bad And Believe as much as is necessary to the Essential Being of a Church And that makes us Catholicks Though we ioyntly Believe some errors with it Answer This is wors then before And more confused stuff Who are those WE that can chuse thus None can separate Truth from falshood if I live in an Erring Church Or Tell me if I live in an Erring Church where Fals Doctrin is Secretly mingled with Truth what I am to chuse or what is Good or Bad If a poor simple man Deceived by his Pastor fall into an Errour There are others ready to unbeguile him But Because He who endeavours to unbeguile me may then most err himself here are none to do this Service Becaus none can certainly Iudge of the right or wrong Will you say That Scripture is to decide in such Doubts Pray you Tell me if by a supposed Impossibility Scripture
Christ But held that he was Man only The Monothelits Believed That which all Christians agree in though true is not enough for saving Faith in Christ But denyed his two Natures his two Wills Humane and Divine The Apollinarians Believed in Christ and held that the Word assumed True Flesh But without a Created Soul Tell me now can you Abstract a Belief from these Erring Christians Common to all other That is safe sufficient and enough to constitute Saving and Catholich Faith Is it enough to say I do Believe in Christ without descending with my Faith to an explicit Belief of his Divinity also Hath one that saith I believe in Christ But I will abstract from a Belief of his two Natures from his having a Rational Soul from His Being God and Man And Becaus others have positively Disbelieved these Articles I will only Prescind from the Verity of them to prescind is les then expresly to deny them hath such an one I say Saving Faith enough to make him a Plain Haresy followâ— from these Sectaries Doctrin Member of the Holy Catholick Church No. For if so He needs not to believe at all the Divinity of Christ or his two Natures after Scripture is Red and Proposed unto him which obligeth him if He own it for Gods Word not to Abstract from the Belief of these Articles But positively to yeild an Assent to them with True Faith as most Fundamental Verities of Christian Religion You se Therfore how Impossible it is to draw one true Vniform Vniversal Doctrin From all erring Christians And to hold that on the one side sufficient for Catholick Faith And on the other to comply with that strict Obligation which express Scripture clearly proposed forceth us to Believe 4. This Point I insist on Becaus I know Protestants cannot so much as probably Name any Thing like a Holy united Catholick Church before Luther unles They first Answer as some of them seem to do by the Abstract Doctrin of all Christians now evidenced no Faith And say That particular Errors did Vncatholick none Or Secondly run to an invisible Church not at all Designable Or thirdly as They Protestants ought to acknowledg the Roman Catholick Church as True c. ought to do Acknowledge that the Roman Catholick Church was then and now is not only a Church But the Sole Holy and Catholick Church of Christ through the whole World With this Catholick Society I could show were it not amply don by others How all who Age after Age merited the Name of Catholicks have ioyned in Faith And all who parted from it Have been Branded with the ignominious Note of Or can find none Haereticks If I speak not Truth Name any Society of Christians before Luther That ever gained the None ever had the Name of Catholick but those of the Roman Faith Repute of Catholick But such only as were United in Faith with the Roman Church Name any one Society That Divorced it Self from this Church which Forthwith lost not that Ancient Title of Catholick Or was not upon That Separation Stiled Haeretical Schismatical or Both. If you say first the Roman Church wronged them I Ask. Quis te constituit judicem Who made you judge in this Case Name the injured Parties Were the Arians Pelagians Nestorians Donatists wronged when they left Communion with this Church The Gracians Waldenses c. No more wronged then Arians No. But the Waldenses the Albigenses the Hussits And most of all The later Graecians had Injury Don them And why so more Then Pelagians Is your bare Assertion Proof enough to Declare Those Guilty and These Innocent When you your selves as much condemn them as Catholicks Do For You utterly Disavow Their Doctrin Was ever General Council Convened That did more Patronize the Errour of these Waldenses Then those other of the Arians or That blamed the Roman Church for casting them out of Her Communion No. Why therfore do you Plead â—o much for a Bad cause when you have no more â—o Defend it Then your own Proofles Talk which Had you spent in an Apology For any Old Condemned Haeretick would have Help't as much That 's nothing at all as now you Advantage These later Men And Observe I Beseech you How weakly you Go to work You say the Hussits Waldenses Sectaries plead for condemned Hereticks without any Principle but their own Talk and Others were good Catholicks We deny it And Demonstrate their Vncatholick Doctrin To what Tribunal shall we Appeal for a just Sentence to your Saying I or to our No. To None And Thus you Proceed with us in all your Controversies We must either take your Word for your Assertion or Dispute without end upon nothing that hath the Appearance And make Controversies Endles of a received Principle 5. You Say Again The Later Graecians were Catholicks Before they Recanted their Errours in the Council of Florence How Prove you That By a glorious Empty Title A Defence of the Greek Church By Far fetch'd Vncertain Conjectures And meer Negative Arguments which are so slight That if all were put together in a Iust Ballance They would not weigh one Straw much â—es Out-weigh the Definition of a most Learned General Council against the Greeks Yet such Talk and Talk only lengthen's these new Books And makes them so Voluminous as They are And They Defend Doctrin denyed by the English Church by the way Note here a Pretty Humour The Greeks must be Defended in that Point of the Holy Ghosts Procession from the Father Only whilst the Church of England Anathematizeth the Doctrin Is not this Right think ye And well done by a Protestant 6. Well You shall se my plain Dealing with Graecians Hussits and Waldenses could not make the Catholick Church you I Licence you to take These Graecians Those Hussits Those Waldenses c. to make up a Church before Luther yet must Tell you They Do not the deed without more Company which cannot be found That These we have named make not the Church Catholick is Evident For first they were never Vniversal either in Time or Place Their late Beginnings and little Extent are known and upon Record 2. They were never United in one Doctrin But more at variance with One another Then you and Catholicks are This they only Agreed in to Oppose the Catholick Faith And if so much made them Protestants or good Catholicks You may call in Turks and Iewes to bear them Company 3. They were most contrary to Protestant Religion and not in Trifles only Why therfore have you recours to a People so Blasted Scattered and almost now Forgotten Alas Protestants Every way Churchles The Reason is clear Becaus without them you have nothing to make a Church of And yet with them you are Churchles I say therfore No Roman Catholick Church no Church No Roman Catholick Church no Church at all at all If no Church at all There was then
Controversy between us to a Trial of That which least Concern's us and cannot as they think be Decided by any Received Principle Viz. Whether They or we are better setled in non-Fundamentals which imports so little if our Protestants say true That the Knowing of them is scarce worth our Knowledge Becaus They are wholy Vnnecessary to Salvation and Make us neither more nor les Essential Members of Christs mystical Body The Catholick Church 4. From this Concession of our Adversaries I infer That no Protestant can probably go about to Draw any If the Belief of the Creed be Sufficient Protestants cannot draw Catholicks from their Religion Superfluities though granted hinder not Salvation Intelligent Catholick from his Religion First Becaus He is as Firm in the Belief of Fundamentals as Any Sectary whoever And that will save his Soul Now If they say we Want no Fundamentals but abound in Superfluities It is only said and not Proved However grant all though contrary to Truth These Redundancies Hinder not Salvation and may well be Listed amongst Non-Necessaries 2. No Catholick voluntarily Opposeth Himself to so much as to one Iota of Gods Word Sufficiently Proposed nor can He and Remain Catholick 3. He cannot Thwart his Judgement of Discerning or go Against his Conscience in Believing Catholick Religion For by Doing either He looseth Faith 4. As long as He is A Cordial and Sincere Believer of the Roman Catholick Faith He can have no Evident Demonstrations against it Or Tax this Church of Errour or if in Conscience He Do so eo ipso He cease's to be a Member of This Church And is no longer Orthodox 5. Yet I say More It is impossible for a Prudent A Prudent man cannot but se the great Evidence of Catholick Religion Man secluding Gross And most culpable Ignorance which makes him Imprudent to Shut his Eyes or not to Se Those clear Evidences Those visible Notes Those glorious Marks and Characters of Truth wherby the Church of Christ is made manifest to the View of All. The wise Providence of God will have this Discernibility or Perspicuity of it both Apparent and obvious To Ordinary Prudence Otherwise which is impious We might blame His Goodnes and Tell Almighty God You O Lord Assure us in Scripture of our Final Beatitude But you have with it left us in Darknes concerning the Way and Means to Find How one of Prudence may plead it out And to Attain this Happines What Avail's it to know the End And to be Invincibly Ignorant of the Means All who profess Christianity are not True Believers How shall we Discern the Haeretical Societies from Other Christ Answers Your Way By the Light and What Answer Satisfies Guidance of Those Marks of Truth which manifested me when I first Taught Christianity and yet Beautify my only Church is so Clear and Evident without Dispute Vt nec stulti errent per â—am That is hard For the most Ignorant To miss of it much more For the Prudent 6. No Conviction therfore No evident Demonstration can so forcibly Press upon a Catholick As to make him to Desert His Faith And if He stand not evidently Catholicks cannot unles Evidently convicted of Error which is impossible Desert Their Faith convicted of manifest Errour it were wors then Madnes in him yea and Damnable also to Change his Religion Let Sectaries therfore Stentor-like Cry out Till They grow Hoars again Mr. Poole all along smooth's his Discours with such Harsh Eloquence O ye blind Papists O ye Seduced Men when will ye open your Eyes c The Solid Catholick Answers Railing is no Reason Your Ancestors and mine were Papists Before You or Your Haeresy were in Being I believe my Creed as Their solid Answer to All Opponents well as you I Admit of every Word in Scripture as well as you I go no more against my Iudgement or Conscience nor perhaps so much as you Do. Wherin then am I faulty Nay I must yet Tell you More Though by a Supposed Impossibility The Church wherof I am a Member should err and I ioyntly be in Errour with it Yet as long as the Errour is unavoydable And invincible in me wherof my Conscience Reproves me not it is in your own Principles no matter of Damnation Becaus Ignorance excuses me Therfore as The Catholick Every way without blame I am every way without blame in my Belief so I cannot be reclaimed from it by you 7. But saith the Catholick Give me a Company of men who Admit of Christ and so far Deny His Church That He Evidently Convinces Sectaries of Their Errors and most unhappy forsaking the Ancient Church They cannot say where it is That will Reform Their Elder Brethren Before They have Certainty of Their own Half well made Reformation That think Themselves wiser then all the now Living And the Ancient deceased Defenders of the Roman Catholick Church That have causlesly Separated Themselves from an Ancient Church And Yet are not ioyned to Any Society of Christians which Beares the Resemblance of a Catholick Community Who never yet had so much as one General Council to Direct Them no Infallible Oracle to Teach them Protestancy described as it is No Motives No Miracles to Evidence their new Faith Who make every private Person a Church Every mans Reason Iudge of High Mysteries that transcend Reason Who Take and Leave what They list in Matters of Faith upon no other Warrant But their own wilful Choise Who seemingly own an Vniversal Church But yeild Obedience to None Who are Always seeking for Truth without Hope of finding it Always Teaching more Learned Then Themselves And yet to this day Know not what they Teach Who Too unluckily spend the few Days of Their Life in Scribling Controversies Though they se it is to no Purpose For besides a high Offence given to God All The Credit They gain in the Christian World Abroad And their Repute at home amongst intelligent Persons is no better Amounts to This Ignominy That unfortunatly They Patronize a late invented Haeresy which at last They must quit or quite Despair of Saluation Give me I say such a sort of Men They are not only battered and Bafled But Also by most Pressing Arguments Drawn both from Authority and Reason May be evidently convinced yea And if Gods Grace want not easily Reclaimed from Their Errors If Perversnes in some and Ignorance in others I mean the Ignorance of Pride Hinder not Their Conversion But to Withdraw a Knowing Catholick upon Rational Inducements From How They have gained some Prosylits his Religion is Impossible It is true They have Gained some Prosylits Vnnatural Children to Their Ancient Mother Church But how Alas Too indulgent to Flesh and Blood they were allured by Sensual not Rational Motives The Truth is Evident I say no more 8. To End this Chapter of Fundamentals Be Three things to be noted in this Question of Fundamentals Pleased
these later Definitions are proved Authentick Can you Imagin what They would be at Would These men would have They know not what they have an Authentick Attestation to prove what the Church hath Defined ever since the Apostles Time is the Ancient Apostolical Doctrin The Church Tell 's Them it is so but That 's not enough Would they have a Register Distinct from the Churches Declaration containing the Summ of all Apostolical Doctrin Yes sure this They seek for if their Demand of having the Apostles Declarations shewed them carry Sense with it For example we must shew them by some written Record more Ancient then all the Definitions of the Church are That the Apostles held a Purgatory Transubstantiation a Sacrifice c. Or at least Prove these Doctrins to be grounded on â—ndoubted Received Tradition I have answered Suppose the Roman Catholick They are clearly confuted Church And here we speak of no other For I hope Sectaries will not urge us to shew Them writings Received from Ancient Haereticks should Produce a Record containing a Summary of Apostolical Doctrin Our Adversaries might more justly except against that as an old unproved Legend then They are now able Rationally to except against the Churches Definitions Because such an Imagined Record must either be Approved by as great an Authority as the Churches is to gain it Credit or by a Greater There cannot be a greater in this present State of Things then the Churches own Authority But Sectaries Reject this Authority when the Churck Defines Therfore they would much more easily Reject that supposed written Instrument though it told them exactly what She now Defines is Apostolical Doctrin As much Therfore The Church can do as much without the Imagined Hand-writing as with it as the Church can be supposed to do by the Help of such an Imagined Writing it can do without it For if it have Authority to Legitimate as it were such a Writing it s own Authority is as worthy of Credit when it Defines without the Writing You se Therfore how Unreasonably these men require a Codicil containing the old Apostolical Doctrin which ought Forsooth to be Exhibited and shewed them Before they can be perswaded that the Church fairhfully Proposeth or Defines a Doctrin to be Apostolical 9. Now if They be convinced that to Require such a Manuscript from us is as Vnreasonable as if we should Press them to produce one for Their late Novelties And therfore urge the Church to prove her Defined Doctrin by undoubted Tradition I answer The Church doth So whilst They God knows Allege nothing like Tradition for so much as one of their New Articles A Fallacy of Sectaries about Tradition And here because we have a fit Occasion I 'll Discover in a Word the Fallacy of Sectaries in this matter of Tradition I say in a Word For 't is not my Task now to Handle that Question largely Thus it is Sectaries ever suppose when the Church Defines a Doctrin upon the Tradition of former Ages it is obliged to shew them the very Doctrin in express Terms Antecedently to the Definitions owned and writ down in the Volumes of some one or more Learned Fathers Whence it is They Argue How Sectaries argue No man heard of a Purgatory before St. Austins Time and He only hints at it slightly nor of Transubstantiation before the Lateran Council c. Therfore those Doctrins are Novelties lately introduced I Answer Were all this True The Argument is an unconcluding Negative and run's By uncluding Negatives limping thus Antiquity or the Ancient Fathers have not Expressed every Defined Doctrin of the Church in the like Explicit Terms as the Church useth Therfore such Doctrins were not really Received by the Church Observe well From the want of an Expression suitable to Sectaries Fancy They Infer The Fathers expres Things sometimes one way and the Church another the Doctrin was never Taught by Antiquity Alas the Fathers had their Expressions one way and the Church after mature Deliberation another often more significant Yet Both Aymed at the same Verity though differently set forth in Words as is clear in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation called by the Fathers a Real Change of Bread into Christs Body By the Lateran Council as you here se otherwise I say yet Farther Had the Fathers not at all so much as Hinted at a Doctrin Defined by the Church the Argument is yet Purely Negative and worth nothing Sectaries Discours highly improbable But is here all No. Their Discours upon another Account is highly Improbable To prove what I say Do no more but only Imagin That Three or Four of the most Ancient and Learned Fathers Had in express Terms Owned and Registred in Their Writings the Lateran Councils Definition concerning Transubstantiation as received Orthodox and Catholick Doctrin just as that Council Defines it would Sectaries then have owned it as Ancient and Orthodox upon those The Definition of a General Council gives Security Fathers Testimony If they say Yes They are Evidently convinced For the sole Authority of a most Ample Learned Council is in true Prudence a Firmer Principle and a better Proof to Rely on If we enquire after known and received Orthodox Doctrin ever held in the Church Then the very best Assurance That one or more Fathers can give Vs of it For who see 's not But that the very Definitions of the Nicene of the Council of Ephesus or Chalcedon c. Are more weighty to beget in us a Belief That what Those Councils Defined to be received Truths were so indeed Then if twenty other Fathers had Antecedently writ them in their Councils Representing a whole Church know more then particular Fathers learned Volumes The Reason is Because General Councils Representing a whole Church Spread all the World over cannot but know more Exactly what Tradition and the Received Doctrin of Christianity is Then Private Men can be Supposed to know who lived in several Parts of the World And bad no Obligation to Register intierly the Churches Doctrin in every Particular Thus much is said if the Church at any time Defines upon Tradition only Foâ— 'T is most certain that beside Tradition it Relyes on Scripture also and Hitherto never wanted the Authority of most Worthy Fathers that undubitably Taught as it Defined Though not always perhaps in such Express and significant Words If Sectaries Reject both Church and Fathers when they have not a word of Scripture for them 10. Now on the other side If Sectaries will neither Allow of the Fathers Doctrin Susiposing it were Express for our Catholick Verities as most evidently 't is in twenty Controversies nor of the Churches Definitions Already Declared in Eighteen General Councils We are out of the Reach of all Principles And must leave them to their unsteedy Fancies or wilful Obstinacy And pitty Their Deplorable Condition They are more to be pittied then Disputed against
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
misse in his teaching as hit right on the Infallible Doctrin of Christ The Minor is granted by Mr. Poole For all Churches whether Roman or English Arian or Grecian are lyable to errour want special Assistance in their Teaching and ought positively to renounce all Societies of infallible Christian Teachers Therfore the conclusion undeniably followes which is That none can with certainty Teach the Infallible Doctrin of Christ And from hence also followes an utter ruin of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too as I shall hereafter Demonstrate For if all Pastors all Doctors all Teachers of Christian Religion may erre in the Delivery of their Doctrin all Learners of it may likewise erre in Hearing it and if so we have no certainty That God is now Adored in Spirit and Truth by either Teacher or Hearer 9. The ultimate reason why a Total ruin of Christian The utter ruin of Christian Religion followes the fallible Teaching of it in a whole Church What all Euangelical Preachers lakoured for Religion accompanieth the fallible Teaching of it is thus proved None can teach Christian Faith that doth not Propose or make Almighty God to be the Author of it And therfore our Saviour Iohn 7. 16. told the Iewes That his Doctrin was not his but his Fathers that sent him Yea The Prophets also and all other Evangelical Preachers chiefly laboured in this to perswade their Hearers that God was the Author of that Doctrin they taught Now say I None can Propose or make God the Author of Christian Faith that doth not own it as a Doctrin asserted by his Eternal Veracity infallibly revealing Truth for this is the Formal Object of Christian Faith But He that only Teaches fallible Doctrin which may be false deserts this Formal Object and can neither own God for the Author of it nor his infallible revealing Verity Ergo he must own a fallible Authority to uphold this Doctrin which is utterly Destructive of Christian Faith The reason will be yet more evidenced if you propose it after this manner A Doctrine which by force of all the Principles it hath is meerly fallible and The last ground of this Doctrin no more may be salse But Christian Doctrin as it is Taught by all Pastors and Ministers of the Word c. is thus fallible Ergo it may be false But God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to Teach a Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to Teach a Doctrin or Religion that is fallible I prove it He sent none to Teach any other Doctrin but that which is founded and intrinsecally relies on his Eternal infallible Verity revealing Truth But such a Doctrin can neither be false nor fallible Therfore this taught Doctrin is certain and infallible For to grant that God sent Pastors to teach a Doctrin which relies on his infallible Revelation is to say He assist's them to teach it infallibly CHAP. III. Other proofs for Teachers and a Church Infallible 1. I Argue again thus Supposing the promises of Christ made in Scripture Gods Goodnes cannot oblige the whole moral Body of Christians to believe a falsity or to contradict his certain revealed Verities But if all Pastors and Doctors may erre in their Instruction whilst they teach Christian Doctrin God would God cannot oblige us to believe a falsity as indifferently oblige us to believe a falsity and contradict his certain Verities as to hear truth when by chance it is taught which is contrary to his Goodnes The first Proposition is evident and confessedly true For our Adversaries say it is repugnant to all conceptions of Gods Goodnes to require of men under pain of Damnation to Believe something as infallibly true which is really false The other also is as clear For if all Pastors all Doctors who have the charge of souls may because fallible as well Teach false Doctrin as true as easily erre as Deliver Christs pure Verities Christians are by virtue of Gods Command already intimated bound both to hear and obey them Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church that is as S. Chrysostome expounds the Prelates and chief Pastors of it let him be to thee as a Heathen c. Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Guides your Leaders and Commanders and be subject to them For they watch as being to render account of your souls Again vers 7. The Apostle command's us to imitate the Faith of these Pastors and Teachers From these and other innumerable places of Scripture known to all I argue What is possible may be reduced to Act but it is possible That all Pastors and Teachers may erre and Deliver false Doctrin to the Christian world and in case they do so I am upon these plain expres Ordinances of God obliged to Believe them Therfore I must Believe them although they Teach false Doctrin And if so God obligeth me to Believe a Falsity or which is a real Verity I am forced to grant this undeniable Truth that his All-seeing providence doth now and ever will Preserve a Church whose Pastors and Teachers are infallible in the Delivery of Christian Doctrin Without this certain established Infallibility in some one or other Society of Believers Christianity is no more but a meer tottering reeling and uncertain Religion yet I must listen to it whether Those who teach it stand or fall that is whether they erre or not teach an imposture or Truth 2. To confirm this proof I ask whether God after he had delivered his own certain Verities infallibly and made also by his Divine Assistance Those first Masters of the Gospel his Blessed Apostles infallible in their Delivery of these Verities whether then I say in the ensuing ages he divorced himself from his A question proposed to Sectaries Church and withdrew all Special Assistance from it or yet continued that gracious favour to some Pastors and Doctors of a Christian society If he continued that care and providence for the Direction of some Pastors in Truth Those because so guided are still infallible in their Teaching Contrary wise if he abandoned that charge and deprived all Pastors for the Future of infallible Assistance This woful consequence followes That Christian Religion once strongly supported by Gods unerring Spirit ever since the Apostles Preaching hath lost that Hold and now stands tottering on no more steedy ground then what the weak mutable and erring Sentiments of men can afford it Now how unmeet these are for so great a charge Salomon Sap. 9. 15. sayes enough Cogitationes mortalium timidae incertae providentiae nostrae The cogitations of mortal men are fearful and our Providence vncertain yet so it is and here mark the hideous crime of Protestants who first Divorce Christ from his Church and violently pull Religion How Sectaries transgresse from its center which is Gods infallible directing Spirit and then make all the taught Doctrin of
Christianity to lean and rely only upon mans weak timid staggering and errable conceptions The proof is evident for either it relyes on God and so is infallible or upon Humane reason and therfore as This is various Religion cannot but be changeable Let then the world judge I appeal to no other Tribunal whether Christians can be satisfied with this comfortles Doctrin All they can now learn from any Christian Pastor touching Religion hath only mans weak Thought and Reason for it but no certain Assurance that God speaks by these Pastors Because all and every one of them left to themselves are fallible 3. I must prosecute this matter further wherefore Man too feeble to preserve Christian Doctrine in its purity I say this Truth boldly It is above mans power and policy weak and errable in his Conceptions constantly and unchangably to support or carry on Age after Age the profound Doctrin of Christ in its Primitive purity without Divine Assistance Wit alone dazeled as we see in the search of the most obvious things in nature is insufficient either rightly to Penetrate these high Mysteries of grace or with certainty to conuey them unto us in that exact sense as God once delivered them The reason hereof is drawn from the sublime Excellency of Christian Religion Because of its sublime Excellency which being as all know a Doctrin of Gods own incomprehensible Wisdom a Communication of his deepest Secrets cannot but transcend the force of humane knowledge it cannot but lye as it were in a region above the reach of weak Reason only and stand at a great distance from our fallible Discourses Whence I argue thus All light and knowledge which flow from a fallible Power and capacity cannot but be answerable to such a capacity id est Deficient uncertain and Fallible But all the light and knowledge which Christians now have from either Church or Pastors concerning this sublime Doctrin of Christ and Gods revealed Verities in Scripture flow and are derived from no other but from a fallible capacity which is mans errable and weak understanding and not from Gods infallible Assistance who say our Protestants hath withdrawn infallibility from the Church Ergo This taught Doctrin cannot but be Deficient uncertain Fallible Doctrine is not Christs and Fallible Grant this and none can prudently rely on it none can know by any Principle whether it be true or false none finally can own it for Christs certain Doctrin Rob therfore the Church of its proper Dote which is Divine Assistance take from it the Spirit of infallibility Cancel that Truth of the Gospel I have prayed for thee Peter that thy Faith fail not Destroy that impregnable Rock wheron Christianity is founded Matt. 15. Tu es Petrus c. Though all the Pastors in the world were Salomons for wit Austins for learning Gregories for vigilancy Chrysostoms for eloquence yet they would be too weak feeble and fallible Instruments either rightly to illuminate Wit alone too weak to tamper with Religion us by the force of wit or Learning only concerning those High Verities revealed in Scripture or exactly to Preserve them in their first candor without change and Alteration Alas might wit alone tamper with Gods Truths at pleasure might it turn Religion into as many Forms or shapes as weak Reason often conceives This too unskilful Master would as Fancies and judgements are various now build now destroy now add now subtract now make now marr and bring in more confusion into Christinianity then the wisest men are able to redresse And 4. Thus much we se evidently not only in the old Mans with the cause of errours Philosophers who led on by their weak Discours and guesses grosly mistook in their Opinions concerning Beatitude but in some learned Fathers also witnes a Examples of it Tertullian and Origen For These two great wits of the world because they left the Guidance of the Church and relyed too much on their private Judgements fell as we know into deplorable errours But most of all this misery is visible in all condemned Haereticks as Arians Pelagians and Nestorians witty and learned enough but Because wit too boldly entred into Divine Mysteries and meddled with matters above its strength these men lost themselves and here was the sole cause Gods special Assistance preserves his Curch from errour of their Ruin and falling from Truth Whence I conclude contrary to Protestants who have nothing to support Religion but their own weak and errable Conjectures That unles Gods gracious Providence particularly Protect his Church and by special Assistance Preserve it from errour The very best of us all though never so learned left to our weak conjectures and fallible Discourses might most easily become Arians Nestorians Pelagians Protestants Socinians now Christians now no Christians or what you will Protestancy and all Haeresy which stand topling on no firmer ground then meer conjectures are lead the way to these Downfalls to no Religion or any Religion as Fancy best likes 5. To prevent therfore this great Evil the wise Providence Gods Providence over his Church of God who well foresaw mans weaknes and Instability first Delivered his own eternal Truths infallibly none doubts of this Next he caused these Truths to be taught infallibly by the first Masters of the Gospel his chosen Disciples here of also there is no doubt with our modern men Moreover Because his real Intention was That not only the Primitive Christians should exactly receive those revealed Verities from infallible Teachers but others also in ensuing ages for All souls were providently cared for His infinite Goodnes established a visible Catholick Church whose Head and Pastors guided not by humane wit or Policy but by Assistance derived from the Holy Ghost should by virtue of so special grace Teach Truth infallibly and preserve poor souls from errour to the end of the world Without this Addition Preserves Christianity from ruine of a perpetuated Assistance as well in order to the Later as first Believers providence would not have done its work compleatly Christianity ere this day too unsteedily built would have fallen to Ruin and as often alrered from it self in the space of 1667. yeares as our Sectaries have done in this last hundred A more spiteful Blow therfore cannot be given to God a greater Chimaera cannot be thought on then to grant as Sectaries do that his All seing wisdom first founded a Church upon infallible Teachers and next to spoile all with this ungodly Assertion viz Afterward when Christians as much stood in need of infallible Pastors for their Direction because of emergent Haeresies then it was He withdrew Assistance from them Abandoned his charge and left a whole Church to the wavering timid and uncertain Sentiments of meer erring men who altogether because by nature fallible might as easily without this superiour grace of infallibility have taught grosse errours as the Verities of Christian Religion This sequele followes
impudent he must say No. All therfore he can reply is That the Ministers of his Church after a perusal of Scripture find these Verities contained there and Propose all to him as things Certainly revealed Therfore he believes them Here we come to the trial of Protestants Faith and mark well How unavoydably They are forced to grant That when a pretended Revelation Sectaries must own an Infallible Proponent is not manifest for them But lyes if at all very darkly in Scripture it must be brought to light and made more clear by some Teacher Some one or other if it have influence into Faith must Apply it and Propose it to a Hearer as Gods certain Word Without this Application made by a certain Teacher no Christian can but most temerariously admit of the Revelation as Divine and Certain 10. Demand therfore in the last place Whether all the Ministers in England are able to propound certainly and infallibly the above mentioned Doctrins darkly at least and indeed not all contained in Scripture as Gods revealed Truths to any The answer must be Negative They cannot for if they propose them infallibly Ministers are infallible Ergo say I none can Believe these Doctrins for Gods certain Revelation Because the Proposal of them absolutely necessary to apply the Revelation is defective weak dubious and uncertain The Faith therfore which followes upon so unsteedy a Teaching cannot but be answerably rowling That is in one word no Faith at all And Protestants have no better 11. Some perhaps may say Though Protestants have no great Certainty of the Doctrins above specified because they are neither expresly in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher yet their Faith in Fundamentals universally held by all Christians stand's sure enough and is infallible Such Truths shall never fail and so far the Pastors of the Church may it is likely be held infallible 12. Hereafter we shall treat more largely of Fundamental points and Therfore at present will wave what is not pertinent to answer this Reply And pertinent Why Doctrine of Protesta as Protestants is uncertain it is to say first That not one Doctrin peculiar to Protestants as Protestants because neither expresly found in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher can certainly be believed upon Divine Revelation That these Sectaries teach not their own Protestant Tenents infallibly is granted That Scripture doth not in express Terms without intolerable glossing deliver one of them shall be made after a few pages most evident And thus if this last Reply be to any purpose it brings Ruin to that part of Doctrin which is called Protestancy I say secondly There is scarce one Article of Christs Sacred Doctrin so clearly expressed in Scripture which may not would men take the liberty as Sectaries do by wilful Glosses to alienate it from the Churches sense be perverted Arians have taught them this mode of Glossing and they exactly follow it Separate therfore the words Doubful words of Scripture separated from the sense of an Infallible Interpreter ground not Faith of Scripture from the Sense of an infallible Interpreter we can Believe nothing we have no more but a body without a Soul guesses without certainty And upon such uncertainties the whole Faith of Protestants doth and must rely which is deplorable And here ask them when They appeal as They ever doe to Scripture What they mean by Scripture which needs Interpretation even in Points most Fundamental Must we admit of their Interpretation Why so more then of others as learned as They Why not as well on the present Churches Interpretation This is as good to say no more as their fallible Guesses are But of this Subject hereafter I say thirdly Never The Church in all her Doctrine equally infallible any Catholick Church hitherto held it self infallible in a few Fundamental Doctrins and not in others Therfore Protestants are more insolently bold whilst they attempt to make this Distinction then ever any Church yet was What That meer fallible Men shall be my Doctors and ex tripode define So far the Church holds infallible Doctrin But no further T' would be well nigh eight Degrees of madnes in me to believe them Admit once of this A new Haeretick may step out and defend as stoutly yea and upon as solid grounds that Scripture it self it not infallible but only in a few Fundamental Matters yet unknown to the world If you say this sounds too harshly and cannot be granted Parallel I beseech you your own wild Assertion with it The Church is Christ's Schole and se whether that runs much smoother Thus it is Christ hath erected a School which is his Church where Christians are to learn his Sacred Doctrin But when they come to it They find more then the half of its Doctrin doubtful fallible unsound uncertain Alas Aristotle's or Plato's School can cfford us Topicks and uncertainties enough I hope Christs School can learn us better Fourthly Were the Church falsly supposed Fallible in the delivery of some Doctrin lesse Fundamental it would be much safer to believe it then Protestants who may err in all they say And then most when being void of proofs They stand trifling with a Distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Herein as in all other things they are most fallible and must I think ye credit men that can say nothing certainly 13. Fifthly and I end Admit once of a Church with this half infallibility in fundamentals our Sectaries who so furiously oppugn that whole infallibility which we ascribe to the Roman Church must Answer their own Arguments against us For here we question them as they do us Where or in what Rational Queries made to Protestants Subject is that partial infallibility lodged What Pastors designable are endewed with it How shall we make our Addresses to them in doubts and difficulties if none know where or who they are What kind of infallibility is this By whose assured Testimony can we learn what is de fide funaamentali what not What if these Pastors be devided amongst themselves in their Decisions of fundameetals whose judgement is finally to be stood too c. These and the like Questions most easily answer'd by Catholicks when They give an account of their Belief as I shall shew in the Resolution of Faith press so strongly upon Protestants that not one of them shall ever have a satisfactory Answer Perhaps to Protestants pretence to a private Spirit solve them some will recurre to the private Spirit and say This tell 's them all Truth in these doubts Contra. Ask only here Whether this Spirit makes them or their Pastors infallible or can direct others to find out such infallible Pastors If they reply Those are such as Teach Gods Word purely the Answer is impertinent for we ask whether it Assists any to Teach Gods pure Word infallibly And who they are It may be others will say that Christ never had since the Apostles
manner be consumed with fire He would have been thought to have uttered a Truth Morally certain yet the contrary doleful Effect proved it untrue And the like may happen now while we upon Moral Certainty Say Rome or Constantinople are Citties in Being These Grounds supposed 5. I say first Whoever when he Affirm's that Christian Religion is only Morally Certain and hath for the Object of his Affirmation that which Essentially Moral Certainty only destroy's the Being of Christian Religion constitutes Religion I mean true Divine and Supernatural Faith highly wrongs Christian Religion yea and destroyes the very Being and Essence of it I prove it The Certainty of Divine Faith is as farre above and distant from all the Degrees of Moral Certitude which may be false as Heaven is from Earth and more Therfore he who allowes no greater Certainty to true Faith then Moral which may be false destroyes both Certainty of Faith farre above Moral Certainty the Life and Essence of Christian Religion That the Certainty of Faith farre surpasseth all the Degrees of Moral Certitude is Demonstrable upon Principles granted as well by Orthodox Christians as by our Adversaries who say That true Faith dot not only affirm That what God Reveales is most Certain for thus much supposing a God we know by Science were there no Faith but by Faith we affirm without fear at all God speaks Thus and Thus. He reveales that the Divine Word took flesh That Christ dyed for us That there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence c. Such Truths we already own as Delivered by one who neither can nor will Deceive us 6. Hence I argue The Sole and Adequate Object of Divine and Supernatural Faith is Gods infinite Veracity which Actually speak's to us and is lyable to no errour Faith then if it be Divine Tend's unto no other Object neither is the now infused Habit of it though fortified with a thousand Illustrations inabled to Rest upon any other Motive in this present State What therfore this Infinite Veracity actually Reveal's that Faith layes hold on It cannot believe more or lesse Now I subsume But this Infinite Veracity when it is duely Proposed Transfuseth more Gods Veracity transfuseth more certainty into Faith then the Motives of Moral Certainty can do Certainty into the Elicite Act of Faith Then any Moral Certainty derived from inferiour Motives can have For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of Falsity and may deceive us Gods infallible Veracity cannot be False nor deceive if Faith Rest upon that Motive And if it Rest not there it is no Faith at all It is therfore absolutely impossible if God speak's and I Believe him as he Speak's That all the Power in Heaven can Falsify this Faith if it rest not on Gods Veracity is not Faith Act or Separate a most High infallibility from it Contrarywise There is no Moral Certainty but may by all the Principles it hath be false and fallible yea and often is so 7. From this undoubted Ground I inferre also Supernatural Faith more Certain then Metaphysical Science That Supernatural Faith is more Certain and infallible then all the Metaphysical Science which Nature can give us It is true Metaphysical Science hath more of the Evidence and therfore excludes all indeliberate Fear or Doubt to the contrary for no man can so much as indeliberately Doubt whether a whole Citty be greater then one House But for Absolute Certainty and Infallible Adhesion Faith yet surpasseth it The Reason The Energy of Faiths Motive is Because the Infinite Veracity of God which only supporteth Faith Majori vi with greater Force Energy and Necessity transfuseth into it a Supereminent Infallibility supereminent I say and above all the Certainty which Principles of nature can afford As therfore this Infinite Veracity surpasseth all Created certainty so Faith which relyes on it goes beyond all Natural and inferiour certainty Upon this Principle we see first How Divinely the Apostle spoke Licet nos c. Although we or Angel from Heaven preach contrary c. Let him be accursed And how wel St. Chrysostome delivered himself when He saith Hom. 12. pondering those words ad Hebr. 11. Fides est Argumentum c. That he held them more certain then the Things he saw with his Eyes These Truths and great Truths They are cannot subsist unles Faith be stronger in Certitude then all the Principles in Nature and consequently farre more strong then Moral Certainty is which may be false Now with such an Assent the Roman Catholick Church Believes Therfore a Faith only Morally certain Belong's not to it If Protestants Disown it They have no Faith no nor so much as a Belief Morally certain wherof more presently We see secondly How the very Essence of Christian Religion is destroyed if we make Faith no more but Morally certain which is what I intended to Prove 8. Perhaps These Authors will tell us When they Religion founded on Moral Certainty confuted Assert Christian Religion to be founded on Moral certainty Their Assertion fall's not immediatly upon the Assent of Divine Faith which is firm and certain But rather upon the Object of it Antecedently applyed to us Before we believe wherof we can have no greater Assurance then what is Moral And it is no wonder For say They There can be had no greater then Moral certainty of the main Foundations of all Religion which are the Being of God and the Soules Immortality To quarrel therfore with Moral certainty is Madnes when the Foundation of all Religion is capable of no more By the way if this be Madnes I se very little Wisdom in some who to oppugne the Churches infallibility proved as they suppose by motives of Credibility only morally certain Ring out nothing but Peales of Impossibilities and say it cannot be That the Assent to a matter Believed Rise higher or stand firmer then the Assent which is given to the Testimony wheron we Believe But the Infallibility of the Church is the thing Believed upon the Testimony of Motives at most but Morally certain Therfore we cannot Believe this with a stronger Degree of certainty then those Motives give us which afford at most but Moral certainty If this Discours be good I argue thus Ad hominem No greater certainty have Christians now Antecedently to their Actual Belief that God speaks to them by either Scripture or Church then that God is in Being But the very Being of God is only known by Moral certainty Ergo that he speaks to Christians cannot be known antecedently to Belief by any greater Certitude then what is Moral and may deceive them How then I beseech you comes the Elicite Act of Supernatural Faith unto such a Height of Certainty as not to Credit an Angel if he Preach against it Upon what Motive stands it so firm when no other Certainty supports it but only what is Moral and may be false The Medium
is fallible Therfore the Belief founded on it is no better but Moral and fallible Mark well your own Argument 'T is thus 9. The Motives of Credibility for Christian Faith Because only known by Moral Certainty cannot ground a certain Belief of any Churches Infallibility Ergo I say The very Existency of God and his Revelation Because only known by a Moral Certainty cannot ground a firm Belief in God or any Christian Verity unles you say that These Motives for Christian Faith far surpasse in Certainty all the certain knowledge we can have of Gods Existency I know not what these men can answer My thought is They must make Faith a meer Opinion and allow it nothing of Certainty or Supernatural infallibility Though they seemingly speak otherwise as if Moral Certainty might be a sufficient Foundation for the most firm assent Would to God they would declare themselves intelligibly And say plainly whether this firm Assent here mentioned be only of the like Nature with probable firm Opinions taught in Schools Or contrarywise if this firm Assent be Faith whether it doth not Supereminently surpas the Certainty of All other obscure intellectual Operations which Christians now have on Earth This should be explicated but is not 10. Now to the Reply Though an exact Answer An Answer to the Reply cannot be well returned without entring upon an other question the Resolution of Faith which here lyes out of the way and Admit's not in this Place of a full and diligent Examination I say first No obscure intellectual Operation which preced's Divine Faith or is independent of it can arise to those Degrees of Certainty which this Supernatural Act requires Admit then that the Existency of God which is true can be Demonstrated by natural Reason Admit also that those strong Motives for Christian Religion Antecedently known by Humane Discours demonstratively convince the Verity of it yet because Faith as I now sayd Relyes upon a Superiour infallible Principle Gods own unerrable Veracity it far surmont's both these Certainties and much more would it go beyond them were they known as Moral Truths only Why A natural Discours wherby these Vetities are known is Science But no science gives the last or least Degree of intrinsick No Science gives the least Degree of certitude to Faith Certitude to Faith and Therfore Divines say Gods Supream Verity which ever supports Belief upholds it not as known by natural Reason For if it did Faith would be at last resolved into one natural Principle thus I believe God to be the Highest Verity imaginable not Because he saith so But because I know this great Truth Scientifically where you se the last Analysis rest's on an extrinsecal Principle of knowledge with which Faith as Faith meddles not 11. Thus much therfore is clear Although the Motives of Credibility manifest as they do most undoubtedly that God speak's to Christians yet when we bring an Act of Faith by a true Analysis to its Home and Center we find it ever Resting on Gods Veracity only as the last Stay and most certain Motive Notwithstanding Motives to Faith absolutly necessarly the Praeambulatory Motives avail infinitly to Faith Because they indubitably point out that Society of Christians wherin Gods Verities are certainly taught and make this Discernable from all other Haeretical Conventicles In a word They shew Christian Religion to be either evidently Credible or as some later Divines will have it evidently True in Attestante And if this be so the formal Object of Christian Faith is known as it were Scientifically either before or when we Actually Believe which seems grounded on those words of the Apostle Scio cui credidi certus sum I know and then believe certainly 12. At present I wave this Doctrin and say secondly It is one thing to know Scientifically and another Difference betwixt a Certain Belief and a Scientificall knowledge to Believe certainly Both intervene in the matter now handled Faith Prerequires a Science and Moreover essentially includes Certainty Thus it is While one of Prudence ponders those strong and pressing Motives which as Light doth the Sun gloriously evidence true Christian Religion such are Miracles the long continued Consent of Nations Sanctity of life Efficacy in Doctrin the blood sheding of Martyrs c. He knowes What and how these Motives convince that God cannot permit the world to be cheated into errour by them He knowes that his goodnes cannot proclaim as it were and publish to Christians a Religion manifested by such evident convincing Marks and Signs of Truth and afterward Signify a meer nothing It cannot be that God speak's in so powerful a Language and deceives us For who can perswade himself That all the Miracles done by Christ and his Blessed Apostles the eminent Sanctity They showed and admirable Conversion wrought by them open to mens eyes and senses were permitted like Charms to Delude the world Yet this followes if either no Religion answered to these great visible wonders or if such palpable convincing Signs could make a false Religion as Speciously Credible as Gods true Religion is Therfore Rich. de S. Victor lib. 1. de Trin. c. 2. with just Reason Exclaims Si error est quem credidimus à te decepti sumus If it be Errour we Believe it is you O God who have deceived us and He gives this Reason Iis enim signis c. For by such forcible Signs the Doctrin we believe is confirmed which could not proceed from any but from you alone Observe now well Two Judgements may ensue upon the Consideration of these exteriour Iudgements upon these Signs Signs which manifest Christianity The one after this manner God certainly Delivered his Eternal Truths by the Preaching of Christ and his Blessed Apostles who had no other Exteriour Testimony for their Doctrin but Miracles Sanctity Conversions of Nations c. I now see saith this prudent Man as evidently the like Miracles the like Conversions with great Sanctity c. in the Roman Catholick Church If therfore it was Evident that God spoke to the first Christians by the wonderful works of Christ it is as Evident that he Speaks now to me by the Still continued Miracles of this Church This Discours or Judgement wherby he affirms There are These wonders Faith and Science Tend differently God speak's by his Church is not Faith but Science Because it Relyes on Motives which Reason knows evidently enough Now further When He is thus disposed and prepared to Believe by so firm an Evidence The other Judgement of Elicite Faith followes which tend's not into the Evidence of those Motives for if it did so under that Notion it would not be Faith For Faith as Faith totally Relyes on Gods Sole Revelation and for this as the only Formal Object a Christian Believes what ever mystery is Revealed after a due Proposal as is already Declared 13. Some will say The Elicite Act of Faith Scientifically
it out and Believe securely No other but the The Roman Catholick Church only Evidenced Credible Roman Catholick Church only is thus Evidenced Se Chap. 8. 9. 10. The second Principle This Holy Church which Age after Age without any late rise like that of Protestancy hath stood constantly ever since Christ and drawn whole Kingdoms and Nations to its Belief was either on set Purpose raised up by It was not founded by Christ to cheat the world Almighty God and conserved in Being for so long a time to Cheat the world into a false Belief which is Impious to think or must be owned as it deserves for the only undoubted most manifested and gloriously evidenced Church of Christ Se Chap. 8. n. 5. 6. 4. You will say Notwithstanding all the glorious Marks we can lay claim to and grace our Church withal very many Learned Men do oppose it If then the Argument above have force This very Opposition of so many Weaken's much and takes of no few Degrees of that Moral certainty we stand for Contra. Very many Learned men opposed both Apostolical and Slight Opposition not Valued of Primitive Doctrin Atheists band against God and Iewes against Christ the Arians yet impugn a Trinity Are our Sectaries affrighted upon that Account or weakned in their Moral Certainty of thar Mystery whilst They Believe it No. Every Trivial and slight Opposition therfore made against a Verity which strongly Defend's and powerfully plead's foâ—â—it felf can neither dant nor discountenance it The Opposition then in our present Matter if to the purpose It ought to be deeply rational and brought to certain Principles ought to be well Grounded and deeply Rational grounded I say not upon what This or That private person by his sole fallible bosom Thoughts holds Reasonable for so every Arian will make good his Haeresy But the Opposition if rational must go further and rest at last upon a Solid and satisfactory Principle which well laid forth gently forceth every Prudent Sectaries destitute of any Rational Proof against the Catholick Church and Disinteressed Man to Acquiesce and yeild to it But this cannot be done in our present case for Sectaries are so utterly destitute of what ever look's like a Rational Proof or any received Principle They are so disinabled to speak with sense against the known Evidence of the Roman Catholick Religion That And I do assert it boldly They shall as soon turn Christianity out of the World as rationally abate or lessen the plain and undisputable Evidence of this one Christian Society 5. This blessed Society therfore stands thus upon firm Solid Principles for the Catholick Church Ground upon solid and undoubted Principles I shew you saith this Church Those very Motives which anciently countenanced the Preaching of Christ and converted the world And These plead for me With what urgent contrary Proofs can you my good Protestants deface such Glorious Marks of Truth or make them either Insignificant or forceles Arguments Is this weightily done by drawing a few trivial Glosses Sectaries trifle out of mistaken Scripture By telling us of Council contradicting Council By quoting our Authors wrongfully By relating a story not worth the hearing of a Pope or Prelate Are these Manly proofs think ye or sufficient to Eclipse the Glory of the Ancient Church Toyes Trifles Frivolous I shew you again Other Evidences of the Catholick Church saith this Church That the most Wise of the World the most Learned the most Holy Their Number is numberles notwithstanding the Opposition made against me have Age after Age even before and after The most wise and Learned of the world notwithstanding the Opposition made against this Church lived and dyed in it your Haeresy began Constantly professed my Faith lived and dyed in it without Change and Alteration Tel me were These Millions of Souls learned and unlearned for a thousand years and more All mad All besotted all seduced by Fooleries It is worse then Madnes to say so Here then is a principle in moral matters the Surest imaginable for our Church This Nubes testium alone and of such witnesses which is ever to be reflected on makes it evidently Credible And by what contrary rational Proof or received Principle can our Adversaries enervate or make null the Testimony All These wise and Learned cannot be supposed mad or seduced by Fooleries of these innumerable Givers in of Evidence who led on by Motives which They thought Rational and what passed for Reason amongst so many and such qualified Persons ought to passe for Reason with all Believed this Church and dyed in it happily I 'll tell you had our Sectaries Salomons Wisdom Protestants cannot Answer This one Argument They would yet be unable to satisfy This one Argument probably much less to Evidence it forceles upon either solid Proof or any received Principle The reason is No proof can vainquish an evident Verity But it is an evident Verity that God Cheated No proof against Evident truth not the World by means of so numerous a multitude of Catholick Professors It is an evident Verity That all those Wise and Learned Catholicks were neither Mad nor for so long a time Deluded by Fooleries He therfore who when rational Proofs fail cannot If Sectaries slight such witnesses They slight themselves much more speak a reasonable word against these Millions of witnesses But slights and undervalues them doth not only slight the greatest Authority on Earth But also if he be a Protestant must slight Protestancy if an Arian Arianism For these Sects have neither Authority nor Witnesses comparable to those of the Catholick Church 6. For conclusion of this matter be pleased to note That as our Adversaries are destitute of rational Proofs reducible to received Principles whilst They impugne the clear Evidence of our Church so they also want them in all other particular Controversies For whether They go about to oppose our Doctrin Soctaries never come to Principles or to prove their own You can never draw from them Proof brought to an undoubted Principle as I shall most amply show hereafter They are Opponents 'T is true when they tell us we have changed the Ancient Doctrin of the Church brought in novelties and I know not what We hear such Talk but where is the Propositio quiescens or grounded Proof to make this Charge good They say so And that is all And yet if possible They are worse at it in proving Their own Doctrin Take here one Instance you shall have more hereafter We demand A question proposed upon what rational Proof can These men Believe the Sacred Mystery of the Blessed Trinity and deny the Catholick Doctrin of Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament Are they forced to Admit of the one and Protestants believe one Mystery reject another with out proof Reject the other by clear and manifest Scripture Evidently no. Scripture is without controversy more
or without Commission talk of a new Gospel No. As my Father sent me saith our Saviour Ioan. 20. so I send you And They evidenced their Calling to the great Work they had in hand by clear and undoubted Miracles which proved forcible perswasive Arguments and strongly wrought upon the most obdurate Harts Yer fifteen hundred years after our Novellists appear broach a new Gospel aym at no les a matter then to pull down the Idolatrous Babel of Popery so they stile our Ancient Church and we must take their Word for all They say though they neither shew Letter-missive or Patents to warrant their Doctrin no nor one miracle to confirm it So destitute they are both of ordinary and extraordinary Mission Some will say Though they preach without Mission they preach the Doctrin delivered in Scripture and the Ancient Miracles without need of new ones were wrought to confirm Scripture-doctrin which is now purely Sectaries word it without proof taught in the Reformed Churches and not in the Church of Rome Thus most pittifully Mr. Poole pag. 195. where you se first an unlearned begging the Question 2. Every Arian licenced to assert for himself what Mr. Poole too simply assumes here without Proof 3. This is most falss Doctrin For no man yet ever lawfully preached true Christian Doctrin no not Christ himself without a Mission Sicut misit me Pater c. For when He Blessed Lord first established the Doctrin of Christianity contrary both to Iewes and Infidels He did it not by Words only without Commission nor proved the Verity of his Gospel by the Ancient and long since pas't Miracles wrought amongst the Jewes as these men do their Doctrin by the Primitive Miracles of Christianity which belong not to them But He evidenced it and confirmed it by new manifest Protestants obliged to show undoubted Marks and Signs when they preach a new Gospel Miracles visible Signs and Wonders And thus our Protestants should have don when they first published their new unheard of learning and by it attempted to throw down that long standing Church of Popery Undoubted Miracles unquestioned Signs of Truth should as we read of the primitive Apostles Mark 16. 20. Have followed them also But in lieu of these what have you Unwarranted talk meer proofles Words of uncommissioned men Miraculous words indeed if able to subvert an Ancient Church to pull down Popery and build up Protestancy 4. Unity in Doctrin most known and remarkable No Vnity of Doctrin in the Catholick Church they have none witnes those innumerable Sects which now swarm amongst them and This new Faith hath produced of Arminians Zwinglians Brownists Independents c. And now our late Quakers are sprouted out of it the last spring perhaps though no body knows of this Reformed Gospel I need not to say much on this point A serious thought cast upon the different procedure of a Catholick and Protestant will lay The Blessing of Vnity and Curse of Division open the great Blessing of Vnity in the one and the contrary Curse of Division in the other Observe well Catholicks you shall find like right Noble men Standing upon a long continued Pedegree on their Ancient Tradition on their never interrupted Succession of Popes of Princes of Bishops of People united in one Belief You look on Protestants like new Vpstarts unfortunately divided in their very first Progenitors Luther and Calvin that begot them in discord And this Spirit of Division as a Ghost doth and will Hant them to the worlds end if they last so long Catholicks you will find like deep and silent Waters running together in one Channel concentred in one Principle setled on one Rock the Churches Infallibility You se Protestants not only destroying both Rock and Center But also so giddily unconstant Sectaries unconstants to their own Tenents that you have them at a stand no where And this often shifting hath undon them Once the 39. articles were points of Faith and Religion now they are no more so Once the Pope was Antichrist now with many Protestants he is the first Patriarch Once he was a horned Beast now more then one of our New men take of his Hornes and make him Rational Once Rome was the Whore of Babilon now with most it is purer yes and Orthodox in fundamentals Once our Bishops were all Idolaters unlawful Pastors now They are so Legitimate that our new men must either derive their Ordination from them or have none at all And thus unsteedily they dance up and down say and unsay Now yea now no as the Fancy takes them And they must do so until they have a firmer ground of Vnity to set footing on 5. Mr Poole page 201. to impugn the Vnity of the Mr. Pooles instance of Pagans and Devils against Vnity is impertinent Church tell 's us That both Pagans and Devils had it yet in the very next page complains much of the want of Vnity in his Protestant Brethren Methinks unreasonably enough For if Vnity be so proper to Pagans and Devils the more Protestants are devided The better it is for them Because further of from the Spirit of these agreeing Monsters But saith Mr. Poole Vnity without Verity is not to be regarded I answer Every one knows so much But what is that to our present purpose where we solely treat of Vnity and assert it with the Nicene Fathers to be a Grace or Dowry of the Church a Badge or Cognisance of Truth And this our Protestants must acknowledge who I hope will grant some large Christian Society agreeing at least in Fundamentals Protestants hold some Vnity laudable in the Church which they call the Catholick Church I ask therfore Whether such an Vnity extended to all Christians be not Laudable and a good Mark of Truth If so Why are Pagans and Devils introduced to slight the Churches Vnity If not We have now not one laudable united Catholick Church in the whole world What follows in Mr. Pools 203. page Mr. Poles simple Objection concerning Divisions between Dominicans and Iesuits c Is so profoundly simple that no mans patience can so much as hear it Every Puny knows these differences are not in Faith but Opinions only I pass by such trifles 6. Efficacy in Doctrin an undeniable Mark of No Efficacy in Doctrine the Catholick Church our Protestants have not Observe my proof It is most certain That these men came but late into the Vineyard of the Church sure after the eleventh houre and found it as They say in a Sad condition overgrown with Weeds of Popish Errors pestered with Arian and Graecian Haereticks opposed by Heathens and Infidels What our new Zealots should have done All these needed the Light of this new Gospel to shine upon them And who would not have expected before this day greater Conversions wrought among so many straying Souls by these new Zelots Popery ere now should have been dissipated Arians reclaymed
well to Distinguish between express Scripture and the superadditions of Mens Glosses fallible Explications Interpretations c. Now if When Sectaries interpret Scripture truely They borrow light from Church Doctrin in this particular Mystery of the Trinity Mr. Poole Interpret's Scripture truely it is not God knows His skill that doth it No. The Reason is Becaus be borrows the Truth from the Churches Interpretation of Scripture and so fights against an Arian with anothers Weapon Where by the way observe a strange proceeding of Protestants who when They dispute A strange proceeding of Protestants out of Scripture against an Arian They 'l have the Churches Interpretation good against him and His naught against them And when they Dispute by Scripture against Catholicks They will have the Churches Interpretation forceles against themselves and Their own wretched Glosses powerfully strong against the Church Were there ever such Doings in the world before these dayes 10. But we have not yet said all concerning Scripture Interpretations of Scripture Inferences out of Scripture c. Wherfore Becaus we are gone so far Pardon a further trouble of giving you a few more Notes on this Subject They will shew you if I mistake not upon what rottering Principles the Grand Cheat of Protestant Religion stand's for want of Infallible Teachers CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 1. WE have almost seen enough how Sectaries either through Malice Ignorance or both make Holy Scripture a Book that proves all Religions Like Wittingtons bells It ring 's out what Fancy will For in Scripture is Arianism if we believe the Arians Here is Protestanism if we believe Protestants Here is Quakerism if we believe Quakers Here is what you will and All Haereticks lay alike claim to Scripture and the sense of it what you will not And it must be so whilst These men have a Bible in their hands and Construe all as they pleas Gloss as they pleas Interpret as they pleas without Limit or Restraint It had been much better Methinks if such Sole-Scripturists had never read Scripture in these debated Points of Religion then after their reading to se it made a Book that only begets Dissentions so grosly wronged and abused it is Yet no Body is in fault Pure Scripture cryes the Arian pure Scripture saith the Protestant nothing but Scripture saith the Puritan And there is no Redress for these Evils All run on in their wilful misunderstanding Scripture not one of them will yeild to another nor which is worst of all and plain Perversnes Seek after a means which is yet offered them to come to a right understanding of it 2. Truely I have often wondred at our Protestants men as they say of a more Sober Temper then your Quakers and Puritans are How it is possible Protestants Plea for Sole Scripture after they know right well with innumerable Holy Fathers this Plea or pleading sole Scripture to be nothing els but an old Trick of all condemned Haereticks That they can lessen themselves so much had they no other motive to retard them as to tread the Footsteps of such unworthy Sectaries and patronize a Doctrin which cannot but breed Dissentions to the Worlds end This it is Sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith Sole Scripture speaks plainly in all things necessary to Their false Doctrin Saluation On these two Hinges chiefly Protestant Religion turns about and will do so until God at his good pleasure judge it time to turn it out of the World Two Cheats they are and great Ones as I shall Demonstrate 3. Mr. Poole to mend the matter having supposed Mr. Pool's three Positions that sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith withall That there is enough said in Scripture to end all Controversies were men humble and Studious c. Seem's in the 7. Chap. of his Nullity page 226. to ground Protestant Religion on these three Positions The first is That the Books of Scripture are and may be proved to be the Word of God 2. That in the Substantials of Faith those Books are uncorrupted 3. That the Sense of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary Points There is no Arian but will most easily admit of these three Propositions How then were they all True can they more establish Protestant Religion then Arianism For a Principle common to two Advers parties cannot considered meerly as a Principle agreed on by both more Advantage the cause of One then the Other If therfore an Arian Assent to these Propositions they ground no more Protestant Religion then they do Arianism Mr. Poole wants a fourth Proposition The Truth is Mr. Poole is highly wanting in a fourth Proposition which if proved would have done him more service then the other Three And it should have been to this Sense Seing Scripture speak's plainly all Doctrin necessary to Saluation Certainly it ought to teach Protestancy plainly I mean the particular Tenents of Protestants as these stand in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin For if these be necessary to Saluation Scripture hath delivered them plainly or if it have not done so We must Conclude They are not necessary to Saluation Thus much premised we will shew you in the ensuing Discours how slippery and fallacious Protestant Doctrin is as it Relates to Scripture and Interpretation of Scripture 4. The first proposition No infallible Church no No Infallible Church no certainty of true Scripture Assurance of True and uncorrupt Scripture To makes my Assertion good against Protestants I will only propose this plain Question From what men of Credit and Integrity had the first Protestants Their Bible It From whom had Protestants their Bible was not drop't down from Heaven into their Pulpits with Assurance of its Purity or Certainty that no Change was made in it contrary to Truth since the Apostles Times Were they Iewes Infidels Turks Arians or Graecian Haeretiks that gave them Scripture Too perfidious to be trusted in a matter of such Consequence Too unfaithsul either to preserve true Scripture by them till Luther quit his Cell or then to put into his hands a Bible Vncorrupt in every Point Were they Catholicks Let our Adversaries shame the Devil and speak Truth 'T was from them They had their Bible together with the Originals But these Papists These very Catholicks if we may credit Catholicks in Protestants Principles cannot be relyed on for Scripture Protestants had not only Corrupted the Writings of the Ancient Fathers But also through Malice or Ignorance Had grosly erred a thousand years together and Changed the Ancient Doctrin of the Primitive Church They had Secretly wrought into mens harts a fals Belief of the Chutches Infallibility of an unbloody Sacrifice of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and such like errors Admit of this Supposition who is there amongst Protestants that shall dare to look on his Bible with good Assurance of its If
Papists erred in Doctrin They might more easily have erred in corrupting Scripture Purity or say it is the Word of God and not corrupted by These erring Papists For These men who erred in Doctrin might as well have insinuated errors into the Book of Scripture They had time enough to do it These men who changed the Ancient Primitive Faith of Christianity might as perfidioufly have Altered the Bible They wrought secretly a fals Belief into mens harts concerning an unbloody Sacrifice Transubstantiation c. And why might they not as cunningly have foisted into Scripture Words and Sentences suitable to such supposed errors Believe It is easier to corrupt â— dead book then to pervart innumerable living men it it is much easier to corrupt a dead Book then to pervert so many living Christians and bring them to a Belief of so palpable hideous and erroneous Novelties 5. Here then is my Dilemma Either the Catholick A Dilemma Church had erred when Luther and Protestants took the Book of Scripture from it or was pure in Doctrin If pure Most wicked were They for deserting it If the Church had then erred or was corrupted in Doctrin Neither Luther nor any Protestant can have Affurance that they read yet True Scripture For all the Certainty They can have of this Book is miserably uncertain and at last Comes to this doubtful Iudgement It may be we have true Scripture It may be and more likely not God only An unanswerable Argument knows All depend's on an Erroneous Church that gave us Scripture which might as well in the vast compass of a thousand years have guilfully changed this our Book from its Ancient Truth as cheated Christianity into a fals Belief 6. Some may yet say All now Agree as well Catholicks as Protestants upon the Verity and Integrity of Scripture Therfore its needles for many Books at least to Question this point farther I answer Protestants destroy the very Ground of Certainty Catholicks agree well Becaus they take this Book upon the Warrant of Christs never erring Church which cannot Deceive them But Protestants who Ruin this Ground of Infallibility destroy with it all Certainty of scripture in order to themselves Their Agreement therfore is no more but Verbal whilst the Principle which supports a Real one is shaken a pieces by them Hence you se How Mr. Poole speaks at Catholicks Confession no Proof of the Truth of Scripture to Mr. Poole random when he Tell 's us He knows Scripture to be the Word of God Becaus Catholicks confess and acknowledge so much I answer first Their Testimony with him is worth nothing For They had before he was born lost all Credit by introducing fals Doctrin into the Christian World and why not say I as well a fals Bible Such Doctrins He dares not admit of upon the Testimony of Catholicks yet With no colour of reason do Protestants Admit of a Bible upon the Churches Testimony and reject her Testimony in other matters He will Kiss their Hands and Take from them such a Bible as They are pleased to give him 2. The Testimony of Catholicks in this particular is with him Fallible and may be Fals But a Testimony that may be fals can never give any Assurance of True Scripture which of necessity must be had or none can ground Faith upon it 3. Mr. Poole is pittifully out in all he saith For he neither Doth nor can Admit of Scripture upon the Confession or Testimony of Catholicks Why Catholicks hold Scripture to be The Church holds her own Testimony Infallible Mr. Poole rejects this therfore he makes null the Churches Testimony to himself the Word of God Becaus the Infallible Church of Christ Assures them it is Gods Word This infallible Testimony of the Church Mr. Poole utterly Disown's and Therfore he must of necessity by his own Principles Reject the Catholick Testimony 7. Other perhaps will say That God by Special Providence ever preserved Scripture pure in all Essentials Though He permitted the Church to deceive Souls and lead them into Error What an Antiscriptural Assertion have we Here How is God Affronted What a lame and half Providence is granted him Sectaries affront God by allowing him no more Then a half Providence What no more but only to have care of a Book to secure That from falshood and in the interim to Permit his own immaculate Spouse his Church which Scripture should instruct to play the Harlot to Deceive the World and err Damnably O but what er'e becom's of the Church we must say our Protestants have True and incorrupt Scripture or no man can know what he is to Believe I answer And we must either have a True and incorrupt Church or none can be Assured of True and incorrupt Scripture It avail's little to have Verities shut up in a Bible if the Church erred in delivering them to Christians Say I beseech you what doth it avail Christianity to have the Pure letter of Scripture clos'd up in a Bible and preserved from Error if Christians Universally had been as it were Deserted by Almighty God and permitted before Protestants appeared in the World to Err in the very Substantials of Faith delivered in Scripture Yet it was so For confessedly not only those Antient condemned Haereticks as Arians Protestants say all Christians erred for a thousand years Pelagians Donatists and the Later Graecians but also that great moral body of Catholicks if our Protestants say true Erred in the very Fundamentals of Faith Since they Taught as they do still their Church to be Infallible an unbloody Sacrifice c. Gross errors therfore Reign'd amongst them whether we suppose the Scripture Pure or corrupted Imagin then which is utterly Fals Though Haereticks cannot prove it fals That our Scripture had been corrupted They had then Erred becaus the Book was falsified Suppose again which is True that Scripture is not corrupted you have still the same Effect which is Error in Doctrin drawn out of the very Words of pure Scripture The Reason surely is Becaus the Church did not rightly understand Scripture if so you se how Scripture not understood as easily begett's Errors as Error equally prejudicial whether it be caused by a false Church or falsified Scripture if it were corrupted What then matters it in Reference to poor beguiled Souls whether these great supposed Errors arise from Scripture misunderstood or Scripture corrupted Error is Error and alike Prejudicial in both cases I say therfore It is as great an Evil to have a Church that should teach Truth to deceive the world in bringing in a Deluge of Errors to the Ruin of the Ancient Primitive Faith as to have a Bible corrupted For 't is Error and fals Doctrin wrought in mens Harts That undoes them Now whether That be caused by a fals Church or falsified What Sectaries ought to fear Scripture it imports little Our Protestants Affirm the first and may
moves and draws men to Believe Be it how you will Protestants cannot prove that the Operation of Grace is their peculiar inheritance though indeed our Protestants have an odd Spirit They cannot shew probably That the Operation of Gods Divine Grace is more their peculiar Inheritance then others who Believe contrary to them But of this hereafter In the Interim note That in the Discours hitherto we inquire not so much after the Reason of Protestants for the Canon of Scripture as for its Sense in Points of Controversy Wherof you will se more in the next Chapter CHAP. VI. The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture which proves the Churches Infallibility is more Amply Refuted 1. WE noted above That it much Avail's when Sectaries take a liberty of glossing Scripture as they please to urge them to a Proof of their Interpretations By this close Dealing we shall learn much of their Fallacious Spirit and se How they both abuse their Readers and which is worse the Sacred Word of God 2. In the former Discours we Handled that Controversy Scripture most significant for Infallible Teachers concerning the Infallibility of Pastors and Teachers in the Catholick Church To prove the Verity we allege such Express Scripture That I dare affirm the whole Bible speak's no where any Truth of our Christian Faith then This in more plain Catagorical and significant Terms Might The words without patches of vain glosses have their open and obvious Sense 3. For the infallibility then of Living Teachers we cite what Christ said Luk. 10. 16. He that Hears you hears me c. or as the Greek read's and perhaps more significantly Hearing you he Hears me and Argue thus He who hears Christ speak Hear 's a Teacher Arguments for Infallible Teachers subjectively Infallible in Doctrin and Teaching But He who Hear 's those who are pointed at by that particle You Hear 's Christ speak for hearing you he hears me Ergo he Hear 's Teachers subjectively Infallible in their Doctrin and Teaching 4. To this a Grandy amongst our Sectaries Answer 's The gloss of Sectaries That Saying of Christ He that hears you c. was Absolutely true in the Apostles who kept themselves to that which was revealed by Christ But it was only conditionally true mark the Gloss in their Successors id est So long and so far as you speak my words and not your own Observe I say the injury done the Text by a Self-conceited Glosser And he speak's peremptorily it was but conditionally true in their Successors Who saith so Good Sr Christ Or you Prove your Gloss which Overreaches the Text and All the Words which God ever spoke Must I therfore be fooled into a How desperatly fallible men go about to perswade that all Pastors are fallible fals Belief And hold all the Pastors in Christs Church Fallible Becaus you a meer fallible Man are pleased to tell me They were fallible or that All they had was only the Small allowance of a Conditional but of no Absolute Infallibility Evangelical Sincerity requires a proof of an Assertion so newly coyned Produce it A new Sectary may say that the Apostles were only conditionally infallible but Their Suecessors absolutely infallible then and let it be plain Scripture Unles this be done Any New Haeretick may give the quite contrary Gloss to Christs Words And say That the Apostles were only conditionally infallible whilst living with Christ They might be rightly instructed in case they erred But that the following Pastors of the Church were made Absolutely Infallible Becaus they had not the Personal Presence of so good a Master to reclaim them in case they swerved from his Doctrin Thus much is said and only said without Proof And your Gloss good Sr hath no better Proof to enhaunse it But your own Saying which is not worth a rush O But they are strange kind of Sectaries say you who deny the Apostles Infallibility They are so indeed And as strange They are who deny to the true Church Infallible Teachers But this is not what I aym at All I now say is That if such Sectaries appear perhaps amongst you in England They prove Their Assertion as well by venting their Fancies vented without proof by both these Sectaries Glosses upon Christs Words as you do yours You say Those words were only conditionally True in the Apostles Successors But prove nothing They say The Words were conditionall in the Apostles Themselves But absolute in their Successors And prove nothing You are here both alike unles Luthers proof help you out Doctor Martinus Lutherus vult sic habere sic volo sic jubeo You have not more You reply Where the Command is for preaching Matth. 28. the Restraint is added What Restraint None at all When sent as lawful Missioners to preach Christs Doctrin Then They could deliver no Other Doctrin sent by Him and as Members of the Church then founded Herein they could neither go beyond How far the Apostles and true Pastors are Infallible nor fall short of their Commission I say as sent For no man God knows saith that the Apostles or 70. Disciples or the Pastors of the Catholick Church were or are Infallible in every Ordinary matter wherof they casually discoursed 5. Well But the Message These 70. Disciples were sent upon required no Infallible Assistance For they were not to deliver fully Christs Doctrin But only to prepare for it By telling their Hearers That the Kingdom of God is at hand Here is also more then is probable or can be proved For is it probable think ye That these 70. sent to preach reiterated nothing but these few words The Kingdom of God is at hand Is it probable that They were so Toung-tyed as to say nothing at all of this Kingdom of Christs Sacred Virtues or of his Miracles wherby He founded this Kingdom c. Be it how you will They were Infallible at least in the delivery of that Message For had Christ sent by his Eternal Father Personally delivered the Message He had spoken Infallibly But saith the Text He who Hear 's you hear's me Ergo these 70. were Infallible in the Message they delivered You reply again Though the Apostles and those 70. Disciples were supposed infallible Before An obje ∣ ction Christ Ascension yet nothing can be drawn from Hence for the Churches continuall Infallibility First Becaus were Sent abroad by Christ when there were no Infallible Writings containing Christs Doctrin 2. They had sufficient Evidences of Miracles in curing diseases and casting out Devils to attest that Infallibility To this second Answered I answered above That the Church hath the like Evidence of Infallibility by Miracles Casting of Devils c. The first Objection is Proofles Becaus Infallible writings alone make no man Infallible as is evident in all known Haereticks who have Gods Infallible Word yet most certainly pervert it There is therfore as much need of an
Infallible Teacher to learn us now infallibly what that Written Word speaks in a hundred As great necessity now to learn us what Scripture speak's as what Christ tought controverted Points as then was necessary to declare the Substance of Christs Doctrin which he delivered by Word of mouth I say the substance for without all doubt the Apostles and the 70. said explicitely much more in thir Preaching then meerly what Christ had implicitely and in fewer words commanded them to Preach yet They neither did nor could swerve in any Doctrinal Point Therfore in the publishing his Doctrin They had the Assistance of the Holy Ghost before his Ascension Though it was then more amply confirmed and promised anew not only to the Apostles then living But also to their Successors for ever 6. And this is what our Saviour Dogmatically Gods Spirit with his Church for ever Teaches Iohn 14. 16. of a Comforter the Holy Ghost who shall abide with you for ever which words implying a continual aboad cannot buâ— be understood in an Absolute sense Yes say They He shall be with them for ever But how Mark the gloss in regard of Consolation and Grace A meer Guess Not only for Consolation and Grace The only question is whether it hitt's right or no For who tell 's you Sr That this and no other is the Absolute sense of Christs Words Why may They not as well import the Assistance of Infallibility as that of Consolation and Grace Prove your Gloss and by Scripture This we urge for We Catholicks say without drawing further Proof from either Councils or Fathers which you hold Fallible That Christs following words Iohn 16. 13. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will teach you all Truth taken in their obvious sense warrants this Infallible Assistance for ever Can your Fallible Spirit assure me of the contrary You say Yes For these last Words are Restrained to the Apostles only Here is another Gloss or Guess as unlucky as the former For who Restrains here Christ or You If you do it you may as well restrain the Consolation of Grace to all the Apostles Successors as Infallible Assistance 7. We prove both the One and the Other Blessing granted to the Church by our Saviours own Words Matt. 28. 20. I am with you always to the end of the world and moreover Affirm that the Consolâ—tion of Grace granted the Church whose duty is to Teach us Truth Benefit's little in order to that Consolation of grace nothing in a whole Church without Infallibility End unles it be accompanied with the further Priviledge of infallibility For what comfort hath Any whether Learned or Illiterate to Hear that the Pastors of Christs Church have mâ—â—h interiour Consolation and Grace if this sorrowful Thought afflict his hart All and every one of thâ—se Pastors notwithstanding the plenty of their Grace may cheat him intâ— damnable Error and teach There is neither God Heaven nor Hell 8. I might further show How utterly inconsistent this supposed and yet Vnexplicated Consolation of Grace The Consolation of Grace and want of Divine Assistance uncompossible in the whole Church is with the Spirit of a whole Church which may Deceive us But the thing need 's no Proof for it is evident That God who hath promised to direct us by his Pastors cannot comfort them so plentifully with Celestial Inspirations and Permit all to delude and cosen us with Pernicious Errors Will he give them grace Think ye to Talk only and not to teach his Verities certainly To live holily for his grace serves for some end and Leave them to a Possibility of Corrupting his Spouse his own Sanctified God Courts not his Church with comfort and permitt's it to betray his Truths Church with fals Doctrin This in a word is to tell God That he court 's the watchmen of his Church with Heavenly Consolation who nevertheles may Betray his Cause and give up his Citty to the Devil when they please For here in They are left to their own wills and Fancies God you know is Truth and He loves Truth Truth is that which he first established in his Church And it Answers to that first Operation of Christian which is Divine Faith the ground of all Sanctity To tell me therfore That He comforts a whole Church by A Paradox of Sectaries Grace and yet leaves it so tottering upon Vncertainties That none can with absolute Assurance say He either teaches or hear's Truth delivered in any Article of Christian Faith is worse then a meer Chimaera And makes our Bountifull Lord not only a very Niggard of his Graces But also gives him a most high Affront The Grace therforâ— of Consolation The comfort of Grace supposeth the favour of Infallibility which he allowes his Church as a Church ever implyes or supposeth that Arcb-favour of Infallible Assistance Rob it of this Priviledge and other Graces avail little 9. And here by the way I must needs propose one question to our Protestants It is whether God Supposing his Promises already made can A question proposed whether the Church can withstand an loose all grace according to their Principles permit that the whole Church Vnassisted by his infallible Spirit loose withstand and reject what ever Grace he gives or hath given it If they say Yes It is Possible Then I Infer God can permit that the Whole Church may turn Traitour and become Impious For a Church which withstands looseth or rejects all Grace is traiterous and impious If they say no it is against his Goodnes to permit such a Universal Impiety They must acknowledge That he cannot but preserve a Church for ever whether consisting of Elect or no we dispute not in his Grace and favour Truth as necessary to the Church as Grace and this infallibly Ergo I say He cannot buth Infallibly also supposing his Promises Preserve it in Truth by the special Assistance of his own Unerring Spirit Truth being as all know as necessary to the Church as Grace is And thus we se in notorious great Sinners who although they have a thousand Incitements of Grace to amend their lives yea better themselves by it in some particulars yet as long as Divine Truth necessary to Christians is wanting Their state is Deplorable To conclude then Here is my Dilemma Either it is possible That the whole Church That is All the Teachers and Hearers in it may abandâ—n all Gods Revealed Verities and neither Teach nor Hear one Word of his Truth or 't is impossible If the first be granted 'T is not only possible that the whole Church may revolt from God and Truth But may loose all Grace likewise Grant this and say next what will become of our Protestants Elect people who Becaus Predestinated to Eternal life cannot but have Grace Observe well A Paradox of Sectaries the Paradox They cannot Loose grace yet 't is possible never to hear a Word of
I answer Admit of this most fals Supposition These Doctrins were not Taught Sectaries found Faith on a Negative No Faith at all can be founded on this Negative Before which will never be They Prove their contrary Doctrin Positively Revealed by Almighty God in Scripture For this Principle stands irrefragably Sure No Revelation No Faith Although the Object Assented to be True All the pains Therfore These men take to reduce Their Reformed Gospel to the Model of the Primitive Church is upon several Respects meer labor lost But upon this Account Chiefly it They cannot shew one of Their Negatives Revealed to any Ancient Orthodox Church faulters most That They cannot show one Negative believed by them to be a Revealed Truth to any Christian Society in the world It is pittiful to hear how they fumble in this Discours We Ask how they prove that the Primitive Church held no Unbloody Sacrifice put this for one example it serves for all Some Answer They find no such thing as a Sacrifice registred in those Ancient Writings Mark the Proof They find it not Ergo it is not to be found Catholicks as The Inferences of Sectaries unconcluding clear Sighted as others find that Doctrin expresly Asserted But becaus Protestants are pleased to Deny all They must and upon their Own word be Thought the Men of more Credit Well But Suppose the Doctrin was not Registred in those Ancient Records Is this Consequence good It was not writ Ergo it was not Taught No certainly Vnles They show all Taught Doctrin was then Writ or Registred But let us falsly Suppose that the Doctrin was neither Writ nor Taught Doth it follow that the Contrary of no Sacrifice now believed by Protestants was a Truth Revealed to that Church or taught by it No. Therfore they are here driven again upon the old Negative And thus it is That Church said nothing of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Which is Hideously Vntrue Ergo Protestants can now Believe no Sacrifice which is Hideously fals and as unlucky a Sequele as This That Church said not whether the Moon be a watery Body full of Rocks Ergo Protestants can Believe the contrary with Divine Faith You will Say we Trifle now For that Church was Perfect in Faith and either held a Sacrific 〈…〉 Denyed it I answer in Real Truth it Plainly and undeniably Held a Sacrifice yet must withal Affirm Though we Falsly suppose And this fals Supposition must be vigilantly regarded that it only Negatively abstracted from such Doctrin yet Protestants are far of from Proving it held Positively the Contrary That is no Sacrifice which yet is Necessary to be Proved if They believe no Sacrifice with Divine Faith 11. They may yet Reply They are Able at least to Produce some Ancient Fathers Clearly Enough Asserting no Unbloody Sacrifice Therfore they prove this Negative and so they can do Others I utterly Deny that clearly Enough and say They have not one Ancient Fathe 〈…〉 nor Council nor any Approved Authority No Ancient Father against an Vnbloody Sacrifice that positively Denyes a Sacrifice All unanimously Taught the contrary as Luther himself confesseth Much less have They Any that makes this their Doctrin a Truth Revealed by Almighty God or ever taught by any Vniversal Church Were therfore these supposed Authorities of Sectaries which are none and Reasons also for no Sacrifice more Numerous and Strong then what the World hath Heard of hitherto They cannot in Conscience suppose them Proofs weighty enough to Beat down the contrary Asserted And Vndeniable Doctrin not only of Fathers But of a Whole Church They cannot Suppose Them powerful enough to Build up such a new Negative of Protestant Religion especially whilst They see before their eyes the Torrent of Antiquity against them and our Answers returned to every Trivial Objection they make O But they can Solve all we Object And we must Take their Word Becaus They say so We also tell them We Solve what they Object and yet are not Believed Do you not se here most pittiful Doings and Controversies made Endles by this Proceeding when each Party saith what it pleaseth and Gain 's no Credit from the Other A Judge my good Friends and an Infallible Judge is here Necessary to Decide Matters between us But thus far evident Reason judgeth And Tell 's you Though you could Solve all we say for the Affirmative of a Sacrifice you are to Seek for a Positive Proof of your Vnproved yet Believed Negative There is no Sacrifice And the like I say of your other Negatives CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to Interpret Scripture Truely One Passage More of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers is Quoted 1. WE come now to Solve more fully the Objection Proposed Chap. 7. n. 2. It was to this Sense A Protestant Delivers what he Conceives to be the Meaning of Scripture So the Catholick doth also and can do no more Both of Them therfore are Glossers The difficulty proposed again Concerning the Interpretation of Scripture the only Difficulty is to know who Glosses better Here is the state of the Question 2. To go on Groundedly We may with our Adversaries leave Suppose That God hath not put a Bible into the Hands of Christians to cause Eternal Debates concerning the Doctrin delivered in it And if this be a Truth We may secondly Suppose God desirous of Vnity in Faith gave us not Scripture to cause eternal Debates That his Wise Providence so earnestly desirous of Unity in Faith amongst Christians hath Afforded some Means wherby we may rightly Attain to the True Sense of his Sacred Word For no man can imagin that Gods Intention is That we only Read without Arriving to the Sense of what we Read or which is wors that we fall into Error by our Reading Providence hath afforded means wherby we may understand Scripture This therfore Providence hath Prevented by one Means or other if carelesly we do not reject it We may thirdly Suppose That God regularly speaking Reveal's to no Private man the deep Sense of Scripture when He Reads and perhaps understands it not By private Illustrations new Enthusiasm's or the Ministery of Angels Therfore Private Illustrations no usual means some other way is Appointed by Providence to come to the True Sense of what He Reads The Reason is True Religion requires a True Interpreter of the Book which founds Religion Otherwise God would have only carelesly as it were Thrown Scripture amongst Christians And bid them Guess as well as they can at the Sense of it They having no other means to know his Meaning These Things Premised 3. I say first The Holy Book of Scripture neither doth Scripture cannot interpret its self nor can so Interpret it self as to bring Men Dissgnting in Faith to an Accord or Acquiescency in High Points of Controversy The Assertion is Evident For could the Book clearly interpret its own Meaning Catholicks Arians Protestants
certainly know without a Teacher what this Infinite Wisdom judgeth of the Truth they seek Observe the proof after This is the very case of Sectaries No more do they certainly know in their Principles what God hath already Revealed in that one Text This is my body and the like is of innumerable others then if he had never Registred those Words in Scripture They may guess at the Sense and miss more they cannot do Now if they tell me of no man knows what Moral Certainty or of Fundamentals clearly enough made known in Scripture we Answer fully to both in the next Discours 3. They may thirdly object If a Protestant cannot depose his Judgement nor think that the Church and Scripture say one thing Becaus his Reason finds them Opposite to one another He may stand for Gods Word against the Church To confirm this He may tell us also that the Church which An Objection containing the ground of all Haresy seem's to engross all Judicature and right of Interpreting Scripture is no more but a Party and a Party cannot in Reason be Iudge for it Self when the Protestant stands out and is in Controversy with the Church Here briefly is the Ground of all Haeresy and the old Plea of all Condemned Sectaries 4. To Answer the first I Ask what is this Protestant Is answered that cannot Submit his Iudgement Is he an Angel from Heaven or one immediatly Taught by the Holy Ghost No. He is a poor simple fallible and erring Man Why then may not he yeild to the Church as well as his Ancestors have done before him and the Wisest part of Christianity doth now The true Reason is Becaus he perversly will not submit And though he palliat's his Pertinacy with a Specious Pretence of Gods Word yet he hath not one Syllable in Scripture for him The most He can know if yet so much is that what he reads is Scripture but what God saith in that Scripture he cannot know at all but by Fancy only when he judgeth contrary to the Church O but God Illuminates him about A paradox of Protestants illuminated the Sense Why you my Friend more then an Arian as Strong in Fancy as you are But why you more then a whole Ancient Church Doth God tender you so dearly and not his Church Will he And of a whole Church left in Darknes Illuminate you and leave his Church in Darknes Will he give you the Spirit of Infallibility and take it from his Church Away with these Trifles not worth Refuting neither God nor Scripture nor Church is here stood for But a Self-conceipt only The Church no Party but Iudge 5. Now to what is Added of the Church being a Part and therfore no Iudge I 'll say one Word and first ask what is the Sectary that opposeth himself to the Church Is not he a Party also Will He then take upon him to Iudge and censure the Church And cry out against it as partial if it meddle with him The Church is already impowred by Christ to Iudge in Spiritual Causes as I have proved But no Particular man is more 'T is proved Authorized to Iudge the Church then a Vassal is to Iudge his Sovereign after Treason committed And the Instance is fit as you may se If some in a Kingdom tumultuously rise up against both King and Country as Sectaries have done against the Pope and Church They are accused and brought to a Trial before their lawful Sovereign the Fact is examined whether Treasonable or no. Will these impeached Men think ye fly from the Judgement of their Sovereign or plead He is a Party and therfore seek for Justice to a Forreign Prince No most certainly The King The Church the high Tribunal from which there is no appeal and Country where they offend have Power to Iudge them And so hath the Church in Spiritual matters from which there can be no Appeal And the Case is most Evident for the Church Becaus whilst Sectaries by their Schism or new Doctrin contrary to it become Rebels They have no Tribunal imaginable left them to Appeal to secluding this Iudge But their own Self-judgement which is the Delinquent The Church thus Sectaries make the Delinquent Iudge rejected Neither God Immediately nor Scripture more explicitly nor Angels Ministerially judgeth for them Therfore their last Appellation is to a very Friendly and too partial a Iudge Too partial a Iudge Their own what they Please And this is most evident in every debated Controversy where no other Judge is allowed of by them but Scripture and it were well would they stand to it But it is Scripture as They are pleased to Interpret 6. They may Object fourthly Those Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors mentioned in the Text Though granted Infallible are against all Reason supposed to be the Teachers of the Roman The pretense of other Lawfull Pastors beside those of the Roman Catholick Church Church For most surely There were other Orthodox Teachers beside these continued Age after Age in the world Why therfore doth the Church of Rome draw all that 's good to it self and Allow no other Christian Society at least a share of these Doctors and Teachers c Mark the Objection which acknowledges a Succession of other Orthodox Pastors and Teachers in the Christian World Age after Age Shewed Null And take with it my plain Answer If Sectaries lay claim to such They are obliged plainly to point them out And say where or when they lived who they taught c. But they are not designable Becaus from Luthers days upward There were none except the Roman Pastors in the Christian world But known confessed and condemned Haereticks And They were no Orthodox Teachers as I largely prove in the first Chap. of the next Discours Be pleased to read it They may Reply fifthly This Argument Such Pastors are not A Reply answered designable therfore were not is purely negative and proves nothing Well But I hope this Proposition Asserted by Protestants Such Pastors and Doctors distinct from the Roman Clergy were Successively found to have been in the World is Positive And therfore must be proved However Negative Arguments in such matters and of the like nature with this That is when things are of themselves Perceptible and yet not Seen Are both strong and Convincing For Example When negative Arguments have force If a company of quick sighted men stand up in a tower set before a plain and look round about them yet se nothing within the compas of the eye like a high Mountain They may well conclude There is no such Mountain within their sight Now I say A Church consisting of such Supposed Orthodox Pastors as Protestants imagin Distinct from the Roman is as visible and discernable as a Mountain in this present Case Yet were never seen by Protestants nor others Therfore it follows They were not at all unles we
Peace among you without Reference to your Faith your Church is Essentially Hypocritical which may Believe The English Church is essentially Hypocritical one Thing And must Profess an Other I now say no more having Told you enough to this Sense in another place Though all the Protestants in England do not only Dissent in Iudgement from the owning of These Protestants may curse These Negative Articles and yet besound in Faith Negatives Though they are plain Papists in Hart yea and Interiourly curse and Anathematize all your new Articles if the exteriour Demeanour be fairly good All is Fine They may be still looked on as Blessed Children of your new Negative Church The sequel is undeniable For They may Believe all that Scripture saith And this is Faith enough to Saluation And yet Anathematize your Negatives not at all contained in Scripture And wholy unnecessary to Saluation 11. Yet farther You Protestants Endlesly Talk A hard Question proposed to Sectaries of Reforming us Papists by Scripture Speak once plainly and Tell us How can you go about such a work as to reclaim us by Scripture To a Belief of your Negatives when you have not one Syllable of Gods Word for Them For if you have Scripture They are Superiour Truths Revealed by God and consequently Articles of Faith If you have no Scripture why Preach you fals Doctrin why Teach you that you can draw Vs from our old Faith to your New Negative Religion by plain Scripture No Protestant shall Answer to It cannot be Answered this short Demand 4. You cheat the World when you Offer to Resolve Protestants Faith which is no more Resolvable into Divine Revelation then Arianism Protestants resolving Faith a meer Cheat. is Because you must now confess that God never spake Word of Protestancy as Protestancy in the whole Bible Let therfore the world Iudge whether it be not a pure Cheat to give a Title of the Protestants way of Resolving Faith and then leave that which the Title Promises To talk of Resolving a Faith in Communi which stand's in no need of your Resolution 12. To see this more Evidenced And to end with these meer Nothings of Sectaries Our now Author Tell 's us That the English Church makes no Articles of Faith But such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages yes And are Acknowledged by Rome Protestant Church no more a Church then an Arian c. it self If this be so it is no more an English then a Church of Arians of Pelagians And of all condemned Haereticks For this man would say That a Faith common to All called Christians without Believing more is the English Faith and Sufficient to acquire Heaven Mark the Proposition And ask first what is now become of the The Arian and English Faith agree in Doctrin common to all Christians Protestants way of Resolving Protestants Faith Next and most justly call it a meer Fancy A new coyned Haeresy contrary to the whole Christian World For neither Scripture nor Councils nor Fathers nor any particular Orthodox or Haeretical Church much less the consent of the whole Christian World Owned the Belief of that Abstract Doctrin wherin all Haereticks Agree to be sufficient to Salvation A new coyned Haeresy contrary to All. The whole Christian World never yet said to Believe in Christ Abstracting from His Godhead and Two Natures is Sufficient Catholicks hold the Belief of a Sacrifice and Transubstantiation c. Necessary to Salvation And all condemned Haereticks as Arians Monothelits No Haereticks much less Catholicks Ever yet defended what our Sectaries here vent upon Fancy only and Others as firmly Adhere to their Particular Haeresies as to the Abstract Doctrin of all Christians Otherwise they had been wors then mad to have Abandoned an Ancient Church for a few supposed Inferiour Truths which neither can Vncatholick any if the common Doctrin of all Christians be enough nor make Them in Reaelity wors or better Christians And here by the way you se the Hideous sin of Sectaries who meerly for a Company of Inferiour Truths if yet They were Truths have shamefully Deserted The true Mother Church that made Their Progenitours The sin of Sectaries who have troubled â— the world for a company of supposed Inferiour Truths to be Christians I say If They were Truths For I utterly Deny the Fals Supposition And therfore press our Adversaries to speak to the Cause That is to come to Proofs and Principles wherby it may Appear That These Negative Doctrins No Sacrifice no Praying for the Dead c. Merit so much as the very name of Inferiour Truths These Negatives cannot be proved even by Their wonted weak way of Arguing Negatively We Read not of a Sacrifice or praying for the Dead For there is no man that Reads Antiquity But he Find's these Doctrins positively Asserted 13. From what is now said These Sequels undeniably follow First that Protestants cannot Resolve Protestants Faith but Fancy The Reason their Faith But into Fancy only For if they make the common Doctrin of all Christians only to be Their sufficient Faith for Saluation and Resolve that into its Principles both Fancy and Haeresy lye at the very Bottom of the Resolution And if they Go about to Resolve Their Negative Articles The whole Analysis the Regress the Reduction of Them will come at last to no other Principle But to the sole Fancy of Sectaries who call them Articles of Faith or Inferiour Truths It followes 2. If the English Church makes The English Church contradicts the whole Christian World no Articles of Faith But such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages Excluding others It doth not only Contradict the whole Christian World whose particular Communities owned the Belief of more Doctrin necessary But hath neither And Therfore hath no Faith at all Faith of those Abstract Articles now Believed nor any Faith at all Sufficient to Saluation as is largely proved in the 2. Chap. If Finally to Assoil These Difficulties Sectaries will Restrain that Ample Term of the whole Christian World to their imagined Catholick Church in the Ayr They are to specify the Particular Societies of this vast Church And when that 's Don They will find no Abstract Doctrin common to There never had been Haeresy in the world might Faith common to all be sufficient to Saluation all Christians Admitted of By any Sufficient to gain Heaven For were this true There had never been Haereticks or Schismaticks in the World whilst Christ only Though his Divinity be denyed is owned in a general Way Wherof more in the 3. Chap. 14. Here I 'll only propose one Question to our Adversaries When they positively Teach That that which our Saviour gave his Apostles in his last Supper and Priests now consecrate Dayly was and is no more But a Sign a Figure only of Christs Body My Question
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
Sectaries Negative way of Arguing out of Fashion like an old cast Garment no less out of Fashion Then quite worn out to nothing When this Controversy is Ended by Close Proofs and Principles without wandring into long dark Discourses We on our part are Ready to Engage in Any Other as shall best like our Adversaries And will Endeavour to make this Great Truth known to the world That Sectaries are as Vnfortunate in Proving their Own As unlucky in Opposing our Catholick Doctrin 4. Beside what is said Here is another Proof that A further proof of Sectaries not proving showes They can convince nothing unles Hereafter They manage Their Cause better then is Don Hitherto In All Debated Controversies We Have no more But our Adversaries Objections And the Catholick Answers The evidence of our Errours cannot Appear in our Answers For These All along gâ—â—on in Clearing us from Their Cavils Neither can the Evidence Arise like a Beam of light out of the Objections of Protestants Vnles They lustily Vainquish us with a Demonstration in good Form Supported by an owned Principle and Force us and other Intelligent Persons to Acknowledge That these Objections are plain Convictions of our Errours wherof there is no great Danger for We Catholicks Profess And say it with all candor That we look on These Objections against us as Slight Trivial While we return a Rational Answer Their Arguments Recede from all likelyhood of Evidence Defeated and worn-out to Nothing Be it how you will They cannot be Supposed owned Principles Between us Vnles we are mad And Grant That what our Protestants Vent and Vote against us is Vnanswerable As long Therfore as we give a Rational Reply to Their Arguments And let us have an Indifferent Judge to Decide the Controversy whether our Answers be Rational or no so long Their Objections will Recede From Evidence And Loos the Force of clear Demonstrations Against us Yet Their Schism is Evident That cannot be Denied 5. They may say first This Recours to a Judge is only a Put Of And makes Controversies endles Becaus If a Iudge be rejected Controversies are Endles They Acknowledge none But Themselves And I Answer This want of a Judge makes Controversies endles For seclude a Judge we may wrangle to the Worlds end and Stand still at as great a Remove from composing Strifs as we were when we began Them Pray you what do They think That without a Judge or clear Evidence which needs no Judge we must submit to their wordy Objections as if Oracles Pronounced Them when They Acknowledge Themselves both Fallible and Erring men in all they say No certainly Hitherto Therfore We have no Evidence yet Their Schism is Evident Remember That 6. They may Reply Again It is Plain Perversnes in us not to se the Evidence of Their Arguments Against our Errours Pittiful I Retort the Argument And Tell them It is wors then Perversnes in Them to Sectaries suppose what is to be proved make That Evident which Hath not so much as Probability in it Alas To Talk thus is Scholding no Schollership a Clamor no Close Disputing Be pleased to Put your Arguments in Form Unles This be don it is but Vain to Suppose Evidences which cannot be Proved Yet your Schism is Evident 7. They may thirdly Reply Their Objections against The self-seeming of Sectaries no Proof our Errours seem at least Evident to Them Observe a Strenuous Proof We urge to have Arguments against our Errours Reduced to Vndubitable Principles And here They give in Their own Self-seeming which is Fancy and True Evidence hath force with all Nothing like a Received Principle I say therfore They have No Evidence For This Works upon all mens intellectual Faculties alike And equally Necessitat's Them to Assent It is true The Perversnes of mans will may either make him to cry up That For evident which is not Or To Deny That to be Evident which is But it never makes him not to se what is clearly Discernable by its own manifest Light Thus then it is Neither we Catholicks Neither Catholicks nor Others Ever saw any thing like Evidence in the Arguments of Protestants nor the rest of the Christian World ever yet saw any Thing like Evidence in those Arguments of Protestants Why Therfore should we take Their word For it Or Believe that They have better Intellectual Eyes then Their Neighbours Alas if an Arian would lay Claim to such an Evidence For his Heresy He might do it upon Fancy and every whit as Groundedly as Protestants No Evidence is yet seen But the Schism is Evident 8. They may fourthly Reply Though they have no expres Definitions of Councils or Unanimous consent of Fathers Assertive of our Churches Errours Becaus all of them Sided with Rome and were no little Flatterers of that Sea Yet They Cite Scripture Against us which is a Principle owned by all Answ So do Arians Also and to as little Purpose But ad rem Produce plain Scripture without your own unevidentced Their Arguing from Scripture is Forceles Against us Glosses which we Reject as Extra-scriptural And put your Arguments grounded on Scripture in good Form You Shall se All in the First or Second Syllogism Decaied Faint Forceles And out of all Fashion of an Argument For Example you have not one Syllable in Scripture Against our Doctrin of Transubstantiation or Purgatory or any other controverted Point Therfore Arguments built on Scripture must needs fail you All you can Allege is That the Word Purgatory or Transubstantiation is not in Scripture And you know no more is the Word Trinity and Consubstantial O But the Reality is not in Gods Word How prove Their Negative way of Arguing Proofles you that in Form We Deny it But Admit it be not your Proof is Poorly Negative and without legs runn's Thus What Scripture Expresly contains not is an Errour Scripture Expresly contains not Transubstantiation Ergo it is an Errour We Deny the Major and give you Twenty Instances to blunt and Dead the Force of it Go on Therfore to prove That yet Vnproved Major It is Impossible Here you will have Them Sectaries are urged to Dispute in Form at a Stand They cannot Advance However Grant They Offer at it Our Answers still closely Follow Them And Enervate Their Proofs as They are Driven on in the Cours of Arguing Believe it They Shall be sooner out in Arguing Then we in Answering And to Shew you That I do not vainly Vaunt in Saying Thus much Let it Pleas our Adversaries And to bring Their Proofs to an Vndeniable Principle to come to a just Trial of Disputing in Form upon this particular Matter of Transubstantiation or of any other where They Think to have most Advantage And Press on us Proof after Proof Till at last They bring us to a Propositio quiescens That is to an Intellectual Light which by its own Clarity Evidenceth it self Solid not
To you or to me Mr. Poole But to All Rational men who know what Evidence is An now we need not go to School and learn That For nature with a little Logick Teaches sufficiently what Evidence is This Evidence Therfore drawn out in a close continued Arguing in Form will Do the Deed and Show whether we are Foyled or you Fight Vnluckily Vnles This way be taken to The loos and uncluding way of Arguing in Sectaries is most insipid and Blamable whilst you run on in a loos Vnconcluding Talk And Own No Infallible Iudge to Decide between us We may stay till Dooms day which is pittiful And End our Lives Before we end so much as one Controversy Study Therfore well For this Propositio quiescens which by the Evidence of its own Light Apparent to all makes us to Yeild up the Cause If you can do this you are Gallant men if not Know That your Shism is Evident This is the burden of the Song But the Pretended cause of it laid on us lyes yet in Darknes Vnevidenced And Therfore is Vnjustifiable 9. What will you say if a new Zelote of Our English Schism Argues Thus Most surely Protestants wise and learned men cannot All so numerous as They are Be Supposed to have made a Bustle in the World about Nothing They cannot be Supposed to have left an Ancient Church But upon the Sight of great Difficulties which frighted many and Finally withdrew Them from Holding Communion with it longer I shall Answer the Objection largely Hereafter Now I only Say When a Rebellion is manifest and Decryed A known Rebellion in Kingdom Or a clear Schism in the Church Cannot be Iustifyed by The Authors or Abbettors by all Indifferent and Vnconcerned men The sole Authority of Those who Began it can never make it Iustifiable The Case is clear in Civil Affairs For example In that ungodly Rebellion raised in England Against our lawful Sovereign as also in Ecclesiastical Witnes the Arians Schism Against the Church These Partisans Authority alone it is well known was Too Weak and Insufficient to Iustify either of these impious Facts 10. To that Talk of a Sight of difficulties I Answer He who for seeming Difficulties will leave an Ancient Church Whoever leaves an Ancient Church for seeming difficulties may as Easily Relinquish all Christian Religion Shall at last be forced to Abandon all Christian Religion which certainly hath its Difficulties And are there none Think you against our Protestants Novelties I say therfore supposing we once Digest the hard Mysteries of Christian Faith common to us all So Few So Slight so Vnvaluable are the Difficulties Against our Church That when One seriously Reflects on this Churches long Continuance on the several Councils convened in it on the different Judgements of learned men on the various Dispositions of People and Nations which make it up c. All apt enough according to nature to breed Endles Dissensions He must say if a spark of It is a special Providence That Difficulties are no Greater in the Church Reason live in him Digitus Dei est hic The work of God and a Special Providence over his Church Appears in this alone That Difficulties are no more nor greater in so long standing a Moral Body Than those slight ones are which causelesly Affright our Adversaries Do not then I say Desert Christian Religion Totally upon the Account of those difficil Mysteries it Teaches You can never in prudence Relinquish this Ancient Church For Pretended Contradictions in Councils for supposed Superstructurs Innovations and such like Trifles which Though stumbling Blocks to Sectaries are no sooner look't on then removed And put away By Most Satisfactory Answers CHAP. X. The Roman Catholick Church whilst Evidence comes not Against it Stands Firm Vpon Its Ancient Possessed Right This long Possession Proves the Church Orthodox 1. SOme perhaps may Object against the former Discours We Catholicks do not so clearly An Objection Acquit our selves of Errour Nor consequently of the Charge in being Cause of Protestants Scbism as we Rigourously Exact of them to have these Errours laid evidently Forth against us For if One should Ask How we Prove our Church to be free from Errour and this clearly Or That by our Errours we Occasioned not Protestants Separation from us what shall we say I Answer Though we have Demonstrations for the Truth of our Religion supposing Christ once Established a Church in the World And Can shew This Truth by a close Order of Arguing in Right Form Yea And we will Do it when Sectaries have Satisfyed our Difficulties Yet to Solve This present Argument We are not Obliged by the Law of Disputation to Prove any Thing Nor To do more Then only to Stand upon our Guard and Defense The Reason is Our Protestants are here the Actours the Aggressors Protestants because Aggressors are obliged to prove their charge 'T is Therfore Their Task to Prove ours only to Defend which is Easy if you Mark How strangely in Vain They make Their Attempts Against us Observe it After our Church had stood a Thousand years and more in the quiet Possession of Truth They Accuse it of Their weak Attempts Errour After so many Thousands of Learned and Virtuous men that lived Holily And Dyed Happily in it Yes And Had Eyes as Quick Iudgements as Deep and Wills as good to Find out These Errours Had any been As the best of Sectaries yet found none They forsooth Espy Them After The Churches Purity and Innocency This Church had its Purity and Innocency Signed and Sealed by the blood of innumerable Martyrs Evidenced by undoubted Miracles Manifested by so many Glorious Conversions wrought on Aliens Drawn to Christ And Finally Demonstratively Proved by All Those Illustrious Marks of Truth wherof we Treated Above Our Protestants Rise up And Calumniate This great Society of Christians Lay a foul Aspersion of Heresy on it Are not They Think ye as Actors Obliged in Justice to make Their Charge good Against us By Evident Proofs And are not We Proved by a long Possession Exempted from all Further Obligation of Pleading Then only to stand upon our Ancient Blamles And Quiet Possession Believe it This OLIM POSSIDEO PRIOR POSSIDEO is Warrant sufficient And our Wall of Defense against such weak Aggressors And yet we Strengthen our Hold with Canon Proof it is Evident Reason also Nemo praesumitur malus nisi probetur No Man upon vain And Evident Reason also Presumption ought to be accounted Naught unles Reason Prove him a Delinquent 2. For Example Give me a Loyal Subject That hath Don wonders and great Service for his Prince An Instance That hath Enlarged His Kingdom Gained Him Friends Defeated His Enemies And yet is Struggling to Do him More Service Whose Repute was never Stained nor Fame Blemished c. Suppose now That a little Knot of unknown Men should Offer at some Small or Vnconsiderable
Succession of Their Church of Their Bishops of Their Pastors by virtue of any Immemorial Tradition Let Sectaries must solve Their own Argument them also Vouchsafe to give in that Title wherby They lay claim to a Possession of Truth What ever is Allegeable for the One or Other whether it be Tradition Scripture or Fathers will suffer more Contradiction from innumerable Called Christians then the least Article if any were little of our Catholick Faith Therfore they must Solve their own Argument The Reason is If they plead Traditioin for a continued Succession of a Protestant Church ever since Christ the whole Christian World yea even Protestants themselves Oppose the Paradox If Their Plea for Pure Protestancy be Scripture They 'l meet with as many Adversaries Having not one Syllable for it in Gods Word If finally They make a Belief Common to all Christians to be Their Essential Faith None likes the Doctrin Both Friends and Enemies Catholicks and Haereticks stand against them Therfore I say once more They must solve Their own Objection The Argument is solved 6. Now you shall have my Answer And I say An Argument That Drawes all the Force it has from the Opposition of Enemies And They were all known Opposition of Hereticks no proof against it Haereticks that Opposed our Catholick Tradition Destroys not only Evident Truths but also Impugn's Christ and Christian Religion Atheists make Objections Against God Jewes Against Christ yea And the very Instance now allowed of supposeth some wilful Zelots contrary to the common received Tradition of so many Monarchs undoubted Succession You Christian Truths meet with Adversaries He that will side with such Opponents shall at last desert Christianity se Therfore How weak this way of Arguing is Believe it There is no one Christian Verity but hath its Adversaries Therfore the Man that will Side with such Opponents and Cavil also Because a Company of Dismembred and jarring Sectaries Do so must look how He striks lest he cut to deep and Wound those He would not hurt For at last He shall be forced to shake of the very name an Notion of a Christian I 'll say in a word what is more amply laid forth Disc 1. Chap. 7. n. 4. 5. We have an Ancient Church against these Scattered Companies of Novellists A Church united in Doctrin Against their Iarrs and Endles Dissentions A Glorious Church manifested by such Marks and Motives as made the world Christian And these plead against Their Vnevidenced Opinions Finally we have most certain Tradition against their uncertain Guesses Vpon such Proofs which cannot be shaken we stand Therfore unles our Adversaries beside the Multitude of Opponents bring rational Proofs against our Possession which Rest at last upon undeniable Principles We are safe and cannot be Danted Alas The meer Number of known Enemies without Evidence Clamours of known Enemies without a rational Trial. Proofles to warrant what is Pretended Seem's much like unjust Clamours in a Disordered Common-wealth Loud 'T is true but as Sensles as Loud when Reason ought to have place and plead the Cause by Proofs and Principles Therfore we Appeal to Principles may They bear Sway we are content if not We told you Above Though as many Hereticks rise up against us As there are Atheists opposite to God And Iewes to Christ We Regard them not if they come Vnarmed and only Fight by the Votes of their own Scattered and Devided Companies But enough is said of this Subject in the Discours now Cited 7. Here I 'll only Add one Consideration more And it is to Assure our Adversaries Though They run to pass't Ages that is the whole world Over and Gather all the Votes of Enemies either against the Possession or the Ancient Tradition of our Church They only give us a Number of jarring Suffrages which bound up together cannot Amount to a weak Probability A weak probability though granted cannot clear Sectaries from Schism However Let Truth suffer Suppose them weakly Probable is this enough think you to warrant Sectaries Foule Schism Is here Ground enough to Iustify an Evident Divorce made from an Ancient Church wherin Their Ancestours Lived peaceably time out of mind Age after Age without Trouble and Disturbance No. All is improbable For what ever is less then Evidence Grounded on sure Principles will shew it self to be as it is a Proofles Cavil Against so long prescription and immemorial Possession of our Ancient Faith 8. Some may yet Reply All that 's Said hitherto An Objection Shows only a Personal Succession of Popes Prelates Pastors and People in foregoing Ages But is far from Proving the main point in Controversy They mean a full and quiet Possession of Truth which we make so Hereditary to These Popes and Bishops Descending from St. Peter That it was never lost This They say is to be Proved I Answer We are yet obliged to prove nothing For the very Testimony the Vnanimous When the Church gives in Her Evidence Sectaries are to Disprove it Consent the Constant Tradition of our united and learned Church without more are most pregnant Arguments as well for the Possession of Apostolical Truth laid claim to as For the Personal Succession of our Catholick Pastors Therfore unles Sectaries can weaken this Plea by a Contrary Evidence more strong then our Churches Tradition is and then the Proving is incumbent on them we stand firm upon our Olim Possideo which cannot be shaken I say by a contrary Evidence Stronger then our Churches Testimony and Tradition Speak now it 's your time of Proving What have you to Alledge against This sole Want of Principles makes Sectaries Cavils improbable Consent and Tradition Is it Scripture Produce it And we are silenced if not Vouchsafe to Hold your Peace Hereafter Have you the Consent of Fathers or Ancient Councils to make your cause Good against our Pleading Tradition and the Ancient Possession of Truth with it No. Examen These learned Volums you 'l not find one clear sentence favoring your unjust Process Against a Church That made your Progenitors Christians What then Remains Sectaries own Votes as weightles as the Arians to Scare us with But your own-self Simple Votes and if these Cast as it were in A ballance Against our Ancient Possession can out weigh it and so Deprive us of our Right The Arians long since had Destroyed us all for Their Votes were as weighty as united as yours Yes and more numerous 9. Well Though we are not Obliged to prove A Few Proofs briefly hinted at though we are not obliged to prove what both Tradition and our Ancient Possession Convince I 'll yet Hint most briefly at a few Proofs in Behalf of our just Possession First it is an undeniable Verity that Christ founded a Catholick Church And 'T is as Evident Sectaries Confess it that He invested the Roman Catholick Church in an Ancient Possession of Truth 2. It is an undoubted Verity
Church in Truth And promised to be with the Church He Founded to the End of the World Withal that no Orthodox Church Ever opposed this just Possession c. It therfore lyes on our Adversaries to Disprove These Scriptures And to Weaken those Reasons by sound Principles or at least to Offer at an Answer which I Think will be Difficil to Do by Any Proof That 's weakly Probable 13. In the Interim you se the Strain of Sectaries Writing The Strain of Sectaries writing Controversies Controversies It is Ever to be Cavilling at our Tradition at our Possession and Prescription And Thus they run on as if their Cause were not at all Concerned Though it should be otherwise For do not Protestants Protestants pretend to a Possession of Truth as wel pretend to a Possession of Truth as Those They call blind Papists Yes And will They not say that the Truth they Lay claim to is either a Belief Common to all Hereticks or the Particular Doctrins of the English Church Yes For they 'l have no Mixture of Popery with it Well Now we Vrge them to produce a Conveyance From Him alone But can produce no Conveyance from him that could invest them in it who could invest them in the Possession of Either the One or other Doctrin Here You 'l have them Silent For not so much as a Syllable of Scripture nor one clear Sentence of a Father least of All Any Ancient Tradition Ever Favoured such Extravagancies However you must have patience And Hear Sectaries Loud in Their Complaints Against our Tradition and Ancient Possession And 'T is no wonder For 'T is easier to Cavil at Truth Then to speak sense For Falshood 14. A second Objection It is Plain in this Case viz. Of Prescription or Possession The full Right depend's not upon meer Occupancy But a Title must be pleaded to Shew that the Possession is Bonae fidei so that the Question Comes from The Possession to the Goodnes of the Title Answ By This Word Right or Title I understand a just and meet Reason Allegeable For What 's meant in this place by Right and Title that wherunto a man layes Claim And wherof He had Possession for long a Time As if One should Ask an Ancient Gentleman by what Right He Hold's His lands And How long He hath Had Them He Answers They were setled on Him by His Ancestours And here is His Title Both they And He have quietly Possessed Them without Cavils Cavils Against known Right Proofles for a thousand years c. Suppose now A wrangling Lawer should Tell the Gentleman Sir whatever becomes of your long Possession I Question your Right or Title And therfore say your Possession is not Bonae fidei But a meer Occupancy Would not This busy Fellow think ye if He said no more be put to His Proof when the Gentleman shewes His Right and justly plead's his long Possession Yes most Assuredly Here is Our very Case It is more The Right and Churches Title certain that the Roman Catholick Church was Once most lawfully invested in the possession of Truth by the Gracious Goodnes of Him that founded it Then ever Any was lawfully setled in Right of His lands For so much â—he whole World and Sectaries also Acknowledge as undoubted And Here is The Churches First Right or Title It is Again most Evident That Innumerable of unspotted Fame of Great Learning Sanctity and Vertue Have not only Avouched This Blessing to be once Conferred on the Church But Moreover have professed Themselves to be The Heirs and Professors of it Heirs of this Ancient Right And so Far the Professors of Those Primitive Verities That They â—onveyed them Age after Age to posterity I say No more yet but only what they Professed Now Starts up a Minister And Tell 's the Church just as the Lawer It 's Tacitly supposed by our Adversary an Occupancy but not Proved Doth the Gentleman She hath no Right nor Title But a meer Occupancy That 's no Possession The Church proves this Right first to have been Conserted by one that could give it Then She shewes it to have Remained with Her in Every Age By sure Witnesses of Vertue and Integrity Must not therfore this Minister Think you that Contrast's with such Witnesses And Encounters such an Army of old Tryed Souldiers be put to His Proof and Fight lustily by Evidence And if possible with Stronger Proofs Is All manfully Don Pray you Judge when He wholy supposeth what Should be proved And is pleased to Miscal our Ancient undoubted Right our just Title and Vnquestioned Possession by a new Coyned word of Occupancy Let him Keep the Occupancy to Himself and Apply it to His Protestant Religion That Hath neither Right to plead by nor Title nor any Ancient Possession 15. A Third Objection If we plead Possession by immemorial Tradition from Ancestours many things are to be Contested and this is one That no Antecedent Law hath determin'd Contrary to what we challenge by vertue of Possession Very Good When you Sir Shew us this Antecedent Law Contrary to what Our Adversary is to Show an Antecedent Law contrary to our Possession we Challenge by vertue of our Possession wee 'l yeild But you are to make this Evident And Consequently the Proof Lies on you which will be a hard Task For we Know There is no such Law against us 16. A fourth Objection Christs Law hath Determin'd Matters of Difference between us one way or other For Example Whether the present Church be Infallible or no. If the Law has Determined Against us Possession And Prescription signify Nothing If for us The Question must be wholy Removed from the Plea of Possession And be tryed on This Issue whether Christ by his Law hath determined on The Legislators Determination your side or Ours I Answer The Legislator hath most plainly Determined for the Infallibility of that Church which He founded And though you slight those Sacred Texts Super hanc Petram Pasce Oves Eâ—o Vobiscum or what Els you pleas They are yet Vigorous Proofs Against your meer Cavils Therfore Because you Offer to be Tryed upon this Issue Whether Christ We like our Adversaries Offer hath Determined for you or us we Accept of the Challenge And are ready to Dispute by Scripture only Produce then your Texts as plain and significant for the Fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Once Confessedly True As these now Hinted at and many more Cited Above are for Her Infallibility This don you may Vapour as much as you Pleas And Offer to be tryed by Law c. But we know your Want you have not after All this Talk a Syllable of Scripture Sectaries Have no Scripture Against the Churches Infallibility Against our Churches Infallibility Now to the other Horn of the Dilemma where you Say if Christs Law has Determined on our side the Question must be removed from
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
cannot be Parallell'd with the Imperceptible Graynes of a beard with Tares peeping up c. However This we can say Certainly so many years since the beard was not gray now it is So many Months since Tares were not now they are Let our Adversaries Proceed with like Evidence against us and say Certainly not doubtfully such Supposed Errours Then were not in the Church but afterward Began and within the precise Compass of so many years But This They cannot probably Hint at The last Instance of a childs Conception is the worst of All For if you know its Birth you know the conception was nine Months before according to the ordinary cours of nature Though if both were hid from us it is a Forceles instance Vnles we suppose that all Trivial Matters must as well be known and stand upon Record as Things of greatest Concernment The late woful Burning of London will I 'll warrant it be Exactly Recorded when the birth of twenty Infants is never thought on and so should the General Ruin of Faith in a whole Church have stood Registred 8. One word more Though These Examples were Could Sectaries shew how such changes might enter the Church that proves not they entred to the Purpose as indeed They are not at most they would only shew and Pittifully enough How such supposed changes might perhaps be made But are far from Proving They were made so De facto For this carries no likely-hood of an Argument with it I 'll Shew you how These Errours might Enter the Church insensibly How these Changes might get in with Silence Ergo it was so Thus they were made De facto A Potentiâ ad actum non valet Consequentia No man can Argue from a An Inference from a meer Possibility to The Act is Null meer Possibility of their Clancular Entrance that in real Truth They entred in Such a manner Sectaries may say They Suppose these changes made upon other Principles And now only shew by Instaâ—â—es How They might get in without Noise and publick Notice Here we may have plain Dealing if it please our Adversaries Shew you Therfore My Good Friends by any Thing like a Solid Proof or Principle That the change we now speak of was Actually made in the Church Say plainly This Supposed Novelty was not in such an Age but afterward And let a solid Proof make good both Their examples neither Prove these pretended novelties introduced nor suppose them proved by any known Principle Assertions And then Your Instances of Tares and Beards growing gray will be to no purpose Because the Changes which you say were made are now upon your Supposition strongly proved Aliunde That is By other solid Grounds and this without the help of these weak instances Here therfore is an Vnanswerable Dilemma for you You either endeavour to show that the Supposed Novelty of the Real Presence entred the Church Because your Examples of Tares and a clock index convinceth the Actual Entrance of it And This Inference as I said now is Non-sense Thus it might Enter Ergo thus it did Enter Or Contrarywise You can clearly Prove that the Church began such a Novelty by undeniable Grounds without Protestants make their own Instances impertinent and forceles depending of these Instances If you do this solidly your instances are worth nothing For if you Convince by an undeniable Principle that the Church brought in this new Doctrin in any Age you need not at all to talk of a gray beard or of Tares peeping up insensibly Because you must now suppose the pretended innovation clearly Proved by other far better and undeniable Grounds Do this and you make your own Instances Eo ipso Null and as impertinent as Forceles For Most An Instance against Them surely No man in his wits will go about to prove that Protestancy for Example came into the world insensibly as a board grows Gray when he can evidently Demonstrate by other undeniable Principles the Palpable Beginning of it And thus it is in the present Controversy 9. One may yet say They cannot 'T is true Demonstratively Evidence the supposed change now in Controversy yet are able upon strong Moral Their pretense to make Novelties in the Church to be highly probable is more then improbable Proofs to make it highly Probable Contra 1. If you make it highly Probable Talk no more of Tares and Beards For one Proof of this nature will be of more Advantage to your cause then the secret peeping up of a Thousand weeds in a garden Contra 2. If this your Assertion be made probable it must stand upon a strong Moral certain Principle wherof none can but most imprudently Doubt Deal Candidly Give us in plain language this High Moral certain Principle wheron your Assertion hath Footing and you 'l Gain much But if after the Offer you Turn us of with words or lead us by a loos Discours to what you may say is Morally Certain Though thousands more learned vow the Contrary you 'l only First Discredit your self and next your Cause much more Speak plainly on Gods Name Here is place for it Make your undoubted Principle known wherby your Assertion is proved And you will do more then Ever Protestant did yet or shall do Hereafter Contra 3. It is a meer whimsy to suppose Proofs highly probable against This ever Taught and unchangeable Doctrin of the Catholick Church which stand's Firm First upon Christs own Express words No proof can be probable that stands against undeniable Principles This is my Body 2. On the Irrefragable Authority of so many most Ancient Fathers that speak not only Dubiously of the Mystery But as clearly Defend it as the Council of Trent Defines it wherof more largely Hereafter To These Principles We Add the Testimony and Express Belief of our whole Learned both pass't and present Roman Catholick Church Too strong a Proof to be Battered or shaken by Empty words Wherfore Every one may Consider what a hard Task Sectaries have in hand if They go about to make Their Contrary Assertion highly Probable First They are Obliged It will be hard to find an Orthodox Christian Society of greater Authority then the Roman Catholick Church to Prove and by a sure Principle That Christ spake improperly or according to Their sense 2. That all or at least most of the Fathers Erred in their Doctrin of the Blessed Sacrament 3. That They quite Overthrow the Roman Catholick Doctrin by the Authority of some other Church that was ever Held by Christians more Orthodox and Apostolical then our Roman Church is All this is to be don not by Talk But by Sober Solid and Vndeniable moral Principles which both Friends and Enemies ought if They be Rational to acknowledge as Principles Morally Certain When Sectaries shall pleas to do what is here plainly required And it must be performed if they speak pertinently Then I shall begin to think That They meer
Fallible men may speak more boldly and Say Our Church is Fallible and hath brought in both this new mentioned and many other Innovations Therfore I deeply Charge their Consciences The Consciences of Sectaries are pressâ—d to prove what They teach of Errours in the Church as They will Answer it at the day of Iudgement not to Trifle in a most serious matter But without Ambiguity plainly to touch the Difficulty And to make known to the whole World what that owned Principle is wheron this Their Proposition stand's The whole Church is Fallible and hath introduced This Novelty of Christs Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament I speak Not by Empty words but certain Principles boldly And dare say It is a Flat Heresy And therfore Sectaries have nothing like a Principle Morally certain wherby the strength of the contrary Verity mantained by Scripture Church and Fathers can be meanly Quarrelled with much les solidly Reproved unles the too simple talk of a Few Novellists be able to Evert and Overturn what God hath Revealed And a whole ample Church Defends upon Revelation 10. Perhaps it will be said first The Fathers that Defend the Real presence were fallible and might Err. what Sectaries may plead but 'T is more then highly improbable I answer Our Protestants who Deny it are Fallible also and may Err more By what undoubted Principle Therfore can They Convince that Their fallible rejecting the Fathers Hath weight enough to make Null the Testimony of so many Blessed Saints against Their Doctrin We call here for Principles and are not content with Empty words They may Reply 2. They can Explicate both Scripture and Fathers contrary to the Churches Sense And so ridd themselves of that Burden I answer This Riddance is none Unles when they have explicated They prove by a more sure Principle Then the Express Words of these Fathers are That Their Glosses hit right and that the Fathers were Deceived which shall never be so much as Probably Convinced If They lastly talk of Citing Fathers for their Heresy I answer They have not one As will be amply Proved hereafter In the mean while let them know it will be the safest Cours to talk no more of Changes ad Novelties introduced into our Church without proof and Principles to uphold Their ill Supposed and wors Proved Calumnies But enough of this Digression We return now to other Objections 11. Some again Tell us The corruptions of our Church came in in time of greatest ignorance when little notice was Still Empty Talk without proofs or Principles taken and few Records were Preserved of them Here is more Talk without Principles For where Read They of so great Ignorance in the Church that Disinabled all Writers to Register such vast Changes Or where find they Records of those lost and Vnpreserved Records This is only Proofles talk if They have Records let them be produced if they have none let them Sectaries Guesses rejected Hereafter Wave such blind Guesses whilst Proofs are Expected It would anger our Protestants if I should tell them without Proof or unquestioned Records that the Beard of Their Religion is Insensibly Grown gray since their new Faith came in Or that Tares were cast into Their Church whilst They Slept c. Yet They it seems Are licensed to run on with such poor Guesses And no body must Check Them 12. Next they Argue We cannot show when the Were these Things unkown it follows not that other of greater monent are unknown also Necessity of Communicating Infants and the Rebaptizing of Hereticks or That Doctrin of Souls not seing God before the Day of Iudgement First entred the Church Yet These were Errours And their Beginning is unknown Here I answer briefly The Communicating Infants was only Tolerated for a time But never was held a necessary Doctrin of the Church Much less were those Two other These Examples touch not the Difficulty Points condemned by the Church ever Owned as Her Doctrin Such Examples therfore no Church-Doctrin are to no Purpose in this place 13. Lastly they Tell us Scotus thought Transubstantiation to be of no elder Date then the Council of Lateran And Bishop Fisher saith the Doctrin of Purgatory was not much heard of in the Primitive Church I would willingly se in Scotus his own works the Distin and Quest Where He Asserts what these men Say Some Protestants cite him in 4. Distin 11. q. 3. where He only saith in different Editions that Transubstantiation was more explicitly Defined in the Lateran Council which is far from making it no older a Doctrin Then that Councils Definition is But Admit Scotus said so and Bishop Fisher unquoted wors then they pretend The Church of Christ Teaches no such Thing Yet from this Oracle of Truth we must Learn and not from particular Doctors who may err what Church Doctrin is And for this Reason I told you above of much foul Play in Protestants Who Becaus they want Antiquity take no little Pains to run up and down our Authors and if by chance a Word be found less warily spoken They trifle with it and presently make that Popish Doctrin It is an Errour Catholick Doctrin is not one Mans singular Opinion Catholick Doctrin is no Mans singular Opinion But the Vniversal received Doctrin of the Church And thus much our Adversaries must assert for Themselves Otherwise when one of great Renown amongst them Tell 's Protestants Plainly It is but labour in vain to talk of union with One Another Vnles They ioyn again to that moral Body from which they once Separated that is to those who are in union with the Sea Apostolick The whole English Church must here Subscribe and say it is Protestant Doctrin Will they Do so The Voice therfore of One is not the voice of All nor one mans Opinion more mens Opinion Much less the Sentiment of a whole Church 14. It is but time lost to follow these Men whilst Blind Guesses no Proof of Novelties brought into the Church They Blindly run on Guessing at the Rise and Origin of our Supposed Errours and Tell us All our Corruptions came not in on a sudden They were first practised freely and then urged as Necessary Persons of great esteem first held them and Others soon followed their Example If one would take the Pains and trace it He might find the Head of these Corruptions at last c. Pittiful slight Talk unworthy a Scholler And vented at random against the Primitive Church would even Blemish that as much as any Other yea And Protestancy more I wave such stuff Because nothing like a proof follows it 15. My last Proposition is Though Protestants should convince Though Errours were falsly supposed to have entred the Church yet Protestants cannot Prove that They have set Faith right again on its old Foundations which is impossible That the Roman Catholick Church hath Swerved from the Primitive Doctrin yet They cannot
so much as Probably shew That They have mended the Matter or set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations as it once stood pure It is therfore a most Discomfortable Reformation which only Tell 's us of our being Out of the high Rode of Truth Vnles the Reformers lead us and this with Assurance into the unerring way from whence we Strayed If This be not Don it follows upon the Supposition That both They and Their pretended Reformation most discomfortable We are yet pittifully Out and Therfore both of us must look after some third Guide to Reduce us 16. Now that Protestants are utterly unable to perswade any Rational man That they have exactly brought Christian Faith to its Ancient Purity is more then Evident Sectaries have nothing like a Principle wherby their Reformation is proved Probable It is one thing to say we have Erred and an Other to prove that they are Right For beside Their own bare Word which is worth little They have nothing like a Principle neither Scripture Councils nor Fathers to Ground a probable Discours Pertinent to that Purpose For None of These ever Knew what a Protestant was It is True They Pretend Though God knows to little Purpose That Scripture Councils and Fathers are against our Errours But it is one Thing slightly to tell us we have Erred and an Other solidly to Prove that They are Right and have broughr Christian Faith hitherto much Tainted to its Ancient Purity This last is the only Difficulty And I Conjure Them as They will give an Account of their Religion to Almighty God without Tergiversation or Far-fetch't Discourses Directly and Clearly to Solve it The Proposition to be Proved and Positively What They are obliged to prove is Thus. Protestants Becaus they will be Reformers are every way Right in Their Faith from which Faith Catholicks have Swerved Observe it You shall never have They can give no direct Answer to the Difficulty a direct Answer to chis Difficulty They may tell you Catholicks have Erred They follow Scripture Their Rule of Faith is what was Delivered in the first Primitive Ages and They know that better then Papists Do. They Hope all is well with Them c. And thus They I put you of with Empty Words But to Prove Solidly that Proposition is impossible Believe it Those Bonzies of Iapan had more Plausible Proofs to defend their Pagods and Impugn Christianity Then our Adversaries have to Evidence Protestancy to be the Primitive Faith and impugn the Now-standing Catholick Roman Religion CHAP. XIV A VVord to a Few Supposed and Vnproved Assertions VVherby Some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism 1. THeir first Proposition There is no Society of Mr. Stillingfleet Christians of any one Communion but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to The Assertion is Fals in Protestants Principles unles it be granted that their ample Catholick Church can destroy Christianity the general Foundations of Christian Society I Answer If the Assertion fall on That Imagined Vniversal Catholick Church more Ample then the Roman which must be a Society of Christians of one Communion it is Fals in Protestant Principles Vnles they say That this great Catholick Church can Impose Things to be Belieued or repugnant to the general Foundations of Christianity Again if it Relate to the Roman Catholick Church it is a meer unproved Fancy of their own For This Church as is largely shewed Defends its Infallibility by Proofs as Certain as the Common Grounds of Christianity are Be it how you will You have here our Adversaries Acknowledgement That their particular Church of Protestants may impose Things Contrary to the Grounds of Christianity Protestancy becaus Fallible may Impose Things repugnant to the Grounds of Christianity And this I easily Believe without further Proof 2. The 2. Proposition There being a Possibillity acknowledged that particular Churches may require Vnreasonable conditions of communion the Obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable But only so far as nothing is required Destructive to the ends of Christian Society The The Author of the proposition sure enough supposeth himself fit to judge what is Destructive No Protestant can avouch so much as probably wherin the Church hath imposed Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants Profess them selves Fallible in all They Teach Assertion if I mistake not Supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to be only a particular Church Deficient and lyable to Errours which is not yet so much as probably Proved and Therfore I say the Obligation to Communicate with it is Absolute and Indispensable But let us wave this at Present and contrary to Truth Imagin That this Church hath imposed Vnreasonable conditions Destructive of Christian communion c. We Ask Again and very seriously who are They that can Mend the matter in case it hath Don so Or who dare Avouch by the Force of any received Principle that Such and Such particular Conditions imposed on Christians are Vnreasonable Where are the Equitable and infallible Iudges appointed by Almighty God to Decide in so weighty a Matter Are they Protestants No. It is impossible Hear my Reason If the Church hath Erred by imposing such Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants who Profess themselves Fallible in All They say may Err More Yea And spoil all whilst They go about to set Things Straight However if They dare Venture on so difficile a Work And therfore may more likely spoil Then mend what they Conceive Amiss They are First obliged to Prove And this not by Talk But by undeniable Principles That just so Far our Church Err's so Far it requires Vnreasonable Conditions of Communion And next That They the Illuminated men of the World have don no more But exactly Cancelled the Errours of our Church leaving all untouched that is not Destructive to the ends of Christian Society For we must believe They are the skilful Masters that always hit Right Though confessedly Fallible You shall sooner draw pure Gold out of meer dross Then get any Thing like a Tolerable Proof from these men to countenance One of these Desperate Assertions Alas They only Word it without Proof As Arians and Nestorians Do. And here is All you Have from Them 3. The 3. Proposition Nothing can be more unreasonable The proposition supposeth what is to be proved then that the Society imposing such conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. I Answer And nothing can be more Vnreasonable then to make a Receding Party from an Rebell 's are not to be Iudges in Their own Cause Ancient Church a few Rebellious People against it Iudges in their own Cause The Arians judged thus for Themselves and so do Protestants All rebellion in Kingdoms and Commonwealths is Patronized if those who Revolt may Clear Themselves from Guilt upon their own Votes and saying Such conditions imposed
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
of Schism and Heresy THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS THE CHVRCHES EVIDENCE OF THE IMPROBABILITY OF PROTESTANT RELIGION THE FIRST CHAPTER Christs Church is Proved to be no Other But the Roman Catholick Sectaries are Convinced 1. WE have often made a just Exception against Sectaries in the fore-going Discourses A just Exception against Sectaries mare fully laid forth And you Shall have it here Again in plain Language Protestants as They Prove not their own Religion of Protestancy so They never Impugn the Roman Catholick Faith by Rational Arguments at last reducible to Vndoubted Principles Catholicks Contrarywise Make good Their Churches Doctrin by undeniable Principles And by manifest Proofs Evidence the Nullity of Protestants Faith Though both these Assertions are already Demonstrated in the precedent Treatise Yet Becaus of the Weightines of the Matter it will be necessary to Epitomize some Points largely Declared above And bring much to a Clearer view and a more Compendious Form 2. To do this we may Suppose If True Religion God established Religion with intention to have it known not to hide it from us be in the World the wise Providence of God hath made it so Manifest to Reason by force of Rational Motives That All may know it For certainly God never established Religion amongst Christians with Intention to Hide it from Them or to put it out of their Sight if men will follow Reason Proofs therfore for it can no more Fail Then Religion it self Vnles Proofs therfore for it cannot fail an Infinite Goodnes which is impossible obliges us Vnder pain of Damnation to Embrace a Religion which no man after a diligent Search made by all the reason He hath can find out 3. Vpon this Principle let me tell our Protestants Wordy Cavils end no Controversy That They and We are not in so important a matter to mispend our time or to wrangle it out with Words No. Proofs must enter if They Hold their Religion True and ours Fals And so They must also if We say the Contrary Again Neither of us can here proceed as Schoolmen Do when They Oppugn One an Other Solid proofs must sway here and not weak Conjectures and Defend their Different Opinions upon weak and Doubtful Grounds For if the Proofs for Christs Religion be not stronger then Schoolmens often are for meer Vncertain Opinions We may as well and without Offence Reject a weak Proved Religion as we do a weak proved Opinion The Arguments therfore for Religion wheron Saluation Depend's Are to Stand firm upon Vndeniable Principles Or This follows That though God hath most clearly evidenced Religion yet proofs are wanting to make it known And this whilst He will have it Known And manifest to All. Thus much Supposed 4. We will First briefly Touch on a few Arguments for the Roman Catholick Faith which are amply laid forth upon several occasions in this Treatise I cannot A brief Repetition of some few Arguments Repeat All in a short Compendium yet you Shall have Enough to silence Sectaries And Remember VVe speak now of the Antecedent Evidence which clearly shews us Christs True Church and makes it indubitably Credible For no Religion As I noted above is Ex Terminis without convincing Proofs either Evidently Credible True or Fals. 5. I Say then First A Church or Religion which Manifesteth it Self and Proves the Doctrin it Professeth by the same Signs Notes and Characters of Truth wherby the The Roman Catholick Church is Evidenced as The Apostolical or Primitive Church was Apostolical and Primitive Church was Marked and Evidenced is Vndoubtedly True Or if this Proof be not valid we may easily Deny Truth to that Apostolical and Primitive Church Now the only Church in the VVorld thus Marked and Evidenced is no Other but the Roman Catholick Throughout all Ages This Principle is undeniable Deny these Marks and Signs to the Roman Catholick Church you Deny what is Evident Grant them And you Admit of Popery Se Disc 1. c. 9. 10. 6. 2. A Church or Religion which in every Age after Miracles Christs own Marks Evidence the Roman Catholick Church Christ Hath had a most clear Assured and Vndubitable Evidence of Truth which is the Glory of Miracles Christs own Marks and cognisances makes known the Absolute Power of God Cooperating with it And therfore cannot but be True Vnles we Think that his power Alone Divorced as it were from Goodnes Did set his Hand and Seal to meer Forged Signs and wrought these Wonders to Deceive the World But the Roman Catholick Church And She only Clearly Demonstrat's Vnparallelled Miracles not in One But in every Age As is without Controversy Proved by undoubted Records They are undeniable which Truth I engage to make Good if any Doubt of it Therfore either This Church or None is Christs True Church I call Miracles rhe most Forceable and Perswasive Arguments of Truth that can be Proposed All other And above all other Proofs most Convincing Proofs Though clear and Convincing to Disinteressed Iudgements being lyable to Cavils For cite Scripture against Sectaries wilful Misinterpretations Abuse it Produce Fathers and Councils They are either Rejected Other Proofs more lyable to Cavils by these men as Fallible or Drawn to a Sinister Sense as Fancy will have it Tell Them of the Sanctity of our Church They Answer Much of it may be Hypocrisy Insist upon that great Work of Conversions some reply Policy and Humane Industry had a strong hand in Them But when we Come to the Proof of Proofs And plead our Cause by Known and most Evidenced Miracles all Mouths are stopped Envy it self is Silenced And cannot speak a Probable word against us Vnles None can require that All and Every one of this Church work Miracles Perhaps some require and most unreasonably That every One within this Moral body should work Miracles which is meerly to cavil For in the Primitive times All had no such Priviledge It is Therfore sufficient That there be some Chois and Selected Persons Vnited in Faith with this Church to whom God Communicat's the Grace and Do These Wonders Se more of this Subject Disc 1. c. 10. n. 15. 16. 17. 7. 3. A Church which hath Converted whole Kingdoms and Nations from Infidelity to Christ And Drawn Innumerable Admirable Conversions wrought by the Roman Catholick Church as well prove it Orthodox as the Primitive Church Souls from a Tepid life to Pennance and Austerity From the Contents of the World to a Contempt of it From Self-love to a Perfect Self-Abnegation Must either be deservedly named the True Church of Christ Or the Apostolical Church Proved not its Truth by such Admirable and Miraculous Conversions The Church of Rome only Hath by the Assistance of God Don these Wonders Therfore it is the True Church or there was never any true upon Earth Deny these Conversions made by our Catholick Society you Deny what is most Evident Grant Them You
Consequently An Improbable Religion 23. And Hence it is Mark it you will find what I say Sectaries Thoughtles of Proving Protestancy make it Their chief work to cavil at our Religion most True That Sectaries chiefly Busy Themselves in finding Fault and Carping at Catholick Religion As if Forsooth Theirs were made good Becaus They Cavil at Ours But think not of An Other Task which most of all Concern's Them And 'T is Positively to Prove That Protestancy ought to be Owned as Christ's only True and Orthodox Religion This they wholy wave and the Reason is Becaus an Improbability cannot be Proved 24. Pray you Tell me Did you ever yet Hear Protestants prove not their own Religion from Protestant Any Thing like a convincing Principle when He goes about to Prove two Sacraments and no more or That Faith only justifies without Charity Or to be brief That Protestancy ought to be Valued of as the only pure and Orthodox Religion of Christianity No. I have Perused some of Their Authors and find These and Their other Novelties either passed over in silence or so slightly Handled That they seem afraid to meddle with such Difficulties What do They Therfore But think it enough to Cavil at ours Their whole strain is to find fault This in our Religion is not Right That 's not well proved A Third Thing Pleaseth not Here we have a Novelty introduced There is a Ceremony blamable c. Then a Ieer follows in Handsom Language And Their Work is Don. In the mean time The Main point in Controversy which is to Prove by undeniable Grounds Their Right settlement in Faith without Novelties is no more touched on Then if it were not in Being 25. In case they Reply To prove our Religion Fals An inconsequence of Sectaries in some particulars is sufficient to prove theirs True in all I have Answered could this be don The Inference is yet wors then Non-sense For suppose An Arian Did Convince Protestants of much Falsity Doth it Therfore follow that all he says is true No. What then doth the Protestant speak here to the Purpose 2. It is more then Improbable to prove any one Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Religion Fals. The Reason I give in It is impossible to prove the Roman Catholick Doctrin Fals. this place to omit Others is Because an undubitable Principle which cannot be shaken Stand's Firmly against These supposed Proofs And is thus Hinted at Already Christ Iesus Founded a Catholick Church which should never Fail and Therfore Could never be deserted by him For No Monarch that layes the Foundations of a Kingdom and obliges The Reason himself to take care of it can without injustice Abandon it unles a Contrary povver or great Negligence Deprive him of his Right Novv none can be more povverful then Christ And I hope our Adversaries vvill not make him Guilty of Negligence or Injustice Therfore He still Defends the Militant Church a most Dear Kingdom vvhich he Established Perhaps some less Considerate will say We here Tacitly suppose Christ to have founded the Roman Catholick Church We suppose Nothing but a most certain Verity only I Answer first If this vvere Supposed vve suppose no more but Truth vvhen it is clear That for a Thousand years before Luther There vvas no other Orthodox Church in the vvorld But the Roman Catholick as is proved in the second Discours I Answer 2. We Suppose Nothing but an Evident Verity Viz. That Christ founded a Church vvhich That Christ Iesus Founded a Church which He never Deserted vvas permanently to continue to the vvorlds End But this Church find it vvhere you vvill Protestants say Christ Abandoned Because before Luthers Dayes There was no True Church on Earth for ten whole Ages Or if they Admit of such a Church Let them please to name it But This will be impossible if They Exclude the Roman You se Therfore How pittifully weightles Protestants Proofs must needs be when They Talk of a Vniversal Deluge of Errours Overrunning the Roman Church yea and all other Churches What Sentence Reason gives upon these Considerations before Luther You se also may Reason have place Whether it is not much more prudent to Hold All those petty Cavils of Sectaries to be as They Really are most prodigiously Forceles Then to be wrought in this perverse Perswasion That Christ Iesus Deserted the Church He founded and Permitted not only the Roman But all other Churches with it to be Misled Nothing less then an Evident Demonstration can prove our Church Guilty of Errour into Hideous Errour Could Sectaries give Demonstrations of our Errours in good Form And believe it Nothing less then a Demonstration will Do the Deed They might look Big On 't And Hope to Fright us But when we Evidently See Their Proofs so Drooping and Faint that not one of Them stand's upon A sure Principle We may well Say It will be best For them Hereafter either to Hold Their peace of our Churches Errours or Learn to speak more to the Purpose 26. I Told you in the beginning How these men What Sectaries ought to Prove should Handle us Had They a Likelyhood of Truth on their Side They should silence us with undeniable Proofs drawn from Scripture from Councils and the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers They should shew us Precisely When our Errours first Began wherof they talk but Prove Nothing They should plainly Point out That Orthodox and Vniversal Church which as Strenuously Defended pure Protestancy six Hundred Years agon As We now and the rest of the world do Oppose it They should also tell us what Orthodox Church six or seven Ages since There was then most surely a True Church in the World Condemned Those very Doctrins of our Church that Sectaries novv Condemn and Cavil at Such Arguments could they be Heard of were to the Purpose But To have nothing from these â—risk Antagonists but Trifles And meer slight stuff is Lamentable Novv we are Told Scripture may be Interpreted this Way now an Other Now our Modern Authors say This novv That Now Council seem's to Contradict Council Novv meer Patches and Fragments of Fathers Pittifully Abused and VVeighed out of their Circumstances are Produced against us Novv they Their way of Arguing insipid and weightles The Roman Catholick Church hath withstood stronger Hereticks then Protestants are Ieer at our Popes novv at our Prelates Now at our Ceremonies And Thus They Hold on in a slighter Way of skirmishing Vnable God knovvs to do more Against a Church which Divine Providence Vphold's And therfore It Hath not only withstood Harder Shocks from former Hereticks Then now are in Being But also Defeated Them So it is Ecclesia in victa res est c. This Ancient Church is And will be conquerant Though Hell and Heresy Band against it CHAP. III. A VVord more of Sectaries new Mode of Arguing best Layd Forth By Touching briefly on one Controversy
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
Ancient Orthodox Church of the Jewes undeniably Profess and believe this Doctrin none can gainsay the Proposition The consent of act Churches a strong Principle The Minor is as certain for no Authority under Heaven plain Scripture excepted can be greater then the Vnanimous Consent of all Curches No contrary judgement is able to struggle with so much strength Therfore put the case first you will The supposition hold's not de facto for no Fathers teach so have what I would say better Evidenced upon a supposition That more then one of the ancient Fathers should expresly Deny a Purgatory whilst all Churches teach the contrary Suppose secondly that God should command me to believe the One or Other And that which prudence evidently Tell 's me is the most What we are obliged to upon the supposition Credible I am obliged if I proceed rationally to Adhere to the Church because it is evidently the stronger Proof and to deny the Fathers Authority Therfore I am bound much more to yeild my Assent now when all Churches Affirm the Doctrin and not one Father Denies it And our very Adversaries must say as much as I prove For do not they own the Holy Book of Scripture to be Gods Word how consequently Sect 〈…〉 es must grant what is now asserted they proced I Dispute not because all Christian Churches in the world do so If therfore that Authority be warrant enough for a Bible it is as weighty for the Doctrin we stand for And this was my Conclusion Perhaps you will say Very An Objection many among the Schismatical Churches Deny a Purgatory Contra. And very many also Deny the Canon of Scripture you Admit of Doth this make the Bible of less esteem among you Know therfore We speak Here of Church Authority and not of Schismaticks receding from a Church weaken not the Churches Doctrin Schismatical Parties receding from those Respective Churches wherof they were once members Know also that the self-Opinion of such Partisans is not to be compared with the Sentiment of a whole Church against them You may Reply Again We are now forced to make use of Schismatical Churches to Defend our Doctrin of Purgatory Answer No such matter We need not their Help but say Salutem ex inimicis nostris when Adversaries agree with us in a Truth it is an Advantage to our cause witnesses upon this account are multiplyed Et vox populi vox Dei if The number of withnesses for a Truth gives some Advantage All teach as we do it is certain we profess no Erroneous Doctrin At least the Argument Ad hominem Against Sectaries hath place who value so much of the Greeks and other Heterodox Christians We care not for more Besides the Greek Church when it was most Orthodox prayed for the Dead in a state of sufferance as is already proved 3. Weigh now well the Reasons Pro and Con. Reasons pro and con are weighed All the Churches in the world Defend a Purgatory that is a place wherin souls are temporally punished No Church reputed Orthodox ever denyed it I say more No Schismatical Church under the Notion of a Church contradicted that Doctrin Therfore our professed Faith is undoubtedly certain upon this very ground or if it be not one may call the primary Articles of our Faith into Question And The Parallel All and none A clear Conviction The second Principle thus you have the first Parallel All Churches stand for our Affirmative No Church Defend's the contrary Negative of Sectaries A most Evident Conviction A powerful Proof against this Heresy 4. The second Principle is S. Austins known Doctrin De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 4. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Consiliis c. What the whole universal Church hold's and was not first instituted by Councils What all believe is Apostolical Tradition but ever in use and retained Recte Creditur is rightly believed to be no other but an Apostolical Tradition But it is most certain that the whole Vniversal Church prayed for souls departed with intention to free them from a temporal Punishment The Greeks the Latins and the Ancient Hebrews Prayed so as is already proved And this had no first Rise from any Decree No Sectary can say when the Church first began to pray for the Dead suffering terment of Councils therfore it is an Apostolical Tradition which Truth Alatius further demonstrat's upon several Occasions Ponder therfore things impartially And ask now what Tradition have Sectaries for their Negative The Dead are not Assisted by Prayer They have none they are here put to silence for neither the Tradition of the whole Church nor of any part of it reputed Orthodox ever favoured Their Opinion or delivered what they teach Make then the Comparison All Tradition is for our Catholick Verity The Parallel and Nothing like Tradition for the contrary Heresy All and nothing make a strange Parallel And so it is at present 5. The third Principle Many Ancient and learned Fathers so interpret those known passages of Holy Scripture interprrted by Fathers a third Principle Scripture usually alleged for a proof of Purgatory that Scripture it self Speak's what the Church Teacheth Not one Father gives such a sense to Scripture as may Ground a positive or absolute Denial of Purgatory I cannot insist upon all Take for an instance that one passage of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. He shall so yet be saved as by fire And know that besides those learned Notes of Bellarmin upon the Text Lib. 1. De Purg. Cap. 5. and the Bellarmin Fathers there quoted most significantly expressing the Catholick sense Leo Alatius produceth others and Page Leo Alatius 311. Cites Manuel Caleca a more Modern Author Lib. 4. Contra Graecos who Saith the place cannot be understood of Hell fire for the Apostle speak's of a fire wherby souls are saved which is not the fire of Hell but a Purging Manuel Caleca his reason fire and by this They are to pass to happines And so much the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Per which insinuates a Passing strongly signifies Thus Caleca who hath much more to our Purpose It is true some Authors think the Apostle speak's of the fire of Tribulation Others though less probably of the last burning of the No Fathers makes Scripture to Deny a Purgatory world but no Father makes the Text or any other of Scripture positively exclusive of Purgatory for This is no Consequence We are to pass through Tribulation and the fire also at the judgement Day Ergo there is no penalty to be endured in a third place Here you have an other Parallel Most learned Fathers interpret The Paralled Scripture Conformably to the Churches Doctrin not one positively favours the Contrary Opinion of Sectaries Iudge you therfore and cast as it were into a ballance the express Sentiment of Many against
Like a Dark Lanthorn But One of the most Morally Manifested and Evidenced Things in the World And Reason Teaches it should be so For if True Worth ever Shewes it self by Real True worth is Known by real Effects Signs and Knovvn Effects So Faith is Discovered by good Works Life by its Vital Operations The Existency of a Deity by the Emanations of Creatures None can Doubt But That God who Desires all to be Saved Hath Made That Religion wherin Saluation is Had Proofs cannot be wanting to manifest the Church wherin Saluation is to be had St. Austin confirm's this Doctrin most Known and Discernable by Outward Signs and Vndubitable Marks of Truth Therfore as we said above clear Proofs cannot be Wanting Wherby That is Manifested which God will haue Known Audistis ejus vocem manifestissimam They are Words of St. Austin de Vnit. Ecclesiae cap. 25. You have Heard the Most Manifest Voyce of God Not only by the Law Prophets and Psalms But by His Own Sacred Mouth Commendantis Ecclesiam suam futuram Commending his Future Church to us All. This Church you have Diffused Every where You see it like a Citty wherof He who Built it Saith A Citty upon a Mountain cannot be Hid. This is the Church which is not in one Part of the World as the Donatists were in the South And our Sectaries now are in These Northen Climates sed ubique est notissima But 't is Manifest every where And if you Ask by what Signs And shewes by what Marks Christs Church is Evidenced it is Known The Saint Answers lib. de Vtilit Cred. c. 17. Hoc factum est Divina Providentiâ This is Don by Providence By the Oracles and Fore telling of Prophets by the Humanity and Doctrin of Christ by the wearisome Travails of his Apostles by the Reproaches and Contumelies of Martyrs by their Gibbets Blood Shedding and Blessed Deaths By the Famous St. Austins Motives of Credibility Known Lives of Saints and Among These so Vniversal great Virtues By most Worthy Miracles Meetly and upon fit Occasion Shewed us Mark the Signs He Goes on Cum igitur tantum Auxilium c. When Therfore we se so great Ayde and Help Afforded by Almighty God so much Fruit and Encrease Dubitamus nos ejus Ecclesiae gremio They force Reason to profess the Faith of that Church which shewes them It is pride and impiety not to give Preeminence to such a Church before others St. Austin Defends not a Religion common to all Christians condere c. Shall we Doubt to Hide our Selves in the Lap of That Church Which from the Apostolical Sea Even to this Publick Confession of Mankind Hath got to such a Height of Authority by a Continual Succession of Bishops condemned Hereticks vainly snarling at it Partly also by the Iudgement of the People Partly by the Gravity and VVeight of Councils Partly by the Glory and Majesty of Miracles Cui nolle primas dare vel summae profecto impietatis est vel praecipitis arrogantiae And not to Give to this Church the Chiefest Preeminence is in Good Earnest either a Mighty Wickednes or a Stubborn and Headstrong Pride Ponder these Words well with the Following Also and Ask your Own Consciences what Church that was For Which St. Austin Pleaded so Strongly Did He Speak For All who Go under the Name of Christians No The Impugned Manichies were Such And so were also the Arians Pelagians and Others But These Because of Their Vnevidenced Religion utterly Destitute of Marks and Motives He Rejects as Schismaticks Much less the Then unknown Novelties of Protestants and Hereticks Did He Argue Think ye For our little late Risen Congregation of Protestants No God Knows They have less of this Evidence Then the very Arians Had And Besides were never Thought of in St. Austins Dayes 2. The Church Therfore For which our Profound The Saint plead's for no other then for the Ever Visible Holy and Catholick Roman Church Doctor Speak's and Plead's is an Other Society Known to the World before Heresy Began I Mean the Ever Visible Holy Continued and Catholick Roman Church wherinto Heresy justly condemned never Entred August Tract 18. in Ioannem And wherof the Prophets Spak more fignificantly then of Christ Himself Aug. in Psal 30. This Church And This Only Hath been Manifested Age after Age by Eminent Sanctity By Glorious Miracles Made Evidently Credible by undoubted Marks and Signs By the Bloodsheding of Martyrs By a never Interrupted Succession of Prelates Pastors and People from St. Peters Dayes to Ours And finally By most Learned and Approved Councils This and This Only is the Church Diffused the Whole World Over which Keeps perfect Vnity in Faith with one Supream Head And so Demonstratively Evidenceth its Antiquity That the Worst of Sectaries are silenced When They offer to Cavil at it 3. If you Ponder well These Vndeniable Truths You A Conclusion against Sectaries must needs Conclude Against Sectaries as Blessed St. Austin Once did Against the Manicheans Read him lib. de util creden cap. 14. VOS AUTEM TAM PAUCI ET TAM TURBULENTI ET TAM NOVI NEMINI DUBIUM EST QUIN NIHIL DIGNUM AUTHORITATE PRAEFERATIS There is no Doubt Saith the Saint But that You Sectaries so St. Austins pithy Expression justly agrees to Sectaries Thâ—y are few in number Fearfully Divided And of a new Faith St Austins words pondered with Reflection on Sectaries Innumerable witnesses against a few meanly Few who Evidence nothing Credible in your Religion You so Turbulent and Consused in your Opinions concerning Faith You so newly Strangers to the Christian World There is I say no Doubt But That You of so Small Authority can Allege Nothing worth the Hearing or Worthy of Credit when you Oppugn our Ancient Church or Defend Your Own so late invented Novelties Consider every Word Seriously VOS TAM PAUCI What You so Few You Who Se to Your Eternal Discomfort so Many Nations so many People so Many VVorthy Prelates so Many Glorious Martyrs so Many Penitent Sinners Believing Our Ancient Faith Dying in it and for it You who se so Many Miracles Confirm it so Many Conversions Wrought by it so Many Churches Erected so many Vniversities Founded so Many Prisons Sanctified so Many Dangers run Through so Many VVorks of Piety Don by the Professours of this Ancient Church All is Evident to Your Eyes and Senses VOS AVTEM TAM PAVCI And what can You so Inconsiderably Few not the Hundred part in Number who Have Don Nothing like these Zelous Christians Say for a Novelty or Probably Plead Against so Learned so Holy and so Diffused a Christian Society Moreover VOS TAM TVRBVLENTI You so Turbulent Se in This Ample Moral Catholick Body Innumerable Seculars Though of Different Nations of Different Tempers and Education Knit Together in One Ancient Belief You Se Innumerable Vnity stands against Division Profound Doctors All
exclamation The Prophets Lesson and the wise Counsel of the son of Syrach the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! Quis cognovit sensum Domini Who hath known the mind of our Lord or who hath been his Counseller Learn well that good Lesson Esay 55. 9. My Thoughts are not your Thoughts for as the Heavens are Exalted above the Earth sâ— are my Wayes Exalted above Yours and my Cogitations above your Cogitations Learn more of JESU the Wise son of Syrach Eccles 33. 15. And Look with Him upon all Teach â—â— to Reverence Gods permission of Evil. the Works of the Highest You se Two against Two and One Against One Against Evil is Good Against Death is Life Against a Iust man is a Sinner And I Add Against Truth you have Heresy S. Austin lib. 11. de Civitate c. 18. Call's S. Austins Discours of Contrarieties in Gods works these Things Râ—rum Antitheta Contrarities in the works of God And moreover Assures us That His Goodnes would never have Created either Men or Angels in whom Evil was Foreseen Nisi pariter nosset quibus eos Bonorum usibus accommodaret unles He had also Known how Useful Subservient and Beneficial I 'll would Prove at last to Vertuous Good Men. Atque ita in ordinem seculorum tanquam pulcherrimum Carmen etiam ex quibusdam quasi Antithetis honestaret And How that in the Cours of Ages He might Commend and set Forth all We Se like a well made Vers with certain Contrarieties Evil graceth virtâ—â— and Errour gives a lustre to Truth Evil Therfore Hath its Good and Gives a Grace to Virtue Errour Add's a Comliness to Truth And the more Ugly Heresy is the More it Sett's forth the Lustre of Christs Orthodox Church And makes it glorious S. Austin confirm's the Doctrin Pictor novit They are Words of S. Austin Serm. De Diversis c. 5. fine ubi ponat nigrum colorem ut sit decora pictura nescit Deus ubi ponat peccatores ut sit ordinata creatura A Painter Knowes well where to lay Darker Colours That his Piece may be Fair to the eye And Shall not God Know where to Place Sinners the like is of Hereticks That His Creatures may Therby Appear And shâ—wâ—s of what use erring men are to the Church Seemly and in Order Yes most Assuredly This great Doctor Saith yet More lib. de Vera Beligione c. 6. Haec enim Catholica Ecclesia per totum orbem validè lateque diffusa omnibus errantibus ad profectus suos ad eorum Correctionem cum Evigilare voluerint c. This Catholick Church so far and neer Diffused makes Benefit of all Poor erring Souls Yea and Doth so for their Amendment when They Shall Please to Awake out of their Drowsines It makes Vse of Gentils to let them Se the Wonders it Works of Hereticks to Prove its Holy Doctrin of Schismaticks to give them a Lesson of better Stability of Iewes to Shevv them the Beauty of Christian Religion c. So it is All the Blindnes in the world saith S. Austin els Were Ad aliquem usum Sanctorum ordinatur is Ordained for some Heresy serviceable to the Church Profit and Service of Gods Elect and Chosen People 8. Conclude therfore As there will be Deluded Souls whether Iewes or Gentils As There will be Sin Oppression and Open Injustice to the End of Ages Sic oportet Haereses esse So there will be Heresies also No wonder that some wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of the Church And Those who Wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of a Glorious Mother Church And wonder not at it For you Know That the Son of God Himself came into the World Et mundus cum non cognovit And the World would not know Him His sacred Doctrin was Preach't All over But Seemed Iudaeis Scandalum Gentibus Stultitia A Scandal to the Iewes and a Foolery When the Son of God was not known to All. to the Gentils What Marvel is it then that His Own Holy Church Be less Regarded by Dispirited Souls and the Doctrin therof set Light by Have Patience Wait on Gods Good Leisure No Hart is so Hard but Grace can Soften it These Dimm Eyes of Deceived Men Will at last be Opened Et videbit omnis caro Salutare Dei And all shall Se and Know That as There is no Other Saviour but One Christ our Lord So There is no other Church but No other Christ but one No other Church but the one only Roman Catholick Church One Wherin Salvation long Sought for can be Found But in the One only Ancient Apostolical Catholick and Holy Roman Church CREDO SANCTAM ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM FINIS THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER THE FIRST DISCOVRS Of an Infallible Church and Infallible Teachers CHAP. I. There are Infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion Page 16. CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrin of Christ Necessarily requires Infallible Teachers 20 CHAP. III. Other Proofs for Teachers and a Church infallible 29 CHAP. IV. Replyes to these Arguments are Answered 36 CHAP. V. A Controversy with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty 49 CHAP. VI. Faith only morally certain is no Faith Protestants have no Moral certainty of Protestant Religion 63 CHAP. VII How Sectaries err in the search made after Religion Of their weak and improbable Opposition The Objection is more fully Answered 70 CHAP. VIII A few Reflections made upon these Motives of Credibility No Religion hath Motives founding moral certainty but One only which is 〈◊〉 Roman Catholick Religion 78 CHAP. IX A short Digression concerning the shufling of Protestants in this matter 88 CHAP. X. Protestants have no rational Motives wherby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as Probable 96 CHAP. XI Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of These declared Motives 114 CHAP. XII Protestants for want of rational Motives cannot convert an Infidel to Christian Faith 119 CHAP XIII Protestancy for want of Rational Motives dishonor's Christ and makes way for any new coyned Heresy 128 THE SECOND DISCOVRS Of Scripture CHAP. I. Scripture is useles if none declare infallibly the sense of it 135 CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 144 CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher 153 CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 162 CHAP. V. The Reason of private men and their private spirit cannot interpret Scripture 169 CHAP. VI. The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture which proves the Churches Infallibility is more Amply Refuted 179 CHAP. VII More of this subject 187 CHAP. VIII The new Mode of Sectaries misinterpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion 195 CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture Truely One
Testimonies of Fathers are as clear for our Catholick Doctrin as the words of the Council of Trent A Parallel of Proofs for and against the Doctrin of the Real Presence The way of Sectaries is chiefly to loos Themselves in proposing difficulties against us without casting a serious thought on sure Principles that solve them They find the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament uneasy to sense but reflect not that They believe two or three other Mysteries fully as hard if not more difficile for Example a Trinity the Incarnation and Original sin It is most Evident what Ever Principle whether it be Scripture Church Authority or consent of Fathers that moves to believe these Verities that very Principle is as pressing forceable and urging yea and often more express for the Belief of our Sacrament wherat they boggle What the Sectary is obliged to prove if He except against our grounds in this Controversy We admit of Christs plain Words according to their most obvious sense we find them so understood by a number of the most venerable ancient Fathers as we understand them and moreover have a Learned Church that speak's as both Scripture and Fathers speak Can Sectaries now exact of us that we leave these strong Principles and rely on their word because They will have us do so It is impossible unles They give us in lieu of the se as plain Scripture as plain Testimonies of Fathers and produce the warrant of some other Church more ancient and Orthodox then ours is that once Patronized their Novelty If they say They can explicate our Scripture and ancient Fathers I have Answered above Their explication is worth nothing unles it be grounded on more express Testimonies that favour their Novelty then our contrary authorities are for Catholick Doctrin If again they reply As we must explicate their Authorities brought against us so They can explicate ours alleged against them I Answer if a stop be made here neither they no◠we yet come to the last Principles But here will be the final Decision of all We appeal to the clear Words of Scripture They have Evidently non so express We appeal to the most manifest Testimonies of Fathers delivered i◠this Controversy The Council of Trent speaks not more clearly They Oppos◠a few dark Sentences help't on with their Glosses contrary to the Fathers sense a◠is largely proved Lastly we appeal to the Judgement of our Ancient and fa. extended Church Herein they are forced to yeild for they have no Church comparable to it that Defends their Novelty The Churches Evidence Why God permits Heresy to be in the World A FEW NOTES UPON MR. POOLES APPENDIX AGAINST CAPTAIN EVERARD 1. I Say a few for I must be brief finding very little to stay me in the Appendix which is not directly solved in the foregoing Treatis And therfore wonder not it I often remit the Reader to the former Discourses as occasion requires it being impossible to reply to an Adversary upon this subject of Infallibility without touching on what is sayd already where the Direct Answer is given to His objections I would not indeed have writ thus much against Mr. Poole but only to hinder a little vanity in the man for if no notice had bin taken of his Appendix He might perhaps have thought too well of his work and judged it so learned a piece that none would Dare to meddle with it To gain what time is possible I pass by all His jeers his harsher language and Calumnies cast on Catholick c. Those Personal exceptions also uniustly made against the Converted Captain and some vulgar Difficulties solved a hundred times shall give me no work at present who will only fall and closely upon that which Mr. Poole its likely may think most material and to the purpose And because the best strength He hath lies in the beginning of the Appendix I 'le examin that most and make his errours manifest by sound proofs and Principles Briefly 2. The occasion of Mr. Everards Conversion was a Discours held with a Catholick Gentleman Who Asked me saith the Captain whether I was so certainly infallibly assured of the Truth of the Christian Religion that it was not possible for me or those that taught me Christianity to be mistaken therin and He gave me this reason for his question that otherwise as to me Christianity could be no more then probably true And we could not condemn the Iew or Turk or Pagan since they were as well perswaded of their several wayes as we could be of ours upon a fallible certainty And for ought we knew not having any infallible certainty for our Christianity some of them might be in the right and we in the wrong way sor it is possible you may be mistaken Thus Mr. Poole Appendix page 8. who slight's the Discours as silly weak and ungrounded 3. I say Contrary The Discours is strong rational and most convincing The ground of my Assertion further declared Disc 1. c. 1. 2. is thus A Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on cannot but be fallibly taught by all Teachers now within the bounds of Christianity is by force of its Proposition and merit of the Doctrin precisely considered most certainly fallible and may be fals But such a taught Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on and merit also of the Doctrin or force of its Proposition is fallible and may be fals is not the certain Doctrin of Christ which cannot by the vertue of any Principle it hath or merit of the Doctrin and force of its proposition be either fallible or fals Ergo such a taught Doctrin is not Christs certain Doctrin which neither is nor can be fallible or fals Now further A Doctrin which is not Christs certain Doctrin because remo 〈…〉 from certain Principles can be no other but the Doctrin of mans errable judgement or Fancy And consequently gives as little Assurance to him that teaches it fallibly or those that hear it as that of the Jewes gives to them Observe my reason equally Convincing in both cases Therfore we say the Doctrin of a Jew gives If you say the Doctrin of a Jew is not only fallible but fals also you suppose what is to be proved against him no Assurance to Him that Teaches and those who hear it because it is removed from all infallible Principles and relies only on his errable judgement or Fancy that teaches it but the Fallible Doctrin of these Sectaries now mentioned is also removed from all Infallible Principles for no man amongst them can deliver Doctrin infallibly Therfore it relies only on an errable judgement or fancy that teaches it and by good consequence is none of Christs infallible Doctrin But if it be none of Christs Doctrin it gives no more Assurance to them that Hear it than the Doctrin af a Jew gives to any of his Sect Ergo. Here briefly is my
Ground and I would se it Answered 4. Some perhaps will say the Doctrin of these Sectaries relies on Gods Word and that alone is a sure and infallible Principle I answer if we speak of Sectaries particular Doctrin as reformed They have not one Article clearly no nor so much as probably grounded on Gods express word for Scripture saith no where that Faith only justifies that all Churches are fallible that there is no Purgatory no Sacrifice of the Altar c. Ergo these Doctrins want certain Principles Now if they Reply Though these particular Doctrins are not express in Scripture yet the general Truths of Christianity are And They rely on these not careing for more I Answer Though these Verities as revealed be infallible in themselves yea and infallible also to the Catholick that admit's of them as infallible for the certain Testimony of his Church yet no man no Church no Oracle of Truth ever hitherto assured the Protestant infallibly that they are infallible for all these with him are fallible therfore They are removed from the nature of being certain Principles in order to his Faith and Doctrin also unles He say that the Objective infallibility of Scripture is evident ex terminis to the very eyes that read the book which is proved improbable Disc 1. c. 12. n. 4. Wherof more presently I Answer 2. If the Objective infallibility of these great Verities be a certain Principle to the Protestant it either Derives into his understanding that teaches them a Subjective infallbility in order to his Doctrin or leaves him as He was before lyable to mistake and errour if the first be granted He is Subjectively infallible when He teaches and this He will not hear of Grant the second viz. That He is lyable to mistake and errour in his teaching He may well miss of the objective Truth because He only saith fallibly what God speaks infallibly and consequently his Doctrin ultimatly resolved saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare what God speaks and it may be not for my Declaration is fallible and may be fals Therfore you Christians who hear me can believe nothing infallibly becaus my very Teaching is doubtful And it is against the nature of a doubt to convey certainty into any understanding Se Disc 1. c. 4. n. 7. 8. Now if you Ask why it is doubtful though he speak truth as it were by Chance I answer the Reason is Because he hath no Pâ—iâ—ciple which determinates his teaching to say that Infallibly which God speak's infallibly The External Principle of Scripture makes him no more Infallible than the worst of Hereticks who read it And all other Principles He works by are lyable to errour And here briefly you se the difference between the Truth of an Act and its Certitude The first only sayes in contingent matters a conformity with the Object The other a necessary Determination to Truth by Principles not liable to errour And Sectaries alwaies want these Principles whilst They teach a Doctrin fallibly If here they take recourse to moral certainty only and think that sufficient turn to the fift Chapter of the first Discours and you will se them evidently confuted It is lost labour to repeat again what is sayd in that place 5. These grounds supposed you shall se how Mr. Pooles Exceptions against them comes to nothing Let us saith He P. 9. n. 2. examin a little the strength of this pretty Proposition viz. That if we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity Iewes Turks and Pagans are as well perswaded of their wayes as we Christians of ours What a mad Assertion saith He is this that nothing is credible but what is infallibly certain and that there is no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities c. To this I answer in a word you shall have the Reason hereafter Nothing in true Christianity is credible but what both may and must be believed by most certain faith in other moral matters things are morally credible though we arrive not to certainty but Faith hath its exceptions Mr. Poole goes on I am not infallibly certain that there is such a place as Iamaica for it is possible that all Geographers may mistake and Travellers may lye Therfore I am as uncertain that there is a sea passage to China by the North c. I am not certain if I find a Calf in a field but that it may as some time it was drop't from the Clouds but will any sober man think that it came not from a cow He hath other instances to this purpose And the man if I mistake not would here liken the cettainty of that Truth we have of Christianity to the certainty we have of Iamaica and a calf coming from a Cow and the Doctrin of Judaism He would have so improbable as if one should say the Calf was dropt from the Clouds In a word if He dispute with a Jew He will hear that his whole Discours is Petitio principij and that his Instances of Iamaica and a calf are nothing to the purpose because he supposeth what should be proved viz. That the Doctrin of a Iew is so improbable to that Sect as this Antagonist makes it And that the taught Doctrin of Sectaries is so highly Probable in order to them as is here supposed Alas the Iew wil utterly silence Mr. Poole with this convincing Reason What ever becomes of my Doctrin I tell you your Protestant taught Doctrin which may be fals is no better than mine because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible Revelation which cannot be fals That it cannot be thus resolved is evident because a Doctrin that is fallible and may be fals though true in it self as fallible and lyable to falsity cannot be as it were cast or laid on Gods infallible Veracity that essentially Disowns and rejects all Doctrin that 's fallible and may be fals Therfore as Fallible ultimately resolved it must be brought to its one home which is not Gods infallible Revelation but to meer fancy or some other uncertainty For example Put the case that an English Synode truely Defines Christ Iesus is God and man yet so that the Definition by vertue of all the Principles it hath or its own intrinsick merit is fallibly Delivered One reflects on this Definition and consider's the Truth of it which is a conformity with its object as also the Weaknes of it which is Fallibility for want of Principles that Determin it to Truth I Ask now why Do Sectaries believe Christ to be God and man by this Fallible Definition 'T is one of your Acts of Faith is it not You must Answer you Believe so because God hath said it in Scripture Very good But I Ask again Hath he said this Fallibly by a Revelation that 's capable of falsity No must evidently His Revelation is infinitly certain Ergo I say your Definition or Act of Faith Quâ fallibilis or as meerly fallible cannot
Faith precisely rest's alwaies on Gods Revelation as the last and ultimate Motive without the mixture of any other See Disc 1. c. 5. n. 5. 6. as also Chap. 6. Now if you desire to know more concerning the certainty of him that Proposeth the Object of Faith darkly revealed in Holy Scripture read the 4. Chap. of the first Discours 10. By what is said hitherto you se Good Mr. Poole that true Christian Religion must either signify the Objective Infallibility of Gods Revelation or the Assent of Faith wherby we Captivate our understanding and submit to an Infallible Veracity both the one and other goe farr beyond the mean measure of meer Probabilities or the highest moral certainty Therfore your Instances of Iamaica and a Calf are here useles and insignificant I say True Christian Religion or to speak in your words The Truth of Christianity For if by the essential Truth of Christianity you will understand the prudent Motives or Inducements that precede Faith and shew us where True Christianity is professed and call these the Essentials of Christian Religion know first you have none of them as is proved Disc 1. C. 8. 9. and 10. Know secondly that these Motives previously pondered before we believe though most requisit to belief are not the Essentials of Faith whether you take Faith obiectively For the matter believed or subiectively for the Act of Belief But objects of Science as you may read in Chapters now Quoted For Faith which essentially constitutes Religion follows in every good Christian after the Consideration of these Motives and sub Notione fidei or as Divine Faith ultimately relies not on them 11. Vpon these Grounds all comes to nothing that you have P. 10. and 11. where you say If besides the Infallibility of the Thing there be required Certitudo subjecti the Infallibility of the person you will bring this fox out of his hole by a notable Dilemma A word only in passing Pray you Sir what 's here understood by the Infallibility of the Thing You either mean Gods certain Revelation and this certainly most infallibly is not to be called a Thing but ought to be spoken of with greater Reverence or you mean and your context bears no other sense the material Objects of our Christian belief now these solely considered can no more properly be called fallible or infallible then probable and improbable No man saith that a stone which he sees in the high way is either fallible or infallible probable or improbable The Reason is Because these Terms certain fallible infallible probable improbable c. note ever the tendency of vital Acts proceeding from an intellectual power And therfore most improperly belong to objects neither vital nor intellectual Thus much only by the Bye Now to your foxing it and fearful Dilemma Either say you a subjective certainty or infallibility of Belief mark your own words of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians or it is not If it be not necessary then Papists too vainly boast of it and must Confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians and infallibility necessary only for the Pope and Councel if a subjective infallibility be necessary for particular Christians then every Papist in England hath a Pope in his belly c. Here is the substance of your Dilemma and it is a strange piece of confused Stuff Observe well You begin with the Subjective infallibility of the Belief of the Truth of Christianity and then run further then to Iamaica to talk of that which you call the probable evidence of it Good Sir the evidence of credibility belonging to true Christianity is totally distinct from the infallible belief of it That if we make a right Analysis precedes Faith Faith followes and is far more certain then the judgement is all have of the Evidence of Credibility See Disc 1. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. Briefly I say first The belief of true Christianity is subjectively infallible in every faithful Christian who therfore may have as sound Faith as the Pope himself or any that sitt's in Councel The Reason already given and further declared Disc 1. c. 1. is thus God an infinite Verity speaks to us for this end that we believe him He speaks infallibly Faithful Christians believe both what He speaks and answerably to their power as He speaks Ergo they believe infallibly Again A fallible Belief cannot be ultimately resolved into an infallible Revelation none therfore that holds himself obliged to Believe an infinit Verity owned as infallible can proceed doubtfully upon that Motive for he knowes An infinit Verity speak's not doubtfully or opinatively I say secondly Infallible Faith of the Truth of Christianity is miscalled if you style it probable Evidence it is not probable but certain because it relies on an infinit Verity It is not Evident but obscure because Argumentum non apparentium Thus much is undoubtedly true if we speak of the Assent of Divine Faith Now if when you talk of particular Papists haveing a Pope in their belly you grosly Imagin that every one can Define or Declare infallibly Christian Doctrin in order to the whole Church as the Pope and Councel Doe you fight with shadowes no Papist hold's such fooleries And by this you se the last strength of your weak Dilemma brought to nothing 12. You are also as unlucky in your next Assault where you Chalenge the whole Club of Jesuits to Answer solidly By the Grace of God you shall have an Answer that will make you silent hereafter Thus you go on Were the Popish opinion of the Churches infallibility true in it self certitudine Objecti so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the infallibility of Scripture true in it self and certitudine Objecti as the must desperate Papists Grant For they say the Scripture is Divine true and certain in it self but not quoad nos therfore hitherto there is no difference It is not worth the while to insist here upon a Catacresis or abuse of words or to say how incompossible these two termes combined together are in the Papist Opinion and certainty of the Object For Catholicks in Matters of Faith content not themselves with a bare opinion where there is certitudo Objecti or Gods certain Revelation duely proposed that exacts from them no Opinion but a sure Assent of Faith And so we say that the infallibility of the Church is a matter believed by us because God hath revealed it consequently it s no Opinion But Sir this is not what I ayme at We will hear you say all And come to the strength of the Difficulty If say you it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist that He hath such probable evidence of this Doctrin of the Churches infallibility why should it not be as sufficient a fundation for a Protestant that He hath such nay infinitly more probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Since the evidence of the later is granted by the Papists
Themselves and the evidence of the former that is of the Churches infallibility not only denyed and Disputed down by Protestants but also questioned by their own Authors You End This Question I chalenge the whole Club of Iesuits solidly to Answer I Answer very catagorically without Clubbing it and say first The Catholick hath more then meer probable Evidence of the Doctrin of the Curches infallibility The Sectary by his own Principles hath not so much as probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Independent of the Church I say 2. Though the Sectary had probable evidence of the Scriptures infallibility yet it is a useles book in his hands 13. The first Assertion contain's two parts I prove the first The Catholick hath a Church evidenced by Vnparallel'd Miracles by conversions of whole Nations from Infidelity to our Christian Verities He hath a Church manifested by all those other Glorious Cognisances of Truth which the Apostolical Church shewed to the world not one is excepted as is proved Disc 1. c. 9. 10. If therfore that Apostolical Church was prudently believed to deliver infallible Doctrin and this before Scripture was writ by the inducements of those illustrious marks and Characters of Truth wherwith it was adorned our Roman Catholick Church that undeniably evidenceth the very like signs is proved upon that Reason to deliver also infallible Doctrin For where there are the same effects and signs of infallible Doctrin the Infallibility of it is as it were witnessed by them otherwise such Motives would be both inefficacious and useles whilst God shewes them for this end that all may give Assent to his infallible Verities taught by that Oracle where they evidently appear and I believe led on by the inducements yet must forsooth only believe uncertainties or fallible Doctrin that may be fals 14. The Doctrin therfore of the Roman Catholick Church is now as well made immediately Credible by vertue of these Motives as the Apostolical Church was before the writing of Scripture And These Motives in order to the Learned and those who prudently seek for Truth first and most immediatly Demonstrate the Church or Those persons that teach infallible Doctrin by whose Authority we learn what and where infallible Truth is professed That these marks and signs immediatly belong to the Persons that Teach infallibly and not to Scripture is undoubted Mark 16. 17. These signs shall follow in my name they shall cast out Divels c. Again not only the Doctor of the Gentils 2. Cor. 12. 12. call's the wonders He wrought Signa Apostolatus sui the marks of his Apostleship but a greater Doctor also Truth it self Iohn 10. 25. when the Jewes would not believe him remitted them to the evidence of his Miracles The works which I do in the name of my Father these give Testimony of me And vers 38. If you will not believe me believe the works Works therfore and wonders Annexed to the persons or Church that Teaches Forceably induce prudent men to believe the certain Doctrin Delivered by them who shew such wonders In a word here is all I would say No Religion is evidently true or fals ex Terminis upon the bare Affirmation of Him that sayes its true or fals Therfore it must have the Evidence of its Credibility manifested before Christians admit of the Doctrin But this Evidence is first manifested by such signs and Miracles as Christ and the Apostles personally shewed to the world and by vertue of them induced Aliens from Truth to believe it as Infallible Doctrin Therfore whatever Church shewes such Miracles the like signs and wonders as Christ and his Apostles manifested plead's as well for the Infallibility of its Doctrin witnessed by such Miracles as the Apostolical Church Did. But the Roman Catholick Church only and no other shewes these Miracles Efficacy of Doctrin Vniversality strange Conversions and other most Convincing Motives Therfore if the first Christians induced by such evidence firmly believed the Apostolical Doctrin to be infallible which was not ex terminis evidently infallible we may now upon the very like Inducements not for the inducements as the last Motive Believe as securely upon our Churches Authority the Doctrin taught by it to be infallible Deny this Evidence of our Motives and we force Sectaries to prove the Denial by as sure Principle as we Assert them Grant them and our Argument is concluding And here you have more them a meer probable Evidence of the Churches infallibility 15. An Other Argument for it besides those Scriptures cited Disc 2. C. 6. n. â— is not only probable but unanswerably Convincing hinted at Disc 1. C. 2. n. 9. Christ as is confessedly granted both by Catholicks and Sectaries sent Pastors up and down the world to teach Christian Doctrin But he never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be fals Ergo He sent them to teach his own infallible Doctrin and Infallibly I prove it He sent none to teach any other Doctrin then that which may be ultimately resolved into Gods infallible veracity revealing Truth But that which is ultimatly resolved into an infallible Veracity can neither be fals nor fallible Doctrin because God as I now said ownes no fallible Doctrin that may be fals Therfore this Resolution of an Act tending fallibly into Devine Revelation is rather Non-sense then Faith I infallible believe Christ to be God and Man because Gods infallible Revelation will have me to believe so For No Infallible Motive applyed to my vnderstanding as it is infallible can draw from me a fallible belief of a Doctrin that 's meerly fallible But All Sectaries whether Arians Donatists or Protestants Teach only fallible Doctrin and fallibly Ex parte Docentis Ergo they Teach not that Doctrin which Christ sent his Ministers to teach or that can be resolved into Gods infallible Veracity revealing Truth Yet most certainly some Christian Pastors by vertue of Christ Mission teach his infallible Doctrin Infallibly and these are the Pastors of the Roman Catholick Church who only lay claim to Infallibility and prove it also as the Apostles Did by the Antecedent Evidence of those Motives which the Church shewes and manifesteth to the world as is now Declared I chalenge Mr. Poole directly and Catagorically to Answer this my Reason without talking any more of Clubbs or running into Generalities and in as few clear words as I Deliver it 16. Now to prove the other part of my Assertion Viz. Sectaries by their own principles have not so much as a probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility without Church Authority Here is my principle The infallibility of Scripture which contains many Difficulties tell 's strange stories and seemingly often speak's contradictions is not by it self or own light so evidently Credible to the Eyes of a Reader as the infallibility of the Apostolical Church was evident by Miracles and Conversions to the Primitive Christians who believed it infallibly At least S. Austin judged it
not so Evidently Credible when He saith He would not believe the Gospel unles the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it The Infallibility of it therfore must by proved by some good Principles extrinsick to Scripture but the Sectary hath not one sound Principle Distinct from the Tradition and Authority of the Church wherby this Infallibility is proved Therfore Scripture in order to Him is not so Infallible as the Church is to the Catholick If any Deny my principle and make the Scriptures Infallibility Discernable by its own light by the Majesty of the style purity of its Doctrin or efficacy it works in the minds of those who read it c. I think there are evident Demonstrations against the Paradox For as I noted Disc 1. C. 2. 12. n. 4. Two things are to be considered in Scripture first the exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words and so much precisely is not the Scriptures total Infallibility which sayes more besides that exteriour language and necessarily implies A Divine Act a Volition or Decree of God wherby the Hagiographers that writ the words were infallibly assisted and determined to record truth and nothing but Truth Now this Divine Volition or Decree becaus it is essential to God and therfore no other but God Himself can be no Object of our senses when we hear or read Scripture Consequently it is to be Discovered by a Discours grounded on Principles distinct from the outward letter of Scripture wherby we may come to a sure Evidence of its Infallibility not at all yet within the reach of our senses And this no Sectary can do as I shall presently make Evident 17. I say Therfore if the Motives now alleged for the Churches Infallibility as Conversions Miracles Vniversality c. induce not immediatly to believe that Church they demonstrate to be Infallible much less can the exteriour words or sintax of Scripture be a fit Medium to Convince any of its Infallibility And to prove this besides what is often noted in the Treatise Chiefly Disc 1. C. 8. n. 7. Ill here only Propose two Questions The first Whether if St. Iohn who was infallibly Assisted had not recorded that short sentence in His Gospel The Word is made flesh but some other not infallibly Assisted by the Spirit of God had written the very same Verity as it were by Chance My Question I say is whether the Sectary that now reads this sentence in S. Iohn Gospel can more Discover an Infallibility in it by force of the outward words then if they had been Casually written by one without Infallible Assistance I think He will not dare to say yes or if He Do I 'll urge Him to prove it by Principles when the outward words are the Very same in both Cases and in like manner clear to all that read them My second Demand may yet perhaps better evidence what I ayme at and is thus Suppose that our Sectaries should put the book of Eclesiastes which they hold Canonical into the hands of twelve learned Gentile Philosophers and with it the book of Wisdome or Eclesiasticus also not held Canonical by them Suppose again They desire these learned and disinterressed men seriously to read these three books and after the reading Sincerely to tell them which of them hath Gods Spirit in it or contains his infallible Verities For this may be easily gathered by the very natural evidence of what they read by the Majesty of the style Efficacy of speaking which appears Clearly enough in the outward letter Thus much don seperate these Philosophers by four and four into three Companies put them into three different cells much after that manner as some say the sevently Interpreters were separated Let them with all sincerity read examin and peruse these Books and if when the work is ended they unanimously accord that a greater Divinity a stronger infallibility appear's in the song of Salomon then in the other two books we will say something is proved and hold it as strange a Miracle as that which S. Austin recounts of the 70. Interpreters Now if Any tell us this light of Scripture though sufficient in it self is not evident to every one that looks on it because the blindnes or perversnes of mens minds may keep them from the Discovery of it The Reply hath no place here for we suppose first these Philosophers to be disinterressed learned upright and sincere as well in their reading as in the judgement they give of it And secondly we will suppose that all those are not blind whom Sectaries make blind nor only those quick sighted I mean themselves whom they will have so 18. To these Questions I add one more it may pass for an Argument Ad hominem against Sectaries who hold all the Definitions of our Church even when they are true to be yet fallible I Ask whether these Quick sighted men are able to Discern the Fallibility of these Definitions by force of the outward words therof only as they Discover the infallibility of Scripture by the Majesty of the style and outward Sintax And mack where the force of the Difficulty lies As Infallibility necessarily implyes Divine Assistance in order to the Truths Delivered in holy Scripture so the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions implyes a want of that Assistance in order to those Definitions I Ask therfore whether as the first is Discernable and visible enough to their Eyes by the very context of the outward letter They will consequently grant that the other also is as clearly visible and Discernable by the very words of the Definition If They Answer yes First they need not hereafter to impugn the Churches Definitions by any other Medium but this that they are without further proof by themselves evidently fallible So much is said by them and it proof enough 2. They may as well say They know when a man tell 's a lye and this by force of his very speaking as that they know the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions by her speaking For if their eyes can Discern the want of Divine Assistance in the one case which really is not wanting they may more easily Discern the want of Truth in the other which really is wanting And if this be not a Paradox there was never any in the world Now contrarywise if they cannot Discover the Churches supposed Fallibility in her Definitions meerly by her Exteriour words because that is a thing invisible I would gladly learn how They come to know the Infallibility of Scripture by the words Therof for that is as much if not more invisible and as far removed from our eyes and senses 19. Some who pittifully suppose Scriptures to be proved Divine and Infallible by the very light which is in them Object first When we see the sun and the vast extent of the light it has we may well infer it comes from that luminous body And may we not say These proportionably inferr from the
God might have wrought Miracles by one that was purely Man and not Omnipotent and He did so de facto by his Disciples as He for told them Iohn 14. 12. Majora horum facient that they should do greater wonders Therfore other Principles and none could be more strong then Christs own Testimony besides His Miracles were necessary to beget certain Faith of his Godhead in Believers And so we say The Testimony of the Church Evidenced by signes and wonders is also necessary to beget a full Assurance of the Scriptures Infallibility without it we have no Divine certainty of Gods Word 23. Now I return a second Answer to the Objection and say A person that is not infallible can speak of things suitable to the Divine Nature and above the reach of humane reason of vertue and Godlines c. For not only the book of Herman or Hermes Called the Pastor highly valued of by some Ancient Fathers but other writings also though untruely ascribed to the Apostles often speak Divinely yet never were admitted by the Church as Canonical or Gods Infallible word Nay more Some parts of the Gospel and the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude also were not for a time received as Canonical by the Ancient Church though they spak then as Divinely and were as Insallibly Gods word as they are now the Ancient Church that had eyes as good as Sectaries red them yet Discovered no Infallibility or Divinity in them upon this account that they spak of things suitable to the Divine nature And who sees not but that the books of Wisdom and Eclesiasticus contain as high Doctrin as Divine Precepts as are in Salomons Proverbs or Eclesiastes yet the later are Divine with Sectaries and the former not And here I would willingly learn whether the first Protestants that admitted of the later and rejected the Other as Apocryphal did so because they smel't as it were a Divinity in those they received by the very reading and not in the former I am sure the more learned Protestants give other Reasons For these grounds therfore I say the Argument above is so unreasonable that I wonder men of judgement Ventured to propose it Now if they believe the Scripture to be Infallible because of the Miracles and other wonders internal to the book wrought in confirmation of its Doctrin Make a right Analysis and Ask why they believe these Miracles to be Infallible Scripture and follow them closely till they come to a Propositio Quiescens or an undoubted Principle And you 'l find the very Reason returned you to be the thing in Question Although we granted which is not true that Scripture it self said all things contained in the book are infallibly Gods Word For it would be demanded a new How They know that very Assertion to be Scripture 24. For these Reasons some Sectaries will say The Scriptures infallibility is to be proved by Discours not grounded on the meer light or Majesty therof but by probable Principles extrinsick to it And here is one Argument We know by humane Authority Morally certain that Scripture was writ by holy men Prophets Euangelists and Apostles I answer we know not so much of all the books in Scripture without the Churches Testimony For it is doubtful who writ the books of Iosue and Iudges and it is still in Controversy whether Salomon writ the Proverbs and therfore some not only Catholicks but Sectaries also are of opinion that if we rely on humane and historical Authority only we have greater and more particular Assurance that S. Thomas for example writ his summ of Divinity then we have Assurance of the particular Authors of no few books in Holy Scripture Again though we had this certainty grounded on History yet no man among Sectaries who say all Churches erred before Luther can tell us upon moral certainty whether the first Authentick Originals were afterward Corrupted or no by Ancient Hereticks and the supposed erring Church of Rome Se more of this subiect Disc 2. C. 2. n. 7. 8. Others again may Argue from the Miracles wrought by Scripture immediatly And one was as Baronius recounts that this sacred book in Diocletians time being cast into the fire the flames were forthwith extinguished I Answer first both this and other Miracles were only wrought in the true Church and at most prove which is to be noted that the book is true pious and holy but is far from Convincing that we now only inquire after which is its infallibility For God might have don the like Miracle for a true Christian Catechisme Had Diocletian who desired to rase out all memory of Christianity cast that into the Fire also Others argue from the Accomplishment of Prophesies which proves little without the Testimony of the Church First because the very Prophesies and the fulfilling of them must be proved to be Divine Scripture and this cannot be don abstracting from Church Authority 2. These two things are to be distinguished A power to Prophesy and to write as Hagiographers Did Canonical books One may prophesy who only heares from a Prophet what was told him upon the Prophets own Authority but none can write infallibly Canonical books of Scripture but such as have immediately the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct him In a word here is the last and most true Resolution of all these Difficulties Unles Sectaries rely on our Churches Testimony for the Infallibility of Scripture they are evidently beaten out of all likelihood of other Principles wherby to prove it is infallible Yet this very Principle of the Church in order to them doth little or nothing for reasons clearly alleged Disc 2. C. 2. n. 6. 7. It is needles to repeat them in this place 25. And it is as needles to prove my second Assertion above n. 12. Which is Though Sectaries had Probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility in general yet that doth them no service because it is a useles book in their hands This Proposition is so Copiously proved in the second Discours C. 1. and 2. Where much is said of Sectaries endles dissentions concerning the sense of Scripture though admitted of as Divine that no Unorthodox man shall acquit Himself of the Difficulties there proposed All I 'll do now Though it hath not been my Custome to tire the Reader with long Authorities of Ancient Fathers is to mind him of one only Tertullians Testimony in his book de Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos cap. 19. His words are Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est Rigaltius read's par incertae aut parum certa Nam etsi non evaderet collatio Scripturarum ut utramque partem sisteret ordo rerum desiderabat illud prius proponi quod nunc solum disputandum est quibus competat fides ipsa cujus sint Scripturae à quo per quos quando quibus sit
Disciplina quâ fiunt Christiani Vbi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianorum The sense of this whole sentence is this We are not therfore to appeal to Scriptures nor are our debates to be determined here wherin there is no victory or a very uncertain one For although there were no Collation or comparing of places together that might stay the two Advers parts yet the order of things requires this to be first proposed which is now only to be disputed viz. To whom the Faith appertains wherof the Scriptures are From whom and by whom when and by what Persons that Discipline is wherby they were made Christians For where there appeares the Truth of Discipline that is as Macereus and Pamelius interpret the Rule and of Christian Faith there you shall have the Truth of Scriptures the Interpretation of it likewise and of all Christian Tradition Observe well The whole context of these words saith first that debates can never be ended by Scripture only 2. That before we Dispute by Scripture we ought to know and by other Reasons who those are to whom Scripture belong's 3. That where the Discipline or Rule of Christian Faith is previously known by other grounds distinct from Scripture there you have the True Interpretation of Scripture and all Christian Tradition After a full ponderation of these words I leave any man to Judge that loves Truth whether that Doctrin be not here most remarkably expressed which is taught and mantained by the Roman Catholick Church 26. Mr. Poole from his 12. page to his 37. hath no work for me for his whole strain is to run on in cavils and finding fault with such Arguments of Catholicks as He forsooth judges inefficacious to prove the Churches Infallibility whereas God knows Had He had where withall to do it He should have gon a contrary way and proved positively by Scripture Fathers and Tradition the Churches Fallibility but Herein He is silent because in real Truth He hath nothing to say The ground of the Churches Infallibility which Mr. Poole never toucheth on is briefly hinted at above n. 15. and further laid forth Disc 1. c. 1. and 2. and I desire an express Answer to it Now and then He hath something against the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who with him are fallible because they speak of the Churches Infallibility and the good man never reflect's that he and his little book are far more fallible I wave such trifles 27. Page 37. He begins with his Distinctions of the Judge and rule of Faith and saith first The supream and truely Infallible Judge of all Controversies is God and Christ. Very Good but nothing is yet Done unles you fallible man can say in all the Differences between us what God and Christ speak what is judged for you and against us which is so far from being a Truth proved that in Every Controversy it is the very thing in Question and meerly supposed by you without either Proof or Principle You say again The External and political Judges to wit the Governours of the Church are subordinate to the supream Judge Answ Very true But what then Marry this followes that if they really contradict the supreme Judges sentence They must give their subjects leave to argue whether it be right in the sight of God Hold Sir a little If you rationally contradict them you must first prove your self wiser then these subordinate Judges are and Evidence their Errours by undoubted Principles which is impossible For either these Judges are Infallible or fallible if you grant the first you cannot rationally contradict them And if they be fallible How dare you a private fallible man speak contrary when your very Contradiction is no better then their opposite Assertion is I mean purely and poorly Fallible In a word without any certain Principle to rely on which you shall never have you too boldly take leave to oppose your Judges and make your self a Rebel by it You say 3. There is in Every particular Person a secret Judge which is called Reason or Conscience I must Ask once more what then Have not Arians Pelagians Quaquers and all other Sectaries reason as well as you What therfore this Instrument of reason can apprehend judge and work in you after your fashion it doth the like in these other after Their fashion Do you not therfore se how little you advance your cause by talking of your Reason which unles it be Evidenced by sure Principles to be better then that of your Adversaries proves just nothing And add what private Spirit you pleas to help your Reason out They will talk as much of their contrary Spirit to help theirs These two points are so largely declared and proved Disc 2. c. 5. that I believe your Answer to them will prove unreasonable 28. Page 40. You goe first very warily to work for no man knowes what you would say Then you are manly resolute in your Decisions We willingly acknowledge say you and reverently esteem the true and rightful Governors of the Church orderly assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whose decisions are to be highly valued c. Here is no man knowes what Pray you speak out and name more clearly the Church you reverently esteem of Tell us who these true and rightful Governors of it are and do not put us of with an old piece of a long since rejected Doctrin They are those who hold closely to the Truths of Scripture for we must know who these are Finally say when Councels are regularly assembled not according to your Fancy but which will be a long work for you let us have lawes prescribed wherby we may know by sure Principles more particularly without this general talk when Councels are orderly assembled or unorderly A word now to your resolute Definitions You say first this Judge of the Church is not infallible but subject to errour Answer And so are you Sir also fallible when you oppose your self to the Judgement of a Church whether it be your own English Church or the Roman Catholick If therfore the Judgement of both Churches were supposed fallible as the one is not your singular Judgement is no more but fallible also and what gain you by that Thus much only You Contradict the Church fallibly and the Church again Contradicts you fallibly and thus you may remain Contradicting one another to the Worlds End without the Decision of one Controversy unles you make it Evident by undoubted Principles that you are to judge the Church when you please and the Church is not to medle with you or your Iudgement You say 2. this judge of the Church being subject to higher Authority and tyed to a higher rule if its Decisions be Manifestly repugnant to that Superiour Rule they are not to be obeyed Answ You purely suppose what should be proved Viz. That the Decisions of the
to learn Divinity Ergo they make you a perfect Divine Sir the general Truths contained in Scripture because they teach us to believe the Church Tradition and other Apostolical Doctrins orally delivered are in this general way able to make us wise to Saluation but none can so much as probably draw from hence that all things in particular necessary to Saluation are explicitly set down in Scripture Every Catholick Writer that Explicates the Text shewes your Deductions to be weak and unconcluding That work therfore being don to my hand I end wishing you much Good and eternal happines FINIS Besides other faults noted in the beginning you have these In the Advertisment pag. 18. l. 22. Invocations R. Innovations p. 19. l. 16. of long standing Church our R. of our long standing Church p. 22. l. 5. were R. where in the Treatise p. 49. l. 7. Fallibility R. infallibility p. 158. l. 28. improperty R. impropriety p. 176. l. 18. Marck R. mark p. 239. l. 3. above R. about ERRATA CORRIGENDA Page 4. line 5. oft Read of page 6. last line retour R. return p. 11. l. 4. put R. but p. 17. l. 24. reach R. reaches p. 19. l. 10. as it R. as it is p. 22. l. 13. feaching R. teaching p. 22. l. 23. true R. true p. 24. l. 8. Insalibility R. Infallibility p. 22. Title Teachere R. Teacher p. 25. l 1. trough R. through p. 26. l. 1. foor R. for p. 27. l. 2. asserward R. afterward p. 30. Tit. futher R. further p. 39. l. 24. te R. the p. 40. Tit. Relyes R. Replyes p. 41. l. 16. in R. it p. 43. l. 11. assurance R. assurance p. 46. Title Relyes R. Replyes p. 47. l. 27. fundemeetals R. fundamentals p. 53. l. 14. dot R. doth p. 58. l. 2. vetities R. verities p. 69. l. 4. it if followes dele if p. 69. l. 9. praging R. praying p. 69. l. 23. Realon R. Reason p. 71. l. 17. whick R. which p. 74. l. 1. fo rit R. for it p. 77. l. 17. Father R. Fathers p. 77. l 30. standingh R. standing p. 81. Title dele certainty p. 90. l. 7. owing R. owning p. 93. Marg. loct R. lost p 94. l. 12. is R. it p. 94. l. 13. Prophet R. Prophets p. 103. Marg. sew R. few p. 113. Tit. Prave R. Prove p. 141. Marg. propose R. proposed p. 143. l. 6. pretend R. pretend's p. 144. l. rotterin R. tottering p. 149. l. 20. other R. others p. 158. Marg. te R. to p. 159. l. 2. Christ R. Christs p. 159. Marg. no Read not p. 175. l. 6. opposit opposite Read opposite p. 178. l. 5. stead R. instead p. 182. l. 22. were sent R. they were sent p 182. l. 27. casting of R. casting out p. 184. Marg. uncompossible R. incompossible p. 186. l. 5. buth R. but p. 189. l. 17. see R. seem p. 195. Marg an R. on p. 209. l. 28. interpred R. interpreted p 212. Marg. Siciety R. Society p. 215. l. 4. Propecying R. Prophecying p. 217. l. 24. if self R. it self p. 218. l. 5 yo R. you p. 222. l. 29. Objection R. Objection p. 228. l. 9. of R. or p. 256. Marg. cansists R. consists p. 256. l. 12. nos R. not p. 260. l. 7. ptosed R. proposed p. 261. Marg. datiful R. dutiful p. â—62 Marg doclare R. declare p. 269. l. 10 ' caslesly R. causlesly p. 275. l. 29. both we dele both p. 278. l. 13. reclaim R. convert p 295. l. 15. Chutch R. Church p. 302. Marg. uncluding R. unconcluding p. 311. Marg. care for R. care for p. 313. Marg. in in dele in p. 314. l. 16. sht R she p. 318. l. 32. ditt R. durt p. 329. l. 26. unevidentced R. unevidenced p. 330. l. 29. An R. and p. 342. l. 30 party R. parity p. 344. l. 5. An R. and p. 346. l. 10. these R. those p. 350. l. 10. Cutch R. Church p. 351. l. 13. for long a time R. for a long time p. 352. l. 26. onveyed R. conveyed p. 356. l. 1. infallibily R. infallibly p. 358. l. 15. Argumen R. Argument p. 359. Marg. Soy R. Say p. 362. l. 15. wales R. walles p. 363. l. 21. impiously dele pâ—â—ctam p. 363. Merg then then R. then p. 365. l. 31. licencence licence p. 372. l. 2. convinceth R. convince p. 375. Tit. Curch R. Church p. 375. l. 14. ad R. and p. 378. l 13. chis R. this p. 382. l. 29. overtrow R. overthrow p. 402. l. 18. that is R. it p. 405. Marg. mare R. more p. 406. Marg. smay R. sway p. 412. l. 14. confuthed R. confuted p. 417. l. 10. toughts R. thoughts p. 420. l. 7. ns R. us p. 424. l. 18. unworthly R. unworthy p. 425. l. 30. and is dele and p. 441. Marg. whac R. what p. 443. l. 4. teachers R. teaches p. 448. l. 18. Cathalick R. Catholick p. 449. l. 7. expreffing R. expissing p. 452. l. 11. ttial R. trial p. 453. l. 17. Cutches R. Churches p. 460. l. 20. Ground R. Grounds p 501. l. 6 worst R. wors p. 516. l. 15. Scripiture R. Scripture After Page 431. is Page 332. R. 432. There are without doubt many more faults in Orthography passed over to say nothing of points ill placed of Capiâ—â—l letters to often and comma's needlesly multiplyed What ever is found amiss impute it boldly to the Printer or to the Author and please to pardon both for the first knovwes not a word of English and the other has not the language perfectly