is in the hearts of such as are Assembled together in God's name and Assisted to define infallibly Diuine Faith T is true actually elicited euen after the permanent Habit infused requires à Supernatural Motion of Grace But hereof we speak not at present 5. A. 4. Principle When it is enquired Whether the Church Distusiue be infallible the Querie is not whether the Motiues inducing to distinguish that Oracle from others Demonstratiuely and with all Metaphysical certitude euidence likewise Gods Reuelation relating to the Mysteries Belieued For this might lead vs to enquire whether Faith be euident in Attestante That is so Vnexceptionably manifest that all may clearly Infer from the Reuelation clearly known That the Mysteries belieued are euidently true We now meddle not with that Difficulty though great Diuines patronize the Affirmatiue But only Ask Whether the Doctrin of Christ's Church be so infallibly Certain that it cannot be False or deceiue any Catholicks The Question Stated own à triple infallibility necessary to Faith The first proper to God's Reuelation no Protestant denies that The second belongs to the Church either Diffusiue or Representatiue in General Councils whereby we learn and that infallibly those Truths which God reueals The third infallible Assurance necessary to Faith all Orthodox Christians haue that belieue the A threefold Infallibility Mysteries reuealed vpon the Diuine Testimony Proposed by Christ's Church 6. A. 5. Principle If what is most vndoubted Diuine Faith essentially relies vpon Gods infallible Verity speaking by one or more men sent to Teach who proue their Mission and Demonstrate the Credibility of the Doctrin deliuered it necessarily followes That that first infallible Verity beget's in euery true Belieuer no less perfect Faith Than what is most certain and infallible Wherefore as it is the indispensable Duty of euery belieuing Christian to acquiese in and rest vpon God's infallible Mans Duty grounded on Christ's Promise Veracity So it is an indispensable Promise That we haue Christ present with à Church which teaches all Truth And therefore cannot but Propose the Obiect of Faith infallibly The firm Promise irreuokably issued from Power and Goodnes it selfe Matt. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes to the end of the world Iohn 14. 16. I will Ask the Father and he will giue you an other Comforter the Spirit of truth to remain with you for euer Hell gates cannot preuail against the Church Thus much premised 7. The Difficulty now agitated is Whether the Roman Catholick Church and Her approued General Councils be so secured from Errour That She cannot swerue from that first Support of Truth I mean God's infinit Veracity But must when She teaches Teach that exactly which God hath reuealed and will haue after à sufficient Proposal Vniuersally belieued Sectaries say She may Yea actually has swerued from God's Reuelation and in great Matters too though not perhaps in the What Protestants assert Primary Fundamentals as they are Called or in Fundamentals Simply necessary to Saluation And they were forced to this wicked Doctrin vpon three naughty Motiues 8. First to giue Scope or rather to inuite Libertins to hold or deny so much of Christian Religion as pleaseth their fancy And do we not see the liberty effectually laid hold on in England amongst Phanaticks and such giddy People All this giddines And why came first from the reformed or rather the deformed Nouelty of Protestancy They do it 2. to make Controuersies Endles For deny the Churches Infallibility Cauils go on Grant Her infallible Disputes are ended 3. This is done to quit themselues of an Infamy iustly laid vpon them of being both Schismaticks and Heretiques at once which shall neuer be claw'd of do what they can For these vnsound reasons or pestilent The Catholick Assertion Motiues rather The Church forsooth must needs be fallible Catholicks on the other side maintain the contrary And say there is à Church so Infallible that She cannot err in any thing She teaches as Faith And thus much God willing shall be euinced in the following Discourse But to do it exactly I am briefly to lay open to all that haue eyes The Abiect the Desperate and Desolate condition of à fallible Church You haue here my first Proposition 9. A fallible Church is essentially Constituted in à State of publick A fallible Church is in à State of rebellion Rebellion and Hostility with it Self Wages war against Infidels without hope of conuincing or conquering any And therefore cannot be Christ's Orthodox Church To declare further what I would say know first That Sectaries own à Catholick Church much larger than the Roman Catholick And make Themselues Part of it Conceiue now which though very hard is yet possible that the Representatiue of this great Moral Body meet 's in à General Council and discusses the Question now in hand Viz. Whether there be à Church of one Denomination Preserued infallible by Diuine Assistance Part of the Representatiue and these are Protestants Oppose the total Infallibility of euery Church Part Catholicks I mean Say one Church is infallible and that is the Roman The Difficulty proposed can be decided or not If not This great Representatiue meet 's to no purpose but only to make more No means to vnite it Strife in the world If it can be decided God has prouided means whereby the truth of so weighty à Matter may be known But there is no such means left vnless some one Church or other or all together be owned infallible Therefore an endles Hostility goes on in this supposed Representatiue 10. That all means fail may Sectaries Votes haue place is indisputably Euident You shall see it clearly The Catholick Party Appeales to Scripture alleges these and other like Passages Without some One Church be Infallible He who hear's you hears me and from thence infer's Who euer hear's the Church hear's Christ an Infallible Teacher The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith and hence concludes She is infallible The Spirit of Truth shall remain with the Church for euer Pastors and Doctors are appointed by Prouidence to preserue the faithful from wauering in Faith and all erroneous Circumuention Hell gates cannot preuail against the Chutch c. What can be more The Scripture Significant if plain words haue sense for the Infallibility of some One Church Yet all these and many other Testimonies so shrink to nothing may Sectaries Glosses stand in force That no man can say what God speak's in these Scriptures or know the Truth now debated Viz. Whether any Church be infallible or not This means failing of its End which ought to compose our Strife Hostility is as vigorous as when the Dispute began for yet we know nothing certainly 11. Passe from Scripture to Fathers We haue there most pregnant Expressions The Church cannot be adulterated Cypria◠And Fathers Speak significantly the Churches Infallibility de Vnit Eccle VVhat She once receiued from Christ
medled with it Which therefore can not make it Infallible By what is said you se our Sectaries Supposition of some Christian Doctrin acknowledged infallible is pure Sophistry for none can Assure them so much if All that teach it be fallible The very Apostolical Doctrin respectiuely to vs now liuing loses i'ts Infallibility if this Supposition stands That all Teachers are fallible Now we Proceed to à Second Argument and Discourse thus 15. If the whole Church the like is of any General approued The Churches Infallibility further proued Council can err She may not only traitorously betray Her Trust But moreouer doe so much Mischief to Christians by vniting all in Errour That they must remain in it without redress or remedy For if the Church may mistake whilst She Teaches No man on earth can be rationally Supposed wiser than She is nor goe about to Vnbeguile the deceiued by Her The Euil here hinted at is so Notoriously horrid the Perplerity it causes so Great that either Church Doctrin vnauoydably becomes despicable whilst euery one may iustly Quarrel with it Or this Principle must stand vnshaken that the Church cannot teach à Falshood 16. Some Sectaries seing the Force of this vnanswerable Argument hold the Church Diffusiue infallible in fundamentals Yet neither name nor can name those Christians who constitute an infallible Church larger than the Roman whereof enough Sectaries Oppose The Infallibility of Councils without reason is said both in this and the other Treatise In the next place their whole Strife is to Oppose the Infallibility of the Churches Representatiues in her General Councils But methinks inconsequently For what euer Reason proues Immunity from Errour in that diffused Moral Body Conuinces as forcibly the like Priuiledge in its Representatiues Which are not Conuened to deceiue But to teach God's reuealed Verities 17. Mr. Stillingfleet Part. 3. C. 1. 2. P. 506. After à larger Prologue to very little Substance Tell 's vs. It is not any high challenge of Infallâ—bility in any Person or council which must put an end to Controuersies For nothing but Truth and Reason can euer do it and the more men pretend to vnreasonable wayes of deciding them instead of ending One they beget many I say contrary If the Church and Her Councils be infallible Controuersies are ended without more Adoe For all know vpon that Supposition What to belieue and what to reiect And if they be not Owned infallible there is no such thing or things in being as Truth and Reason which can put an end to Controuersies To explicate the Assertion is to proue it 18. Doe then no more but cast away all thought of an Infallible The Infallibility of Councils asserted Church as also of Her infallible Councils It is clear that euery Doctrin Taught since the Apostles time has been deliuered Fallibly T is clear likewise All that teach it at this day highly dissenting among them selues Teach fallibly Imagin now that two aduerse Parties Ten learned Protestants on the one Side And as many learned Catholicks on the Other meet together and seriously Discuss this Point whether Protestancy or Catholick Doctrin as opposed to Protestancy be the true Religion the like is if any particular Controuersy fall vnder Debate I say the Attempt to decide any one controuerted matter is Vain and Impossible if both Church and Councils be Supposed fallible And consequently Mr. Stillingfleets Truth and Reason are no more but meer insignificant Words The Reason is Whilst fallible men pIead for Religion vpon Principles as fallible as they are that Argue the Result of that Dispute necessarily carried on by Arguments and reasoning purely fallible can end in nothing but in dissatisfactory Topicks if yet it come so far But this is so and obserue well The Protestant plead's The weaknes of two parties pleading fallibly for his Tenents or oppugn's our Doctrin and doth it fallibly The Catholick Answers and fallibly too The Protestant Replies but hath no infallible Principle to ground his Reply vpon no more hath the Catholick if the Supposition hold's any other Answer but what 's Vngrounded and Fallible Say I beseech you do not both Parties busied in this Contest vpon vncertainties run on in Darkness Haue we yet the least hope of Satisfaction Or so much as the Truth we all seek for yet discouered in this weak skirmish Whilst Fallible men and Fallible Arguments and Fallible Principles are the only Support of the whole Discourse Most euidently no. All are left where they were before in à deep Perplexity 19. I Said iust now If we we exclude an Infallible Church and her approued Councils Truth and Reason vanish to nothing and that no Principle remain's whereby these Contests of Religion can be ended To proue the Assertion further I first vrge the Protestant to name the last certain Principle or that vltimate Sectaries are vrged to name the last Iudge in these Debates Iudge in whose Sentence he dare Acquiese and Say positiuely vpon this Principle we must both rely This shall Define whether you my Aduersary or I yours defend Truth The man will not for stark shame name Himself nor any priuate Person on earth for Iudge He cannot recurr to an Inferiour Council and Oppose that against One Generally receiued the Whole world ouer He will not adhere to à Schismatical and Heretical Church and plead by Her in defence of his Doctrin against an Oracle neuer yet taxed or tainted of Errour Or if he doth so he gain 's nothing For all those are as fallible as the two Parties now in contest Where then is the Sectaries Sure Principle or last Iudge to stand to in these Debates Or whither will he goe to find out his yet Vndiscoured Truth and Reason Will his refuge be to Scripture It help 's nothing in this Case not only because Scripture omit's to speak either explicitly of the half of such And cannot pitch on any Controuersies as are now agitated But vpon this Account Chiefly That if the Church and Councils be fallible the Book it self becomes à most fallible Principle to all For neither Catholicks nor Protestants nor Arians nor any can Say with Assurance â—uch and Such is the vndoubted â—ense of Gods word in Controuerted Matters if the Churches Iudgement be set light by and look't on as fallible Yet I 'll Say thus much Were the Church fallible Sectaries may well blush first to decry Her Sense of Scripture and then to set vp the far inferiour and fallible interpretation of euery single Person against the Church 20. Some may Reply The grand Principle of Protestants The grand Principle of Protestants reiected is that Scripture in things necessary to Saluation appeares plain to all who vse ordinary Diligence to vnderstand it wherein certainly their Truth and Reason may be found Contra. And I Press not in this place the Vncertainty of the Principle which is as disputable as any other Protestant Tenet But Say more it is wholly
in matters most Fundamental other Rules and means must be vsed The Original Languages are to be examined seueral Passages compared together daily Reading and pondering the different places with much Prayer also seem What Sectaries acknowledge necessary What is this to Say but that their reading pondering and comparing are in order to them means and Rules more immediatly known then the hidden Sense of Scripture Herein then lies the difference that we in Lieu of their fallible reading recurr to an Infallible Church and Say her Testimony is more perspicuous easy and clear to vs than the dark Verities in Scripture are to them after all their pondering and comparing CHAP. XII The last Obiection Proposed VVhether the Churches Testimony may be called the Formal Obiect of Faith Other Notes and Considerations Concerning The Resolution of Faith 1. A 6 th Obiection If God whereof no man doubt's once said in Scripture The Word was made flesh its needless to speak the same Truth again by the Church Nay this God has spoken the Same Verity by different Oracles seem's impossible vnless the Churches Testimony be properly the Formal Obiect of Faith Answ The first part of the Obiection contains no difficulty for it is certain God has spoken the same Verities by distinct and different Oracles by different Euangelists for example And why cannot he as well speak them again by an Euangelist and the Church If the Church be absolutely infallible for the Diuersity of the Organs or Oracles He speak's by diuersifies not at all his Sacred word 2. Now to what is hinted at concerning the formal Obiect A question proposed I Ask whether this Assertion in Catholick Principles be not de Fide and reuealed by Almighty God Euery Doctrin proposed by the Church is true The Catholick Answer 's affirmatiuely And here is one Verity as an Instance for many The Church is infallible or cannot err I Ask again whether this very Proposition made by the Church may not be belieued vpon Her own Authority What somâ— Diuines answer by an Act of Diuine Faith Some Diuines Answer negatiuely and Discourse thus The Assent giuen to the Authority or Proposition of the Church is not Faith but rather an extrinsecal disposition to Faith So that by one Assent we first Say The Churches Proposition is infallible and afterward by à true Act of Faith belieue the Truth proposed by Her vpon God's pure Reuelation contained in Scripture or vpon Apostolical Tradition 3. Though this Discourse which defend's the Churches absolute Infallibility giues no aduantage to Sectaries yet it seem's Their Answer Seem's difficult difficult for two reasons chiefly First if à firm and infallible Iudgement terminated vpon the Churches neuer erring Proposition which fully declares Christ real Presence in the Eucharist for example Precedes the true belief of that Mystery grounded on Scripture or Apostolical Tradition That very faith as grounded on Scripture would be à necessary obscure act generated by the Discourse or ineuitably inferred from the Connexion between the Churches infallible Proposition not assented to by Faith and the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture The Inference is clear For the Church Saies infallibly Christ is really present And I Assent to that Truth but by no Act of Faith say these Yet from thence I euidently inferr That He is really present and this is done before I belieue the Verity by Supernatural Faith I think this cannot What is necessarily inferred vpon that Iudgement be granted Some Answer that preuious Iudgement is only à condition disposing to belieue and not the Cause or Motiue why I belieue Contra. Call it cause call it condition or what you please by virtue of that Iudgement I Assent to the truth of the Mystery in it selfe and from thence must necessarily infer that God has reuealed it before I belieue it by supernatural Faith And this is to Discourse not from the formal Obiect of Faith to the material which may be probably defended but from one Principle purely extrinsecal to Faith viz. The Churches Proposition obscurely known to the Diuine Testimony and the matter reuealed 4. A second Reason God truely speak's by the Church which is as well known by its own lustre and Miracles to be à Diuine Oracle as euer Prophet or Apostle were known to be so The Church immediatly Credible by their Signatures and Miracles No Disparity can be giuen But these Prophets and Apostles were made by their Marks and Wonders immediately Credible therefore the Church hold 's Parallel and is also by it Selfe and for it Selfe immediatly credible And hence it followes That the Churches Infallibility may and must in à General way be belieued before we come to an infallible Belief of Scripture For to Say I must first belieue by true Faith the Churches Infallibility vpon Scripture And to Say again I cannot first belieue that very Scripture to be Diuine This way of belieuing implâ—x and intricate or to speak truth But vpon the Churches Testimony seem's if not impossible at least à very implex intricate and à difficult way of Belieuing I say first belieue For none in this present state can know the Scriptures Diuinity without Church Authority 5. For these and many other Reasons I Conclude that this Proposition made by the Church She is an Oracle teaching all The Church can ground an act of Diuine Faith truth whereby men may attain Saluation is à sufficient Motiue to ground an Act of Diuine Faith vpon The learned Suarez to omit many other Diuines Disp 9. de Fidâ— Sect. 9. n. 14. Speak's most profoundly and pertinently to my purpose Ipsa Ecclesia seipsam proponit vt veram quia c. The Church proposes Herselfe as true and because she is sufficiently and euidently proposed therefore she obliges all to belieue such à Verity no less then other things appertaining Diuines teach So. to Faith Iust after that manner as à true Prophet who sufficiently proposes truths reuealed to him by God Consequently Sufficiently proposes himselfe to be à true Prophet Moreouer Disp 3. de Fide Sect. 11. n. 11. Quod Ecclesia definit Deus per Ecclesiam testificatur VVhat the Church Defines God testifies the same Verity by the Church Scripture accord's Scripture is Consonant where the Church is called the Pillar and ground of truth The Fathers accord so vniuersally that à Volume would not set forth their expressions Take only these two in place of many S. Cyril in Conc. Ephes Tom. 1. de Nicaenis Ancient Fathers Speak most significently Patribus They the Fathers there were inspired by the Holy Ghost â—ot to recede from Truth Non enim iâ—si loquebantur c. For they spake â—â—t but Christ our Sauiour witnessing â—t was the Spirit of God and the Eternal Father that spaâ—e in them S. Greg. Lib. 1. Regist Epist 24 Is yet more significant where he professes no less Reuerence to the four General Councils then to the four
Euangelists 6. Whoeuer read's these and the like Authorities cannot but Say the Voice of the Church as it Proceeds from that Oracle is the Voice of God And therefore Diuine certain and infallible Or contrarywise must grant it 's only Humane fallible and may â—r Speake so And it followes first that if the whole Church should err in the most essential Points of Faith God would not be yet Said to deceiue any because his increated Authority Speak's not by it nor is engaged to rescue this his own Spoufe from errour It followes 2. If any one denied either Purgatory or Transubstantiation explicitly defined by the Church and not so clearly expressed in Scripture He would not be guilty of Heresy though he peruersly refused to belieue these Articles precisely vpon this account That the Church Defines them The Inference is Reason also proues the Assertion clear for in doing so He denies not Gods Reuelation because the Churches Definitions no Diuine Testimony are in à lower ranck and much inferiour to all that God has spoken It followes 3. We belieue the Churches Definitions by à very different infused Habit from that whereby we Assent to the Truths reuealed in Scripture and to find such à supernatural and Infallible Habit distinct from Faith when we Assent to the Churches Definitions seem's to me à new learning vnknown to Antiquity 7. Thus much and more well considered which might be Said in behalfe of Christ's glorious Oracle And this one Principle added which all Catholicks grant viz. That the Church and Scripture Speak alwaies the same truths and can neuer be at Variance 8. Why may we not in this present State resolue Diuine Faith into the first Verity Speaking by the Scripture or Infallible Faith may be resolued into Scripture and the Church together Tradition and by his own Oracle the Church also For example We belieue the Sacred Trinity the Incarnation Original Sin c. because God reuealed them in Scripture or first conueyed them by Apostolical Tradition But these Verities which the Apostles and Euangelists long since made Credible are now remote from vs without the Churches reflâ—x Testimony whereby God ascertain's all in this State that both Scripture is Diuine The reason and that his Church speak's the very same Verities in Scripture And consequently we Assent to euery particular vpon à Twofold Motiue or rather vpon this one Formal Obiect ioyntly and indiuisibly Scripture and the Church make but one ioynt indiuisible Motiue taken because Scripture and the Church Assert's them Neither is there the least Difficulty in ioyning one reflex Testimony with another former or anciently deliuered whereof we haue examples in Holy Writ For we all belieue God made à Couenant with Abraham of multiplying his Seed because Eternal Truth said so some Ages before Moses Again we belieue that Verity because the reflex Testimony of Moses reiterat's the same Verity anciently spoken to Abraham Gen. 17. 4. An instance Other Instances of the same nature you haue aboue and more are found in Holy Writ 9. Thus much supposed It 's Methinks easy to Say if all be not de Nomine how the Churches Testimony may in one Sense be called the Formal Obiect of Faith and not in another Consider it as Diuine infallible and God's own Voice proceeding from no humane Authority but from the First Verity speaking by How the Church yeild's to Scripture this Oracle it well merit 's the name of à Formal Obiect Compare it again with the Primary Reuelation which it only compleat's in order to vs and consequently presupposes more Ancient more excellent and all things considered more worthy it must yeild to Scripture And may be called an intrinsecal condition whilst it Declares what anciently was Reuealed 10. Now if any Ask wherein the Excellence and Dignity of Scripture consists when you compare it with the Churches Definitions Diuines answer 1. Euery word and reason in Holy writ is de Fide but not so in the Churches Definitions where the Sense only of the Definitiue sentence has weight as comming from the Holy Ghost's Assistance 2. The Church The excellence and dignity of Scripture has her limits and Defines nothing but what was long since reuealed or necessarily connexed with the ancient Doctrin And vpon this account the Hagiogrophers are deseruedly called our first great Teachers who made first euery Truth they wrote à matter of Faith 3. When she Church Defines or interpret's Compared with the Church Gods word All is done for Scripture and look'd vpon as the end of Her labours But what is performed for another yeild's in worth and weight to that other it is done for as S. Austin obserues Lib. de Magist c. 9. Whoeuer desires more of this Subiect may read Bellar. Lib. 1. de verbo Dei C. 15. and Serrarius in Proleg 6. 7. 9. 12. 11. To solue other difficulties proposed by Sectaries please to Note first This Primary Act of Faith All are called into the Communion of one infallible Church whereby God teaches the true way to Saluation is grounded immediatly vpon the Authority One Primary act of Faith is grounded on Church Authority of this Oracle manifested by her Marks and Supernatural Signes Although yet the Book of Scripture be not admitted as God's word Notwithstanding when it is once owned as Diuine vpon Church Authority I can belieue this Oracles Infallibility with another Act of Faith grounded on Scripture How Scripture also terminates that Faith yet if we make à search into the vltimate Principle or final Resoluent of that very Belief We must as is said aboue come at last to Church Authority whereby Assurance is giuen that such à truth is Scripture 12. Note 2. This General truth supposed of the Church being immediatly Crediblâ— or known by her Motiues as an Oracle which teaches the right way to Saluation it therefore followes not that euery other particular Verity for example the â—â—pes Supremacy the Infallibility of Councils c. can in like manner be first and immediatly Credible or belieued explicitly when I Assent to that General Truth For it is enough that such Particulars be consequently or afterward assented to vpon the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture and the Churches own Proposition as is already declared 13. The Reason is because the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church immediatly induce to belieue that She is How other particular Truths are belieued afterward God's Oracle constituted by Prouidence to guide all in the way of Truth But how or in what manner this Duty is complyed with must be learned by the Practise and Doctrin of the same Church by Scripture and Tradition also Now that it is most Connatural to know first in à General way The Churches Infallibility before we descend to belieue euery Doctrin She teaches in Particular you may well conceiue by the Instance giuen aboue of the blessed Apostles who first acknowledged Christ our Lord
proue The Assertion 266 CHAP. V. A second Reason showing That if rhe Roman Catholick Church erred but in one Article of Faith thère is now no Fundamental Faith in the world VVere Errour in this Church it is à remediless Euil and cannot be amended by any least of all by Protestants 276 CHAP. VI. Other Euidences of the. Roman Churches Perseuerance in the Primitiue Faith without change or Alteration VVhether wickednes of life necessarily induceth Errour into the Church The Donatists and Protestants Argue and Err alike 285 CHAP. VII Manifest and most vndeniable Miracles peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church only proue Her Orthodox withall show that She still retain's the Primitiue Doctrin 296 CHAP. VIII Miracles euident in the Roman Catholick Church No less induce All now to belieue Her Doctrin Than Apostolical Miracles Anciently Perswaded to belieue that Primitiue Doctrin The Denial of Miracles Impossibilitat's The Conuersion of Iewes and Infidels 302 The Admirable cure wrought by Blessed S. Xauerius in the Famous Citty of Naples vpon à worthy Religious Person called F. Marcellus Mastrilli à Noble man by birth and by Profession of the Society of Iesus The Proof hinted at aboue reassumed 312 CHAP. IX A word to à few Obiections as also to Mr stillingfleets vnworthy Exceptions against that euident Miracle wrought at Zaragosa in Spain 321 CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signes peculiar to the Roman Cathollick Church proue her Orthodox And make Her Doctrin euidently credible These laid forth to Sense and Reason distinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies Inferences drawn from the Doctrin Here deliuered 333 CHAP. XI Christ and his Church made manifest to à Heathen No Prophet comparable to Christ no Church comparable to the Roman Catholick Our glorious Christ Iesus Exhibits à glorious Church Hee is proued the Only true Messias And the Roman Catholick Church His only true Sponse How the Heathen Discourses if rational And Prudent 349 CHAP. XII The Aduersaries of the Roman Catholick Church plead vnreasonably A Discouery of their fallacies The cause of all Errour concerning Religion The only means to remedy Errour 363 Arguments drawn from what is said Reflections made vpon the premised Doctrin 377 CHAP. XIII Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrin Atheists and Hereticks Argue alike The Motiues of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what euer the true Church Proposes A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church 181 A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 387 CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith CHAP. XV. Diuine Faith in this present State of things necessarily requir's à Church infallible The Reason hereof The Church neither Defin's nor can Define by Humane Authority only Her Definitions more than morally certain are Infallible Sectaries Recourse to Moral certainly in Matters of Faith à most frigid Plea Their Fallacy is discouered Obiections Answered 408 Other Obiections proposed by Sectaries Solued More of Moral certainty 419 CHAP. XVI Principles premised to the following Doctrin The Roman Catholick Church is à Church of One Denomination She and no other Society of Christians is Infallible Othet Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth The Infallibility of Councils maintained against Mr Stillingfleets Supposed Truth and Reason There are no Principles whereby Approued Councils can be proued fallible Sectaries Conuinced by their own Doctrin 423 CHAP. XVII More of this subiect A further Search made into Errours called intolerable VVhether the Roman Catholick Church must be supposed by Sectaries to haue already Committed intolerable Errours Or only whether She may for the future Err Intolerably The Doctrin of Protestants proued False And most inconsequent 443 CHAP. XVIII Two Aduersaries mainly Opposit to True Religion The last and most vrgent Proof of the Churches Infallibility taken from the Necessity the Notion and Nature of true Religion Mr Stillingfleets Obiections found weak and weightles Most of them already Proposed and Dissolued by others A short Reflection made vpon some few 452 CHAP. XIX Certain Principles where vpon the Churches Infallibility stand's firm The End of Diuine Reuelation is to teach all Infallibly Euery Doctrin reuealed by the fiast Verity is no less infallible then true It s one thing to teach Truth another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth Sectaries Strangely vngrateful A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Obiections 465 THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith CHAP. I. Some chiefe Contents in this Discourse briefly declared Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Churches infallibility and the Resolution of Faith The Catholick way of resoluing Faith the very same with that of the Primitiue Christians Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse 477 CHAP. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5 th Chapter Part. 1. examined is found VVeightles The weaknes of his Arguments discouered His First and chiefest Argument retorted and solued 483 CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 493 CHAP. IV. More of Mr Stillingfleets Errours Of that odd kind of Faith he seem's to maintain grounded on Moral Certainty VVhat Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue vpon Faith Other Parcels of his Doctrin Examined and refuted Obiections Solued 505 CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauour to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnlearned Cauil 516 CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffing The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communitier and proue Her Infallible The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin no Mark of the Church More Mistakes and Errours discouered Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Belieues but not vpon Diuine the Testimony That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books to be Diuine 523 Whether vve Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Tittle of the Chapter discussed Vpon vvhat ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 534 CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 545 CHAP. VIII The main Difficulty in the Resolution of Faith Proposed VVhat Connexion the Motiues haue vvith the Diuine Reuelation Of their vveight and efficacy God's own Language not imitable by his Enemies Faith transcend's the certainty of all Motiues The main Difficulty solued Of our great Security in Belieuing God Though vve haue not
be indisputably euident That the vote or voice of à whole moral body I mean of à Vniuersal Church far and neer extended A further proof of our Assertion carries with it greater Moral certainty For all this while we touch not vpon Infallibility than à small and slender Part can haue were such à part found so inuincibly ignorant as to contradict the whole All I would say is No more can à few particular members Though Angels for knowledge contest with the contrary iudgement of our ample Church Than three votes in Parlament with the Contrary iudgement of à whole Kingdom No more can the Authority of particular men equalize much less surmount in weight and worth the Sentiment of à whole Moral body than à hand For example surpass in bigness the whole man As the one exceed's in quantity and Extension so the other doth in weight and Intenfion 7. Hence you see first How poorly Sectaries play at small Game when hauing no ancient Church of their own to recurr to They are fain to run for refuge to à Few Fathers professed members of our Church And here like people picking Salads gather vp some small fragments which now they clip now mangle now peruert now Gloss now dress after their new fashion And at last serue all The new mode of Sectaries arguing fairly vp in the larger Margents of their little English Books With these they flourish and vapour as if forsooth à small parcel were able to contrast with the far greater Moral body or à few stolen gleaning were all true they say sufficient to Vnuote what euer this Oracle of Truth hath defined contrary Leaue of I besecch you Gentlemen this Trifling giue vs weight for weight measure for measure Please to plead by sound Principles or you lose the cause Doge not with vs we deal nobly with you 8. Wee giue you plain and express Scripture The Church is à Pillar and ground of Truth She is founded vpon à Rock c. And you Scriptureless men return vs your fancied Glosses We quote innumerable Fathers most significant for our Catholick Positions And you fob vs off with obscurities with Criticisms and such simple stuff We appeal to Tradition you haue none We And this mainly import's show you à Church à Visible and à most glorious Church which time out of mind Belieued as we belieue And would gladly know where your Orthodox Church was The Sectaries Pleading impertinent which four Centuries since approued or published your Nouelties And you like men losing your way go wandring about till at last you fall vpon Theoderet's Dialogues And with one single Passage ill espied and worse applyed hope to vndoe the whole Catholick cause It is not one nor ten Theoderets though they speak far more clearly than is done That can preiudice our Doctrin whilst you haue neither Church nor Councils for yours These Principles we demand of you but you haue them not Therefore you are cast into an impossibility of writing Controuersies hereafter For the few Shreds of Fathers vnluckily cut out by you are too slight to obscure the greater Lights of our Christianity of our Church of our Councils of our Tradition and innumerable Fathers Belieue it had the Fathers you Quote so much Strength as you imagin others would haue read them before your eyes were open better Iudgements would haue weighed what force they had before your Luthers and Caluins were in Being But That wiser world now gone to Eternity waued such Cauils And knew well That what à Titius or à Caâ—us saies may be right And may be wrong But what the Church of Christ Defines and teaches cannot but be sound and Orthodox if God speak's Truth Here is the Principle whereon Christians securely relied in past Ages before our later Sectaries troubled the world 9. You see 2. in what à pitifull case Sectaries are when no more is alleged against our Catholick Doctrin And rest assured They haue no more but à few scattered Authorities now taken Doubtful Authorities of no weight at all from one now from another ancient Father Therefore I discourse thus The Authority is either expresly plain against vs which I neuer yet saw in any Doctrinal Contest between the Catholick and Protestant or Contrariwise doubtful and ambiguous If doubtful it decides nothing nor can the Protestant though He Vow 's it Clear make it soe whilst the learned Catholick auouches the Contrary Hitherto both of them stand vpon Opinions and end nothing Neither can the one or other yet absolutly Say by virtue of such à Passage only Your Doctrin is False And mine is True For à Principle rationally apprehended dubious determin's none to an absolute true iudgement one way or other Let vs therefore suppose contrary to Truth That the Sectary produceth à Father indubitably clear against Catholick Doctrin Thanks be to God These great lights of the Church are not so scarce with vs But that we are able to confront that one Authority with the plain Testimonies of other Fathers far more numerous And thus much I here engage to do may it please Sectaries to come to à iust Tryal and fully examin with me this one point of Transubstantiation now hinted at And if after the Contest we do not only match our Aduersary but quite outvie him with many more Testimonies fully as clear and clearer We may then rationally ask what 's one clear Authority worth I say yet more Though we falsly suppose these particular contrary Authorities to lie euen or equal on both Sides I mean as pregnant for the Sectary as for the Catholick yet I neither lose my cause nor he gain 's his Because neither of vs can absolutly say vpon what if authorities were equal on both sides Moral certainty which Doctrin is à Christian Truth And which not For in this conflict of Authorities Supposed equal both iudgements are left in suspence The one saith I quote clear Authorities for my Tenet The other answers Hee doth so too And Therefore hitherto stand so equally poised That neither may cry Victory Neither can yet pretend to so much Moral certainty as excludes All reasonable doubting because both Parties must doubt whilst the Authorities of the one abate the force of the other What then followes from the Fathers Testimonies were they thus equally diuided That is if as many clearly stood for the Negatiue of no Transubstantiation And iust as many clearly for the Contrary Positiue I Answer This followes That we and Sectaries must of necessity will we know Truth either appeal to à third certain concluding Principle or stand doubtfully opining as is often done in what followes vpon arguing out of doubtful Principles schools without à final Decision For to Belieue any thing certainly as Catholicks belieue if that Principle be excluded or to know any thing yet morally certain as Sectaries pretend to know is vtterly impossible Because à Principle purely probable is euidently too weak either to Support
your Glosses To point at his Church and Councils which taught Protestancy to an Orthodox Church The world was neuer without one Say therefore in Gods name where or when was such an Orthodox Christian Society in Being that positiuely taught no Transubstantiation No sacrifice of the Mass No inuocation of Saints c Where or when were your Councils which positiuely defined these Doctrins c You may Answer and truely You haue indeed neither Church nor Councils Nor Tradition Express for these your Negatiues Very right Therefore I wrong you not in saying your whole Cause subsist's vpon Coniectures cauils And Glosses Because now you cast your selues into an Impossibility of pleading by any better Principles than meer guesses are Thus much supposed Say I beseech you What auail's it if when an Authority is plain for Popery that you can by à nimble gloss darken it Or if obscure You haue A Fiat lux at hand and can charm it into so much Clarity as may suffice to dazle the eyes of à vulgar Reader What Satisfaction haue I here or what gain you by this Proceeding when you know we haue more witnesses ready to attest yea to dye for our Catholick Verities than you haue hairs on your head or Glosses in your book What gain you to your cause could you missinterpret all the Fathers that euer wrote when you without the warrant of any Orthodox Society haue yet à whole learned Church Her Councils and Tradition against you And all the store of Ammunition left you to attaque this great Oracle of Truth is very small no more God knowes but à without them no satisfaction is giuen flash of lightning borrowed from the Ignis fatuus of your far-fetcht Glosses Gloss on Cauil on coniecture on to the worlds end As long as no known or Owned Principle distinct from Glosses and coniectures Support's them You only beat the aire or to vse à pretty late phrase amongst you lapwing-like Pew most when furthest from the nest I mean you are most fierce to end Controuersies when you are furthest off from Principles which only can end them 8. Thus then you should proceed had not God and Truth silenced you I E. S. B. D. declare to you honest Papists That in the Sixth or seauenth age after Christ His true Orthodox Church positiuely taught no Transubstantiation Such à Council either in former or later Ages expresly defined so Then and before also Church Tradition was vniuersally for my Doctrin And thus much I can make good to the learnedest Romanist among you Wonder not Therefore when you quote your Iustins your Cyprians your Chrisostoms seemingly contrary to my Church Doctrin That I interpret all I am forced to doe so or against conscience must desert my old Mother Church Her Councils How Sectaries ought to plead and Tradition likewise From which You haue too licentiously swerued to side with your Iustins and I know not who els Could the Sectary plead after this manner His Glosses would haue force But he neuer meddles with the First main Business That is neuer ground 's his Doctrin vpon any thing like à satisfactory Principle But as if He minded to tire Ones patience run's on headlong with Glosses When he has no Principled Doctrin to Gloss for Iust as if One should tell his neighbour Sir you lye And this I auerr to your face Though I want where withall to proue my Saying true In all these Controuersies Sectaries are so pertly vnciuil as to giue the Lie to à whole Church And what supports the Boldnes Haue they any other Church more Orthodox Councils more learned Tradition more vniuersal to proue we lye than our Church our Tradition And Councils are which say we speak truth Nothing at all like them We here challenge them to speak to the cause and controuersies are ended What then remain's to plead with Plain Scripture Not à word Fathers plain Not one O yes Tertullian is drawn in to help at à dead lift so is Theoderet And one or two more Very true But he is à glossed Tertullian à glossed Theoderet c. Separate then these Glosses from the Fathers genuin Doctrin giue them the Sectary to manage you see him in open field compleatly armed ready to encounter Church Councils Tradition And all the other Principles of the Catholick world Are not Glosses think Glosses strangely powerful with Sectaries ye strong and prodigiously powerful which haue not only force to plead against à whole Church But more ouer to implead her of palpable errour This Church is supposed to haue changed Her ancient Doctrin And Sectaries will reform it not by recurring to any other more Orthodox Society of Christians But by meer guesses and Glosses That is The Fallible Glosses and gueses of men confessedly fallible must reform à Church which hold's Her selfe infallible And proues it also 9. Thus it is Christian Reader I speak plainly And can defend my Assertion Besides meer begging the Question in all Disputes besides Cauils And weak coniectures The Sectary hath no more left him to oppose our Catholick Tenets but meer vnprincipled Glosses I neither word it nor wrong Protestants in saying thus much Peruse if you please their writings chiefly Mr Stillingfleets Account you will find when the Churches Infallibility or Transubstantiation c. Happen to be handled That Glosses laid on the Authorities vsually quoted for Catholick Doctrin euer take vp the most room And which is worse yea pitiful in à Rational Defender of Protestancy You shall neuer find through this whole Book waue Cauils coniectures and Glosses one sound Principle laid plainly forth nor so much as hinted at in behalf of any Protestant Article What think ye Shall Yet Most weak and feeble Christians who would fain haue à Church to liue in see the old House of God pulled down by vnhandy Glossers before They haue à better built vp And well setled on good Foundations Pulled down What say I Alas our Glossers haue not strengh to vntile it much less force to demolish that long slanding Fortress Yet Glosses chiefly And t' is à sad thought for the Sectary support his vndefensible Schism made in the desperate quarrel against that Church which gaue his Ancestors Baptism These only there is no more must plead in behalf of his inhuman and barbarous Reformation These finally must answer before an Impartial Iudge at that great day of Doom for all his merciless cruelty practised vpon the deceased and some yet liuing Catholicks Sad thoughts I say they are to goe to bed with to rise with to banquet with which like Ghosts will haunt him to his dying day And lay Torment at his restles hart in his greatest iollities And more in the houre of death 10. After all you see the Conclusion and an end put to Controuersies The Conclusion against Sectaries If no Orthodox Church vphold's this Protestancy or any article of it which is euident No Councils nor Tradition can support
If an Embassadour once be found in an Vntruth when he speaks in his Princes name I think few Monarchs or States will no more belieue him in like occasions Than giue credit to one conuicted The disparity betweâ—n à priuate man erring and the Church of periuery when He swear's vnless what he swear's bee proued true independently of his Oath But let this pass The disparity between à priuate man and the Church is most notorious The First considered as one single and priuate hath no Commission to speak in Gods name or to teach the whole Christian world what is or what is not Christ's Doctrin The Orthodox Church is impowred to do this or to teach nothing if then She err's but once the Errour makes Her infamous redound's to the Dammage of all Christians seduced by Her yea and to God himselfe as is now declared Hence I say the Church cannot teach truth by halfes as Sectaries would haue Her or now Hit right now miss She cannot be Orthodox in à few main Matters called Fundamental and erroneous in others No. She is either Gods Vice-gerent in all She deliuer's as points of Faith or in nothing She must when she pretend's to speak in Gods name truly do so or She cannot speak nor pretend to speak but must be silent This Verity is further laid forth in the Chapters now cited where we treat of the Churches Infallibility 14. In the mean while if any Should Obiect The Church vainly pretend's to be so far an Oracle of Truth as not to impose on us false Doctrin And then demand from whence She had this Whether our whole Discourse tend's Priuiledge of Infallibility I Answer Whoeuer trifles with such obiections in this place to be solued hereafter little vnderstand's the force of our Arguments Mark I beseech you It is now à supposed Principle Sectaries will haue it so that the Roman Catholick Church hath forged new Articles and imposed the beliefe of them on Christians which God neuer Reuealed Grant thus much She iniures God sin's damnably And therefore is no Orthodox Church But if She neither now be Orthodox nor was so ten Ages before Luther There was not then nor is yet any true Christian Church in the world And consequently Protestants â—aue no Church The more erring Therefore they make the Roman Catholick Church the more are they Churcâ—lesse This is what I Press and express at present and would willingly haue my Argument solued 15. There is yet an other Obiection scarse worth the paper you shall haue it such an one as it is Protestants talk much of A weightless Obiection Papists Blindnes And to free the Roman Church from damnable sin or formal Fundamental Errours may perhaps say She hath indeed erred before Luther and still is Idolatrous But may be excused vpon the Account of inuincible Ignorance Answ What 's this Do we hear talk of inuincible ignorance in à whole learned Church Pray where shall we find knowledge if ignorance haue place here Such ignorance may perhaps be in some particular men But to Tax à whole Church with it is not only to make so many Councils so many profound Doctors as haue taught the world worse than Idiots for à thousand years but it is to iniure Christ to tell Him he has indeed established à Church yet mark'd it so obscurely remoued it so far out of the Sight of Christians that the most learned of all could not discouer the Truths it taught for ten long Ages though all Antiquity Assures vs that Christ's Church is one of the most manifest things in the world Again Suppose our Church were blind and inculpably ignorant who for Gods sake must open Her eyes now and vnbeguile Her Touching vpon the Ignorance of Catholicks Solued Must à few late scattered Sectaries Doe the wonder that are to look to their own vincible ignorance And therefore if learned Sin vpon that account damnably 3. If our Church may be excused vpon the score of ignorance excuse also the Arians less learned the Pelagians the Donatists c. And say there were neuer any formal sinful Hereticks in the world yea Iewes and Turks may thus be acquitted of formal Sin and Errour likewise But aboue all free I beseech you our Sectaries from further pains-taking as also from the least hope of amending Matters were there any thing amiss for you may well rest assured if ignorance hath cast this learned Church into such an Abysse of Errour it is not to be expected that the far weaker knowledge of Protestants can draw Her out of it I wonder men of Modesty dare offer to impute ignorance to the Roman Catholick Church And presume to teach more learned then Themselues CHAP. VI. Other Euidences of the Roman Churches Perseuerance in the Primitiue Faith without change or Alteration VVhether wickednes of life necessarily induceth Errour into the Church The Donatists and Protestants Argue And Err alike 1. I Argue 2. God had euer à true Church preserued free from Errour for so many Thousand years as passed between A second Argument Adam and Christ It stood all that vast time inuincible against Heresy and was neuer stained with false Doctrin The Truth is indubitably owned by Christ our Lord who came not to change so much as one iota of Doctrin taught by the Prophets but only to perfect it by reuealing other Verities not explicitly known before Now Mark à strange Paradox auouched by Sectaries They say boldly That our Christian Catholick Roman Church which certainly God Himselfe established And enriched with his own Verities only continued Orthodox for Three or Four Ages and then O dismal time left off to be what it was lost Christs reuealed Truths became the whore of Babylon Apostated from it Selfe and cheated the world into false Doctrin What saies the prudent Reader Is it Possible that the Ancient Church of Drawn from à most improbable Assertion of Sectaries the Patriarchs and Prophets stood without change or blemish for 4. or 5. Thousand years and Christ's own Spouse became smutched and vgly within the compass of three or 4. Ages Is it Probable that the lesser light of the Synagogue lasted so long And the Glorious sun of Christ's own Church appeared dark and Eclipsed soon after The world had Cast an Eye vpon Her And this to encrease the wonder happened then Sectaries must say when euidently There was no other true Church on earth vnless you will take in Arians Pelagians c and such open Hereticks to make vp à Catholick Society most vnfit all know to teach Christs Orthodox Doctrin I wish Protestants would well ponder the force of this one reason And return an Answer 2. My last Argument is à Demonstration against Sectaries who say There was alwayes an Orthodox visible Church since Christs time For this Article of our Creed was euer professedly true in all Ages I belieue the Holy Catholick Church They say again There was à time when our Roman Catholick
Council either break vp and Define nothing Or if à Definition issues forth that only shall be defined which is certain and infallible Thus much is granted Yet I deny the Consequence and Say The Argument drawn from Hostility Conuinces Here is my reason That Imagined Râ—presentatiue consist's as we now suppose of Arians Protestants Catholicks Socinians and all other called Christians For these as some think Collectiuely taken make vp the diffused Church of Christ more ample than the Roman Or if so many The Argument taken From Hostility Conuinces Constitute it not Let Sectaries please to tell vs what Christians are to be excluded or precisely how many are the Members of this diffused Catholick Body In the mean while vouchsafe to Consider the force of my Argument grounded vpon an implacable Hostility 17. This whole diffused Moral Body euidently maintain's Contradictions For example Christ is the highest God Christ is not the highest God Our Lords Sacred Body is substantially present in the Eucharist That Body is not substantially present As therefore this large Society of Christians now supposed but one great Church holds contradictions So it must be granted that the Representatiue of it also hold's the same Contradictions Or ceaseth â—o ipsâ— to Represent the whole Diffused Moral Body 18. Hence one of these three Sequels ineuitably followes The first If this Representatiue still continues to Represent which is euer to be noted and proceed's to à Definition answerable to the Sentiment of the large Moral Body in Diuision it necessarily Defines the contradictions of those Churches to The Reasons and Proofs of my Assertion be Orthodox Doctrin and were this done There is More then Hostility enough For thus impossible Contradictions are both Definable and Belieuable Or it followes 2. that our imagined Representatiue break 's vp and leaues all points in Controuersy as Wholly vndecided as they were before And this which implies an endles Hostility would I think be the Result of that Council And vpon that Account appear à ridiculons Representatiue Or. 3. This followes That some one Part or other in the Representatiue must lay down Arms and acknowledge one Church of One Denomination absolutly infallible in whose Sentence all are to rest VVithout this Acquiescency in one Orthodox and Infallible Church Errours in Faith goe on as S. Austin Speak's what we Assert we see hitherto in à remedilesse condition This truth S. Austin Lib. de symb ad Catecâ—um C. 6. Saw well where He speak's profoundly to my present purpose Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta Ecclesia vna c. She and she only is the holy the one Church the Catholick Church which fights against all Heresies She may fight but cannot be foiled And Might I here Digress à little I could Demonstrate That neuer Heresy yet of any Fame in the world appeared since Christs time but it was Crushed censured and condemned by one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church to whose Sentence the very best of Christians dutifully Submitted relying on our Sauiours secure Promise Hell gates cannot preuail against that Oracle 19. A. 3. Obiection Scripture alone though all Churches were fallible is sufficient to teach infallible Faith necessary to Saluation Answ Of all Obiections proposable this is least worth For had Scripture that sufficiency it may I hope be yet Enquired VVhether the Church also which cannot clash with Scripture has the like Prerogatiue of infallibility Scripture was infallible when the Apostles preached and yet their Preaching was as infallible as The words they wrote But here is not my greatest Exception I say Scripture and all the Verities in it goe to wrack if the Church be fabllible For grant this we haue no infallible Certainty of the Scriptures Canon of it's substantial Purity or Immunity from corruption of it's true Scripture with out the Churches infallible Testimony loseth force Sense in à hundred controuerted passages VVe cannot belieue that Christ is God or That his Ascent into Heauen was real and not à vain Vision We Cannot belieue what Sacraments are nor know the number of them without the Church Therefore vnless this Principle stand vnshaken It is immediatly more certain that the Church manifested by Her Marks is Gods own Oracle Than That Scripture setting Church Authority aside is Gods word we can belieue nothing For who see 's not but that very Book would soon haue been out of credit had not God by special Assistance preserued as well it 's Doctrin pure in Mens hearts as He preserued the words in Velume or parchment And this by the means of à watchful liuing Oracle his infallible Church 20. Again and this Reason conuinceth Were Scripture iudged sufficient to teach Saluifical Faith compleatly independently of the Church Or were the Church when that Iudgement is held not only errable but actually erroneous How can any hauing The Assertion is proued these two iudgements Scripture Infallibly â—eaches Faith compleatly The Church because erroneous fail's in this Duty Account himself à Heathen or Publican as our Lord Saith though he absolutely refuse to hear the Church His refusal Certainly is prudent and defensible vpon this ground That Scripture doth all learns him enough Therefore none can oblige him to hear the Church which may mislead and Propound false Doctrins For no man in his wits will listen to à Fallible Oracle whilst he has another at hand that teaches all Truths infallibly 21. If you reply Such an one is at least obliged to hear the Church in Fundamentals but not in others The Intelligent Person Asks whether Protestants who lay that obligation A Reply answered vpon him of belieuing fundamentals only own that Assertion sâ— infallible that to belieue the Distinction is an Article of their Faith If they say it is à fundamental Article and that he is obliged to belieue so Protestants doe not only maintain one infallible fundamental Point peculiar to themselues disowned by the Roman Catholick Church for She certainly reiect's the Distinction The Sectary Câ—nuicted of Errour but moreouer now become infallible Oracles in à Matter of greatest Importance which cannot pass because they are Professedly fallible in all they teach Therefore may truth haue place the Dictinction giuen between fundamentals is both Vnfundamental and fallible Doctrin And so without More we are freed from all Obligation of belieuing the Church for that Distinction failing to be à fundamental truth The Church is absolutly fallible in fundamental Doctrin Well then may we not hear Her at all without any Note of being looked on as Heathens and Publicans 22. Some perhaps great Patrons of Christian Liberty and freedom of mind in matters of Faith may obiect 4. The Church cannot exercise Her Authority ouer mens Iudgements or oblige any to an internal Assent Her power being limited and to thus much only as to order and regulate the Exteriour A Reflection made vpon Christian Libertins for this end that Vnity and peace May be preserued without
Scripture I Could wish to see à clear Deduction yet fear it Howeuer Suppose that done new Doubts arise concerning the certainty of the Deduction which can be no more but morally certain most insufficient to ground Diuine Faith The true Answer therefore must be or none The Nicene Council The both pas't and Present Church faithfully interpreting Scripture Definitiuely deliuered the Doctrin and vpon this ground we belieue the Mystery 8. Now here we come to the main Business and Ask again whether God speaking by this Church as his own Oracle Proposes that Doctrin and obliges all to belieue it Or Contrarywise whether the Church diuorced as it were from Diuine Assistance teaches vpon Her own humane fallible Authority And The Churches Infallibility further euinced obliges all to belieue the Mystery Grant the first The Definitions of the Church are infallible because an Eternal Verity speaks infallibly by Her Say secondly That the Church wholly Vnassisted teaches and Defines vpon Her own fallible humane Authority the Doctrin we learn from Her of the Incarnation of the highest Godhead in Christ of his being Consubstantial of the Blessed Trinity of Original Sin beget's no Faith Because if the Supposition hold's that Assent relies not at all vpon an Infallible Verity speaking by the Church Assisted but vpon à weak and fallible Human Authority which cannot support any certain Beliefe For it is most preposterous to Say that men meerly fallible as all are left to Themselues can Assure vs what that Doctrin is which God Reueal's Infallibly Now we Come to this Moral Certainty 9. And one Perhaps will say Such men though fallible may at least giue Moral Assurance of the truth of the Doctrin and that 's enough Contra. 1. Moral assurance which euer implies some weak Degree of fear of the contrary may in rigour be false But the Church which obliges all to belieue Her Doctrin vnder pain of Damnation speak's without fear and Saith boldly God reueal's as I teach Therefore her Doctrin if false is the Diuels Doctrin But none can say That the Nicene Definition against Arius was the Doctrin of Diuels But Contrarywise à Truth reuealed by God and Belieuable Fide Diuina Ergo it was infallible and more than Morally certain Contra. 2. God The Churches Definitions More then Morally Certain Speaking by the Church giues greater Certainty than Moral And if he do not speak at all by Her the Definition now remoued from Infallible Assistance Vphold's not Faith as we shall se presently nor can it be prudently iudged morally certain 10. Though much be said in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 4. 6. against this Pretence to Moral certainty Sectaries casually light on it because forsooth they brook not the word Infallibility yet here we must wholly weaken that Plea I say Therefore could the Church as She cannot Define or teach without Gods special Assistance Christians would either not attain to so great certainty of Her Doctrin as is Moral Or if no greater could be had That certainty would not be Diuine Faith Euery one knowes Moral certainty to be à kind of knowledge whereby men iudge such things are or are not without great Hesitancy or any reasonable cause of Doubting It is vsually grounded vpon some vulgar Perswasion or common half owned Euidence which the most of men trust to prudently When no surer can be had Thus we say All People in Common Conuersation speak not alwayes contrary to their thoughts Some mean well in their Priceeding The Nature of Moral certainly briefly hinted at Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in being These and the like Assertions may in rigour be false Yet our Iudicatiue faculty without Violence readily yeild's to all induced thereunto by à Perswasion vulgarly receiued whereby we say That as such things are Commonly reported So they also are vsually belieued and Commonly true In à word the greatest part of Moral certainty may be rightly stiled à kind of half Supposed Euidence current in the world which may Deceiue yet easily deceiues not 11. Now be pleased to reflect The sublime Mysteries of A reflection Faith remote from all vulgar Apprehensions and half owned Euidences are neither visible like Constantinople seen by innumerable Eye-wittnesses Nor assured vpon any either Fallible or deceiuable Authority nor finally belieued vpon à meer humane prudential Discourse only No. They lie in à higher Region aboue our natural knowledge in the Abyss of Gods inscrutable Wisdom and the more remote they are from Sense Or any Half-euidences the more they stand in need of an infallible Proponent No Power deceiuable can ground Faith Whereby All rest Ascertained of their being Eternal Truths Hence I Argue None but God aboue who Reueal's and an infallible Church which Proposes the Mysteries can giue Assurance of their being Diuine Truths or say absolut'ly They ought to be belieued answerably to their Dignity as Diuine Now further But if God reueal's them as his own Truths for this End that all belieue them infallibly the Church cannot but Speak in the name of God and independently of this Vulgar The insufficiency of Moral Certainty humane knowledge Propose them also infallibly as Diuine Or if She could turn vs off with no more but à Moral Perswasion of their seeming Gods truths yet may not be so The Strength of Faith vanishes into à dissatisfactory Topick into à meer Perhaps thus It may be we Belieue Truth it may be not In à word we belieue not as the Apostles did infallibly 12. Hence none I think shall euer comprehend how this Whimsy of Moral Certainty got into our Protestants thoughts For had Christians agreed in that Certainty or had they said Because the Mysteries of faith are proposed so weakly We can belieue with no Stronger assurance but Moral They must haue receiued and learn'd that Doctrin not from their own fancy but from some Superiour Power some known Oracle that taught so which either reuealed or proposed the Mysteries as only Morally certain and no more But to point at any such Oracle is impossible And here is the reason All know that God Faith only Morally certain reiected by all that taught Christianity an infallible Verity cannot Reueal any Truth only Morally Certain Christ our Lord taught his own Verities infallibly so also did the Apostles who were Strangers to this low and half lame Assurance No ancient Christians nameable professed à less certainty of Faith than infallible in the Church which taught them The Roman Catholick Church you see for conuincing Reasons laies claim to diuine Assistance when She Teaches and disclaims this petty kind of Certainty which may be false From whence then came the Perswasion of that certainty into mens Heads when neither God nor Christ nor Apostles nor Ancient Christians nor any Orthodox Church euer fauoured it 13. The true Answer is Inimcus homo hoc fecit An old Enemy to decry the Infallibility of Gods own Oracle conueyed the fancy into Ã
the Definition And might he not haue Argued to the purpose Thus If no man can hold himself happy for being actually in Errour He cannot Certainly think himself out of the danger of an vnhappy State if he be exposed to the danger of Errour But the Moral certainty you defend thrust's you vpon the danger of being in Errour Therefore your Condition is none of the surest Nay it is as bad as mine For the worst that can befall my Doctrin which I pretend Scripture for is That it may one day proue false and so may yours too Good Fathers if in the least degree fallible 19. Hence You se first That the Definitions of Christs euidenced Church must either be owned infallible And then meer Moral certainty hath no place Or Hereticks may endlesly cauil at Her Doctrin and boldly say nothing is taught nothing can be belieued infallibly If you Reply Many cauil and except To except against the Churches Infallibility destroyes Faith against the Churches Infallibility I answer This is to say Exception is made against à Truth which either must stand vnshaken or Faith made no more but à tottering Opinion is destroyed And Mark in what à Distress poor Christians are who Ask. Domine quo ibimus Lord whither shall we goe to learn Eternal truth Protestants will needs draw vs from à Church hitherto held infallible And to afford à better prouision of Truth remit vs to Themselues who confessedly are fallible in all they Teach A Paradox beyond Expression The Church is supposed fallible The Sectaries Paradox and Protestants are really fallible Where then is our Security From whom shall we learn Truth From no body But more of this hereafter 20. You se 2. There is not one receiued Christian Principle so much as seemingly fauourable to Moral certainty only which may be fals or which forces That vpon the Churches Infâ—rences Definitions Whereas on the contrary Scripture Councils and Fathers Positiuely Averr Church Doctrin to be infallible You se 3. To pretend to true Faith or to true Religion diuorced from Infallibility Destroyes Both For although euery Truth be not infallible yet Truth and Infallibility inseparably meet in Faith Wherefore this Inference inuiolably hold's good My Catholick Faith is true Ergo it is infallible For Faith relies vpon And is vltimatly Resolued into God's infallible Veracity which with the Concurrenee of other Principles requisite Transfuses into it à Supereminent infallibility aboue all natural Certitude What euer makes Faith true makes it Infallible That Therefore which makes Faith true makes it also Infallible Now further to our present Purpose God as we here Suppose reuealed the Consubstantiallity of his Son Infallibly But the Mystery lies dark in Scripture The Church impowred to Propose exactly eternal reuealed Truths Answerable to Her Trust and the weightines of the matter speak's not like one faint hearted Forsooth Morally speaking Christ is the highest God The word is Consubstantial But Asserts it without all Peraduentures And strik's Arianism dead with one only Definition And thus Faith stand's firm vpon à double infallibility the One infinite and Essential to God's Verity The Other the infallible Proposition of an Assisted Church For as She Proposes the obscure Mysteries of Faith so we belieue Whereof more presently Other Obiections proposed by Sectaries Solued More of Moral certainty 21. One though enough broken already must appear again in our New mens Terms or nothing is done Thus they Discourse If Christian Doctrin be in so high à Degree Morally Certain As it is Certain that Caesar Pompey and Cicero were men once in Being None can reasonably doubt of the Doctrin And why may not Such an Assurance Content vs without our pretended Infallibility I read this in Mr Stillingfleet more then once And had I not seen it with my own Eyes I Should neuer Sectaries Mistaks concerning Moral certainty haue thought That One Professing Knowledge in Diuinity could haue erred so enormously To lay open the foule Mistake 22. All know the Certainty we haue of Caesars once being in the world was first grounded vpon à Visible clear Euidence for Innumerable saw the man heard him Speak whilst He liued on earth The Verity euer since conueyd down from Age to Age Continues still to our dayes And here is all the Moral Certainty men can haue of Caesar of Pompey or of any other so remote from vs. Please now to obserue As Caesar and Cicero were seen by many Eye-witnesses So Christ our Lord was both heard and seen by Innumerable when he Preached and suffered on the Cross The Euidence to those Spectators was Sensible and Physical To Iewes and Gentils now its Moral who vpon à Vniuersal report Say without boggling There was once à man in the world called Christ as they say There was once One Called Caesar But and here we Come to discouer Mr Stillingfleets Errour Do These Iewes and Gentils therefore To say Christ was vpon Moral certainly belieue in Christ or Assent to his Sacred Doctrin by Faith because they Iudge vpon Moral Certainty He was once on earth Is this Truth I say As it is grounded vpon à Common Report or Morally Certain the Obiect of Faith It is more then ridiculous is not to belieue in Christ For grant That All the Iewes in Europe at this Day may be well thought to Belieue in Christ because they haue Moral Certainty of his once Being in the world 23. To Belieue in Christ Therefore is not to Say such à man once had his Being he Preach'd and suffered for this lay open to Sense But implyes Much more viz. To Assert indubitably vpon Diuine Reuelation That the Man called Christ Iesus was truely the Highest God The only Messias The Redeemer of Mankind Consubstantial to his Eternal Father and finally to Assent to Euery Doctrin he taught These and the What is to belieue in Christ like Truths neither visible nor sensible like Caesar are Obiects of Diuine Faith far enough remoued from Physical and Moral Certainty And we firmly Assent to All not because they are seen with our Eyes or Scientifically known Or finally Conueyed vnto vs vpon the weak Support of Moral certainty But because God an Infinite Verity has reuealed them Here is our Ground Now This Reuelation being not euidently known by virtue of any Principle in Nature must be Belieued together with the Obscure Mysteries Attested by an Act of Diuine Faith 24. And Hence it followes That as no Obiect as seen or Faith is more then morally Certain Euidently known Can terminate Supernatural Faith So no Moral Certainty can be essential to it Or vphold it The vltimate Reason hereof is most Conuincing and Briefly thus What euer God reueal's as it is reuealed is Certain and Infallible Doctrin Wherefore He or those that take from this infallible reuealed Doctrin it s own intrinsecal Certainty And make it no More but Morally Certain wrong God the first Verity and iniure all
Christians who are to learn it as Infallible But Sectaries do So That is they vnnaturely turn A Conuincing â—eason hereof Gods infallible Doctrin out of its own intrinsecal Certainty and Say its only Morally Certain to vs Therefore they wrong that first Verity and abuse all Christians This Principle alone Proues the Churches Infallibility And vtterly ruin's the Protestants Pretence to Moral Certainty whereof you Shall haue More hereafter 25. Now to deal fairely with Mr Stillingfleet let vs at present falsely Suppose Moral Certainty à sufficient ground of Faith Were Church Doctrin only Morally certain Sectaries yet gain Nothing what Good for Gods sake get Protestants by that Can They tell vs where the Church is whose Doctrin must be reputed only morally certain The Arians call themselues à Church so do the Graecians the Protestants likewise and finally so do Catholicks Are all these different iarring Doctrins Morally certain Euidently No. For the Professors of them maintain Contradictions vtterly Destructiue both of Moral and all other Certainty Some One Society therefore teaches it For more than One if diuided in faith cannot This One must be Signalized and pointed out which no Protestant can do For if he name his own Church he hath the whole world against him and will be forced to proue his Assertion vpon indubitable Principles And if he point at the Roman Catholick Church he ruin's his own cause For two opposite Churches cannot teach Doctrin morally Certain Now if he can point at no Church of One Denomination teaching Doctrin Morally certain This certainty is only an insignificant word in the aire appliable to no Christian Society 26. A second obiection The Motiues of Credibility though commonly held only Inducements morally certain so Denote the true Church that all may find it out Therefore though Church Doctrin were only morally Certain and not Infallible it may sufficiently lead to belieue that Doctrin which God has Reuealed Answ Here is neither Parity nor any Inference consequential Faith relies not vpon Motiues inducing to Beliefe And the want of distinguishing between the Credibility of Reuealed Doctrin and its Truth breed's the Confusion The Motiues then only make the Doctrin euidently Credible and remit vs to the Church which teaches Truth She proposes the Doctrin and vpon Her Proposition Faith relies which therefore must be infallible not vpon the Motiues too weak to Support Faith In à word here is all I would say God Reueal's truth infallibly the Motiues in à General way manifest the Church where truth is taught the Church thus Signalized Proposes Truth infallibly And vpon Her infallible Proposition not for the Motiues Christians belieue Infallibly 27. A third Obiection If the Churches Proposition be infallible or if God speaks by the Church As he anciently did by the Prophets and Apostles And She likewise Speak's in his name Whateuer this Oracle Proposes may be called the Voice of God and Consequently the Formal Obiect of Faith I Answer no hurt at all were it so For perhaps in this present State of things few Articles of Faith are or can be belieued independently of the Churches Proposition At least it is very easy to say I Belieue the Sacred Trinity because God anciently Reuealed it to whether the Churches Proposition may be Call'd the Obiect of Faith the Apostles and also because the Church now Testifies that the Mystery was anciently Reuealed Howeuer we here waue this Doctrin and Say The Churches Proposition though absolutely infallible is not properly speaking the Formal Obiect of Faith Though much may be de Nomine First because it is meerly Accidental not Essential to Faith to be proposed by the Church by this or that Oracle For Christ our Lord at his first Preaching was not the Church yet he Proposed Articles to be Belieued and most Infallibly 2. Diuines by the word Formal Obiect vsually vnderstand the Ancient infallible Reuelation made to the Prophets and Apostles And not the Churches Proposition which though it be an Intrinsick Essential and Necessary Condition compleating and Applying the Ancient Reuelation to Belieuers yet Principally it Terminates not Faith Now to be an essential Condition nothing at all impairs the Churches Infallibility Thus much is said to solue the Obiection though the Matter t' is true is capable of higher Speculation but Sectaries like not Speculatiue Learning 28. A fourth Obiection The Churches Infallibility seem's chiefly Asserted vpon this Ground that She is to be Heard and Obeyed which proues nothing For Iudges Gouernours and Parents The Disparity between Gouernours Commanding and the Church defining are to be heard and obeyed though all are fallible Answ A most silly Obiection The very Matter wherein These and the Church are to be Obeyed Shewes the disparity For No Ciuil Magistrate pretend's to regulate Faith or to Define what God Reueal's This the Church and She only is impowred to do To crush Heresies as they rise vp and to establish without Erring the contrary Truths which cannot be effected the matter being so Sublime without the infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost Now we are to Proceed to the main Business in hand CHAP. XVI Principles premised to the following Doctrin The Roman Catholick Church is à Church of One Denomination She and no other Society of Christians is Infallible Other Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth The Infallibility of Councils maintained against Mr Stillingfleets Supposed Truth and Reason There are no Principles whereby Approued Councils can be proued Fallible Sectaries Conuinced by their own Doctrin 1. WE here first Premise three certain Principles One that the Doctrin of all Churches seuerally Denominated One Principle importing the Disunion in Faiih from their Authors as Arianism from the Arians Protestancy from Protestants Christian Verities from Christ our Lord â—s not in the whole or totally considered vnder One Notion of Christian Doctrin either True or Infallible For in this whole diffuâ—ed Body We euidently find Contradictions The Arians conâ—adict Protestants These Set against Arians And the Catholick Church Opposes both Therefore All of them maintain neither One nor true nor infallible Catholick Doctrin And consequently infallibility ceases in the VVhole when the seueral Parts stand in an implacable Opposition with One another 2. A. 2. Principle If all Churches which Contradict One another are not infallible One only and of one Denomination Another Principle must be infallible or none at all can be so For example Catholicks and Protestants teach Contrary Doctrin the like is of all other dissenting Societies both Parties cannot be infallible Therefore the One is so or Neither Now further Protestantâ— disclaim the Prerogatiue of teaching infallibly whence it followes First That the Roman Catholick Church enioyes that Priuiledge or there is no such thing on earth as an infallible Church Secondly this is Consequent It is the same to Say The Roman Catholick Church is infallible as to Say that God yet Preserues an infallible Church in Being This
Endles 26. The Determination of à Council erring say our Aduersaries is to stand in force and to haue external Obedience at least yeilded to The Sectaries Doctrin breed's Confusion it till euidence of Scripture or à Demonstation to the Contrary make the Errour appear and vntil therevpon another Council of equal Authority reuerse the Errour Here is their Position which breed's nothing but Confusion among Christians and licenseth euery vnquiet Spirit interiourly at least to Censure Church Doctrin as abominable if He iudges it Erroneous or Contrary to Christ's Verities I say Interiourly And T' is hard to Silence and oblige men to external Obedience if this full Perswasion remain's And necessarily brings in Diuision stedfast in their minds Gods truths are Ouerthrown by an Erring Church or à misled Council There is no law humane or Diuine wich can bind to Hypocrisy But to iudge one thing Euidently fals and to Profess it as true is pain Hypocrisy To auoide therefore this Sin all are in points of faith not to Speak Contrary to Truth or hostility will of Necessity follow Between the Profession of priuate men and their interiour Iudgements which cannot but foment Rebellion in the Church whilst People generally liue in such à Perswasion that God's Truths are wronged 27. But here is not my greatest Exception Please to mark those other words Till Euidence of Scripture or à Demonstration makes the Errour appear Or another Council reuerses the Errour of the Former And say I beseech you to whom must this Euidence of Scripture appear To whom must the Councils Errour be Demonstrable What to Priuate men and these It can not be said to whom the supposed Errours of Fallible If so the Contest will be whether these Priuate Erring men or the Supposed Erring Council has the greater Euidence of Scripture Or on which Side the Demonstration against the Errour lies I say if the Church and Councils be fallible There neither is nor can be any thing like Euidence or à Demonstration in either of the Contenders Therefore an Councils must appear endles Dispute vpon meer Vncertainties must ensue vnless Mr. Stillingfleet laies the Errour vpon whom he pleases and makes Himself Vmpire in the cause You will say he supposes the Councils Errours euidently known Pitiful To whom I bescech you must they be known It s impossible to return an Answer Again if Suppositions may once pass for Proofs I 'll goe the Contrary way and either Suppose all Councils infallible or maintain this Truth Errours cannot be euidently known And why should not my Supposition be as good as his What then remain's but that we bring these Suppositions to the Test and Examin which is better And here the Dispute begins again in behalf of what is Supposed which can neuer be ended without an infallible Iudge 28. It may be replyed These Aduersaries proue not Councils fallible vpon any bare Supposition but only Say thus much If they were Fallible the Peace of the Church may yet be Preserued Contra 1. Peace is infinitly better vpheld were Councils as they truly are owned Infallible For so euery one would Acquiese in their Decrees as the Christian world has done hitherto Contra 2. The Churches Peace is torn in pieces Sedition Sedition reign 's if Councils be fallible necessarily reign 's Debates are endles if Councils be fallible To proue this 29. Call once more to mind the Assertion Viz. The Determination of an erring Council is to stand in force vntil there vpon an other Council of equal Authority Reuerse the Errour Obserue I beseech you Both these Councils are Supposed fallible and of equal Authority The Second therefore cannot reuerse the One Proof of the Assertion Errour of the First being as weak as fallible and of no more Authority than That first was Or if thus by Turns one may Annull the Decrees of the other A third may be conuened which recall's the Decrees of both and à Fourth which Cashieres all the precedent Definitions And so in Infinitum without Stop or Stint Hence arise endles Quarrels not only between Council and Council For euery one will Stand for its own Right But also among Christians Who seing the Discord are thrown into à remediles Perplexity and can neuer know what to Belieue or whom to Obey You will see clearly what I would expres by one or two Instances The Nicene Council Defined Further declared by an Instance the Consubstantiality of the Son to his Eternal Father So much is vndoubted Imagin now that an other like Assembly as fallible as the Nicene for that with Sectaries was fallible and of equal Authority had Defined the quite Contrary Doctrin And let this be also supposed for in Protestant Principles iâ— is Supposable that this Second corrected the Errour of the First What tumults think ye what an endles Rebellion would haue ensued there vpon in Christendom had the One Council thus clashed with the other No man in Prudence could haue Belieued or Obeyed either because both are Supposed fallible and of equal Authority 30. There is yet one Instance more Suitable to à Sectarian Humour Imagin only another Council Conuened as Learned Another Instance Shewing as General and as fallible as Protestants Suppose the Council of Trent to haue been And that this reuerses all the Doctrin contained in the Tridentine Offenfiue to our Nouellists Would not this destroy the Vnity of the present Church Would Ths horrid Inconuenience of Iarring Councils not some Side with the first some with the second or rather would not All vpon the Supposition scorn and contemn the Authority of both Church and Councils The like Inconuenience followes were the Catholick Church as large as some Sectaries make it or embraced all called Christians If in that case Two Councils representing the whole Moral Body should meet and the later Tear in pieces the Decrees of the former Would not Dissentions Grow as high and as odious vpon these Voting and Vnuoting Councils as they are now in England whilst Prelatiks Preach One kind of Doctrin and Fanaticks another quite contrary And is it Possible Do all Eyes se the Horrour of this contrary Preaching in One Island and are they shut vpon à greater more Terrible were it true That two of the highest Tribunals in the Church could stand in open Hostility and the One band against the other Thus much of Dissentions and Tumults necessary Appendants to iarring Representatiues 31. But all is not yet Satisfyed Our Aduersaries Say There can be no cause of Tumults in the Church if an Errour be euidently Discouered For euery One ought to thank God not to grumble when they se themselues freed from so great Sectaries â—â— destroy their own Principles à Mischief On the other side if the Errour be not Euident All are to submit to the Councils vntil à Publick Declaration makes the contrary truth manifest And thus the Peace of Christendom seem's well secured Answ And
least When difficulties arise Exception I say therefore to proue what I sayd aboue If Church and Councils can err notoriously There is no means left on earth either to discouer the Errours or to amend them 7. The Assertion will be proued by sifting this one Point to the Bottom And Much light will be had if we leaue Generalities One Point Examined wherin Sectaries alwaies lurk and descend to particulars Or lay forth the nature of some imaginable Errours Call then These if any be horrid and intolerable 8. To teach there is no God no Christ no Redeemer no Saluation I Ask whether the Councils in Gods Church can err thus grosly The Nature of horrid Errours or are so secured by Diuine Assistance as not to Define such vast Absurdities If it be Answered They are so far at least preserued infallible I clearly Infer No man can exclude à total infallibility from Councils If it be Answered Possibly they may err in this Damnable manner I infer Again Ergo Possibly Councils Church and all Christians may vtterly desert Christ become Atheists Turks Iewes Diuels or what els you will that naught is Can this also be granted 9. One may reply it is indeed possible yet will neuer be Câ—ntra Who hinders the Mischief I beseech you if the Supposition may stand The Roman Catholick Church Say Sectaries is already Idolatrous and long since was Antichristian when some English Protestants made the Pope Antichrist The Church accused of intolerable Errours Why then may not Atheism Iudaism and Turcism infect likewise the Whole Moral Body of Christians and Destroy both Church and Councils Grant this Possible there can be no more talk of after-after-Councils correcting the former erroneous For the Church is now Destroyed Christ our Lord must please to appear again or send some great Prophet to establish à new Church more firm than the other was now ruined or we are lest desolate vtterly Churchles 10. I am verily perswaded our Aduersaries will think twice on 't before they once grant these horrid Consequences and therefore must needs make the Supposed Euident intolerable errours not altogether so abominable but less or of à lower rank yet euident and intolerable Remember that And what may these A question proposed to Sectaries be think ye I would fain know whether any such foul Doctrins have been euer taught de facto or because Councils are Supposed fallible whether they yet remain in à State of possibility and only may be Taught If it be Said they are not actual but only possible Or may be intolerable hereafter And Sectaries vpon that Account abandon the Roman Catholick Church Their Sin is now actual and more horrid than such Concerning these Supposed Errours Actual or Possible Errours are Because They desert à Church vpon supposed faults which only may be yet neuer were hitherto Now if for à meer Possibility of falsities neuer yet actually Discouered nor known The Roman Church is to be quitted Protestants ought to forsake Their own Religion For they are all liable to Errour Yea And may well hang vp the most Innocent man in the world vpon this score That he may be à thiefe Though as yet he neuer Stole any thing 11. The Errours therefore if we Discourse rationally hitherto pretended against vs are not in à meer State of Possibility None Condemned for Errours which Possibly may be But Actual Euident and intolerable We inquire after them And still proceed vpon this wretched Supposition that both Church and Council are fallible or haue erred When Enuy has done its Vtmost you only can get à List of these or the like Supposed Falshoods Praying to Saints The Real Presence Worshiping of Images Transubstantiation or some thing of this nature which Catholicks maintain Now truely it is more than extrauagant and I know not with what Conscience Sectaries do it to Decry these as Euident and intolerable Errours whilst à whole learned Church defends them as Truths 12. What Saith Mr Hooker Is the mind so forced that after à full Proposal it cannot chuse but inwardly Assent to All as euident Errours Toyes Trifles Millions as we now Sectaries in consequencies sayd own them as Apostolical Verities 2. If Euident and intolerable they strike at such Verities as Sectaries call the fundamentals of Faith And consequently the Roman Church which maintains them has been Vnorthodox in fundamentals for à thousand years and more Will this be granted Grant or deny here is an vnanswerable Dilemma They are fundamental Errours in our Sectaries sense destructive of Diuine Faith or not If not but only smaller matters Protestants Oblige themselues to forbear and to expect the Churches Good pleasure vntil some other Council meet 's and Reuerses what 's Amiss Their Clamours therefore against the Churches Doctrin now are vnauthorised and most illegal by their own Principles Nor haue they Power as is confessed to Reform themselues in lesser matters but only in things of à higher Concern Euident and intolerable 13. Now if they be of this nature and consequently fundamental A clear Inference against Sectaries Absurdities against Faith It followes that there was no Church right in fundamentals the whole world ouer for ten Ages before Luther Not the Roman if the Supposition hold's Nor any other Society of Christians for all those name whom you will were more deeply plunged into fundamental Errours 3. And T' is the chiefest thing I aime at If Church and Councils be owned fallible can err or haue erred Our Aduersaries Supposition of Errours Euident and intolerable is purely chimerical And therefore I said iust now None can know them as such and consequently no Power on earth can amend them I proue the Assertion 14. First they cannot be known as euident or manifest Intolerable Errours cannot be proued against the Church without Principles as clear as the Errours are Supposed to be which therefore must be so indisputable That the mind inwardly Assent's to them as Mr Hooker Saith A weaker light as Probability or à miscalled Moral Certainty beget's Euidence in none Now here we Vrge our Aduersaries to bring to Light but one or more clear Principles whereby it may manifestly appear that Transubstantiation or any other Catholick Doctrin is so manifest à Falshood That the mind conquered By any thing like à Principle and conuicted with the Euidence cannot chuse but decry it as intolerable Whither will these men run for Principles To Scripture it 's euidently abused by the one or other Party but who is in fault You will say That 's yet disputable therefore fâ—r of from Euidence Church and Councils supposed errable and erroneous cannot tell you nor giue in euidence against him or them that abuse Scripture Whither next To the Fathers All are fallible and their Sense â—n controuerted matters is made so intricate when you hear Them glossed by the Protestant and vnglossed by the Catholick that you would Swear they speak
Contradictions And can any thing like euidence or certainty grow from these contrary Glosses which as Experience teaches breed endles Quarrels 15 Other Principles we haue not any except Mr Stillingfleets Common Reason of Mankind the worst of all for doe we not Scripture Church Fathers and all Principle fail Sectaries se that Hereticks euery where make Themselues and their own Sects most reasonable Where we haue nothing like common Reason but so many different and diuided Sentiments of iarring men dispersed vp and down the world If therefore Scripture Fathers and this Common Reason fail to be Principles our Sectaries Supposition of manifest or Euident falsities in the Church goes beyond all Moderation and implies an Ouerlashing more than intolerable 16. Their vngrounded Mistake lies here That Principles are Supposed at hand or ready at à call to Decide in this case of à Councils Supposed Errour Whereas if both Church and Councils can or do Err There are no such things in being as Principles Topicks Vncertain Topicks no Principles at most or an endles iarring vpon meer Vncettainties lead none to an Euident Discouery of Errours Therefore I sayd right they cannot be known as Euident for want of Principles and if not known as such no Power on earth can amend them Yet good Principles reach thus far at least as to Demonstrate that Protestants grosly Mistake in their Clamours against our Churches errours De facto And here you haue my Principles already hinted at 17. Either these supposed Errours are those vnchristian Tenents mentioned N. 8. And certainly Councils neuer transgressed so enormously as to Define such diuellish Doctrins Or. A Strong Argument against Sectaries 2. They are only Possible false Doctrins which may be Defined if Councils can err but yet are not taught If So All must Say that as it is horrid to condemn à man for à crime he may commit though he neuer did it So it is the highest Iniustice to condemn à whole Church for Falshood's She may teach if fallible though She neuer taught them Nothing then remains but to plead against our Church Doctrin de facto as euidently and intolerably Erroneous and herein we will not spare Sectaries one whit but Vrge them as we doe to speak home in the cause Their Accusation is euident we Press them Again and again to iustify it by Proofs and Principles as euident What must these errours be decryed as Euident and intolerable and can none but Sectaries get so much as à glimpse of the Euidence Away with such fooleries No man can hear them with Patience 18. By what is said already you se that The Doctrin of Protestants Shewes it Selfe as it is not only false but most Inconsequent Sectaries Doctrin in consequent Mark I beseech you the Inconsequence These Nouellists Define the Church to be an Assembly of men who Belieâ—â— and Profess the pure VVord of God But such men find them where you can as belieue and profess the pure Word which is iâ— it Self Infallible are certainly infallible if they Belieue it as God's infallible VVord Therefore they must acknowledge an infallible Moral Body of Christians that Constitutes an infallible Church 19. In Lieu of Doing this They Tear all in Pieces and First Decry the Roman Catholick Church as Errable Yea actually erring Next and this Marr's their own Cause they withall Profess themselues fallible Whereas had any thing like consequent Doctrin entred their Thoughts They should at least haue made â—rotestants infallible being as They Say new commissioned By their own Principles they should hold some Society of men Infallible Doctors sent from God to amend the Churches Errours And belieue it their own Infallibility had they casually laid claim to it would as soon haue been perswaded That 's neuer as now without Probability or any thing like à Principle They endeauour to proue the Roman Catholick Church Fallible But let this pass Thus much I Assert To tell vs on the One side There is an Assembly of men who Belieue the infallible Word of God And on the Other To make all that Teach and Belieue it Fallible liable to False Doctrin is not only to proceed The contrary Doctrin ruins Faith inconsequently but moreouer to Expose Christian Religion to the Scorn of Iewes and Gentils yea quite to ruin Diuine Faith And finally to make vs all Scepticks certain of nothing 20. If it be replyed The Councils and Sectarles with them are at least preserued infallible in things Called the Fundamentals of Faith plainly reuealed in Scripture I vrge them first to giue in their Proofs for this half or partial Infallibility which will be more than ridiculous if once they Appear in paper Again if we are all infallible and secure in à few Fundamentals plainly registred in Scripture to what Purpose do Sectaries keep à coyle about smaller Matters called Vnfundamentals Which are neither intolerable or Considerable because Small Much less can they be Euident Errours so long as à whole Their pretended Euidence of Errours is euidently à Fourb Church defends them as Truths For this Euidence cannot but faile Sectaries or come to nothing whilst the Church and They stand in Contest about it Be it how you will Here without à Iudge we are got into the old Labyrinth again of an endles Dispute which can neuer Produce any thing like Euidence in behalf of Sectaries CHAP. XVIII Two Aduersaries mainly Opposit to True Religion The last and most vrgent Proof of the Churches Infallibility taken from the Necessity the Notion and Nature of true Religion Mr Stillingfleets Obiections found weak and weightles Most of them already Proposed and Dissolued by others A short Reflection made vpon some few â— THere is à Knot of half-witted People who Say though Religion Seem's indeed necessary to Preserue humane Society in peace And to Ouer-awe vnruly Spirits yet the Two Paradoxes maintainâ—e by these half mad men best were any Good is no more but à meer Fiction à forged â—ale in fine an Errour These men make nature Monstruous and must Consequently maintain two vast Paradoxes The one That humane Societies euery were That is All Kingdoms and Common-wealths stand in need of Fiction and Errour to make them happy The Proposition is euident For if peace Tranquility Fiction and foolery can make no man happy and the subduing of vnquiet Spirits be à true necessary Happines to all And these cannot subsist without à fained Religion It is manifest that Fiction Foolery and Errour make theâ— happy which is as much as to Say à Constant Sicknes keep 's the body in health weaknes giues it strength Pain and 〈◊〉 â—ase and refreshment Certainly no less is errour dissoâ—â—â—t to à rational Nature than Sicknes repugnant to health 〈◊〉 to fire or heat to water 2. The second Paradox wholly as bad and clear keeps Parallel with this other It is now supposed that Religion which is nothing els but Fiction necessarily conduceth to the
antecedent Assent to this Proposition That what soeuer those Dort-men taught is true Doctrin before you own it as true Ascertain vs of thus much And you solue your own difficulty If this Instance please not make vse of another Your Ministers in England pretend to teach true Doctrin though not infallibly Say only vpon what antecedent Proposition the Truth of their Doctrin is assented to by all before it be belieued as true and we shall without labour Answer in behalf of our infallible Doctrin 16. In à word thus Catholicks plead This generall Proposition is to be assented to as both true and infallible Viz. All And clearly solued are obliged to Hear and Belieue the Pastors of God's Church when Lawsully Commissioned to teach in God's name and as the Orthodox Church teaches Here is the Thesis or the vniuersal receiued Proposition But these Pastors and Doctors when assembled in Council are still Pastors of the Church and lawfully commissioned to teach in God's name both true and infallible Doctrin Therefore they are to be heard and belieued in all and euery Definition proceeding from that Assembly lawfully conuened Here you haue the Hypothâ—sis as indubitably certain as the Thesis 17. A second Obiection you meet with in his Page 509. Another Obiection retorted and Solued What infallible Testimony haue you he means Catholicks for this that Councils are Infallible It is not enough for you to say That the Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it For that were to make the Scripture the sole Iudge of this great Controuersy which you deny to be the sole Iudge of any I first retort the Argument and Ask. What Testimony haue you Sectaries I do not say Infallible But so much as seemingly probable taken from Scripture whereby Councils the greatest Representatiues in God's Church are made fallible Not one can be alleged 18. Now my Answer briefly is Scripture once admitted for God's word which our Aduersaries will not reflect on manifestly The Catholick Principles for Infallibility conuinceth the Churches infallibility To those express and significant Passages of holy Writ known to euery one The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth you haue them already We add the iudgement of Fathers cited aboue The guide of Controuersies C. 3. P. 147. Produces more Besides Gods Church which we hold an Infallible Oracle interpret's Scripture to this sense and here are our aboundantly full Principles for Her Infallibility Come you Sr now closely to the point confront vs if you can with as many Passages of Scripture as many Testimonies of Fathers Or and this we alwayes vrge with the Authority of any Orthodox Church which fauours your contrary Tenet of Fallibility The Strife is ended But hereof there is no fear at all And thus you se how Scripture is the Iudge Sectaries haue none for their Tenet when once admitted as Diuine and faithfully interpreted not otherwise 19. A. 3. Obiection Page 509. The Decree or Definition of à Council receiues Infallibility from the Council before the A third weak obiection retorted Pope confirm's it or not If not The whole infallibility resides in the Pope and this some Say is not de Fide vniuersali If it arise from the Council before the Pope confirm's it for that act of confirmation followes the Definition the Council is infallible antecedently to the Popes Confirmation I first retort the Argument An Act of Parlament or à law made for all receiues its force from the Conuened Members before his Maiesty Confirm's it or not If not The whole Power of making such à Law resides in His Maiesty which some will say is not so If it arise ftom the Parlament before His Maiesty Confirm's it and that Confirmation followes the Act The Parlament is impowr'd to make such Lawes before His Royal. Assent Confirm's them Here is the very same Form of arguing though in à different matter and you se the weaknes of it 20. The true Answer to the Obiection is as followes Euery Doctrin definable may be considered two wayes first as it Proceed's from God the most supreme Verity and vnder that Notion it is both true and infallible in it self before the pope and Council Define it And note they can Define no other Doctrin And solued on earth but what God ratifies in Heauen 2. It may be considered as the Doctrin of the Representatiue Church infallibly Assisted to teach Diuine truths And vnder that Notion it is called Church Doctrin proceeding from the Head and Members of one mystical Body The Head therefore Separated or solely taken Defines not in Councils The Members diuided from the Head define not But one and the same Definition proceed's ioyntly from both Head and members vnited together The Instance already hinted at giues light enough If any reply The Definition when the Council proposed it was both true and infallible Doctrin I distinguish the Proposition It might be then Certain Euery Doctrin true in it selfe is not therefore Church Doctrin and infallible Doctrin in it self that 's true but as yet it is neither known or owned as such or called Church Doctrin It was then the whole Councils or Churches true and infallible Doctrin I deny it This is founded vpon both Pope and Council infallibly assisted as is now supposed and already proued 21. I find no more in Mr Stillingfleet worth any notice That which followes in his Page 510. ouerthrowes all councils Other Obiections waued as impertinent or proues nothing What certainty haue you Saith he that this or that Council proceeded lawfully That the Bishops were lawful Bishops That the Pope who confirm's them was à lawful Pope That some By-ends or Interest swayed not many That all conditions were exactly performed c. I Answer first and Ask. What certainty haue you of any illegal Bishops of vnlawful Popes of Interest Swaying all Here because you accuse we put you to the Proof I Answer 2. That Certainty which you or any has of no By ends in the four first general Councils of their lawful Bishops of no interest swayng c. The same we haue of all the approued Councils in Gods Church To insist further vpon such saint Obiections is only to lose time or might one retaliate in Mr Stillingfleets own language meerly to kill flies to run after them and make sport with them And thus much of the Churches Infallibility I mean the Roman Apostolical Catholick Church to whose Censure and infallible Iudgement I do most willingly submit my Selfe and euery particular in this Treatise THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith THe subiect here hinted at is as all Shollers know very Speculatiue Terms according to my little Skill in the English Tongue often Fail to express what is necessary Wonder not therefore if now and then you meet with that which may seem Obscure to à Vulgar Reader My Endeauour Shall be to giue the Discourse so much Light as
to induce it an Infallible Oracle to teach it and finally to rely on 20. Hence we easily Answer Mr Stillingfleets Question P. 118. What Saith he cannot men haue vnquestionable Assurance that there was such à Person as Christ in the world who dyed for vs if the present Church be not infallible Answ You might Sr haue proposed à wiser Question Know I beseech you That in the forenamed Proposition There was such à Man as Christ who liued in the world and An vnlearned Obiection answered dyed for vs Two things may be Considered First That the man called Christ dyed on à Cross And this Verity as we sayd aboue Once visible both Iewes and Gentils yet Assent to vpon Moral Certainty but therefore do not belieue in Christ The Reason is Manifest and it vtterly destroyes your Doctrin because that Common report or Moral Certainty is not God's infallible Reuelation which only can support Faith 21. The second thing to be considered is That the man called Christ dying for vs was the only Messias truly God the Redeemer of Mankind Here you haue the hidden Verities of Christian Religion the Certain Obiects of Faith Conueyed vnto vs by no Moral Assurance but solely vpon God's Infallible Reuelation whereof more presently 22. Page 119. He tell 's vs first We cannot say what or where that Church is which we suppose infallible Nor. 2. What is that Church is the proper Subiect of infallibility Nor. 3. What kind of Infallibility this is Nor. 4. How we can know when the Church Defin's infallibly Here is very slight Matter to work on To the first we Answer The Church which we do not barely Suppose The true Church denoted but haue already proued Infallible is that diffused Society of Christians vnited in one Faith vnder one Head which is most discernable from all Societies by the same euident Marks of truth that Christ and his Apostles manifested to the world To the. 2. We haue both Answered and retorted the Argument in the other Treatise where it is Said The Church may The subiect of Infallibility be considered First as it is Docens or Teaching And thus Her Representatiue moral Body the Pope I mean and Council assembled together for the Reasons alleged Chap. 17. is the proper Subiect of Infallibility Again if we consider the Church as it is Discens learning or taught All those diffused multitudes of Christians that are vnited in one belief and own due Submission to their lawful Pastors because they belieue as the Church Representatiue teaches may be rightly styled vpon the Account From whence Infallibility Proceâ—d's of their infallible Faith the proper Subiect of Infallibility And must not our Aduersaries who hold à Society of men infallible in Fundamentals solue this Difficulty and Declare in what Subiect that half Infallibility is lodged To the. 3. we haue Answered Chap. 16. This infallibility which proceed's from the Special Assistance of the Holy Ghost is of such à Nature That that Blessed Spirit will neuer permit the Church instructing to Define à falshood nor the instructed Vniuersally to fail in faith To the. 4. I Answer Then we know the Church Defin's infallibly when She obliges all vnder Anathema to belieue her Doctrin and when the Doctrin is so sufficiently proposed to her Subiects that it cannot be morally doubted of But enough of these Strengthles difficulties examined and solued à hundred times ouer May better be expected hereafter We shall se that in the following Chapter CHAP. IV. More of Mr Stillingfleets Errours Of that odd kind of Faith he seem's to maintain grounded on Moral Certainty VVhat Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue vpon Faith Other Parcels of his Doctrin Examined and refuted Obiections Solued 1. AFter Mr Stillingfleet had said All may haue vnquestionable Assurance of our Sauiours once being in the Mr Stillingfleets Doctrin world though the present Church were fallible He tells vs again that the Assurance of the matters of fact which are the foundations of Faith is necessary in order to the obligation to belieue And then add's I mean such an assurance as matters of fact are capable of for no higher can be required than the nature of the things will bear He goes on in his Ignorance Cannot we haue vnquestionable Assurance that there were such persons as Câ—sar and Pompey without some infallible Testimony If we may in such things VVhy not in other Matters of fact which infinitly more concern vs though the Church stamp not her Infallibility vpon them The man you see would say That these verities Christ dyed for vs is our only Redeemer truly God and man being Matters of fact and foundations of Faith are conueyed to vs vpon no higher certainty than Moral only For the nature of them iust like that Assurance we haue of à Caesar and Pompey bear 's no greater Hence he also tell 's vs. P. 206. that Moral certainty may be as great as Mathematical Explained by himselfe and Physical Supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their Nature as in Mathematical and Physical as to theirs And afterward There can be no greater than this Moral Certainty of the main foundations of all Religion Reflect Christian Reader But The Doctrin is dangerous the Verities now mentioned Christ is our Redeemer The only Messias truly God and Man are the main foundations of Christian Religion And Conueyed to vs by moral certainty Therefore Mr Stillingfleet laies the whole weight of Christian Religion hitherto held infallibly true vpon à certainty which may be false By this confused and vndigested Discourse I hope all will perceiue what it is to write Controuersies with half an Insight into Difficulties 2. I proue it first both indigested and erroneous by this vndeniable Principle No Authority in Heauen or earth deliuered And Proued Most erroneous these Verities Christ is the true Messias Christ is God and Man vpon Moral Certainty only Ergo None can belieue them with so weak an Assent as is only Moral The Consequence is clear For if no Authority conueyed or deliuered the Verities as Morally A two fold Probation certain only And I Assent to them with à Belieue only Morally Certain my Assent is giuen to some Authority which hath no Being either in Heauen or earth Or Argue thus and you Conuince If all Authority Imaginable wherevpon Faith can depend Conueyed or deliuered these Verities both as Infallible Truths and infallibly And I Assent to the Doctrin with à Beliefe not infallible but only morally Certain I leaue by my fallible moral Assent the true Infallible teaching and Conueying Oracles of Christian Doctrin and belieue vpon à meer fancied Authority which was neuer impowred to Conuey God's Verities to any 3. Now that all Authority wherevpon Faith can depend deliuered the forementioned Verities Infallibly is Manifest All Teachers of Christian Doctrin conueyed it Infallibly God's Reuelation was and is infallible Christ our
Her Motiues Ascertain's vs that such Books are Diuine I Answer 2. Grant such Motiues may in some weak manner and particular Circumstances conduce to belieue the Scriptures Diuinity yet in this present State when we haue à Church most clearly manifested which both Ascertain's vs of Scripture and the Sense also it would be no less than an vndiscreet rashness to cast off her Authority being the most facile and plainest Rule and in Lieu of Her to rely on another forrain vnfit way of Belieuing by Motiues not half fo clear and far less conuincing 2. Thus some Diuines Teach though à Heathen after à due Consideration of the works in Nature may come to belieue that God will reward Good and punish Euil yet none do Assert That when our Christian Articles are clearly proposed to An Instance him by the Pastors and Teachers of the Church For example That Christ dyed for vs. The dead shall rise again God will reward the iust c. That then if he reiect Church Authority he can belieue the forenamed Articles with Diuine Faith This I Deny And the reason is because that way of belieuing when à It is imprudent to reiect we easiest was of Belieuing more ordinary and facile is proposed Seem's temerarious and imprudent And so it would be should any now when the Church giues vs full Assurance of the Scriptures Diuinity lay aside Her Authority and Say I will alsolutely belieue this or that Truth to be God's word because I Discouer apparent Signs of Diuinity in what I read 3. In the next place Mr Stillingfleet Quarrel 's with à word The Roman Catholick Church which in his opinion is iust as much as to Say The German vniuersal Emperour That is particular and vniuersal together for Roman restrain's or marks out one Church vniuersal includes all Answ It is à meer Quibble exploded by A meer quibble exploded by Fathers the Fathers particularly S. Hierome Apolog. 1. aduersus Ruffin not far from the beginning who call's the Roman Faith the Catholick Faith VVhat Saith he is Ruffinus his Faith It is that there with the Roman Church preuail's or another founded in Origens Writings Si Romanam responderit Ergo Catholici sumus If he Answer 's it is the Roman Faith This Inference is good we both profess the vniuersal Faith Therefore Roman and Vniuersal are here synomimal or words of one Signification which the Apostle clearly Insinuates Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world ouer Again Epist 16. ad Principiam Virg circa medium He showes that the most ancient Saints addressed themselues to to the Roman Church Quasi ad tutissimum communionis suâ— S. Hierom's express Testimonies portum as to à place of refuge or of mutual Communion which was General Publick and belonged to all Yet more When Epist 57. ad Damasum This great Doctor positiuely teaches That he was ioyned in Communion with no other Society of men then such as adhered to Damasus S. Peters Successor where vpon the Church was built And that those who eate the lambe out of this House were prophane Did he think ye speak of any one particular Roman Diocess and not of the vniuersal Catholick Church It is contrary to his Discourse and reason also 4. Se more of this subiect in the Epistle of S. Athanasius to two Popes Iulius and Marcus Read also S. Cyprians Epistle 52. n. 1. Other Fathers Speak with S. Hierome And S. Ambrose De obitu fratris about the middle and know withall The word Roman added to Catholick is not to limit the vniuersal Iurisdiction of that See But to distinguish Orthodox Belieuers from Hereticks who were professed Enemies of the Roman Faith If therefore we may rightly comprise vnder this word Roman all other Christian Societies past or present vnited in Why the Roman Church was called Vniuersal belief with this one Mother Church There is neither Bull nor Solaecism in speech to call the Roman euer One and the same in Faith the vniuersal Church of Christ 5. Page 127. To catch Carholicks in à Circle Mr Stillingfleet Ask's why we belieue Scriptures to be the Word of God If we Affirm vpon this Ground That the Church which is infallible Mr Stilling endeauour more then weak deliuers them so to vs He demand's again and bidd's vs Answer if we can whether t' is possible to belieue the Churches infallibility any other way than because infallible Scriptures Say She is infallible which implies à plain Circle Answ It is very possible For seing Scripture demonstrat's not ex terminis its own Diuinity nor can be made euidently credible by any light internal to catch Catholicks in à Circle to the Book some other infallible Oracle distinct from it must necessarily ascertain vs that the Book is Diuine And the Doctrin there preserued is yet pure as the Apostles wrote it But this Oracle can be no other but the Church which proues Her selfe by Signs and Miracles to speak in Gods name independently of Scripture therefore the first act of Faith whereby we belieue in à General way the Churches infallibility relies not as this Gentleman weakly supposes on Scripture But vpon the Church it Selfe as the most known manifested Oracle And thus the Circle is easily auoyded 6. You will se more clearly what I aime at by one Instance taken from the Primitiue Christians Ask what induced them to belieue the Apostles Infallibility when they Preached All No Circle in the Primitiue Christians Faith Answer They belieued so because those blessed men immediatly proued themselues commissioned Oracles sent from God and made their Doctrin euidently Credible by sensible Signs and Wonders which surpassed the force of Nature Very true Iâ— like manner we belieue the Churches infallibility hauing preuious Motiues as Stronge to belieue that Truth vpon her Authority as euer Christians had to belieue that S. Paul was infallible when he preached If then there was no Vicious Therefore none in our Resolution Circle in those first Christians Faith there can be none in Ours vhilst all of vs haue infallible Oracles manifested by Supernatural Signs to rely on And Those first now mentioned had them before Scripture was written You will say this Discourse seem's to proue we cannot belieue the Churches Infallibility vpon the Scriptures Testimony It has been Answered ouer and ouer supposing Scripture be one admitted as God's sacred Word â—e proue the Churches infallibility so strongly by it against all Aduersaries who own the Book as Diuine that none of them shall euer return à probable answer to our alleged Testimonies 7. But what Saith Mr Stillingfleet Is there no difference between the way of prouing à thing to an Aduersary and resoluing ones own Faith Answer yes But we both resolue and proâ—â— We Resolue the first Act of Faith concerning Scripture How we both resolue and proue the Churches Infallibility into the Churches infallible Authority and belieue that Book to be
the Moral Body of Christians and Consequently that Opposition was à thing as notoriously known as loudly noised some Centuries since as it is Notoriously known and noised that our Sectaries haue now espied those false Doctrins VVe vrge them to bring to light that publick known Opposition of their Imagined Church against the Roman Catholick Society fancied à Changling And what haue we Deep silence from some and from such as dare speak false Suppositions for Proofs vnworthy Calumnies for an Answer Please to se this Argument fully handled Disc 2. C. 6. Time was the world knowes well when our Aduersaries auouched they could prove their Protestancy and refute our Catholick Doctrin by plain and express-Scripture we come to the true Trial in this Treatise and in lieu of God's word find their Books full fraught with meer far-fetcht Glosses Not one Passage I boldly assert and put Sectaries to the Proof fauours this Protestancy as it is distinguished from Popery and the known Heresies of former Ages Now that nothing from Scripture can be alleged Contrary to our Catholick Doctrin is manifest vpon this one Principle which none shall overthrow VVhat Scripture faithfully interpreted teaches in these weighty matters of Religion some Orthodox Church delivered in foregoing Ages For example If Scripture deny Adoration to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament or Transubstantiation an Orthodox Church which cannot clash with the verities of God's word in some Age or other maintained these Protestant Tenets and published them to Christians But no Orthodox Church euer sided with Sectaries or taught such Doctrins Therefore their pretence to Scripture against our Catholick Tenets is friuolous and implies no more but à false supposition for à Proof And this strain of turning bare Suppositions into proofs which never go beyond the strength of their own vnproued Assertions so vniuersally trancends all their Polemicks that I stand astonished to se men who will be accounted learned wholly busied in doing Nothing Reflect I beseech you à little They haue been told and I remind them of it again in this Treatise that whoeuer makes the Roman Church Idolatrous or Erroneous must hold the supposed Idolatry and errour so remediles an Euil that none on earth can redress either because all the Proofs or Principles whereby the Reformation should be made will euidently appear less ponderous to Euince this Church guilty of errour then Her sole Authority is to perswade the Contrary viz. That she neuer erred VVherefore Sectaries Confessedly fallible men desperatly adventure to reform vs and cannot but spoile all they go about to mend whilst they Euidence not whilst they plead not by the Authority of an Antient Orthodox Church which taught that very Protestancy they teach now and decryed these Supposed Popish errours as loudly as they decry them But to do thus much is impossible as manifestly appears by their own writings For tell me I beseech you whoever yet heard Protestant in all those weak skirmishes made against Catholick Religion Say plainly and prove it Such à Church reputed Orthodox fiue or Six Ages since taught as we teach sensed Scriptures as we sense them Christians then vniuersally belieued no Real Presence No sacrifice of the Masse c. Has euer Protestant I say gon thus groundedly to work No Most euidently No. I shall highly extoll the man that will dare to proceed so ingenuously but find none engaged in this right way of Arguing It s true some who leap over the heads of all their more Immediate Ancestors between Luther and the three or four first Centuries tell vs those Primitiue Christians were good Protestants like them Ill luck Say I that Protestancy had not to be intailed vpon some Successors in following Ages for most certainly since those dayes the world neuer saw Protestant before Luther In à word the Assertion is à loud vntruth an vnworthy begging of Question and besides implies à fancied supposition for à Proof To show this we reduce these ranging Spirits to a lesser compass and oblige them to name but one Protestant neerer their shameful Reuolt from our Catholick Society Here they stand grauelled as mute as fishes and are highly angry because we touch them where they are most weak This want of à Church to ground Protestancy vpon makes their Polemicks to be as they appear rambling faint shallow and so dissatisfactory that great patience is requisite to peruse them VVonder nothing they can do no better Rebells they are against an antient Church and their handling Controuersies may well be compared with the proceeding of Rebells in à Common wealth who curiously mark and diligently attend to what euer may seem welcome to your ignorant seduced and disgusted Multitudes That be it what you will is fomented that 's laid forth and inculcated It is no newes to tell you that our Ministers in England now for à long time haue had à number of seduced People bread in their own rebellious bosomes and brought vp in à spirit of Schism who God knowes haue heard little but of the Idolatry of the Superstitions and wickednes of some Professed Catholicks O say these Incendiaries we will nourish this Popular humour with food suitable to its palate we will write Books of this Popish Idolatry we haue tongues and can poyson with delight we will lay forth in folio what we conceiue of the Roman Superstitiâ—ns and the wickednes of Popes VVe know well to Cauil and how to ensnare the vulgar on vvhom we depend when our Cauils are once out though neither reducible to Principles nor subiect to the Censure of any Iudge for we own none let them shift for themselves Our only care is to talk on though we prove nothing And chiefly to be vvary in one particular It is never to mention any thing of à Church which taught Protestancy before Luther meddle vvith that Mischiuous difficulty vve are vndon for really vve have no such Church This in à word and much vvorse is Protestancy as is amply declared in the following Treatise vvhere you also haue the distinctiue Cognisances of Christ's true Church the Rule of Faith and the Properties of à Rule explained vvithall an easy vvay vvhereby to put an end to these vnfortunate Controversies You haue moreover the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church asserted Faith resolued into its true Principles Mr Stillingfleets grosser Errours discouered The Reasonableness of Catholick Religion laid forth to euery rational man And to omit other Questions all cannot be hinted at in the narrow compasse of à Preface you haue this great Truth proved viz. That if the Roman Catholick Church hath taught but one false Article and obliged all Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation there neither is at this day nor was before Luther any true faith in the world VVherefore Sectaries who haue made it their chiefe busines to impeach our Church of Idolatry and Heresy and the louder they cryed the more they thought to destroy vs haue done their vtmost to ruin all the
thoughts before they pass your pen. Haue alwaies this one reflexion in mind It s easy to Cauil easy to talk much but most laborious to make sure what you say by sound Principles And Principles your Aduersaries euer haue an Eye to Had you complyed with this Aduice the greatest part of your Account if not all might well have been spared Never rely on the vain prayses of your vulgar Readers all is not gold that glisters in their Eyes nor do they alwayes speak as they think For as much as concern's your selfe shew sr rather the strength of à Father in louing your works then the weaknes of à fond Mother that hugg's her Brats though most deformed I am told you imagin it à great Acchieuement and your selfe the conquerour in hauing gain'd onc priuate man T. C. to follow your triumphant Chariot Abuse not your Iudgement there is no such matter for in good sober earnest by what I haue perused in T. C. his book rather seem's to be an answer to yours then yours to his Abstain hereafter from opprobrious Language lest you meet with some ruffing Adversary that will pay you in your own Coyn. Please to vse your Buckler better in behalfe of Protestancy and tell me when your Negatiue Articles are thrown away as not reuealed what essential Truth remain's vvithin the Compasse of Protestancy reuealed by Almighty God and necessary to Saluation If you think it the wisest Course not to take notice of what is proposed against you in this Treatise vouchsafe to clear your selfe of the Contradictions charged vpon you And because I find you much intangled in your Resolution of Faith and haue laid your mistakes open to publick view when the Spirit of answering fall's vpon you again Answer I beseech you to the difficulties Obiected in the third Discourse But aboue all Answer to God with à hearty repentance for the wrong you haue done his Church and own me Sr Your friendly Adversary THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER THE RVLE OF FAITH Wherein the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Religion is established against Atheists Heathens Iewes Turks and all Sectaries CHAP. I. VVhether true Religion be in the world The Affirmatiue proued Against Atheists Atheism euidently Shewd'improbable 1 CHAP. II. Reason reiects all sects or Religions not Christian VVhether Gentilism Iudaism or Turkcism bee erroneous and improbable 13 CHAP. III. Christianity as it stands in opposition to Iewes Turcks Infidels and Heretickes is the only true Religion 21 CHAP. IV. Whether Christian Religion since its first Propagation hath not been in like manner preserued pure and further spread by Diuine Prouidence aboue the Power of Nature 25 CHAP. V. VVhether all called Christians Belieue intirely Christ's sacred Doctrin And whether meanes be afforded to arriue to the knowledge of true Christian Religion 29 CHAP. VI. Of our Sectaries errour in their search after true Religion As also of Mr Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing 32 CHAP. VII More of this subiect Doubts concerning the seueral editions of scripture None extant more pure then the Vulgar Latin Abstract from Church Authority there is no Certainty of the best Edition Sectaries Comparing the Present Copies with the more ancient giues no assurance A word with Mr Stillingfleet 42 CHAP. VIII How necessary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in the Church A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles Of Mr Stillingfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 55 CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 67 A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian 71 CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only though all Christians had moral certainty of the right Canon and sense also which is to say the meer owning Christs Doctrin is insufficient to proue it to all sort of People 80 CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 85 Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 94 CHAP. XII A Digressian concerning the Real Presence The Fathers plainly assert it Sectaries glosses friuolous The agreement of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrin indubitable The Catholick's certain Principle A word with Mr Stillingfleet 102 CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubions and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 119 CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 138 CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate faith 152 CHAP. XVI One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses and his vnexcusable abuse of other Fathers 159 CHAP. XVII VVhy the Glosses of Sectaries are impertinent and weightles Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers Of his vnskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry charged on Catholicks CHAP. XVIII The Protestant after all his Glosses can not ascertain any of true Religion He would make Controuersies an endles work 180 CHAP. XIX The last designe of Sectaries Glosses discouered They end nothing The clear way to end Controuersies of Religion A distinction between Authority and Principl'd Authority Of the improbability of Protestancy 192 CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 205 CHAP. XXI Protestants granting Saluation to Catholicks by à clear Inference drawn from their Concession end Controuersies of Religion VVhat force their concession hath VVhy they granted so much The Argument is clearly proposed Mr Stillingfleet return's no probable Answer A full discouery of his fallacies 217 THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 241 CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned The properties of à Rule VVhat is meant by the Church Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out Her marks more clear than Her Essential Doctrin 248 CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church euidented by Marks of Truth nor true Doctrin made credible to reason His whole Faith is built vpon Fancy 256 CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ was is and shall euer be the Holy Apostolical and Catholick Roman Church Her Antiquity and Constant Perseuerance in the Ancient primitiue Doctrin without Alteration
Power or Being which gives existence and light to nature could err or be deceived in such universal Notions nature which takes its Being from this first intellectual power would lose those communicated lights and fall to nothing For example Here is à participated light or à Truth common to all rational men Do as you would be done by and nature universally approves it I ask why is this à supposed Truth You answer because all agree in it Be it so But I say if all those who agree in it receive the light from à power that is defective ignorant orliable to errour this very consent of nature like that first erring Principle cannot but be defective and ignorant because no effect exceed's the virtue or perfection of the cause it comes from 8. Will you see this clearly Suppose that à Casual meeting or concourse of Atomes made man rational as Atheists will have it and indued him with the Truth now mentioned without the influence of à supreme intellectual Power This rational thing called Dull Atomes impart not knowledge to any man judges discourses defines and delivers as he thinks certainly the first natural verities Very good But we inquire further and Ask from what cause he had this power of judging and defining truly For if he received it from one that 's dull ignorant or deceiptful in all he judges and defines He cannot but participate of the nature of that first Principle which is dull and ignorant Thus much is clear For if I receive my knowledge from one who is distracted mad or false in his conceptions and regulate my self or others by such à communicated light all I know or teach by virtue of that knowledge transcends not the nature of that Principle which is now supposed ignorant erroneous and deceiptful 9. Summon therfore all the Atomes together which made man rational and imprinted on him the first lights of nature I demand of those Atomes could they Answer How it came to passe that à company of Dull insensible things void of reason and discours could by meer chance produce man intellectual and not only intellectual but unerrable also in some Principles called natural I say all that this man judges is false because the Principle which gave him being void of light and understanding cannot indue him with unerrable Truths For Nemo dat quod non habet No cause gives The reason why none can judge truely if God exist not to its effects what it precontains not Insensible Atomes therfore cannot make man sensible nor irrational Atomes reasonable nor stupid Atomes devoid of truth imbue him with the first true Principles Therefore man is no more to be believed in these first lights of nature than if Apes or Parots should speak them because as we now suppose they proceed not originally from any intellectual Power but only from meer dust or insensible things void of understanding The Sceptiks therfore erred not when upon the supposition The Sceptiks erred not upon one false supposition that God made not man they concluded we know nothing we judge of nothing truly but what might be excepted against and rationally opposed If therfore nature err's not in these first Principles now acknowledged true and rational ascribe it to nature but leave not of there but say these lights come from God the Author of nature who neither will nor can deceive us Here then is our grand Principle God and nature cannot err therfore the verity and certainty of these first known truths depending on God and nature are free from errour And 10. Hence we have an other clear demonstration against Atheists Either God indowed man with reason and these first lights of nature or all of us even Atheists may be justly deemed mad and besotted An other demonstration against Atheists with fooleries but all including Atheists are not mad nor erring in these first lights of nature Ergo God indued man with those first lights I prove the Major It is perfect madnes in the judicative power of man to deny the truth of those first lights but the truth of them must bee denyed in case we receive our judicative faculty from à Power inferiour to God for if we receive it not from an infinite Being we have it from some inferiour erring cause which may deceive Atomes for example but neither atomes nor any inferiour fallible Power can tranfuse into us à certainty of not erring in those first lights The reason is given The lights we have goe not beyond the perfection of that cause which imparts them to nature This cause what ever it be is inferiour to God and therfore cannot but be liable to errour and may deceive us Observe this discourse well for it is the ground à Priori of the Churches infallibility wherof more hereafter 11 You haue other arguments most concluding against Atheists but I cannot insist on all Here is one and a A speculatiue Argument speculation of a great Diuine A Being existing by it self infinitly perfect or without mixture of imperfection is ex conceptu suo formali or Apprehended vnder that Notion no chimaera nor impossible Obiect as impossible obiects are distinguished from possibilities therfore it is possible I proue it All Chimaeras or Impossibilities essentially imply imperfection because they cannot be and consequently vpon that account want perfection but this infinite Being conceiued by man wants no perfection I say conceiued for I neither yet proue nor suppose any thing but only speak of an obiect thus represented to an vnderstanding and say that obiect is no impossibility because infinitly perfect without appearance of flaw or imperfection Now further if such an obiect ex terminis be possible and not impossible it is of necessity actually existing for if it haue not an actual Being it wants perfection and requires à more perfect cause to produce it which is contrary to the nature of that which I conceiue and form in my vnderstanding But if it be actually in Being I haue all I seek for Ens actu existens an actual existency without any superiour cause infinitly wise without blemish or imperfection and this we call God the Origen of all things Creator of Heauen and earth But I waue these speculations moral arguments without them haue weight enough and could we say no more Moral Arguments in-this matter sway most but thus much only That Atheists in à matter of Eternal saluation the weightiest point imaginable deliberatly embrace that Doctrin which can neuer do them good If true and eternally damn them if fals it were enough Obserue well Were Atheism true the Professors of it dye like doggs and so do all others with them these men therfore will not hereafter laugh at Belieuers for adoring à Deity but if their Doctrin proues fals in the other life all true Christians may scorn their impudency or rather deplore their eternal misery which will follow not only vpon the account of Atheism but for other enormous
vniuersal Tradition for the books of Scripture if Tradition be drawn from the voice of all called Christians whether Catholicks or Hereticks then there is for the very primary Articles of true Catholick Faith A Trinity for example the Incarnation the necessity of Tradition more and Lesse vniuersal Grace Original sin c. Yes most assuredly for innumerable Sectaries admitted Scripture and yet denyed these essential Articles therefore as their Denial made the consent and tradition of all called Christians less vniuersal for such Doctrins so their admitting Scripture with others heightned that Tradition or made it more general Say now Sr. Had those Hereticks argued as you do how little would they haue gained If we should once see you proue à Trinity Or Original sin c. by as vniuersal à Tradition as that is whereby Scriptures are receiued we would acquiese but this is not possible for both you and wee admit Scripture and consequently make that tradition more vniuersal yet we deny your primary Doctrins and therefore all tradition is not so ample for your Doctrins as for the books of Scripture Here is your vnreasonable reasoning Mr. Stilling You know well Hereticks who owned Scripture with vs denied à Sacrifice of Mass An vnreasonable way of aryuing Inuocation of Saints and other Catholick Articles and you 'l haue vs to take à tradition from these men to vphold the Doctrins they denyed Iust as if an Arian should bid me proue à Trinity from all Tradition euen of his Church when he admit's Scripture and denies à Trinity If you reply you vrge vs not to bring in the tradition of all known Aduersaries of the Catholick Church for these now named Articles but only the vniuersal Tradition of the Catholick Church in all ages we haue already answerd that 's best known by the present Churches Testimony no other proof can parallel it And thus much of the Authenticalnesse of our Vulgar Edition free from all material Corruption A further difficulty may yet be moued concerning lesser faults and the preferring it before all other Latin Copies CHAP. VIII How necessary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in the Church A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles Of Mr Stillinfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 1. NOte first It was very meete to haue among so much confusion and various sections of Latin Copies one certain approued and set forth by the mother Church to the end her Children might be vnius labij of one tongue and speak one language in their reading preaching and publick expounding One lection of scripture necessary Holy Scripture Note 2. Though the Council of Trent sess 4. declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick and preferr's it before all other latin Editions Quae circumferuntur which are now abroad it doth not thereby detract any thing from the credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew and Greek Copies whereof Authors dispute whether they be pure or no whilst the Church is silent and defin's nothing Neither doth the Council reiect the Version of the Septuagint or that ancient Latin Copy called Itala read in the Church before S. Hierom as Vnauthentick in any material point for this Argument is conuincing to the contrary As it is madnes to say Christs Church had not true Scripture since S. Hieroms time so is it à desperate improbability The Church had in all ages true Scripture to assert She wanted that in the ages before S. Hierom which is to say The Church had euer authentick Scripture Moreouer shall we think yee iudge that God whose Prouidence neuer failed suffered his own spouse to be beguiled with false Scripture for 15. ages and that now towards the end of the world he will prouide vs of à purer book by the hands and help of à few scattered Sectaries 2. Note 3. Translations may be faulty three wayes chiefly 1. More ambiguity and darknes may lye in à translated word than in the Original and this fault if any is remediless because the latin or à Vulgar language reacheth not alwais to the full Energy and signification of an Hebrew or Greek expression wherof you haue some examples in that learned Preface to the English Rhems Testament anno 1600. 2. Corruptions How Transtations may be faulty may creep into à Version by the inaduertancy or ignorance of the Translator who is neither supposed prophet nor infallible and thus Authors say that S. Hierom though prodigiously learned was not euery way infallibly secured from lesser errours yet this Prouidence God hath for the good of his Church that he will nor permit any considerable deprauation to remain in all Copies If therefore one be faulty all cannot be thought so and the faults of one by carefully comparing it with many and à diligent inspection into other Copies may be corrected See Greg. de Valent lib. 8. Analy C. 5. puncto 4. 3 dly Lesser deprauations often enter à version through the mistakes of Printers Librarians c. Of these you had many in the Vulgar Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles and they are scarse auoidable chiefly after seueral reimpressions as we daily see in other books Thus much premised 3. Listen à little to Mr Stilling strange inconsequences and groundles exceptions against the Corrections of Sixtus and Clement He saith the one Bible differs from the other as Of Mr Stilling 〈◊〉 gâ—â—und 〈◊〉 exceptions appears by those who haue taken the pains to Compare them in some thousands of places A great number indeed But the first question will bee whether these Pain-takers ought to be belieued vpon their bare word without further examination This Sr. you suppose which cannot well pass before the particulars come to the test and bear the censure of your Aduersaries wholly as learned as you haue any But say on Are these supposed differences any more but like the racings of the skin or do they giue any mortal wound to the Vital part of Scripture If you only assert the first you may not only Cauil at your English Bibles but also at all the latin translations vsed in the Church both before and after S. Hieroms time for they haue some verbal differences which you may call petty and inconsiderable faults Now if you assert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are Materially corrupted in points of Faith and manners or to vse your phrase Vitally wounded what is become I beseech you of that peculiar hand of Prouidence you own in preseruing the authentick Copies of religion safe to our dayes Or which much imports you to answer by what other more authentick Copy can you without endles disputes and vncertainties correct the Vulgar This one particular will giue you work enough before you come to à certain decision of the difficulty In à word because I think many know not too well all that concern's these two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles I
Ponderation of my Replies is so far to iudge between vs. But here is not all I must Say more Though I am as fallible in excepting against His glosses as he is in making them yet my Faith depend's not vpon my Exceptions but vpon the Doctrin of my Church The express words of Scripture and Fathers These oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe But all that Mr Stilling hath for his Faith is only the vncertainty of his own No man builds faith vpon his own Glosses coniectures ancient Church he has none nor express Scripture nor one Clear sentence of any Ancient Father And will hee Dare to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his Glosses or the opinion he would mantain by them vpon no other Ground but his weak Coniectures I appeal to his own Conscience for an Answer Well Be it how you will thus much is euident and T' is the only thing I aime at in this whole Discourse if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Aduersaries of different Religions when no surer Principle is at hand to rely on but the fallible Glosses of the One and à contrary fallible combating with those Glosses in the Other they may both as the world goes now sit long at the sport before one Controuersy Other mean◠to end Controuersies then meer Glosses be ended Therefore God as I said aboue has Prouided vs of an easier way to end these weighty difficulties or we may All turn Scepticks Some may say The old mode of the World was to dispute by Scripture and Fathers dare we reiect this way of arguing as insufficient Answ No truely It is an excellent way amongst Christians though insignificant to Heathens when the Aduerse Parties can Clear the sense of Scripture and Fathers vpon certain Principles But if the very sense of Scripture and Fathers be called into Question As now à daies it is by Sectaries We must of necessity haue Recourse to an other more Clear easy and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vse among the Holy Fathers Whereof more afterward In the Interim the ensuing Chapter may giue you entertainment CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 1. THis Assertion not slightly proued in the other Treatise Disc 2. C. 4. I hold so certain That the wit of man shall not rationally contradict it And to giue yet more light to what is there said Be pleased to exclude or mentally only to cast aside All thought of an vnerring Church of her infallible Tradition al so of the Definitions of General Councils For all these which Sectaries hold fallible are Essential to an vnerring Church If any such thing be in the world whereof we shall Treat afterward Next look about you And consider well what remain's to end Controuersies withall or to regulate Diuine Faith You haue VVhat Principles Sectaries Can Pretend to distinct from an Infallible Church first Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à Iew partly reiects Yet with such Aliens from Christ à Christian can argue rationally yea and clearly conuince them as I shall proue in the second Discourse After Scripture you haue the sublime Mysteries of Faith the Fathers Doctrin laid forth in their Volumes and the History of the Church Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries besides their priuate Spirit which can be no more à sound Principle to them than the contrary Spirit is to Their Aduersaries 2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end any Controuersy by these Principles without an infallible Church And be pleased euer to attend to the Aduersary he Treat's with If he attempt's to do good on à Heathen by Scripture or bring 's in the Reasonableness of Christian Religion The Heathen and Iew also laugh at his Folly And wish him to proue his Book to be Diuine If he proues that by the Vniuersal Tradition of all Called Christians the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him as I may hereafter about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition but desires him to goe among the Chineses and lay his Bible down by That book which their supposed Prophet Confusius wrote full of excellent Moral Precepts Thus much done the Contest Begin's The Sectary saith his Bible is Authorized by à great Prophet called Christ A learned Bonzius Answer 's and his is also Authorized by à great Prophet called Confusius The Sectary saith all Christians own his book vpon à neuer interrupted The Protestants Contest with ◠Heathen Concerning the Bible Tradition to be indited by the Spirit of Truth The Bonzius replies All China of à mighty vast Extent age after age hath the like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible What followes but that These two Aduersaries peruse their Bibles The Bonzius read's ours and Reasonably ask's whether the Sectary can infallibly proue such strange Mysteries as are registred there for example à Trinity the Incarnation of the Diuine word to be Truths Reuealed by Almighty God The Sectary answers All the infallible certainty he hath of these particular Verities lastly Relies only vpon Scripture it selfe For what euer Principle can be imagined distinct from that written word whether Church or Tradition is Fallible and may deceiue If so saith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me Because you proue the Mysteries contained there by that which causes my doubt or is the matter in Question for you say all I read is of Diuine inspiration because your Bible relates them and therefore make that à proof of your Doctrin which is the Matter in question or causes my doubt O saith the Sectary read on with Humility and you will find that the very Maiesty of the style the Energy of the words will quit you of doubting And to ease you of too much pains know we Protestants hold That the Belief of à very few chief Articles or simple Truths as that Iesus is the Christ The Diuine Word is incarnated c is faith enough to gain Heauen Contra The Heathen except's against the Protestants plea. Replies the Heathen I see no other Maiesty in the Style of your Bible than in mine and other pious books The exteriour Syntax or ioyning of words together is common to all such Writings But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man knowes what splendor shining in the bare Letter when you say that shines not to Pagans but only to those who haue the Spirit of God and are the Elect amongst you Now to what you Add of à few chief Articles necessary to be belieued and no more I answer first Your Scripture saith no such Thing nor tell 's me or you which Articles are necessary which not and if it did so you are only where you were before in darkness
Tertullian reiect's and hold's insufficient to end disputes And so doth S. Austin also Epistola 49. Ad Deo gratias The other named Pars reflexa and the clearer which speak's of the Foundation of Christian Religion of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world ouer of its marks and Signes of its Perpetuity and infallible Assistance of Nations flocking to it c. This part I say the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word is so perspicuous and clear that it silences all Sectaries and euidently subuert's their Errours But to tell me it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Transubstantiation the number of Sacraments c. And the very sense of Scripture which should end all is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties To assert this I say is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience And therefore I will extort this confession from our Aduersaries may they please to answer that as they shall neuer proue one of their Protestant Opinions so they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin by clear and express Scripture 11. Some obiect S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian S. Austin's Discourse with an Arian who faith Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum c. Bâ—rnob neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou to the Authority of the other Let vs contend by the Authorities of scripture which are common witnesses to vs both Here two things seem clear First That S. Austin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council as Sectaries do now the Church 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to conuince an Arian A word only in passing Dare the Sectary offer thus much or dispute with the Catholick for the supposed Obserue the question here proposed Truths of pure Protestancy or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus I would willingly see some attempt made this way but am sure He will not dare to do it Because he saith His Protestancy or these Negatiues are not reuealed but only à number of inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controuersies when the Protestant ingenuously grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the sufficiency of Scripture help not the Sectary at all Irenaeus for example call's it the Rule of Faith S. Austin A Diuine Sectaries quote Fathers to no purpose Balance Theophilus Alex A firm foundation Gerson A Sufficient and infallible Rule Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part yea and of the obscurer also when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle But what makes all this for pure Protestancy or for its Negatiue Opinions Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith whereof it is vtterly silent Doth it weigh such Negatiues or tell vs what they are worth Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures vs out No Sacrifice on the Altar No purgatory No Transubstantiation Toyes trifles There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposit Verities of Catholick Religion or in behalf of Protestancy Therefore though S. Austin appeald to Scripture against an Arian and had his reasons for it yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent when after their Appeal they find not one sentence for Protestancy or against Catholick Doctrin Now to S. Austin 12. I say first The Saint reiected not the Authority of the Why S. Austin waued the Nicene Council Nicene Council which he euer honourd but only waued that as an vnmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus who no more regarded the Nicene Definitions than Sectaries now do the Council of Trent Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions Thus our Catholick Witers haue answered à hundred times yet we must haue this Crambe recocta serued vp again as à new vnsauory Obiection I say 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter which he Saith is à body without à Soul but to the true genuine Sense Thereof which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuersal consent of Christ's vnerring Church For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin to belieue the Churches sense of Scripture and to belieue Scripture it self which most manifestly commend's vnto vs Church Authority Had then the Saint argued thus against his Aduersary He had conuinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conuiction Council yet thou cans't not deny but that Scripture commend's à Church founded by Christ diffused the whole world ouer what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the sense of Scripture That is the sense of the Holy Ghost And can be no other for à Church which swerues from the true sense of Gods word is no Church founded by Christ But the Vniuersael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy errour Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers stand's opposit to thee also And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it self 13. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture God in Essence and three distinct Persons not so plainly expressed there He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduersary of errour None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself Lib. contra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith viz. of Baptism conferred by Hereticks which though not clearly expressed in Scripture is yet held à true and valid Sacrament His words are Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum c. Although no example of this thing the validity of Baptism by Hereticks can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by vs in this particular Cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesia when we now do that which pleases or is agreable to the Vniuersal Church which Church the Authority of Scripture it self commend's Vt quoniam As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue whilst it commend's the Church and euery one fear 's to be deceiued in the obscurity of this Question Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat Let him consult the Vniuersal Church
of this particular Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate Thus S. Austin himselfe Answers most profoundly S. Austin And he giues an Answer to the present difficulty viz. That if the Obscurer Part of Scripture speak not plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick the Heretick is to address himself to the Church and learn by Her what the sense of Scripture is Without light borrowed from the Church we haue only words about these high Mysteries but not fully sensed words chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries whose glosses depraue the plainest Passages in Holy writ as the Protestant doth Christ's clear Proposition This is my body If therefore we go on in such à contest with words not fully sensed we may well end our liues as S. Austin notes before we end one Controuersy 14. And thus you see as the One Part of Scripture is à body without à soul before it be receiued by the Church so the Other Part is also before it be both receiued and sensed by this Oracle of Truth Vpon this ground all those other Testimonies vsually alleged by Sectaries out of S. Austin against the Donatists Of Optatus Meleuitanus and S. Chrysostom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly solued for here is S. Austins Principle The sense of Scripture intended The sense of Scripture and the Church alwaies the same by the Holy Ghost and the sense of Christs true Church concerning Scripture can neuer clash but is one and the same If therefore I know the sense of the Church I haue with it the sense of Scripture also but with this difference That what Scripture often expresses less clearly Christ's Church deliuers more fully and Explicitly Whence it followes that if the Churches sense conclude against these Sectaries the Scriptures sense where it is obscure is in like manner concluding 15. You may obiect Scripture is in the noblest manner infallible For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly and may well be à distinct Rule or Principle from that sense which the Church giues of it Why therefore should not Sectaries haue recourse to that first and noblest Principle without relying on the Churches interpretation I haue answered because they know not guess they may and miss what Scripture saies in à hundred difficult Passages Therefore they are to recurr to the Church or must make vse of their own fancies to sense it The Argument purely fallacious is much to this sense Christ our Lord when he taught his Disciples was in the noblest manner infallible being Truth it self the Apostles were only infallible in their teaching and An Obiection answered further Explanation of those Verities they learn'd by à Singular Grace or participation of Infallibility Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the first sure Principle Christ's own words flowing from the Fountain of infallibility without depending on the Apostles Doctrin not so eminently infallible Now be pleased to hear S. Austin pondering those words Psal 57. Alienati sunt peccatores c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Christ and the Church and solues the Difficulty Ex veritatis ore ag 〈…〉 Christum ipsam veritatem Taught by the mouth of Truth I acknowledge Christ Truth it self ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam participem veritatis And by the same mouth of Truth I acknowledge the Church partaking also of Verity That is I own the Church to be not Truth it self not Scripture it self but à Copartner of Truth with Christ and Scripture I own it to be not Infallibility it self yet so eminently infallible by à singular grace or participated Infallibility That to dispute against it is most insolent madness Witness the same S. Austin Epist. 118. C. 5. ad Ian If he dare to do so Saith the Saint Serm 14. de verbis Apost C. 18. or rus◠violently against this impregnable wall of the Church let him know his doom ipse confringitur He is shattered in pieces Hence you see first that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary to the Churches sense giuen of Scripture without thwarting Scripture it self You see 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles looking as it were different waies but one and the same in order to our direction and regulating Faith whereof Scripture and the Church in order to all is one Principle more Hereafter 16. In the mean while you may ask why our Sectaries keep such à Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things necessary It is hard to say what they driue at For if all this pretended clarity diffused it self through euery passage of Holy writ worse it is for them and to their vtter confusion Obserue My reason The more clear Scripture is made by Nouellists the greater is their shame whilst they cannot proue by it's supposed clarity so much as one Protestant Doctrin nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholick Faith Therefore nothing is gained this way Nay all is los t by Their casting off Church Authority when after that wicked Fact clear Scripture leaues them as Scripturelesse as Their own malice has made them Churchlesse It is true I see some Colour for their Pretence to Scripture and thus it is Like men lawlesse they haue shaken of all other receiued Principles of Christian Religion Speak of à Church She is fallible and has actually erred Cite Fathers some pitifully gloss them others roundly reiect them as men meerly Fallible Mention Tradition the very word is odious Now for stark shame whilst they bear the name of Christians it is hard to throw away all Christian Principles What 's done therefore Why Sectaries take recourse to the bare letter of Scripture I 'le tell you They lay hold of à body without à Soul I mean the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Sense and this is all that 's left them I say without the sense whereof you haue seen enough already for when the sense of God's word is controuerted between them and vs and their sense run's contrary to the receiued Church Doctrin no probable Principle can make it defensible and vpon this Ground I said right They are as Scripturelesse as Churchlesse All this is most true and I well vnderstand it But why these men labour so earnestly to make the Bible plain when not so much as one plain passage is found there for Protestancy or against our Catholick Doctrin is à Riddle aboue my reach I vnderstand it not Let then as much as you will of the book be clear whilst the Clarity fauour 's not one of our Sectaries forged Nouelties nor Contradict's one of our Catholick Tenets it neither help 's the Protestant nor hurt 's the Catholick In the next Discourse we shall treat of the Church and more oportunely solue there à few obiections of Sectaries CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate Faith 1. THe next Principle after Scripture we named the
worse than à Paralogism or any captious way of reasoning for it tend's to non-sense vnless the main Supposition be proued to wit That the Roman Apostolical Catholick Church once certainly pure in Doctrin has or Can decline from her Purity in afrer ages Mr Stilling knowes well that Catholicks who hold their Church infallible make the receding from its Purity à thing impossible How sensles then is it in this place where that Question of Infallibility is not handled first to suppose our Church fallen off from its old Doctrin and then to tell vs the Fathers Encomiums haue Still that 's Supposed which should be Proued nothing to do with it in this present state I argue thus and Mr Stilling P. 314. seem's to approue it Vpon the Supposition that the Roman Catholick Church has not swerued nor can swerue from it's first pure Doctrin The Fathers Elogiums are in this age as due to it as in any other But the Supposition must stand firmly built as you shall see hereafter vpon sure grounds and Principles But contrariwise this way of arguing is Non-sense I 'le suppose vpon no grounds the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred and then I 'le do an open iniustice and deny it the due Commendations giuen by the Fathers It is iust as if one should say I 'le suppose à man hitherto reputed honest to be à thief and then I 'le deny him iustice and hang him vp 4. I say vpon no Grounds And to proue my Assertion ask With what Church then visible in the world were Christians obliged to Communicate when all see S. Hierome will haue them to Communicate with some Church Mr Stilling Answers with the Catholick Church Very Good I Ask again whether the Roman Church and all other Churches vnited in Faith with it were rightly called the true Catholick Church Grant this you yeild the cause And Confess that Christians were then obliged to be in vnion with the Roman Catholick Church Contrariwise if you deny that to haue been then the true Church you are cast vpon No other Church Catholick but the Roman endless difficulties and here is one which cannot be solued Vpon the denial you Sr are obliged to denote or name an other Catholick Church distinct from the Roman more pure in Doctrin at that time than She was And that not only the Romans but all others were Aliens and Prophane who eate not the lambe or communicated not in faith with your new found fancied Church in the aire I say fancied for to point at such à Church on earth is as impossible as to proue known condemned Hereticks to be good Catholicks whereof see more in the other Treatise Disc 3. c. 1. 5. Mr Stilling to shift off the difficuIty will perhaps say When S. Hierome wrote This The Roman Church was truly Orthodox and that He accounted all Aliens and Prophane who communicated not with it Most true Doctrin But see what followes Be pleased to fall lower to the third or fourth Age after S. Hierome There was then I hope à Catholick Church in the world wherwith Christians Communicated in Faith but most euidently there was not any Tâ—en reputed Orthodox if we exclude the Roman from being so For all other Societies nameable In the ages after S. Hierome no Church Orthodox but the Roman though called Christians were professed Hereticks With these no man was obliged to communicate Therefore all were either bound to Communicate with the Roman Catholick Church or with no Church at all Hence I infer that the Fathers Elogium's giuen to the Roman Catholick Church were euer most iustly due not once only during the Primitiue times but now also and in all Ages Withall I assert That Mr Stilling denying this Truth speak's his own fancy without proof or the least appearance of any probable Principle And he will be as wholly vnprincipled if I first suppose as I may if my Creed be true That there is now at this very houre à true Catholick Church on earth and should next demand where that Church is in whose vnion I must liue and dye Will He pitch think ye vpon an vnion with the Arians Graecians Abyssins Anabaptists Protestants or Quakers Light where he pleaseth he can only vent his fancy without Proof or Principle Now cast as it were this fancy into à ballance with those most weighty significant Testimonies of ancient Fathers who positiuely press for communion with the Roman Catholick Church and you will see à strange vneauen Parallel conceited whimsyes And strong reasonable Arguments laid together Yet wonder nothing for weak fancy is the strongest Aduersary Catholick Religion hath S. Cyprians Testimony proposed 6. You haue yet an other Authority grosly misvsed by Mr Stilling Page 315. And t' is à known Passage of S. Cyprian in his 55. Epistle to Cornelius where he complain's of certain factious Schismaticks who dared to sail to the chair of S. Peter and the Principal Church from whence Priestly vnity had its Origen and carry letters from Prophane and Schismatical persons Nec cogitare eos esse Remons c. not thinking them to be the Romans whose Faith the Apostle commended ad quos perfidiae haebere non possit accessum to whom falshood vntruth vnfaithfulnes cannot haue Access Thus S. Cyprian And I put much force in those words Eos esse Romanos Those who then liued to be the Romans prophetically commended by the Apostle which words taken in an obuious sense argue that true Faith should neuer part from the See of Rome But Mr Stilling conceal's this force and translates Not considering that the Romans c. No less energy lies in the other following words To whom vnfaithfulnes can haue no Access which seem to exclude à possibility of falshood from the Roman Church 7. Now listen à little to four strange Glosses laid vpon this one Text. Three of them are the Bishops and one Mr Stilling Vain Glosses Laid vpon The Testimony laies claim to The Bishops saies first Perfidia can hardly stand here for errour in Faith And why not my Lord He Answers It properly signifies malicious falshood in matter of Trust or in fact against the Discipline And gouerment of the Church And I say it as properly signifies Vnfaithfulnes or Vntruth And therefore excludes errour in Faith from the Romans yea it must haue this sense here because it s opposed to the Faith of the Romans so much commended by the Apostle which was true Christian Faith Perfidia therefore fignifies the quite contrary that is errour in Faith But grant the sense to be as the Bishop glosseth it excludes at least from the Romans to whom S. Cyprian wrote à Possibility of doing any thing against the Discipline and Gouerment of the Church or of being maliciously false in Matter of Trust If this be so much more are they secured by virtue of these words Ad quos persidia non possit habere accessum from à possibility of erring in Faith for
vpon no surer grounds then meer doubtful And vncertain Glosses are added to Scripture and the Fathers which An assertion clearly laid forth seem contrary to his Doctrin most euidently stand's vnprincipl'd proceed's weakly and proues nothing But the Protestant makes his weak and doubtful Glosses charged on such Authorities as are produced for our Catholick Tenets the sole Support the only Proof of his contrary Doctrin Therefore He proceeds vnreasonably and proues nothing You shall see this euidenced in the present Matter now briefly hinted at of the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Mr Stilling Asserts She is fallible I ask how He proues the Assertion What By express Scripture vniuersal Tradition the vnanimous Consent of Fathers the Definitions of any ancient Church or Council These are excellent Principles Could He settle How Sectaries proceed to weaken it his opinion vpon all or vpon any one of them we haue done and must yeild But he proceed's strangely and I must needs tell you How The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn from the Fathers in behalfe of the Churches infallibility And thereby to establish his Position She is fallible I demand how can our Proofs be weakned His Answer must be for he has no other I will so tamper with these your alleged Texts that at last I 'le make them proue nothing for your Churches Infallibility And consequently I may hold my Contrary Position of her Fallibility very well established The inference is worth nothing but let it pass I Ask. 3. What is it he will tamper withall or how can he make null those manifest Texts which clearly lye open to euery eye east on the Fathers And euince as we shall see hereafter that the Church is infallible Mr Stillinfleets strain through his whole book For Facta loquuntur return's the best Answer My Guesses saith he And Glosses laid on the Fathers when seemingly contrary to Protestant Doctrin Shall make them speak another language no way fauouring the Churches infallibility 2. Here we come to the point And demand in the last place Whether these Glosses are so clearly their Own Selfe-Euidence that by their very light they lay à Truth before an vnderstanding Their Gloâ—ses no selfe Euidence not to be contradicted For example Whether S. Cyprian in the Passage now cited gaue only as Mr Stilling saith à tast of his old office of à Rhetorician And spake not dogmatically Is this I say an vndeniable Truth Most euidently no. For stretch it to the furthest it can be no more but à most doubtful and vncertain Gloss I say t' is highly improbable Now be pleased to reflect The Assertion concerning the Churches fallibility is no Self-euidenced Truth nor clear Ex terminis no more is our contrary Doctrin of the Churches infallibility To giue it Therefore proof and weight these Glosses are cast vpon the Fathers who seemingly at least fauour infallibility But these very Glosses which should do that seruice are as vneuident as vncertain And doubtful as the very Doctrin is They should enlighten and lend proof too Ergo they aduance not at all the Doctrin concerning the Churches fallibility For proofs which are as vncertain as the very Doctrin is which should be proued can neuer raise that to à greater measure of certainty than it had before such proofs were thought of Please to mark what I say The Doctrin of the Churches fallibility here supposed by Sectaries is vncertain and for that reason lies in it's Vneuidence vntil solid Proofs clear it or expel both the vneuidence and vncertainty But these Glosses when they appear are as vneuident and vncertain as the Doctrin is Therefore they cannot raise the Doctrin to any higher degree of certainty than to meer vneuidence and vncertainty I would haue this noted For it is à ground whereby I shal show hereafter Protestancy to be à most improbable Religion And Therefore will deliuer it once more in these plainer Terms If the Sectary has no surer Principle whereon to found his yet vneuidenced opinion of the Churches fallibility then Doubtful Glosses laid on Scripture The force of our Argument more significantly expressed and Fathers as euidently he has not And These Glosses which should proue that Doctrin be as deuoid of strength as remote from Principles as vncertain or doubtful as that very yet vneuidenced Doctrin is It followes clearly That both the Doctrin and the Glosses fall to nothing but only subsist by fancy which is à real Truth From all now said I inferr that whoeuer interpret's must haue his Doctrin firmly grounded vpon certain Principles distinct from his own interpretations as the Catholick euer hath or nothing is proued 3. Mr Stilling may reply His intention whilst he interpret's these Fathers is not to proue immediatly his own Opinion of the Churches fallibility but only to show our alleged Testimonies come not home or want force to proue Her infallible Now to shew our proofs forceles in order to what we hold is not to make good his contrary Assertion For these two things are very different Our Aduersaries reply refuted To make null our proofs And to establish his own Doctrin Answ I grant they are different But neither is nor can be done Not the first Because these Glosses are no Sâ—lf-euident prouing That the Fathers sense is rightly hit on And Principles distinct from these Glosses whereby it may be shown what Doctrin the Fathers deliuered in this particular Mr Stilling hath not any so much as meanly probable To the second I Answer If He offer 's not to proue his Tenet of the Churches fallibility by the little strength these glosses haue I auouch it boldly All further Probations fail him and for that reason he is either forced to make vse of such poor stuff to proue withall or must sit down silent And grant his Tenet cannot be proued He may perhaps tell vs our Church has erred de facto Ergo it is fallible And here is his Principle I Answer it s no Principle to me but an Heresy And as Asserted by him 't is as much yea more doubtful than all his glosses are laid together He may reply 3. His Glosses may at least be thought probable I vtterly deny that And here is my ground Solely considered they euidence not their own probability But need further proof and probable Principles to rely on But such proofs are wanting to found Probability vpon Therefore these glosses are supposed only not proued probable Had Mr Stilling plain Scripture any Orthodox Church or Fathers clear for the Doctrin maintained by him He might well talk of the strength Of his Glosses but to make Glosses probable The Sectaries Glosses not so much as Probable when no probable ground supports the Doctrin for Whose sake he Glosses is not only lost labour but share 's much of Non-sense Again Were these Glosses probable which I shall neuer grant our Answers to them are at least as probable And what gain 's
ours Contrary to him is an Errour Ergo. The first part of my Assertion seem's euident For you know what hauock the Sectary makes of all infallible Principles Scripture only excepted which I am sure speak's not à word in his behalf nor against vs All Churches with him All Tradition All Councils All Fathers also are fallible and may deceiue Therefore thus much is indisputably clear He cannot proue infallibly I say no more yet that his Tenets are Christian Truths or infallibly That ours contrary are Errours For no man can more deriue an infallible proof from à meer fallible Principle than fetch gold out of dross or light out of Darknes Whateuer Therefore he plead's by next is vnder the degree of infallible certainty And what is it think ye O He has Moral Assurance and here is the Principle that his Tenets are Christian Truths and Ours false or erroneous Very Fallible Principles ground not infallible Doctrin good I ask Though moral certainty auail's nothings as we Shall see hereafter How he proues no Transubstantiation to be à Doctrin morally certain When the Contrary is expresly defined in three General Councils And held by à learned Church Has he any Council so renowned as either the Latheran or Tridentine which euer owned his Negatiue as à Christian Truth Has he any Church as Vniuersally spread the whole whorld ouer as the Roman Catholick is which maintained his Doctrin three or four Ages since Euidently No. Vpon what then ground 's He his Moral certainty I 'le tell you in à word All he can pretend to or plead in This Controuersy comes to no more if it reach so far But to two or three dubious Authorities taken from those Fathers who were Professed members of the Roman Catholick Church And this little slender part He makes not only to striue against the whole Church but moreouer giues it so much strength as to Impeach That great Moral body of errour And vtterly to ruin the Doctrin which hath been taught age after age That is to A part Compared with the whole say The lesser Part or rather à meer supposed part must be thought so powerful as to make à happy war Offensiue and Defensiue against that whole Moral body whereof it was à member Is not this à strange Simplicity 4. Be pleased to take here one Instance from Ciuil affaires only Suppose you haue à Parlament consisting of three hundred and three iust vpright graue and most intelligent Persons who first treat of some weighty Matter relating to the good of à Kingdom or Common wealth And after long deliberation Enact what in prudence is thought best in order to its Setlement Suppose withall that two or three of à different iudgement withstand the Act and hold what is concluded not well done Will any one think ye not only ascribe à greater moral Certainty to those three dissenting votes Than to the other three hundred But more ouer decry the far more numerous votes though of Persons equally wise as vniust impertinent and remote from the meanest degree of moral Certainty And this is done reflect An Instance seriously vpon no other ground for no other reason but because Three are wilfully supposed by à third Party looking o◠strong enough to oppose the greater Part. If this instance like you better make vse of it Imagin that à Synode Consisting of 303. Protestant Ministers define as they think What 's b◠to hold within the Compass of Protestant Religion Imagin also that three oppose Them Can any of that Religion allow more Moral certainty to the three votes than to the other three hundred if we respect Authority meerly Certainly ◠5. Our very case is here sufficiently expressed and the instances Applyed to our present purpose easily applyed to our present purpose The Roman Catholick Church is you know à great Moral body comprehending not hundreds but thousands and thousands whereof innumerable are now and in past Ages haue been most iust vpright prudent and without Controuersy most eminently-learned These vnanimously Enact as it were whether in the Representatiue of Councils or by the vniuersal voice and vote of the whole Church That Praying to Saints prayers for the Dead or which we now insist on the Doctrin of Transubstantiation are not only Tenets morally Authorities not clear impertinently alleged certain But more ouer Articles of Diuine Faith Our Aduersaries to oppose this vnquestionable certainty produce three or four Authorities not clear as is supposed done in Parlament but weak and strained and hope hereby to reuerse to vnuote what these thousands haue decreed contrary Three or four witnesses And these at most dubious are here brought in against Transubstantiation to make our new mens opinion Morally certain and yet These thousands most wise and learned though they clearly vote and profess against it cannot forsooth gain so much credit with à few Sectaries as to aduance the Doctrin to moral Certainty For here we waue the question of infallible Assurance What Doings are these What daies do we liue in The whole Catholick Church teaches as She euer taught that the very Substance of bread is really changed into Christs Sacred body And now o strange times one Theoderet though no way opposit is haled in to reuerse the Doctrin One must striue against and conquer Thousands It is we say à pretty feat to kill two Birds with one bolt But here we haue à greater exploit Theodoret is supposed to leuel so right with à darker expressions if yet dark That he destroies the Faith of two Churches at Once the Greeck and Latin Councils and eminent A parallel of Authorities learned councils haue defined in our behalf and one Tertullian Though herein he speak's most Catholickly is pick't out to plead against them What 's one against innumerable Tradition both Ancient and modern deliuers the Truth we Propugn And an vnknown Gelasius set vp by Sectaries must be thought powerful enough to repeal and contradict our fore Fathers Tradition What Doings are these Can the Sectary hope to beate down that stronge Fortress which Hell gates could neuer yet shake by such slight and forceless Armour Alas goe to single votes we oppose our Iustins our Cyrills our Cyprians our Chrisostoms clear and express against one Theoderet were he doubtful Now with an Addition adde to these The weight and graue Authority of our Church and Councils There is no Parallel no Comparison betwixt vs. Yet more Suppose these few Authorities were clearly contrary to vs the Protestant only has at most three votes as it were in Parlament against Millions and what gain's he by this His pretended Moral certainty stand's not firm like an vncontradicted Truth against such à Cloud of opposit witnesses And. 6. Here you haue à further reason of my Assertion As long as this Principle stand's sure in nature A whole body is greater than à Part and à Part thereof lesse extended than the whole So long it will
it If no Councils nor Tradition support it It has no Principled Doctrin If no Principled Doctrin No Moral certainty If no Moral certainty for meer groundles Glosses cannot giue Any against all the Powerful Motiues of our Church there is no Probability in it If no Probability The whole Reformation must be reduced to fancy only There we found it And there leaue it 11. Now if any except against our casting off Protestancy from the meanest degree of Probability induced to Iudge otherwise vpon this ground That many learned men defend it I haue Answered aboue Meer Probability is insufficient to support Christian Truths Here I both answer and Ask. 2. where were the many learned Defenders of this new Faith when one Luther stood vp alone against the whole Christian world And first broached his Protestancy If at that time there was no Authority nor reason for the Nouelty Process of time hath gained it neither Look then into its Rise or First beginning you 'l find it vnsound at the bottom yea vtterly improbable vpon this certain Principle That the Singular Doctrin of one disgusted Rebel against à whole Church and Thousands more pious and learned then Himselfe can merit no Belief but deserues what it has to be Anathematized 12. We must yet insist à little vpon this Point And lay forth the Vanity of our Aduersaries pretence to Probability which done you shall see controuersies are ended Sectaries May say Protestancy improbable If their own Authority makes not Protestancy Morally certain it cannot but raise it to à high degree of Probability We deny this And shall presently Ask why their Authority more aduanceth this Religion to Probability than the meer Authority of Arians bring 's Arianism to Probability At present we do not only oppose the voice and vote of the Roman Catholick Church against this Plea But the Authority also of Graecians Abyssins and all other called Christians who with one vnanimous Consent decry Protestancy as improbable Compare therefore votes with votes Authority with Authority There is no Parallel For for one that defend's it you haue hundreds yea Thousands that Contradict the Nouelty Thus much is indisputably Euident if we precisely Consider Authority as it were in Abstracto or oppose the Votes of dissenting Parties against it But here is not all We must goe further And distinguish well between à bare Authority and a rational grounded Authority For this is an vndeniable Truth Reasonable Principles euer precede or are presupposed when Religion is pleaded for To the consequent Authority of those whether many or few that Teach or Profess it Hence all say If the first conuerted Iewes to Christianity Had not had most weighty Inducements proposed to reason before they deserted Iudaism and belieued in Christ The change had been most imprudent Nay all had been obliged as is proued in the 4. Chapter To hold on in that Profession still without Alteration So necessary it is to haue rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Religion before the Professors allow it either Moral certainty or so much as Probability Thus much premised 13. We draw Sectaries from all Self-Voting or further pleading by their own Authority And force them in this Contest if Sectaries drawn off their own Selfe voting Protestancy be defensible not to say but to proue by Principles distinct from their own bare votes These two Propositions 1. That God who is Truth it self And once laid his Truths the foundation of the Roman Catholick Church permitted that faithful Oracle to become Traiterous to teach Idolatry to tell the world loud Lies for à thousand yeares together And that all this happened when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to vnbeguile Those poor deluded Christians The second Proposition to be proued is That these Millions of souls learned and vnlearned who firmly belieued this Church And dyed happily in it were All mad All Idolaters All besotted and seduced What the Sectary is to Prou◠by Fooleries And which is à Paradox aboue Expression That à knot of late vnknown Nouellists pretending to Reformation dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themselues To make these supposed mad wise The Idolatrous Orthodox the besotted Reasonable The Seduced right in Faith again And that this was and is yet done vpon à meer proofles Supposition that we are mad and besotted which stand's on no Principles And for that reason is contradicted by the vast number of most knowing Catholicks And the whole Multitude of Christians Besides 14. When these two Propositions are made probable vpon good Principles Wee shall listen to our Sectaries Authority But if they fumble herein Only talk and proue nothing Wee reiect their vngrounded Authority And say The more votes they multiply without Proofs the less weight they haue You shall yet see how weightles Their Authority is might we here insist longer vpon one Matter of fact which ends all Controuersies In à word All know the great Controuersy between Protestants and Catholicks comes to this Whether they or we teach The difficulty proposed between Catholicks and Protestants Apostolical Doctrin Whether they or we lay forth the genuine sense of holy Scripture Neither Party saw or heard the Apostles Preach Neither pretend's now to Enthusiasms or priuate Reuelations concerning that Doctrin The whole cause therefore is to be tried and decided by Witnesses of foregoing Ages such Testimonies and Tradition must clear this Matter of fact A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Pastors without Doctors without Witnesses teaching that sense and Doctrin which the one or other Party stand's for is here both vseles and impertinent If then The Protestant makes his Doctrin Apostolical His sense of Scripture Orthodox The Catholick replies Be pleased to giue in your last Euidence produce your Witnesses your Pastors And Doctors Four Ages since That taught as you teach And sensed Scripture as you sense it My Church add's the Catholick euidently demonstrates à continued succession of Her Pastors that taught as I belieue as shall be proued hereafter And shewes as clearly à Succesion of the same Doctrin and Faith with these Pastors Her Antiquity is vndoubted and her pleading Possession in preseruing the true Sense of Scripture and Apostolical Doctrin is as great as any King on earth can shew for the Possession of the Crown he weares Now saith the Catholick Wee examin your pedegree of Pastors and Doctors And after some few Ascents by à The first plead by Principles the others not Retrogradation come at last to the year 1517. There we find and most euidently à Luther or Caluin To be the first men in the world that professed Protestanism that interpreted Scripture as you interpret or owned your Religion With these late Runagates you must stop No man on earth can aduance or bring your Genealogy further Therefore to speak in the words of the Ancient Optatus Meliuitan Lib. 2. Contra Parmen At that time you were sons
without Progenitors successors without à Pedegree New Teachers without commâ—ssion Protestants indeed but without Principles 15. Hence I argue and it is à demonstration against Sectaries If neither Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christians in forgoing Ages euer owned or so much as heard of Protestancy before one vnfortunate Fatherles Luther broached it If no Antiquity so much as once mentioned one Professor of that Religion if no Tradition handed to Luther the new Faith he taught all which is without dispute manifest Protestancy most enidently is vpon this very account both an Vnwitnessed and an Vnprincipled Religion And not only improbable but in the highest degree improbable But no Authority can release an vnprincipled Nouelty from its own intrinsick miserable and â—ssâ—ntial state of improbability Therefore our Sectaries votes of no weight at all cannot make it probable And thus Controuersies are ended because an improbable Religion And for this reason improbable because vnprincipled is not defensible 16. To add more to this Discourse I Ask whether one Arius opposing the whole Church represented in the Nicene Council Protestancy as improbable as Arianism defended probable Doctrin or no You will answer No. Very good Yet he quoted Scripture and might one insist vpon the exteriour letter or sound of words more plain and express in the behalf of his Heresy than all the Protestants on earth can produce Fathers plain and Expresss for their Nouelty of Protestanism I would say Neither Theoderet nor any other Father speak's half so clearly to the Doctrin of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass c. As these words to omit others My Father is greater then I may the exteriour letter regulate here seemingly express an inequality between the Father and the Son Now if the seeming clear sound of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrin probable against the Church Then much less can the more obscure Testimonies of some Fathers make the Doctrin of Protestants probable against the Church Now. And if we speak of followers that Arius gained in his time There is no comparison He had more than euer England had Protestants in it 17. One may yet reply The Nicene Fathers cited plain Scripture against Arius Very true And so do Catholicks against Protestants For Christs Sacred words This is my body are as significantly plain against Protestanism as any Text those Fathers then vrged or yet can be vrged against Arianism The Arians not Conuinced by Scripture only But this you see did not the deed nor was then the last conuiction And why Here is the reason Because as Protestants now wilfully Gloss this plain Passage of Scripture and many others So the Arians then wilfully Glossed all those Scriptures alleged by the Nicene Fathers And yet hold on in that strain to our very dayes as you may read in Crellius and Volkâ—lius Yet more As the Arian Party then only Glossed but without the help of any antecedent Church Doctrin known to the world or vniuersal Tradition to settle their Glosses on So our Protestants now do the very same There is no disparity betwixt them They Gloss 't is true but giue vs Churchles Glosses Finally as those Fathers at that time did not only reiect the Arians Glosses but established also their own Definitions vpon Scripture How Conuicted interpreted by the known deliuered Doctrin of the then present and the more Ancient Church for they represented both And thus ended that Controuersy So we Catholicks proceed against Protestants And bring all debates to the like last period The Church or nothing must end them Without recourse had to the known and owned Doctrin both of this present and precedent faithful Oracle They and we may interpret Scripture long enough They may Cauil And we may hold on in our Answers to the end of an other Age without hope of ending so much as one Controuersy But of This enough is said already CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 1. SEctaries may obiect first We Suppose all this while But proue not The Orthodox world to haue hitherto maintained the Doctrin now taught by the Roman Catholick Church concerning Transubstantiation Inuocation of Saints c. Therefore our Discourse seem's vngrounded I answer 1. The Reply is not to the Purpose in this place whilst we only press Sectaries to giue in Proofs for their Contrary Positions This wee say They Cannot doe Now if wee bee as farr of From Proofes or Cannot ground our Tenets vpon vndubitable Principles Controuersies are ended without more Adoe Because The first Obiection answered both of vs if the Supposition hold's haue no Articles of Religion to Propugn But weak opinions which whether true or false import not Saluation Nay the Truth of them could it be known is scarse worth any mans Knowledge I Answer 2. Our Proofs to say no more now Stand firm vpon Church Authority once at least owned Orthodox on our Councils and ancient Tradition neuer yet repealed nor excepted against But by Hereticks only May it please our Aduersaries to come Closely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets by the Authority of any like or better Church than ours is We haue done and must yeild But this they know is impossible And therefore neither will nor can Answer our Discourse If they say our Church where its contrary to Protestancy has erred Vrge them to proue the Assertion by any Principle either equal to or stronger than our Church Authority is And you will haue them driuen again to their Glosses or to some few gleanings of Fathers In à word to no Principles 2. They may obiect 2. We haue took much pains to proue Nothing against Protestancy For we know some late Professors namely Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet stifly maintain A second Obiection Proposed these Negatiues of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass No Inuocation of Saints c. To be only pious Opinions or inferiour Truths Neither reuealed by God nor Essential to Protestant Religion Therefore whilst we vrge them to ground such Negatiues vpon plain Scripture vpon the Authority of an Orthodox Church Councils Tradition c. They tell vs we meddle not at all with the Essentials of Protestancy But only dispute against Opinions And Contrary to iustice force them to proue meer opinions by Scripture Church c. wich is more then we can press vpon them or doe our selues For haue not wee Catholicks many Opinions in Schools which none pretend to ground vpon so strong Principles as we settle our Articles of Faith on Yes most assuredly Opinions then and Articles of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled And thus Point's at à distinâ—tion between Faith and Opinion the Protestant discourses in the present Matters Here saith He is the only difference That Catholicks lay Claim to more Articles
of Faith And the Protestants to Fewer Our more numerous Articles ouer and aboue His fundamentals He calls opinions Holds vnprincipled And hopes to settle his fewer articles or the Essence of his Religion vpon Excellent solid Grounds 3. Hence it followes that all Controuersies hitherto agitated between vs come to no more but to à slight skirmishing about different opinions only For we and they agree in the Essence of Religion Vnlucky opinions surely Cries the Sectary and He would seem to sigh as deeply as we But has not felt so much Smart which haue caused endles Broiles strange confusion and à Shameful Schism in the Christian world Thus much I conceiue some later men who expresly teach the Doctrin would haue vs learn And because it is à new inuented way of defending this falling Protestancy I hold my self obliged First to discouer the whole fallacy of the discourse Next to shew how Protestants themselues put an end to all Controuersies This done the Obiection is soon answered 4. The fallacy lies here That Protestancy is supposed to haue an Essence when really it has none but is wholy made vp of worse then false opinions The false Supposition stands gloriously in Mr Stillingfleets empty Title A rational Account of the The fallacy discouered grounds of Protestant Religion The man surely imagins Protestancy to be à Religion which implies an Essence yea and grounded too I say the contrary it has no Essence and consequently No grounds To proue my Assertion Doe no more but cast out of Protestancy all the Negatiues it has which confessedly are no Essentials And next fix your thoughts on the little which remain's And is called Protestancy You will see the Essence after these Negatiues are gone dwindle to nothing Most surely this is not its Essence To belieue these Negatiues pious opinions or inferiour Truths For if God neuer reuealed the Negatiues He neuer reuealed to any That the Belief of their supposed piety constitutes the Essence of Protestancy An other Essence Therefore must be found out if it haue any And may be it is this Belieue the Creeds or à Doctrin common to all Christians our Aduersaries hint at both and you haue the whole Essence of this Religion Yea and Faith enough to attain Saluation And thus they reduce their Faith to fewer Articles than we doe I might Say à word in passing And reduce all true Christian Faith to à shorter compendium viz. To one only Article of The Apostles Creed I belieue the holy Catholick Church That is who euer own 's the true Church of Christ and firmly adheres to all She teaches An other Sectarian pretence of belieuing the Creeds after à due Proposal made of her Articles And dies in that Faith such à man iointly belieues both the Church and Creeds also But if he run away with one half only or Talk of Creeds as Sectaries doe without à Church And exclude from His Belief that Church which approues the Creeds He separates that which cannot be separated And is à Self-chuser In à word he neither belieues Church nor Creeds And consequently has no Christian Faith 5. Hence I say This very Assertion I belieue the Creeds iâ— the sense of Sectaries now explicated is so far from being à Principled Truth That it is no more but an Errour or à proofles Protestant Opinion As bad or worse as any of the Negatiues are If therefore they make it an Essential Article of Protestancy Wee press them according to their promise to giue à rational Account of it before God and man And here our Queries aboue come in again Haue you Gentlemen any Diuine Reuelation That this half Faith of belieuing Creeds after your bold receding from the Church is so sufficient for your Saluation and mine That more is not required Did euer Orthodox Church expresly teach this to be sufficient Did euer ancient Council define so or vniuersal Tradition deliuer the Doctrin Speak plainly plead by all or any one of these Principles And I haue done But 't is impossible Perhaps you will say All Antiquity and the Fathers likewise highly commend the Apostles Creed as à short Abridgment of our Christan Faith Answ So doe we as highly But know there are different Lections of it whereof you may read in your own Doctor Vshers Diatriâ—a De Symbolis London Print 1647. Sent to his friend Ioannes Vossius We know again may Credit begiuen to S. Hierome Epist 61. Ad Pammach That this Creed was not writ in Charta atramento but in tabulis Cordis And Therefore we must trust to Tradition for the best Lection All other Creeds euen that ascribed to S. Athanasius A Graecis interpolatum dressed vp à new by the Greeks Saith Dr Vsher The Church either made or has approued If then I must build my faith on these Creeds I cannot diuorce it from the Church For Propter quod vnumquodque tale est illud magis tale If I belieue my Creeds much more must I belieue the Church which either made or Authorised them 6. In à word here is all we demand And If Sectaries can Answer they speak to the purpose Let them but name any The Beliefâ— of Creeds and the Church inseparable Orthodox Council Nay one ancient Father that saies Faith is then fully and sufficiently Catholick if one belieues the Creeds Though at that very time He pertinaciously reiect's the present Church we liue in Or will not hear that Doctrin which She teaches aboue The express Doctrin deliuered in the Creeds Let him I say do thus much And he speaks to the purpose But it cannot be done Because both the Ancient and modern Church condemn's all who slight Her Doctrin though not expresly contained in the Creed In this opposition therefore That which the Sectary would make the Essence of his Religion is only his false opinion and in real truth hath neither Moral certainty nor so much as Probability As is already proued He may reply All he pretend's is That the Creeds compleatly contain Matter enough of Christian belief To Add more is vnnecessary And Saies withall Hee slights not that Ancient Church which either composed or approued the Ancient Creeds but blames the Later Church which hath turned meer Opinions into Articles of faith And imposed them on Christians to belieue Answ These men it seems will hold on to be vnlucky in All They say We are now inquiring after that Doctrin which essentially Constitutes Protestancy And here they obtrude vpon vs their Protestant Opinions for Answer 7. To assert Therefore First that the Ancient Creeds explicitly contain Matter enough of Christian Belief is à Protestant False Opinions supposed the Essence of Protestancy opinion only largely refuted by our learned Writers See the other Treatise Discourse 3. C. 5. To assert that the Church in after ages added Vnnecessaries aboue the explicite Doctrin contained in the Apostles Creed Impugn's the most Ancient Councils of the Christian world And is no more
enough to make him one These Inferences seem euident if not I petition Mr Stillingfleet to discouer where the fallacy lies 12. Now on the other side if such à man as belieues his Prouing what is intended against Sectaries Creeds the Roman Catholick Church And all the Articles She teaches iust as I belieue them be notwithstanding essentially Protestant still He is both Protestant and Catholick together Catholick He is whilst He Assents to all without Reserue which the Roman Church teaches And he is also Protestant for He belieues his Creeds And what euer our new men require as essential to their Religion Wherefore vnless The not-belieuing their Negatiues or his submiss yeilding to our Positiue Contrary Doctrins destroy that essential Faith of his Creeds which is impossible He is in these Principles both at once Catholique and Protestant 13. And thus you see How Our new men end Controuersies For now in their Principles There is no more quarrel about Religion The whole contest being purely brought to this whether Party Opines more securely iust as the Thomists and Scotists worthy learned Catholicks dispute whether Schoole teaches the better Opinions Though if the Supposition stand it will be difficult to find out disputable Opinions between vs. what our Aduersary iâ— obliged to 14. Be it how you will Mr Stillingfleet must of necessity change his Tittle The grounds of Protestant Religion For now Protestancy with him consists with Popery or rather is Popery And Popery If we speak of Religion is consistent with Protestancy The Essence and grounds of the one and the other cannot but be the same if which is euer to be noted Protestancy as Protestancy hath not one true essential Article of Orthodox Faith peculiar to it selfe For hauing none The Abettors of it must either bee Catholicks or Profess no Religion 15. And here by the way you may note the difference between vs. As the Catholick own 's all which the Church defines to be de Fide And necessary to Saluation So contrariwise the Protestant own 's nothing within the compass of His Articles to be de Fide or in like manner necessary For both He and I may boldly renounce what euer he hold's as Protestant without danger of loseing our Souls And hence it is that Opinions only and false ones too essentially constitute this whole Religion I speak here of Articles proper to Protestancy For to belieue the Creeds the four General Councils to Assert that the Sacraments giue grace to the worthy Receiuer that Faith and repentance are necessary or what els can be thought of as Matter of Diuine Faith All I say and euery one Constitute the essence of Catholick Religion and are known Doctrins of the Roman Orthodox Church in so much that the Protestant has no proper Special or peculiar Tenet of Religion left him at all which is true to propugn And for this reason He is obliged hereafter Iure humano Diuino to write no more Controuersies of Religion wanting Matter to write of And no less obligation lies on him to leaue off all further quarrelling in behalf of his improbable Opinions I would willingly see this plain discourse answered 16. Some perhaps not penetrating the force of it may A weak reply answered Reply The old strife is now on foot again For as we call the particular Tenets of Protestants Opinions and improbable also So they in like manner say All that the Catholick Church maintains aboue the Common Doctrin of Christians or the Articles of the Creeds c are only Church-Opinions as improbable as Theirs The Doctrin of Transubstantiation seem's as improbable to them as No-Transubstantiation to vs. Inuocation of Saints more improbable than not to trouble Those blessed Spirits with our Prayers c. Answ The reply setled vpon no Foundation is more than simple For either these men Cauil because we call their Negatiue Articles Opinions or Term them improbable Opinions Sectaries themselues call them Opinions that 's vnexceptionably plain Though they know well that the Church neuer speak's so meanly of her contrary Positiue Doctrins The only difficulty remaining is whether they are improbable or no And this stands most clearly euidenced already vpon an vndeniable Principle viz. That when Luther first broached them They were opposite to the whole Orthodox world And for that cause were then as improbable and Heteroclite as one Rebels vote is against à whole Kingdome or as Arianism was against the Vniuersal Church Now since that time they haue gained no more Probability than Arianism And so the old Improbability still clings to them And for this reason the Sectary is to find out à Catholick Church which defended his Negatiues or any one specifical Tenet of Protestancy as Ancient or reputed as Orthodox as our Church then was or is now Thus much done we will allow more to his Opinions than Probability But to doe it is Impossible 17. Thus the first part of the Obiection aboue is solued who are to proue the Protestants Negatiues To That is added of our pressing Sectaries to proue their Negatiues by plain Scripture I answer we iustly exact so much proof of Mr Rogers and his Complices the greater part of Protestants I think who hold them Articles of Faith These are to produce their Scriptures And only vrge Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet that call them inferiour truths or pious Opinions to settle these Negatiues or any Tenet of pure Protestancy vpon so much as any thing like à Probable Principle And here we expect their last Propositio quâ—escens for Probability But this cannot be giuen whilst we know The true Church of Christ decries them as improbable and Heretical errours 18. It is very true and that 's next obiected Catholicks haue opinions in schools differently Principled from Articles of Faith but t' is nothing to the purpose when the diffecence betwixt these and our Sectaries Tenents is that Catholick opinions if How Catholick Opinions differ Protestancy probable are euer reduced to probable grounds our Sectaries opinions contrary to the voice and iudgement of à whole Church can haue no such foundation And for this cause we iustly impugn them not as False Opinions only but as Heresies Now to the last Plea of Sectaries making fewer Articles of Faith than the Church doth The Answer is easy It belongs not to them God knowes wholly vnknown to the world one Age past To giue vs now à right measure of Faith The attempt is no less vain than prodigiously bold But Say on How will they Abbreuiate By what Rule By what law By their improbable opinions Here is all Well therefore may they Lament these vnlucky Opinions which haue ruined many à poor Soul and giuen infinit Scandal to the Christian world Vae homini illi per quem Scandalum venit CHAP. XXI Protestants granting Saluation to Catholicks by à clear inference drawn from their Concession end Controuersies of Religion VVhat force their concession hath VVhy they
Set once more pen paper and proue vs guilty of damnable Errour and you 'l damn so many that very few of your Protestants will be left in à state of Saluation I 'le make the Assertion good hereafter In the interim you Tell vs Wee palpably beg the Question whilst we suppose the whole Church is on our side and against you which is à notorious falshood Sr words are but wind I shall by the Grace of God Euidence this Truth so notoriously in the next Discourse that you if reason may haue place must confess Catholicks are the only Orthodox Church And Consequently grant that Controuersies are ended between vs. THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith HEre wee come to handle à main Matter in Controuersies And first Euidence the true Church by Her Marks and Glorious Miracles The Roman Catholick Church is proued the only Orthodox Society of Christians and Rule of Faith also VVee Euince Her absolute Infallibility and shew by Reason That if She hath taught but one false Doctrin and obliged Christians to belieue it there is now no true Faith in the world CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 1. THE first Principle God whose eternal designe is to bring man to true Faith in this short pilgrimage and after to endles Happines afford's means to acquire both And hath as Principles presupposed well laid open the means whereby true Faith may be attained As made our final End known 2. The second Principle Those want the means leading to the last happy End who are Aliens from the true Church of Christ or Separated from that Catholick Society The Assertion is so plainly deliuered not only by most Ancient Fathers But by the more learned Sectaries also That it is needless to produce many Testimonies S. Cyprian Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae Saith Quisquis ab Ecclesia separatus est c. Who euer is separated from the Church is ioyned to an Adulteress And diuorced from all the Promisses of the Church He comes not to the reward which Christ has promised who leaues the Church of Christ He is an Alien Prophane an Enemy and cannot haue God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother S. Austin lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13. Speaks fully this sense Citing those last words of Cyprian And Lib. 4. de Baptis C. 17. Saith Out of the Church there is no Saluation Yet more Epist 152. Whoeuer is or shall be separated from The Fathers Testimonies preduced this Catholick Church although he thinks himself to liue most laudably For this one wickednes alone that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ shall haue no life Sed ira Dei manet super eum But the wrath of God remains vpon him S. Fulgentius Lib. de fide ad Petrum C. 39. Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it That an Heretick or Schismatick baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and Holy Ghost if he be not in Vnion with the Catholick Church Although he giues neuer so great Alms And shed his blood for Christ yet he cannot be saued I waue other excellent Authorities known to euery one versed in the Fathers And need not to take more pains when Protestants themselues own the Doctrin The Ark was à type of the Church saith Perkins in Symb. Colum with me 785. extra quam omnes interibant out of which Ark All dyed and all are damned who are out of the Church Again In Caput 9. ad Sectaries Consent Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church are not members of the Catholick Church Humfred Ad Ration 3. Campiani We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible Church of God Finally Caluin the Master of Sectaries Lib. 4. Institu C. 1. 4. makes it absolutly necessary to be in vnion with Christs visible Church 3. The ground of this Truth is so solidly laid down in Scripture that none can contradict it For here the Church is called the Kingdom the Body the Inheritance of Christ purchased at à dear The Ground of our Catholick Truth rare the effusion of his sacred blood A Citty built vpon à Mountain The House the Temple of God the Hierusalem the Pillar and firmament of Faith c. Whereby it appears That whoeuer is out of this Kingdom out of this Citty out of this house and Temple of God whoeuer is not à member of this Mystical body or shares not in this purchased Inheritance or in à word out of the true Church be it where you will I yet define nothing is in à damnable condition A sad thought for all Sectaries because it is certain that Christ has not composed his Church of such Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the true Church and of such as oppose it Vnity and Diuision in Vnity and Diuision in Faith haue no place in the true Church points of Faith ase inconsistent in the same Orthodox Church and destroy the essential forme of it which is one Faith Now if our Aduersaries talk of à vnity in Fundamentals they are not only euidently conuinced of Errour in the other Treatise But vpon this very Account become Separaters from the Church and without Principles Assert that which neither Church nor Scripture teaches Who euer hold's not the Catholick faith entire shall Perish eternally saith S. Athanasius in his Creed but an entire Belief excludes all distinction between fundamentals and others as is manifest I little value some Protestants Glosses made vpon this Text for Glosses with me are weightles when they stand vnprincipled 4. The 3. Principle What the true Church of Christ teaches concerning the sense of Scripture That 's the sense intended by the Holy Ghost and Consequently most true The reason is Truth cannot be contrary to truth The Church and Scripture neuer Clash But alwaies speak one and the same verity This Sectaries must grant who define the Church to be an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God Therefore it cannot deceiue or teach an Errour contrary to that pure word Or if it doth so it ceaseth eo ipso to be God's Oracle And the true Church of Christ 5. If these men still go on trifling with their wonted distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals And allow à Perfect vnity of Doctrin between the Church and Scripture in The Distinction between Fundamentals and others friuolous things absolutly necessary to Saluation but not in others This is to define and not to define to build and destroy to teach and cheat in one breath For à definition which makes known the nature of à Thing must stand in its open sense without restraint and exactly agree to the thing defined Mark now Christs true Church is the Thing defined and the Definition charged with endless restrictiue Terms is drawn to Non-sense fot it tells vs the Church
an Oracle of truth whilst all it teaches now is fallible and may be false 7. Hence I argue What Scripture saith is true Scripture here speaks of à Church founded by Christ of an Ancient Visible An Argument drawn from what is now said Society of Her perpetual Pastors without interruption of à Church conuerting Nations c. Therefore it speak's Truth and points at à sure Oracle marked with the notes we plead for who euer then admit's Scripture must ioyntly own these Marks and Signatures of the true Church But yee Sectaries admit Scripture and haue no such Marked Church with Antiquity continuance of Pastors c. Ergo you are not members of the true Church which must necessarily be found in some other Society of Christians 8. Here by the way we must preuent à triuial Obiection For some less knowing Aduersary may reply Wee destroy our own Ground and now proue the Marks of the Church by Scripture whereas we suppose the Scripture first proued to be of Diuine Inspiration because the Church manifested by her Marks and Motiues saith so 9. I Answer we proue the Marks of the Church and the Form of her essential Doctrin also by Scripture But how Vpon à Supposition that the Book be first proued Diuine by Church Authority Thus much done it is an excellent Principle But not Primum indemonstrabile it s own Self-Euidence Or first indemonstrable Principle This Truth is clear For no man goes about to conuert à Iew by alleging Passages out of the new Testament or to draw à Heathen to Christianity by any thing written either in the old or new Scripture As therefore that Scripture not the first in demonstrable Principle man would not be well in his wits who hopes to conuert à Protestant by meerly alleging the Definitions of the Council of Trent which he slights so he would be as sensles did he hope to conuert à Heathen by Scripture only as much vnderualued by him as the present Definitions of the Church are by Protestants Hence you see how Scripture is à Principle against Sectaries who admit it and reiect an infallible Church By Scripture we Argue and conuince them of errour might the words Thereof bear their proper sense without fancied Glosses Yet if we make à right Analysis it is not the first indemonstrable Principle but Per Modum suppositionis only that is it must be either supposed or proued Diuine 10. I say yet more Though both the Iew and Heathen owned Scripture as it truly is à Book indited by the Holy Ghost Though it were so there yet remains à difficulty not to bee solued yet they haue but made one step as it were towards Christianity For when such men look well about them and find Scripture differently sensed by so many iarring Heads as haue it in their hands by Arians Socinians Quakers Protestants c. Catholicks dissent from them all where can I beseech you these half Christians whether Iewes or Heathens securely rest With whom can they rationally vnite Themselues whose sense must they belieue and own as the vndoubted meaning of the Holy Ghost To doe any thing prudently in so weighty à Matter is impossible Vnless they first come to the knowledge of Christs true Church which as well Ascertain's them of the Scriptures sense in all Controuerted points of Faith as it doth of the Book 's Diuinity Now further It is not possible to know the true sense of Scripture but by the Church it is not possible to know the Church but by her Marks the essential Doctrin Thereof no more mark 's it self as true than Scripture Doctrin denotes its own Diuinity The Sectary therefore that rob's the Church of her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles Conuersions Perpetuity c. is guilty of three hainous crimes at once 11. First he makes the Conuersion of à Iew to Christianity Sectaries make the Conuersion of Iewes impossible most impossible I 'le show you how The Iew Admit's of the old Testament and drawes from euery passage which speak's of Christ and the Church à Sense quite different from that which Christians own The Protestant admit's both the Old and New Scripture And as we may Suppose is at à hot dispute with à Iew concerning Christian Religion First saith the Iew Lay Sir your New Testament aside which is no Principle with me Because it neither euidences it Self immediatly to be Gods word nor can you proue it Diuine vpon any sure ground extrinsecal to the Book Therefore we must Argue by à Principle common to vs both The old Testament only You read There I read also You know the Original language so do I You compare Text with Text I doe the like You Gloss and I Gloss against you Yet after all is done you draw one sense out of this very Scripture and would proue Christ to be the true Messias I draw from thence an other quite Contrary And say He is not My demand is whether Christ The Assertion proued whom you Adore hath prouided men of better means Than your Glosses and mine are whereby we may certainly know what the sense of this Scripture is If he haue done so it can be nothing but à Church manifested by Supernatural Signes and miracles for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthusiasms if the guidance of à Church be wanting we are all left in darkness And know not what Sense to make of Scripture and this ill beseems the Goodnes of à Sauiour who as you say came to enlighten the world and teach all truth which is not done For he leaues Reason in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church is It may well be the Protestant will except against his Aduersaries Glosses but He is soon silenced for Saith the Iew you good man when you treat with Papists interpret Scripture as you please and why may not I proceed so with you And vse the like liberty 12. The second crime committed by the Protestant who depriues the Church of Her external Signes is that he Eclipses that great light of the world which as Origen saith shines to all And make it as Obscure as some Protestants make their Church inuisible before Luther What I say is certain For no man can find the Church by reason when all rational Motiues are What Sectaries are guilty of taken from it And held impertinent to illustrate that great moral Body Hence you see the third sin of Sectaries relating to Scripture This Book also loseth all credit with Christians because it Euidenceth not its own Diuinity nor can any Signalised Church tell vs it is Diuine or certainly declare the true sense thereof to either learned or vnlearned 13. My last argument against the Protestant is no Topick nor bare Probability but à plain Demonstration The Title saith This reformed man has no Christian Doctrin made credible to The last conuincing Argument Reason whilst he belieues as Protestant To proue the Assertion Three
S. Cyprian Epist 76. That that man is not in the Church nor can be thought à Bishop who succeeds to none but hath his Authority and Origen from himself These and other forceable Testimonies we waue and urge Sectaries as the ancient Tertullian did the Hereticks of his time Lib. de praesc Evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum c. Let them vnfold the Catalogue of their Bishopr from this day to Luther and from Luther vpward and here we call not for Hussits VValdenses or such like men but for à continued descent of Bishops and Pastors Lawfully ordained and commissioned by Authority to preach Protestancy VVe Protestants haue none call indeed but hear of none before the daies of that vnfortunate Luther Therefore as I said aboue they are sons without Fathers they would be thought spiritual Children but are so vnbegotten that no body own 's them 5. Reflect à little Gentle Reader and cease not to wonder at the greatest Paradox I think that euer entred into the thought of man Holy Scripture Ascertains vs that Prouidence hath appointed Bishops to gouern his Church Pastors and Doctors to teach till the Consummation of Saints for the edifying A Paradox maintened by Sectaries of Christs Mystical body The Roman Catholick Church gives in Her Catalogue of Bishops and Pastors euer since Christ The first Apostolical Pastors receiued their learning from an Infallible Master God and man These conueyed it to their Successors They to others till this very age And to proue that They both kept and faithfully conueyed the same Doctrin without Change or Alteration you haue not only Church Authority the greatest on earth but more Gods own seal set to this Doctrin Christ's owne signes and Marks Miracles vndeniable Miracles Conuersions of nations c. Now start vp à knot of late vnknown strangers called Protestants without Bishops without Pastors for 1â— Ages These pretend to haue receiued new letters new learning from Jesus Christ That is an other sense of Scripture than was formerly deliuered This Letter is read This learning is published to the world VVe Ask what lawful Pastors taught it four Centuries since VVhat ancient Church owned it They Answer none VVe demand again To haue at least à Demands proposed to Sectaries sight of God's Seal set to this Letter some visible Marks of Christ Miracles for example to make the doctrin accepted They haue not any Ergo say wee The letter is forged the Doctrin is false uneuidenced improbable 6. All that 's pleadable against this Discourse is That our Doctrin once confessedly Orthodox was changed by the Church in after Ages Answ VVe are both willing and ready to discuss and that most rigidly this particular with Protestants but before hand giue them one Caueat Viz. That no Topicks but sound Principles enter here or bethe last Probation If then wee produce and most euidently à list of our Bishops and Pastors euer No Answer giuen since Christ as Witnesses of our Faith They are to do as much and produce as many for Protestancy If we as we do euer force Sectaries to name some known Orthodox Society of Christians that condemned our Doctrin in any Age they are obliged to vnbeguile vs and show vs where or when or by whom we were condemned If finally we vnexceptionably euidence most glorious Miracles to haue illustrated our Church euen after Her fancied Falling from the Primitiue truth after she became What sectaries are forced to grant the whore of Babylon our new men must either deny her such Miracles if so we vrge them to ground the denial on Principles equal to our contrary Probations or will certainly be forced to confess That God wrought Miracles in à Church which had brought in shameful Errours and quite forsaken the Primitiue Doctrin Obserue well the force of our Argument It s improbable to say That God fauoured this Church with the Glory of Miracles Had She falsifyed His reuealed truths And it is as wholly improbable to deny Her the Glory of Supernatural wonders Sectaries worn-out Obiections are not worth taking notice of Some oppose the Greeks though now not of the Church pretending to à Succession We answer if the Pretext be true Their cause vpon that Account is better than Protestants But withall say though Succession bee euer necessary to demonstrate the Church yet it followes not where we haue it There is the Church For Other Errours may vndoe all And de facto Vnchurch the Greeks guilty and condemned in three General Councils See Bellarmine de Notis Ecclesia Lib. 4. Cap. 8. 6. secundo 7. Enough is said aboue and in the other Treatise also Disc 1. C. 10. n. 4. 12. of the Vnion and Sanctity of our Church Vnity à Mark of the Church Vnion in Faith the greatest Blessing hearts can desire asserted by S. Hierome Epist. 57. ad Damasum Those are prophane who â—ate not the lambe in the Roman Catholick Church And innumerable other Fathers knit's together this whole Moral Body amongst so many different Nations different judgements different manners different Education different times different places from one end of the world to the other All belieue as the Pope himself belieues or is no Member of this Church And here is our Glory Wheras if on the other side we cast à sorrowful Vtterly destroyed by Sectaries thought vpon all the Hereticks who from the beginning rent themselues from the Roman Church we shall find Diuisions and subdiuisions Foreruners of Ruin endlesly following which at last destroyed them From one Luther as Bellarmin now cited obserues Cap. 10. à hundred Heresies sprouted vp And since his time there are more added to that number in our Mr. Thorndicke true Obseruation once most Catholick England He that can take measure saith Mr. Thorndicke in his late little Book of Forbearance P. 33. how much of common Christianity is lost by these Divisions in thirty years time since our troubles began euen among them that call them selues Godly and Saints will easily belieue that it he means Christianity hath not long to liue in that Isâ—and vnless Diuision be put to death 8. A iust iudgement of God vpon them pointed at by the Prophet Isay Cap. 19. 2. I will make the Aegyptians to run against Aegyptians and à man shall fight against his Brother euery man against his friend Citty against Citty and Kingdom against Kingdom Such confusion such an Abomination of desolation we Englands Diuision remediless vvithout returning to the Roman Catholick Church see now standing in that once holy Nation Hee that reads let him vnderstand which might iustly draw teares of blood from Compassionate Eyes Were it not that as S. Hilary notes Bellum haereticorum pax est Ecclesiae The Dissensions of Hereticks brings peace to the Church This some what asswages our Grief and stint's our teares But the Euil is desperate and incurable do what Sectaries can without returning to the Church of Rome which causelesly
they haue forsaken And thus much Mr. Thorndicke seem's to Assert though I know not very well what he mean's by the Româ—â— Catholick Church He Adds more P. 127. We They in England are in the State of Schism in spite of our teeth Though we are â—â— clear our selues of the crime of schism vpon the Terms setled S â— no Terms excogitable shall clear you from that crime or euer bring you to Settlement But à perfect Revnion with the ancient and present church of Rome Whereof enough is said both in this And the other Treatise 9. To speak in this place of the Churches Sanctity whether we consider the Purity of Doctrin or the Eminent Holynes of innumerable professing her Faith would require volumes I say in à word neither Heathen nor Sectary though cauils are raised Sanctity Eminent in the Roman Catholick Church against the Orthodoxism of our Doctrin could yet iustly tax it of too much liberty giuen to Christians We contrary to the inclination of nature fast when Sectaries feast we humbly confess our Sins to à Priest they shake of that obligation Our Church forbid's Marriage to the clergy allowed to Ministers We in spiritual Affaires submit to one Supreme Head of the Church They acknowledge no submission to any in points of Belief but to their own Fancy We are vnited together in one Ancient Catholick Faith and execrate all Divisions They are endlesly deuided in their Nouelties We set à high value vpon the pious laudable works of iust men They esteem all as sordid and sinful We say God inforceth no man to Sin they as Caluin confesses make him both Author and cause of it I might yet instance in à hundred other particulars But t' is needles The whole world see 's that Catholicks strengthned by the Grace of God contrary to their interest and natural Propensions euen for conscience sake Profess and practise more Austerity Pray more diligently fast Not so with Sectaries oftner obserue the lawes of the Church more exactly And finally doe greater works of Charity than Sectaries either think necessary or hold Themselues obliged to by virtue of their Religion I say by vertue of their Religion which binds to nothing but only to Believe though no man knowes what and consequently giues so much liberty in other matters that it makes the Professors thereof Libertins Most vniustly therefore doe our new men call Protestancy the reformed Religion vnless by an Antiphrasis or contrary way of speaking when God knowes it reforms nothing but contrariwise allowes more then enough relaxation to Corrupted nature Whence I infer A thing so Indulgent as Protestancy miscalled à Reformed Religion Protestancy is cannot be from God who will haue us to curb Sensuallity and vpon that account the Professors of it seem very vnfit to reforme the Doctrin of the Church were any thing amiss whilst they leaue manners so notoriously Vnreformed releasing all from the burthen of such Duties as Christians haue practised from the Beginning 10. Be pleased to reflect à little We haue thanks be to God in the Roman Catholick Church many Holy Religious Orders as Benedictans Dominicans Franciscans c. All had their The truth declared by two Instances seueral Founders most eminent in Sanctity and neuer medled with mending Church Doctrin knowing well that was sound and orthodox But contrariwise endeauored to better the world by their Prayers Preaching incessant labours and virtuous Example Suppose now any of these had called their Order à reformed Religion and brought Christians by that Reformation to greater Liberty to more Sensuality than was practised before Their Prayers and Preaching Would not all most deseruedly haue accounted their Labours mispent and worth nothing Suppose again that any one would begin to Institute à Religious Family with these or the like Iniunctions All of them may Marry prouided they keep Coniugal Chastity All may fast but when the humour takes them All may profess Pouerty but experience nothing of the hardship All may obey but in greater matters only not in others freely left to their choise Would not such à Founder vainly pretend to Reformation that laies no more Christian Duties on any Would not euery man look on him as One that peruerts Religion and laugh at his folly This is the case in our Protestants mending matters Therefore I say once more the Reformation is not from God but à humane and very sensual Inuention Enough is noted already both here and in the other Treatise of the Efficacy of our Catholick Doctrin Conuersion of Nations à great Miracle Demonstrable to our Eyes and Senses in the Conuersions of Nations to Christ Maximum Miraculum Saith S Thomas 1. Con. Gent. C. 6. It is the greatest of Miracles and à manifest Testimony that God Assisteth this Church to doe such wonders We pass now to consider some Truths grounded on the Doctrin already deliuered 11. One is and it giues comfort to euery Soul that our Lord IESUS Christ though Absent from vs liues yet as it were Visibly shewes himself Manifestly Acts still Miraculously in the Mystical Body of our Catholick Church and the seueral Members Thereof His Power appeares in Her Miracles Christ our Lord works yet in and with the Church His Wisdom in the learned the certainty of His Doctrin in the Churches Infallibility The Antiquity of his Truths in Her long continuance His Mercy appeares in the Charitable His Obedience in the Perfect Religious His Pouerty in thousands who haue left all for his loue His Submission in the humble his wearisom labours in the painful Missioners His Retirement in Her the Ermits His Patience in the mortified His Purity in Virgins the Efficacy of his Diuine word last mentioned in the Efficacy of the Churches preaching His Holy life appeares in Her Sanctity and finally his Sacred death in innumerable glorious Martyrs Frame then à right Idea of our Blessed Lord we behold The Church expresses our Sauiours perfections his admirable Perfections Shining in the Church And contemplating the Church we see to our vnspeakable Solace Christ Iesus as it were yet liuing working in it and by it 12. A second truth As Things in Nature are not first known by that we call Their interiour Essence but by outward Marks Qualities and Effects whereby we easily distinguish one from an other à Lyon for example from an Elephant but doe not so easily saith Aristotle distinguish their different essences known to few Just so we Discours at present and say the true Church is first euidenced by her Marks Signes and Motiues Miracles Antiquity Conuersions c. which being obiects of sense lie open to euery eye and Collectiuely taken make as I said aboue this beautiful Spouse as discernable from Heretical Societies as one Creature is from another by its outward Form and known Proprieties I do not Assert that The Church first known by Her Marks the Motiues lead to à Scientifical knowledge of the Churches Essential Doctrin
done which will neuer be I am confident His Extract or what is required of Mr Thorndick Draught would appear so imperfect and mishapen à Business in the iudgement of Catholicks and Protestants also That as the one Party cannot but look on it with disdain so the other would reiect it as vnworthy Acceptance 22. Besides would it not seem à new wonder to Strangers abroad Yea and as ridiculous as wonderful were rhey told that after so much labour spent about reforming Religion in England we haue yet at present à thoughtful Gentleman there that 's very busy in Setting forth the last and best Edition of Protestancy Reformed which perhaps may proue worse than any other gon before Naught it must needs be for this Reason That the means he would reform by has no Proportion with the designed End For by A New◠Reformer of Religion in these old dayes of the world the light of à few dead Manuscripts written 14. or 15. Ages Since He offer 's now to amend all the Churches in the world though the very sense of these Writings which must be the Rule of his Reformation is neither well known to Himselfe nor yet agreed on by those dissenting Churches he would reform What think ye Were this sense yet to be learned the want whereof causes endles Errours among Sectaries would not common Prudence rather take it from à liuing Oracle which has taught the world time out of mind than from à late Nouellist that Professes himself fallible and Therefore may most easily Misinterpret would appear ridiculous to all the best Records This liuing Oracle at least promises infallibility Which Shall be proued presently And therefore is à Surer Principle to rely on Then The Fathers Sentences long Since Written whilst Sectaries make Their sense and true meaning à Matter of Contest 23. Yet one word more and I end Mr Thorndick will Reform the present Roman Church Corrupted by the Primitiue supposed pure for the first 4. or 5. Ages I must needs demand first whether that Primitiue Church the Rule of his Reformation Questions proposed to our Aduersary was infallible and pure in those pretended fundamentals only necessary to Saluation though not in other Doctrins of lesser Moment Or. 2. Whether She because fallible as much needed Reformation in smaller Matters not called fundamental as this present Church is supposed to need Or. 3. Whether She was so entirely pure in euery doctrin little and great that She could not be brought to more Purity or be better Reformed Grant the first viz. That the Primitiue Church was vnerrable and pure in fundamentals only not in others The present Roman Church is as good as She was For our Aduersary own 's Her à true Church wherein Saluation may be had and thus far She needs no reforming Grant 2. that both these Churches because fallible might erre and perhaps haue erred in lesser Matters not named fundamental The Primitiue can be no Rule of Reformation to the present Church because that Primitiue is alike err 〈…〉 alike reformable And for ought men know as much out of the way of truth in Non-fundamentals as the present Church is Therefore I said aboue if the blind cannot lead the blind à Church wanting Reformation cannot reform another sick of the same malady 24. If finally it be Said the Primitiue Church was so infallible so pure euery way both in great and little Matters that She could not be more reformed in the first 5. Centuries for example We haue à Church once entirely pure And then vrge our Herein Satisfaction is most required Aduersary not barely to say it But to proue vpon indubitable Principles Scriptures Fathers or the General Consent of Christians that She continued not wholly as pure in the sixt seuenth or eight Age and so downward to our dayes as She was before To shew à Deficiency in this Church once confessedly true in after Ages will be more than an Herculian labour when it is demonstratiuely euidenced aboue That nothing but à Church equally as Ancient as Vniuersal and glorious in Miracles as the Roman is can probably impeach Her of the least Corruption Mr Thorndicks Mistake is that he makes as Sectaries vsually do à false Supposition his Proof He supposes A supposition made à Proof our Church corrupted in Doctrin and then will amend it according to his fancy by the Primitiue whereas he knowes or ought to know that we Catholicks deny His Supposition and say both are vnerrable and withall Assert that no Authority on earth can better inform vs of the Primitiue Doctrin than the present Roman Church which hath successiuely handed it to vs Age after Age. Howeuer to take away all ambiguity and further Dispute in this Matter you haue next three following Chapters which I hope will giue Satisfaction to the rational Reader More shall be added hereafter CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith 1. AS the Answer to the Question aym's at à clear and easy way of ending Controuersies Concerning Religion So the following Discourse tend's to settle one great truth in the minds of euery one viz. That both the Ancient and present Roman Catholick Church is not only infallible But that the what we intend to proue Aduersaries of Her infallibility destroy the very Essence of Christian Religion And deseruedly merit vpon that Account The name of Schismaticks and Heretiques also 2. To make good what 's now Asserted à few Postulata or Principles must be premised One is That Church which Promises and proues Herselfe infallible in Doctrin doth not only Vpon these following Principles facilitate but giues also absolute Security to Faith For such à Church Participat's most and comes neerest to that first Diuine Apostolical Spirit which confessedly was infallible 3. A. ◠Principle Whereas nothing hath or ought to haue à stronger Influence ouer the minds of men than Religion So nothing can discountenance it more than à stedfast Perswasion of its Fallibility and Consequently of it 's easily being False This Perswasion Cut's of all Christian Assurance and driues men to so cold an Indifference of embracing this or that Religion That it much import's not which to take to any or none 4. A. 3. Principle The means or influence whereby Christ preserues his Church infallible needs not to be explicated by any Supernatural quality personally inhering in the Teaching Representatiue or intrinsecally eleuating the conuened Prelates to à State of Infallibility for t' is enough that the safe Conduct of Almighty God who is alwaies vigilant and Assists by his exteriour Protection so secures the Church from errour that She neither What the Churches Infallibility requires can be misled when She teaches nor mislead others Yet I deny not but that an interiour Motion of Grace may be yea and often
She euer holdâ— Idem Epist. ad Corne. She is à pure Virgin in Faith and cannot be deceiued or seduced nor ouercome with any Violence being vpheld by Her Virginal integrity Fulgent Epist ad Probum Cap. 5. Her Faâ—â— is inuincible euen to the Powers of Hell Euseb Caesar Praepar E 〈…〉 g. â—ib 1. C. 3. If any fear to be deceiued by the obscurity of à Question let him Consult that Church concerning it which the Scripture Demonstrat's without any ambiguity S. Austin lib. Contra Crescon C. 33. What think ye Is not the Churches Immunity from Errour clearly established No say Sectaries For though we cannot confront these Passages of Scripture and Fathers with others as significant for our Plea of Fallibility Yet we do and must deny Their plain Sense We do and must say The Roman Church has been adulterated otherwise we are Schismatic'ks We must Sectaries deny all or must own themselues Schismatiks say that though once pure She lost what she had receiued And therefore is now no Virgin but à Harlot VVe must Say Her Faith is Vincible That it is not safe to consult Her in dubious Matters for She can return no better Answer than what is fallible and may be false Thus Sectaries 12. Hence it followes first That our great supposed Representatiue made vp of Protestants Catholicks and all other called Christians stand 's without redress in an open Rebellion in à publick Hostility with it Self And consequently taken in its whole Latitude is not Christ's Church Because the Church of Christ is essentially founded in Vnity This supposed Representatiue torn as you see in pieces with intestine Diuisions is not one And therefore most desolate For Omne regnum diuisum in se desolabitur And here by the way I take leaue to tell Sectaries T' is but Folly to talk as They doe of à Catholick Church wider than the Roman Or of à lawful Representatiue possibly to be conuened in Vnity out of the Body of all named Christians For as such à Church considered Two Mistakes of Sestaries in the largest Extent which stands diuided in Faith is not Orthodox So such an assembled Council made vp of so many iarring Belieuers considered vnder that notion of Hostility and Rebellion can be no legitimate Council The reason is Christ neuer owned à Church professing more Faiths than one nor lawful Councils consisting of other Members than Orthodox Christians You will then say Hereticks are not to What Hereticks haue to doe in Councils â—e admitted into Councils lawfully called I Answer they are admitted but how Freely to dispute not to Teach to propose difficulties but not to Regulate Faith to acquiese in the Churches Definitions but not to define remaining Hereticks 13. You see 2. That à Church fallible in Her Definitions concerning Faith vainly attempt's to reclaim Infidels and Hereticks from their Errours Wherefore the Nicene Fathers Condemnation of Arius might haue been iustly excepted against and pleaded reuersable vpon this ground That what they defined because fallible might be as far from Truth as the very Errours they Censured and defined against Nay I say more If that Council was then fallible it lies yet at the mercy not only of Arians but of all Christians at this day to admit or reiect the Nicene Censure or rather if Prudence haue place to suspend Strange sequels if the Church be fallible their Iudgements and say no man knowes what to belieue Into such darkness vpon such Hazard and indifferency Christians are cast if God's Church or that Council could err One instance may giue you some light 14. Imagin à Heathen at that time when Arianism seemed prosperous and carried much vogue in the East well inclined to embrace Christian Religion VVithall Suppose the man firmly setled in this Iudgement That Catholick Religion much resembling Arianism was so fallible that both the one and other might be false Say I beseech you How indifferent would this Iudgement haue made the Heathen to either Religion Nay would it not had interest swayed neuer so little haue drawn him more to Arianism Yes most assuredly For thus he might haue discoursed and prudently VVhat they call Catholick Religion How the Heathâ—n discourses and Arianism are much alike both fallible both may be false My Interest now when Arianism flourishes carries me thither T' is true I meet there with fallible Doctrin which may be false God knowes how things are but the mischief is I can find no better amongst Catholicks nor in any other Society of Christians Now if all I can learn be no better but fallible and perhaps false Doctrin too I may as well learn that from the Arians as from Catholicks or rather ought to suspect all Christian Religion of Errour because none of that Profession And Concludes against à fallible Religion can assure me infallibly what God has Said But such Doctors saith the Heathen who may as easily teach me to iniure an Infinit Verity and ascribe that to God he neuer reuealed as lead me to acquiesce in his reuealed truths were any such truths in being deserue no Credit Therefore I neither can nor will belieue any thing 15. Before we make à further Step to one or two Propositions which decide this Controuersy à few difficulties are to be cleared against the precedent Discourse One is Hostility ceases in the ample Council now mentioned would all which is easy Agree in one Truth That Christs Church is infallible in Fundamentals only or fundamentals simply necessary to Saluation Answ This is to say If that were done which neuer was nor can be done à Reunion followes Alas it is not yet agreed on by all nor euer will be vnless some quit their Errours One obiection answered which and where Christs true Church is It is not yet nor can be agreed on How many or few these fundamentals are For though Catholicks and Protestants Vnite in à belief of the Trinity and call that à Fundamental Article The Arians stand out and Hostility ceases not but encreases by the Sectaries Means oppose both The means then here thought of is so far from establishing Vnion that it increases Diuision And so it will euer fall out whilst à Church of one Denomination is not acknowledged infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches and obliges Christians to belieue vnder pain of Damnation Se more hereof aboue Chap. 5. n. 5. 16. A. 2. Obiection Dissentions in Councils witness those at Basil and Florence or the Access of Hereticks cannot lessen their Power or Anull their Definitions Therefore our Plea taken from the Hostility in à most ample Council Euinces nothing Answ I grant the Antecedent and say Though Heretiques and dissenting Christians meet together yea Though some too busily aduance opinions dissonant to truth and Orthodox Doctrin Yet God's gracious and watchful Prouidence which drawes good out of Euil And often conuert's War into Peace will with all Assurance effect that such Ã
publick Dissention Answ These men certainly neuer say their Creed I belieue the holy Catholick Church that is in mind interiourly I giue Assent to all the Catholick Church teaches Now if this Doctrin stand They may well not yeild Assent at all to any Doctrin the Church teaches but like Hypocrits may outwardly be fair Catholicks and inwardly foul Hereticks And this is to Profess one thing and belieue another Christ is ashamed of them Luke 9. 26. and so is the Apostle also Rom. 1. 16. VVho blushed not to preach as he belieued And to belieue as he preached But enough hereof is said in the other Treatise CHAP. XV. Diuine Faith in this present State of things necessarily requir's à Church infallible The Reason hereof The Church neither Defin's nor can Define by Humane Authority only Her Definitions more than morally certain are Infallible Sectaries Recourse to Moral certainty in Matters of Faith à most frigid Plea Their Fallacy is discouered Obiections Answered 1. ONe Principle established aboue N. 6. Proues the first part of my Assertion Diuine Faith which is à firm Assent to what euer God speak's So vltimatly rest's vpon his Infallible Veracity One Principle premised That if à true Belieuer yeild Assent to him as He speaks and because He speaks All the power in Heauen cannot Separate Infallibility from that Belief Herein consist's the Perfection of all Diuine Faith That without sweruing it tend's vpon a Verity Infallible and without Hesitancy hold's that infallibly true which the infallible Verity Reueal's A lesser Perfection than this is not Faith And à greater the Apostles had not if we precisely respect The perfection of Faith the Motiue of their Assent Hence all must Distinguish à twofold Infallibility One intrinsick and infinit proper to Gods Verity The Other answerable to à creatures Capacity finit t' is true yet Infallible and such the Apostles Faith was 2. Thus much Supposed not easily gainsaid by Sectaries the infallibility of one Church which we say is the Roman Catholick Stand's firm And here is the Reason As Faith relies vpon an infallible Verity that reueal's Truth So it also rest's vpon an infallible Oracle which without danger of Errour Applies and Proposes that very Truth yet obscure to Belieuers For it little auail's to haue à Verity infallibly Reuealed if à fallible Oracle which may both Miss and Mislead be our best One ground of the Churches Insallibility and only Guide or Proponent The Church therefore which Saith Indubitably I Propose what God Reueals must be infallible answerable to the Infallibility of Diuine Reuelation Ruin the One or Other Infallibility Faith can be no more but an vncertain Assent And consequently no Faith at all 3. To Reinforce this Reason Please only to cast à serious The reason reinforced Thought vpon such as haue been iustly reputed Hereticks and vpon their Procedure The Arians after the reading Scripture denyed the high Godhead in Christ His Eternal Consubstantiality also to the Father And erred The Pelagians reiecting Original Sin swerued likewise from the Verities of Christian Religion so did the Monothelits that impiously bereaued Christ of his two Sacred Wills Diuine and Humane The true Church All know condemned and yet condemns these Tenets as Heretical Right say modern Sectaries And it was well done Very Good If well done herevpon ensues another troubleson Question and it is Whether that true Church whilst She condemned these Errours and defined the contrary Truths proceeded Doubtfully Probably vpon Moral Certainty only or Spake as Gods Oracle ought If the Church defines doubtful to speak Infallibly If She Defined doubtfully it is yet also doubtful whether Christ be the high God and Consubstantial to his Father Vnless Scripture now supposed God's word in express Terms clear the doubt and raise the Doctrin to absolute Certainty which most euidently is not done 4. The whole Contest then is VVhether the Church or Arians Interpret Scripture better For the Obiect of my Assent when I belieue the eternal VVord Consubstantial being not Express Scripture but an Interpretation only it followes if the Interpretation which the Church giues be supposed doubtful She wrong 's the Arians and all other Christians whilst She obliges them to belieue the Mystery otherwise than only Sub dubio or doubfully which is not to belieue at all Again If the Churches She wrongs both Arians and All Christians Definition get à Step higher to à degree of Probability and no more The Arians Opinion for ought we know yet may be as tenable as the Contrary Doctrin now supposed Orthodox And Consequently the real Consubstantiality of the Son to his Father is no more any Obiect of Faith but meerly à disputable Matter like this or that Opinion in Schools earnestly tossed to and fro But neuer ended Doubts therefore And meer probabilities reiected too weightles for Church Definitions 5. We are next to look à little into one only Refuge left The Sectaries Plea of Moral Certainty examined Sectaries called Moral Certainty T' is à dark cloud they are lately got into our Endeauour shall be to dissipate it They may say When the Church condemned Arianism the like is of any other Heresy and defined the Eternal Word Consubstantial The Definition much aboue Probability though not absolutely Infallible was yet so morally Certain that no man can but most vnreasonably doubt of its Verity In passing I may without Offence take notice of Sectaries Inconsequences and Ask if Moral Certainty be at least had from Church Definitions when She interpret's Scripture though the Doctrin be not formally expressed There Why are not Her Definitions euery whit as Morally certain against Luther and Caluin though what She Defin's be not in express Terms Gods word I would also as willingly learn why Protestant Doctrin is not esteemed ouer all the world so Morally certain as thefe Ancient Catholick Definitions are But let these Queries not easily Answered pass We come to the main difficulty and demand 6. Whether this Positiue Doctrin Christ is the Highest God and Consubstantial to his Father be à Fundamental Article of Christian Faith finally resoluable into the Diuine Reuelation And admitted A question Proposed to Sectaries as most Fundamental by Protestants I verily perswade my self they will Say it is If not This followes ineuitably that there is no fundamental Article in our Christian faith Vpon the supposed Concession I Argue But If the Church be fallible this Positiue Doctrin Christ is Consubstantial is no Article of Faith because it cannot be resolued into an infinite Verity infallibly Reuealing Truth Therefore it is only à Moral humane Perswasion at most which may be false 7. The Proof of the Minor will best appear if we Ask why Sectaries belieue that positiue Doctrin They cannot Answer Scripture expresly Teaches it For most euidently that 's not so Will they say the Mystery may by good Discourse be deduced The true Answer proues Faith Certain from
few Sectaries Though when they haue it it becomes The Author of Moral certainly wholly vseles to end Controuersies Obserue my reason If these men Dispute with à Iew will they say that Christian Religion taken in what latitude you please is not absolutely infallible but only à little More morally certain than Iudaism Or if they Argue against vs can they be so shameless as to allow Moral certainty to Protestancy and deny it to Catholick Religion They must do so and here is the reason Moral certainty is neuer appliable to two Parts of à Contradiction The One must It is vseles to Sectaries in all Disputes of necessity be made morally Improbable so if all iudge in this Instant that Constantinople is à Citty in being the Contrary iâ— Morally improbable if therefore Sectaries hold Protestancy Morally certain and the Roman Catholick Doctrin not This becomes in their Opinion Morally improbable Dare they say so much with any Countenance If they doe our Dispute begins à fresh we come to the Trial of their Assertion and will show when it pleases them to hear that their high challenge to Moral certainty is far from being probable At least this is Evident That whilst we most rationally except against it it s only an vnproued Supposition and ends no Controuersies 14. To discouer yet more the Vnweightines of this weak An Instance certitude in Matters of Faith Imagin if you please First it is in this present State an impossible Supposition yet giues light to what I would say that the Church had not Proposed at all the abstâ—use Mystery of the Sacred Trinity As it is already significantly Defined Suppose again that twenty learned men but fallible after à perusal of Scripture had endeauored to bring Themselues and others to belieue it viz. The Father of himself Prouing Moral Certainty insufficient Eternal and vnbegotten the Son Coequal and Eternal begotten The holy â—hâ—st Eternal also and proceeding from Father and Son All three Consubstantial one in Essence in Power in Wisdom in Omnipotency only distinguished by their Relatiue Oppositions I say notwithstanding This their Assent would only haue been à weak Opinion not morally certain and though hundreds more had Sided with these Twenty vpon the like Ground none could haue belieued the Trinity with Diuine Faith The reason is Because whilst men meerly fallible and as fallible Propose an incomprehensible Mystery far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding The Proposal relying vpon à deceiuable Or an vnassisted Power cannot bring Faith to it's own Obiect Gods infallible veracity The Resolution of this supposed Faith clear's all For Ask why They belieue the Trinity It is Answered they verily think and perswade Themselues that the Mystery lies couched in Holy Writ But Ask again whether that Thought or Perswasion be not fallible they Answer affirmitiuely Ergo Say I their Faith which cannot goe beyond the strength of that weak Proposition is also fallible and consequently not Diuine 15. Here you see first the absolute Necessity of an infallible Proponent in Points of Faith which Sectaries haue not And therefore can belieue nothing Diuinely And truly Catholicks would be in as bad à Condition yea really no Catholicks An Infallible proponent necessary could the Church only guess at these high Mysteries could She propose them vpon à humane errable Authority only Or in à word Define Fallibly You see 2. Vpon what ground the â—aith of à Catholick is infallible For being demanded why He belieues this or any other Mystery his Answer is God reueal's them Questioned again who giues him so much Assurance A satisfactory Reply is at hand He belieues so because an Assisted Church which cannot Err Proposes all Her Mysteries infallibly Take away Diuine Assistance She is errable and may deceiue euery one She teaches 16. One may here demand whether the Protestants Belief of the Trinity or of any other high Mystery growes vp to so much Certainty with them as is Moral Answ 1. It import's little whether it do or no So long as their Faith is meerly fallible I Answer 2. If we Speak rigorously Their Belief is not Sectaries haue no faith morally certain morally certain Here is my reason Their own Diuining in so abstruse à Matter cannot raise the Assent so high And if they would borrow as it were Certainty from the Catholick Church and Apply that to Themselues They know well this Oracle Ownes no other Certainty in the Belief of reuealed Truths but what is infallible and cannot be False 17. By what is said already we easily Solue à common Obiection Moral certainty seems often equiualent yea wholly as Satisfactory An Obiection to reason as that is we call Physical For one that neuer saw Constantinople can no more Question the Being of such à Citty than doubt of the sun's shining at Noon day Answ All is most true but nothing to the purpose For that certainty Therefore equalizes physical because Originally grounded vpon à sensible visible Euidence it is taken from innumerable Witnesses Moral Certainty grounded on Sensible Euidence giues not Faith any Assurance who haue seen the place This makes the common Report indubitable and conueyes vnto vs à certainty as firm as if we saw Constantinople with our Eyes But the Mysteries of Faith lie as is now noted in à higher Region and are neither proposed nor conueyed to vs by the help of any visible or sensible Euidence And were they in some low degree morally certain vpon humane Reports that would neither match nor be so strong as natural Euidence is Wherefore God interposes his own Assistance and raises the Proposition of these Mysteries and our Belief of them to à yet higher Degree of certitude far aboue either Moral or Physical For whether we consider them as Truths reuealed by an infinit Verity or proposed by the Church Diuinely Assisâ—ed They stand firm vpon infallible Principles And thus we haue their Truth indubitably conueyed And the Conueyance you se admits of nothing but Infallibility I say the Truth For without doubt there is à strong visible and sensible Euidence in the Marks and Motiues which Denote Christs Church and make Her Doctrin in the highest manner indubitably Credible But hereof you shall hear more partly in the Obiections But most amply in the third Discourse 18. To end this point concerning Moral Certainty I Ask Moral Certainty in Faith à most frigid Plea And why and for Answer appeal to the Iudgement of euery rational man what cold comfort would it haue been to the Primitiue Christians had the Nicene Fathers after à resolute Definition issued forth whereby the Consubstantiallity of the Diuine Word was Asserred and à Peremptory Anathema Pronounced against all that belieued it not Declared themselues and Sense in this frigid manner It is so indeed Defined But we only mean thus much That the Doctrin is morally certain and may be false Would not Arius think ye haue slighted
I Assert not only because Protestants quit all Pretence to infallibility but vpon this ground chiefly That no other Society nameable can Parallel this One Oracle in Her Marks and Signs Illustrious Miracles admirable Conuersions Sanctity the blood shedding of Martyrs By these The present Church proued by her Signs as Infallible as the Primitiue Signs the Infallibility of this present Church is no less rationally proued than the Infallibility of the Primitiue Church in the Apostles time Here I Petition our Aduersaries to giue à probable Disparity 3. A. 3. Principle One may teach true Christian Doctrin and yet not Propose it as infallible So all do that hold the Definitions of the Church only morally Certain One again may teach infallible Christian Doctrin and yet not teach it infallibly Different wayes of Teaching infallible Doctrin And thus Sectaries teach the General Truths of Christianity of one God and of one Christ. The Doctrin obiectiuely attested by Diuine Reuelation is in it self infallible But these Nouellists for want of Diuine Assistance teach it not infallibly And therefore Confess themselues so fallible that they may sweâ—â—e from Truth Finally One may teach true and infallible Christian Doctrin with this Addition That he Teaches it Infallibly And these three Perfections now named were most Eminent in the Preaching of Christ and His Apostles They Taught true Doctrin They taught infallible Doctrin and moreouer taught it infallibly In so much that their very formal Teaching was not liable to Errour Thus much Premised here is my Assertion 4. The Roman Catholick Church is Gods infallible liuing The Roman Catholick Church is Gods Infallible Oracle Oracle and teaches not only Christs true and infallible Doctrin But moreouer Deliuers it so infallibly that She cannot err The Proof of the Assertion wholly depend's vpon à Discourse in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. and in the Appendix P. 2. 3. 4. Whence I Argue If once you annul this one Principle that à Church which pretend's to teach Christs Sacred Doctrin teaches it so fallibly that She may Deceiue it doth not only follow that one Eminent Perfection in our Sauiours Preaching who taught infallibly is vtterly lost and now remoued from vs But this is also consequent That no man can haue assurance of so much as of one Christian Verity at this day Proposed or taught the whole world ouer The Reason is Whateuer Church teaches Christian Doctrin fallibly can say no more but thus much timidly That as taught it may by virtue of the Proposition be false but à Doctrin so far remoued from infallible Certainty for want of à due Application of its Infallibility comes not neer to the Doctrin The Assertion proued of Christ and his Apostles which was Applyed Taught and. Proposed Infallibly Therefore such à Doctrin if valued by the merit of its Deliuery Can be esteemed no more but à weak vncertain humane perswasion not at all resoluable into God's infallible Verity For though God own 's à Doctrin obiectiuely True and Infallible because he Reueals it yet he vtterly disowns such à Proposal as discountenances that VVorth and makes it look like à changling or dislike it Self That is neither True nor Infallible but contrarywise Possibly false and fallible And it neither is nor can be more to Christians than fallible if proposed Fallibly 5. The Case is thus As if one had à Gem of mighty Value and skilful Iewellers were appointed to Prise it yet none after all Art and Industry vsed can know the true worth Thereof An Instance The Iewel may indeed be precious and perhaps not More the most skilful cannot Say Put this case the Owner would be little enriched by such an vnknown treasure whilst the worth is not known And no More Say I are Christians now enriched with Christs Precious Verities whilst none can esteeme of Their vltimate Value nor Say infallibly They are Gods own infallible Truths Moral certainty has here no place For the Reasons alleged aboue Hence it followes That as God Reueal's his verities of an Immense Valuation True and infallible So Prouidence has ordained that they be Proposed answerably to their due Estimate truly and infallibly without which Their vnfitnes to ground Faith is more than palpable as will appear by the Resoluing any one act now held de Fide Please to obserue We and Sectaries belieue the Diuine word Consubstantial to his The Assertion further declared Father the Church Proposes that infallible Truth but as it is now Supposed Fallibly the Assent which followes vpon that Proposition and should be Diuine reaches not so high because it Answers not to the Strength of the infallible obiectiue Verity in it Self yet not asserted by any as infallible But to the weaknes of the formal Proposition which is supposed so fallible that it may be false All then that à Belieuer can Say by virtue of that weak Light is thus much only and no more Perhaps the Diuine word is Consubstantial perhaps not For none doth or can auen the Truth otherwise but as à thing doubtful or indifferent to truth and falshood 6. The Reason à Priori of all now said is We neither know nor belieue by external Obiectiue Truths considered in Themselues but by our own Subiectiue internal Acts as therefore an Obiectiue Truth appears in our own internal Acts of so much worth it is to vs And neither more nor less Now further My internal Faith necessarily depend's on two external Obiects when I belieue any Mystery The first is Gods Reuelation The other the Churches Proposition Neither the one or other is my true Faith for that 's inherent in me if I belieue We belieue not by Obiects but by our intâ—riour Acts. When therefore the Church after Her Proposition obliges me to Settle my internal Faith vpon the Diuine Reuelation I rationally demand in what manner Or how I shall fix it Knowing well if God speaks he speak's infallibly But my Scruple is whether the Church can infallibly Assure me so much If She Answer 's truly She doth so I am secure vpon this Principle that an Oracle teaches which cannot Deceiue But if it be replyed She is only impowred to Propose reuealed Truths fallibly and I by my internal Assent close as it were with That or lay hold of the reuealed obiect iust so as it is proposed fallibly most euidently my Assent and Belief is no more but Fallible 7. In this Matter then as in all others we are exactly to attend to the Proposal of Obiects for as they are laid forth to vs so much weight they haue For example A real Good in it Selfe is by mistake Proposed to me as an Euil I adhere to that Obiect as it is proposed and must Adhere to Euil because it appear's so to me In like manner an infallible Truth is Proposed not as it is in it Selfe infallible But discoloured and defaced by à viciated Proposition which is fallible Therefore by force
improbable Yea and destroies Protestancy It is And why improbable Because it cannot be Supposed that any priuate man or men haue vsed full Diligence to vnderstand the Scriptures Sense And that à Church of à thousand years standing hath neglected à Duty so necessary But these priuate men whether Arians Protestants or Socinians and the Church draw contradictory Senses from Scripture And all these iarring Sectaries with their different Senses defend not truth Therefore some of them let the fault yet light where you will haue not vsed Diligence nor righly vnderstood God's word The Question now is and some Oracle must decide it where or in whom this Misunderstanding lies Most willingly would I haue this one Difficulty folued and t' is worth the Labour whilft euery one See's it is no more certain that the Protestant hitt's on the Scriptures true Sense than it is certain that the whole Church after à thousand years Diligence mistakes it Can this think ye be euer cleared in behalf VVhy Should Sectaries his right on the Scriptures Sense of Protestants by any Proof so much as meanly Probable It is Impossible Wherefore I Conclude Their Grand Principle is rotten at the very root fail's all that Rely on it I will say it once more If the Protestant hath no greater Certainty of his Sense of Scripture than it is certain That he hitts right and the Church Err's in her Sense His Belief after all industry And the Church be deluded vsed stands vnprincipled rests on his own fancy and is not rectifiable while he iudges so Say the very vtmost it is no more but à meer hazard whether he belieues or no and this destroies Protestancy Thus much of Scripture 21. The next thing pleadable in behalf of Mr Stillingfleets Truth and Reason may perhaps be the Authority of Holy Fathers It is weightles if the Church be fallible or has Erred And first Protestants say all Fathers are liable to Errour I add more and Assert if that Church whereof They were Members taught or can teach false Doctrin it is à meer vanity to seek for certain Truth or any satisfactory Reason in the Fathers Writings What can Streams the Fathers were no other be Supposed pure and The Sectaries pretence to Fathers improbable the Head fountain Gods own Oracle Poysoned and infected Did they hit right vpon our Christian Verities when their only Guide Christ's sacred Spouse misled Posterity Could they Dedicate all their Labours to make an Oracle renowned that afterward whispered Errours into all mens ears These are Paradoxes I Say then it is à stronger and far more reasonable Principle to Assert That the Church neuer erred nor can erre Than first to Suppose Her erroneous And next to find truth in the Fathers who were no more but Schollers and suck't the milk of purest Doctrin from the Brests of this their Mother The Catholick Church If She therefore poysoned them with fals learning both She and They yet poyson vs And consequently neither the Church nor Fathers deserue credit nor can be prudently Belieued 22. And here by the way I cannot but reflect vpon à strange Procedure vsual with Sectaries in All their Polemicks First The procedure of Sectaries vnreasonable they Suppose the Church and Councils errable yea actually misled in Asserting Purgatory Transubstantiation c. And to Rectify what is thought Amiss Some few Gleaning of Fathers how little to the purpose is seen aboue are produced and these Forsooth must stand as it were in battail Array fight against à whole Church and ouerthrow Her Errours Is this think ye Reasonable Can it be imagined that God preserued his Reuealed truths in the Hearts thoughts and words of à few Fathers and suffered his Vniuersal Church with so many learned Councils conuened after the Four First to fall presently into so shameful à Dotage as Sectaries charge vpon Her Were the Fathers Then illuminated and was the Church afterward darkened and besotted There is none so blind But must needs se Himselfe out of Countenance by aduenturing to Defend à Tenet so highly Contrary to all Reason Wherefore I must earnestly petition the Reader once more to reflect vpon the greatest Folly which Methinks euer entred the Thoughts of men Thus it is The primitiue To say the Fathers taught truth and that che Church deserted Truth Fathers not many in number Who wrote in the First three or four Centuries in different Times and Places perused by few and vnderstood by Fewer are Supposed to Deliuer exactly the Catholick Verities What They sayd was True And an Ample Vniuersal Church together with Her Learned Councils known to All spread the whole world ouer for à Thousand yeares and vpward must be Supposed so Abominably sinful Is worse then a Paradox so Fearfully misled as to Desert the Ancient Faith of Those Fathers to Peruert God's Truths And Finally to Bring into the Vast Moral Body of Christians à Vniuersal Mischiefe à Deluge of Errour of Idolatry And no man knowes what If this be not pure Phrensy there was neuer any 23. The last Principle to ground Truth and Reason vpon or to bring Controuersies to an end is Vniuersal Tradition but this also Fail's to vphold Truth if the Church be fallible For who will or can with certainty trust the Tradition of à Church or so much as take the Book of Scripture from Her were she branded with this foul Note of hauing Publickly taught and wilfully imposed à hundred Doctrins vpon Christians contrary to Gods reuealed Reuealed Truths But more of this aboue C. 5. 6. 24. After all you se first Truth and Reason brought to Ruin Faith and Religion vnhinged if the Church and Councils be Fallible You se 2. These Inferences Setled vpon vndeniable Principles The Church is infallible Ergo Controuersies are without Perplexity ended Contrarywise The Church is Fallible Ergo Contentions Clear Inferences against Sectaries goe on without Redress endlesly Scripture as you haue heard because differently Sensed decides nothing No more do the Fathers Say Sectaries confessedly fallible Church and Councils are reiected as errable when and as often as Sectaries please Those that Dispute of Religion Yet more Fallible are not to be Iudges in their own Cause and without à Iudge Their best Arguments will be thought by all Prudent men no more but Vnconcluding Topicks And really they neither are nor can be better for want of Principles and some Oracle Infallible 25. Whoeuer desires to haue the Principle I Rely on further established by clear Inferences drawn from our Aduersaries needs only to read M. Stillingfleet from page 534. to the end of that 2. Chapter My Principle is There is no possibility of ending strife touching Religion if the Church and Councils be fallible yet Mr. Stillingfleet and his Lord Say they must haue some end or They 'l tear the Church à sunder My Task then is to show that these mens Doctrin Tears all in pieces and makes Controuersis
we will first begin with these last words If the Errour be not Euident or intolerable all are obliged to submit to the Council vntil some publick declaration c. Hence I Argue But there neither is nor euer was any Euidence of Errour produced against one of our Catholick Councils the Lateran Florentine or Tridentine for example there neither is nor euer was any Legal Declaration more against these than against the First most ancient and purest Councils in Gods Church Therefore Sectaries by their own Principle are obliged to Submit to the Lateran Florentine and Tridentine as well as to others That there has not been any Publick Legal Declaration made against them is manifest And here is my proof 32. The clamours and Calumnies of Arians Cast vpon the The Assertion proued Nicene Council were no Legal Declaration against That but most Vncanonical Ergo the clamours and calumnies of Protestants cast vpon the now named Representatiues are fully as Illegal and Vncanonical yea and more forceles if more can be to Declare Clamours no Proofs them Inualid And besides clamours we neuer yet had nor shall haue hereafter any Thing from Sectaries The true Reason is Go groundedly to work There is not one Imaginable Principle whereby the Nicene can be proued à more lawful Council then the great Council of Lateran was so much decryed by Nouellists And if 't were Possible as it is not to Ouerthrow the One by any solid proof the Other Eo ipso loses all Credit and Authority 33. Hence These and the like calumnies vented by Sectaries The Arians and Protestants Clamour and Calumniate alike iâ— Corners The Lateran and Tridentine were vnlawful Councils 〈…〉 ed by the Pope they had not freedom Their Votes ought to be 〈…〉 ted Surreptitious The Conuened were not men of vnquestionable Integrity Some few by fair Pretences brought ouer the greater number wanting Iudgement to side with their Designs c. Such corner-Calumnies I say and I read them in our Aduersaries As easily â—â—attered out by Arians against the Nicene Fathers can neuer pass for legal Declarations against Catholick Councils whilst euery Proposition want's proof and euery word its due Weight That iâ— what euer can be said to this Sense stand's Vnprincipled Therefore vnless all must be iust so as Sectaries will haue it Vnless fals Suppositions become conuincing Arguments and à pure begging the Question proue it Or be able to decide our Differences We haue Right to cry as loud They. Audiatur altera Pars. A Iudge is to decide all and not Clamours Let Catholicks be heard also And when they are heard and return their Answers before à lawful Iudge to euery particular these Calumnies will vanish or rather appear like Themselues Forged and far-fetch't Improbabilities Exclude à Iudge and à iust Sentence Sectaries are where they would be in the old Labyrinth of Quarrelling without Principles or giuing any hope of ending One Question in Controuersy 34. Now to implead our Councils of Errours and to pretend Sectaries neuer legally assembled Euidence for it is more than à desperate Attempt vnless as I say the Corner-votes of à few iarring dispersed Sectaries neuer legally Assembled haue Power to create à new kind of Euidence vnknown to the world Please to reflect à little It must Forsooth be Euident That the Doctrin of Transubstantiation or Praying to Saints are Errours whilst à whole vnited learned Church Opposes these vain Pretences and Defend's the Articles as Catholick Create à new Kind of Euidence Verities It was neuer yet heard that Sectaries Scattered here an there had Authority to impose such foule disgraceful Names of Euident Errours or Errours morally Certain vpon Doctrins so vniuersally receiued when as I say The most learned Body of Christians that euer was Vnuotes all they blow into the eares of others as meer Impertinences Euidence Good Reader and Moral certainty lose force and neuer yet stood in the Sight or presence of so strong an Opposition I will yet say more Though we abstract from Church Authority we Catholicks are able to maintain our Doctrin against Sectaries vpon Tradition the Authority of Fathers ancient Records c. But still we require A last Iudge to giue Sentence whether they or we abuse the Principles we plead by For certainly the one or other Party doth so But this Nouellists euer Decline and Sectaries decline both Iudge and final Sentence will haue vs to Dispute without either Iudge or indubitable Principles and so make as is now said all Controuersies endles which indeed is the only Thing they ayme at and I haue vndertaken to proue against them 35. Mr Stillingfleet P. 539. speak's so fully to my purpose that more cannot be desired from an Aduersary He Demands how it can be known when Errours in Councils or the Church are manifest or intolerable and when not And Answers thus We appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Concurrent Sense of the primitiue Church the common reason of mankind the consent of wise and learned men Supposing Scripture to be the Rule of Faith And à little after Our Aduersaries Doctrin If you Ask further Who shall be Iudge what à necessary Reason or Demonstration is His Lordship tell 's you plainly enough from Hooker It is such as being Proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it Here you haue the Gentlemans last Principles And euery one when applyed to our present Matter is as much Controuerted between Catholicks and Protestants as the very Question now in Dispute Obserue well 36. The Question is whether the Lateran Florentine and Tridentiue Councils haue erred in their Definitions the like may be moued of all others Protestants say they haue erred Catholicks Lead's still â—n to dispute but to make no end of Controuersies Deny it Both Parties Appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Sense of the Primitiue Church So far as that Oracle learns vs. And if any Passage be found there seemingly fauorable to Sectaries Catholicks after the Contest of one whole Age haue been more ready to clear all Doubts To take of any thing like Imagined Errours Than Protestants were euer yet able to lay such foul Aspertions vpon either Church or Councils What then is to be done Must we eternally Dispute concerning that Sense and end nothing Must we Commence new Quarrels Sectaries who began the quarrel about Matters so often debated Must the old Actum agere come ouer and ouer again Sectaries like that Sport well but no Progress is made this way As yet we only skirmish in the dark Wherefore recourse at last is to be had to à lawful Iulge to some known Oracle or other in whose final Sentence all are to acquiese If any lawful Iudge or owned Oracle Primitiue or latter Condemn our Councils of Errour and we licence Sectaries Like well â—â— hear themselues talk without Principles to name either Prouided they make not
Themselues Iudges nor their long since defeated Arguments Euidences We are indeed the guilty Persons and They the wise Reformers But if All of vs Decline this last Iudicature and do nothing but hear our Selues talk vpon Principles grosly misinterpreted by the one or other Party Dissentions will goe on remedilesly to the great Scandal of Iewes and Gentils and controuersies of Religion cannot but proue endles CHAP. XVII More of this subiect A further Search made into Errours called intolerable VVhether the Roman Catholick Church must be supposed by Sectaries to haue already Committed intolerable Errours Or only whether She may for the future Err Intolerably The Doctrin of Protestants proued False And Most inconsequent 1. MR Stillingfleet to find out Euident and intolerable Errours in Councils Appeal's as you Se in the next place to the Common Reason of mankind and to the Consent of wise and learned men None could haue more ruined his own cause For this Dilemma is vnanswerable The forementioned Councils haue either erred intolerably in Defining the Doctrins A Dilemma of Transubstantiation and of Purgatory Or haue not erred intolerably If not Protestants as is now said are obliged by their own Law to yeild at least external Obedience to them which is not done For herein they haue made à Publick Reformation and call such Doctrins Errours On the other side if these Errours be intolerable you se by their own words We must haue the Common Reason of mankind the Consent also of wise and learned men both ready to Oppose and Condemn them But this is enormously improbable vpon à clear Ground Do no more but Deuide the Moral Body of Christians now at Debate into two Classes Catholicks and Protestants For one that Or à clear Conuiction of Protestants makes these Councils Illegal or their Doctrins intolerable you haue hundreds yea I think thousands who auouch the Contrary and clear Both from that vnworthy Imputation Therefore vnless Protestants engross the Gift of common Reason and Wisdom to themselues and allow no little parcel of it either to the Greek or Latin Church They are to recal what is Said And if they will haue Reason so fast intailed vpon à few Sectaries That no body els can share in it There is no further Dispute All we say is God help Them 2. But what say we to Mr Hooker who tells vs necessary Reason or à Demonstration is that which being proposed to any man and vnderstood The mind cannot chuse but inwardly Assent to it I answer the Principle though good is most impertinently Applied to the controuersy now in hand For haue not we As is already noted Thousands and Thousands in the Roman Church most learned and pious who hear the Doctrins of the fore named Councils proposed and in Iudgement so inwardly Assent to all without scruple that they would dye for the verities there A Principle ill applyed defined The Truth is manifest Therefore Mr Hookers necessary Reason or Demonstration has no place in these far more numerous than all the Protestants are in England and consequently euery man Stand's not euidently conuicted of our Councils Errours Now if you say so many Thousands are fool'd Know Sr That no few of these fools are wise enough to dispute with you and to Show you Speak at random without Principles 3. Thus much is said of our Catholick Councils hitherto conuened in the Chureh now if we return to the old Supposition and First imagin all Councils fallible and Secondly thinke that the latter of equal Authority amends the First or à Third the Errours of the Second and so in Infinitum I Say it is Impossible either clearly to Discouer the pretended Errours or to redress them and this I Assert vpon these grounds 4. One already hinted at is that none can by an inward Assent aud Mr Hooker requires that own any such Euidence An Assertion proued whilst the Council which makes them Errours is as weak and fallible as the other was that Defined the contrary and Published all vnder the Notion of Christian Truths No more can I were I yet to Learn rest Satisfyed in what either of these two iarring Councils Define for the One is as bad as the Other than I am able to trust to two Ministers Talk if I heard them Preach quite contrary Doctrin at Pauls Church That is no man can belieue either vpon their fallible Authority This Principle therefore Stands firm An errable Council A fallible Council most vn meet to teach the high Mysteries of Faith i◠as vnfit to Teach or Vnteach another likewise Erring in the high and yet vnknown Mysteries of Faith as One Wholly ignorant of an vncouth Path is to direct à Stranger into it For as Both these are to learn the way from à third Guide more skilful So both these Councils must take their Instructions from some third certain Oracle Or remain as they are Ignorant But Sectaries remit none to any liuing certain Oracle Therefore they cannot but still Sit in Darkness T' is Gods iust Iudgement vpon them and blind as They are lead the blind they know not whither 5. Again and here is my second Reason Before the Discouery of these intolerable Errours we ought to haue à List of them and know How many or few they are And who can Ascertain vs of this Are we to diuine at their Intolerableness by our own priuate Iudgements Or is some wiser body to instruct vs when there is no Council at hand to do it Must all Christians dispersed vp and down the world write letters to one another Or inform themselues whether the Errours be intolerable These Supposed Errours in Councils And if so whether it be yet high time to cry out against them Or is it enough to Ask our next Neighbours what they think of the Business and rest there Perhaps some will hold them inconsiderable Others of à violent temper hainous not longer to be born with And can such Iumbling and Confusion which teares the Vnity of the Church in pieces Preserue Her in peace think ye Must we first Suppose à learned Cannot be discouered by larring Multitudes Council to haue erred and next rely on vnlearned iarring Multitudes to Proclaim Censure and Reuerse the Errour If this way be not more than Vncanonical in matters of Religion there was neuer any 6. You will Say the next Council is to mend all the failings of the former Answ Were this as it is not Possible what is to be done in the mean time whilst there is no Council in Being Must the Church which Belieues the Definitions of What if à Council be not in Being the former erring Councils and all Christians with it Err on so long till this other Council Appears Or is euery priuate man to resolue for himself what 's best to do in such Exigences Reflect I beseech you How far easier were it to quiet all might Councils once be owned infallible Yet here is my
Peace of Kingdoms and Common-wealths wherevpon their Happines â—est's more secure And is better preserued than if this fiction 〈◊〉 not Hence it followes euidently To know and Profess Truth to quit our Selues of Errour and fiction robb's vs of Happines and makes humane nature miserable The Inference is vndeniable For if we be happy vpon this score that we liue in à Dâ—tage we are miserable in case we get free of it or become Wise which is against the light of Reason For if God has endued Nature is not miserable by being freed from dotage all with à desire of true Wisdom and the knowledge of truth whereof none can doubt Man cannot be miserable if he Possesses that Good which the Author of nature would haue him to enioy Hence it in also Inserred that the vniuersal Perswasion of true Religion is no Dotage no Deception but à Truth and that most notorious 3. Now if you Obiect some liue without Religion and â—â— few embrace à false one you plead by cases meerly Accidental As if one should Say Nature has made man Sociable and giuen him à tongue to Conuerse with others But some Cases meerly Accidental made vse of to no purpose are dumb others abuse their faculty of speaking Therefore man is no sociable creature This is our case Those who liue without all Religion if any such be are the dumbe and blind Those that Profess à falss Religion like lying tongues abuse Gods Gifts the Abuse is Theirs not God's who would haue all to be vâ—ius labij of one Tongue and one heart in à matter of so high Concern And thus much of these first Aduersaries Opposite to true Religion 4. In the next place I may well name our modern Sectaries no less than Arch-aduersaries of Religion who make the Church and all that teach Church Doctrin fallible My reason is A Fained and Fallible Religion are neer Cous 〈…〉 Sectaries parallel'd with the other Aduersaries Germans The one is à Fiction The other at least may be so And for ought any man can know is no better For there is no Principle whereby it may appear so much as probably that all the Christians who liued since the Apostles time or yet are aliue haue not been deluded with fictions concerningâ— Gods truths but rather are plunged into à deep Deluge of gross Errours if the Church and Councils can Teach or belieue false Doctrin And here be pleased to reflect à little Hoâ— neer these two Aduersaries come to one another 5. The first mentioned account it Happines to remain in Errour and Sectaries like well not only the Possibility but more à prefent manifest danger of erring in this matter of highest The Parallel laâ—id forth and proued Consequence Actual errour pleases the one and à great hazard of it contents the other Humane nature say the first would be miserable were men so wise as to learn this Truth that Religion is à Foppery though it be so And we are all vndone Say Sectaries could we acquire so much Wisdom in this present state as to be infallibly Ascertained that Religion is no Foppery which perhaps may be one Wherefore to weaken all certitude They tell vs That none can learn infallibly those truths which God has reuealed because all Churches all Councile all Pastors and Doctors whose Duty is to giue Assurance of trutâ— are so fallible And that the very best may erre and oblige men â—â— belieue Errour Here is all the comfort we haue from Sectaries Thus much premised 6. We come to the fundamental Ground which proues our Catholick Religion and the Church that teaches it to be infallible I Said in the first Disc C. 1. n. 9. speaking against Atheists If we receiue the first lights of nature called general The fundamental ground of the Churches Infallibility 〈◊〉 from any Power inferiour to God They are all fallible and may deceiue vs. This granted which I think no Christian can deny It is most consequent to Assert That if we receiue the Supernatural lights or truths of Grace reuealed in Scripture vastly aboue all humane Comprehension from à less Power than God the wisest of men may liue in errour and cannot but be deceiued And thus both Nature and Grace necessarily depend on God 7. This great Truth iâ— the Apostles Doctrin Iacob C. 1. 17. Omne Donum perfectum de sursum est Euery perfect Gift Deduced from the Apostles Doctrin comes from aboue descending from that Father of lights God therefore rightly stiled the Father of light or as Diuines Speak Prima veritas the first vnerring Verity Pleased to make known some few of his Diuine truths in that Book of Holy Scripture Few I call them compared with innumerable others not at all reuealed which yet his infinite Wisdom comprehend's Howeuer these few often darkly expressed in that mysterious Book or in Terms less perspicuous Dazle the eyes of weak sighted Mortals and wonder nothing The Apostle giues the Reason â— Tim. 6. 16. because all proceed from him Qui lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem That dwell's in an vnaccessible light none can attain vnto Yet truths they are the first vnerring Verity Treasures Communicated Asserts it and therefore ought to be estemed treasures If treasures Prouidence will haue them conueyed vnto vs by secure hands And if eternal truths concerning Saluation God cannot but will and his Will is à law That all be Proposed and Taught as Diuine and infallible Verities depending vpon none How to be Valued if we vltimately bring them to their last Center but vpon the first Truth only who neither will nor can deceiue any 8. Now here is the Difficulty Seing it hath pleased Almighty God for reasons best known to Himselfe to leaue most of the high Mysteries registred in Scripture in no little Obscurity The main Difficulgy Proposed Some express his own Perfections of being one essence and three distinct Persons Others relate to the admirable works of Grace effected by his Infinite Power Of this nature are the Incarnation and the whole Series of mans Redemption The Difficulty I say is to find out à trusty Interpreter some faithful Oracle which can when doubts occurr concerning the darker Mysteries clear all lay open the Book and absolutely Assert An infinite verity speaks thus This sense and no other is what the Holy Ghost intended And this is necessary because Almighty God teaches no more immediatly by himself nor will haue Enthusianisms to be our Doctors 9. Moreouer the necessity of such à sure Oracle if Diuine The necessity of an Infallible Oracle truth must be learn'd is proued vpon this ground chiefly That these mysteries as is now said haue both their Difficulty and Darkness Natural reason left to it self boggles at them Iewes Gentils and Hereticks reiect the highest It is Say they mighty hard to believe á Trinity the Diuine word made flesh God and man to dye vpon à Cross c. What can
Reason yeild so far or submit to these as eternal Verities when their last and only Proof is taken from à Book which we se euidently sensed different wayes and so interpreted that One in rigour may own the Quineced because the Mysteries are difficult Scriptures Diuinity as the Arians do and yet so farr fauour Reason as not to force vpon it the Belief of such sublime secrets which offer violence to our intellectual Faculties Thus the Arians discourse 10. Now here I iustly appeal to the common Iudgement of Mankind and Ask whether our God of truth who on the one side perfectly comprehend's the depth of his own reuealed Mysteries and on the other penetrat's no less our shallow capacities puzled as we se in the search of the most Obuious things in nature could make choise of men meerly fallible and diuorced from Diuine Assistance to interpret Scripture whilst all of them none excepted because errable may grosly mistake and change the purest Verities which were euer yet reuealed into Errours What think ye could God who from Eternity foresaw and yet sees his written Truths depraued abused yea Heresies drawn from his most sacred words Could this Al-seing wisdom I say put his own Sacred book into such Sacrilegious hanâ—s or like well that à few scattered and diuided Sectaries should be the only best Interpreters of it 11. I say yet more All the men in the world considered meerly as nature has fram'd them fallible would commit the Presumption in this matter easily Committed Sin of Presumption and wrong both God and his verities did they venture so far as to interpret Scripture by no other Rule or law but by their own weak Reason and there vpon resolutely define that God is one pure Essence and three real distinct Persons Original Sin is such an euil as the Orthodox Church teaches Children are to be Baptized c. To deduce thus much from the bare letter of Scripture and to define euery particular resolutely is aboue the force of all natural knowledge Those then who Interpret the Truths of the first Alseing Verity that inhabits light not seen by our natural eyes must be specially Priuiledged and either receiue Diuine Assistance necessary illumination from the Father of Light or thankfully take infallible Assistance from the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth which is both promised and readily giuen to the Catholick Church 12. Hence I deduce the Churches infallibility and Argue thus Either there is such à Society of men preserued by Prouidence infallible in all they Define and interpret or not If you Affirm The Roman Catholick Church alone has the Priuiledge for all others disclaim Infallibility If you Deny The A further Proof highest Mysteries of Christian Religion are things only sought for but not found talked of but neuer learned In à word Religion is à meer Scepticism the best that learn it seem iust like those Schollers the Apostle mentioneth 2. Tim 3. 6. Semper discentes c. Alwaies learning but neuer throughly instructed If I euidence not what is here said so manifestly That no Sectary shall rationally contradict it censure me at your pleasure 13. A few Questions will clear all And first I must Demand From whence has that we call Religion its truth All Answer from God the first vnerring Verity Very right But we Ask again Where is the Master teaching Oracle which plainly deliuer's these reuealed truths or clearly Proposes the Mysteries now named Sectaries vsually tell vs Their Oracle is holy Scripture Herevpon followes à third Querie more difficult than all the rest Viz. Who Ascertains you Arians you Donatists you Pelagians you Protestants you Quakers All fallible that you The Sectaries pretence to their reading Scripture examined rightly vnderstand what you read and grosly depraue not Gods Word for without controuersy innumerable called Christians do depraue it Protestants à perfect Representatiue of all the other shall Answer for all O say they VVe read Scripture attentiuely we pray for light we peruse the Originals we compare Passage with passage and after much pains taken we both belieue the highest Mysteries and moreouer perswade our Selues that the new Model of Protestancy is conformable or at least not Dissonant to Gods word Here you haue their last and very best Principle For they will not hear of an Infallible Church 14. Reflect Gentle Reader à little Do Protestants only read pray peruse and compare No Certainly The Arians long since haue done So yet boldly oppose Protestants and deny the highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith If then the Arians Praying perusing and comparing proue no conuiction to Protestants Arians also read and Oppose Protestants Why should the Protestants praying or perusing Conuince the Arians of Errour Again Haue not Catholicks think ye of à longer continuance and far more numerous than Sectaries prayed and perused Scripture None can doubt it And yet they hold the whole Model of pure Protestancy à Nouelty and openly declare it Heretical Therefore vnless Sectaries haue So do Catholicks à singular talent in praying and perusing aboue all other Christians Vnless they can produce better Proofs for the Mysteries of Faith against the Arians and stronger Arguments against Catholicks in behalf of Protestancy than the bare letter of Scripture Sectaries Pretence to reading Scripture And their own weak conferring Texts together or praying vpon them They do not only make Protestancy ridiculous but moreouer euery new whimsy defensible For was there euer yet Fanatique in the world that could not Say thus much He certainly both professes and teaches truth because he has à Bible read's that peruses it and prayes earnestly And will not any Aduersary retort the Argument vpon him and defend whateuer foolery he fancies contrary 15. Belieue it if this way of Arguing haue force the meanest Quaquer in England will make his cause good against the makes Protestancy ridiculous stoutest Protestant and the Protestant if he say I read I Ponder I pray proues his Religion euery whit as strongly against the Quaquer That is neither proues any thing Nay more the worst of Hereticks may vpon this ground maintain his Errours against the Orthodox Church be that yet where you will and could the Church only say She reads Scripture ponders it and prayes Her case would be the same with the worst of Hereticks But besides reading and praying There are other Proofs whereby One Church only is euinced God's Faithful Oracle 16. From what is now said I Argue first A Principle which makes false Religion true yea all Religions though most erroneous as credible as true Religion is more than intolerable The Sectaries Principle makes false Religions true But this Principle of Protestants we read Scripture we ponder and pray makes false Religions true and all Sects though most erroneous as credible as true Religion is Ergo it is more than intolerable The Minor as is now said proues it self For euery Heretick pretend's to
I said well His reading and glosses and all he can Allege for himself are nothing but His own weak thoughts as far remoued from the foundation of truth Gods infallible Verity as earth is from Heauen and more 23. But its needles to Prosecute this Point further when one only reason which none can contradict giues Euidence enough against Protestants I Propose it thus What euer Doctrin they teach peculiar to Protestancy or maintain against the Roman Catholick Church either proceed's from Gods infallible Assistance or wholly borrowes strength from their own Sectaries teach Doctrin diuorced from Diuine Assistance fallible Conceptions after their reading and comparing Scripture Grant the first They teach infallible Doctrin by virtue of Gods infallible Assistance and consequently are the men who constitute an Infallible Church Say secondly that all they teach deriues force from their own weak reason guided only by the external words of Scripture vnderstood as they conceiue They teach as the Arians and all Hereticks haue taught before them à learning which is not from God Their And therefore not from God Doctrin in à word Diuorced from all Diuine Aide and Assistance stand's tottering vpon their own errable Sentiments and therefore neither is which I intended to proue Christ's Doctrin nor at all resoluable into that first Principle of truth God's vnerring Verity 24. Shall we to giue some clearer Light to the Controuersy hitherto handled compendiously recapitulate à few of these many reflections made already in the foregoing Chapters And then more establish the Churches infallibility vpon vndoubted Principles To do so may perhaps benefit the Reader 25. Say therefore Is it true that Christian Religion vltimately A briefe recapitulation of what has been Said depend's vpon God the first vnerring Verity No man doubts it Is it true that innumerable called Christians grosly misconceiue those reuealed Truths after their reading and perusing Scripture It is no less certain Is it true That the bare reading and pondering Scripture Sectaries like Arians no more ascertain's Protestants of the Verities there registred than the Arians or any other Hereticks The truth is vndoubted For from whom should they haue greater certainty Is it true That Funaticism Scripture wrested Doubtful faith euâ—ry Fanatique recurr's to Scripture as Sectaries do Experience proues it Is it true That this sole recourse to Scripture wrâ—sted to a sinister Sense vpohld's the most false Sects in the world Is it true That Christian Doctrin doubtfully taught beget's only à doubtful faith Is it true That the only support of Protestants in points of Religion Comparing Texts fallible Scepticism amount's to no more but to their own doubtful and bare pondering Scripture or to their various and fallible comparing Texts together Is it true That these men like Scepticks would stand euerlastingly quarrelling about the sense of Gods word and cannot be iuduced to hear any Iudge No Iudge speak in this cause of Religion but themselues Is it true That we urge them to make choise of what Iudge they please prouided they appeal not to their own Sentiments and Glosses as much controuerted as Protestancy is Is it true That they can name no Orthodox Church which No Orthodox Church Nor Councils Want of Infallible Assistance Fallible Professors of fallible Doctrin Diuine Reuelation wronged Doctrin neuer owned taught as they teach glossed Scripture as they gloss No Council generally receiued Comparable either to the Lateran or Florentine which fauours their Interpretations forced vpon Christs words Is it true That the Doctrin they propound confessedly proceed's not from Gods infallible Assistance Is it true That they assume to themselues the name of Christians and yet are ashamed to be called infallible Professors of the whole systâ—me of Christian Religion Is it true That they haue done their vtmost to take from God's infallible Reuelation it s own intrinsick nature of Infallibility by making it no more but morally certain in order to our Christian Faith Is it true That that half Infallibility some lay claim to in à few yet vnknown fundamentals appear's euen to Protestants not any Doctrin owned by the Christian world nor can it appear otherwise whilst à whole vniuersal Church decryes it as improbable Is it true That These Nouellists raise not their Doctrin Endles Disputes any higher but only to an endles Contest whilst no Iudge but themselues must speak in the cause 26. Are all these things I say more amply enlarged and clearly proued already so vndoubted that no Sectary shall euer rationally contradict them If the Iudicious Reader find I speak truth as he will may Preiudice be laid aside I may boldly Conclude Who euer see 's not the deplorable Condition of misled Sectaries who euer see 's not also an absolute necessity of an infallible Church to set them in the right way of truth Again is wilfully blind supinely negligent Yea vtterly Careless of Saluation CHAP. XIX Certain Principles where vpon the Churches Infallibility stand's firm The End of Diuine Reuelation is to teach all Infallibly Euery Doctrin reuealed by the fiast Verity is no less infallâ—ble then true It s one thing to teach Truth another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth Sectaries Strangly vngrateful A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Obiections 1. NOw wee come to the last certain Principles whervpon the Churches infallibilitâ— stand's most firmly Here is one The Doctrin which God reueal's as it proceed's from that first vnerring Verity is not only true but infallible The Second Principle Scripture which makes none infallible is often abused by Hereticks Principles premised The third Principle Some Christians are yet in Being That both teach and learn this true Diuine and infallible reuealed Doctrin The Proof is easy For vnless some Teach and learn it All Teach and learn another Doctrin distinct from that which God reuealed The Principle Proued and this neither is nor can be Diuine but meerly humane at most and Perhaps à foolery That therefore which the Prophet Asserts Iohn 6. 43. All shall be Docibiles Dei docible or taught of God is not so For now if the Supposirion hold's the whole Church take it in what Extent you please is deludeâ— as the Apostle Saith Ephes. 4. 14 With the wind of Doctrin in the wickednes of men in Craftines to the circumuention of errour And this brings ruin to Christian Religion 2. The. 4. Principle This Diuine Doctrin is not only A Church must be acknowledged absolutely infallible true and infallible in it self but moreouer so infallibly Proposed by one vnerring Oracle That all who will receiue it are most indubitably certain of those very truths which God has reuealed and therefore cannot err Make good this one Proposition We haue an infallible Church established not only in à few nicknam'd vnknown fundamentals but in euery Doctrin She teaches Now the Proof is taken from the End of Diuine reuelation which seem's most Conuincing For say I
beseech you Why did God impart truth and infallible truth to the world The end was not to improue his own knowledge being euer Omniscient It was not that the Angels and blessed in Heauen should belieue for Faith ceaseth in that happy State All there se intuitiuely what they once belieued The end therefore The Proof is taken from the End of Diuine Reuelation why God reuealed true and Infallible Doctrin was That we yet Pilgrims on earth walking by Faith should yeild Assent to it and belieue all as both true and infallible But this is impossible if the Church which immediatly Proposes the Doctrin can clash with Scripture or with Gods Reuelation and peruert his Verities Therefore She must be acknowledged both true and infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches 3. If any reply It seem's sufficient that the Church teaches Truth though She neither proposes nor teaches it so infallibly but that some times She may swerue from it He destroyes again Christian Religion Be pleased to obserue my reason If the Diuine reuelation is to be assâ—nted â—o infallibly infallibility of reuealed Doctrin be lost as it were in the way between God and vs If the Reuelation appear not as it is in it selfe infallible when we assent to it by Faith That is if it be not infallibly conueyed and applyed to all by an vnerring Proponent as it subsists in its first cause infinitly infallible Faith perishes we are cast vpon pure Vncertainties and may iustly doubt whether such à Doctrin separated from that other Perfection of infallibility be really true or no To se this clearly laid forth Please to make one reflection with me 4. May not either Iew or Gentil well inclined to Christian Religion rationally propose this Question to the Protestants or to any Has God reuealed any Doctrin which is only true God's reuealed Doctrin is no less infallible then true and not infallible You will Answer No because the same infinite verity which support's truth is powerful enough to vphold also its infallibility Say on I beseech you Can you who pretend to teach truth the worst of Heretiques haue done so Ascertain me also that you teach and propose Gods infallible Truths infallâ—blâ— Proue your Selues such Doctors and none will euer Question further the Truth of what you teach For if you once make this clear that you teach the infallible Doctrin which God has reuealed the truth inseparably connexed with infallibility is no more disputable but manifestly Credible But if you turn me off with à fair Story of teaching truth and Ascertain me not of your teaching it infallibly euery rational man will most iustly doubt of your teaching Truth And here is the reason à Priort 5. Euery Doctrin which is taught as à Verity founded vpon God the first Verâ—ty is no less Infallible than true Therefore who euer Ascertains me of the one must ioyntly ascertain me of the other Or if he will diuorce truth from that perfection of Infallibility There is no parting Infallibility from truth he giues me no more but at most the half of that Doctrin which God reueal's Nay I learn not so much from him seing God own 's no true Doctrin men can teach natural truths which is not as eminently infallible as true Now further If I be fob'd off with no man knowes what halfes of Diuine Doctrin That is if the Proponent parts truth from its infallibility and no Authority in Heauen or earth licences any to Separate what God has ioyned together I only learn the faint Sentiments when We belieue God's reuealed Doctrin or weak Opinions of fallible Teachers founded vpon fancy which God disclaim's And which is euer to be noted man by nature fallible can do no more but only propose them as meer humane or doubtfull Vncertainties But à humane doubtful Proposition though true beget's as is said aboue no certain faith in any Therefore who euer will not vtterly ruin the very life and Essence of Christian Religion must absolutely assent both to the truth and Infallibâ—lity of Religion and consequently acknowledge an Infallible Oracle which teaches and One Church only Infallible proposes Infallible Verities Infallibly But this is only the Roman Catholick Church as is said aboue for no other Society of men laies claim to teach Gods infallible truths infallibly 6. To solue all Obiections against this Discourse it will much auaile to be well grounded in this sure Principle Viz. A certain Principle It is one thing to teach truth and another to teach Diuine and infallible truth Man by natural reason can teach truth yet is insufficient to teach Diuine reuealed and infallible Truth this must come from à higher Power either from Diuine Assistance or Supernatural Wherevpon our Answers to Sectaries Illumination If therefore the Protestant Should demand Why we cannot belieue his Doctrin euen when he only Proposes those general Verities which all Christians admit He neuer offers to Obtrude vpon you his inferiour Tenents peculiar to Protestants Answer They are truths indeed and infallible truths but not proued so because he Vnassisted teaches them If he Ask again vpon what foundation do we Catholicks lay the truth and infallibility of that Doctrin we belieue and teach Answer are grounded Vpon this firm Ground that Scripture interpreted by an Assisted Oracle the Chruch which cannot beguile any Proposes all we learn as true and infallible Doctrin 7. If he reply 3. Protestants abstract from the Churches Interpretation and hold Scripture plain enough in all fundamental Doctrin necessary to Saluation Answer He err's not knowing the depth of Scripture which is so dark and vnintelligible in the abstruse Mysteries of faith that vnless certain Tradition and the Sense of the vniuersal Church cast light vpon it or impart greater clarity to the bare letter The wisest of men Scripture is obscure will be puzled in what they read or at most guess doubtfully at its meaning And therefore may easily swerue from truth To se what I say proued 8. Imagain only that twenty learned Philosophers or more who neuer heard of Church Tradition or of her Generael re 〈◊〉 Doctrin had our Bible drop't down from Heauen with Assurance that it contain's Gods infallible truths prouided all they read be rightly vnderstood but not otherwise Suppose The most learned Philosophers ignorant of Tradition and Church Doctrin 2. They peruse that one Sentence in S. Iohns Gospel Iâ— the beginning was the Word and that Wâ—rd was with God Thâ— same was in the beginning â—irâ— God c. Suppose 3. They also confer the Sentence with all other Passages in Holy Writ relating to this Mystery Could these Philosophers think ye by the force of their natural discourse only acquire exactly the infallible truth of the Incarnation iust so as the Church now teaches and belieues No. Euery Particle would put Cannot Vnderstand it them vpon à further Scrutiny What is signified Saith one by this In
principio In the beginning What is that Word saith another which was with God or how was it with God Was it One real thing Essential to him or meerly à breath à Word terminated vpon creatures without which nothing was made All know though the Arians had à Church to teach yet with that sure Rule of faith they mangled and misvsed this very passage of the Gospel Therefore difficulties much more would molest these Philosophers hauing no Oracle to interpret And as many would arise concerning other Scriptures relating to the sacred Trinity Original Sin and the like Mysteries 9. Now here is my reflection and I think euery Intelligent An application made to Sectaries person will speak as I doe Iust so much as these Philosophers haue to gloss with and descant vpon So much Sectaries may challenge but no more if we seuer Scripture from the Churches Interpretation Both haue à Body without life words without sense difficulties proposable concerning their reading but none to Answer them 10. The only difference between them is That the Philosophers yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no Schoole to go to Sectaries haue both yet run as it were from Schoole with half à Lesson with one part and t' is The difference between them and the Philophers much the obscurer part of Diuine Learning only the bare Texts I mean of holy Scripture shutting out the Churches infallible Sense And what haue you in lieu of this light which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Christians The weak and errable Sentiments of a few disvnited Sectaries And is this all we can rely on Do we belieue the Trinity the Incarnation and other high Mysteries so obscurely expressed in Gods word that innumerable haue mistaken the true Sense because à Luther à Caluin or their followers expound Whether Luthers followers or an Ancient Church is to teach it Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches Interpretation which has euer taught the world The One or Other must haue influence vpon Faith if we will belieue But most manifestly the first men only of yesterday and fallible are not our Doctors Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Ascertains vs of the Scriptures Sense of its Truth and infallible Doctrin also 11. Two things necessarily follow from this Discourse The one That Protestants Shew themselues strangely vngrateful because Sectaries manifestly vngrateful And why they slight an Oracle which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Christian Faith for in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scripture vpholds that true Assent they yeild to the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity So much is granted Or not Grant it I Ask. Why disdain they to hear this Church in other matters If you deny Their Submission to this and the like Mysteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible dissatisfactory thoughts and glosses Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitiue Churches interpretation and ground their Assent vpon Her Doctrin Nothing is got this way For the most Primitiue Recourse to the Primitiue Church friuolous exposition of Scripture was no more infallible than what the latter Church or Councils haue Defined But enough is said aboue of this Chasing all Controuersies vp to the Primitiue Ages 12. The second Inference is If God has not made Religion à matter of eternal Debate If all are obliged to belieue by diuine Faith the very truths yea the same infallible truths which God has reuealed and no other of à lower or slighter Rank If he has reuealed them for this end that all may be Ascertain'd A second Inference of their intrinsecal Worth That is of being both Diuine and infallible If the whole Christian world remain's not at this day in Errour or is not cast vpon vncertainties what to belieue If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed Doctrin stand's and subsist's firmly ioyned together in God the first Verity impossible to be separated there And if Finally as T' is there true and infallible all are obliged to learn it Nothing can be more manifest then that diuine Prouidence has established and impowred Some Oracle to teach and propose that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and Nâ—tion as it is both true and infallible 13. Thus much Supposed and proued All further Questions The Oracle teaching truth cannot be questioned concerning the Oracle ceases For it neither is nor can be another but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to interpret Scripture faithfully to rescue Gods truths from the lewd misusage of Hereticks Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abuse Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches our Faith is sound Catholick and Apostolical But if Scripture by reason of its Obscurity deceiues any or the Church could deuiate from the sincere interpretation of Gods truths there registred The Very life of true Religion is lost Faith vanishes into errour 14. Who euer seriously Consider's what is already said in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets scattered Mr Stillingfleets Obiections weightles Obiections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils vtterly void of strength Some worthy person of our Nation who he is I know not in his Guide of Controuersies Disc 3. has so broken and vanquished the little force they haue that I may well supersede all further labour herein There is not one Obiection proposed but T' is either first euidently retorted vpon Mr Stillingfleet Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Question Or 3. Impugn's all Councils Or 4. Appears so slight at the very first view that it deserues no Answer What can be more slight then to tell vs as he doth P. 508. That we He Speak's not truth are absolutely auerse from free Councils because we condemn all other Bishops but those of our Church without suffering them to plead for themselues in any Indifferent Council It is hard to say what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent Councils for he fetters all with so many Conditions that neuer any was yet found in the Church so qualified as he would haue it Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter as also P. 557. You will se what I assert Manifest It is true we condemn A Calumny for à Proof all heteredox Bishops and doth not Mr Stillingsleet recriminate and condemn ours But to say we suffer none to plead for Themselues in à free Council is à flat Calumny vnless that only be free which some bodies fancy makes free and no other A word now to one or two Obiections 15. If you saith Mr Stillingsleet require an Assent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible There must be an antecedent Assent to this Proposition That whatsoeuer Councils decree is infallible I first retort the Argument If you require an Assent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting Or hold That the conuened there deliuered true Doctrin There must be an The first Argument retorted
that Euery one may perceiue the Aduersary I treat with clearly refuted THE FIRST CHAPTER Some chiefe Contents in this Discourse briefly declared Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Churches infallibility and the Resolution of Faith The Catholick way of resoluing Faith the very same with that of the Primitiue Christians Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse 1. IN the following Chapters we first remoue such difficulties as may seem to obstruct the Clearest Resolution What this third Disceurse Contain's And all along discouer Mr Stillingfleets Errorus viz. Chiefly those most apparent in his 5. Chapter 2. We examin what Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue ouer Faith 3. Necessary Principles are premised much auailing to Conceiue the true Analysis 4. We Shew wherein the Main Difficulty lies in this Resolution Omitted by Mr Stillingfleet and solue it 5. The whole Progress of Faith is Explained in order to its last Resolution 6. The true Analysis is giuen in two Propositions Here we also treat of the Euidence of Credibility and solue the Sectaries Obiections 7. This question is proposed VVhether the Churches Testimony may be Called the Formal Obiect of Faith 8. We Ask what is meant by this word Reason And enquire how far true Reason Conduces to end Controuersies 9. Protestancy is proued à most vnreasonable Religion 2. Mr Stillingfleet Part 1. C. 5. P. 109. offer 's at much it is to discouer strange ill Consequences yea grand Absurdities Our Aduersaries bold aduenture if Faith be resolued by the Churches Infallibility and seem's some what ouer-heated in carrying on the cause against his Adversary Let any man saith he iudge whether this be not the most compendious way to ouerthrow the belief of Christianity There is hardly any thing more really destructiue to Christianity or that has à greater tendency to Atheism than the Modern pretence to Infallibility The vnreasonablenes of it is so great that I know not whether I may abstain from calling it ridiculous And much more to this Sense 3. It seems by what I read in Mr Stillingfleet T. C. whose Book I had not then seen said that Catholicks in this present What his Aduersary asserted State resolue their Faith after the very same manner as the Israëlits anciently and the Primitiue Christians resolued Theirs If he said that he Spake à Truth not only defensible but so Sound and Irrefragable that Mr Stillingfleet to vse his own pretty Phrase like one vnder an Ephialtes Shall tumble groan tosse this way and that and yet not rid himself of the vexation 4. The Doctrin I find plainly deliuered and the Instances of the ancient Israelits and the Primitiue Christians so well made vse of for the Catholick Resolution by our learned Countryman Thomas Baâ—on Southwell Analysis Fidei Disp 4. and 5. That here I must needs insert some Part of it because it much auailes to Conceiue the easiest way of resoluing Faith And well penetrated so vtterly defeates what Mr Stillingfleet has that Is Sound Doctrin much more is not requisite to make void his forceles Obiections 5. F. Southwel therefore Analysis Fidei now cited c 〈…〉 n. 18. Speak's much to this sense Had one asked à 〈◊〉 Belieuer in Moses his time after the 〈…〉 uch was written Why belieue you that God is iust wiâ—e faithful in his Promises Or if you will haue one particular why Adam sinned How the Israelits questioned about faith in Paradise He would haue answered Scripture Saith sâ— But if again demanded How know you that Scripture is God's Diuine word Would he think ye haue Answered I se that by the very light and Sparkling of the Letter It is impossible as shall be proued afterward Thus therefore He would haue replyed Moses our great Prophet Affirm's it or rather God speaking by the mouth of Moses laies that Verity open to vs And vpon that ground I belieue it So we read Deuteâ— 1. 3. Moses spake to the Children of Israel all which God had commanded him to say to them Now if thirdly Questioned How Wâ—uld â—aue answered Proue you that Moyses was à true Prophet or God's Oracle He could not haue satisfied by alledging Scripture without à Vicious Circle but would haue Said This truth is immediatly and most euidently Credible by it Selfe for the Wisdom Sanctity and Power of working Miracles manifest to all eyes proue to Reason that Moses is à great Prophet 5. In like manner Catholicks proceed in their Resolution of Faith Demanded why we belieue the Mystery of the Incarnation it is Answered Scripture Assert's it Ask again why we belieue the Diuinity of that Book called Scripture It is replyed The Church ascertain's of That But how do we know that the Church herein deliuer's Truth It is Answered if we Speak of knowledge preuious to Faith Those admirable Signes of Diuinity mentioned aboue and manifest in this one Oracle Viz. The Sanctity of life the Contempt of the world Catholicks in this present State return the very same Answer the c 〈…〉 ed Austerity of Pennance the height of Contemplation apparent in thousands and thousands And aboue all the glorious Miracles most illustrious in this one Society of Christians proue it an Oracle so euidently credible That we cannot if prudent and manifest Reason guides vs but as firmly belieue what euer this Oracle teaches as the Israelits belieued Moses and the Prophets One only Differenâ—â— aduantagious for vs. Here is only the difference And the Aduantage is ours that in Lieu of Moses we haue an ample Church Inumerable multitudes in place of one Seruant of God The incomparable greater light I mean the Pillar and Ground of truth the Catholick Church diffused the whole world ouer 6. Answerable to this Doctrin the primitiue Christians resolued their Faith after the Canon of Scripture was written Ask therefore why these first conuerted People whether Iewes or Gentils belieued Christ to be the true Messias the Son of God and Sauiour of the world They might haue Answered We read this and much more in Holy Scripture But how know you that these Scriptures are not suppositious or fained as some Gospels haue been We belieue this Say They The Primitiue Christians way of resoluing Faith vpon the vndoubted Testimony of those blessed men the Apostles who both taught vs and wrote that holy Book Yet more How know you that those Apostles were not Cheats for there haue been false Prophets and Apostles but men Authorized by Almighty God to teach and write his holy Verities Had they replyed We proue this by Scripture it self the Circle would haue been ineuitable For to Say Scripture is Gods word because the Apostles Assert it and to Say the Apostles were infallible Oracles of Truth because Scripture affirm's that is to Proue Idem per Idem And implies à most vicious Circulation 7. Their Answer then must haue been for there is no other The manifest Miracles wrought by the Apostles Their
eminent Sanctity and Holines of life our Lord working with and confirming their Doctrin by manifest Signes proued them Gods Oracles True and faithful commissioned Teachers And thus Is Our way also we discourse of the Church Whose vndeniable Miracles Sanctity and Conuersions wrought by Her conuince reason of this great Truth that She only is Gods Oracle All this is said supposing the Canon of Scripture already compleat For if we goe higher and consider à Church whether it be that of the ancient Patriarchs of the Israelits or finally of the Christians before Scripture was written Faith must be resolued into Diuine Reuelation by the means of some liuing Oracle Whether One or more it imports not who manifested themselues God's commissioned Teachers by Signes and Miracles Whereof more afterward 8. This much premised And it is Very easily vnderstood you shall Se Mr Stillingfleets verbose Obiections brought to Three Mistakes chiefly pointed at nothing but to meer Cauils and Mistakes Three Mistakes chiefly run through his whole 5. Chapter First he strangely confound's the Iudgement of credibility necessarily prerequired to true Belief with the very Act of Faith it Self whereas the Resolution of these two haue indeed à due Subordination to one The first breeds Confusion â—â—other yet depend vpon quite different Principles The Iudgement of Credibility whereby the will moues and command's the intellectual Faculty to elicite Faith relies not vpon that Obiect which finally Terminates Faith it self But vpon extrinsecal Motiues wihch perswade and Powerfully induce to belieue â—uper omnia 9. Here is the Reason The high Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Original Sin and the like Transcend our natural Capacities or to speak with some great Diuines are naturally Incredible Therefore Prouidence hath by the force and efficacy of extrinsecal motiues raised them from that degree of natural Incredibility and made all most credible to humane Reason And this no Sectary can deny For before that Doctrin be belieued which he embraces and before he reiect's the contrary not belieued by him He will tell you He hath Motiues and reasons as well for the one as the other Here is all we require at present 10. Mr Stillingfleets second errour is that he distinguishes not between the nature of Science and Faith Science is worth In the second Science and Faith are not nothing vnless it proue and Faith purely considered as Faith mark well my words is worthles if it proue For as innumerable Fathers affirm Fides non quaerit quomodo Faith reason 's not nor Ask's how these Mysteries can be but simply belieues Science makes vse of Principles Per se nota known by themselues And then discourses Assuming nothing but what is proued wherefore no virtue no validity can be in the progress or Sufficiently distinguished end of à rational Discourse which was not precontained in the first assumed Principles Faith t' is true has its Preambulatory Motiues as we haue seen already yet Scientifically drawes no Conclusion from them and herein Mr Stillingfleet all along beguiles himself and the reader The Motiues inducing to belieue this Truth God has reuealed à Mysterious Trinity are morally certain yet there is à more firm Adhesion to the infallibility of that Diuine Testimony for which we belieue than the extrinsecal Motiues inducing to belief either do or can draw from vs And in this sense Faith contrary to Science goes farr beyond the certainty of all extrinsecal Inducements as shall be presently declared 11. Our Aduersaries third Mistake lies here That he distinguishes not between the humane and Diuine Authority of the The third also wants à Distinction Church S. Austin Lib. con Epist Fundam C. 4. Speaking of the first Saith The profound wisdom of so many Doctors the consent of Nations the Antiquity the continued Succession of Pastors c. held him within the Pale of the Church Catholick yet this Authority precisely considered as humane and therefore fallible is not sufficient to ground Diuine Faith I say as humane for though I belieue that the Church has euer been Visible with à continued Succession of Commissioned Pastors to teach Orthodox Doctrin yet my Act of Faith no more relies vpon such motiues considered meerly as Motiues inducing to belieue Than the Primitiue Christians Faith relied vpon the visible Miracles which Christ or his Apostles wrought 12. As therefore that first Act of Faith whereby they belieued our Sauiour to be the true Messias was built vpon his infallible Diuine Authority manifested by Miracles Sanctity of life c. So that first Act of Faith whereby euery one belieues the Church to be God's own Sacred Oracle is built vpon Her infallible Diuine Authority manifested by Miracles and other signal Marks of truth whereof Scripture plainly Speak's Hell gates shall not preuail against the Church She is the Pillar and ground of truth And so much is said aboue C. 16. 17. that I know well Sectaries What caused our Aduersaries Errour cannot Answer The not reflecting vpon this twofold Authority which Mr Stillingfleet knowes Catholicks do distinguish makes his Circle charged on vs so irregular à Figure that it look's rather like à Rhomboides than à round Circle as shall appear presently with à further Discouery of his other mistakes One thing I cannot but admire and t' is That though his 5 th Chapter be tediously long yet the main and most real difficulty concerning the Resoluing of Faith is scarcely so much â—â— hinted at After à few Pages I will propose the Difficulty and endeauour to solue it CHAP. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5 th Chapter Part. 1. examined is found VVeightles The weaknes of his Arguments discouered His First and chiefest Argument retorted and solued 1. I Must and will waue all this Centlemans Parergons all friuolous excursions with his vnciuil language and if I touch in à word vpon his pretty conceipted Ieers scattered here and there it shall only be Pertransennam as if I little minded them 2. Thus he begins Page 112. The Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation for Diuine Faith and this Infallibility Our Aduersaries first Argument can only be known by the Motiues of Credibility He means in this present State Therefore this way of resoluing Faith is vnreasonable because it requires an infallible Assent vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of Euidence which is as much as requiring infallibility in the Conclusion where the Premises are only probable Answ Our Aduersary Spoil's à good Difficulty by proposing it lamely He would fain say some thing like that which Catholick The difficulty not fully proposed Diuines learnedly propose whilst they handle the Resolution of Faith But so fumbles and doth it by halfes that He â—eaches not home to the main Business 3. I Say therefore first The Argument proposed if of any force destroies all Faith euen the most Primitiue To proue the Assertion I Ask whether the first Christians belieued
infallibly the Infallible Testimony of the Apostles Preaching with à Diuine Infallible Assent Most certainly they Did. Yet the Infallibility of that Testimony was not known if we speak strictly of Knowledge but by Motiues of Credibility which were no Obiect of their Faith vnless you make faith to be Science The Argument retorted but Inducements only to belieue Ergo this very Primitiue Faith was vnreasonable because it was an infallible Assent built vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of that Euidence whereby those pious men were moued to belieue Hence You Se though the Motiues which illustrate the Church were in themselues fallible and not Metaphysically conexed with the Diuine Testimony yet Faith grounded on that Testimony cannot but be certain and infallible and consequently must Transcend or goe beyond all the degrees of Certitude appearing in the prerequired Motiues Mr Stillingfleet reply's This is to require Infallibility in the Conclusion where the Premises are only probable Answ He err's not knowing the nature of Faith which Discourses not like to Science For example Make this Sillogism Whateuer God reueal's is True but God reueal's the Incarnation of the Diuine VVord Ergo that is true The difficulty only is in the Minor But God reueal's which cannot be proued by another belieued Article of Faith wholly as obscure to vs as the Incarnation is I say proued by Reason because the same difficulty will be as much moued again Concerning the Proof of that second belieued Article as concerning the first of the Incarnation and so in Infinitum And Shew'd Proofles Therefore all rational Proofs auailing to beget Faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were in another Region more clear yet less certain than the reuealed Mystery is we assent to by Faith 4. Now to our Purpose We hold this an Article of Faith The Church is God's infallible Oracle And therefore Say antecedently Rational Proofs for the Churches infallibility to Faith it cannot be proued by Arguments as obscure or of the same Infallible certainty with Faith For then Faith would be superfluous or rather we should belieue by à firm and infallible Assent before we do belieue vpon the Motiue of Gods infallible Reuelation which is impossible Hence it is that when we goe about Haue not the certainty of Faith 〈◊〉 the Infallibility of the Church independently of Scripture Yea and also independently of all belieuâ—d Church Doctrin We must necessarily Euince this rationallâ— by reflex Arguments and Motiues extrinsecal to what we Belieue which are not of the same certainty with Supernatural Faith it self Now these Arguments what these Motiues Proue founded vpon the Motiues of Credibility can goe no further stretch them to the vtmost But only to proue this great verity That what euer we belieue either of Scripture or of the Church is most euidently Credible aboue all things proposable to the contrary And this great light the learned at least haue before they yeild an infallible Assent vpon Diuine Reuelation to the very Doctrin of the Church or Scripture either 5. I Say 2. Mr Stillingfleet and all Sectaries whilst They Belieue with an Infallible Assent the most fundamental Articles in Sectaries goe beyond that Euidence whereby they are induced to belieue Scripture goe beyond all Proportion of that Euidence whereby they are induced to Belieue And consequently must Solve their own â—eak Argument yet strong Ad hominem against them If I Euince not this Truth blame me boldly And obserue my Proof 6. The Sectary belieues that Verity which S. Iohn expresses in this short Sentence The word was made Flesh That is he belieues the Incarnation of the Son of God with an Assent so infallible that it cannot only be false but that he would not disbelieue it vpon any reason Proposable Though an Angel should preach Contrary But neither this Act of Faith nor its Formal Obiect the Diuine Reuelation are ex terminis euidently true Quoad â—s yet must be proued â—uidently Credible to reason or Faith becomes vnreasonable and rash For Qui cito credit leuis est corde Now further None can proue this by another Act or Article of Faith no more its own Self-euidence than the belieued Incarnation The Assertion Proued is All therefore which can be done is to make it euidently Credible by Motiues extrinsecal to Belief by vniuersal Tradition and the Consent of innumerable learned men who haue both conueyed vnto vs the Words as Diuine Scripture and the genuine Sense of them also But this very humane Tradition this exteriour Consent of all or what other Motiues can be Imagined preuious to Faith because fallible may deceiue Yet by the help of such fallible Motiues Mr Stillingfleets Our Aduersary Clearly Conuinced Faith if it rest's vpon the Diuine Reuelation is raised higher and stand's firmer vpon that Ground than the Euidence of his Motiues can induce to Therefore he makes the conclusion surer than the Premises And goes beyond all Proportion and degree of fallible Euidence preambulatory to his certain Belief What I Assert is manifest For by Faith he The Conuiction Manifest Sayes the Incarnation is so infallibly true that it cannot be false Yet all the Motiues which induce him to belieue Say Possibly it may be false or exclude not à Possibility of falshood And if this be not to Transcend all Proportion of his acquired Euidence nothing is to goe beyond it 7. The Argument will be yet more clear if proposed after this manner Mr Stillingfleet infallibly belieues the truth of that Scripture now Quoted I Ask by what means can he know That this very belieued Truth is à Diuine Verity or Scripture The Answer may be That 's known vpon Tradition or the publique Authority of all not only Christians but others also who haue conueyed the Book to vs. Very Another most Conuincing Proof good But this Publick Authority this Conueyance or what euer Tradition you will is either of equal infallible certainty with the Belieued Truth of Scripture Or less and much weaker If less and weaker Mr Stillingfleets Faith goes beyond all propotion and degrees of his preuious acquired Euidence Not to be answered And it be of equal infallible Certaintly That is If he belieues as infallibly the Conueyance of those Words For or Vpon Gods Diuine Testimony as he belieues the Doctrin there contained to be à Diuine Truth He makes one Article of Faith the Proof of another and euidently incurrs the Circle obiected to Catholicks as shall appear afterward When we examin his 170. Page and refute his Errour concerning the Moral Certainty of Faith 8. Now to the Obiection It is not possible That the Assent in matters of Faith rise higher or stand firmer than the Assent to the Testimony is vpon which those things are belieued Answer Very true But know Sr we Assent to matters of Faith vpon Gods Diuine Testimony and not for the Motiues
which only induce to belieue So the Primitiue Christians belieued vpon Christ's A Mistake in the Obiection infallible Testimony and built not their Faith vpon the exteriour Motiues Euident to Sense which meerly considered as Motiues only made his Testimony highly credible to Reason Viz. One Instance which none can boggle at That it was Diuine and infallible For example Some saw Others heard of our sauiours great Miracles of his admirable Sanctity And then discoursed The Man that doth these wonders cannot but be one sent from God It is true he preaches both new and difficult Doctrin to our eares But if he be sent from God we are obliged to Belieue him vpon his word And vpon that Word Their Faith relyed 9. Apply this Instance to the Church you haue all I would Say The Church is euidenced by Miracles Sanctity of life in Millions by Conuersions and the like signal Motiues Here are the Inducements which proue Her Gods Oracle and Clears all the Doctrin highly credible aboue what euer all other Societies called Christians haue Taught Yet our Faith is not built vpon these Motiues considered as Inducements but vpon Her infallible Testimony The Instance now giuen Concerning the most Primitiue Belieuers is so clear That our Aduersaries shall neuer weaken the force of it or shew the least Disparity 10. And thus you se all Mr Stillingfleets talk P. 113 Comes to nothing I desire Saith he to know whether an infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motiues of Credibility Answ And I desire to know whether an A Question answered and retorted Infallible Assent to the Apostles Preaching was grounded on those Motiues which the Primitiue Christians saw or heard of before they belieued what you say I 'll say Briefly Many learned Diuines hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphysically connexed with Gods diuine Testimony speaking by the Church and if that opinion be true the Motiues ground an Infallible Shewed also impertinent Assent but that 's Euidence and no Faith And therefore most impertinent to your following Inference If say you we affirm the Motiues ground an Infallible Assent there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of our Church infallible in order to Diuine faith For we Catholicks you hope will not deny but that there are at least equal Motiues of Credibility to proue the Diuine Authority of the Scriptures as the infallibility of our Church And if so why may not an Infallible assent be giuen to the Scriptures vpon those Motiues of Credibility as well as to our Churches infallibility Answ A strange kind of Argument 11. First Sir you know or should know Catholicks hold with S. Austin That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority How then do you say You hope we will not deny c No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other Treatise also immediatly make Scripture Credible independently of the Churches Tradition No Miracles were euer heard of No Motiues make Scripture euidently credible which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you more Canonical Scripture than that of Iudith which you reiect Did any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of Salomons Canticle that 's Scripture say you and refuse to dye for the Book of Wsdom cast out of your Canon Or was euer any soul sooner conuerted by reading the One than the other These Miracles Sr these Martyrdoms these Conuersions immediatly illustrate the Church and proue not à Part only but Her whole Doctrin to be Independently of Church Authority most Euidently Credible and worthy of belief whilst you se your Signs of Diuinity and no man knowes what imagined motiues in behalf of Scripture as little Euidence the Books you admit as those you reiect That is neither indeed haue any Self-Euidence in them abstracting from Church Authority Your Euidence therefore is à strong fancy and nothing els 12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole Canon or bare letter of Scripture you haue not any so much as probable for the Sense chiefly in Controuerted matters which properly is God's Reuelation without the Churches infallible Interpretation Speak Sr your Conscience plainly What can it auaile you or me to know that the Book we read is God's No Motiues for the Scriptures Sense word Seing innumerable false Religions by peruerse Misinterpretations are drawn from thence if that other Principle Deus â—â— dixit God or Truth it self speaks This and this particular Sense lies in darkness concealed from vs. This Principle then God speak's this Sense being the very vltimate Resoluent and last foundation of Christian Faith must when that Sense is Obscure borrow light from no dark mistaken fallible or doubtful Orade But the bare letter of Scripture is dark and grosly mistaken by Heretiques mans priuate Iudgement is fallible our comparing the Scriptures Passages together is meerly Coniectural and dubious Therefore if the certitude of Faith must rely vpon VVithout the Churches Infallible interpretation what God has spoken I mean the infallible Sense of his sacred word The Oracle which interpret's can be no other but an Infallible Church And here I both Petition and vrge Sectaries to assign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can be built seing all confess we are obliged to belieue that Infallible sense chiefly in matters they call Fundamental This Argument alone could we say no more forceth euery rational man to own à Church absolutely infallible in Her exposition of Scripture 13. From whence also it followes first that Mr Stillingfleet much mistakes Himself when he Saith Both sides I hope agree Our Aduersary mistaken that there are sufficient Motiues of Credibility as to the belief of Scriptures I answer There is not one firm Motiue for the true reuealed Sense and this only is Scripture if we exclude Tradition and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church Bring to light but one and I am satisfyed 14. It followes 2. That that half Tradition owned by Sectaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books of Scripture leaues them wholly Scriptureles and as Faithles The halfe Tradition for the barc letter as if they had no Bible For it neither grounds faith immediatly because it is not God's Reuelation but the fallible Consent of men Nor can it induce as à Motiue to belieue any one particular Article of Christian Religion without further certitude had from the same Churches infallible Tradition and interpretation Not sufficient concerning that most weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning Reiect therefore this infallible Interpreter All of vs iust like Arians Macedonians Donatists desperatly rely vpon the worst Guides Imaginable our own fallacious and vngouernable fancies and will needs learn of such giddy Teachers the pure interpretation of God's Word These we make our Oracles in lieu of Christs Church and in doing so may easily ascribe to God à Doctrin he disdain's to own and
become Heretiques by it The very hazard men run in this wilful Course is an open Iniury to the Supremest Verity vnauoidable in out Sectaries Principles 15. And here by the way you se the Vanity of that pernicious Doctrin published by them wherewith the world is Sectaries pernicious Doctrin cheated Viz. The Sense of Scripture is plain enough euen to the vnlearned in things necessary to Saluation in other matters not necessary à right Faith an vnerring Guide an infallible Interpreter See◠vseles and superfluous As if forsooth the Arians Pelagians Nestorians had not grosly erred in Points most necessary though Concerning the Clearness of Scripture they read the same plain Scripture which we all read Did the◠that supposed Clearness nothing secure them from Heresy in Necessaries Why should it I beseech you rescue Sectaries wholly as fallible from gross errours in other matters when the words of Scripture are more express against them than against the worst of Arians But hereof enough is said aboue 16. It followes 3. That no Christian has stability in Faith but the Roman Catholick for the most which others no members of this Church can know if yet they know so much is That the Books of Scripture are Gods word but with this half piece of imperfect Learning they neither know nor can belieue one particular Article of Christian Faith because that other The Roman Catholick only has Stability in Faith Principle the last Resoluent of all Belief God speaks infallibly this very Sense has no influence ouer their Assent and therefore is reiected by them as impertinent to ground Faith vpon One instance will giue you more light 17. The Arian and Protestant agree thus farr That those words Iohn 1. 5. 9. Three giue Testimony in heauen c. are Diuine Both Arians and Protestestants want à Stability Scripture yet so vary about the meaning and the difference is in à matter most fundamental that the One Assent's to the sacred Trinity for these words which yet the Other impiously denies Say now vpon what infallible Principle doth the Protestants faith stand more firm than that of the Arian Will Mr Stillingfleet say the Scripture is Clear The Arian takes him off that Plea and endeauours to obscure the passage by adding to it no small number of his Arian Glosses Next And why he Argues thus ad hominem and thinks no wrong at all done Can yee Sectaries belieue that your glosses laid vpon those Scriptures which Catholicks produce against you are strong enough to diuert and peruert the Sense or Interpretation of their Vniuersal Church and shall my glosses opposite to your Doctrin haue no force to diuert or weaken the late priuate inuented Sense of à few Lutherans What law is there for this I call it late and priuate as it comes from you for you How the Arian argues against Sectaries disdain to ground it vpon any Church Authority absolutly infallible in all She teaches Therefore it is your own Priuate Sense and not the Churches O but the Church of Rome in this particular interpret's Scripture faithfully though She err's in other matters Pitiful That is She hitt's right when You 'l giue leaue and misses when you think otherwise 18. One may Say again The whole Orthodox world euer proued the Mysterious Trinity from that alleged Passage of Scripture Contra Replies the Arian I and my Adherents who deny the Mystery hold our Selues as precious à Part of the His Argument Conuinces Orthodox world as you Protestants doe And hope we expound Scripture by the help of our priuate Reasoning and comparing Texts together as well as you Why not I beseech you Or giue à Disparity But say on And the contest is ended Haue you any Oracle which more infallibly Ascertain's you of that Sense of Scripture to be as you gloss then we haue who giue it à quite contrary Interpretation For hitherto we are both alike and expound all by our priuate Iudgements Grant such an Oracle Distinct from Scripture whereby you haue Assurance of God's meaning darkly expressed in those words you become plane Papists Own not Any Infallible you cast your Selues vpon as great Vncertainties as we Arians are thrown who expound Scripture by our own natural Discourse No infallible Church therefore no Stability No Orthodox world without an Infallible Church in faith no Stability in faith that specious word of an Orthodox VVorld Signifies nothing For this I Defend and haue Proued it if all Churches be fallible in their Definitions there neither is nor euer was since Christs time any such thing in being as an Orthodox VVorld 19. It followes 4. That as it has euer been the proper Mark or Character of all faithful Belieuers to yeild Submission The distinct Marks of true Belieuers and All Hereticks to the Churches Doctrin though weak reason conceiues it difficult so Contrarywise stubbornly to resist Church Authority has euer been inseparably the Mark and Badge of all Heretiques whether ancient or modern With this virulent Spirit they began to Oppose God's Oracle and held on for à time But as S. Austin obserues at last ended in shame Conterentur saith the Saint the battered Rock of the Catholick hitherto stand's firm maugre that Violence And their Scattered forces routed and broken as experience tells vs are brought to nothing CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 1. WHat followes in Mr Stillingfleets 3. or 4 next Pages seem's so slight that the very most is refuted by the grounds already established Yet to Comply with the mans humour we must follow him further How Saith He can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be Infallible when The sirst Argument retorted that infallibility is attempted to be proued only by the motiues of Credibility I Answer Iust as you make the Assent of the Primitiue Christians giuen to the Apostles preaching infallible So I make the Assent to the Churches Testimony infallible The Motiues are alike in both Cases if not greater for the Church 2. He Obiects 2. If Diuine Faith cannot be built vpon the Motiues prouing the Doctrin of Christ what sense is there that it should be built vpon those Motiues which proue our Churches infallibility Here is the old Mistake again I Answer therefore Diuine Faith is not built vpon the Motiues inducing to belieue but vpon the Infallible Testimony of Christ and his Church The Motiues ground the Iudgement of Credibility The Infallible Testimony Support's The second is à gross Mistake Diuine Faith Now if by this word Built you mean no more but rationally To induce I say none in this present State can be induced to belieue Christ's Doctrin reuealed in Scripture in case he reiect's the Authority of that euidenced Church which
both Ascertains him of the Canon and the Sense also Hence That other Obiection fall's to nothing How can there be an infallible Assent to the truth of this Proposition Scriptures are The third retorted and answered the word of God when that Infallibility at the highest is but euidently Credible I Answer and retort the Argument How could the Primitiue Christians Assent to the Apostles preaching as infallible when that infallibility at the highest was but Euidently Credible before they belieued 3. The whole Confusion lies as is said in not Distinguishing between Faith and the Iudgement of Credibility Infallibility therefore whether we Assent to Christ to his Apostles or to the Church all taught one and the same Doctrin is the Obiect of Diuine Faith but none euer assented to any Doctrin these Oracles taught infallibly without sufficient Euidence preuiously had A Discouery of the whole Fallacy of its Credibility And thus I belieue by Faith Scripture to be God's word because the Church Saith so But if you Ask why I hold all the Church Teaches to be Euidently Credible I Euince not this truth by the Infallibility I belleue But recurr to those Motiues whereby She is proued an Oracle as euidently Credible as euer any Apostle was And consequently I belieue Her Infallibility with the same Diuine Faith as I belieue the Words of Scripture 4. Page 114. He Obiect 's 3. We Catholicks make by this way of resoluing Faith euery man's reason the only Iudge in the Choise of his Religion Why doe we more so I beseech you than the Primitiue Christians who certainly had the very like rational Motiues with ours and no other before they belieued But of this Subiect we shall treat largely towards the End of this Discourse 5. Page 115. He Saith If the Infallibility of the Church of Rome be à sure foundation of Faith what will become of the Faith of all those who receiued Diuine Reuelations without the Infallibility of any Obiections grounded on Instance Church at all And he brings in these Instances First of the Apostles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament when Christ suffered which certainly was not Grounded on the infallible Testimony of the Iewish Church for at that time it consented to the Death of the â—essias 2. Of all that belieued the woman of Samaria no infallible Oracle when She declared the Discourse between Christ our Lord and her self 3. Of such as belieued our Sauiours Doctrin and Miracles related by men honest and faithful These Saith â—e had no infallible Testimony but only à rational Euidence to build Faith non and consequently an Infallible Testimony of the Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation is Vnnecessary to Diuine Faith which seem's vndoubted For very few in the first Ages of the Christian Church receiued the Doctrin of the Gospel from the mouths of persons infallible 6. By the way I much wonder Why Mr Stillingfleet omitted to touch here vpon an other Instance farr more difficult which both he and all other must solue concerning rude and illiterate Persons chiefly if of no great maturity who are induced to belieue by the Testimony or Instruction of their Parents or of Another Instance more difficult some other simple Teachers These certainly may haue Faith without acquiring that full Euidence of Credibility whereunto the learned reach yea and without any Discouery of the Scriptures rational Euidence neuer perhaps heard of much less vnderstood by them 7. Now I Answer to the Obiection None makes the Roman Catholick Church in all Circumstances the only sure foundation of Diuine Faith For the first man that belieued in The Church in all Cireumstances was not the only Foundation of Faith Christ our Lord before the Compleat Establishment of His Church had Perfect Faith resting on that great Master of Truth without dependance on the Christian Church For Christ alone was not the Church But the supreme Head of it Faith therefore in General requires no more but only to rely vpon God the first Veriâ—y speaking by this or that Oracle by one or more men lawfully sent to teach who proue their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed by them Euidently Credible In like manner the Apostles preached no Doctrin in the name of the new Christian Church whilst our Sauiour liued here on earth But Testified that he was the true Messias by virtue of those Signs and Miracles which had been already wrought aboue the force of nature Thus much Supposed 8. It is hard I think for any to Say where the force lies in The Mistake of the first Instance that Instance of the Apostles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament which innumerable Iewes then dispersed all Iury ouer and the other parts of the world not at all conscious of Christ's Passion most firmly belieued Why therefore might not the Apostles belieue the Diuinity of the old Scripture vpon the Authority of that Church whereof there were at that time many and very many Professors in other places distant from Hierusalem Hence I say the Belief of that Article neuer failed But was alwayes preserued entire in both Churches of the Iewes and Christians for we all yet belieue the Authority of the old Testament And Consequently its hard to Conceiue what this Obiection aymes at 9. Again admit à total Subuersion of the Iewish Church Had not the Apostles our Blessed Lord present who could well Ascertain them that he came not to Cancel any Diuine Supposed true its forceles Authority of Scripture for this was impossible vnless God be contrary to God but to fulfil to perfect and change the old Law into à better State O but the High Priest and the Elders also erred in consenting to Christs death Very true and the Reason is because their Priuiledge of not erring lasted only to Christ's comming and not longer But hence it followes not that then there was no Iewish Church which belieued the Diuine Verities of the old Scripture I verily think Mr Stillingfleet mistook one Obiection for another Perhaps he would haue said that the Apostles lost faith of our Sauiours Resurrection at the time of his Passion But this Difficulty is solued ouer The Apostles failed not in Faith and ouer First it is Answered that Article was not sufficiently Proposed to them Therefore we read Luke 18. 34. They vnderstood none of these things This Word was hid from them Again Had they failed in Faith ar that time They were then as Bellarmin obserues Lib 3. de Ecclesia C. 17. neither the whole Church but only material Parts of it nor could that improbable Supposed Errour haue preiudiced one whit the Faith of others who firmly belieued in Christ 10. That other Instance of the Samaritan woman is soon cleared if we distinguish between the Motiue or the natural Proposition The other Instance cleared by one 〈…〉 tion of Faith which comes by hearing and the infallible Oracle wherevpon it relies And T' is
strange Mr Stillingfleet saw not the Distinction The Faith therefore of those other Samaritans that belieued in Christ vpon the wonans word Vltimately relyed vpon our Sauiours own Authority who had conuersed with her And hence the Gospel Sayes Now we Belieue not for thy Saying for we our Selues haue heard and know that this man in very deed is the Sauiour of the world T' is true had this woman whom the Fathers Suppose perfectly conuerted to Christ been made an Infallible Oracle in all she deliuered The Samaritan woman proposed what She had heard as the Apostles were in their Teaching or the Church now is Her Testimony might well haue supported Faith but because thus much only can be euinced by Scripture that She â—ealously Proposed what She had heard of our Sauiour Her testimony alone might serue well as à natural Proposition to raise Belief in others though insufficient to ground in them that Supernatural Assent And her words had vpon this Account greater weight because She confirmed them with à Sign aboue the force of Nature This man has told me all I haue done I know some Authors are of opinion that this Samaritan called Photina first reduced to the Faith of Christ her Sisters and Children which done She went into Affrica and there Propagated the Christian Doctrin with great Successe till at last both She and her Different Opinions Concerning her Children were crowned with à glorious Martyrdom The only difficulty is whether She be the fame with that S. Photina whereof à memory is kept in the Roman Martyriloge the. 20. day of March some Greek Authors stand for the Affirmatiue Be it so or other wise it imports little to our present Purpose Who desires more of this Subiect may read the erudite Godefridus Henshenius Tom. 3. de Santis Martij die 20. immediatly after the life of S. Ioachim 11. Conformable to this Doctrin we Answer to these other forceles Instances and might say with some good Diuines That Other Instances Shew'd forceles all Immediate Propounders or Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation in such particular Cases need not to be Infallible For Faith as These Diuines Teach requires no more But first that the Obiect be truly reuealed and Proposed to one vpon prudent Motiues Suitable to the firm Assent Hee must elicite 2. That In Doctrin Commonly receiued by the light of such Motiues Hee be induced to fix Belief vpon the Diuine Reuelation although that full Euidence of Credibility which the Church Manifesteth and the more learned attain to be not yet acquired by him These Conditions presupposed Diuine Grace is euer ready to make that mans Faith most firm and supernatural And consequently an Obligation lies on him to belieue But from this Doctrin which is Common no such thing followes as Mr Stillingf would infer Viz. That the Churches infallibility Seem's vnnecessary to vphold infallible Faith for may not young Beginners growing more mature chiefly if solicited to abandon Their first Faith iustly demand to haue more full Satisfaction in all their doubts and so much Assurance concerning that they once assented to as not to be remoued from it vpon any false Motiues or fallacious Arguments though neuer so Specious Such cases Say these fall out euery day 12. But in this present State none can clear these doubts none can Assure any that his Faith is certainly true none can bring the most learned to à perfect acquiescency in Belief but an Infallible Church Therefore vpon this very Account The Churches Infallibility absolutely necessary Her infallibility is proued not only conuenient but absolutely Necessary And hence it is That Gods sacred Prouidence neuer failed since Christianity began to haue in readines Some one or other infallible known Oracle wherevpon faith might rest most Securely The Apostles had for their Master the best liuing Oracle Christ our Lord. The Primitiue Christians learned of the Apostles After them the Church perfectly founded did succeed as the only Oracle wherevnto euery one may take recourse for further Satisfaction when difficulties arise Though in some particular Cases as is now Said Her Motiues and glorious Miracles be not at the first laid forth most fully to euery simple Belieuer Ceteram turbam saith S. Austin contra Epist Fund C. 4. non intelligendi viuacitas sed credendi simplicitas salâ—am facit That is Candid Simplicity makes these more How young Beginners are drawn safe than curiously to search into the vltimate grounds of Belieuing The Reason is because fewer Motiues if yet prudent and Conuincing may well serue to induce Beginners seldom molested with Difficulties against Faith than will conuince Others more learned who often struggle to Captiuate their Vnderstanding when the high Mysteries of Christianity are Proposed 13. Moreouer many great Doctors maintain that in the Two Solutions more particular cases now mentioned God by his special Illumination Supplies the want of the exteriour Proposition when that 's deficient or less conuincing See Suarez Disp 4. de Fide sect 5. and this way also we easily solue Mr Stillingfleets difficulties Lastly it is noted in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. n. 5. 6. And both receiued Doctrin That whoeuer is lawfully sent to teach the Christian doctrin and deliuers those Truths in the name of God and his Church if considered as à member conioyned with Christs infallible Oracle He may be Said to teach infallibly The Reasons you haue there giuen more largely 14. I am now to retort Mr Stillingfleets Instances vpon himself and show That though he walk's neuer so far abroad to view the seueral Plantations of Faith amongst either Brittans or Barbarians he must solue his own difficulties Thus I discourse We now Suppose All these Barbarians Conuerted to Christ These instances retorted to haue had true Faith and Consequently prudent Motiues to belieue before they firmly assented to the Diuine Reuelatlon We make Enquiry after these and Ask By what Inducements were such as yet knew not our Sauiour drawn to belieue in him Mr Stillingfleet return's the strangest Answer I euer heard What our Aduersary asserts For he seem's to make his Motiues inducing to Faith nothing but the rational Euidence of the truth of the Doctrin deliuered and Therefore grieuously complains P. 118. That we destroy the Obligation to Faith which ariseth from the rational Euidence of Christian Religion If this be not pure Fancy there was neuer any and my Reason is That Supposed rational Euidence is either the very same with the intrinsecal Verity of the Doctrin deleuered or à rational intellectual Light distinct from the Doctrin If it be the very same These truths simply Proposed Christ His rational Euidence of Christian Religion is God and man Adaem infected his posterity with Original Sin God is one Essence and three Persons are without more their own Self-euidences and consequently all the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought to settle these and the like Verities
that another certainty which he call's Moral For if these two certainties be equally as strong it is Senless to establish the One and reiect the Other but the truth is in matters of beliefe moral certitude has no place as is largely proued aboue 15. Against this Discourse one may first Obiect God can An Obiection proposed oblige all either to belieue what is reuealed as infallible true to vs So that there can be no possible Deception in our Belief Or. 2. He may oblige vs to belieue His reuealed Verities meerly according to the efficacy of such Proofs as intimate to vs that God Speak's And why may not Mr Stillingf build his Faith vpon such Grounds or motiues as the nearest foundation though the vltimate Principle of belieuing be the Diuine Reuelation I haue partly Answered Either those Motiues conuince withall Of no force if the Motiues be infallible Metaphysical certitude that the Reuelation doth actually Exist and than the Difficulty ceaseth for the Assent yeilded to them is infallible Or contrarywise They are as Mr Stillingfleet supposes fallible And may stand with all their Lustre though the Reuelation really were not in Being Speak So It is most clear such Motiues cannot support Faith For all which right reason can draw from them if not absolutely infallible is thus much only That our Christian Verities according to Prudence If fallible they vphold not Faith are euidently credible But by virtue of that Iudgement we reach not as yet to the infallibility of the Diuine Testimony Therefore if God obliges all de facto to ground Faith vpon his infallible Testimony which cannot deceiue He iointly Obliges vs not to The reason hereof ground it vpon fallible Motiues which may deceiue and stand as Mr Stillingfleet will haue it although God had neuer reuealed any Christian Verity Again If we are obliged to free Christian Religion from all Possibility of falshood That is if God will haue vs to belieue it as absolutely infallible We cannot without wrong done to his infinite Verity Say he obliges vs to settle faith vpon Motiues only morally certain or absolutly fallible for thus He would oblige vs to belieue that as his own Truth which possibly may not be Truth but contrarywise à lie à falshood an Errour 16. 2. Obiect Now De facto in this present State there is no Difficulty For all iudge though the Motiues be fallible yet A second Obiection Solued God has reuealed our Christian verities Answ All do not iudge so But admit some do They iudge so by their infallible Assent of Faith terminated vpon the Verities as reuealed But antecedently to to beliefe none can iudge they are infallible reuealed truths whilst Motiues only fallible ground that Iudgement 17. A 3. Obiection Suppose Eternal truth had neuer reuealed A third proposed by no Sectary more difficult the sacred Trinity the like is of any other Mystery Suppose also that the whole System of Motiues had then stood in the same vigour and force as now they appear to vs Would not God and prudence haue obliged vs in that case to belieue as firmly the Trinity as we now belieue it I answer If the Supposition implies no Contradiction as I verily think it doth at least many hold so Prudence would then haue laid vpon vs an Obligation of firmly belieuing But what followes from hence Thus much only That poor Mortals not seing the depth of things would haue been invincibly deceiued But Deception is remote from God for his wisdom penetrat's all Truth and his Goodnes could not vpon the Supposition haue obliged any Solued The ground of the Solution to belieue à falshood or that to be which really is not Therefore he could not in the Case now supposed haue afforded Diuine Assistance to make Faith supernatural because the Obiect by errour apprehended belieuable really was not Thus much is true and God might haue obliged vs to judge That the Motiues would then haue made the Mysteries evidently credible though they were not yea and perhaps further to belieue Conditionally As is said aboue 18. A. 4 th Obiection This Proposition is true We belieue for the Motiues Or we proue that God Speak's because the Motiues apply and conuey the Diuine Testimony to vs. I distinguish the Proposition We belieue for the Motiues as Inducements to settle Faith vpon another Obiect Viz. God's Testimony I grant A fourth Obiestion solued it We belieue for the Motiues That is We ground our faith vpon them as either the nearest or more remote Obiect Why we belieue I Deny it Thus the will loues good because the vnderstanding apprehend's or conueyes good to it yet loues not the by à clear Instance knowledge which conueyes it Fire laid neer to fewel burn's the approximation burn's not but is only Conditio applicans à necessary condition applying heat which burn's So we say the Motiues auaile to make it most credible that God speak's But no more ground Faith than approximation burn's or the knowledge when we prosecute Good is the Obiect of loue 19. And here by the way you se Mr Stillingfleets constant Mr Stilling Constant Errour discouereds Errour who makes the Motiues inducing to Faith the foundation of it That is in other Terms He Confound's the Iudgement whereby we Assert the reuealed Mysteries are euidently Credible with the Assent of Faith it self And will needs haue the formal Obiect wherevpon Faith is built not only to be the Diuine Reuelation but the Motiues also though they can do no more but 〈…〉 ace the VVill guided by reason to settle belief vpon the infallibility of the first Reuealer CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauor to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnleaaned Cauil 1. FRom the Page last cited to P. 123. I find nothing in Mr Stillingfleet worth any larger Answer than is giuen already Here He tells vs That many things in Christian Religion are to be belieued before we can Imagin any such thing as an infallible Testimony of our Church It is hard to guess at his meaning for he names not one Article thus Assented to Perhaps he would His meaning obscure Say That the Verities reuealed in some books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper Signatures or Motiues as the Harmony Sanctity and Maiesty of the Style may be belieued without the Testimony of an Infallible Church If so I Answer first All this Harmony or Maiesty considered only as Obiects of Sense or as preuioussly known by their Natural Euidence thus far and not further they bear the name of Motiues auaile not to belieue any Verity in Scripture if the infallibility of the Church be reiected And therefore we said aboue this Sanctity and Harmony The Church reiected no Maiesty in Scripture can gain Beliefe are assented to by Faith only after the Church immediatly Euidenced by
of Diuine Inspiration because this Otacle saith so Then we Argue vpon à Principle proued by vs and supposed though not proued by Sectaries The Principle is Scripture is God's word We read the book which all Christians Say is Diuine And proue also from it the Churches infallibility against our Aduersaries Ex probatis concessis That the book is Diuine Here is no danger of à Circle nor any fault in this way of Arguing 8. Yet Mr Stillingfleet makes his Exceptions and will needs haue the Circle goe on against vs. You proue Saith he the Churches infallibility from such Passages Super hanc Petram Pasce oues c. But how come you to know infallibly A reply retorâ—ed that the Sense of those places is as you belieue For your Aduersaries deny any such thing as infallibility proued out of them I may Answer first by proposing the like Question How do these Aduersaries know that their contrary sense is exactly the true Meaning of the Holy Ghost Will they tell vs they think so here is all we haue from them what am I better for that When the Donatists Pelagians and all Heretiques can think as boldly as any Protestant And by their deluded thoughts vnsense as we se by experience the most choise and sacred Passages in holy writ To whom then shall we recurr in case the Sense be doubtful I Answer to the Church O saith Mr Stillingfleet Here we are got into à Circle again and though his own words see them in the page cited fine giue no force to his Probation yet I 'le help them on to all the Strength his meaning is capable of He should therefore Another Reply Answered Argue thus We belieue the Churches infallibility because the true sense of Scripture sayes she is infallible Again We belieue this very Sense of Scripture to be infallibly true because the infallible Church saith so I haue Answered The first Act of Faith wherwith we belieue the Churches infallibility is not at all founded vpon the true Sense of Scripture as yet not known in illo signo to be so much as Diuine but vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediatly credible 9. Now if we Speak of another Distinct consequent and more explicite act of Faith when we belieue the Churches infallibility vpon this ground That She declares the Scriptures geâ—â—in Sense which proues Her an infallible Oracle There is no difficulty at all Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is vltimatly resolued into and therefore again belieued vpon the same infallible Authority The sense of Scripture resolued and belieued of the Church or rather vpon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus iointly taken They ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles As if we first belieued the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation And then Vpon Scripture and Church Authority ioyntly again belieued the Churches Interpretation to be infallible because the Sense of Scripture known aliunde or without Depending on Church Authority Saith she is infallible This cannot be if Scripture and the Churches Interpretation Indiuisibly concurr to this lotter act of Faith whereof we now speak 10. Here then is à Dilemma that clear's all and free 's vs from the least Shadow of à Circle We either know or belieue the Scriptures Sense independently of the Churches infallible The Assertion Clearâ—d Interpretation or receiue it vpon her infallible Authority Grant the first There is no danger of à Circle for in case that Truth were know vpon à sure Principle distinct from the Church it would be another new and as strong à Probation of her Infallibility as if an Angel sent from Heauen should interpret Scripture to the Catholick Sense And then we might Assent to the Churches Infallibility vpon two disparate Principles which proue not one another The one Ordinary the Churches own Interpretation The other independent and extraordinary Should an Angel or Prophet sent from God interpret Say 2. We belieue the Sense of Scripture vpon the This way no two Propositions to make à Circle of Churches own infallible Authority There are no two imaginable Propositions to make à Circle of whilst that Sense internal to the letter can not be infallibly propounded otherwise then by the Church 11. Page 128. I find an vnlearned Obiection much to this Sense We Catholicks destroy all Possibility of auoiding à Circle if we proue by the Motiues of credibilty no new Reuelations Distinct from the old And this we Pretend not to For A weak Obiection in effect solued we only seek to euince by these Motiues à Diuine Assistance with the Church in euery thing She Defines but this Assistance cannot be proued from any other ground but only from the Promises made in Scripture Therefore we are still in à Circle For we belieue the Scriptures infallible because of the Churches Testimony and we belieue the Church infallible because of the Promises in Repeated Again Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church so as to secure Her from all Errour Here in Effect is the same Obiection repeated again Therefore I Answer We belieue not in the first place the Churches infallible Assistance moued therevnto by the Promises in Scripture For this first General Act of Faith wholly relies vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture because Her Testimony One Instance clear's all is made most Credible to reason by conuincing Motiues before we belieue that She is insallibly Assisted All must Say what I now Assert For before Scripture was written The Primitiue Christians belieued infallible Assistance granted the Apostles in euery Doctrin they taught being induced to belieue so by the Signes and Miracles which those blessed men Euidenced In like manner we in this present State answerable to the Procedure of these Christians hauing the same Motiues manifest in the Church may well be induced to belieue That She both now is and euer was no lesse Assisted by the Holy Ghost to speak Truth then the Apostles were for as much as concern's the Substance and Verity of her Doctrin CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffling The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communities and proue Her Infallible The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin no Mark of the Church More Mistakes and Errours discouered Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Belieues but not vpon Diuine the Testimony That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books to be Diuine 1. IN the next place Mr Stillingfleet labours to solue his Aduersaries main Argument the Substance whereof The substance of the Argument is As Christ and his Apostles proued themselues Oracles sent from God by their works Signes and Miracles Again as the Primitiue Christians
induced by such Signes belieued Christ and the Apostles vpon their own Testimony to be infallible Teachers So we hauing euer had the very like Works Signes and Miracles manifest in the Church are prudently induced to belieue Her as an Infallible Oracle vpon her own Infallible Testimony 2. To solue this plain and pressing Argument one of these What 's required to solue the Difficulty two things must be done Either à Disparity is to be giuen between Those first Signes and Miracles of the Apostles and the latter of the Church or it must be shown wherin the Inference made is Defectiue or vnconcluding Viz. That the Church euidenced by Her Signes is not proued God's infallible Oracle as the Apostles were proued by their Signes to be infallible Teachers I heartily wish any would read Mr Stillingfleet through all his long Pages of this Subiect And afterwards Gratify me so far as to Say where or in what Paragraph the direct Answer lies to either of these Difficulties I would Own it as à Singular fauour in the Interim Nothing is or can be Answered giue me leaue to Speak truth He Shuffles all along Waues the main Matter and Answers nothing 3. Thus he trifles The Church of Rome is infinitly obliged to vs could we make all good we Say Our Attempt is Heroical and generous What must men be as much obliged now to belieue your Church infallible as that Moses and Christ were so He wonders nothing at the Seuerity in our Censures of all out of our Church if to deny our Churches infallibility be an Offence of so high à nature Then he Asks. P. 129. Meer Trifles returned Whether the same Motiues of credibility belong to our Church by which Christ and his Apostles shewed their Testimony to be infallible We haue Answered Yea and proued the Assertion largely Disc 1. C. 7. 8. 9. And here press him to refute our Probations Or if he hold's them not refutable to giue à Disparity betwixt the Apostolical and our Churches Motiues 4. But he run's on headlong and to slight the Deuotion and Charity manifest in the Church talk's of our Superstitious Ceremonies and burning of Heretiques To what purpose are these More Parergons in Lieu of à Solid Answer Parergons when à Categorical Answer to the main Business is expected Is it only to giue à vulgar Reader Entertainment or to withdraw all who peruse his Book from minding where and how he would Shift off the Difficulty He shall not do it for we will follow him closely and therefore take notice of one great folly P. 130. Where he pleases to Say How much we haue befooled our selues in attempting to proue the infallibility of our Church in the same manner as Christ and the Apostles proued their Infallibility And Mark his Proof expressed in this proofles Proposition Insisting Saith he on that of Miracles as the greatest Euidence of their infallibility he means the Apostles our Church cannot with any face pretend to it Is not this Heroical and generous only to Say we are befooled and Faceles When we haue conuinced in the Chapters To say we are befooled is no Proof already cited that the Church has wrought Miracles euery way equal with those which the Apostles wrought What Doings are these May men vapour thus with their bare Assertions whilst we Proue and stiâ—l expect to haue the Arguments solued either by Reason or Authority 5. Page 130. As if one still sought to diuert à Reader with à deep piece of Learning He tells vs Mans vnderstanding because More Shifting yet finite cannot be in it self infallible without receiuing à participated Infallibility from an infinite Power aboue it And à tedious Discourse followes herevpon known to euery one but what is all this Said ouer and ouer to our Difficulty Haue we yet any Disparity giuen between the Apostles Miracles and those which the Church Euidences Or is our Inference already made any way infringed hitherto Not à word is yet returned to either and therefore the Argument stand's in its vigour without reply 6. Page 131. He saith first The Apostles deliuered not their Doctrin from Themselues but immediatly from God and consequently their Testimony must be owned infallible Answ Neither can the Church The Apostles Diuinely inspired the Church infallibly Assisted without Diuine Assistance deliuer her Doctrin as from Herselfe but from God As therefore the Apostles were immediatly Inspired to teach as they did so the Church is immediatly Assisted by the same Holy Ghost to define as she doth and vpon this account her Testimony must be owned infallible For what euer reason or Authority ascertains the one ascertains also the other And here we may come to Principles if our Aduersaries please The Proofs are equal Let them euince and t' is à Truth that the Apostles were so â—â—inently priuiledged I will lay down my Proofs by Theirs and Shew by as great Authority that the Church has her Priuiledge also of Diuine Assistance 7. He Adds. It being most vnreasonable to think that God would fauour such persons the Apostles with so extraordinary à power who A paradox should falsify their Message and deceiue the world Gentle Reader consider à little The Apostles taught the world for à few years only The Roman Catholick hath stood inuincible and taught Millions of Christians for sixteen Ages If then it be vnreasonable The Apostles taught for à Short time and Erred not yea impious to think that God could permit those first Blessed men to falsify their message and deceiue with errour for that short time Is it not I beseech you as highly vnreasonable and impious to Iudge that an Infinite Goodnes could permit the very Church he founded made glorious by Her Miracles and other Signal Motiues all which Proue her fauoured with à Power extraordinary to falsifie her Message to betray Her Trust and lead Millions of souls into damnable errour during the vast circuit of à The Church longer and grosly erred thousand yeares Consider I Say And blush at his boldnes who dare impeach this purest Spouse of falshood 8. Page 132. He goes on These Motiues of credibility were wont to be esteemed only the notes of Distinction of the true Church Church Motiues both distinguish and proue from all others and not rational Proofs of her infallibility Answ They both distinguish and proue The Apostles were distinguished from all false Teachers and proued also Oracles sent from God by their Signs and Miracles The like we say of the Church whose Marks and Miracles are not inferiour to those the Apostles manifested and far more Numerous Shew vs à disparity if you can or be silent hereafter 9. Page 132. I find nothing but first leaue giuen Bellarmine to multiply his fifteen Notes of the Church to fifteen hundred A sting at Bellarmine to no purpose How comes this to the Purpose Or what need is there of multiplying when One of those
Fifteen and I le tell you which it is the Churches glorious Miracles hath so silenced Sectaries that none of them all has hitherto attempted to return any better answer than this Bellarmine thou lies't He Saies 2. The only certain Note of the true Church is its agreement with the Primary foundation of it in the Doctrin whâ—ch was infallible and attested by miracles vndoubtedly Diuine This is à strange Note or Mark which cannot be distinguished from the thing Marked as the Motiues of Credibility manifestly sensible are distinguished from the Doctrin belieued 10. Answer therefore Good Sr is this Agreement with the Primitiue Doctrin it s owns Self Euidence as à Mark should be Or do all dissenting Parties accord thus far That anciently such That 's made à clear Mark â—as the Primitiue Doctrin but now is changed from it selfe into another new Learning Most euidently no. For the whole contest between the Church and Her Aduersaries may these be â—eard is whether of vs Professe the Primitiue Doctrin laid in the first foundation of Christianity This point then being yet disputable for so Sectaries will haue it it is meer folly to make it à Mark whereby to distinguish truth from falshood And there is which Sectaries must Say is yet disputable and obscure no clearing it from Improbability vnless you say Sectaries more â—iâ—e then the rest of the world can exactly tell vs who those Christians are that now agree with the Primitiue Doctrin and who dissent from it But others as wise as they want faith to belieue such bare Assertions without Proofs and Principles In à word there is no knowing what the Primitiue Doctrin was nor can any now haue infallible certainty of the Apostles Miracles without à Church actually in Being and Infallible 11. He saith 3. If our Doctrin be repugnant to what was Originally 〈…〉 ered by the Founder of the Christian Church our Society is not the Conditional Propositions here Proofless Christian Church Answ No more Sr is Yours if it be repugnant But To what purpose are these Iss and conditional Propositions when Proofs are expected from Accusers Proue you if you can but doe it vpon sound Principles that our Doctrin is repugnant to that which was Originally deliuered you are Conqueâ—our and we no more Catholicks but Sr à hundred more of your Volumes will neuer Euince this 12. He demands 4. whether we cannot conceiue à Church should A fallible Church cannot be Consonant to Christ's Doctrin be Consonant to the Doctrin of Christ without being infallible Answ No truly T' is impossible and here is the Reason because in à lesse space then one Age there would be as many Religions in such à Church as there are Townes or villages in it And perhaps more And is not this manifest in England where almost euery year we haue à new Religion coyned Therefore to Imagin à Society of men vnited rogether in the belief of Christ's infallible Doctrin without an infallible Oracle to teach is à meer Chimera O but euery Man in this fallible Society is bound to take care of his soul and to belieue the infallible Doctrin of Christ I Answer If to take care of his Soul necessarily implies the Belief of Christ's infallible Doctrin it is impossible to take that care because he can haue no infallible Assurance of Christs Doctrin without à Church which teaches it infallibly Hereof enough is said aboue 13. Page 134. He desires to haue such Miracles wrought as may conuince Infidels as to the point of the Churches infallibility Answ He has all he can desire The Blind se A Parallel of Miracles The Dumb speak the Deaf hear The Dead rise vp to life again were our Sauiours own Miracles and conuinced Infidels but these are our Churches likewise as is largely proued Disc 2. C. 8. What would the man haue more 14. Page 135. To his no little disgrace without any Proof at all he scornfully slights that euident and most known Miracle An Euident Miracle slighted wrought at Zaragosa in Spain But enough of this aboue Disc 2. C. 9. Here I can add hauing it from à right Honourable Person yet liuing who heard His Maiesty Charles the first Say in the presence of many others The cure of that young Man at Zaragosa was certain Some herevpon Proposing à further Question whether it could be thought à Miracle His Maiesty Answered be it as you will the thing was done The leg cut off and buried was certainly restored again 15. In the same Page he Questions whether the Motiues we produce belong only to our Church But grant Saith he they do belong its hard to find the connexion between them and Infallibility We haue Answered to the first No Society of men can shew the like Motiues and therefore vrge Mr Stillingfleet to produce his Euidence That is To proue they The Conneâ—ion between Miracles and Infallibility euinced belong to any other Society But to the Roman Catholick Church only The other point concerning the Connexion Nicodemus à Prince of the Iewes Iohn 3. V. 2. long since cleared Rabbi we know thou art come à Master or Teacher from God for no man can do these Signs which thou dos't vnless God be with him Was then our Sauiour proued by the works and the Miracles he did à Master sent from God to teach And did these Signs conuince reason that God was with him when he taught None can deny it Therefore none can doubt ' but that He was also proued infallible by Virtue of His wonders And consequently the connexion between them and infallibility hold's good But The true Inference the Church and here is our Inference Euidences the very like Signes aboue the force of nature therefore reason concludes that She also is proued Infallible Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is either obliged to find à flaw in the consequence or to giue à Disparity between our Church-Motiues and those other Primitiue which he neuer goes about to do 16. I meet with nothing in His. 136. Page but loud vntruths Another Parergon to diuert the Reader concerning our Doctrin of Pennance as if we indulged sin here and yet gaue men hope of Heauen hereafter It is à Calumny euery one knowes we teach no such Doctrin and â—n this place à meer Parergon besides I therefore slight it and take notice of another straying out of the way P. 137. where he Speak's thus The Principles of any Conclusion must be â—f more credit then the Conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles â—f Faith The Trinity and Resurrection be the Conclusions And the Principles by which they are proued be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it â—ust needs follow That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Articles of faith if the Faith we haue of those Articles should be finally resolued into the veracity of the Churches Testimony 17. This Difficulty not well digested either Proues nothing or makes euery Resolution
of faith void For suppose I belieue Euery Resolution made null by this Obiection the Trinity because God hath reuealed the Mystery plainly in Holy Scripture I Ask whether God's Testimony supposed the Principle of belieuing be more infallible then the Trinity which is belieued vpon it here called the Conclusion Say The Diuine Testimony is more Infallible I 'll Affirm the very same of the Churches Proposition For what the Church speak's God speak's Answer No. And giue this reason Because we belieue the Testimony and the Mystery attested by one Indiuisible certain Act of Faith which tend's infallibly vpon both these Obiects at once without making Conclusions The difficulty ceases And hereby you se How the Churches Testimony is the Clearer Principle first How the Churches Testimony is à Principle to the thing belieued For euery one knowes that à Formal Obiect compared with its Materialâ— which lies in darkness is the greater Light and has the preheminence to be immediatly known For it Self and not for another Whereas the material Obiect would still remain in à State of obscurity and neuer be yeilded to but by the Energy of its formal Motiue In this sense therefore the vltima ratio assentiendi or formal Obiect may be well called the more certain Principle Though as I now said the Assent be indiuisibly terminated vpon both Obiects infallibly 18. You se 2. Where the mistake of our Aduersarie lies He Supposes faith generated by Discourse First that we belieue The Mistake discouerd the Trinity for example vpon one Principle Viz. The Churches Tradition or Testimony and then descend lower to belieue the same Mystery vpon God's Reuelation distinct from the Churches Testimony As if forsooth the Churches Testimony were an â—xtrinsecal condition preparing all to belieue vpon the Diuine Reuelation This must be intended or nothing is said to the Purpose now we vtterly deny the Supposition and Say when we belieue the Trinity or any other particular Mystery vpon the Churches Testimony or rather vpon this reuealed truth God speaks so by the Church We then elicite not two distinct Acts one depending on the other but with one One Indiuisible tendency in Faith indiuisible tendency of Faith belieue at once the Formal and Material Obiect together That is we belieue God speaks the truth by the Church which is to say we Assent to it because he speak's it by his own infallible Oracle 19. This one syllogâ—sm clear's all What the Church Saies is true The Church Saies God has reuealed the Trinity Ergo that 's true We resolue the Maior or first Proposition thus What the Church saies iâ— true That is What God speaking by the Church saith is true But God speaking by the Church Saies the Mystery of the Trinity is Ergo That 's true Where you see we only Discourse could Faith be so generated which some Diuines Assert from the Formal obiect or from Gods Reuelation to the Material belieued Now Mr Stillingfleet makes this Sense of the Maior Proposition and here lies his Errour that the Church Saies of Her self not including Gods Reuelation is The Errour more Clearly pointed at an act of Faith and true But the Church of her own sole Authority saith God reuealed the Trinity Ergo I must first belieue the Mystery by one act of Faith vpon the Churches Testimony as à Preparatiue to belieue it better vpon Gods pure Reuelation which is another distinct Formal Obiect from the Churches Testimony This Discourse is implicatory First because the Churches Testimony if separated from the Diuine Reuelation can ground no act of Faith 2. If which is true it only cooperates with or consummates the ancient Reuelation in order to the Belief of any Mystery it can help nothing to bring in à Conclusion wholly as obscure as it self is That word Conueyance beguiled Mr Stillingfleet for he thought if the Churches Testimony conueyes vnto vs the ancient Reuelation What beguiled thy Aduersary it must be excluded from being infallible and much more from being à ioynt Motiue with it Herein lies his Errour 20. It is difficult enough To Say what He would be at in his two next pages Some times he will haue no want of Euidence in faith as to the Reason inducing to belieue And if he means That what we Assent to by faith must be euidently Credible before we belieue it s à Truth but if he will haue the very act of Faith elicited to be euident the Apostle Heb. 11. 1. Faith implies Obscurity contradict's him For Faith is an Argument of things not appearing Sometimes again he saith the Assent is not requried to what is obscure and Vneuident And then to mollify the Proposition add's But what is euident to vs And theresore credible In à word Obscure Doctrin if he intend's thus much only That the euâ—dence of credibility precedes the inâ—â—dent act of Faith all is well But by one Instance we may guess where he err's The manner of the Hypostatical vnion Saith he is to vs ineuident wherevnto God requires not our Assent but to the truth of the thing it selfe Answer good Sr Is the truth of the Hypostatical vnion in it selfe or of the Trinity euident to vs Where lies that Euidence The truth of the Trinity euident to no Belieuer Or vpon what Principle is it grounded Hereticks are found that for the very difficulty of these ineuident Mysteries deny both And the best Orthodox Christians ingenuously Profess they so far Surpass all natural capacities That ther is no assenting to either but only by an humble submissiue Faith which essentially implies Obscurity If therefore what you say bo true We may lawfully suspend our Assent where God giues not euidence of the thing Assented to you may Consequently suspend your Assent and neither belieue the Trinity nor the Incarnation 21. Page 140. He demands why we belieue the Resurrection of the dead We Answer because God reueal's it An Obiection Proposed But Questioned again why we belieue that God hath reuealed it We Answer because the infallible Church saies God did speak it whereby it is plain that though our first Reply be from God's Authority yet the last Resolution of our faith is made into the infallibility of the Churches Testimony For though God had reuealed it yet if this Reuelation were not attested by the Church'es infallible Testimony we should not haue sufficient ground to belieue it Therefore the Churches infallibility must be more credible then the Resurrection of the dead 22. To giue à Satisfactory Answer please to hear what I demand also Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour is Answered by Scripture it selfe the true Messias because Christ spake the Truth with his own sacred mouth Iohn 4. 26. And if he belieues Scripture He Assents again to that truth vpon S. Iohns Testimony And so firmly belieues it that if the Euangelist or some other of like authority had not wrote it he could not haue
belieued S. Iohns Testimony or that our Sauiour Spake those words Here is our solution God long since said the dead shall rise but this Ancient Reuelation being remote from vs if solely considered cannot moue vs to belieue the truth vnless an Infallible Oracle Ascertain vs that God once spake it iust as S. Iohn assures all that Christ said I am the Messias Ask now â—hy Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour vttered those â—ords He will Answer God speaking by S. Iohn an Infallible An Application of the Instance clear in Scripture Oracle Affirms it So I say God speaking by the Church an Infallible Oracle affirm's the Resurrection of the dead O but independently of Church Authority we know the resurrection is reuealed in Scripture Contrariwise we know nothing of our Sauiours words but from S. Iohns Testimony Answ we know indeed the Resurrection is asserted in à Book called Scripture But that the Assertion is Diuine or vttered by Eternal Truth we haue no more Infallible certainty without the Churches Testimony Then if any vulgar Samaritan without Diuine Assistance had said Christ spake those words I am the Messias 23. By what is now briefly touched you se first That as our Sauiours own words and S. Iohns reflex Testimony vpon them concurr Indiuisibly to the Faith of these Aduersaries So the reuealed Verity of the Resurrection in Scripture And the The ancient Reuelation and the Churches reflex Testimony Churches reflex Testimony which infallibly Ascertains vs that it is reuealed may well indiuisibly concurr as one compleat Motiue to our faith whereof more hereafter I say indiuisibly And therefore this Faith vltimatly resolued relies not first vpon Scripture only as our Aduersary conceiues without any relation to the Church and then rest's vpon the Churches Concurr indiuisibly to Faith Testimony as vpon à distinct Formal Obiect but by one simple Tendency it pitches on both together 24. You se 2. It s hard to Say what Mr Stillingfleet would haue when he tells vs. This Principle The Church is infallible must be more credible then the Resurrection of the Dead If We clearly distinguisâ— what our Aduersary Confound's he mean's the Churches Testimony is to vs in this present State the more known and nearest Motiue wherevpon the Faith of that Article is grounded we easily Assent But if he think 's we must first Assent to Scripture which asserts the Resurrection and own that as Diuine or the only Motiue of Faith without all Church Authority attesting it to be Diuine He err's not knowing our Doctrin For we Say no Scripture can be infallible An improper Speech assented to as Diuine independently of the Churches Testimony Again those words More Credible are improper if applyed to the Formal Obiect of Faith For the Formal Obiect terminates Belief the Credibility whereof goes before and is grounded on the preuious Motiues inducing to belieue VVhether we Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Title of the Chapter discussed Vpon what ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 25. In many following Pages we haue little but that the Churches Infallible Testimony must be called the Formal Obiect of Faith whereof something is said aboue And you shall haue more hereafter 26. P. 149. He thinks we Argue like men squaring Circles when on the one side we make Scripture obscure yet on the other giue it light enough to proue the Churches infallibility And then he talk's of an Apocalyptical key hanging at the Churches Scripture Proued Diuine Conuinces the Churches Infallibility girdle able to vnlock all the Secrets in it To the first I haue Answered Thus much Supposed that Scripture is proued Diuine we haue so great light from the seueral Passages thereof to conuince the Churches Infallibility that no glosses of Sectaries shall euer obscure them To the Ieer of the Clauis Apocalyptica I Answer Some one or other must vnlock those high secrets when t' is euident innumerable Heretiques by à wrong key wrest Gods word to most pernicious Senses The Question is whether you Sr or the Church must rurn the key 27. Page 152. After thanks giuen for our Coleworts so often serued â—y Those mute Persons the good Motiues of credibility He is Brisque Ieâ—rs and empty words and in earnest resolute to solue our Argument Asking before hand Whether it be not enâ—ugh to be in à Circle our selues but must â—eed's bring the Apostles into it also Reflect I beseech you We said aboue that the Apostles induced by the Signal works and Miracles of our Sauiour Assented to his sacred Doctrin as most infallible In like manner The Primitiue Christians induced by the works and Miracles of the Apostles belieued them to be infallible The force of our Argument Oracles Therefore we also in this present State hauing Motiues and Miracles of the same weight and Euidence in the Roman Catholick Church Belieue with à firm Assent of Faith that She is God's Oracle and her Doctrin most infallible The short Answer to all this saith Mr Stillingfleet is That the ground why the Christians did Assent to the Apostles Doctrin as true was because God Wholly waued gaue sufficient Euidence that their Testimony was infallible in such things where such infallibility was requisite Pray Consider well whether this be not à gliding or rather à plain running away from the Difficulty We haue vrged all this while the Parity between the Churches Motiues and those of the Apostles We haue proued and yet plead That the Euidence is à like in both The Churches most manifest Signes are The blind se The lame walk The dead rise Diuels are dispossesed c. And these termed by you vnsauory Coleworts and mute good Things were the Apostles Signs also Are not you therefore obliged in all law of Disputation What all law of Disputing requireâ— either to proue and vpon sound Principles indeed That we falsly appropriate such Motiues and Miracles to the Church Or if you cannot disparage so illustrious an Euidence to shew à fault in this Inference The Church is known as well by her Signs to be an infallible Oracle 28. Now mark how we are put off with half an Answer God â—y you gaue sufficient Euidence that the Apostles Testimony was infallible None doubt's it But Say on what want do you find of the very like Euidence in the Church Her Miracles are as manifest Her Conuersions as Numerous and more Her fame as renowned Her name as Catholick finally might we vse your scornful language Her Motiues no mute Persons speak Nothing like an Answer giuen aloud and Her Colewarts are euery whit as good as those were the Apostles serued vp To this you Answer not à word but first tell vs with your Aduersary that the Apostles confirmed their Doctrin with Signs that followed by which Signes all their Heares were bound to aknowledge them for
as à true Prophet sent from God before they belieued many other Verities which afterward were taught by that great Master and learned by them 14. Note 3. In the Resolution of Faith into Church Authority we vnderstand not in the first place the Church Representatiue VVe vnderstand by the Church the whâ—le moral body of â—hristians vnited in one Faith VVhat the Beliefe of Councils presupposeth consisting of the Head and Members conuened in General Councils but rather this whole large diffused Body of Christians vnited in one Beliefe all ouer the world Wherein the way to Saluation is laid forth to all The Reason of my assertion is first Because that more explicite and distinct Faith had of General Councils Connaturally as wee now said presupposes the other General Truth assented to Viz. This manifested Society of Christians is God's Church and the only way to Saluation and the truth is assented to by Faith antecedently to the beliefe of the Churches Representatiues 2. Because all Catholicks asfert that the whole Moral Catholick Body consisting The promises in Scripture belong Properly to the vniuersal Church of Pastors and Hearers cannot totally err or Swerue from Christ's Sacred Doctrin Whence it is That those Promises of the Gospel Hell gates cannot preuaile against the Church The Spirit of truth abides with it for euer most Properly and Primarily belong to this one diffused and vnited Society of Chtistians To the Pastors as Teachers to the Hearers as Schollers or Learâ—ers And if the First according to Christ's promise teach infallibly the instructed must learn also infallibly And thus the whole Moral body guided and directed by the Spirit of Truth is that stronge Fortress wherevpon all must rely at last if à â—ight account be giuen of Faith or the true Analysis be made Neither can what is now said Preiudice in the least the infallible Authority of the Church Teaching I mean of the Pope and Council assembled together for this notwithstanding is most properly called the Church has and hold's the keyes whilst it vnlock's the Mysteries of Faith and laies open Explicitly A lawful Representatiue properly the Church also our Christian Verities Children teach not Layicks teach not weomen teach not Therefore the Church Representatiue properly teaches although it be not first known viâ Analyticâ that is when faith is brought to its last Principles 15. Note 4. When Sectaries demand where doth the Church taken vniuersally as one diffused Body teach that She is Infallible or that She deliuer's Gods truths Whilst yet neither Scripture nor Councils which teach so are reflected vpon or known in All Oracles sent by God to teach were first made Credible by Motiues that Priority of nature when we belieue that great Moral Body is an infallible Oracle If this I Say be demanded I Answer by proposing à like Question Where did Moyses where did the Prophets or Apostles explicitly and signally Say at their first Appearance VVe are Infallible wee are the sure Rule of Faith and because we say it you Hearers are obliged to belieue Not à word to this Purpose What then was done God Honoured And so the Church was and iâ— yet and priuiledged such Persons with Miracles and other visible supernatural Wonders These Euidenced They actually taught the truth and were credited vpon their Teaching not because they Said in Actu Signato They taught it but because really they did so in Actu exercito and confirmed all by Signs from Heauen And thus the Church teaches to this present Day and gain's Beliefe CHAP. XIII Protestants haue no Faith to resolue And vpon that account are freed from à vicious Circle Some yet are in à Circle Two Sorts of Sectaries refuted 1. I Proue the first part of the Assertion The Protestants supposed Faith is either reduced to the Beliefe VVhat the supposed Faith of Protestants is of their own Negatiue Articles No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Altar No Purgatory c. Or to à Faith common to all called Christians which consists in belieuing One God and one Iesus Christ as à Redeemer This or something like it must be called Faith common to all For to belieue the Sacred Trinity the Incarnation with other great Mysteries is no common Faith because many deny these Articles Now my Assertion is What euer can be conceiued out of the The Obiect of this Faith must either be their Negatiues List of these Negatiues or is not inuolued in that Common Faith ceaseth to be an Article of Protestancy as Protestancy For example To belieue one God is à Tenet common to Iewes Turks and Christians That 's no Article peculiar to Protestants To belieue the Sacred Trinity and the Incarnation is common to Catholicks Protestants and other Heteredox Christians therefore no singular no Special Protestant Doctrin Besides these imagin whateuer can be Imagined you must either Or à Doctrin Common to all Christans pitch vpon things which no Christian has obligation to belieue or finally vpon such Doctrins as Catholicks own and are disowned by Protestants 2. Thus much Supposed it is demonstrable That the Protestant has no Faith to resolue who first doth himselfe so Their Negatiues no reuealed Verities much Iustice as to Cashiere all his own Negatiue Articles from being truths spoken by Almighty God which therefore are not resoluable into the Diuine Testimony because God neuer reuealed any of them Again his Articles common to all Christians without more cannot be resolued into Diuine Reuelation vnless he first excludes with the Arians The beliefe of The Trinity and Incarnation as not necessary to Saluation And afterwards proues by plain Scripture or the Authority of an Orthodox Church that such an Abstract Doctrin wherein Catholicks and all Heretiques agree is sufficient to saue Souls But to Euince either by Scripture or any Church Authority will be wholly as impossible as to proue that the Negatiue Articles are Doctrins reuealed by God 3. Vpon these grounds my Proposition stand's so firm that none can contradict it For if whateuer they doe or can belieue A Doctrin Common to all as Vnsound aâ— their Negatiues as Protestants be euidently such Doctrins as God neuer reuealed it 's manifest they haue no Faith to resolue and consequently are easily freed from all danger of à vicious Circle But this is so For cast away Their Negatiues All that remains as matter of Beliefe to them can be no other but the Common faith now mentioned Or if they require more as necessary to Saluation That More will either be Confessedly no Their particular Doctrins no reuealed Truths Doctrin reuealed by God Or not peculiar to Protestants For example Suppose the Protestant layes Claim to these two Articles Scripture Contain's all things necessary to Saluation Or thus VVhat Scripture speak's plainly is the Protestants Doctrin and no morâ— I say first Neither of these Articles are Confessedly truths reuealed by God And this I assert not only because
Writings being owned as Containing in them the whole will of God so plainly reuealed that no sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for Saluation There can be c. First its false that the whole Will of God is plainly reuealed in Scripture And An Vntruth Supposed had we no more but Thus much only Viz. The vast multitudes of Christians who zealously defend that sense they Conceiue of Scripture yet contradict one another in Points most Though the Assertion were supposed true it helps not Protestants Essential Proues it false whereof enough is said in the seueral parts of this Treatise But let that Pass Suppose it à Truth The Propositions or Proofs must run thus No sober Enquirer can miss of knowing God's will or of what is necessary to Saluation Now add this Minor But the Protestant only is the sober Enquirer For No Arian No Pelagian No Quaker No Papist soberly enquires excepting the Protestant Thus much must be Assumed or to the General Proposition Vnapplyed help 's the Protestant no more then others that execrate his Doctrin For if these or any of them may be listed among the number of sober Enquirers The Reason hereof its ridiculous to exclude all and yet reiect Protestanism The general Proposition for ought appears yet may be applyed as well by euery one to his particular Religion as by the Protestants to Protestancy Therefore it signifies Iust Nothing before à right Application be made by distinct Proofs to the One only true Religion Some may reply euery Man is to enquire and Answer for Himselfe Pitiful That 's to Say we must alwaies be Scepticks euer learning and neuer well taught Weak reason and fancy are thus made Sectaries after their long Enquiry haue no Vnion in Faith our Doctors if this Principle be owned Se Disc 2. C. 17. Per totum In the Interim know this long inquiring after one whole Age brings no vnion in faith to Protestants who are as the world Sees at endless Iarrs amongst themselues 20. The 16th Principle Opposes such Men as pretend to infallible Assistance without giuing an equal degree of Euidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did by Miracles as great as publick and conuincing as these were Answ This This Principle is first against Protestants Principle is quite besides the matter First because Protestants own à Church infallible in Fundamentals without giuing an Euidence equal to that of Christ and his Apostles Why then may not such an Euidence as proues the Church Infallible in Fundamentals be further extended and induce All to belieue Her Infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches 2. The Principle Secondly false is falfe We haue Apostolical Euidence in the Church euer since those Primitiue times as is largely proued Disc 1. C. 14. 15. 16. And Disc 3. C. 3. Lastly it is no more Thirdly though Supposed true it help 's not Protestants but à Proofles Assertion against the Church which laies claim to Infallibility And cannot though it were true aduantage Protestancy one whit Please to obserue my Reason Suppose the Catholick Church and the Protestant party were like one another equally fallible vpon what Principle can the fallible Protestant Party plead better or Say more for his Cause then the Supposed fallible Roman Church in behalfe of Her Doctrin Both of them as is proued in the second Discourse would in this case be à Publick scorn to Iewes and Gentils whilst they The reason hereof Conuinces Out-braue one another with the Meer Nothing of fallible Principles And which is euer to be noted can stand on no surer Ground then what is fallible and may be falfe if no Church be owned Infallible 21. In the. 17th Principle we are told its absurd to pretend the necessity of an Infallible Assistance to assure vs of the truth of Scripture And at the same time to Proue the Assistance Nothing yet for Protestancy from those writings from which nothing can be certainly deduced Answ Here again is nothing for Protestancy For Suppose which is false we proue not an Infallible Assistance Are therefore Protestants in à better condition then Catholicks How The Churches Infallibility is first Proued But to speak truth the Doctor wholly Mistakes we proue the Churches Infallibility independently of Scripture Read Disc 3. C. 5. In the. 18. Principle we hear talk again of the best Means for vnderstanding the Scripture but whether we Catholicks Arians or Protestants happily light on 't is not so much as hinted at by the Doctor wherefore I Said aboue these Generalities proue nothing without à neerer Application made by Proofs yet more immediate 22. The. 19th Principle The Assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may giue them greater Assurance of the truth of what is contained in Scripture than it is possible for the greatest infallibility in any other persons to doe Supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility Answ All this were it true is to say Iust nothing concerning Protestants vnless they be supposed the only Men who sincerely desire to know Gods Will for if any other called Christians Sectaries gain nothing by this abstract Principle of à different Beliefe be as Sober Inquirers or desire as earnestly to know Gods vvill as Sectaries What gain they by this remote abstract Principle Now to Suppose all other Christians negligent in the Inquiry after God's will and Protestants only the zealous Seekers comes neerer to à bold Presumption than to any thing like the nature of à Principle In à word here you haue all The Application to the Protestant Faith is wanting But what will you The Doctor cannot Vnless they Suppose Themselues the only sober Inquirers Want of Sense be drawn to plead for his own cause Finally sense is wanting in that last clause Supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility Which is only to Say Supposing the Church be not Infallible Catholicks cannot belieue Her Infallibility 23. The 20th Principle No Mans Faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be Infallible Answ But if This Principle concern's not Sectaries the Proponent be both Said and Proued Infallible and this is amply proued Faith with the Assistance of God's Grace may well yea and must depend vpon it and be infallible Howeuer let all here Said pass There is yet nothing drawn from the Principle more concerning the Faith of Protestants then of the More then the Arians Arians Obserue well Both hold the Proponent of Faith which is the Church Fallible Make now the Inference Ergo the Protestants Faith seem's more sound then the Arians is à pure Non-sequitur not at all Deducible from this Principle alone nor indeed from any other 24. In the three folloing Paragraphs 21. 22. 23. You haue only gross Mistakes though if all were true Protestancy has None can infer if Taith be
haue neither Inference nor Principle In very reallity neither true Consequence nor Consequentia No Inference because it s à meer Tautology or à bare repetition of what the Doctor had formerly asserted without Proof or Probability And Consequently far enough from the Nature of either Principle or Inference Had the Doctor brought in any thing like an Inference He Should haue Said Vpon such and such grounds already established It followes that these and what Should be proued these particular Doctrins of Protestants are true and immediatly deduced from this or that Principle But he totally abandon's the Protestants Faith and leaues his Fellow-sectaries as faithless as they were before he wrote these Principles The True Inference therefore or all that followes is that he hath lost his whole Labour 2. The. 2. Inference The Infallibility of that Society of men yet no Inference who call themselues the Catholick Church must be examined by the same Faculties in Man the same Rules of trial the same Motiues c. Answ Here is no Inference but the same thing repeated again which for the substance lies in his 6th Principle what Reason is to examin Now if we Speak of this Doctrin considered in it Selfe we easily grant that the rational faculties in men both may and ought to examin by the Light of prudent Motiues what Society of Christians is Infallible as also what Diuine Reuelation is made euidently Credible to Reason But herein à double Caution seem's necessary The first That Sectaries assume not to themselues the sole Faculty of examining and iudging but leaue to others à share of it also The second A twofold Caution to be obserued Prouiso is that Reason in this Search go not beyond its Bounds but pitch vpon that which is Reasons proper Obiect I mean vpon those Signatures of God's own Visible Wonders already explained These two Conditions obserued All is well Sectaries will soon Se their Errour 3. The. 3. Inference deduced out of no Principle falsly No want of Motiues and Miracles in the Church Supposes but proues not the want of Miracles and other conuincing Motiues in Roman Catholick Church It is largely refuted vpon seueral Occasions in euery one of these three Discourses 4. The fourth Inference From whence it comes I know not is thus The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and reason which any Church obtrudes vpon the Faith of men The greater reason men will haue to reiect the A Speech like that of Iewes and Arians Pretence of Infallibility in that Church as à grand imposture Answ Had à Iew who hold's it against Sense and Reason to belieue that God became an Infant Or had an Arian that denyes the Trinity because the Mystery seem's repugnant to his weak Reason Spoken after this manner None would haue much wondred But that à Doctor who pretend's to belieue these Fundamentals of Christian Religion Cannot find roome enough in his head for reason and Faith in euery particular the Church Teaches argues some little want both of the One and Other But say on what is it he boggles at O à Consecrated Wafer appear's to be bread and is not bread this is repugnant Sense beguiled to sense and reason Contra. Those two Angels that came to Lot Gen. 19. appeared to the Sodomits like mortal men but were not so Was not Reason here vpon the suggestion of Sense How rectifyed beguiled And are not both these faculties now rectifyed in vs by what we read in Holy Writ which ascertain's vs they were not men but Angels Thus it fall's out in the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament Wherefore I Say Were it not that God Speaking by Scripture and the Church assures vs that what we se is not substantianly bread the whole world would guided by outward Appearances hold it bread as those wicked Citizens iudged Lots entertained Guests to be men and not Angels But when eternal Truth interposes his Authority and tell 's vs by his own Oracles what is here contained vnder the Forms of bread is God in this Mystery interposes his Auâ—hâ—rity and vnbeguils reason not bread but Christ's Sacred body Reason yeilds vpon this most prudent Ground It is the highest reason in the world to belieue God though by reason we know not how things are Here is our Principle not possibly to be reuersed vnless the Doctor proues his Contrary Doctrin by the Authority of another Scripture or some other Church more euidenced by Supernatural Wonders and Consequently more Orthodox than the Roman Catholick Church is You may read the First Discourse C. 12. n. 4. where its Proued that the immediate Obiect of Sense Ceases not to be in this Mystery 5. Wherefore I Infer that if the Doctor would haue the Infallibility of that Church reiected as à grand Imposture because A hint giued to Iewes and Arians to reiect the Scriptures Infallibility it obtrudes vpon vs Doctrins in his Opinion repugnant to Sense and reason He ought also by good Consequence to Inuite both Iewes and Arians to reiect the Infallibility of Scripture as à grand Imposture where it Speak's of the Incarnation and the Sacred Trinity for certainly these Mysteries are far more aboue all Mens weak Reason then this other of the Blessed Sacrament is 6. The Doctors 5th and 6th Inferences deserue no such names because they are not deducible from any Principles being Vntrue Assertions in place of Inferences only his own plain Assertions and most vntrue Say I beseech you From what Principles can He infer That to disown à Church which teaches Doctrin aboue the reach of weak Reason is not to Question the Veracity of God but to adhere to that in what he hath reuealed in Scripture How can this be done Whilst the whole No knowing what Scriptâ—re Speaks without an Infallible Church world see 's the holy Book of Scripture so variously Sensed by dissenting men called Christians that none can conclude vpon any clear Principle which sense is true which false without owing à Church Infallible I Say aboue the reach of weak reason But not repugnant as the Doctor supposes For no Catholick Verity can be repugnant to Euident reason though much aboue it In à word That Doctrin is repugnant to Reason from whence two Contradictions clearly follow now I vrge the Doctor to giue vs any thing like à Contradiction in the Mystery already What 's Contrary to Reason mentioned of the blessed Sacrament That Doctrin is aboue Reason which cannot be known by the ayde of natural Principles only And thus the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity of the Incarnation of Original sin and Transubstantiation also are so far remoued from our natural faculties that none but God only can discouer them by his Supernatural Reuelation The 6th Inference And What 's aboue it where the Doctor tell 's vs That the Church of Rome neither is the Catholick Church nor any sound
I boldly Assert you The reason hereof may iustly cast away that Class of Orthodox Believers and call all rhe Christians in the world according to Sectaries Idolaters or known professed Heretiques Catholicks you se are listed amongst Idolaters because they Adore Christ in the holy Eucharist as the ancient Orthodox Graecians did Those Graecians yet of the Schism pray to Saints that 's plain Idolatry Say Sectaries The ancient and modern Graâ—cians supposed Idolaters The rest of Christians nameable the whole world ouer from Luther to the third or fourth Age whether Macedonians Pelagians or Arians were all professed Heretiques These and none but these Imagined Idolaters and known Heretiques à Monstruous heteroclite Progeny of men essentially constituted Christ's Orthodox Church Therefore he who proues Euidently that Catholicks The rest were Hereticks are Idolaters and rightly supposes All others called Christians to haue been Heretiques Proues and rightly Supposes Christ The Inference clear against Sectaries to haue had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thousand years which is à desperate Improbability deduced from our Sectaries Principle who blush not to charge an ancient Church with that Shameful crime of Idolatry though no Proof meanly probable as we shall se hereafter much lesse Euident vphold's the Calumny 11. Some may here demand why we require to haue these Why Euidence is required supposed Errours and Idolatry of our Church euidently proued against vs Is it not enough to euince this vpon moral Certainty The First Question is easily answered by proposing another of the like nature Would not these Protestants iustly require An Instance taken from Scripture proues what is required Euidence from à new Sect of men should it now start vp and pretend on the one side to belieue in Christ yet on the other as boldly impute errour and Idolatry to the holy Book of Scripture as Sectaries do to the Church They would certainly not be satisfied with lesser proofs then euident Hence it is that we in like manner exact neither Topicks nor guesses but clear Euidence against the supposed errours of our Church and reasonably do so First because She by God's Special Prouidence hath hitherto preserued Scriptures pure without Corruptions in Doctrin 2. Because all must own Scripture as both Diuine and pure vpon the Authority of Christ's Church Therefore It as highly concern's all to defend the purity of Christ's Church as the purity of God's written word it as highly concern's Christians to maintain the purity of Christ's Church as to maintain the purity of Scripture And Consequently if nothing lesse then Euidence can bring that Sacred Book into contempt or Euince it of errour Nothing lesse then Euidence can cast à blemish on the Church which giues vs Scripture and ascertain's all that it is Diuine 12. That other Pretence to moral Certainty is à meer whymsy reiected aboue in the second Discourse The Reason there hinted at much to this sense Conuinceth A Doctrin in Matters of Religion Contrary to the Publick Iudgement of the whole Christian world cannot be morally Certain But what Sectaries The pretence to Moral Certainty refuted Assert Concerning the Errours and Idolatry of the Church is à Doctrin Contrary to the publick Iudgement of the whole Christian world Ergo. I proue the Minor One great part of the Christian world is the Roman Catholick Church She stifly opposes this loud Calumny of Idolatry and errours laid to Her Charge Add herevnto the Sentiment of the Chiefest and the most A Doctrin Contrary to the publick Iudgement of the world known Arch-heretiques Who whilst they were in their wits that is before their wicked Apostasy Iudged as the Church Iudged and belieued as she belieued This Vniuersal Consent of an Euidenced Church together with the Sentiment of Her once Orthodox Members though afterward wilful Reuolters I call Cannot be Morally certain à Iudgement of Christians so publick and vndoubted that nothing Contrary to it can be morally Certain Giue me but one Instance of any Truth reputed Morally certain amongst men which euer What may well be called this publick Iudgement merited that name when witnesses so vniuersal so numerous and well qualified opposed it and I shall acquiesce But this is Impossible 13. Here again fitly comes in what we now Sayd of Holy Scripture Suppose which is true that your Chiefest Arch-hereticks once reuerenced that sacred Book as God's Diuine The Instance concerning Scripture introduced again word with the same high respect as the Roman Catholick Church euer did and yet doth Suppose 2. That Some Abetters of those first wicked men whether Arians Socinians or Others should begin to charge the Book with false Doctrin would such à supposed Calumny thinke ye euer arriue to so high Moral That Sacred Book cannot be iustly calumniated Certainty as to bring Scripture into open Contempt whilst à whole learned Church defend's its purity No the Calumny would not be meanly probable vpon this Ground that neither Probability much less Moral Certainty can stand in force when whilst à whole Church defend's its purity Witnesses of so great worth so vniuersal and numerous oppose it Apply what is here noted to the Church and you will find an exact Parity Both She and her own Arch-aduersaries once maintained Her Doctrin as Sacred and Orthodox Now rise vp à Company of iarring Sectaries who will forsooth haue their Charge of Idolatry and notorious Errours against Her passe for No more can à few iarring Adversaries iustly Calumniate the Church à Moral certain Truth The Assertion cannot arriue to moral certainty before the whole Body of Christians becomes mad and makes Scripture it selfe no lesse an erroneous Book than the Church Idolatrous For here is my Principle With one most certain Assent I hold the Church inerrable and the Scriptures Diuine Destroy the Churches infallibility or Say she hath erred you make Scripture eo ipso à Book of no credit 14. A. second Argument Those who exactly follow the A second Argument taken from the procedure of old Condemned Hereticks strain of all old condemned Heretiques and as wickedly implead the Roman Catholick Church of errour are vpon that account like them that is guilty of horrid Sin and Heresy But Protestants do so Ergo they are guilty of horrid Sin and Heresy The Maior is vnquestionable For if our Modern Sectaries exactly close with the mode of all condemned Heretiques it followes thas as those first Apostates for their malice were guilty of Heresy so also these latter are 15. The Minor is easily proued Your ancient Heretiques Our Sectaries accuse like them rebel and would reform as they did accused as boldly the Roman Church then in Being of errour as our modern Sectaries do the present Church They rebelled against it and deserted it so do our Protestants They sought to reform it so would our Protestants For example The Arians were as earnest to reform the Churches Doctrin
very Calumny without more and their own vnproued Suppositions serue both for proof and Answer We demand Again Questions proposed â— when the Church failed when or in what Age the Church became thus accursed and traiterous to Christ They fob vs off with fooleries of beards growing Gray and weeds peeping vp in à garden inperceptibly Is not thy ridiculous We Ask. 3. Seing the world was neuer Since the Apostles preached without an Orthodox Christian what other pure Church succeded in place of Roman supposed Idolatrous How many different Churches will Sectaries own why Should the Protestants Reformation be better then that of the Arians Society what other pure Church succeeded in place of the Roman now supposed Idolatrous and heretical None hitherto has offerred to answer this Question nor can it be Answered vnless Sectaries admit two or three distinct different Churches The first Primitiue and pure the second corrupted which came in when the Roman Catholick began her supposed Idolatry The third again pure and spotless which closely followed the Roman fallen into Errour And this is à meer chimera We lastly demand why this Protestant Reformation should be more lik'd more look'd on or held any wayes better then those precedent Reformations of their elder Brethern the Donatists or Others Will it be said Protestants came after the rest or in the last place and therefore think themselues more skilful the only gifted men in this business of mending Religion Plead thus I answer They speak improbably and are worse then all their Predecessors vpon this very account that hauing For one weighty reason it is far worse seen the Malice the weak Attempts the vnlucky successe of defeated Heretiques in former Ages will not learn by such woful examples to be more wise and wary then to run the Risque with them and thereby to incurr God's heauy Indignation 29. Whoeuer desires to make à further inspection into that The improbability of Protestanism further declared in à very vnequal Parallel The first reuerenced the other scorn'd The one hath à head the other is headles Tradition teaches the one fancy the other The one far and neer diffused the other hid in corners Councils and no Councils Vnity and Diuisions visible Pastors and inuisible Compared together high improbability which other Christians Charge Protestancy with may please to compare à little our Catholick Religion with this other late risen Nouelty If things be well weighed without Controuersy so euident that they need no Proof The first will be found alwayes reuerenced and neuer opposed by Orthodox Christians Contrarywise the other will appear an obiect of scorn not only to the wisest of the world but also to innumerable that professe it against their own Consciences The One hath an Ecclesiastical Head for its Guide The other is an vngouernable Body without head or ioynts to tye its iarring parts together The One shewes you manifest and most euident Miracles The other if euer nature wrought Miracles à Miraculous boldnes to deny the greatest wonders God hath wrought by the Church The One teaches what it anciently receiued by à neuer interrupted Tradition The other what is suggested by euery Priuate Phansy The one is diffused the whole world ouer The other only Creeps vp and down in à few Corners of these Northern parts in so much that some Religious Orders are further extended than Protestancy The One hath had seueral Oëcumenical learned Councils The other neuer any learned or vnlearned The one still retain's à strict vnity in Faith the other manifestly is torn in pieces with Diuisions The one giues you à large Catologue of its ancient visible Pastors and visible professors for full Sixteen Ages The other cannot name one Protestant Village nor one Protestant man before the dayes of the vnfortunate Luther 30. The one hold's its Catholick deceased Ancestors worthy respect and veneration The other makes them all besotted Idolaters Respect and à high dishonour and worse then mad men The one Religion Stand's firmly built vpon plain Scripture and the Authority of an euidenced vniuersal Church The other vtterly vnprincipl'd has not one word of Holy writ for it nor either vniuersal or particular Church which euer taught Protestancy The one has Principles and no Principles An Interpreter and no Interpreter Faith and no faith Infallibility and fallibility à An ancient Possession an open vrong Diuine Assistance and no Diuine Assistance à Mysterious Bible and à certain Interpreter the other à meer body without à Soul the bare letter without life words without sense and Phansy to Interpret The one resolues its faith into God's infallible Reuelation the other has nothing like Faith to resolue The one Religion Proues its truths Infallible The other seek's for fallible Doctrin and has found enough of what is both fallible and false also An Ancient Possession vphold's the One and à publick iniurious rebellion against the Mother Church giues the other all the Right it hath The Professors of the one proue God to haue been the Author of it who yet preserues it vnalterable and pure by Diuine Assistance The Professors of the other say plainly that God neuer reuealed one Article of their reformed Protestancy and therefore need no Diuine Assistance to preserue it The Professors of the One shew you à Church gloriously marked with Signes and Wonders peculiar effects of God's Infinite Power and Wisdome which make the Religion euidently Credible to Reason The Professors of the other in lieu of such Marks Shew you A glorious euidenced Church and a meer Naked Nothing parallel'd à bare Naked Nothing without Miracles without Conuersions without austerity or any thing that appear's like à work of God in it and therefore is most euidently incredible 31. Thus much for an Essay only which might be further enlarged but its needles for you haue euery particular proued in the Treatise here in your hands If our Aduersaries hold themselues or cause iniured whilst we so highly extol the one What 's required if our Aduersaries hold their Cause wronged Religion and extenuate the other to Improbability it will methinks be very easy to right Both by shewing plainly vpon sound and very sound Principles wherein our mistakes lie or in what substantial Matter we haue erred But still remember Principles 32. What I here propose Seem's reasonable and 't is done for this sole end Almighty God knowes that after our long The sole End why we propose this Debates it may at last appear to euery one on which side Truth stand's Now if vpon so faire an Offer we haue nothing return'd but Sectaries wonted strain of Cauils trim'd vp with pretty ieers I for my part haue done and shall in place of Arguing further mildly exhort as Blessed S. Austin once did in We exhort with Blessed S. Austin à like Occasion De Vnit. Ecclesiae C. 19. fine Sâ— auâ—em non potestes quod tam iuste à vobis flagitamus ostendere Credite veritati Conticescite Obdormiscite à furore expergiscimini ad salutem If you Sectaries cannot Conuince our Church guilty of errour by vndeniable Principles this we iustly require Belieue Truth Let your weak Attempts and fury sleep Surcease from this friuolous And appeal to their own guilty Consciences charging vs with Heresy and Idolatry You know Gentlemen you know full well we are no Idolaters your own Consciences tell you your Plea is naught your Cause vndefensible Expergisâ—imini ad Salutem Wake open your drowsy eyes and look about you 33. You se our Noble England set on fire by your vnfortunate dissentions concerning Religion bring your teares to After â— long drawsy sleep its time to wake quench the flames You se your Selues vpon your different Engagements some brain-sick with Fanaticism some with no man knowes what worrying one another Wonder nothing it must needs be so whilst you are out of the peaceable Fold of Christ's vnited Church You haue been too long Prodigal Children straying from the house of God return with à hearty Peccaui A tender Mother the Catholick Church is willing to receiue you and à good old Father Christs Vicar vpon earth as ready to embrace you with open armes You se Atheism enters and is rife among you pernicious Leuiathans and other like Monsters range vp and down and poyson innumerable How Should it be otherwise Atheism followes vpon what you haue done For those who Separate from the true Church soon Separate from Christ also and cannot after that double Diuorce long Continue Friends to God Wherefore once more Expergisâ—imini ad salutem be The Authors hearty wish vigilant Hora est iam nos de somno surgere it now high time to wake Your Concern is no less à Matter then eternal Saluation My earnest prayer is that Christ our Lord the Light of the world may break through the thick cloudes of all darken'd hearts and with the radiant beams of Diuine Grace illuminate euery one Ad salutem to endles Bliss and Happines FINIS
but à Protestant opinion To assert 3. That the Ancient Church was right in faith And the present Church not or That She hath imposed meer Opinions to be belieued by Christians in place of Articles of Faith is à flat Calumny an improbable opinion which neuer yet was nor can be grounded vpon any rational Principle And can these opinions think ye which all Catholicks reiect pass for the grounded Essence of Protestancy They must or it has no Essence at all And mark well As they proceed with vs here so they doe in all other Controuersies They tell vs not only the Creeds but Scriptures much more contain all things necessary to Saluation That 's only their Opinion They tell Particular Proofe Thereof vs Their Belief now and that of the Primitiue Christians for the first Three or Four Centuries is one and the same It is their Opinion meerly And demonstratiuely vntrue They tell vs They own à Church before Luther but to say where or when it was distinct from the Roman Catholick or as They Imagin much larger than the Roman is only an Opinion and most improbable In à word They are euery where so narrowly confined That whether they build or destroy Impugn our Religion or offer to establish their own They neuer get out of the reach of Their own tottering improbable Opinions 8. And because I find this strain runs through Mr Stillingfleets whole Book He cannot surely be iustly offended if for my better Satisfaction concerning his Rational Account I require his rational Answer to one Question which I hold very reasonable Thus I propose it You Sir defend à Religion called Protestancy You allow it some essential Doctrin distinct from Popery and all condemned Hereticks Your Title supposeth this Doctrin well grounded The grounds of Protestant Religion Answer I befeech you giue me first without fumbling that Doctrin peculiar to Protestancy which essentially makes it à Religion Giue vs the Specifical difference of it if 't haue any And A question proposed to Sectaries Next Ground this Doctrin be it what you will vpon the vndubitable Authority of some known Orthodox Church Orthodox Councils or vniuersal Tradition but Fob vs not off with your vnproued Opinions Tell vs no more of belieuing Creeds only The Scripture only the Four first general Councils only without more these Onelies we except against Yet doe you only thus much as I now require T' is easily done if your cause be good And I will recall what euer I haue written against you And craue pardon for my rashnesse But the Catholick knowes well because Heresy can haue no grounded Doctrin This task is impossible I am now to shew the Protestant the impossibility of it also 9. Imagin one who belieues the Creeds as the Sectary pretend's to doe yet so That interiourly And from his very heart He abiures and slights all those Negatiue Articles called the opinions of Protestants I speak not here of his exteriour demeanour nor Countenance his dissembling i' ft be so My Question is this Whether such à man haue internal essential sufficient faith to make him à true belieuing Protestant He hold's himself one vpon this conuincing Reason That he firmly belieues what euer the Professors of that Religion maintain Sectaries must make meer Opinions their Articles of Faith as both essential and sufficient to Saluation Besides He knowes well No obligation lies on him to belieue by Faith the Negatiue Articles of Protestants neither can he because God has not reuealed them Such à man therefore hath compleatly essential Faith enough and is à true belieuing Protestant or if he be not yet got so high or haue not the Protestant Faith compleatly necessary and sufficient to saue him He must help it out by belieuing some one or other Protestant Opinion And Consequently the Belief of Opinions must either constitute him essentially à Protestant Or He will neuer be one yet this is most vntrue for God obliges none to belieue vnreuealed Opinions as Articles of Faith 10. We must goe yet further Suppose this man belieues the Creeds The Roman Catholick Church and euery particular Doctrin She teaches iust so as the best Catholick Belieues And whereas before He only slighted the opinions of Protestants now in place of them he firmly adheres to the Contrary Catholick Positions viz. To The Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation An vnbloody Sacrifice Praying to Saints worhiping of Images And in à word to all that the Church obliges me to belieue The difficulty farther vrged This man in heart is certainly Catholick I Ask whether he is yet à true belieuing Protestant In our Sectaries Principles Hee is For first he belieues his Creeds or Doctrin Common to all Christians And there is the Essence of their sauing Faith O but all is spoiled by belieuing the Church And what euer Doctrin She teaches Why so I beseech you why should this spoile all if in Conscience the man Iudges Her Articles to be reuealed Truths A Catholick you say may be saued Though he belieues thus much Therefore there is no reason to damn this man vpon any Account of his want of Faith For the Faith of His Creeds saues him And the beliefe of our Catholick Articles ruin's not that Faith Ergo. Again You must say His abiuring your Negatiue Opinions doth not Vnprotestant Him if he belieues the Creeds why then should the firm adhering to our contrary Positiue Catholick Articles which you call opinions make him less Protestant You may reply If He hold's them only as opinions He is still Protestant But we now suppose He belieues all as Articles of Faith Very good This then followes ineuitably Not to belieue them as Articles of Faith besides Owning the Creeds essentially makes him Protestant Ergo This also followes To belieue some one Negatiue or more then the Creeds Formally express Add to them the common Doctrin of all Christians The four General Councils c. is essentially necessary to Constitute him Protestant Now This very More which is nothing but à Sectarian Opinion essentially enters in to make him Protestant or Hee shall neuer bee one Thus much I intended to proue and I hold it proued demonstratiuely 11. You haue what I would say plainly laid forth in this vnanswerable Dilemma He who iudges all the Negatiue Articles of A dilemma Protestants false And belieues the Contrary Positiues taught by our Catholick Church As reuealed Truths is yet Protestant or not If not the belief of some thing els Truth or vntruth is essentially requisite to make him Protestant But the belief of That be it what you will now superadded to Constitute him à Belieuing Protestant is no Truth reuealed by God But only à Protestant Opinion without which he wants the Essence of that Religion Ergo most euidently the Belief of Opinions essentially constitutes him à belieuing Protestant Consequently some Doctrin which God has not reuealed makes him Protestant And the belief of his Creeds is not Faith