of the Mass Colain Print 1620. dedicated to our late Soueraign Charles the first then Prince of wales Tract 2. Sect. 8. P. 208. and sect 11. page chiefly 252. Hauing perused both the Gentleman wondred his little book passed ouer so slightly the main thing considerable in this Dialogue and that no word of answer was returned to the obseruations of Mr. Brereley adding it would do well to make the truth à little better known which is my intent at present 13. First it cannot be doubted but that the Eutychian Two Contrary positions Heretick concealed vnder the name of Eranistes held our Lords whole Sacred body after his Ascension changed into his Diuinity Contrariwise Theoderet called Orthodoxus oppugn's the Heresy and saith Christs body remain's as it was before true humane nature most glorious and not conuerted into the Diuinity Again all who haue read the Dialogue know well that the context to our present purpose is as followes After the Orthodox had professed his belief of the Holy Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ Eranistes the Heretick begin's his plea. In good time has't thou mentioned these Diuine Mysteries for from them I will shew Where the Hereticks seek's aduantage thee that our Lord's body is changed into an other nature Answer therefore to my question Ortho. I will answer Eran How call'st thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest Ortho I may not speak plainly for it is likely some are present not yet admitted to the Mysteries Eran Answer darkly or aenigmatically Ortho It is yet when offered that meat which is made vp of such seeds Eran And how do we call the other sign or Symbole Ortho That is also à common name which signifies à kind of drink or cup. Eran But after the Sanctification how dos't thou call them Ortho The body and blood of Christ Eran And dos't thou belieue that thâ—â— What the Orthodox and the Heretick belieued receiues't the body and blood of Christ Ortho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I belieue Here vpon Eranistes infer's As therefore the Symbols of our Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests inuocation and after his inuocation are changed and made other things euen so the Lords body is changed into the Diuine substance 14. Stay à little Gentle Reader and speak your thoughts freely Is it not euident from this part of the Dialogue the rest you shall haue presently that both the Heretick and the Orthodox did here suppose the verity of Christs real presence in the sacrament as à known Doctrin receiued in the Church The Heretick supposed it otherwise he had been more than sensless to haue proued his pretended Transubstantiation of Christs humane nature into the Godhead by vrging à parity taken from that other Doctrin of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body His inference had been without life most languishing had he drawn the false Doctrin of his conceited change from an other as false viz. From no real change made in the bread after consecration For how lame an inference would this haue been Bread in the Sacrament remain's as it was before substantially bread only deputed to à holy vse that is not really changeâ— The Heretick supposes à true Change in bread according to the Catholick Principle at all yet from thence I will conclude that Christs humane nature is really changed into the substance of his Diuinity As who should say Because bread is not substantially changed into Christs body I will infer that the humane nature is changed into the Godhead which is pure nonsense And as greâ— Nonsense would it haue been had he only supposed the extrinsid sacramental change of Protestants or from thence drawn his inference that Christs body was really changed into his Diuinity For the most which can be inferred out of this sacramental changâ— only is that Christ's humane nature admit's in like manner oâ— some new extrinsecal denomination 15. Now that Theoderet or the Orthodox supposes also the known Doctrin of the Church in this Mystery is manifest vpon these grounds 1. You see how he was prouoked by the Heretick to deny the real presence and change of bread into Christs body After sanctification how do'st thou call them Again Do'st thou belieue that thou takes the body and blood of Christ c Obserue I beseech you Might not Theoderet thus strongly pressed haue quite ouerthrown his Aduersaries argument had he belieued as Protestants belieue that the inward substance of bread is not changed into Christs body For vpon this supposition he should haue replied Thou ask'st me what these things are after sanctification I answer they are substantially bread Theoderet also supposes à real change and wine though signes of Christs body and blood I answer I take not Orally the true body and blood of Christ but bread and wine only made à Sacrament If therefore they still remain bread and wine as before I acquit my self clearly and render thy argument forcelesse for thou cans't not infer because I and the Church hold bread and wine not substantially changed in the Sacrament That Christs humane nature is really and substantially changed into the Diuinity But Theoderet as you hear return's no such answer but positiuely asserts the contrary plainly enough They are the body and blood of Christ I receiue that body and blood c. Though he warily forbeares to express the change too significantly because perhaps of some present not yet admitted to the Mysteries Again And here is my 2. ground Theoderet who was an Orthodox Father penned this Dialogue and therefore as the learned Brereley obserues neither could nor would haue propounded Clear reasons proue that supposâ—tion the hereticks Argument vpon the Churches then receiued Doctrin of Transubstantiation which we see manifestly done had that Doctrin been then strange vnknown or reputed false Much less could he haue wrote as he doth That the Symbols after the Priest's inuocation are changed and made other things had our Sectaries Doctrin of no Transubstantiation been then taught by the Church and reputed true 3. Theoderet's great circumspection was needlesse I may not speak openly for it is likely some are present c. If he had belieued no other presence of Christ in the Sacrament than that which Protestants call Sacramental He might well without scruple in that opinion haue declared their sense and said openly The Sacrament before consecration was à plain piece of bread and so it is substantially bread afterward Thou speakest improperly Erâ—nistes whilst thou supposest the Symbols changed and made other things I tell thee they are not changed intrinsecally but totally remain in their inward substance as they were only signifying Christ body and blood as they are deputed to à holy vse Thus the Orthodox should haue both answered and excepted against his Aduersary had Protestant Doctrin been in those dayes owned by Christians but he goes on in à quite different
and both as you see stand opposite to Mr Stilling weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason 6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome In. 1. Cor hom 24. Other Authorities Chrisostom Pachasius Damascan who saith The kingly body in heauen is set before vs on earth We touch it and do not only touch it but eate it This body the barbarous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling Thou add's the Saint See'st him not now in the manger but on the Altar not held in à womans arms but by à Priest present c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg he explain's himself further Truly this table supplies the place of the manger for here also is our Lords body laid Paschasius à latin author who liued about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence à nd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. Sanguine Dm'i that the Centurist's Cent. 9. C. 4. Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen Pag 288. and other Sectaries charge him with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christs body No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. whose discours on this subiect though long is most significant As bread saith he naturally meat and wine and water by drink are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drink 's So this bread proposed the wine and water also by the inuocation and comming of the Holy Ghost are in à miraculous manner conuerted into Christs body and blood neither are they two but one and the same Our Lord himself hath said This is not à sign of my body but my body This is not à sign of my blood but my blood Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. reiects the Doctrin and call's this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. Iohn Damascen slight and fabulous sodo other Sectaries with him also 7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr clear noted First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who liued with our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn seem's to me vnanswerable Epist ad Smirnen not far from the beginning They saith he that is certain Sacramentarians admit not Eucharists and oblations because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins and his Father graciously raised from the dead So Theoderet 12. ages since Tom. 4. Dialogo 3. reads And Iaac Vossius who followes the Florentine Copy differs little or rather nothing at all None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear 8. The second authority as pregnant is taken out of S. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for Christians vsually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant Apology Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour by the word of God was made flesh and haed for our saluation flesh and blood so also after the same manner we are taught that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with thanksgiuing of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ which was Incarnate And for proof hereof he allegeth Christs own words This is my body This is my blood Thus S. Iustin speak's who liued not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin I know some Sectaries Cauil at the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by transmutation The sectaries Cauil answered and think Iustin held the Eucharist to be food for the body but his sense is clear for he saith only That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation is made after consecration the very body of Christ and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus Pag 368. translates Iustins S. Iustin's true sense words out of the Greek thus Sumimus autem hunc panem hunc potum non vt Communem sed eo modo quo edocti sumus Iesum Christum seruatorem nostrum habuisse pro salute nostra carnem sanguinem sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro sanguis aluntur post benedictionem ipsius esse carnem sanguinem Domini That is in plain English The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incarnate Sauiour Conformable hereunto Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenaeus aduersus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. Iustins words Sic per verbum precationis gratiarum actionis sacratam ab ipso alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes sanguinem Illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse didicimus The Interpreter also I follow significantly renders the same sense Alimoniam vnde c. The food from whence from which or where with we are nourished this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate Iesus Well but admit that Iustine call's the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies How some Fathers call the Eucharist Nourishment to the body he makes it not therefore Corporal food but Spiritual which nourishes them to à ioyful resurrection or to immortality and thus the other Fathers chiefly S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus finem speakes Quomodo saith he rursus dicunt c How do these Hereticks plead again that our flesh shall come to corruption and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord where with it is nourished Again Sic corpora nostra c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are not corruptible hauing hope of à ioyful resurrection But enough of these authorities Whoeuer desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his 2. book of the Holy Eucharist Out of what is said already I argue 9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also haue most impiously betrayed Christs cause in deliuering false Doctrin contrary to sense and reason or worthily defended à Christian verity Grant this second we haue our intent But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief and impiously erred in their expressions Ponder first what à frontles impudence accompanies the reply Next make this true inference It is impossible that such à supposed vniuersal errour should euer be rased out of A Conuincing Argument the minds of men by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à receiued Principle For what proofs or vndoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture our Tradition the sentiment of the Church and the iudgement
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
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
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
strain as is already declared Hence I say this part of the Dialogue is so inuincible à proof against Protestants in behalf The Centurist's Censure Theoderet of the real Presence that it cannot be answered and therefore the Centurist's with other Hereticks quoted by Brereley pag. 111. and pag. 258. hauing charged S. Chrisostome with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation censure Theoderet vpon the same score as one that speak's dangerously in the matter These men it seem's saw no great force in the later part of the Dialogue which our modern Protestants so much vrge and followes thus 16. When Eranistes had asserted that the Symbols by the inuocation of the Priest are changed and made other things and from that change inferred that our Lords body after his Ascension was conuerted into the Diuine substance The Orthodox Answer 's Thou art caught in the netts thou hast wouen Theodoret's Assertion For the Mystical symbols after Sanctification go not away from their nature For they remain in their former essence and figure and form and â—â—y be seen and touched aâ— before But yet they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made and belieued and adored to be those things as they are belieued Thus the Latin interpreter render's Theoderet's words you shall haue presently an other Lection though truely to read them as you see here after due reflection made vpon the precedent part of the Dialogue is so fully enough to ascertain euery one of this learned Father's meaning that I wonder any iudicious Man can scruple at it The genuin sense is Thou Eranistes maintain's that the visible circumscribed body of our His whole sense declared Sauiour was after his Ascension swallowed as it were vp or totally changed into his Godhead To illustrate this thy Doctrin thou takest à proof from the Mystical signes or Symbols of the blessed Sacrament and not only from the inward substance of bread which thou acknowledgest changed I tell thee thou art caught in thy own net the parity fail's there for the Mystical signes remain to sense as before in the same exteriour form and substance they are seen felt c. Darest thou Eranistes say Christ's sacred body retain's yet the same exteriour form it had on earth Has it yet in Heauen the same dimensions as these symbols haue after Consecration Is it visible or extended Answer as thou pleasest Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma for thee Either thou maintains't that A dilemma Chris'ts glorious body is now visible and extended as the Symbols of the Sacrament are Or contrariwise not sensible not seen not extended Grant the first Thou denies't thy own Doctrin and must assert that his whole glorious body is not conuerted into the Godhead Grant the second or say it has not the same exteriour form the same visibility and extension Thy instance and proofs taken from the Symbols of the Sacrament are Eo ipso made null and forcelesse for these signes keep the same form as before they are perceptible to sense extended c. and thus thou art both caught and conuinced 17. By what is now said you find Theoderet's discourse most solid against the Heretick who would needs infer grounding himselfe vpon the change made in the Sacrament that Christ's whole humane nature was conuerted into the Diuinity Thus much saith Theoderet is euidently false for these Symbols remain in their exteriour form vnaltered but Chris'ts humane body with thee remain's not so for all in it the very exteriour is changed into the Godhead Therefore thy proof taken from the symbols Theoderet only speak's of the Species or accidents remaining of the Sacrament not changed at all is void of strength faint and weightlesse Now that Theoderet speak's only of the outward symbols of the Sacrament is manifest First by what is noted already where he saith we are partakers of the true body and blood of Christ 2. By his answer to the Heretick where he openly professeth that though these symbols are seen and handled as before yet to the vnderstanding and Faith they contain the things we truely belieue That is Christ's real body and blood And thus much He proues in the following words where he asserts that they are to be adored no otherwise than Christ's immortal body is now adored sitting at the right hand of His Father for in both places as you may read in the text the same word of Diuine honour is referred to Christ in the Sacrament and now glorious in heauen 18. You must here haue à word of the other Lection already hinted at which clear's all and takes away the least shadow of à difficulty The most eminent and learned Cardinal Perron propound's it and proues it also absolutely the best by six stronge Arguments Liu. 2. De L'Eucharistie Chap. 12. P. 539. First Theodorets Text dubious saith he There is certainly in Theoderet's Greek Text à dubious form of speaking perhaps vsed on set purpose because of some Auditors present not yet initiated or first instructed in these Mysteries The Original words are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is The symbols remain in their former essence and figure and form and may be seen c. But read them thus saith the Cardinal by à Transposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is For they remain and iâ— the form and in the figure of the first substance and all difficulty How the Cardinal read's ceases For by this construction Theoderet only sayes the accidents or species of bread and wine remain intimating nothing at all of any inward substance of bread remaining nay his whole context supposes the inward substances changed into Christs body 19. If this Construction be admitted so that the Genitiue case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be as it is à Genitiue and the other two follow in form of Latin ablatiues you haue this Connatural sense Manent in priâ—â—â— essentiae formâ figurâ The Symbols remain in the form and figure of their first essence which preiudices nothing the real Transmutation of bread into Christ's body but much confirm's it But such à Construction add's the learned Cardinal or Transposition of words is not only possible but very frequent in the Greek Language whereof he giues examples and one out of Theoderet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is The body of our Lord of the nature In lieu of saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est The body of the nature of our Lord. 20. The Cardinal maintain's the construction now giuen both as the more elegant and most agreable to Theoderet's whole context for many sound reasons Here is one taken from the Authors very next words But they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made and belieued and adored How Adored As they are truely belieued That is as containing the true body and The reason why he read's so blood of Christ For were this not really so Christ could not be adored For as
neither the words nor the sense bear S. Cyril saith Do not consider them as meer bread and wine Then he tell 's you positiuely what they are For they are the body and blood of Christ Now your Gloss designed for à higher vse to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers first Deads the very life of Cyrills words and then run's into nonsense I therefore Ask whether What is bread and wine to exhibit the body and blood of Christ this gloss Bread and wine exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers saies Bread and wine really changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee are after that change as really Christs body and blood as that water was really wine after Christs Miracle If your gloss say thus much you are à plain Papist if lesse it s none of S. Cyrills Doctrin for the Saint deliuers this as significantly yea and more fully then I now express it I well vnderstand S. Cyrills sense by his words but for my life I know not what you mean by your particle Exhibit Tell us I beseech you How do bread and wine Exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Do they only mind vs of his body and blood A Crucifix representing our Lord bleeding on à Crosse can well serue for so much Do they shew or point vs out à Real presence of the same body and blood vpon the Altar which are now in heauen If so Belieuers haue an obiect of Faith and that truth to fasten on which the Church teaches but if your word Exhibit saies or signifies less then this or only expresses your euer yet concealed Sacramental presence you cheat the world with ambiguous dark Term's and in good earnest know not what you say 15. Answer therefore What is Christs body and blood to be Sacramentally present when really they are not vpon the Altar but absent in Heauen only The question deserues an Answer For you Sr distinguish between à Sacramental and à Corporeal Presence you grant the first and deny the second That which you grant is à Presence of Christs body and biood distinguished from the Catholick Real or as you call it Corporeal Presence Vouchsafe to enlighten vs à little concerning it which you page 574. seem to Our Aduersary is vrged to declare his sense make real There is say you à Real presence of Christ in and with them that is in and with bread and wine to the souls of Belieuers Very good Giue vs I beseech you the total Obiect which these Souls haue before them when they belieue à Real presence of Christ in and with bread and wine vpon the Altar Is this obiect Christ himself whom they pull as it were by Faith out of Heauen at the time they receiue your piece of Bread No. Christ still in Heauen is yet Locally distant and therefore not really present in and with bread and wine Vnless he be in two places at once And Consequently the Faith of these Belieuers has no real Obiect present to fasten vpon Is it that Christ is present in the Signes of bread and wine as Caesar is in his Image Pitiful He is thus present in euery Crucifix though really distant millions of Miles This no way makes him actually there in and with bread and wine as you Assert Doth finally this your Obiectiue presence imply only thus much that Christ by his power though really absent work 's the same effects in à worthy Receiuer as if he were actually there No. For he works the same effects and though absent produceth grace by the Sacrament of Baptism as if he were present dare you Therefore say he is in as peculiar à manner Really present in and with the water of Baptism as he is in this Sacrament in and with bread and wine Yet more Such à Moral The Sectaries Sacramental Presence contradict's all Authority Presence directly contradict's Christ's words This is my body It directly contradict's S. Cyrills words Though it seem to the tast to be bread it is not bread but the Body of Christs It directly contradict's that vnanswerable Truth As water was changed into wine so wine is changed into blood c. 16. And thus Sr you see how impossible it is to giue your poor Belieuers any thing like à Real obiect which may be called à true Real Presence though I hold you obliged to help both them and me to à clear Notion of it Because Christ's Sacred body and blood are Real things you attribute to these two Real things à true real Presence in and with bread and wine which cannot but denominate them really present with these two Substances vpon the Altar Therefore you are obliged to tell me what that is A parte rei which I once more say is impossible For as your Sacramental presence in your sense is à word no man vnderstand's so your Doctrin is as wholy vnintelligible Yet I haue not said all In this your discourse of à Sacramental and Real presence you would fain take some aduantage against vs by other words of S. Cyril Do not consider them as meer bread and wine for they are the body and blood of No aduantage giuen Sectaries by any other words of S. Cyril Christ according to his own word Hence you infer it is plain He speaks of à Sacramental presence for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine but to meer bread id est That they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signes but as Signa efficacia or efficacious signes Answ First The Saint has not à Syllable of either Signes or Signae efficacia Next your Speculation about meer bread is à meer nothing For meer bread is bread without Consecration S. Cyril opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to meer bread Ergo He opposeth them to bread without Consecration but bread without Consecration or meer bread is the very Substance of bread Therefore he opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to the substance of bread vnless you can find the Meerness might one speak so or nakednes of bread distinct from its substance which is not only improbable but impossible 17. Vpon this solid and vndeniable Ground it imports your A meer quibble about à word cause nothing whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Cyril signifies Species as it is commonly rendred by Interpreters or as you say that which doth figure or represent for as long as this verity stand's vndoubted that vnder the Type or Species of bread Christ gaue his own body and That that body is opposed to the very Substance of bread the expression is so clear and the same with our Catholick Doctrin that were à hundred Glosses more laid vpon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All would not do nor rack it to any contrary meaning You Reply S. Cyril speak's of such à presence as hath relation
As he thinks many à Flaw many à Mistake much iumbling much disorder in the Narration of his Circumstances Reflect well good Reader Doe you not see here à strange Confusion When after the vtmost done by these two Aduersaries You haue two quite different Doctrins raised from the same Authorities of Scripture and Fathers And that after the recourse of both to History You haue two as different Stories told you as Yea and No. In like manner after Their long discourses You haue two contradictory Conclusions drawn out And laid before your eyes to read Vpon what Principle if no more be Said can the yet perplexed Reader come to so much certainty of our Christian Truths as is necessary to Saluation By what means shall He know whether of these Two relates the truer Story Glosses or discourses better O He must peruse Ecclesiastical History Scripture also And the Volumes of Fathers And then iudge Pitiful More than half the world want's means to doe this And He who is able to comply with that laborious Task must at last trust to his own Iudgement Howeuer giue me one who will conform Himselfe to what he Reads and not draw all to à preiudicated Iudgement That man will find out Catholick Religion 4. Be it how you will The Catholick has à better And far more easy Principle to rely on in so weighty à Matter whereof The Catholicks Principle far more easy and plain we shall Treat largely in the next Discourse The Sectary has no other Ground to set footing on But his own priuate Fancy And here is the true Reason why he loues à life to stand dallying with you vpon Authority and History Goe no further He is sure to haue some Reply at hand For it is easy to trifle à long time whilst you only giue him this Authority And that Parcel of History to quarrel with The one as we haue seen He wrest's to what Sense he pleases On the other He can put so fair à Varnish by concealing some Circumstances and iumbling others together That the eyes of à vulgar Reader are easily dazled In the mean time He warily waues And is well content to doe so The last sound Principles which only can end Controuersies Wherefore Methinks one cannot fit the Sectaries Humour better than to attaque him with Authorities And next leaue the Glossing them to his fancy To recurr to Antiquity And permit him to put an other face on the whole Story Thanks be to God the Catholick Writers of our own Nation to say nothing of others who handle Matters most profoundly And in real truth haue already brought these debates to à Period giue no such Aduantage to Sectaries But relying What Sectaries would be at on sound Principles as learnedly reiect these Glosses as our new men wilfully make them without Principles Yet this is Truth As nouellists can do no more But Gloss without Principles So as I said now They are well enough content if the Catholick will doe something like them And only interpret or discourse vpon Authorities And this I call the less or not the last plain way of Ending debates Goe no further they think Themselues safe For example Read S. Austin in the place now cited I would not belieue the Gospel c. Ponder His whole Context attend to his learned Discourse Mark well how He both disputes and proues That he would not belieue the Gospel as Gods Diuine Word but vpon This solid ground That the Authority of the Church then when he wrote moued him to belieue so Descend yet to other particulars taken from his most Connexed way of Arguing Allege all plainly against the Sectary which hath been done and most landably again and again by Catholick Authors Yet after all you see Mr Stillingfleet begins new Quarrels as fiercely as if nothing had been said And if one should vnrauel what he hath wouen in his three pages would not â—e think ye to prolong these vnfortunate Strifes possibly find something to except against you And must not you to vnbeguile the Reader once more reply And except against all his new Exceptions How long may controuersies not yet brought to the last plain Principles run on without ending A shorter way Therefore must be thought of And thus it is 5. Take only that Positiue Doctrin which the Protestant plainly makes his own dogmatical Assertion when he either Adds his The clearest way of ending controuersies new Gloss to an obscure Authority or cast's one clear for Catholick Religion into darknes If you will haue Scripture Quote that Passage of the Apostle The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith This is my body or what els you like best If Fathers Cite S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Iustin Martyr or any other quoted aboue in defense of the Real Conuersion of bread into Christs Sacred Body This done First consider well what Church speak's most Conformably to the obuious Sense of these Authorities 2. Distinguish exactly between the Sectaries Gloss which contain's his Doctrin And the plain words of that Authority which he Interpret's Withall Ponder how little these two look like one another How little their Gloss. This is à Sign of my Body hath to doe with our Sauiours clear Expression This is my body 3. Stay not too long vpon the Energy of à Testimony Though plain in your behalf nor weigh ouer much the Circumstances wherein it was spoken For though both be well done yet This fitt's the Sectaries Humour Who waits for such By-Matters And in his Answers as I haue often obserued To shift off what mainly vrgeth will giue you work enough with his Suppositions his May-bâ—â—s And endles Windingâ— What is then to be done when he supposes his coniectures or Glosses to be true Doctrin This way I am sure is very solid 6. Propose with all moderation These following Questions Haue you Sir any Orthodox Church euer since Christianity began The Sectary is vrged I am sure you haue no express Scripture which without dispute as plainly deliuered the Doctrin contained in your Gloss as you now plainly Teach it Haue you any Orthodox Council which without Exception as Clearly defined it as you now Assert it Haue you any Tradition which by à continued Succession Age after age conueyed vnto you the Tenets you pretend to find in some few Fathers And now publish to the world as Christian Truths If you ground your Glosses or Doctrin on such excellent Principles we Catholicks are certainly in Errour And ought to conform to your reformed Gospel But if you fail and fail you must to doe thus much if you only giue vs empty Glosses without further Proofs we look on them as slight things cast off by the Orthodox world as both vnprincipled and vnpatronized Therefore Scriptureless as they are Churchless as they are they fall of Themselues to nothing And bring vtter ruin to your new Machin of Protestancy 7. I doe you no wrong when I draw you off
bread This is our Doctrin concerning your miscalled Eucharist we allow you no more and Therefore vtterly dissent from you 26. You add presently à great vntruth And I wonder you could speak it without blushing The greatest men of our Perswasion as Suarez and Bellarmin say you assert the belief of Transubstantiation not to be simply necessary to Saluation Ignorance or Malice or both had certainly à hand here For they say no such thing I Ascribe much to the first moued thereunto by your following words And that the Manner of it is secret and ineffable Dear Sr were Christ really present without Transubstantiation as Luther held The manner of his existing with bread might yet be secret and ineffable But would this inferr à denial of his ineffable Presence All that Catholick Authors say is That the modus existâ—ndi or Our Aduersaries Mistake Manner of his existing in the Sacrament is secret and ineffable euen with Transubstantiation do they Therefore hold the verity not simply necessary to Saluation or boggle at the Doctrin of Transubstantiation You belieue à Trinity of Persons in one Diuine Essence it 's hard for you to express the Manner how God is one and three distinct Persons yet you belieue the Mystery And hold that belief necessary to Saluation Diuines eudeauour to explicate the Manner of Christs ineffable Presence in the Eucharist but when all is done you haue no more from Then but Opinions And so it fall's out in the other Mystery of the Trinity where Schoolmen vary in their explicating Quomodo How God can be one in Essence And three distinct Persons Yet they hold the belief of the Mystery after à due Proposal absolutly necessary to Saluation And thus they discourse of Christs ineffable Presence in the Eucharist The Quomodo or Manner of his being there is difficult And cannot be clearly laid forth to weak Reason yet that perplexeth not our Faith whereby wee submissively yeild to what God speakes without further curiosity 27. Your other instances Page 620. are quite besides the business Christ you say instituted the Sacrament in both kinds The Primitiue Christians receiued in both What then Ergo Other instances refuted Christ commanded both to laicks is no Consequence nor agreed on by Catholicks 2. Both Churches say you Agree that the Eucharist is à Sacrifice of duty of Praise of Commemoration c. You know we absolutly deny your Supposition and say you haue no true Sacrifice consequently neither praise God nor Commemorate Christs Passion but grievously offend him in your taking à bare piece of bread Here is no Agreement And thus we speak of your Mass or Liturgy For there was neuer Mass in the without à true Sacrifice you haue no Sacrifice Ergo no Mass Church The grossest errour therefore is that you haue rased out the Sacrifice most essential to à Liturgy 28. Page 621. You say His Lordship Answers truly that the Agreement of differing parties is no Metaphysical Principle The Contingent proposition but à bare contingent Proposition which may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applyed Answ A contingent Proposition What 's this Sr If you mean that the Protestant party vented it by chance I 'le not quarrel with you But out it is in print And applied to the Possibility of Saluation which you allow Catholicks Let this concession stand it cannot but be true vnless you say Both parties err in the Assertion And then we are not only out of the Question but highly blame you vpon this account That all your pains in discussing sc largely the matter hitherto has been to no purpose For one line might haue ended All had you plainly Said We Protestants fouly erred when we granted Saluation to Catholicks in their own Religion Be it how you will I say this Proposition Saluation may be had in Catholick Religion is So true that it cannot be false because the greatest Authority on earth the vniuersal Church of Christ own 's it as an vndoubted verity and could this possibly be à falshood neither we nor Protestants can belieue any thing which the Church teaches as is amply proued in the second Discourse c. For to what purpose should I belieue the Trinity the Incarnation the Creed or any thing els when Is so true that is cannot be false that Church which proclaims these as Truths may after all damn me The very uglines of such à thought carries horrour with it And stark shame decries it as Abominable Your Lord and you say next The consent of disagreeing parties is neither Rule nor proof of truth No man can resolue his Faith into it but Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force Agreement Answ All this is very right Therefore we neuer make your consent either Rule or proof of any Catholick Verity much less do wee resolue our Faith into your Agreement Church Doctrin Stands firm without you it was true before you were in being And the euidence of it forced you to consent with vs. Now à word to your other two or three instances And. 29. In real truth Sr I much wonder you saw not their Lameness before you thrust them into your Page 621. And that you would fain allow them Strength to weaken this Truth Wâ—e Other Instances proved weight less and Protestants Agree thus far that Catholick Religion can saue vs c. I say Contrary The instances are so remote from your design That they proue just nothing One is The Orthodox Christians agreed with the Arians that Christ was of like nature with his Father But added Hee was of the same nature Ergo Say you it is safest to hold with the Arians To hold what I beseech you You Answer that Christ was of the like nature Very good That Likeness either excluded the same nature or included it Grant the first you make the Fathers Hereticks which is impossible For they held the same nature common and Consubstantial to the Father and Son If their concession which is true included the same nature The Orthodox party and Arians agreed not in the same hypothesis consequently your instance is to no purpose at all In à word this euer and vnexceptionably holds good The Doctrin which Hereticks Iewes and Turks agree in with Catholicks is most true so you and we agree about saluation now discussed but it doth not follow that so much only or that no more is true Your want of reflecting vpon this Only or no More makes That 's truth wherein Catholicks and Hereticks agree all your instances impertinent And your inferences Ergo It is safest holding with the Arians most vnconcluding For though the Doctrin be true when the Arian side with the Church yet it deriues no absolute safety from that consent of Hereticks 30. Vpon these grounds all the rest which followes fall's to nothing Some dissenting parties Say you agree that there ought to be à Resurrection from Sin
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
Churches on earth and proue themselues thereby both Faithles and Churchles But enough for à Preface Open and read Approue or condemn as reason shall guide you In case you Condemn please to say VVhy and shew me where I erre in Principles Pardon the faults of the Printer which are many he is à stranger to our Language except against mine boldly if you find any but do it with Charity and still for this I must inculcate again and again Remember Principles Farewel AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR Mr STILLINGFLEET Sr. PLain dealing is the best you shall haue it in this short Advertisement from à friendly Aduersary no Enemy I assure you who desires to do you good against your will If I be rightly informed Both you and some others find your selves dissatisfied vpon this score that your Rational Account as t is called comprehending the Grounds of Protestant Religion remain's yet vntouch't or not answered Before I reply to these complaints I shall take the boldnes to request one fauour at your hands you will much oblige me by it which is to point out that Chapter or Paragraph through your whole Book wherein the hidden treasure of these Protestant Grounds lie and to giue me in à few lines one or two of them plainly set down in halfe à Sheet of paper I speak of Grounds for Protestancy as it is your peculiar Religion distinct from Popery and all known Condemned Hereties Fob me not off I beseech you with any general talk Tell me not I must seek better and shall find For Sr I assure you though I haue made à diligent Search after your Grounds they are yet so far remoued from my sight that I cannot find one Wherefore because you are more Conuersant in your own writings then others and Plus vident oculi quam oculus I beg to be enlightned by you If you fail to do this the world will iudge as I do that you haue abused the Reader with à Title wherevnto nothing in your voluminous Book answer's I mean you haue no more touched vpon Grounds for Protestancy as Protestancy and mark my words then for Arianism or any other false Religion In the perusal of your Book I se what beguiled you You Sr thought to throw that little dirt wherewith some haue furnished you in our faces was enough to make your bad cause Specious and to prop vp your Protestancy as if forsooth to Cavil at vs were to establish your Novelties Know good Sr that both Arians and all other gone Heretiques were as fierce in their Cauils against the Church as you are but did they therefore either ground or establish their false Doctrins contrary to Gods Truths It is à gross errour to think so For as it is one thing foolishly to brandish à Sword and another fitly to vse à Buckler so it is à quite different busines slightly to impugn Catholick Religion and another to defend Protestancy Tht first you haue attempted like your old Heretiques and with as ill success But the second which is to maintain Protestancy or to settle that vpon solid Grounds neither is nor was nor euer shall be done by any wherefore I tell you in this Treatise read it if you please This Protestancy is wholly vngrounded God never revealed one Article of it as Protestancy nor did ever antient or modern Orthodox Church teach so much as one of your Particular Tenets And for this reason I say it s falsly called the reformed Religion hauing neither Essence nor the Properties of Religion belonging to it Now for as much as Concern's your Clamours because you think your Book neglected or not yet Answered First give me leave to tell you it is a great Vanity to rise to so high à conceipt of your selfe or of your Book as if you were the only Defender of your Faith and à greater to publish it to the world what think you Cannot Protestancy be impugned without taking you or your work in hand It s little wisdom to iudge so A Souldier good Sir who intend's to inuade an enemy takes no directions from him how to enter his Country much less busies his thoughts about remouing euery straw or euery little block that lies in his way but marches on as he thinks best to compass his Design To ouerthrow your Protestancy is our Design and you most vnreasonably prescribe what we are to do That is we must either attaque your Fort and meddle with your Account or you think nothing is done Why so I beseech you Grant which is not true that those who haue written since your Account saw light passed by it without much notice they might well do so looking on it as à Block not worth remouing vnless as I say you will haue them to obey your Commands and assault what Outwork you please It is Sr your Cause we more mind then your Account 2. Why do you or some body for you not only shamefully stopp all the Presses in so much that scarse a sheet of paper can appear in publick But moreover why haue you when all liberty is granted to scrible and print what you please omitted to Answer those Bookes which directly impugn your Doctrin That excellent Guide of Controuersies is the One and Protestancy without Principles the other And you haue done this with much vncivil scornful Language with a meer forced Pish from the teeth outward at the end of a Preface as if forsooth you would be thought to Say You Could Answer but vvill not vvbereas the naked truth is at least wise men Iudge so you would Answer but Cannot Sr believe me it would have been much to the purpose and far more satisfactory to your Protestant Brethren had you when you saw your Protestancy to speak moderatly well shaken in those two Books replyed to some particulars and shewed where either the Principles were false or their Discourses failed But you Cowardly quitted the field sate down silent busying your selfe with reprinting a few Sermons whereof the world had no need at all And this t' is thought was done to cloak your Lazines your ignorance or both because you could not Answer yet we are called on to quarrel with you whilst you like a Priuiledged Person exempt your selfe from medling with vs. That is we must speak and you say nothing But Sr let vs come neerer the point and tell you truth Whatever you account substantial in your Book hath been answered by your two scorned Aduersaries and if any thing be yet wanting it is amply supplyed in this Treatise To conceiue what I would proue please to Note There are two wayes in answering a Booke The one is to follow an Author step after step by examining severally each piece of the VVhole The other is to Consider the Principles wherevpon the VVhole relyes shewing them either false in themselues or not connex't with those Conclusions which should follow from them Destroy Principles you destroy all Thus the Motion of à Watch may be spoiled two
wayes either by disordering euery wheel in it à part or by breaking the Spring The fairest Palace ever was is ruine'd if either you separate euery stone from stone or if you vndermine the fundation and blow vp the whole Fabrick though many of the stones strongly Cimented cling yet together The first way of answering by piece-meal is tedious and obscure and as things are with vs by reason of the difficulty in Printing and transmitting Bookes into England almost impossible The other is clear and easy both are satisfactory to euery rational man and I hold the second most necessary For in all our Discourses there must be some firm Principles laid wherevnto we reduce and from whence wè draw what we Assert which seueral wayes of discoursing Compose the two different Methods Analytical and Synthetical obserucd by Philosophers and Divines Neither is the Foundation more necessary to à house or the weight to a clock then Principles are to a Discourse which then is good when the grounds stand firm and the Deductions of the particular Conclusion from them clear But if either the Principles be false and alien or the Deductions not Coherent the whole Discourse fall's to nothing Apply what is here sayd to your Account or rather to the Religion it Asserts and you have all I would Say Your Account Sr was writ to vindicate Protestancy and must stand vpon the same Principles with that Nouelty therefore whatever shak's and ruin's the Principles of Protestancy necessarily shak's and ruin's the Principles of your Account But your Supposed Principles or Grounds of Protestancy are broken yea demonstrated no Grounds at all in the Book intitl'd Protestancy without Principles where they arc proued either false or no Principles peculiar to your Religion as it is distinct from the Doctrin of other Societies called Non-Protestants And consequently when true they haue no Connexion with Protestancy nor can lead in any conclusion for you And where they are false their falsity is laid before your eyes and an vtter subuersion of your Cause and Account with it because neither can stand when your supposed Principles are destroyed or rather found never to have had Being And thus your Book is solidly Answered If you desire to se more ruin yet fallen vpon you read this Treatise and be pleased to reflect vpon these three things in your Account The length of it The Obiections against Catholick Religion and finally your Principles for Protestancy We find two of them but misse the third The length mighty tedious and too often without substance wearies à Reader God help him say I that vndergoes the druggery to turn ouer all the vneuen stuff which lies heap't vp there Your Obiections vsually borrowed from Mr Chillingworth and some other Protestant Writers are for the most part common and such as haue been answered ouer and ouer Where you think them peculiar to your selfe as they lay in my way I haue reioyned and if some be omitted that 's only to Say euery stone in your Fabrick is not touched or medled with But for as much as concerns your Principles in behalfe of Protestancy I Assert Confidently you haue none and vpon this ground I say once more your Account is answered Goe on therefore and vilify the works published against you as you please call them Wool sacks Rats or Flies add more opprobrious language to gain you credit among your simple and too credulous Vulgar with Intelligent Readers you preuail nothing who well perceiue it Matters not to your Intent if those VVool sacks receiue and break the force of your greatest shot against our Church if the Rats gnaw the best ligaments woven in your Account if but one of these flies enter your throat and bereaue you of breath some report of à great man stifled by à Fly And truly it seem's by your deep silence or not answering since these Books came forth that some of the greater sort haue halfe chok'd you But enough To say more after this strain were to rallie like you and to offend the learned world which requires substance in these serious matters without contempt flowting and empty words Had you Sr gone the right way to work you should either haue kept in your disdainful language or taken Protestancy without Principles in hand Shewing where the Author mistook your Principles Or whether his exceptions were blamable because he thought them either Common and not belonging to you that is wholly alien from your cause wholly impertinent to Maintain Protestancy This proceeding had been Satisfactory but difficult and aboue your force Therefore you wisely waued it knowing well it was easier to giâ—e sharp words and snarle at your Aduersaries than to come neer and bite with pinching Arguments My proceeding with you Sr is quite contrary I slight nor your person but say plainly where your great mistake lies in handling Controuersies You run head-long into the deep Mysteries of Faith by the ill conduct of your weak or not well sighted reason and after à few stagg ring thoughts spent in weighing and musing vpon the difficulties which appear to you in the Mysteries you will needs tell vs what 's true what 's false and therefore boldly take and reiect as you like best It is à perplexed way Sr which will neuer make you either Good Christian good Diuine or so much as à mean Proficient in Christ's School In following it you are just like one as I tell you in the Treatise that takes wholsome Pills into his Mouth chewes them find's them bitter and spitt's all out Hence it is you spit at the Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Purgatory c. because forsooth they are distastful to sense and shallow reason And truly Sr it is wonderful that you haue not long since by this procedure cast off the Doctrin of the sacred Trinity For most certainly might sense and weak reason plead the Cause here far greater difficulties would occur against that sublime Mystery then euer Protestants yet proposed against our other Catholick Tenents In a word Sr if you desire satisfaction in matters of Religion busy not your head with the examination of the Diuine Mysteries Considered in themselues they are aboue your reach but contrarywise consider well how and by what means they are made Credible to reason which is done as S. Austin cited afterward tell 's you by first finding out that clear marked and signalized Church whereby God speaks This Oracle once discouered and the Discouery grounded vpon Euidence is easy Hear and Believe Her She is wiser then you and never think to shake so strong à Fortress by devising pcrty Arguments against Her Doctrin no sooner seen then solued because forsooth you cannot Comprehend it But it is high time to end and I shall do so with one word more of good aduice Fooles they say may sometimes give à wise man Counsel Sr if you intend to write any more Consider for your own sake what you write weigh things well in your
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
none can adore one that meerly takes vpon him the Maiesty of à King who is not with an Adoration due to that Maiesty so none can honour or adore Christ in the Eucharist with an honour due to Christ when truely and really he is not present but saith Theoderet Christ is to be really adored in the Eucharist and Consequently he is really present there 21. For the rest I remit the Reader to C. Perron who in the following Chapters dissolues and most clearly what euer can be obiected against his Doctrin To end this point be pleased to reflect vpon this one particular Had Theoderet said The Symbols remain in their first essence figure and form and included in that very speech as our Aduersaries will haue the One reflection more very substance of bread He had spoken most improperly which ill beseem's so learned an Author for vpon this supposition he speak's as incongruously as if one should say Peter this very hour who is himselfe both Soul and body remain's in him selfe that is The Cardinals reading clear's all in his Soul and body But if you read with the Cardinal Thus. Car ils demeurent en lae forme en la sigure de la premiere substance They remain and in the form and in the figure of the first substance of bread before Consecration really formed and figured by them the Construction is good the sense most clear perfect and without exception 22. Thus much I haue noted to satisfy the Gentleman and hope neuer to hear Theoderet obiected hereafter against Transubstantiation If I doe I shall say an old obseruation of mine alwaies proues true and t' is That the best Arguments of Sectaries Printed and reprinted in their little books are like old thread-bare garments quite out of fashion cast off and reiected I mean answered ouer and ouer by Catholick Authors yet Brusht vp must appear as new And this less blamable may pass for they can do no better but methinks it is intolerable that they bring again to light such worn-out stuff as you see now done in this particular and dare not inform the Reader how often it hath been torn à pieces Yet the worst of all remain's Viz. That they build their faith vpon sand one dubious Authority of à Father if yet dubious supports it and seem's to these new spirits ground enough to foment Schism to maintain à rebellion against as ancient Church which neuer belieued as they do CHAP. XII A Digression 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 1. BEfore we produce these Testimonies and lay open Mr Stillingfleet's Mistakes turn I beseech you to his Account of Protestancy Part. 3. c. 3. page 567. Where he treat's of Transubstantiation and calls it an vnreasonable Doctrin because repugnant to sense and reason also It seem's contrary to sense for sense tells vs what we see and tast is bread after consecration and reason vpon that sensible suggestion ought to conclude it still remains substantially bread Obserue I beseech you how the Gentleman to maintain his proofs drawn from sense is not only forced to reiect the plain sense of Christ's words according to the letter This is my body which is giuen for you This is the Chalice of the new Testament wich is or shall be shed for you But more Mr Stilling quarrel 's with all Christians except à ferr Protestants ouer how he is thrown into à desperate quarrel wherein he will neuer come off hansomly For he is engaged to make not only the Professors of the Roman and Greek Church who indubitably belieue the Real presence more than stupid because opposit to that he call's sense and reason but besides He contrast's with à far greater moral body of Christians I may rightly stile it the Representatiue of all named Christians in the world excepting à few Protestants I 'le shew you how At this day there are in that famous Temple of Hierusalem dedicated to the Holy Cross called the Church of the Sepulcre Catholicks Graecians Abyssins those most ancient Christians Syrians Maronits Georgians and others All haue their Altars in one and the same Church and all though different in some Doctrinal points and Ceremonies vnanimously belieue à true vnbloody Sacrifice and with it the real presence of Christ after Consecration No moderne sectaries haue place here witnesse Prince Radziuill in his Ierosoly Peregrin Antwerpe Print 1614. Pag. 109. Nay they are so meanly thought of that when the Prince named Lutherans Zwinglians c. The party he conuersed with demanded whether they were Christians What Christians said he and haue no Priest no Altar no sacrifice offerred vp to god in this sacred place where Christ wrought our redemption you may see more hereof in the following page of this Author In the mean while shall any say that à Representatiue of so many Christians are to be deemed fooles vpon this account that they contradict sense and reason It is so vast à Paradox that though Mr Stillings should write volumes on this subiect He would neuer speak à probable word against such à cloud of witnesses You may add herevnto if you please those many Christians conuerted to our The Chineses difficulty Catholick Faith in that vast Kingdome of China à People the whole world knowes most ingenious All of them as I haue heard from two worthy men à long time Missioners there the one is yet liuing who reclaimed many from their errours raise most difficulties before their conuersion against that one Mystery of our Faith the Incarnation of the Diuine word but after satisfaction receiued in this particular they submit easily to the belief of other Catholick verities and neuer Scruple in the least at the Mystery of the Eucharist as à Doctrin Contrary to sense and reason And they proceed most rationally for in real truth there are incomparably Most Concern's the Incornation greater difficulties in this one Mystery of the Incarnation to say nothing of the Trinity might weak reason decide the case than in the other What That God who is essentially immutable becomes man by à vnion betwixt the Diuine word and humane nature which vnion toucheth so intrinsecally on that Diuine Person that we must truly say This word is now intrinsecally affected otherwise then he was before and to conceiue all this done without à real change may the Common notion of mutation stand Mutari est rem aliter se habere is à difficulty so great say good Diuins that it hath rack't many à strong wit and yet can scarse be well solued Vtramque enim Substantiam in vnam conuenisse personam c. They are words of S. Leo Sermo 9. de Natiu Dmi nisi fides credat sermo non explicat That is the Mystery is very abstruse I verily belieue Mr Stilling Metaphysick will not reach
of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer now alleged Therefore if we be in errour the wit of man cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles And here I vrge Mr Silling to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and significant that is Scripture as clear Fathers as clear Tradition as clear the Iudgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted for the opinion he hold's as we now allege in the defense of our Catholick verity Belieue it if he suppose as he certainly doth the Church to haue erred so grosly for à thousand years The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subiect when they meant no such thing He ought to fasten vpon sound Principles indeed before we yeild and must not think to ouerthrow What sectaries are obliged to our Doctrin or foile vs with à few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff which comes no neerer to Principles than improbability to Euidence Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities If à man saith he P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be false which sense iudges to be true he means which weak reason vpon the discouery of sense iudges true for our outward senses make no iudgement What assurance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrin A word to our Aduersaries strange demand Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christs resurrection if their sight might be deceiued about its proper obiect c I am astonished to read this and answer briefly Christ's Resurrection the like I say of Miracles was most vndoubted vpon the discouery which sense and reason made in the presence of such obiects because no contrary Principle so much as weakly stood against that euidence and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was obiected to sense then I now doubt of writing these lines But all is contrary in the present Mystery For here the vnanswerable words of Scripture the Authority of my Church the Clear Testimonies of Fathers the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to belieue the Diuine Reuelation which is either certainly known vpon these grounds or we boldly say no Christian verity was euer yet known vpon any sure Principle What if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling may roundly grant that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real presence for many ages and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been besotted them selues but moreouer haue basely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of belieuing that to be Christs body which really is not Howeuer he will honour the Fathers so far as to afford them the fauour of his glosses Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrin Mr Stilling is obliged to name some Churh reputed Orthodox 3. or 4. hundred years past for then there was à true Church in the world which held his opinion or as expresly denyed the real Presence as our Church both then and now mantains it and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy for I am sure there was neuer any such Church on earth Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery Fathers He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin and make all belieue that we Catholicks hold not yet the real presence Obserue the same language in all That wich in seen is not bread though it seem's so to the tast But the body of Christ Our sense may be deceiued Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed â— made the flesh of Christ and the wine his blood c. Thus the Fathers deliuer their sense and it is the Churches language also If therefore Mr Stilling can so gloss these words of the Fathers as to make them speak Protestancy or not to deliuer our Catholick Doctrin I should not wonder if in the next book set forth he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence If he did so I am sure his attempt would proue as vnsuccesful in the one case â— in the other 11. Well But permit him to interpret the Fathers and to fall foule as he is wont to do vpon our supposed Church errours what is the vtmost that followes Thus much only Meer talk without Principles For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know that his glosses which striue to dead the very obuious sense of the Fathers plain words implie not altogether as little satisfaction as little assurance as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it If so and so it is most euidently as his Doctrin before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians so his interpretations goe no higher but are euery whit as improbable 12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling that vnless his explanation Sectaries glosses vnprincipled worth Nothing of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distiâ—ct from and extrinsick to his glosses they are worth nothing For what auail's it me to read his glosses when no receiued Principle vp hold's them but fancy Reflect à little I read in Scripture This is my body My Church tell 's me the literal sense is true The Fathers as you haue heard and the Tradition of two Churcheâ— confirm this sense Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiect's my Churches authority then begins to strain the Fathers Testimonies with his glosses Stay Sr say I. I except against your glosses and iustly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coynâ— If true they stand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at Proue this and I 'le reuerence your glosses but if you fail and fail you must your Doctrin and glosses are both alike Counterfeit and thoughts of fancy only 13. Hee may reply When Protestants cite the Fathers against the Real presence For example That of S. Austin or Theoderet mentioned aboue we Catholicks explicate them and now which seem's foul play we except against his Glosses For If we interpret An Obiection why may not Hee doe so also A word only in passing conformable to what is noted aboue If to decide this one Controuersy of Christ's Real Presence recourse be had to the Fathers and the two aduerse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations the Dispute will neuer be ended Because priuate glosses leaue the two Dissenters as much at iarrs as they were before God therefore as I haue often said affords an easier means to know his reuealed Truths Now my Answer to the obiection is The Catholick then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation when it sham fully out-faces the
clear words of à Father and when the Glosser has no vndubitable Principle distinct from his gloss wheron to settle his Doctrin as he has not in our present Controuersy Obserue well The Fathers say What wee see is not bread but Christs very body The Sectary interpret's That wee see is not common bread indeed but Christs body Figuratiuely or Sacramentally The Fathers say it is not figuratiuely only but really his body So Theophilact Answered and the reason giuen and S. Iohn Damascen cited aboue Had the Sectary who interpret's thus an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss deliuered by any Oracle of Truth Scripture Traditions or Orthodox Church there would be good reason to giue him hearing But when we euidently see that the best and only proof of his Doctrin is no more but the very gloss he makes without Further Principles we iustly except against him and hold such glosses improbable 14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer interpret's any Authority but when t' is dubious and if it be so it neither help 's the Sectary nor hurts the Catholick and therefore ought In reason to be cast aside as either impertinent or as weak and forcelesse in all disputes of Controuersies The fundamental Christ's Doctrin not proued by glosses or any ambiguous Testimony Reason already hinted at is The true Doctrin of Christ is not proued by Glosses or any doubtful Testimony but stand's most firm vpon known and indubitable Principles or if in order to Christians it want's such supports it cannot pass for Christ's Doctrin An ambiguous Testimony therefore which seemingly opposes this true Doctrin Certainly Principled is most impertinently alleged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick Faith 15. Vpon this one sole ground now clearly laid forth I confidently Affirm all Controuersies in Religion might be easily ended would Sectaries please to lay Preiudice aside and follow manifest reason I 'le shew you how Write down first the two contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Protestants Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist Christ is not really and substantially present Next examin well the Principles wheron these Contrary Doctrins rely or are supposed to rely The Catholick vrgeth first Christ's plain words 2. The Authority of his Church and saith his Churches Doctrin is the very same that Christ words literally taken express 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of The Catholick Principles Fathers and discourses thus When I find the most significant expressions of Fathers consonant to our Sauiour's plain words and to the owned Doctrin of my Church I must assuredly rest on these as indubitable grounds or Confess that There neither is or was euer any Principle for the soundest Article of Christian Faith Examin next the Sectaries Principles Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine or to this sense This is not my body b◠à Sign only of it Euidently No. Has he any Church esteemed Orthodox by the Christian world which without Controuersy taught this Doctrin of à sign only three or 4. ages since Name Sectaries haue none such such à Church He will speak's to the purpose Has he Fathers so numerous so express and clear for his Signe and figure only as the few Testimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Doctrin If he haue let him please to produce them I 'le doe no more but lay my Testimonies by them and if after the perusal or à iust Parallel made of both All the world iudges not those I quote to be most conuincing may the literal sense stand and his both dark and ambiguous I will vndergoe any Censure You haue heard how loud and express the Testimonies briefly hinted at and innumerable more are for our Catholick Verity I challenge Mr Stilling to Confront them with others as openly significant for his opinion I verily think he will neuer goe about to doe what is desired but fob vs off with killing flies and no man knowes what 16. In the interim I Argue I am either obliged to renounce An Argument drawn from our Catholick Principles the obuious sence of these Authorities which I see euidently Consonant to the words of Scripture and to the Doctrin of my Church or by force of these Proofs am still to belieue as I doe Grant this second I stand on secure ground But if I am obliged to renounce the obuious sense of Christs words my Church Doctrin and the expressions of these Fathers c. Our Aduersaries are bound if à spark of Charity liues in their Hearts to plead by stronger Principles which may settle me in an absolute Renuntiation of my Doctrin and withdraw me from the supposed errour I liue in Is not this iustice and Charity think ye And is not the Compliance most easy For if their Doctrin be Christ's Doctrin and mine not Theirs stand's as I now told you vpon clear and indubitable Principles And Principles of that nature are easily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderstanding Now I subsume But it is euident the Sectary hath no such conuincing Principles which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal sense of Christs words and the Fathers already cited And this I proue What euer Principle obliges me to renounce or to deny the plain literal sense of such words must giue assurance that those expressions literally Why none can remoue me from our Catholick Tenet vnderstood are dangerous and apt to induce Christans into gross errour for if literally taken they do no mischief or be not apt to induce into dangerous errour why should I Deny their obuious sense because Ptotestants will haue me do so But there is no Principle so much as meanly probable whereby these expressions are proued false or inductiue into dangerous Errour for were this really so some Church or Author of Credit would long sincé haue noted their ouer much vehemency in sayng more then was true concerning this Mystery which none euer yet did Therefore I may still and without Reproof hold where I am and adhere to their literal Doctrin which my Church teaches 17. Some may teply Sectaries vrge vs not so crudely to reiect the Fathers Testimonies as only to moderate or rectify their sense by the help of our Modern mens glosses which is à blamles proceeding for we do so with Gelafius and other Authors when they seemingly make against our Doctrin and Protestants do no more Answ Protestants do more for their interpretations euer imply à peremptory and absolute denial of that very literal sense which the Father words express For example S. Cyril saith Catech. Mystag 4. He that changed water into wine by his sole will hath also A reply of sectaries answered changed wine into blood The expression inuolues à parity and implies thus much That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee so wine was really and substantially changed into Christs blood Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and substantial change of wine
into blood as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine Consequently they renounce both the parity and open sense of the words And which is euer to be noted wilfully do so when they haue nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on Contrariwise the Catholick in this debate denies no express sense of any Fathers Testimony but only makes Inquiry into the Signification of words which are confessedly dubious Take here one instance Gelasius saith The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be First I make no account of this Gelasius Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi Contra Eutich He was not that holy Pope so called but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl Howeuer these two particles substance and nature may ex placito indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massinesse of bread and wine for natural qualities which flow from an Essence haue or often sustain as was noted aboue the name of that Essence they come from Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious sense but only contends that Nature and substance may signify as is most Of Gelasius How much his authority is worth vsual the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be And he giues this signification to these two words because Scripture Church and the Fathers wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends forceth him to it And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine Thus much may be said if that authority were worth any thing Read I beseech you Brereley In his Lyturgy of the Masse cited aboue pag 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined and that in very truth this Gelasius who euer he was speaking against the Eutichians as Theoderet did vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also Open the book and read you will be satisfyed I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Obiections 18. There is yet an other Reply Sectaries may say we suppose all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin The Supposition is denied because they quote t' is true not many but some Fathers and Scripture also to countenance their new opinion By the way here is occasion again to reflect on what is often noted viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers and they explicate all They cite also and we do the like and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other we are as much iarring as we were before without hope of ending Controuersies this way Now my Answer to the first part of the Obiection is We Catholicks suppose nothing but only The answer to an other reply take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church which was neuer censured by any Orthodox society of Christians Vpon these Principles therefore Scripture Church and Fathers we stand immoueable To that which followes I Answer Sectaries haue not one syllable of Scripture in fauour of their Nouelty and to omit à rehearsal of those triuial Arguments drawn from certain passages where they conceiue the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine c. I conuince my Assertion by the positiue ground abready established which none shall ouerthrow If this be the true sense of Scripture when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solue it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament Christ who is aboue in heauen is not really present on the Altar but in his sign only Or that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread only deputed to à holy vse If this I say be the true sense of Gods word Christs Orthodox Church expresly deliuered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luthers Reuolt for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth But no Orthodox Church then taught so or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture or Malicious and concealed it from Christians our Sectaries sense is not Scripture To confirm this Reason All know that the Roman Catholick Church then as well as now absolutly renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture and for that cause was not say they Orthodox in this particular Doctrin but no other Church confessedly Orthodox taught it at that time Therefore it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning All I would say is briefly laid forth thus 19. The true Church of Christs euer deliuers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters so much Protestants grant But No true Church deliuered this their sense three or four ages before Luthers reuolt Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost but à whimsy lately inuented This Argument I hold demonstratiue You will perhaps ask What is that these men can pretend to hauing neither Scripture nor Orthodox Church to rely on I 'le tell you in à word They allege How Sectaries endeauour te solue it first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers which the Catholick admit's not in the sense of Nouellists yet according to the clear plain and obuious signification of words as is now declared and He prudently giues this signification to ambiguous words because the Doctrin he owns stand's firm vpon other indubitable Principles Scripture Church and Fathers The Sectary euidently wants such Principles and therefore vapors as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities The next thing relyed on is much worse and purely nothing but fancy He reads Scripture and those euident Testimonies of Fathers as manifest for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it and these forsooth he endeauours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses without the least shadow of any distinct Principle which giues so much as à Colour to his fancied interpretations You shall see this truth most manifestly proued in the ensuing Chapter CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubious and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as vnwilling to catch flies as Mr Stilling is to kill them T' is his own phrase yet I must do so in some measure or permit à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort wauing many of lesser moment and I doe thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores For I am well assured If our
true signification in this place giuen 22. Ab omni specie mala abstinete vos The sense is Abstain not only from inward malice but and here mark the opposition from all Shew or semblance of euil And when S. Cyril saith Orat 4. Mystag vnder the Type or species of bread is giuen the body of our Lord he euidently distinguisheth the Form or shape of bread from its substance And so S. Cyprian doth in the words alleged Corporalis Substantiae retinens Speciem retaining the exteriour shape or form of à Corporeal substance and mote plainly thus The bread being changed not in its outward Form and semblance but in it's inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 8. Mr Stilling again page 570. in his Answer to S. Cyprian This common bread is changed into flesh and blood saith we Protestants do not deny à Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which ye Papists assert Pray you Sr tell me what is the Terminus à quo and the Terminus ad quem of this your mysterious change You acknowledg some thing Protestants cannot say what is changed into Christ's body changed into the flesh and blood of Christ Is the substance of bread the terminus à quo or that which is changed into the flesh No t' is too plain Popery Is bread made à Sacrament or à Sign of Christ's body changed into the flesh of Christs Euidently no for neither the Sacrament nor that which you call à Sign of Christ's body is changed into flesh Note well the Emphasis of your own words of something changed into the flesh of Christ and say on Gods name what it is You may reply you speak only of à Mystical and Sacramental change That 's not to the purpose now the Emphasis of your words point at something created or increated changed into the flesh and blood of Christ tell vs plainly what that is or in good earnest your expression fal's too short of any intelligible sense 9. In case you run on trifling with your Mystical and Sacramental change only made vpon the accidents or substance of bread the Author now cited positiuely asserts more viz. Panis non effigie sed naturâ mutatus The bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed not in Outward form and appearance but in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh where 't is plain your extrinsecal sacramental change passing only vpon the accidents of bread or on the substance S Cyprian reiects the Protestants extrinsecâ—l Change which you say remains is excluded and à Real Conuersion of the inward substance of bread is positiuely asserted by S. Cyprian You Answer Some great Criticks haue assured you that the place is corrupted and that the ancient Manuscripts read otherwise Non effigie nec naturâ mutatus neither changed in outward form nor substance You see to what desperate shifts these men are driuen T is wonderful they cite not some great Criticks for à Contrary lection of Christs words Hoc non est corpâ— meum This is not my body Well I say first if those nameless and vnknown Criticks err and the Author speak sense as we now read without the Critiscism Non effigie sed naturâ mutatus not changed in outward form but in its nature Transubstantiation is asserted and your contrary Doctrin is condemned I say 2. This Criticism is improbable and not only turn 's the words out of sense into pure Nonsense but moreouer implies an impossibility I 'le shew you how The Criticism will haue vs read thus Panâ— iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie nec naturâ mutatâ— Omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward substance is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh Obserue well This bread remaining bread in outward shew and inward A Criticism exploded substance is made the flesh of the Son of God An vtter impossibility For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and substance be made flesh factus est caro than Lots wife remaining what She was flesh and blood in outward form and inward substance be made à pillar of salt The Omnipotent power of God cannot change one substance remaining what it is into an other T' is true Luther said Christs body was really present with bread but neuer thought of making bread remaining bread to be that other substance of Christs body 10. Mr Stillingfleet tell 's vs more P. 572. that Substance and nature with the Fathers and we confess it are not alwayes taken properly but sometimes more largely for Accidents Why therefore may not these words Sed natura mutatus in S. Cyprians Context bear that improper sense I Answer and ask first Why may they not also be taken properly When they clearly deliuer à Doctrin conformable to à whole learned Church and your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to stand on but fancy Had you any ancient Orthodox Church vniuersal Tradition or the plain consent of Fathers for what you assert you might speak more boldly and I would then say S. Cyprians words are false but without such helps to torture à Text as you do to turn good sense into nonsense and this without proof or Principle is more then intolerable Now here reflect à little on what hath been often noted You say the words are improper and render your sense I say they are proper and significantly speak what the Church teaches Pray Answer By what Principle shall you and I come to à decision of this one difficulty Hitherto if nothing be added we haue no more but our two contrary iarring opinions And are not Controuersies may this strain hold made an endles work To add more I Answer 2. If this Author speak sense Not changed in its outward form but in nature Your gloss is Nonsense Obserue well He speakes of The reason why we reiect it bread held in à Priests hand and saith first This bread is not changed in its outward form or Accidents Then he put 's his Aduersatiue Sed. but it is changed in nature and substance If therefore Nature here signifies as you would haue it the outward form or accidents of bread you must read the words thus Bread is not changed in its nature and Substance yet it is changed in nature and substance which is non-sense I proue it Nature and substance with you import the exteriour form or Accidents of bread bread is not changed in this exteriour nature and substance saith the Author yet you say it is changed in this very nature and substance Yet more S. Cyprian asserts à change in one thing not in an other I ask what is changed and what is not changed If the exteriour Accidents of bread as contra distinguished from the Sectaries cannot say what
to the Receiuer Speak out Sir What is it that has relation to the Receiuer only The very body and blood of Christ vnder the Type of bread and wine which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee These substances of his body and blood as really present work their effect in à worthy Receiuer where you euidently see that the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred body and blood is presupposed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul Therefore to talk of à presence which hath relation to à Receiuer only without the true supposed real verity of Christ body and blood present is no more then à peruerse and an improbable Gloss if S. Cyril speak sense 18. Your next Gloss vpon these words It is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the Body of Christ is worse if worse can be For you only frigidly say Hereby is meant no alteration i◠the Substance of it but only that it is not That common Bread it was before Sir the contrary is now demonstratiuely proued against The change made in Chrism wholly different from that in the Eucharist you But you hope to help your self by an Instance which S. Cyril hath of Chrism in his 3. Mystag Pag. 525. where he Seem's to Parallel the change made in Chrism or holy oyntment with the Change of bread in the Eucharist By the way If Chrism be so sacred à thing it is à shame you haue no more vse of it in your Church but let that pass and mark the Parallel and your own mistake with it A change there is in both bread and common ointment but as different in Themselues as they are differently expressed by this Father The one change is Real and intrinsecal made in the Substance of bread and wine The change of common ointment is not so but Moral into à grace or Gift or Christ S Cyrills words take away all ambiguity See saith he That thou think not this ointment to be common or meer ointment For as the bread of the Eucharist after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread but the body of Christ here is the real change So this holy ointment is no longer naked or common ointment after it is consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyrill's words denote the difference but à grace or Gift of Christ and the Holy spirit which operates through the presence of the Diuinity Here is the other and à quite different change Bread is made the body of Christ Chrism his holy and sacred Gift The Parallel or parity therefore as I now said lies in this That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were and this is enough for Cyrills intent who only proues Chrism to be à holy thing but it fail's when he positiuely and expresly diuersifies the nature of these changes of bread into Christs body of Common ointment only into à grace or à gift of Christ And Hence Sr your Question whether we may not as well proue à Transubstantiation in the Chrism as we do in the Eucharist is both fond and friuolous We Answer No because the real change of bread into Christ's body fully expresseth Transubstantiation the Terminus à quo and ad quem being Real and Substantial The other Change of ointment into à Gift of Christ denotes à moral change quite different and nothing like the other which is most real S. Ambrose next cited no less abused then others 19. Your next and last Gloss abuses S. Amb. De ijs qui initiantur C. 9. who saith Bread is no longer that which Nature has framed it but that which the Benediction of Consecration has made it You Answer It is the body of Christ but not in our gross sense Pray Sr Inform vs à little of your more quaint meaning Say how bread is Christs body if it still remains as substantially bread after the Benediction as water in Baptism remain's substantially water Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed cease to be water because it is à Sacrament No certainly yet bread if S. Ambrose speak truth ceaseth to be that which nature framed it You endeauour to make These words forceles because S. Chrisost in Act Hom. 23. saith of Baptism I'ts virtue is so great that it suffer's not men to be men and then you wisely ask whether we will grant it Transubstantiat's them Friuolous The Saint only speaks of the virtue of Baptism which as he obserues makes vs sons of Adoption That is it Changes à soul from the miserable state of Sin into à happy state of grace and so permit's not men once infected with that leprosy to be men as they were before vnregenerate And therefore he adds in the ensaing words The great power of the Holy Ghost is that it Transform's our Manners and makes them composed What is here of any thing like Transubstantiation or of à ceasing of that which nature hath framed But enough and fully enough of Mr Stillingfleets most improbable glosses so I must and will term them vntil some surer Principle than fancy giues them more strength which shall neuer be 20. To end I 'le say à great Truth Had this Gentleman twenty Cyprians twenty Cyrills twenty Austins as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament as the Testimonies Had this Aduersary so much Authority for hy opinion as wee Produce in behalfe of Catholick Doctrin No man Could belieue any thing now cited are significant for Catholick Doctrin Had he à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his Opinion fiue or six ages since as the Catholick Church then held and yet hold's our Catholick Doctrin Finally had he Scripture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Christs body as it is euidently clear for the Real Presence I verily think no prudent man could or would belieue any thing of this great Mystery And consequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Christian Religion Because Fathers vpon the Supposition are directly contrary to Fathers Church stand's against Curch and Scripture against Scripture But now when he hath not one Clear Testimony of à Father much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church nor so much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick Position I must Conclude that his Glosses already laid on these Fathers are not only improbable but more than highly improbable 21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet may reply His glosses T' is true because they are the Sentiments of à fallible man are indeed lyable to errour but He bidds me look well to my Refutations and beware of setting to high à value on them whilst I oppose him For my Opposition because I may mistake amount's to no more but to à weake degree of Fallibility so that Hitherto He and I stand vpon equal Terms Answ If the contest be thus much only whether his Glosses are not clearly refuted the Iudicious Reader after à due
Since you proue not so much as one of these few Articles to be of Diuine Reuelation but by the book which records them And this you do whilst I iustly question not only the book but the Truth of this very article which you make Diuine because it is in your Bible But enough of this subiect at present whereof see more C. 9. n. 7. All that is said there and further enlarged here makes this Truth not only probable but demonstratiuely euident That Scripture alone is no vniuersal Means to end Controuersies debated between Christians and no Christians which is the only Thing we now insist on yet Iesus Christ hath left sufficient means whereby such Aliens may be reclaimed from their Errours and attain saluation Scripture doth it not for all Therefore à more satisfactory way must be thought of 3. Now if we begin to speak of the Fathers with à learned Heathen t' is labour lost for He who belieues not the Diuinity of The Fathers of no Authority with à Heathen Scripture will little regard the Fathers Authority To tell à Heathen of the high Mysteries of our Faith augment's his Difficulties puzzles Reason and rack's his vnderstanding To weary him with à long narration of Ecclesiastical history is most impertinent when as yet He neither belieues Scripture nor Fathers Yet this man may be conuerted to Christian Religion if he followes Reason Vnless we say which is intolerable to hear That our Lord Iesus will haue this poor man lost or left without means to attain Saluation by 4. The next Aduersary the Protestant may attaque shall be if you please à Roman Catholick we will here to gain time omit his Contest with Arians and other Hereticks And his whole The sectaries attempt vpon Catholicks vain and why endeauour if he goe Closely to work must either be to Establish his own Protestant Tenets by Scripture Fathers and Antiquity or forceably to disswade all by virtue of these Principles from the Belief of our Catholik Doctrin I say it is impossible to do either Because the Sectary has not in the whole Bible one clear and express Text for any one Tenet of Protestancy as t' is reformed Nor so much as one clear and express Text against any one Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Religion Therefore as Scripture cannot Pass an obligation on him to belieue one Article of his new Faith so it cannot oblige him or me to disbelieue one Article of our Roman Catholick Doctrin For vpon this supposition it neuer meddless with the one and often omit's to speak of the other in plain open and significant Terms For example Scripture neither expresly denies Transubstantiation with the Protestant nor in that plain open Term affirm's it with the Catholick it neither clearly Saies there are Two Sacraments only nor in express Words allowes of Seuen It neither clearly denies Purgatory nor vnder that express word asserts it How then can the Protestant when he hath not one clear syllable in Scripture for what he hold's in these particulars nor à word against our contrary Doctrins euer probably venture Not one Text in Scripture clear for Protestancy nor one against Catholick Doctrin to decide these and the like controuerted Matters by the plain and express letter of the Bible It is impossible The Reason is it cannot determine that whereof it speaks not clearly nor become an intellectual Rule or Measure whereby we are to iudge what 's true or what 's false concerning these controuersies if it Meddles not with them in express Terms I say in express Terms For what euer is less then that or not express must either bee the Sectaries Gloss or his fallible Deduction I reiect both and appeal to him who wrote the original Book with all it's candor and simplicity If I find Protestancy there well and good If otherwise no Gloss no Deduction shall preuail with me to belieue the Nouelty vnder pain of damnation vnless he who tampers with à Text first bid's me belieue vnder pain of damnation that he is an vnerring man or that his Glosses or deductions are infallible which I am sure is not God's command Again If I find nothing plain and express in Scripture against my Catholick Doctrin but much for it I should be worse then foolish to change my ancient Faith vpon the slight ground of farfetch't Glosses and fallible inferences 5. Shall I say yet more clearly what I here aime at Some Christians there are now in being who Belieue the true Doctrin of Christ so firmly that though an Angel preach't Contrary Galat 1. 8. They ought not to be remoued from it if therefore Protestants belieue their own Doctrin so stedfastly and say that Papists for The Asssâ—rtiâ—n proued example err in the Belief of Christ's true Doctrin they are to Euidence it by à more indubitable Principle than that is which the Apostle vnderstand's by the preaching of an Angel But such à Principle can be no other nor less certain than plain and open Scripture How Therefore can the Protestant so much as weakly hope to disswade from Popery and perswade to his opinions by meer guesses weak inferences weightles coniectures c. without plain Scripture Now to shew you he hath no more but guesses Let him please to Discuss rigidly with me but one point in Controuersy by Scripture only That of Transubstantiation wherein he think 's to haue most Aduantage may perhaps occurr and like him best I say after All he can allege for his opinion or against our Catholick Doctrin shall be no more but meer Coniectures improbable Glosses vncertain Topicks false Suppositions and the like And are these think you weighty enough to establish his Opinion which he meer Coniectures are Protestants only proofs hold's to be reuealed Doctrin No certainly The Doctrin of Christ stand's so sure vpon certain known Grounds that an Angel though he preach otherwise is not to be belieued and if it be not thus stedfastly founded it is not as I obserued aboue Christ's Doctrin How easy were it for the Sectary to end much of these debates by à due examination of this one Controuersy I vrge him to it yet you 'l see he will refuse this Modest Challenge 6. Wherefore I shall neuer comprehend why these men trouble the world as they do with writing Controuersies What is their aime Is it to draw any one Soul to Protestancy or only to giue à proof of wit and show that they can speak against God's truths which an Angel cannot Disswade from If this later be intended the Arians of old did so before them And the Diuel can do it much better than either Arian or Sectary If it be to conuert men to Protestancy The Attempt is desperate vnless they come strongly armed with plain express and Significant Scripture Whereof there is no fear at all For had they clear Scripture against one sort of their supposed erring Christians Papists for example they would not spare vs
one whit but most willingly Silence vs with Gods own plain language This we look for but in lieu of it what haue we Fancies Coniectures Glosses friuolous Discourses And thus forsooth Popery must down I marry and Protestancy be thought the pure and most refined Religion 7. By what is said already you see how vnluckily these men run Sectaries argue improbably out of the way of all probable Arguing whilst Scripture is made so clear that by the light thereof All Controuersies now raised amongst dissenting Christians can be determined Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you no Purgatory no Inuocation of Saints by plain and express Scripture Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you plainly that to deny Purgatory or Transubstantiation is as necessary to Saluation as to deny à Quaternity of Diuine Persons Now if it be not clear in such matters Why keep you à coile about these Negatiues Why do you threaten vs with God's iudgements for mantaining the Contrary Doctrins Why haue you not only made an vproar in the world about Doctrins meerly vnnecessary but more which may lay sorrow at your hearts why haue Negatiue Opinions the cause of Sectaries Separation you shamefully separated your selues from an Ancient Church whereof your Ancestors were members And this is desperately done for à Company of Negatiue Opinions Though it import's not one straw whether they be belieued or no. Contrariwise if you make the Belief of these Non-Articles necessary to Saluation they must be proued by the plain and express word of God which is vtterly impossible and therefore I said right that Scripture cannot end Controuersies between dissenting Christians Catholicks for example and Protestants 8. And thus much in effect our Newer men grant who talk much of à few simple Truths sufficient to saluation called fundamentals Is is not enough saith Dr Taylor in his 2. Disswasiue P. 168. That we are Christians that we put all our hope in God who freely giâ—es vs all things by his Son Iesus Christ That we are redeemed by his Death that we are members of his body in Baptism that he giues vs his spirit that we do no Euil that we do what good we can c. Is not this Faith ruâ—e Righteousness and the Confession of this faith sufficient vnto saluation Obserue well If such à faith of à few Nouellists and the like simple Truths which no Arian denies vnder such general Terms Of Sectaries simple Truths and cannot be proued sufficient by plain Scripture be enough to Saluation what need had Sectaries to Calumniate our ancient Church and expose Christianity to the scorn of Iewes and Atheists for lesser Matters as they think than these fundamentals or few simple truths are Do we disown any of them No. We are Christians as well as they we put our hope in God we say all things are giuen vs by his son Iesus Christ we are redeemed by his Death c. Wherein then lies our Offence O we hold strange Nouelties Inuocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation I dâ—â—y they are Nouelties but be it as you will They are out of the 〈◊〉 â—f your simple Truths and in your Principles no more but Opinions and can you haue such cruel hearts as to persecute vs banish vs and shed our blood for meer Opinions Where is your Châ—rity Again I argue Ad hominem If to hold à Purgatory be only â— Opinion your denying it is no more but an opinion also Therefore you cannot proue your Negatiue by plain and express Scripture for if you do so it well be no longer an Opinion but à 〈◊〉 led Truth and certain Doctrin Conuince this if you can and thâ— tell vs that Scripture decides all Controuersies between vs or his an obligation on vs to belieue more then These few simple Truths 〈◊〉 No Purgatory for example No Transubstantiation or say plainly that Scripture doth not put an end to these Controuersies which Truth is euident by manifest Experience 9. It is strange to see how endlesse Sectaries are and to no purpose at all in quoting Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of Scripture in all things necessary but afterward spoil all with à new Scripture sayes not how many are necessary Whimsey For they make iust so much as they please à few Simple Truths serue the turn to be Necessary and sufficient Here are three insuperable difficulties First They speak without book For God neuer told them in Scripture how many or how few of these Truths are necessary and Sufficient Therefore if I admit this Principle the Protestants sole Word must secure me though I know well that their word is neither à necessary nor à sufficient warrant for my saluation Hence 1. I vrge them to show by plain Scripture the number of these fundamentals precisely necessary 2. I must tell them If Scripture be clear in à few Fundamentals and so much only be necessary and sufficient this reasonable Quaestion may well follow What 's the rest of the Bible good for with them Most certainly the far greater part of it where it speak's not of these few Necessaries may be cast away as vseless and impertinent 3. These Nouellists Pronounce and Proue against themselues in all such Controuersies as are now in debate between them and Catholicks For if Scripture which tell 's vs of all Necessary and Sufficient things to saluation comprised in à few simple Truths whereof there is no strif now omit's whilst it mentions Sectaries proue against themselues these to speak plainly in behalf of our Protestant Opinions Nâ— Sacrifice No Transubstantiation c. With what Conscience can they tell vs and They haue often said it that this Book alone can decide these controuersies and recall vs from Popery to their new mode of Protestancy I would willingly haue Satisfaction to this one difficulty 10. Well To answer all they can pretend to out of the ancient Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of scripture in order to things necessary be pleased to obserue that the learned Tertullian against Marcion but chiefly in his book de Praescript cap. 16. at those words We are not to recurr to Scripture wherein there is no victory or à very vncertain one c. And S. Austin S. Chrisostome with others may perhaps seem to à less diligent Reader to be of contrary iudgements Tertullian now cited saies Scripture is insufficient to decide Controuersies concerning Religion amongst Christians S. Austin De Bapt. Contra Donat lib. 2. C. 6. plead's much for it's sufficiency I say here is no Contrariety both speak well both deliuer Catholick Doctrin Know therefore that Scripture is deuided into two Parts or Sections as you may read in Sixtus Senensis Two parts of Scripture distinguished Lib. 6. Bibl. Annot 152. Who cites S. Chrisostom for it The one vsually called Pars Directa or direct part treat's of the abstruse Mysteries of Christian Faith and this which is Matter of Contest between vs and Sectaries
Answ what need of this when Protestants say there is no great difference between vs in Fundamentals But suppose this done which yet cannot be done whilst Sectaries remain in their wonted Labyrinth concerning Fundamentals what light haue we from these Fathers to try controuersies now in Agitation when they grant that Popery is made vp of the Fathers Errours The final sentence is past the iust Censure already giuen The Fathers were as we are now plain Papists I easily grant all 4. Shall I yet say more concerning the trial of Protestants Opinions or the supposed errours of Catholicks by Fathers and tell you Sectaries haue no Gusto to it at all And because it mainly import's first to discouer their want of Euidence and next their fallacious proceeding in this particular I will briefly do both and remit all here noted to the prudent Censure of euery Iudicious Reader Thus it is There is not one controuersy now Protestants neuer offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers disputed in which our Protestants do so much as offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers and Mr Stillingf likes not to be fob'd off with Two or three Testimonies Read their writings of the Real presence of Prayers for the Dead Inuocation of Saints of à Sacrifice vpon the Altar of the infallibility of the Church and tell me after you haue perused all How many Fathers you find clear and express for Protestancy A sight of four or fiue would help much But hereof there is no danger for you haue not one clear and expres I say more not one so much as probable against the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Against praying for the Dead c. And therefore wonder not that Mr Stilling Part. 3. C. 6. P. 641. where he treat's of Purgatory talk's much of the Fathers Fancies and Imaginations And of an itching Curiosity some haue to know more concerning the future state of souls than God has reuealed But after all produceth not one Testimony either clear or probable against our Catholick Doctrin 5. Do you desire to see more of this want in behalf of Protestancy And how little there is to countenance the Nouelty Turn again to Mr Stillinf Part. 2. C. 1. P. 293. Where you find à Title threatning ruin to vs all The Roman Church not the Catholick Church Say I beseech you who would not haue expected after such à clap of Thunder à whole Torrent of Fathers to haue followed for his purpose But in lieu of these Imptij words giuen in lieue of â—athers what haue we Marry He tell 's vs First His Bishop makes à great deal of difference between The Church And A Church and some difference also between à True Church and à right Church next he fall's foul on his Aduersary for his not well considering what the Primate had said Lastly to pass by à few ieers he speak's much of the Vniuersal spreading of the Churches Doctrin and Vnity thereof which is due to the Roman Catholick Church only But after his long Discourse and the rapping Title with it you haue neither sentence nor syllable of any Father which so much as meanly insinuates That that ancient Moral body as it comprehend's all Christians vnited in one Belief is not the only True and Orthodox Church in the world Yet herâ— had been à most fit place to haue pleaded by plain express Authorities I mean such as directly proue the Roman not to be the Catholick Church Belieue it were there any such in the Fathers Volumes Mr Stilling to make his margents glorious would haue brought them to light with à witness But of this main point he is vtterly silent because he had nothing to say And therefore wisely Slip's aside to other By-Matters and leaues his Title to shift for it self 6. Hence you may well conclude that our Sectaries are driuen into strange Straits when we vrge them to proue their Protestancy Of the straites sectaries are Cast into We first call them to plain Scripture for à Final decision in this particular but wanting where with all they fit vs right with à return of Antiscriptural glosses We press them again to name any orthodox Church which fiue or Six ages since professed their Nouelties Not à word is Answered We make Inquiry after Councils held by Protestants before Luther for the Protestant Religion Silence deep Silence not one is found Mention only Oral Tradition they storm at you because they know Protestancy has none We appeal to the authority of the most ancient Fathers you see how we are serued with words and empty Titles Nothing is or can be alleged clear Nothing expres Nothing probable Finally to leaue them without all excuse We call them again to an account and Ask whether they will haue their cause tryed and iudged by their own Doctors Luther Caluin Zuinglius and the like No satisfaction is found here Luther condemn's Caluin more violently than the Prelatick Party in England doth the Quakers and Send 's the Associates Protestants irreconciably Contradict Protestants of Caluin to Hell for denying the Real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament And Caluin is as fierce against Luther in this particular And thus all Sectaries haue opposed one another from the very beginning of this woful Reformation Some plead for our Catholick Doctrin Others are contrary as you may read at large almost in euery Page of the Protestants Apology We therefore know not what these Nouellists would or can belieue whilst these endles differences about Belief thus turn their heads and make them to belieue iust nothing but what euery fancy pleaseth What à Religion haue we here View well it 's exteriour you haue only Horrour and confusion to look on Altars pulled down Cloisters demolished Bious places prophaned Stately Churches turned into sluttish barns by à barbarous Reformation Enter into the Interiour or cast à serious thought on that which should essentially constitute Religion you find this Protestancy à meer new Nothing as Scripture Neither Interiour nor exteriour valuable in protestancy lesse as Churchles without Tradition without the consent of Fathers or any Christian Principle to vphold it yea and this vtterly ruin's all without any Agreement in Doctrin amongst themselues May we not Therefore iustly deplore the sad condition of Thousands now within our once most Catholick England to see à Thing which stand's on no Principles but fancy most earnestly stood for by men of excellent natural parts and these English too whose Progenitors the world knowes it fully as wise as They were all Roman Catholicks But what will ye Good Reuenues A merry life à hansom wife and Self Interest will haue it so And thus much of the want of clear Authorities in behalf of Protestants 7. We are now to speak à word of their fallacious or rather open iniurious Proceeding with the Fathers And to make good what I am about to Say you may please to reflect vpon the
either Party to their cause by skirmishing in the dark with weak Probabilities only Matters of Religion which must stand vpon sure Principles or there is no such thing as Religion in the world would be iust like weak Opinions in schools Tenable or not tenable as different iudgements please to Opine might Topicks And probabilities only sway in so weighty à Cause 4. Vpon this ground you haue Euidence enough against these pretended Probabilities of Sectaries whereof more presently Be pleased to obserue it The Catholick saith The Roman Catholick Church is infallible No saith the Protestant She is fallible Here lies the contradiction If both these Aduersaries Assert so boldly each of them supposing that God hath reuealed the one or other part of the Contradiction must solidly proue what he Assert's in so weighty à Matter And can any man perswade himself that an Infinite wisdom hath laid That Truth whereon so much depend's and is now reuealed to Christians whether it be the Churches fallibility or the contrary in The obuious truths of Christianity not proued by Guesses such Obseurity or remoued it so far from prudent Reason That no man can find it out or proue it but by the dark glimpses of weak Guesses of vncertain Topicks and Probabilities which of their own nature easily throw men into errour Grant thus much We first do iniury to Gods Reuelation Next we are left in suspence And know not what to belieue And here I ask whether Mr Stillingfleet will oblige me vnder pain of damnation stedfastly to belieue the absolute fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church If he doth no weaker Principle then plain Scripture can be my Security And this I require of him If he recoyle and produce not plain Scripture He is more than imprudent to force on me à new Faith contrary to the iudgement of à whole Church vpon no stronger proofs than weak guesses are Lastly may Topicks auail here we lay an impossible obligation on our selues whilst all must say God will haue vs to belieue and with all certainty what he hath reuealed in this particular Yet when we come to examin the Grounds and Proofs of our certain belief All Proofs vanish away into Topicks Proofs of Christianity no weak Topicks and vncertain fancies Hence I conclude if the Protestant affirm's as he doth that our Church is fallible He must proue the Assertion by indubitable Principles And the like obligation lies on the Catholick who saith She is infallible And this by the grace of God shall be proued in the next Discourse 5. In the interim if you desire to see more of much iniury done to the ancient Fathers turn only to Mr Stilling 3. Part. C. 3. P. 58. Where he oppugn's our Catholick Doctrin of praying to Saints And you may well stand astonished at his Vnprincipled Glosses He saith first The Expressions of Fathers which seem most to countenance this Innocation are only Rhetorical flourishes Has the Assertion any probability think you Read only the Testimonies alleged by Cardinal Bellarmin de Sanct Beatitudine Cap. 19. Br Cardinal Pâ—rron large vpon this subiect And Cardinal Richel eâ— Traitte pour conuertir cenx qui se sont separez de L'Eglise Lib. 3. Chiefly Page 420. It is not now my intent to transcribe those many vnanswerable Authorities alleged in behalf of our Doctrin And if after the perusal you see not plainly that both Mr Stillingfleet and his Lord doe grosly abuse the Fathers deny me credit hereafter 6. To conuince the first of vniust proceeding I 'le only instance Mr Stilling again abuseth thâ— Fathers in one particular P. 589. Where he saith that S. Gregory Nyssen in his commendation of S. Theodorus the martyr made vse of Rhetorick in his Apostrophe to the Saint without any solemn Inuocation It is vtterly vntrue The words of S. Gregory are These Paris Print 1615. Page 1011. And 1017. when the Scythians threatned ruin to the Countery Pray for vs make intercession to him who is our Common Lord and King As you are à souldier fight for vs and defend vs And as you are à martyr speak freely for your fellow seruants A few lines after And if more Prayers be needful assemble together the whole Quire of your Brethren Martyrs and ioyntly intercede for vs. Put S. Peter in mind moue S. Paul and the beloued Disciple of our Lord that They be solicitous for the Churches where they once were chains passed dangers And finally dyed Iudge good Reader whether this recourse made to à Saint in time of danger be only à Rhetorical flourish when the very words imply à most solemn and serious Inuocation Pray for vs Make intercession Let all the Martyrs ioyntly become Petitioners in our behalf in these our necessities are no flourishes but holy and hearty Inuocations Yet more When all the Fathers in the Council of Calcedon Act. 11. Tom. 2. Concil Part. 1. P. 340. No less publickly in the Express for Inuocation presence of the whole Council than piously inuoked the Holy martyr Flauianus thus Flauianus post mortem viuit Martyr pro nobis oret Flauianus liues after Death let that Martyr Pray for vs. Can any one in Conscience think that this was only à Rhetorical flourish Or that the learned Theoderet acted only à Rhetoricians part when in his History of Saints He concludes euery life as Bellarmin obserues with an earnest Petition that by the holy intercession of these happy souls now in Bliss he might haue aide and diuine Assistance S. Austin was à good Rhetorician yet no man will say he made vse of flourishes in that plain and deuout prayer to our Blessed Lady Tom 9. lib. Doctrin at least Collected out of S. Austin Meditat C. 40. Holy and immaculate Virgin Mother of God Mother of our Lord Iesus Christ vouchsafe to pray for me to him Cuius meruisti effici templum for whom you haue deserued to be made à worthy Temple He mean's the Temple of her sacred body wherein her only Son our Sauiour pleased to inhabit nine months together A whole volume would be necessary to allege other Fathers in confirmation of our Catholick Doctrin But these few manifestly proue that Mr Stilling grosly erred when he said that the Expressions of Fathers which seem to Countenance the inuocation of Saints look only like Blossoms and pretty flourisheâ— in Rhetorick Withall that his second Assertion viz. The Church did not then admit of the Inuocation of Saints but only of the Commemoration of Martyrs is no more but à dream or à most improbable saying 7. It is not now my intent when I only touch à few to tax Mr Stilling of many other gross mistakes in this one controuersy whereof I verily think his own Conscience accuseth him butâ— leaue that to God Howeuer because contrary to his vsuâ—l manner he enters vpon à preculation which I am consident he vnderstand's not I will doe so much seruice as to vnbeguile both him and his
ignorant what euer Adoration followes vpon them is only à material Offence without the Formal sin as is now declared Wherefore I verily think you Sr vnderstand not your selfe too well when you first suppose the Ratio formalis of prayer or Adoration the same in the Catholick and Heathen And then tell vs we are not to enquire whether the Apprehension be true or false but what the nature of that act of Religion is which is consequent vpon such an apprehension 12. Sr in case of inuincible ignorance it little import's to inquire after the Truth or Falshood of the Apprehension for neither the one nor other because out of the reach of one erring inuincibly has influence into any act of Religion Aand therefore there can be no irreligious worship or formal sin grounded vpon such à iudgement if that Supposition stand All then which ought to be searched into though omitted by you is How or in what manner these misled iudgements tend vnto their Obiect If blameably because vincible they are sinful if inuincible and not in mans power to mend They cannot hurt any In all other cases except this one of inuincible ignorance you must enquire whether the Apprehension or iudgement be true or false Suppose then it be vincibly and culpably false it is apt to beget false worship And should be laid aside Suppose it true It only saies thus much Dead Augustus was à wise and gallant Commander Here is all that can be truely apprehended of him But this iudgement as it find's no What is to be inquired excellence in that dead Prince deseruing prayer or religious Veneration so it cannot incline the will to exhibit any religious duty to him 13. And here we come to enlighten you à little because you say You see not but that kind of worship which was giuen by the Heathens to their Daemons was as defensible vpon the same grounds as the Inuocation of Saints is now Can you Sr Speak in earnest What Now in this present state when mens iudgements are cleared of errour and inuincible ignorance can you find no difference The difference is most palpable For that Deity is not in being The Saint really is in Heauen The Heathen adores his Daemon misled by à false improbable Opinion and Therefore commit's Idolatry The Catholick worship's à Saint assured of the Truth by à iudgement most certain And therefore what He adores is worthy Adoration vnless you can Vnsaint those who are in Heauen or proue they deserue no Reuerence The diffrence between 〈…〉 e and fâ—â—se worship in hat happy State Finally the Heathens iudgement because vnâ—easonable and against the light of nature if it own 's à Deity in Caesar is culpably sinful and ought to be laid down The Catholicks Iudgement point blank contrary ought not to be put away Now Sir if you say All the Heathens worship of their Daemons or inferiour Gods arose from inuincible ignorance of their Excellence which is more then you can proue or probably maintain Here is yet the difference between them and Catholicks that These are neither formal nor material false worshipers The Heathens were at least materially so 14. What followes in Mr Stilling is not like his speculation any choise Matter but vulgar only refuted again and again As. 1. That the Rites of Canonizing Saints Answer to the Rites of the ancient Emperours Apothâ—osis 2. The Formal reason of Idolatry lay in offring vp those deuotions to that which was not God which only belong's to an Infinite Being Let the Expression passe Catholicks I am sure offer vp no such deuotions to Saints as they Adoration very different doe to God knowing well to distinguish by the internal Acts of their Will between the Supreme Excellence and all other power inferiour to That 3. Saith Mr Stilling it is not possible to conceiue any Act which doth more express our sence of an Infinite Excellence And the Profession of our subiection to it than Inuocation doth Pitiful He should haue said then such à particular Inuocation doth tending to an Infinit Maâ—esty For we inuoke and call vpon men now liuing to Assist vs with their Prayers And likewise Address our selues to the Saints in Heauen Yet no man can gather from such deuotions any thing like an acknowledgement of an Infinite Excellence in men now liuing or the Saints in Heauen But enough of these weightles Arguments to touch them is to refute them And thus much of this And the other former Digressions Now we are to à prosecute further Two necessary points CHAP. XVIII The Protestant after all his Glosses can not ascertain any of true Religion He would make Controuersies an endles work 1. YOu haue been ofen told aboue that Sectaries would fain make controuersies à long work I must now giue you the vltimate reason Thereof And withal proue it impossible to know in these mens Principles what is à Christian Truth and what not Their Glosses and impropable way of Arguing laies all which can be said in darknes and obscurity 2. To proceed clearly I suppose first that Christian Truths as reuealed or Contained in Christs Doctrin are infallible and Principles supposed stand firm vpon infallible Reuelation I may here also suppose 2. That either we Catholicks or our Protestant Aduersaries euen in such Tenets as we differ Belieue and profess Christian Truths For example Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation is à Christian truth The Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church or Her fallibility is à Christian Truth for they are Contradictories held by Christians Therefore the one or other must be owned true if maintained as Christian Doctrin I suppose 3. That neither part of these Contradictions Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation in like manner we discourse of all other opposite Doctrins are held their own Self-euidence or manifestly true Ex terminis like the first Principles in nature If Therefore assented to as Christian Truths by the one contrary Party or the other They must be proued by sure Principles extrinsecal to the Doctrin which each Party embraceth 3. Now you shall see What work Sectaries make in these Disputable Matters And how nothing can be certainly known by Them or owned as à Christian verity I would say It An Assertion Proued Can neither be proued in their Principles That to deny Transubstantiation let this one instance serue for all is à Truth or that to hold Transubstantiation is an Errour Here is my reason When Principles whereon solid proofs should subsist are not Proofs must of necessity fail But in those Controuerted Matters Sectaries haue no Principles at all to Argue by Therefore proofs must fail The Minor is euidenced thus All imaginable Principles whereon Proofs can stand in this contest must either be infallible or at least morally certain Meer Probability want's strength to vphold à Christian Truth But the Sectary cannot proue by any either infallible or Moral certain Principle that his Tenet is à Christian Truth And
any firm Belief or to ground so much Moral certainty of à Christian Truth as excludes à possibility of doubting 10. You will Ask what then is there which may raise these two Aduersaries from that low degree of meer Opining to à higher degree of certainty I shall fully Answer the Question in the next Discourse Here I say in à word No Principle can do this But one only which the Sectary want's And the Catholick has to rely on which is the Tradition the Voice and open declared Iudgement of Christs Catholick Church here on earth This faithful Oracle raises vs from the supposed State of our guessing Probably to the highest degree of not only Moral but also of Infallible certainty Though now we press not that against our Aduersaries The Sectary Therefore who disdain's to learn of this Oracle what Christian Truths are shall neuer come to his Moral certainty though the Supposition already made of Authorities equal stood in vigour Iudge then I beseech you How desperate his Cause is now How remote from all such certainty De facto whether he impugn's our Doctrin or plead's for his own opinions when he hath nothing to rely on but only à few dark and dubious Passages of some ancient Fathers 11. I say dubious Passages for in Truth if so much they are no more And Therefore though we haue hitherto supposed Authorities euenly laid on both sides To Show that nothing What the Sectary can Plead help 's the Sectary out of his labyrinth yet now I must tell the Story as t' is All he has in this world to plead comes only to à few misinterpreted Authorities And with such poor Gleanings Churchless man as He is he thinks to Out-braue à whole Church To decry Tradition to vnsense the Fathers to rob vs of our right And finally to throw vs out of the Possession of those ancient Christian Truths which both we and our Ancestors haue professed age after age without Alteration What think ye Haue à few rack't and tortured Sentences Add to them as many Cauils as many Criticisms as you please force enough to do such wonders Can these gleanings misinterpreted as you haue seen better inform vs of the ancient Primitiue Truths than the General voice or vniuersal consent of à whole Church now in being It is improbable Grant therefore which I do On what Principle the Catholick Stand's not That we know not too well the sense of one Theoderet or of à Tertullian c. The Catholick cleares his Doctrin And drawes it from surer Principles viz. From the voice and open declared Iudgement of his Church And most deseruedly look's on the Sectaries attempt as highly improbable who will needs know what Doctrin we are to hold now or was anciently held amongst Christians by à Fathers Testimony when the very sense is supposed doubtful And lies in obscurity That is He will know more than can be known He will force light out of darkness And deriâ—â— the moral certainty of his Doctrin from meer doubtful Principles which is impossible And thus these men proceed in all other Controuersies though Conscious that à whole ample Church decries their Doctrin as false And the open abuse of Fathers also O saith the Sectary I little regard what the Church decries Ansâ— And much less do I regard what you cry against it When the whole strength of your Clamours vltimatly resolued comes to no more but to fancied Glosses laid vpon ambiguous Authorities What in God's name would you be at What can you pretend The Church opposed to Sectaries Clamours or intend Shall clamours Think ye and your few clouded Testimonies force me to leaue my ancient Faith when I euidently know That the Church I liue in call's louder on me and more rationally command's me to Belieue as I doe This audible known voice of Christ's Church dull's your clamours infinitly Outweigh's your Glosses your guesses And the doubtful Sentiment of any priuate Father 12. The Sectary may reply I haue now supposed without Proof the Fathers abused by him whereas if the Supposition hold's it s only doubtful whether it be so or no. Answ Thus much is only supposed doubtful That neither of vs can learn by words precisely obscure what Doctrin to embrace or what to reiect Before à surer Oracle speak's and decide the Controuersy Catholicks say this Oracle is the Church The Protestant who has no Church to recurr to stand's trifling with his obscure Passages hoping at last to make something of nothing to hammer out of dark sentences the Clear Moral certainty of his new Doctrin Though contrary to the whole Church And thus He abuseth both Fathers and reason also Because as I said iust now A doubtful Principle yeilds not so much certainty If He say 3. His quoted Authorities are sufficiently clear to ground the Moral certainty of his Doctrin against the Church it is à desperate improbable Speech For Moral certainty which should pass as an vncontradicted truth most euidently loseth that force when à whole Church manifestly contradict's it But hereof enough is Said in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 6. n. 3. 13. You will ask perhaps What is to be done if we meet with à Father so clear and express against Church-Doctrin that he cannot possibly be brought to à Catholick sense I Answer A doubt proposed and solued Suppose thus much which I think was neuer yet heard of in any Contest betwixt the Protestant and Catholick I 'le absolutly deny the Authority and adhere to Church-Doctrin For as the whole body is greater than à part so the iudgement of à whole Church is the stronger Principle here and ought in reason to regulate and bear sway before the sentiment of any priuate man who by weaknes or inaduertancy may slip aside into Errour I say through weaknes or incogitancy for if he obstinately oppose the Church He is no Father in that But an Heretick 14. Whoeuer reflects well on what is noted already will see I hope How neer we are to an End of disputes with Protestants if the Contest arise from the Authority of Fathers Here is the Ground of what I am to Say All the Authorities which can What Authorities can be quoted be quoted in Points now Controuerted are either plain or esteemed plain for Catholick Doctrin both by the learned of our Church and Sectaries also As is amply proued aboue Or Contrariwise are at most supposed doubtful I Assert it boldly the Sectary has not one plain Testimony for him in this debated Matter of Transubstantiation And if one or two were granted plain that 's nothing to contrast with à whole Church and innumerable other Fathers 15. Hence I Discourse In case Authorities be Clear for Catholick Doctrin the Sectary opposes vs improbably if he seek to establish his Nouelties vpon à Principle which plainly teaches what we teach And quite ruin's his contrary Opinions If the Authority be doubtful I haue said enough already
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
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
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
is an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God But how far In à few simple Truths called fundamentals in others it may err and profess as much falshood as you please against the Verities of Scripture So that the true Church not defined at all is made by these à fair and foul Spouse at once fair in à few vnalterable necessary Truths but foul vgly and deformed because erroneous in à hundred other matters Mark the Paradox and call it à flat Heresy which separat's him who assert's it from the Catholick body Thus it is Christs Church is true and falfe pure and vnpure right and wrong louely and hateful together The Inhabitants of this Citty of God of this Temple and safe dwelling place are in it by belieuing à few simple Truths And at the same time out of it by belieuing more Falsities This is Mr Stillingfleets strange Doctrin who think 's there is no Church now in the world of one Denomination free from Errour To what desperate improbabilities doth Heresy driue men 6. The 4. Principle The receiued Doctrin of Christs Church chiefly in all points of Controuersy is euer as clear and often more clear by what She teaches than it is in any express words of Scripture The Assertion is vndubitable For Church Doctrin clear in the Churches Definitions who see 's not but that the whole Catholick Doctrin of the sacred Trinity of one God and three distinct Persons of the Father improduced the eternal Son begotten and of the Holy Ghost proceeding from both is more plainly deliuered in Church Doctrin than in any sentence or sentences of Holy Writ The like I say of the high Godhead in Christ which the Arians deny Of Original sin reiected by the Pelagians and other Articles of our Christian faith And thus much is euident against Secctaries for do not they make their own Doctrin of their Caen◠Not alwaies so inscripture as Sectaries grant or Sacrament when they call it à Sign à Figure c. more plain than any words are for it in Holy writ And will they not also grant T' is an Argument ad hominem that our Catholick Tenet of this sacred Mystery laid forth in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. is more express and plain Popery than lies couched in Christs own words This is my body Though the Popery is there clear enough to euery Reader Yes most assuredly For if our Doctrin stand as plain in Christs words as in the Churches Definition drawn from thence Sectaries cannot as they do admit of the one and scornfully reiect the other Therefore they must suppose Scripture more dark and obscure than either their own or our Churches Doctrin is And hence it followes that the very Arians were not so much Hereticks vpon the account that they opposed any most clear and express sentence in Holy writ for really it 's hard to find one manifestly express against them as for contradicting plain Church Doctrin or the true sense of Scripture deliuered by this Oracle of truth Their Heresy then proceeded first from some words in Scripture seemingly clear in their behalf as My Father is greater than 1. 2. From no Text so manifest but that still place was left them to Why the Arians were accounted Heretiques Glosse as they haue done and in their Iudgements with some appearrance of truth yet Hereticks they were and so deseruedly accounted of for contradicting the Church's clear Doctrin Be it how you will thus much I am sure of They neuer mangled or misused any passage in holy Writ when contrary to their Heresy more shamfully than our Protestants now mangle and abuse our Sauiours Proposition This is my body 7. By all you see this Principle well grounded Whateuer Clarity Scripture hath chiefly in Matters of controuersy and clarity helps much in the Rule of Faith Gods true Church which cannot but speak the Scriptures sense in euery particular deliuers it most clearly Wherefore S. Austin told Manicheus Tom 6. contra Epist Fundam C. 14. That if hee was to belieue the obscure Mysteries of Christianity Hee would assent to them vpon the weighty Authority of People and Nations celebrated and spread abroad By the consent of all learned and vnlearned which consent implies the vniuersal Agreement of the Catholick Church And to establish this Doctrin more firmly He assures vs. Tract 18. in Ioan That all Heresy which intangles souls and cast's them into Hell S. Austins Iudgement concerning Scripture proceed's from this one misery that Good Scripture is not rightly vnderstood by them Hence also Hee told vs aboue Lib. 1. contra Crescon C. 32. That if any doubt arise concerning the obscurity of Scripture we are to haue recourse to Christs holy Church and receiue from Her satisfaction To which purpose S. Cyprian speaks most piously Lib. de Vnit Ecclesiae illius lacté nutrimur Spiritu eius animamur adulterari non potest sponsa Christi We are nourished by the milk we are animated by the Spirit of this faithful Spouse of Christ which cannot play the Harlot or become an Adulteress 8. The last Principle The Rule of Faith is plain or its own Self-euidence apt of its own nature to conuince the most obstinate Aduersary whether Iew Gentil or Heretick And for this reason must be immediatly credible by it Self and for it self otherwise it must suppose an other distinct Rule yet more plain more euident more conuincing and more immediatly credible And that Rule à third à fourth And so in infinitum which is impossible Again the Obiectiue Rule we Shall now speak of Answer 's to the thing regulated by it which is true certain and Diuine Faith This Rule then must not only be true and certain in it self but also certainly applyed to Belieuers For à certain What the Rule of Faith implies Rule in it self dubiously applyed to an vnderstanding auail's only to leaue all in Suspence and lead's none to any further Acquiescency but to à wauering and vncertain Opinion And this is neither suitable to firm Belief nor to the Rule it self which ought to establish vs in Gods reuealed truths without doubt and hesitancy Grant this Notion of à Rule to be exact and none shall iustly except against it All we haue said aboue of the Scriptures Insufficiency to regulate Faith or to decide controuersies is no less than à Demonstration against Sectaries Whereof see more in the other Treatise Disc 2. per totum Scripture Certainly is not plain in all things necessary to be belieued for were the true sense of it which indeed is only Scripture as plain and indisputably clear for the Arians or Protestants in euery particular controuersy as their Doctrin is plainly deliuered by them Or contrariwise were the sense of it as plain and indisputably clear for the Catholick Doctrin in Matters of debate as the very Doctrin is taught by the Church All Contention would soon cease because either They vpon the Supposition
must become Papists or wee turn Arians and Protestants Or finally be forced to deny plain Scripture A most conuincing Argument 9. The difficulty therefore is not and Sectaries seldom touchit whether Scripture be true were the sense known or out of Controuersy but what that true sense is which lies in obscurity and cannot be known without à certain Interpreter Here is the only Question debated between vs and Sectaries One may The only difficulty concerning Scripture Reply It is no good obiection to say learned men differ about the sense of Scripture Ergo it is not sufficiently plain because à great wit may wrest the plainest words God euer spake to à sinister sense Contra. 1. But who knowes when two learned Parties contest in this Matter which of them is the sinister Wrester Contra 2. When à whole Society of men as the Arians were and Protestants are now Tamper with à Text which touches an essential point of Faith And dissent from others as learned as Themselues about the meaning The sense cannot be supposed more clear for the one than the other without an other Rule certain and Definitiue Pray you say Is the sense of those words My Father is greater than I indisputably clear for the Arian Or the sense of Christs words This is my Body without controuersy clear for the Protestants Doctrin concerning the Sacrament when à whole learned Church opposeth both Euidently No. Therefore Sectaries must acknowledge an Obscurity in Scripture our Nouellists must grant that Scripture is not only obscure in these two places But more That à Iudge is necessary to ascertain all of its true meaning as well in these as in à hundred other Passages Again if Scripture want this clarity it cannot be its own Self-euidence much less conuince an obdurate Aduersary Nay I say though it were clear and the sense thereof agreed on by all called Christians yet both Iewes and Gentils scorn the Diuinity of the book And say if 't be of Diuine inspiration That must be proued by à certain Rule extrinsecal to Scripture Therefore it is not immediatly credible by it self or for it self Lastly were Scripture plain in it self yet And this vtterly ruin's Sectaries The certain Doctrin of it can neuer be applyed indubitably to any vnderstanding For our Nouellists say because all Teachers of Christian Doctrin are fallible none can make an infallible Application of it to any or teaeh that Doctrin infallibly which is in it self infallible See more hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. and C. 4. N. S. 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 1. THe true Church of Christ in this present State manifestly demonstrable by signal Marks and Motiues is the only plain certain Self-euident Rule of Faith apt to conuince the most obdurate Vnbelieuer It is immediatly credible and the Doctrin of it certainly applyed to à Seeker after truth These Assertions stand firm vpon 3. Principles 2. 1. Christ Iesus has prouided Christians of à clear and easy Rule otherwise All are left in darknes and know not what or how to belieue 3. 2. Nothing assigned by Sectaries Bee it Scripture solely or what els Imaginable Carries so much as à weak probability of being à Rule so plain easy and satisfactory as the true Church is 4. 3. All the properties of à Rule exactly agree to the Church of Christ and to Her only 1. The Rule of Faith is plain Christs Church is the Rule of Faith so is Church Doctrin and much more plain than Scripture I mean we easily vnderstand what the Church teaches though the Doctrin in it self be difficult 2. A Rule is its own Self-euidence so the Church is taken with the Marks and Motiues whereby She is demonstrated 3. A Rule is apt to conuince the most obstinate Aduersaries Christs Church has euidently don so witness the innumerable Conuersions wrought by Her vpon Iewes Gentils and most obdurate Hereticks 4. A Rule must be certain and certainly applyed to Belieuers what Christs true Church teaches is so for She is Gods own Oracle as shall be proued hereafter and teaches her Children infallibly The Truth of these particulars will be more fully laid forth in the sequele of this Discourse In the mean while two things are to be cleared The first what we vnderstand by the Church of Christ 2. How and by what means She may be known Thus much done we shall easily find out those Christians who are Members of this happy Society or essentially constitute that visible moral Body called the Holy Catholick Church What is meant by the Church 5. Concerning the first We speak plainly and vnderstand by the Church à visible Society of true Belieuers vnited in one profession of Christian Faith and the communication of Sacraments vnder the Conduct and Gouerment of Christ's lawful Commissioned Pastors I say no more yet hoping no Sectary can iustly quarrel with the Notion of à Church expressed in such general Terms And therefore waue at present that other worn-out controuersy agitated by Protestants viz. Whether the Predestinate only make vp the true Church or great Sinners also may be included That is not at all to our purpose now when we only seek after à Society of Christians vnited in the true Faith of Jesus Christ who owne à due submission to lawful Commissioned Pastors whether those who teach or are taught be Saints or sinners concerns them t' is true but not our present Question Of such Belieuers there cannot be two or more Churches but one only And to auoid all confusion or the mingling of different Questions together we here moue no doubt concerning the Head The meaning of the question proposed or chief Authority of this Church but immediattly Ask whether there is now and has euer been since Christs time à visible diffused Society of Christians who haue faithfully belieued the Orthodox Doctrin of Christ and vpon that Account well merit to be called the Professors of the true Catholick Church Of this Vniuersal spread Society our Sauiour spake most clearly or of none Hell gates Can not preuail against it The Spirit of Truth abides with it to the end of the world c. I think no Sectary will deny such à Church 6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and large diffused Body of Christians vnited in one true Faith and the sincere Worship of God And nothing is more consonant to reason more express in Holy Writ or more clearly asserted by the ancient Fathers than that the true Church laies forth Her own euidence or clear Discernibility whereby She is distinguished from all Heretical Sects That is She lies manifestly open to all eyes and Cannot but bee most easily known She is à Ciâ—â—y built vpon à mountain The light of the world A
à People mad nor besotted vpon this Account because As the Primitiue Christians more induced to belieue so are wee They proceeded iust as the Primitiue Christians did that alwaies belieued vpon Rational Motiues These Motiues then first enlightned the reason of the most ancient Christians And reason afterward preuented by grace submitted to all the Church teaches But much more of this hereafter because of greatest Consequence though it seem's Sectaries haue little regard to the Euidence of Christianity Drawn from rational Motiues 11. The. 3. Proposition The Marks of Christs Church manifest to all are more sensible and clear than the essential Doctrin is marked by them They are peculiar to the true Church only and distinguish Her from all Heretical Communities Finally taken all together and not by Piece-meal conuince this truth That God speaks to Christians by this Church Euery part of the Proposition proues it self First à Mark is more clear and sensible than the thing marked by it For who euer had seen our Blessed Sauiour walking here on earth and obserued his holy life whoeuer had heard his sacred words and seen his Miracles would haue said his Sanctity words and Miracles were more clear and euident to all than his Doctrin was of being God and man Therefore the first Christians belieued that great Mystery induced by euident works and wonders 2. These Marks are peculiar and proper to the true Church only You haue the reason hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 8. 1â—3 The force of prudent Motiues Because it is not possible if à true Church be now on earth that God can permit à false Society to equalize it much less to surpass it in the lustre of such Motiues as forcibly perswade to discern between That and all heretical Communities For were this done Falshood would be made as credible to reason as truth And God would be guilty of Arguing less efficaciously in behalf of his own Church against Iewes Gentils and obstinate Hereticks 12. Obserue well the Strength of this Argument I say in à word If an Arian could truly Assert I haue as many forceable Motiues And marks of truth belonging to my followers and Doctrin As the now supposed true Church of Christ can shew for it self could he say with truth I will euidence the like Antiquity the like Perpetuity the like lawful Mission of my Pastors the like vnity in Faith the like conuersions of Heathens wrought in and by my Church The like succession of Bishops preaching my Doctrin from Christs time to this day The like sanctity the like miracles as any Church on earth can demonstrate They distinguish the true Church from false Communities Could an Arian I say or Iew either speak all this with truth no Orthodox Christian could argue the one or other of Falshood in Doctrin For grant thus much These very men might much better handle and interpret Scripture than Protestants do vtterly destitute of all such Marks The Iew if the false supposition stand would draw the old Testament to his sense and so would the Arian the new And who could reproue them could they shew you à Church bearing these signes of diuine Authority Hence Sectaries that only Gloss Scripture and neuer had any thing like an euidenced Church which taught the Doctrin they now maintain and so earnestly Gloss for are most reproueable And vainly attempt to draw any prudent man to à belief of their Nouelties 13. By all you see how important it is to haue à Christian Society clearly marked and distinguished from false Communities with euident Signes and rational Motiues before we recurr to Scripture All faith depends on this greater Euidence laid forth to reason as Shall be demonstrated towards the end of this Discourse 14. I would haue euery one seriously to reflect on what is now said and once more to know That Christs Church like à glorious Sun euidenceth Her selfe by the Lustre of signal Marks though her essential Doctrin belieued by obscure Faith appear's not Euident Find me then out à Church euer in being since Christs time vnited in one Faith glorious in Miracles and conuersions of Heathens wherein Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent haue preached Christs Doctrin age after age Giue me à Church which was neuer censured or taxed of Errour by any Society of known Orthodox Christians She and She only is Christ's true Spouse All other late risen Assemblies are Conuenticles of Satan And these Marks do not only distinguish Her from all One only Church Shewes these Marks such Conuenticles as is now noted but Collectiuely taken conuince this Truth That God speak's to Christians by this Oracle whereof you haue more in the following Chapters 15. In the Interim we must enter vpon à further difficulty and next enquire which among so many Congregations as now are and haue been in the world is the only manifested true Spouse of Christ For all as I said aboue make not one Church vnless Christ hath composed this mystical Body of such members as rightly belieue and of others that iniuriously oppose his sacred Doctrin Now because the chief controuersy is between the Protestant and Catholick The first pretend's to à Church which teaches Christs Doctrin The Catholick vtterly denies the Pretence and pleads for his Own Oracle euidenced by prudent Motiues This I say being the Contest we are in the first place to vnchurch the Protestant and then proue by vndeniable Arguments where and with whom the true Church of Christ is CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church euidenced by Marks of Truth nor true Doctrin made credible to reason His whole Faith is built vpon Fancy 1. THe Marks of the Church as is now said are so clear to reason that they make the Oracle manifest to all sort of people to the learned and vnlearned to Iewes to Infidels and much more to Hereticks who pretend to belieue in Christ All of them are alike concerned and obliged to make à search after the true Church and when t' is found to belieue it 2. Now to find it out I Ask whether our English Protestants with these we chiefly dispute like well of the marks Questions Proposed to Sectaries already hinted at or will reiect them I propose my doubt with all candor Will they dare to say That their Church as it deliuers Protestants Doctrin or as it is now reformed in England was euer since Christ time In Being and visible to the world Can they produce à Succession of Bishops or Pastors that taught Protestancy Age after Age without intermission Can they show what Conuersions these Protestant Pastors wrought vpon Heathens to their faith fiue or six Centuries since Can they produce indubitable Miracles done by such Pastors Most euidently No. Therefore our later Protestants reiect these and the other like Motiues as slight and impertinent to euidence their Church which yet say they teaches Christs Doctrin and Wilily do so because they haue none of them Well To
ouerthrow any Doctrin of our Church Alas what this Oracle positiuely defin's is à stronger Principle than twenty dubious Authorities of Fathers if any such were in appearance contrary It followes 2. That the Roman Catholick Church must of necessity be either owned Orthodox in all She teaches or cannot be belieued in any thing 8. Wherefore I say à great word If this Church hath deceiued the world in teaching à Purgatory for example neither we nor Sectaries can certainly belieue that Christ was here on earth or Redeemed vs. For Ask why belieue wee this great Mystery If you Answer Scripture reueal's it you are Questioned again How One Errour in the Church Destroyes all Faith know you that Scripture is Gods word which Ex terminis euidences not it self You must Answer Vniuersal Tradition and all the Churches in the world haue owned the Book for Gods word Very good But The Church hitherto supposed most Orthodox among so many Heretical Societies and Her Tradition likewise haue actually deceiued all For She is now Imagined to haue taught the false Doctrins of Purgatory Transubstantiation c. Therefore you cannot belieue Her or any Tradition for erring in one point of Faith She is not belieuable in any This principle stand's firm Much less can you trust to the Doctrin or Tradition of known Heretical Churches whether Arians Pelagians or others For all these haue erred and most grosly Therefore you haue no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture nor can you belieue this one Prime Article Christ dyed for vs by Diuine Faith 9. Let therefore the Sectary labour all that 's possible to contract the fundamentals of Faith into the shortest room Imaginable let him mince them almost to nothing let this one Article Iesus is the Christ be Faith enough for all I say if the Roman Catholick Church speaking in the name of God as She pretends to speak hath taught but one false Article and obliged Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation Purgatory for example none can now vpon any Motiue known to the world firmly belieue That Iesus is the Christ So pernicious is one known errour of the Church that it ruins's all belief of other Articles nor can such à Church be more trusted in any thing She speaks than Scripture relied on were it false in that Article Iesus is the Christ 10. The reason à Priori is All Faith is at last reduced or finally resolued into Gods Diuine Reuelation whether he speaks by this or that Instrument by this or that Oracle imports nothing The Vltimate reason of the Assertion The difference of the Oracle he speaks by diuersifies not faith which alwaies tend's to one Center and rests on one sure Ground Gods Veracity If he speaks by à Prophet that 's his Oracle If by an Apostle he is made an Oracle If by the exteriour words of Scripture they are Oracles if by the Church She is his Oracle Now further Suppose any of these assumed Oracles speaking in the name of God declare à false Doctrin to Christians the Falsity Vltimatly redound's to God who own 's them as Oracles yet by them teaches the world Falsities It fall's out here As if à Prince should send à Legate to à State who speak's in his name and cheat the whole State by his Embassy would not all deseruedly vpon the Supposition more impute the Cheat to the Prince than to the Legate that speaks in his name The parity is exact and proues if either Scripture Prophet Apostle or Church speaking in the name of God deliuers false Doctrin God himself deceiues vs and therefore Rich. de S. Vict. Said well in this sense also Si error est quem credimus c. If we belieue an errour T' is you Great God who haue deceiued vs But if God can once deceiue either immediatly By Himselfe or mediatly by his Oracle The whole Systeme of Christian Faith is desstroyed What I say would bee true Although He should make à solemn protestation of Speaking Truth For euen then he cannot oblige me to belieue because he may deceiue in that very Protestation and deliuer à falsity if the supposition hold 11. Here then is the final Conclusion As subiectiue Faith in à Belieuer is Indiuisible That is it is either wholly good or wolly naught None can haue à piece of Faith without the whole vertue an Could the Church propose one false Article She can bee belieued in nothing Arian cannot belieue Christ to be à Redeemer if He denies the Trinity So if one Matter of Faith proposed by the Church be really Contrary to what She defines None can belieue any thing She teaches For the meer Possibility of deceiuing Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all She proposeth And this proues the Church absolutly infallible not in some points only but in all and euery Doctrin whereof you haue more in the 15 16 and 17 Chapters following 12. Some may reply I suppose all this while the Church made so stedfastly God's Oracle as not to err in any Doctrin She proposes which is Petitio Principy or à begging of the Question Contra. And Ye Gentlemen whilst you impeach Her of Errour Suppose Her Instrumentum diuulsum an Oracle tom as it were from Gods Sspecial Assistance iust as if I shoâ—ld Suppose the words of Scripture separated from the Spirit of truth You suppose Her à fair spouse yet make Her à harlot when and as Often as you please You acknowledge some Church or other find that out where you can to teach Truth yet you like petulant Schollers will forsooth be so wise as to tell her where she misseth in Her Lesson and correct Her for it And you haue done it to the purpose For you haue destroied Her Monasteries rob'd Her Altars prophaned Her Temples abused Her Children banished some and hang'd vp other Are not these fine God deceiues if the Church câ—n Err. Doings Contra. 2. I suppose nothing but what is manifest that Christ euer had à Church on earth once more find it where you can and that God speaks to Christians by this Oracle which he will be with to the end of the world And against which Hell gates shall neuer preuail Now I say if this Church which God not I makes his own Oracle and promises to teach Truth by it can deceiue but in one Matter of Faith God himself deceiues vs And this Church ceaseth Eo ipâ—o to be Catholick yea and God to be the Eternal Truth For it Matters nothing if he can deceiue whether he do it by Scripture or the Church Solue this Argument if you can 13. You may say 2. The whole ground of this Discourse à Fallacy and comes only to thus much If à man once tell à lie he must be thought à lyar in all he speaks So it is The Church speaks an vntruth in some things Ergo it doth so or may do so in all seemes no good consequence Contra.
Church once Orthodox began to innouate to bring in new Doctrins of an vnbloody Sacrifice of Transubstantiation of praying for the Dead of Purgatory c. Now be pleased to obserue the Demonstration When An Argument against Sectaries the Roman Church began these new supposed Doctrins and actually erred There was at that very time an other Orthodox Church in the world or was not If not Christ had then no Orthodox Church on earth and Consequently that Article of our Creed was false I belieue the Holy Catholick Church For no man can truly belieue in à Church which really is not If contrarywise they own à pure Orthodox Church to haue been on earth when the Roman began to erre That because Orthodox and pure was certainly à Society of Christians distinct from the then supposed fallen and false Church of Rome 3. Hence I argue Eirher that Orthodox distinct Church sensible of Gods cause and the Honour of Christian Faith vigorouly opposed censured and condemned those imagined errours of the Roman Church now fallen or Carelesly let all alone and omitted that Duty If it omitted that duty it was no true Church For if true Her Charge was and is She hath à command from Christ to do it to crush and suppress false Doctrins when they first rise vp or begin to infect the body of Christianity This duty that Church neglected and for that cause was not Orthodox Moreouer the Roman is also Supposed actually drawn from Truth Clear and Conuincing Condemned Hereticks made vp no Church We had then in those daies à strange world indeed when Christ the Supreme Head looked down from Heauen and saw his Mystical body the Church pitifully Corrupted when he cast an eye vpon poor Christians and found them all Churchless 4. If Sectaries own such an Orthodox Society which opposed and censured the Roman Errours that must be à Truth as Notoriously known to the world as it is now supposed that the Church of Rome had Errours Notoriously known And Here I desire the Iudicious Reader to reflect on what I Shall propose And wish our Aduersaries to Answer Can they Imagine the Errours of the Roman Church openly discouered so many Centuries since and judge that no Orthodox Christians then liuing who beheld Truth run to ruin made Opposition against them The Errours say Protestants were palpable for our new men espy them now yet no Orthodox Christans are heard of to this day who then stood vp for Gods cause and defended the Ancient truths of Christ against this supposed erring Church This yet lies in darkness The Fault must be noised as both criminal and publick And yet there is no newes at all of such as lent à helping hand to redress it 5. Again Can it be imagined that the Roman Catholick Church which Age after Age condemned innumerable Hereticks And giues in an exact Catologue in order as They rose vp These Sectaries Paradoxes and. particulars are exactly known And yet that no Author Friend or Enemy Can bee found who giues so much as the least hint of any sound Christians that condemned the now decryed Errours of this one Church Finally and here is the wonder must we suppose our Church to haue grosly erred à thousand years since when yet all good Christians were silent and reprehended it not And that now after ten whole Ages are past And Millions of Souls damned for want of Faith A company of iarring Protestants Can probably begin to talk of them to Reproue to Argue Vast improbabilities and offer to settle Christianity right vpon its old Fundations No thought of man can fall vpon more desperate improbabilities yet they pass as current among Sctaries But of this point more hereafter in the 13 Chapter 6. Now here is the Conclusion and the true Trial of this cause It is possible that our new men who pretend knowledge in Antiquity name an Orthodox Church which openly Protested What Sectaries are obliged to doe but Cannot against these supposed Errours before Protestants were in Being It is possible to tell vs when this Church strongly Acted against the Roman Errours It is Possible to say what became of that Orthodox Church at last whether after it had done that great work and Censured the Roman Doctrin It quickly disappeared Or still remain's in the world It is I say Possible that Sectaries Euidence these particulars of most high Concern or impossible If the first can be done we Catholicks ought to Reform But I must vnbeguile the Reader and absolutly Assert All the Protestants who now are or shall bee hereafter Shall as soon destroy all Christian Faith as name any Orthodox Society any thing like à true Church which censured these supposed Roman Errours Therefore And it is an euident Demonstration Our Catholick Church once true continued so in all Ages Or there was none in the world Orthodox The Articles She maintained then and yet defend's are no Errours but Primitiue Verities And thus the whole Plea of our new men Concerning Errours entring the Church de facto ends as it deserues in à flat Calumny What do they think to bring Errours to light now whereof the most learned Churches in the world neuer took notice before Will they speak of false Doctrins when all Orthodox Societies said nothing of them Dare they accuse and condemn à Church which Millions of Souls so highly reuerenced that the best of Christians liued and dyed happily in it Nothing can be more exotical Wherefore I say when our Nouellists can work this Perswasion into mens minds That Crowes once white turned black in time though no body must say when Then and not Their Attempt impossible before they may perhaps hope to make vs mad and induce All to belieue that our Church Anciently pure became tainted in time with gross Errours though when or in what Age this deformity appeared they know not nor Can euer know because the Change is de subiecto non supponente not supposable 7. One may reply Though the Sectary cannot point at an Orthodox Church which condemned these now Supposed Roman Errours yet he has plenty of witnesses to ground his Assertion vpon For in past Ages many though reputed Hereticks vehemently decryed the Doctrins of our Church as Nouelties Sweruing from the primitiue Truths Answ Very true indeed For thus Arius of old decryed Consubstaâ—tâ—ality and the Supreme Godhead in Christ Pelagius Original sin The Monathelits two wills in our Sauiour Humane and Diuine Luther an vnbloody Sacrifice And the Diuel after all if you 'l belieue him will oppose euery Truth which Christ taught But what is all this to the purpose which yet to my great wonder I find vrged by some Is the Authority of these condemned and confessedly known Hereticks precisely considered to be parallell'd with à Church The Votes of Aduersaries without Proofs weightless which was neuer condemned by Orthodox Christians Must the condemned Party be heard when it Accuses And the Innocent or
neuer censured Church be Supposed guilty after the whole world held her blamless and has iudged well of Her condemnations pas't vpon Hereticks Compare I say the Authority of the Church time out of mind proued Innocent with the Authority of Hereticks known most guilty There can be no Parallel may we precisely respect Authority Wherefore if the Opposition of Hereticks hath any force Their charge against the Church must stand vpon Strong proofs and sound Principles distinct from Their own voting Her Delinquent These Principles we seek for in all our Disputes with Protestants yet hitherto neuer heard of Any and belieue it Wee hold their own Authority of no greater weight than that of Arians or of any other condemned Hereticks 8. Others quite driuen off all ground of rational Arguing will needs fasten Errours vpon our Church because forsooth in such an Age the 9 th For example after Christ or There about some Popes were less good and People much debauched An other simple Plea Then most likely was the Nick of time Say these to bring in Transubstantiation the Popes Supremacy and what other Errour you will Answ A most pitiful Plea not worth the paper it blot's I shall not so much refute it for it merit 's not the labour As Shew how it destroyes the Belief of all Christian Religion 9. Pray you consider Christianity in the greatest Latitude Imaginable Call Arians Donatists Protestants And Catholicks also Christians Grant which is true that there haue been very wicked men amongst these different Professors I say if this Argument haue weight Some few Popes and many People were not good for one Age chiefly Ergo debauchery in manners more then probably brought in false Doctrins vnder the Notion of Christian Truths A Iew or Gentil may Argue as well and infer that Viciousness of life hath destroyed all Truth among Christians if euer They had any For why should lewdness haue less force to Subuert all Truth taught by the Church of Rome than some only It hath say Sectaries brought in much Errour Therefore saith the Iew it may as well haue corrupted all Christ Doctrin 10. To reinforce this Argument I told you aboue if the Church of Rome had but once proposed one Article to be belieued by Diuine Faith which is false She is not to be reiected and proued unreasonable credited in any thing If you Reply it is euident That though false in many Tenets She yet taught some Articles true As that Christ is our Redeemer The Iew Answers and so do I too She Taught and teaches so still but that This is Truth if debauchery of life bee ineuitably connexed with false Doctrin shall neuer be made Probable For this Church is either entierly sound in Doctrin or Entirely deluded One may Say Scripture is euidently plain for some Primary Articles of Christian belief Answ The Iew scorn's the Reply and maintain's this Truth as I also do If it be once proued that the Church of Rome imposed on the Christian world Falshood in place of Truth Transubstantiation The Sacrifice on the Altar c. She may as easily haue corrupted the whole Bible and made that Book false in à hundred important Passages whereof enough is said in the other Treatise No true Church Therefore no Probability of true Scripture 11. Let vs now proceed to others called Christians the most known Arch-hereticks you will haue the same Conclusion Arius for example à stubborn proud Fellow had many Associates like Himself yea and certainly taught some Doctrins false Therefore Saith the Iew All He deliuered was false also The Diuel learned Luther to broach His new Gospel and the mans enormous Viciousness is known to the world by as credible Authors as Platina or Nico de Clemangijs who make Popes and People so impious Therefore all that Luther taught cannot but bee vpon the Argument proposed most iustly excepted against An other Simple Argument reiected as pernicious Doctrin For gross Errours like à Torrent follow Deprauation in manners Caluins Pride Deceipt and Cousenage to say nothing of that hidious Sin for which he was branded are vpon Record And all know what Rebellion what tragical Doings ensued vpon the wicked mans Apostasy Who then can harbour so much as à good thought of any Doctrin He taught euen that Christ dyed for vs Hence saith the Iew if Wickednes of life and Errours in Doctrin be such inseparable Companions And all Sects or Religions nameable haue had Professors wicked Farewel Christianity yea and Christ Himself also For if the Impiety of some lead's Erroneous Doctrins into à whole Moral Body that one crying Sin of Iudas might more easily haue corrupted the First Apostolical Colledge smal in Number Than the incomparable lesse defects of Popes depraue the great Moral Body of the Church O but Christ secured the other Apostles from Errour Answ So he doth his Church And the Iew will as soon belieue the one as the other who Argues thus 12. Christianity was neuer without Sin Ergo neuer without Errour if the Argumâ—nt haue force When Therefore these new men Say Wickedness of life Compared with the losse of Faith Gods Prouidence seem's equally concerned to preserue the Church from things equally Pernicious But viciousnes of life is as pernicious to Christianity and as destructâ—ue to the End of it as Errours in Doctrin They know not what they Say The Argument is euery way defectiue 13. First it s vtterly False that Wickednes is so pernicious as Errours against Christian Doctrin For Errours destroies Faith the ground of Saluation and immedeatly opposeth Gods Infinite Veracity Wickednes in Manners destroies Grace and other Supernatural virtues yet leaues the Foundation vnshaken Again By what law do these men Suppose that God preserued not his Church Holy in those dayes Doth it follow because some were wicked that She lost all Sanctity Will they Say if the English Church had euer Sanctity in it All vanished into Smoak in the late dissentions and deplorable Tumults There were neuer such Doings at Rome in the worst of daies as England then Shewed to the world O but there were then many Holy and Godly men that suffered Be it so at present I loue not to recriminate For one of yours Holy we had Thousands in that Particular Abuse can not unhallow the Church Age you except against the whole world ouer in England Germany Spain France Denmark c. most humble pious virtuous and profoundly learned What do you think that à few Abuses in Italy not half so bad as you make them can Vnhallow an ample Church Yet here lies the Strength of your weak Argument The iniquity of some chiefly of Popes and Prelates ruins not sanctity only But moreouer induceth Errour into the whole Moral Body of Christ You iust proceed as if One should atattempt to proue that à goodly Building which yet visibly stands fair to the Eye and firm on Sure foundations is all shattered and pulled down
Perswasiuely by the vertue of Miracles Goe and preach saying the Kingdome of God is at hand Cure the sick raise vp the dead cleanse the Lepers Cast out Diuels c. And they did so Mark 16. 20. They Went abroad preached euery where God Cooperating with them and confirming their Doctrin by Signes wich followed Or to speak in the words of S. Paul Heb. 2. God withall Testifying by Signes and wonders and diuers Miracles c. A third sequele If the Iewes had not sinned by reiecting Christ Why sectaries are blameable and his Doctrin which then was new in case he had not wrought greater Miracles amongst them than euer Any did before him How highly imprudent think ye How notoriously culpable are our Sectaries who belieue the new opinions of one wretched Luther or Caluin without so much as one Miracle wrought to make them probable 7. A fourth Principle True Real Miracles are Still necessary in the Church and fortold to be so by Truth it self Ioan 12. Amen Amen I say vnto you he that belieues in me the works which I doe he shall doe and greater works than these shall he doe I say purposely True real Miracles mindful of S. Chrisostoms profound Discourse vpon these very words in his Book against the Gentils There haue been saith the Saint certain Masters you may call them Impostors who had their Disciples and talk't much of Wonders whilst they liued but none of them euer came to the impudency S. Chrisosloms excellent Reflection as truely to Prophesy of Miracles to be done by them after death No A Iugler may do something strange whilst he is on the Stage But take him off the Theater Throwe him out of this life The cheat appeares He is worth nothing 8. All is contrary in our Sauiour who here foretold of greater Wonders to be wrought in after Ages by his true Belieuers Than He had done in this Mortal life And if we Speak of great Conuersions which all most iustly account Miraculous the Truth is Euident For our Blessed Lord conuerted but few in Comparison of those who followed in the Church after his Death A parallel of other Miracles we shall see presently Yet more The Apostles wrought the greatest Miracles after Christ's Ascension And t' is worth Reflection whilst Christs Disciples conuersed with Him the Gospel record's little of their Miracles But after his leauing this world Signes followed them They cast out Diuels raised the dead spake with new tongues conuerted Nations laid hand on the Sick c. And the like Supernatural effects haue been visible in the Church through all Ages after the Apostles So true are the words of Christ Greater Things shall be done And the meaning is not that euery true Belieuer should work Miracles For so Christs promise would not bee truly fulfilled because All do them not But that some choise elected of his Church as it happened in the Primitiue times Members of this Mystical Body should haue the Priuiledge 9. One Reason of my Assertion is If Miracles Gods own Seals and Characters were Necessary at the first preaching of the Gospel to induce all to belieue Christs Doctrin or to distinguish his Truths from the Errours of Iewes and Pagans The like Necessity is for their Continuance in after Ages not only in respect of Infidels but erring Christians also For no sooner had Christ founded his Church But the Diuel raised vp his Chappel by it Pestiferous Hereticks from Simon Magus haue Why Miracles are now Necessary been in euery Age his Chaplins All of them Pretended to Truth with an Ecce hic est Christus Loe we preach Christ In this Confusion of Sects it was absolutly needful to Mark out that happy Christian Society which taught sauing Faith and Shewed where God was adored in Spirit and Truth Now no Mark can be more Palpable or more attractiue than the Glory of indubitable Miracles Christs own Cognisances and the Clearest Euidences of Apostolical Doctrin 10. 2. Miracles are necessary in the Church to stirr vp Christian Faith and Deuotion with it which would soon grow cold Two other Reasons alleged were it not that Diuine Prouidence frequently quickens both by these exteriour Signes and wonders Wherefore as His Goodnes works inwardly and plyes our hearts with Grace so outwardly also to Testify that nothing is wanting He moues vs to Belieue by no less visible Inducements than Those were which first made the world Christian 11. 3. The Continuation of Miracles Clearly appeared in the first fiue Centuries after Christ And as Authority makes them indubitable So reason also proues them necessary vpon this very Account that the Conuersion of Infidels strangers to Christ was not wrought on à suddain or all at once But successiuely Age after Age If then Miracles were necessary to conuince our Christian Verities when Christ and his Apostles first preached to vnbelieuing Iewes and Gentils no man can probably iudge them Vseless in after Ages when the like Barbarous the like Ignorant and vnciuilized Nations who neuer heard of Christ or Scripture became Christians Induced to so happy à change not because they heard truths Taught But because they saw all confirmed by Euident Signes and Wonders 12. Reflect I beseech you à little Were not the Natiues of those vast and remote Regions we call the Indies whether Orient or Occident à People as ignorant of our Christian verities and as much auerted from Christs Doctrin when S. Francis Xauerius and other laborious Missioners first preached There as any Nations One Reason further illustrated were to whom the Apostles preached Christ Yes most certainly In both cases the disdain and ignorance may well be paralled Imagin now that S. Xauerius had only opened his Bible And told the ruder People of the high Mysteries of Christian Faith would this think ye though neuer so speciously laid forth haue gained credit No. But when their eyes beheld Miracles and glorious Miracles accompaning His laborious Preaching The By an Instance of Missioners sent to preach deaf dumb blind and sick instantly cured When they saw the Sanctity the Austerity and Innocency of His virtuous Life When they heard him indued with the Gists of tongues When they knew that after à noble contempt of the world The blessed man sought nothing but God And fearing neither death nor dangers Couragiously trauelled from one end of the world to the other c. Then it was they began to look about them to open their eyes more to Renounce Idolatry and submit to Gods truths most manifestly euidenced by glorious Miracles Then it was that the Saint Gods grace concurring conuerted Thousands and Thousands All which is vpon certain Record and witnessed by those who haue written the wonders Howeuer grant that S. Xauerius wrought but one or two Miracles when many more cannot without impudency be denyed him our Assertion subsists that Miracles are necessary for the reclaiming of Infidels And if he did none at
to life And for three you haue more reuiued by an other of His holy Order I mean that admirable Saint Vincentius Ferrerius So the pious and learned S. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence Recounts in his Histpry 3. Part lib. 23. And who dares say that so great à Doctor And most modest Prelate was so Frontless as to write that we read not long after the death of S. Vincentius without Assurance and Certainty The whole world would haue decryed the Folly Had it been à Fourb an Imposture or à fabulous Story 7. By what is now said of These and other infinit Operations of grace which I am forced to omit you may inferr first That the Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church are not inferiour to those done by the Apostles And consequently if our Our Sauiours Prophesy falfilled in the Churches Miracles Sauiours Prophesy was seen manifestly fulfilled in those first Apostolical Wonders it hath been also as effectually accomplished in these latter of the Church I say in the Roman Catholick Church For all those now named whom God priuiledged with the Grace of working Miracles were of the same vnion in Faith with this Church and no other It followes 2. That Humane Faith when no iust Exception comes against it But the fool-hardy Spirit of vnbelieuing Heathens and Hereticks giues Mortal Assurance of Miracles The Miracles of our Sauiour euidence this Truth He raised Lazarus from death Iohn 11. A Touch of his garment cured the infirm woman Matt. 9. He restored sight to à blind man Iohn 9. Obserue I beseech you All Iewry beheld not these Wonders But some only Yet they were wrought for the good of All and without doubt proued conuincing Arguments of Christ's great power to innumerable who actually saw them not But only heard of them and Assented to what they heard vpon Miracles made Credible vpon humane Authority humane Authority prudently credible Therefore our Sauiour Supposed That humane Faith and this before the writing of Scripture was à Sufficient Means to conuey to others à Moral certainty of his Miracles I say yet more If God euer efficaciously intended to worck à true Miracle since the Creation of the world by any of his creatures Humane Faith was and yet is the First and most Connatural way of Conueying it to the knowledge of others Who therefore excepts against this vsual course of Prouidence destroies à Principle of Nature and can belieue nothing of Supernatural Effects but what he either sees with his own eyes or find's registred in Holy Writ 8. Ask now How many Austins How many Chrysostoms how many Cyrills how many Bedes and Bernards haue vpon their Credit and Reputation assured vs of Miracles wrought in the Roman Church only like to those in the Primitiue Age They are numberless Did Christ our Lord restore life to the dead sight to the blind health to the sick The Professors of our Catholick Church by his virtue haue done the very same and the Miracles are more numerous But now and here is the chief demand Were our Sauiours glorious Works made Credible to Authority alleged thousands no Eye-witnesses vpon Humane faith and Authority before Scripture registred them So it is Behold we haue our Austins our Iustins our Basils our Bernards vnexceptionably plain for the Churches Miracles and none can without Impudency and the violation of all humane Credit probably Cauil at what these haue written None can without making very Saints Impostors and guilty of that enormous sin of grosly deceiuing Posterity pare away so much as any substantial parcel of what is Recorded Therefore vnless all humane Faith perish its desperate rashness to deny most glorious Miracles to haue been in the Roman Catholick Church which was my Assertion 9. And to confirm it more I Ask why do Sectaries to disgrace our Miracles introduce I know not what Stories of the Heathens wonders Are these credible or no If not reiect them boldly as Impertinences If Credible it seems humane Faith is of some weight with Sectaries when they read of the Heathens fopperies though of no Account for true Miracles wrought by the Church of Christ Again this Faith is much worth with these men when to lay à foul Aspersion on à Pope Sectaries in Consequences or Prelate they fill their Books with à hundred petty Stories whether true or false imports little Herein their easy Beliefe swallowes all But if à Father or Choise Historian mention à Miracle its à Fourb à dream à fiction and what not 10. One word more and I end A meer pretended Humane Authority which really is not And therefore nothing worth is shamefully made vse of to patronize that crying Sin of Sectaries Schism Our Church Say they Changed Her ancient Faith the Charge at most relies on History or Humane Faith God neuer told them so For example The Lateran Council first brought in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation some Pope or other first inuented Purgatory c. Suppose all this were as true as t' is hideously false History or nothing must make it good and yet in our present case it is no warrant for known Miracles Thus Faith riseth and fall's in value as our New mens fancy pleases Belieue it had blessed S. Ambrose cited aboue in lieu of that Miraculous Cure wrought on à blind man at Millan when Himself was present and innumerable of that Citty saw the wonder related à stroy preiudicial to either Pope or Clergy How often think you would that haue been told and reiterated in the Writings os Sectaries But now when Hee speaks of à supernatural Work of grace done at the Reliques of the holy Martyrs Geruasius Humane Faith now Valuable now not with Sectaries and Protasius not à word is said No all passes in Silence as if Christs own Marks and the Churches glory vndoubted Miracles deserued no Memory but Contrarywise Scorn and contempt 11. I said in the Assertion that the grace of true Miracles meaning such as exactly Answer to our Sauiours glorious works is proper and peculiar to the Roman Church only The proof hereof is easy First Sectaries pretend not to work Miracles For they say that power ceased long since though I might here mind them of Caluins great wonder and really it was à strange one For whereas God's Saints restored life to the dead this great Sinner hauing perswaded one Bruleus of Ostun to fain himself dead depriued the poor wretch of his life Or rather God Caluins Miracle to lay open the fraud and Hypocrisy of both the one and other turned the Fiction into à Verity for really Bruleus who Counterfeited himself dead to get Caluin the renown of working Miracles was after all the Ministers long prayer found dead indeed The story is known and writ not only by Hierome Bolsec in Vita Calvini C. 13. But by others also And here I wish Sectaries to giue some credit to humane Authority 12. Now as Protestants disclaim Miracles so do
assumed Corps as haue been seen in many Miraculously restored to life Be it how you will We are sure God can doe yea and hath done great Miracles when therefore all imaginable Circumstances forceably induce vs to belieue that they are his own glorious works it is I hope more wisdom to Ascribe them to an Omnipotent Power than to Father them vpon Diuels 3. Some who plainly see it s à degree of madness to doubt of so much humane faith as Testifies of Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church grant many haue been done But then Obiect 2. God did them to manifest that Christ is the true Messias or to work à Belief in vs of so much Doctrin only as is Common to all Christians but not to confirm our Popish Errours of Praying to Saints Purgatory c. Contra. This Argument also impugn's our Sauiours great Miracles which were not wrought one may say to confirm all the Doctrin he taught but à Part or parcel of it only Contra. 2. If Miracles Mark out à Doctrin common to all or confirm so much truth And no more It seem's strange that Arians Pelagians and Protestants work not Miracles as frequently as the Church doth For these men own à Doctrin common to all Christians yet show none of these wonders Contra. 3. There is not one Miracles truly alleged for euery Doctrin the Church teaches Doctrin taught by our Church and held erroneous by Sectaries which is not Sealed Signed and Attested by euident Miracles We haue innumerable for Christs Real and substantial Presence in the Eucharist As many for the Inuocation of Saints as also for the Honour due to holy Reliques Innumerable proue that third place of Purgatory c. All these may good Authors deserue Credit are vpon vndoubted Record And what iust Exception haue Sectaries against so great Authority I 'le tell you Their own incredulous Humour Here is all Whereas could they speak to the cause they should giue vs weight for weight and Oppose what we Allege in behalf of Miracles vpon grounded Principles That is they Should euince positiuely that our Authors are meer Cheats and fain Stories when we read of Miracles wrought in confirmation of praying to Saints the Real Presence And this in all law of Disputation they are obliged to do vpon solid Proofs indeed distinct from their own Incredulity or à meer Saying Such Records are false But do what ye will Sectaries can neuer be driuen to dispute vpon Principles 4. A third Obiection S. Austin Lib. de Vnit Ecclesiae Saith We therefore say not we belieue because so many wonders are done all the world ouer in holy places for what euer we find in this kind Ideo sunt approbanda quia in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ fiunt are to be approued S. Austin alleged against Miracles Speak's nothing for Sectaries because they are wrought in the Catholick Church Hitherto the obiection is of no force For the Saint only Saies No new Miracles ought to gain certain credit But such only as are wrought in the Church or such as confirm Her Doctrin or finally haue the Churches Approbation Now because he disputes against the Donatists and supposeth the Church known vpon other grounds expressed in Scripture Her Vnity Chiefly and vniuersal extent ouer the world before these latter Miracles were heard of Let us Saith S. Austin waue this Plea of Miracles you Donatists allege yours and I mine and Argue by Scripture only and see what Church Scripture commend's antecedently known before these latter Miracles came to our knowledge Which is to say though the after Particular Miracles added to others formerly done may much strengthen our Faith yet absolutly How the Saint pleaded against the Donatists Speaking Faith depend's not of them Because the Church we belieue in is sufficiently manifested by Her Vnity Perpâ—tuity and Vniuersallity expressed in Scripture Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta hac firmamenta Here in sies all we haue to Say Whilst we contest with you Donatists that own Scripture with vs yet Cauil at our Miracles Who euer read's this one Chapter exactly And drawes any other sense from the whole Context than what is now briefly hinted at will much oblige me may he please to discouer it 5. One yet may Obiect S. Austin Saith more and it seem's much against vs. Non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt The Catholick Church is not vpon that Account manifested to you Donatists because these Miracles are wrought in it I Answer 1. The words vnderstood as Sectaries interpret Euert as wholly the Miracles of our Sauiour who said If you will not belieue me belieue my Works 2. The Sectaries sense impugn's also the express Doctrin of S. Austin de Vtilit Credendi C. â—7 Where He Asserts that Hereticks are condemned by the Maiesty of Miracles Besides Their sense is nothing to the purpose because in this very Passage He speak's of latter Miracles known to S. Ambrose at Millan And Saith Hee will no more insist on These than permit the Donatists to talk of their False-visions For the Church is sufficiently manifested without them vpon à Surer Principle the Holy Scripture which the Donatists admitted and therefore Why Heâ— waued the proof of Miracles with the Donatists whilst They pretended to Miracles as well as S. Austin did Hee prudently waued that Discours and Argued by Scripture only leauing Miracles to their own worth and weight I Say to their ovvn vveight which is gathered from this great Doctors Discourse 6. Our Lord Iesus saith he arose from the dead and manifested Himself to his Disciples and offered his sacred body to be touched by their hands yet least that might be thought à fallacy he iudged it meet to confirm his Resurrection more Principally by the Testimony of the law the Prophets and Psalms showing All things were now accomplished â—n him Whence I inferr as the touching his Sacred body was Proof enough though not the chiefest of his Resurrection when Scripture was at hand to make that most manifest So Miracles also The true Reason giuen wrought in the Church manifest that Oracle but not Principally to the Donatists who ought to haue belieued more firmly the Churches Doctrin vpon that one potent Proof of the Apostle 1. Tim 3. 15. The Pillar and ground of Truth than for all the latter wonders done in the Church Yet these haue à mighty force and are stronge Inducements so far as Motiues can reach but not the chief and Principal cause of any mans Belief or Assent Read then S. Austin's words thus The Church is not made manifest by her latter Miracles to à Donatist who Cauils at such wonders but Principally by Scripture which he admit's and will like Protestants be tryed by You haue the Saints full Sense and à great Truth with it whereof there can be no doubt at all when Lib. Contra Epist Fundamentâ— C. 4. 5. He Demonstrat's the Church by Her Miracles
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
and the ground opening swallowed vp his carkasse Nestorius wicked worm-eaten tongue brought the wretch to à miserable end And Iohn Caluin consumed with vermine Seuerly Punished dispairing dyed like an other Herode or Antiochus I need not Here relate any thing of Luthers sudden death after his merry supper Read Bellarmin Lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae C. 17. where you haue these and other more fearful Examples of Gods Seuerity 11. Finally must we say that our Lord Iesus is proued no Impostor vpon these reasons That no false Prophet since the Creation purchased the like vniuersal Fame None euer had so vniuersal an Applause or the like Tribute of praise paid Him It it true That euer since Christianity began the powerful hand of Prouidence hath not only rescued our Holy Iesus from all Reproach iustly merited but moreouer by signal Effects of indignation made his Enemies contemptible The renown of the Roman Catholick Church Nothing can be more manifest You may then boldly Conclude in like manner The Roman Catholick Church is as demonstratiuely proued no Cheat but an Oracle of truth vpon the same grounds Her vniuersal visible Extent the continued Succession of Her Pastors the Conuersions and Miracles wrought by Her inuite all with à loud Venite Adoremus incite all not only to behold and Praise this magnificent Building but also to Adore the Founder of it For if it be true as was said aboue that the visible works in nature point at God the only Author of them Caeli enarrant glorâ—am ejus The Heauens declare his Glory It is also clear that these visible Effects of grace Miracles Conuersions obuious to euery Eye set forth the glory of the Roman Catholick Church Now how deseruedly she hath gained this Renown let the world judge 12. Wisdom saith Salomon built Herself à house Prouerb 9. where Pillars stand firm à Table is plentifully furnished Victims are immolated c. The whole Passage S. Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist 3. Applyes to the great Sacrifice of the Altar offered vp vnder the Forms of bread and wine I waue the Application and vrge only an How gained euident truth And T is that Our Church built vpon Christ the Corner-Stone vpon those stronge Pillars the Apostles hath stood firm sixteen Ages and here is Her Glory For if Glory witness S. Ambrose be nothing els but Clara cum laude notitia A clear knowledge with Fame and Renown The long Continuance and ample extent of this Church could we say no more hath justly purchased Her à large Renown the whole world ouer Now mark where the contempt lies which is à base Esteem of à thing vnworthy value All know the Arians built Heretiques despicable the Pelagians built the Donatists and other Hereticks built but their vnsteedy disordered Houses soon fell down and came to nothing What saies Reason when Ruins are compared with this long standing Edifice 13. Next cast à serious thought vpon the Inhabitants of this house of God You will find all vnited in one Faith adoring one Iesus Christ louing one Mother his spouse looking on one last End Their hope and Happines And if through frailty differences doe arise abating charity our Aduantage is far aboue all other Societies in the world Wee haue à supreme Pastor God be euer blessed that can command and like à Other aduantages in the Church Father exhort to peace in Abrams language Ne sint quâ—so jâ—rgiâ— c. Iarrs must not be in the house of God Fratres enim s 〈…〉 For we are all Children of one louing Mother Here is the Churches Glory Wheras on the Contrary side nothing but Discord and that remediless the known euil of Lucifers pride And in the highest points of Faith inseparably hant's the rambling Fancy of such as haue wilfully diuorced themselues from this one vnited Society And Here is matter enough of Contempt and Compassion also 14. In the last place consider well the vast multitudes who are and haue been Domesticks in this house of God In the very Entrance we meet those Candidati aternitatis as Tertullian speaks Nouices of Eternity the newly admitted by the Sacrament of Baptism and no Society of Christians can show the like number Here we haue Cherubins admirable in Knowledge The Inhabitants of the house of God numbertles Doctors I mean profoundly learned Seraphins inflamed with Diuine loue that rest in the height of Contemplation Here we find Penitent Souls bewailing their sins innumerable Martyrs shedding their blood for Christ numberless laborious Missioners trauelling far and neer to propagate His sacred Gospel Here finally we haue for t is long to recount all Abrahams glorious multiplyed Starrs Gen. 15. 5. Kings and Queens whole kingdoms and Nations professing the Faith of this one Church The Gentils walk by Her light and Princes in the brightnes of Her rising Lift vp thy eyes and see saith holy Isaias All these assembled together And if you Ask what the duty was and yet is of so many conuened Multitudes The Royal Prophet that long since forsaw in Spirit à continual Oblation offered vp Answers Psal 9. 1. In templo ejus omnes dicent gloriam All in this Temple and sacred House shall incessantly render praise and glory to God the Author of So noble à Structure Therfore Psalm 86. 2. He rightly Concludes Gloriosa dicta sunt de te O Civitas Dei. Glorious things are spoken of thee O Citty of God Thou begans't In Hierusalem wa' st afterward extended to all Nations becams't permanent and because permanent Glorious Thus that whole Psalme speaking mystically of Christs Holy Church These are Truth 's not only proued as you se by Scripture but also euident and this I vrge to our eyes and senses Now next consider those scattered dissipated and iarring Multitudes of Heathens Iewes and Hereticks And let reason if à spark of it liue in any iudge whether this be not euident without Dispute Viz. That as no Prophet euer came neer to Christ our Lord in glory and A Parallâ—l of Christ and His Church renown So no Society of men since the world stood was or is comparable to our glorious Roman Catholick Church All other besides this happy vnited moral Body appear as they are abiect and contemptible 15. And thus we Euidence Christ our Lord and his Church to à prudent Heathen not first by making the intrinsick Reasonableness of the essential Doctrin the main Proof of its verity as Mr. Stilling simply Argues aboue Disc 1. C. 9. For it is truely ridiculous to draw the Pagan to belieue à Doctrin as reasonable and Diuine whilst yet he knowes not vpon any rational Inducement whether it be from God or no But this way takes effectually When you lead him on by à clear light extrinsecal to the Doctrin when you set before his Eyes such Marks Signes and wonders as cannot but proceed from God Miracles Conuersions c. When you Shew him How strangely the Doctrin of Christ
presseth this point most efficaciously Lib. de vnit Eccles. Cap. 2. Quaestiâ— inter nos versatur vbi sit Ecclesiá vtrum apud nos aut illos Here lies the main Business where the Church is whether with vs or them Again Epist 163. Quaritur vtrum vestra an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei We demand whether yours or ours be the Church of God which must be known saith Optat. Mileuit Lib. 2. By Her Marks and Characters And therefore we said aboue though S. Austin made vse of Scripture against the Donatists it was not done to decide euery particular Controuersy by the bare and obscure words of that holy Book No. The profound How Scripture manifests the Church Doctor aymed not at such impossibilities his whole drift being to teach the Donatists à great Verity which we all subscribe to viz. That Scripture once admitted as Gods word without Dispute clearly demonstrat's the Church by Her visible sensible Marks Antiquity Miracles Conuersions Digito demonstrari potest We can point at Her with our finger Saith S. Austin The Church therefore thus manifested we haue enough and rely on Her as à faithful Oracle in euery Doctrin She professeth Se Cardinal de Richelieu Traitte pour conuertâ—r ceux c. Lib. 2. C. 7. § Cest encore Where he exactly renders S. Anstins meaning conformable to what we deliuered Disc 1. C. 14. n. 10. 21. The last Inference If all are bound to embrace true Religion All haue also with the obligation means to know where it is taught But the means to know this lies not in the essential Verity thereof for that is no Self-euidence or manifestly true ex Terminis The means to know it is not found in the high Mysteries of Faith for these far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding remain yet in darkness without More light Scripture alone makes not its own Diuinity known and though it did so And the Heathen owned it as most Diuine yet when he euidently discouer's that dissenting Christians Sense the book quite contrary waies he has not the means to learn what true Religion is or where it is taught Thus then He must Discours or belieue nothing 22. God that 's Truth reueal's the Verities of true Religion If so some vnited Society of men teaches what euer God reueal's for Angels are not our Doctors I find Saith the Rational man great Signes of truth amongst the Christians and after The Heathens prudent Disâ—ourse many à serious thought Cast vpon à Matter of highest Concern I sind also that all those Signes as Antiquity Vniuersallity à visible Succession of Pastors euident Miracles which cannot but proceed from God belong to one only Christian Society the Roman Catholick Church I se moreouer à strange benign Prouidence held forth in preseruing Her from innumerable attempts of Aduersaries No Iew no Heathen no Heretick can show the like Signal Marks and Proofs of Gods loue as this one Catholick Oracle demonstrat's Therefore all other Societies are false Sects misled by erring Prophets according to Christs own Prediction Math. 24. For there shall rise false Christs though they clamour neuer so loud Ecce hic est and Conclusâ—on Christus Loe we preach Christ and his truths Thus Reason test's satisfied yet because the Heathen see 's who le Armies banding against the Church and rationally hold's their Arguments like theer cause very weak He is desirous to haue the Fallacy of some chiefe Aduersaries laid forth to his reason For your Satisfaction be pleased to read the following chapter 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 1. THe enemies of the Roman Catholick Church are chiefly reduced to these four Classes to Atheists Heathens Iewes and Hereticks A word briefly of their fallacies in order Some Atheists there haue been and perhaps Lucian was one that to cast off all thought of Religion more expresly denyed Diuine Prouidence than they did the Existency of à God And à chief The Atheistâ— Plea Argument to omit others of less weight is much to this sense A Numen Infinitly wise and powerful shewes his careful Prouidence in gouerning the world But an euident Principle opposes this careful Prouidence and no contrary Principle of equal strength Seem's to establish it Therefore reason well denies Prouidence Now here is the euident Principle The Oppression of iust men manifest to our eyes the preuailing of the wicked against the iust of Turks against Christians to say nothing of other much visible Confusion and Discorder proue à neglect of Prouidence and no contrary Principle half so strong or euident conninces it none counterpoises the weight of this clear proof now hinted at ergo Reason reasonably denies Prouidence Thus the Atheist The Pagan Argues That Religion is false which holds Mysteries ridiculous and impossible but Christians How the Heathens and Iewes Argue teach that God is one Essence and three Persons Both seem impossible The Iewes vapour against à crucified Sauiour and lay its vnworthy God to become man and to dye ignominiously vpon à Cross Lastly our modern Sectaries that own Christ come limping after the rest and except much against the Roman Catholick Church She Say they has changed the ancient Articles of the Primitiue Faith and introduced Nouelties in lieu of them She maintains errours contrary to sense in Her Doctrin of Transubstantiation And much more seem's amiss 2. I say first All these and the like Arguments are meer vnsound Paralogisms and proue iust nothing against Prouidence against Christ or the Romam Catholick Church Before I discouer the fallacies be pleased to note 1. That God whose existence we haue proued Disc 1. C. 2. is à Being incomprehensible and far transcend's the reach of our narrow Capacities The very Gentile Philosophers owned the truth agreeing in this Principle That humane reason is as weak to know what God and diuine Mysteries are as an owle is to behold the Sun at noon-day Note 2. Reason in man often too bold enters into Diuine Mysteries though conscious it walks in à Labyrinth not so much as Principles prâ—mised to solue these Obiections half-sighted in the search it makes and this less than Half-insight into Diuine truths is the cause of Atheism of all Heresy and the most gross errours now raigning in the world The Apostle 2. Tim. 3. 7. Point's at the misled Semper discentes They are alwaies learning but neuer come to the knowledge of truth Note 3. Reason in the inuestigation of Religion and Diuine verities may tend two different waies Directly and Reflexly Direct reason as is now said fall's vpon some great Mystery in faith finds it harsh yea most difficult to be vnderstood and What follows The faint man with his feeble reason either reiect's the Mystery or remain's so perplexed in the search that he can resolue nothing His procedure is iust like
à Power Omniscient known for that power which comprehend's things future much more comprehend's all past and present and therefore has an infinit Extent which we call Omniscience Now I subsume But an Intellectual power is in being that by virtue of his own light knowes future Truths wherof none can doubt because he has actually communicated part of his knowledge to others For example to the Ancient Prophets who most exactly fortold things to come relating to Christ our Lord and the Glory of his Church Such Secrets highly Diuine they had not as men nor were they known by any Principle within the bounds of Nature therefore God Omniscient imparted all And he did so not in vain but for this great End That mortals may see how an infinit Goodness condescend's to inform vs of Truths whereby he manifestly tender's our Happiness And this alone demonstrat's Prouidence That the Prophets foretold truths to come is euident by the books of Scripture writ whole ages before they happened and the Euent visible to our eyes proues the verities of the Predictions What haue your Astronomers who more often miss then hit in their Predictions comparable to these Prophesies in Scripture Nothing at all if which deserues reflection we consider the Eminency the Depth and high importance of the Mysteries reuealed 7. My last proof taken from one Manifest Absurdity is no less than demonstratiue Suppose Prouidence be denyed it followes That those Millions of men who since the worlds Creation adored God whereof innumerable were wise vpright and holy haue all been besotted and stupidly beguiled in Adoring that which is not Nay more This also is consequent A third and most conuincing Proof That à few abiect ignorant and despicable Atheists are only indowed with the light of à Truth which once established makes Virtue odious Honesty and Goodnes highly contemptible I proue the consequence If Prouidence be à chimera All our acts of Reuerence of Fear Obedience Religion and Gratitude tendered to God essentially blessed with that fore-seing Power are dissonant to reason and in themselues abominably sinful Contrarywise All acts of Contumely of Blasphemy and Contempt of Prouidence are consonant to reason and most laudable The more therefore we blaspheme contemn Diuine Prouidence the more laudably we operate and as highly merit praise as one doth that contemn's an Idol set besore him to worship For Prouidence Say Atheists is an Idol Ergo to adore it is madness to contemn it most Praise worthy These and Harsh sequels granted by Athâ—eists other like Sequels are so harsh so Abominable and contrary to the light of nature that I think the boldest Atheist now liuing dare not in à serious moode own them as Truths And thus much briefly of reasonable Arguments in behalf of Prouidence to oppose that slight Plea of Atheistical Spirits already Proposed and dissolued 8. The third Proposition As Atheists plead fallaciously against Prouidence so Heathens Iewes and Hereticks follow closely the like Strain in euery Argument proposed against the Mysteries of Faith taught by Christ and his Church Atheists and Heretiques argue à like I would say As the Atheist run's headlong with his weak Iudgement vpon Difficulties so these now named erre as he erreth They make Direct Reason to see more than it can see to Comprehend Mysteries incomprehensible and quite cast asside that Prudent reflex Reason which allayes all and giues most Satisfaction For example The Heathen Comprehend's not that great Mystery of the Trinity and there stand's puzzled Good cause say I for if à Cockle shell contain's not the whole Occan why should thy shallow head comprehend the Trinity Were this possible either thou must be God or God leaue of to be what he is The Iew vnderstand's not how God became man and dyed ignominiously vpon à Cross Obserue à strange Stupidity saith Diuinely S. Chrisostom Lib. Quod Christus sit Deus towards the end These Aduersaries of Christ read of contempt and Disgrace and credit all They read in the same Scripture of our Sauiours Admirable Miracles and belieue nothing Here is want of Reflex Reason The Heretick boggles at the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and wonders that à Church made vp of fallible men can be held infallible And from whence comes The Assertion proued this boggling What cause is there of wonder He Answer 's Transubstantiation seems contrary to Sense and Reason Very good I Ask again to what Reason is it opposit Grant gratis the Vtmost it only seem's contrary to that not wel-sighted Reason which more often beguils than learns vs Truth or which loseth it self in the Search of deep Mysteries where it can find no Exil But Answer I beseech you Is the Doctrin opposite to that Other wise Prudent iudgement whereby all know or should know That reason is neuer more reasonable than when When Reason is reasonable it leaues off reasoning in high matters aboue reason No certainly For deny once this one clear Christian Principle or say that 's only belieuable and no more which weak reason Approues We destroy the very Essence of Faith and can belieue nothing The Doctrin of Gods Free-acts of à Trinity of the Incarnation of Transubstantiation and the other like Mysteries is quite renounced if so much only gain's belief as weak reason puzzled in the Mysteries see 's Reason for 9. I say therefore This Direct purblind reason cast's vs vpon Difficulties Reflex reason solues them The first makes vs meer What effects weak reason produces Scepticks yea and followed Atheists too The second good Christians The First remains in darkness the second finds light The first would turn all faith into Science the second saith No Si non credideritis non intelligetis Vnless you belieue you shall not vnderstand The first though no more but à handmaid would rule bear sway and command the second curb's that petulancy and bids Her Obey Now the only difficulty is to show what is meant by Prudent reflex Reason and of what consequence it is in matters of Faith 10. Briefly this reason stands not long vpon the Mysteries How the reflex and prudent reason proceed's reuealed but leaues off that lost labour and relies wholly on the Authority of one Master that reueals them Hence Clem. Rom. in Recogn D. Petri giues this wise counsel Ante Omnia c. Before all things examin well by rational Motiues whether he be à Prophet that speaks This done ponder no more but belieue boldly all he Saith And wonder nothing at the principle for it is far more easy to find out the Prophet by his marks and signes than to vnderstand the sublime Doctrin he teaches S. Irenaeus Lib. 9. C. 9. 1. speakes conformably Non enim nos aliter discere poteramus quae sunt Dei nisi Magister noster verbum existens homo factus fuisset We could not otherwise learn those Secrets God has reuealed vnless our great Master the Diuine word had been made man
our Lord was the true Messias and one sent from God by the Wonders he wrought though they little yet vnderstood the depth of those Mysteries he deliuered and obliged all to belieue Thus much Premised 17. I Proue that the Roman Catholick Church is God's only Oracle And first Her exteriour Marks and signs giue in as clear euidence of Her being the only Diuine Oracle as the wonders which the Apostles wrought euidenced them to be Diuine Oracles With this lustre we haue à Church most visible and discernable from all vnorthodox Communities None can Parallel Her in known Miracles in Antiquity Perpetuity Conuersions c. 2. This Church hath taught the world euer since The Churches clear Euidence Christianity began and no Orthodox Society but She only is nameable which deliuered the Sincere Doctrin of Christ For hint at any they are manifestly proued condemned Hereticks 3. She was neuer censured in any Age of errour by so much as one confessed sound Christian Nay I say more and haue proued it aboue She is so infallible that if she erred but in one Article She then ceased to be Gods Oracle 4. This Church showes the Mission of Her Pastors and deriues Her Comission to teach the world from God and our Lord Iesus Christ 18. The first Mission concerning the teaching of the new Testament Originally came from Almighty God that sent his only Son our Sauiour to preach Iohn 14. 24. The word you haue heard is not mine but his that sent me the Fathers Luke 4. 14. He sent me to Euangelize to the poor Now Christ our Lord sent the other Apostles Mark 16. 15. Going into the whole world preach the Gospel to all creatures These first Masters had their Successors lawfully commissioned they sent others age after age in so much that the Mission of Orthodox Pastors legally authorized to administer Sacraments and to preach Gods word neuer yet failed in the Roman Catholick Church since Christ's being vpon earth nor shall fail hereafter to the worlds end 19. These Truths well weighed And after many serious thoughts found as they are vndeniable Prudent reason account's all that can be obiected against our euidenced Church worse than folly And here is the ground à Priori of the folly These Aduersaries Sectaries mistake the right way of arguing that Oppose vs quite mistake the right way of Arguing were there any For whereas they should first find out Gods great Oracle which teaches truth and obiect that against vs They wholly waue this matter of highest Importance And so far as weak Reason can work draw Arguments from the dark Mysteries of Faith One finds difficulty in the Trinity and reiect's it Another in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and hold's it impossible That is weak reason as much set's vp its own light against God as if one should offer to extinguish the Sun beams by the dim light of à candle 20. Obserue I beseech you à strange Procedure We euidence à Church we proue Her Gods Oracle by the Characters Signes and Marks manifestly laid open to all mens eyes we say this manifested Oracle which has drawn Millions of souls to the Catholick belief cannot beguile vs. Our Aduersaries one the other side Say notwithstanding this reasonable Euidence God speaks not by Her Because the Mysteries are hard and aboue Reason whereas indeed the quite Contrary should be inferred They plead most simply viz. Because they are mysterious God speaks by so euidenced an Oracle And here is the Reason of my Inference 21. Had the abstruse Mysteries taught by the Church been à humane Inuention only and not from God the supposed Inuentor of them who euer he was had been worse then mad to Propose so many to our shallow Reason He should rather haue followed the strain of all other Hereticks and with the Arians denyed à Trinity with Protestants cast of Transubstantiation The reason of their weak pleading But this you see is not done The Church speak's truth plainly because She knowes there is an other light à stronger Euidence which lessens facilitates and conquer's these seeming Difficulties If therefore there be euidence enough of Credibility for this one Proposition God speaks to all by this known Oracle Reason pleads no more but yeilds to one that cannot erre 22. It may perhaps appear Strange if One consider with what plain Simplicity the Holy Euangelists wrote the Gospel of Iesus Christ where they seem to furnish the Iewes with Arguments against our Sauiour They declared how He was contemned reproached Scourged haled from Tribunal to Tribunal and finally Crucified Here the Aduersaries of Christ Exclaim and Ask what 's more Difficult Could God possibly Say they The Candor of the Euangelists writing our Sauiours life permit his only son to be thus abused when 't is writ Maledictus qui pendit in ligno Cursed is the man that hang's on à Cross The Euangelists feared not the Obiection but related the Story as it was Nor did they to gain their great Master applause Couer or dissemble his Sufferings as Policy might haue done had humane Wisdom only made the Book No. They proceeded candidly And why all this Sincerity think ye The Answer is easy They knew well that the Victory which our Sauiour gained after all these sufferings The Renown he purchased vpon the Cross the Miracles he then and formerly had wrought were so forceable Euidences of his being the true Messias that no contrary Humiliation euen to death it self could obscure that greater light and rational euidence of Truth Therefore whole Multitudes beholding the wonders at his sacred Passion after the Centurion had cryed out This man indeed was iust returned knocking ther brests Luke 23. 48. And in his life time said Quid facimus What do we doe This Christ works so many wonders That if we dismiss him All will belieue in him Arguments drawn from what is said Reflections made vpon the premised Doctrin Christ and His Church preuaile against Incredulity 23. Hence I Argue If the euident Light of our Sauiours glorious Miracles was sufficient to vanquish Incredulity and to work à Belief in all of his truely being the Son of God notwithstanding the difficulty of the Mystery It followes clearly that the vndeniable Euidence of the Roman Catholick Church already laid forth is as fully sufficient to vanquish the Incredulity of Heathens Iewes and Hereticks And to work this Perswasion in all notwithstanding the high Mysteries proposed that She is Gods Oracle For here is my Principle and most vndoubted That as the Verity of Christian Religion is to be learned from that known Oracle which bear's Christ's Ensigns without disputing the Sublimity of the Doctrin so the falsity of à Doctrin is proued Not by the difficulty thereof but is clearly gathered from the Nullity of an vneuidenced Church which teaches it An vneuidenced Church therefore is no warrant of true Doctrin 24. And here you haue briefly the fundamental Reason why no Heretick
And because it is here impossible to descend to all particular controuersies we will fall vpon one only much debated one serues for all Viz whether Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation be Orthodox Doctrin The truth yet lies in darkness there is no Self-Euidence either in the Affirmatiue or Negatiue T' is yet no more but doubtful or à meer Perhaps whether the Protestants or we Speak Truth Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is Where the difficulty lies yet obscure to vs both and as little euidenceth it Self as the Verity we enquire after By what means then can we raise our selues aboue this state of Doubting to so great à degree of certainty as to Say without fear Transubstantiation is Orthodox Doctrin And the contrary is not so 10. The Catholick to waue in this place other proofs recur's to his Church And saith this Publick euidenced Oracle as well raises him to à State of certainty for his Tenet as the euidenced Primitiue Church rais'd the first belieuing Christians from their doubts to Security For the like full euidence alwayes lead's to How the Catholick Peoceed's a like certainty of Belief The Protestant hauing reiected our present euidenced Church hopes well and will needs find flawes and falsity too in Her Doctrin not by confronting Her Euidence or denoting an other Church As ample as ancient as miraculous as She is which held his Doctrin for this though it should be pleaded if we come to à clear Decision is vnpleadable because the Protestant has no such Oracle What 's done therefore I 'll tell you and you may iustly wonder He shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's though there is no such matter to launch into the vast Ocean of Scripture Councils volumes of Fathers ancient Records and thinks The Sectary takes à Contrary way to carry on his cause this way Here He pick 's vp one dark Sentence of à Father and triumph's with that There on another Here vpon the least hint giuen he Snarles at one piece of Popery there at another Here he guesses and there he misses In à word the man is busily idle doth much and iust nothing run's on but is out of his way utterly lost without the guidance of God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the Labyrinth And if you Ask why he is out I Answer his Errour lies here that both in this and all other Controuersies he makes his false Suppositions to pass for proofs against euidence 11. You shall see what I here Assert Made Good To proue no Transubstantiation the Se ary read's Scripture Fathers Antiquity or what els you will Be it so He read's but not alone For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's also Mark now The One after his reading glosses so doth the other The One compares Passage with Passage so doth the other The One discourses So doth the other But when all is done and here lies the mischief the Protestant imposes one sense vpon the perused Testimonies and the Catholick another Which leaues him in State of doubting quite contrary This dayly Experience teaches viz. That we differ not so much about the words we read as about the sense of Scripture and Fathers Therefore this also is Euident That the Protestant aduances not his Doctrin if yet he get so high aboue the degree of guessing only whilst he pleads by his glossed Scripture and Fathers For as long as the Catholick wholly as learned and conscientious as He is and an ample Church besides opposes his far-fetch'd Sense out of the Fathers He cannot without Impudency and making à false Supposition to pass for his Proof cry it vp as certain Now further As the sense he drawes from Scripture and the Fathers is no more but at most doubtful I say improbable so his Assertion concerning no Transubstantiation or what euer els he holds contrary to the Roman Catholick faith is wholly as much wauering or purely doubtful But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak What euer is doubtful grounds not Faith either to ground any Christian Tenet vpon or to Contrast with the Roman Catholick Church whose Doctrin is indisputably made euidently credible Therefore unless à weake Vncertainty can reuerse Euident Credibility the Sectaries Plea against the Church is not only improbable but highly improbable 12. To conclude this Point Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma It is possible to Denote and point at another Church which without dispute taught Protestant Doctrin and opposed ours as Ancient as large and euery way as Euidenced to sense and reason as the Roman Catholick Church is Or it is not possible If possible controuersies are strangely ended for proue A Dilemma me once such à Church I say plainly There is no such thing as true Faith in the world worthy defense Why Because if the Supposition hold's two different Churches euidenced à like equally as ancient as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Miracles clash with one another Say and Vnsay approue and condemn The one condemn's Protestancy The other Popery One will haue Transubstantiation belieued The other not which is as wholly destructiue of Christian Faith as if Scripture it self should plainly Speak Contradictions 13. On the other side If the Sectary can neither name nor point at à Chutch euery way as euidenced as the Roman Catholick No euidenced Protestant Church no pleading for Protestancy which expresly propugned Protestancy and opposed Popery He shall neuer utter probable word against any one Article of our Catholick Faith For throw an euidenced Protestant Church out of the world All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin or against vs will either End in à slight discharge of à few scattered vnweighed Sentences of holy Fathers no sooner read than Answered or as we dayly Experience in gross Mistakes and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrin And can these think ye extinguish the visible Lustre of our Chureh can these lessen the euident Credibility of Her Doctrin or bring so known and owned an Oracle into open disgrace or publick Disreputation It is impossible The most vigorous Abbettors of Protestancy may not only blush to Assert it but will be bafled did we once liue to see the happy day when our iust cause might be proposed and heard in à Publick Dispute before Learned and impartial Iudges A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick and hold him much more wise Learned and moderate then some late voluminous Writers haue been yet because Truth will out I must not dissemble but Speak truth And therefore Say in à word His whole attempt against the Roman Catholick Church is weake And the feebleness of it Cannot but appear to euery Reader that penetrat's the force of the Principles already established My wish indeed was to haue Vnderstood his meaning better in some particular passages For
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
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
of that weak Declaration it appear's no other to me but As things are proposed so they are to all that belieue weak and fallible And none on earth can vnbeguile me or Propose it with greater certainty Because all are now Supposed fallible in their Teaching 8. One Instance may yet clear my meaning The Protestant reads Christs Sacred words Matt. 26. This is my Body And Proposes what he conceiues to be belieuable by Faith But An Instance doth it fallibly Imagin that the Roman Catholick Church also could Say no more for Her Doctrin or the Sense of those Words But as the Protestant doth so fallibly that all might be False it is clear That none whether Catholick or Protestant can haue Certainty of the Doctrin which Christ our Lord deliuered in that one short Sentence Why Both declare their fallible Sentiments only and Fallibly concerning the Sacrament So far their teaching reaches and not farther Therefore the Faith which should be had of the Mystery dwindles into nothing but into à fallible Opinion by virtue of that imperfect Teaching 9. Hence we learn that à Doctrin though infallible in Gods word without more Help makes no man though he be à Prodigy of wit an Infallible Teacher The reason is Infallibility Scripture alone makes no man infallible And why Proceed's not from Scripture easily misinterpreted but immediatly from Gods special Assistance And this Assistance which fixes an Assumed Oracle vpon Truth vnerrably no malice can wrest to falshood Now that the Book of Scripture as dayly Experience teaches is horridly peruerted to à Sinister sense needs no proof For all know what ruin Hereticks haue to the vttermost of their Power endeuoured to make of the chief Articles of our Christian Faith though they aknowledged Scripture to be God's Diuine Word There is scarce One which remain's Vnperuerted Some Deny the Necessity of Diuine Grace Others that great Mystery of the Incarnation Others an Equality in the Diuine Persons Others our Sauiours two Wills Diuine and Humane Thus the Pelagians the Antitrinitarians the Apollinarians and Monothelits taught and deceiued The world And when Scripture is Alleged in behalf of euery Orthodox Truth All you haue from them is à return of ouerthwart Glosses Grace must signify what the Pelagians please The VVord made Flesh How abused what the Antitrinitarians fancy and so of the rest Whence it is Euident that Scripture Alone without more light clears not sufficiently its own Truths For here you Se the most Primary Atticles disowned and Consequently Scripture abused by Priuate Spirits which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's reuealed Doctrin 10. We Catholicks require à further Help One faithful Oracle to teach which in this contest about the Sense of Gods What Catholicks require besides the bare Letter of Scripture Word end 's all Strife and Saies both plainly and infallibly Thus and thus an Infinite Verity speaks in Scripture Yet Sectaries are offended with vs because we can assert without hesitancy VVe belieue infallibly what Truth it Selfe Reueal's infallibly Nay more They are angry with God for hauing done them the greatest fauour Imaginable For to put à Period to these endles A signal Mercy of God makes sectaries offended debates raised among Christians To teach all Infallibly by his own vnerring Oracle what may and ought to be belieued Infallibly is à signal Mercy for which due Thanks can neuer be rendred Disowne the Mercy we liue and shall liue in à Spirit of Contention to the worlds end 11. Now if you Ask why the Church after She has proposed the Sense and verity of Scripture more easily beget's infallible Faith in Her Children Than the bare letter of Gods word can doe without Her I Answer The facility Diuine assistance Supposed arises from the Clarity of Her teaching known to all Vniuersally whether Orthodox or others Whence it is that few of our Aduersaries scarce moue any doubt concerning the Sense of the Churches vniuersal receiued Doctrin for that 's plain but chiefly Question the Truth of it Whereas all is contrary in our contest with the forenamed Hereticks For there is no Dispute whether Scripture be true What is chiefly debated with Sectaries The debate only being what it Saith or what the Sense of Gods sacred word is Here we fight in darkness before the Church Speak's and Declares Her Sense And if She be diuinely Assisted to teach truth as is already and shall be more amply proued in the sequele Discourse that doubt also ceases and vanishes into nothing 12. In the mean while Some may Object 1. The greatest part of Christian Doctrin is now agreed on and Supposed by Catholicks and Protestanss both true and infallible what necessity then haue we of any other Oracle besides Scripture to teach infallibly Answ The Agreement is Null and the Supposition destroies it self if all that taught Christian Doctrin since the Apostles time teach it fallibly For How could any An Obiection Answered agree in this That such and such à Doctrin is both true and infallible when He or They yea all that teach may because fallible erre in their very teaching and call that infallible Doctrin without Assurance giuen of its Infallibility Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible not infallible ex Terminis We must ioyntly own with that an Oracle which Proposes these Verities infallibly or can belieue nothing And by this you Se the Supposition destroies it Selfe For The Sectaries Supposition destroyes it selfe to Suppose à Doctrin infallible when none can Propose it answerably to its Merit as infallible or infallibly is as implicatory as to Suppose without Proof the Starrs in Heauen equal in number and from thence to Inferr they are to be iudged equal The Parity holds exactly 13. Obiect 2. Whoeuer though fallible Deliuers by chance Infallible Christian Doctrin Teaches the very sence that Christ taught Answ Very true But he giues no Assurance Aunother Errour of Sectaries That he doth so For à fallible Deliuery of à Truth as yet only Supposed not Proued infallible raises it no higher but to such à State of Vncertainty that one may iustly doubt whether it be Christ's infallible Doctrin or no. 14. Obiect 3. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity may well conuey vnto à Hearer that which God has Reuealed For why may not an infallible Verity as Reuealed though fallibly Proposed haue influence vpon Faith and work in Belieuers à most firm Assent Answ It is vtterly vmpossible For à fallible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Proposed as infallible by any neither Supposes the Truth Certain vpon other principles and this is euer to be noted nor makes it infallible It Supposes no Truth taught infalliby for Protestants Say None now can teach so All Doctors being fallible And most euidently Sectaries clearly conuinced it makes not that Verity infallible For the Verity as reuealed was antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching
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
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
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
read and ponder Scripture but if you moue à further Question concerning the Sense of what he reads he returns you his own fancy as the best light he has and makes that his Iudge This and no other is the Protestants Principle and the chief if not the only support of all Heresy in the world 17. I Argue 2. And hold it à Demonstration To make Religion à Scepticism eternally debatable without hope of attaining truth at last is wholly as ridiculous as if two men should goe to law meerly to wrangle hopeles of euer hauing their cause determined But this Protestant Principle VVe read Pray and ponder makes Religion à meer Scepticism without hope of euer knowing it or hauing truth finally decided Semper discentes they Another Conuincing Argument are alwaies learning but neuer well taught Ergo it is more than ridiculous 18. To proue the Minor let vs first suppose that either we Catholicks or Protestants teach and profess true Religion both certainly do not for we hold Contradictions Suppose 2. This falsity which our Aduersaries will haue supposed Viz. That the Roman Catholick Church after all Her reading and perusing Scripture is as fallible in all She teaches as Protestants confessedly are in what they deliuer after their reading Both teach as they doe contrary Doctrin Yea and fallible Doctrin yet both tell you they teach true Doctrin Say I beseech you what man in his wits To teach Contrary Doctrin and true Doctrin can belieue Either vpon their bare Assertions chiefly if we Suppose them of equal Authority when he find's the Result of their reading and perusing Scripture to end in nothing but in open Contradictions and sees plainly that the opposit Doctrin of the One Church so much abates the Credit of the other teaching contrary that in real truth both become Contemptible And hence I Said that which we call Christian Religion would iustly deserue Scorn if no Church teach it infallibly But is impossible here is not all To discouer more the gross errour of Sectaries in this particular 19. We are yet to Demand vpon whom this iarring Doctrin of the two dissenting Churches now supposed Fallible is to be laid Or whence it proceeds Can it come from Gods special A Doctrin taught fallibly Assistance think ye It is impossible Because God teaches no contradictions Nay if we consider it as contradictory no Spirit of truth can teach it Therefore we must part the Doctrins and Ascribe to each Church its own particular Opinion And then were that possible Examin which is true 20. But here lies the Misery I say boldly There neither is nor can be any appearance of certain reuealed truth in either Proceed's not from God Church not only because all Principles fail whereby to discern à certain Christian truth from Errour but most vpon this ground That we must now remoue the fallible taught Doctrins of both these Churches from Gods Infallible Verity and his Special assistance also and make them lean vpon mans weak and shallow vnderstanding We haue no other Principle to rest on if once infallible Assistance be excluded But it is manifest mans shallow But relies vpon mans weak Vnderstanding capacity communicat's no Certainty to Any concerning the high Mysteries of Faith remoued from their Center The first infallible Verity Therefore all we can learn from such Teachers is no more but doubtful Doctrin at most or if it reach to an Opinion meanly probable there is all Yet you haue often No ground less then infallible Supports true Religion heard and it is à Truth that no Principle less then one which is infallible Can vphold our Christian Doctrin Wherefore an vtter ruin of true Religion ineuitably followes vpon this Ground As Duine Doctrin infallibly taught begets infallible Faith So if taught doubtfully it begets only à doubtful Assent which is no Faith at all Now were these Doctrins respectiuely to each Church probable as I think neither would be if the Supposition of their fallibillty stand's we are only brought to the old Scepticism again and may dispute of Religion as we doe of Probabilities in Schools and so if men please They may as often change Religion as they change Opinions or apparel 21. Some perhaps will reply Protestants can certainly Say more for themselues then only to tell you They read Scripture and compare the Passages of it together by the light of their own weak reasons Could so much indeed make them accomplished Sectaries can pretend to no other Principle Doctors able to lay forth Gods eternal truths it would seem strange mighty bare and dissatisfactory to Reason Answ Here is all you haue from them For they neither do nor can pretend to more Wherefore I challenge them again and again to Say plainly what other Principle can be relyed on not wholly as doubtful and as much controuerted as their very Religion is when they either teach or interpret Scripture contrary to But to their own Comparing Scripture the Roman Catholick Church Obserue their Procedure If à contest arises betwixt them and condemned Hereticks The Arians for example All ends in à meer throwing Texts at one another And the sense must be iust so as each Party conceiues And do they not follow the same strain in euery Controuersy with Catholicks One Instance will giue you sufficient light and may well serue for all 22. They Protestants I mean read those words of our Sauiour This is my Body So do Catholicks also They compare Text with Text and Sense all as they please Catholicks as wise and learned compare also yet hold contrary Doctrin and discouer no little fraud in these new mens Deductions and Criticisms Say now plainly Who is He that acts the Sectaries seek to quarrel but to End nothing Sceptick's part Who is He that would endlesly quarrel about the Sense of Gods word Is it the Catholick No certainly He is willing to haue the cause vltimately decided He Petitions to haue these endles strifes remitted to the censure of one Supreme Iudge to à Church which manifesteth it self by euident glorious Miracles neuer yet censured by any Christians but known Hereticks and which finally has taught the world euer since Christ left it Dare Sectaries do thus much Dare they appeal to any Orthodox Church by whose iust Sentence these debates may haue an End No. They recoyle and without listening to any Iudge but Them selues would stil continue these Debates Therefore they are the Sceptists And to proue this giue me leaue to propose one Question to the Protestant He is the man we now treat A Conuincing Proof of our Assertion with Has he any Church so free from Censure of so long Continuance so glorious in Miracles as the Roman Catholick is Has He any Council as generally receiued the whole world ouer as either the Lateran or Florentine which euer interpreted Christs words or Sensed them as he doth Most euidently no. Therefore
perfect Subiection with that merit and Obsequiousness which The reason hereof God requires of his rational Creatures who are to walk to heauen by an humble and dutiful Faith or shall neuer come thither 6. And here by the way we may iustly admire the Sauciness of some half Atheistical Spirits who find themselues puzzled in the search of the most obuious things in nature none of them can say how or by what one poore flies wing is knit together yet will forsooth haue God to giue Euidence of his own deep Secrets the greatest Mysteries of grace or Cannot belieue Experience teaches how prompt and ready euery good Subiect is to obey his Prince at the least beck signe or insinuation of his will Though the Intimation carries not with it strick euidence yet in this matter of mans Submission to God when both his glory and our eternal Welfare are Concerned innumerable stand houering and doubtful Questioning whether God requires firm The peruerness of Atheistical Spiricts Faith from them And why Because an Euidence suitable to their fancy seem's wanting 7. Humour once such à Curiosity or giue them à greater light of Euidence the next thing required will be that God interiourly teach all by Himselfe without Church Pastors Doctors or any And if this serues not the turn He must either please to open the Heauens at à call and once à year at least visibly instruct them or there is no drawing such Spirits Euidence of Credibility enough out of à state of Incredulity I Say contrary the Euidence of Credibility apparent in those manifest Signs and marks which illustrate true Christianity à great mercy of God he giues so much of it is abundantly sufficient to induce the most obdurate heart in the world to belieue with such an Assent as suites God's great Maiesty that is with à Faith most firm and Infallible Obserue an vndeniable Euidence 8. It is euident That euer since the first Plantation of Christianity The Appearâ—nce and Credibility of true Christianity there has been à Continued Succession of Pastors and Doctors who taught the Belief of one God and one Sauiour Iesus Christ with other Articles of the Catholick Faith It is Euident that innumerable Professors of this one belief haue been eminent in Learning wisdom Sanctity of life and Contempt of the world It is Euident that the Predictions of Prophets vttered whole Ages before our Sauiour preached agree only to one Christian Society known the whole world ouer The Vniuersal extent of this great Moral Body is euident Vnity in Doctrin Euident Admirable Conuersions wrought by this Church are euident Vndeniable and most glorious Miracles Euident The Courage the Constancy the profound Humility of Martyrs and finally their bloodsheding the last Testimony of loyalty Authors worthy of credit number them to eleuen Millions are Euident Here in few words you haue The Euidence indisputable before you no Romance no Furb no fraud but most clear and indisputable Euidence Now ponder first but seriously And Ask whether God after the sight of so many illustrions Marks Manifested to all could permit those Millions and Millions The impossibility of deception in this Euidence who loued truth and heartily sought to serue no other but the great God of truth To be deluded with meer Phansies and fooleries Were this possible might we not all charge plain Cousenage vpon an Infinite Goodnes and most iustly complain Si error est quem Credidimus c. If we belieue an errour it is you great Soueraign that has deceiued vs. 9. In the next place cast your thoughts and seriously also vpon all Sectaries pas't and present since Christianity began You will find and here likewise we plead by Euidence no Succession of Pastors lawfully sent to preach no Conuersions of Nations wrought by any No eminent Sanctity no Vniuersal Sectaries utterly destitute of all Euidence of Credibility extent of their Religion no Vnity in Doctrin and which vtterly ruin's their Cause nothing like à Miracle among them How then dare these Nouellists destitute of all outward appearances of Truth or any thing like Euidence goe about to make their Religion credible by meer toyes and trifles These I call trifles Here to snarle at à Pope there at abuses in the Church Now to fill Volumes with Criticisms now to patch together à few broken Sentences of the ancient Fathers That is in à word to be euerlastingly quarrelling and neuer to Propose Sectaries new way of Arguing so much as à probable Way how quarrel 's may be ended Can such trifles I Say and here in brief you haue the vtmost Sectaries can doe extinguish the light the Lustre and Euident Credibility of God's own manifested Oracle Let common reason Iudge in this case Now wee goe on in the Analysis 10. Hauing Said abready We belieue because God has This euidence explained the Analysis goes on Clearly reuealed the Incarnation the like is of any other Mystery and being impossibilitated if we stand within the formal Term's of Faith to allege any further intellectual Motiue of belieuing than this The last of all God has reuealed what I Assent to It necessarilly followes that euery other Question relating to the Formal obâ—ect of Faith ceases here But if it be demanded how the Vnderstanding dares rest most firmly on an Obiect not euidently seen wee passe from that Power without breaking off the Analysis to the Will and Say she can by her pious Affection command the intellectual Faculty to Captiuate it selfe in Obsequium fideâ— and belieue most vndoubtedly 11. Now if another Question ensue's How the Will can bring the Intellect to so much Obsequiousness The Answer The Power of the will Ouer the Vnderstanding Manifest impiety not to belieue is at hand It doth so because God has shewed by all those most prudent and manifest Signes already laid forth to Reason that He is the Author of the Doctrin we belieue In so much that it is not only the highest imprudence imaginable to disbelieue but Wickednes to do so in à matter of such Consequence I say Wickednes for after à full sight had of the rational Motiues inducing to Faith seing none can arriue to Euidence of the Mysteries One of these three wayes must be What reason forces vpon Euery one followed To belieue nothing To belieue meer Fooleries Or finally to belieue à Doctrin which God has distinguished by Euident Marks and Signatures from Heresy and falshood To belieue nothing either is or tend's to Atheism and that 's Wickedness To belieue Fooleries no wise man will hear of Therefore all are bound to belieue and if so Faith must bee Euidently prudent and rational I mean so manifested by supernatural Wonders that reason is proued vnreasonable in case it denies Assent Now I Subsume But these Supernatural Signes One only Society of Christians Euidences and it is no other but the Roman Catholick Church Therefore she only proposes Faith
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
as the Apostolical Church was made glorious withall Therefore Reason cannot but acknowledge that this Oracle euer since these first blessed Men preached is the only Marked and Manifested Church in the world Deny the Euidence we Propugn it s own Sensibility and Visibility Obuious to all that haue Eyes to see or Eares to hear is our Proof And because it stand's vpon clear Principles both Sensible and Visible we do here Challenge all the Heathens all the Iewes and all the Sectaries in the world to bring to light any thing The Euidence because Sensible iâ— vndeniable like it in behalf of that they call Religion But there is no fear hereof For such an Attempt would be desperate yea vtterly impossible 6. Now if on the other side the Euidence here pleaded be granted the Church Wee haue our Intent For this Principle If granted we haue our Intent stand's firm Where God preserues the same Euidence of Credibility VVhere He set's before all the legible Characters the Publick Signatures of his own Power and wisdom There Reason cannot but acquiesce By such lights and no other it must be guided and take direction to find out Truth Vpon these Grounds 7. I Say lastly True Religion is easily discouered by Obuious By what Reason true Religion is found reason And in this sense Reason Regulat's Faith but. know withall That that Mans Reason only is reasonable in this weighty matter which has for its Obiect the Signal Marks of an Infinite Power and Wisdom now hinted at and Argues by them Whoeuer therefore makes choise of Religion and is not induced to belieue by these publick Indications which Heauen True and misled Reason distinguished manifest's err's grosly is seduced and Iudges falsly And thus we distinguish between false and true Reason The misled discoursing Man makes his own formal Act Reason whilst he pitches on à Doctrin and auouches that reasonable before he knowes by any rational Motiue whether God be Author of it or no. So Sectaries proceed in euery thing they belieue as Protestants Contrarywise One that 's guided by right and prudent Reason See's before He belieues Scio cui credidi that weighty Obiectiue Euidence whereby Millions haue been gained to Christ Hence I Say As that Man only belieues with Diuine Faith who Assent's vnto what God has Reuealed So He only followes Whâ—t bose are that follow reason in points of Faith true reason who is induced to belieue vpon God's own Euidence laid forth to Reason For I hold this Principle indubitable The Author of Religion giues it also à rational Euidence of Credibility Whoeuer followes not that Light run's astray and cannot belieue 8. By all hitherto noted wee may yet more clearly Discouer what is meant by this word Reason in our present Controuersy Briefly it imports as is already said an Intellectual light grounded By all sayd we better vnderstand what is meant by Reason vpon the Euidence of Supernatural Motiues which God from the beginning of Christianity hath manifested to euery rational Vnderstanding and by it induced the wisest of the world to become Orthodox Christians 9. A second Inference By this easy obuious Rule of Reason grounded vpon rational Motiues All Controuersies relating to Religion are clearly ended For find me out the forementioned Euidence of Credibility Those signal Marks I mean of an Infinite Power and Wisdom We haue with them the manifested Oracle whereby God Speaks to the world Now whoeuer refuses to hear God's own Language spoken by such an Controuâ—rsies ended by reason Oracle is of necessity thrown into à State of perplexity For thus if reason regulates he must Discourse Shall I deny this Euidence of Miracles of Conuersions of Vniuersallity to the Roman Catholick Church I deny that which the whole world How Reason discourses in this matter of Religion owns and is visible to Sense Shall I grant all and Say its forceless or infufficient to induce to belieue that Oracle I Destroy the rational Euidence of Christianity yea of the Apostles Themselues And cannot belieue either Prophet or Apostle were such Messengers sent now from Heauen to teach me For no particular Prophet no Apostle euer shewed the like full Euidence of Credibility as this one Oracle has manifested to the world for fixteen Ages 10. A. 3. Inference Sectaries neuer yet took nor can Sectaries follow no probable way of ending Controuersies take the easy right and Reasonable way of writing much less of Ending Controuersies This one Principle proues the Assertion As the Truth of Christian Doctrin stand's firm when an Euidenced Church teaches it So by the Nullity of an Euidenced Church you may in this present State easily gather the vncertainty and falshood of any Doctrin taught Contrary to that Oracle But most euidently Sectaries haue no Euidenced Church which euer taught their Doctrin or opposed ours Therefore they are impossibilitated to write much more to The Reason why they cannot follow any short easy or rational way of ending Controuersies by an Euidenced Oracle which yet as St Austin cited aboue against the Donatists saith is in the first place to be found out This found by her Marks and Signatures And Digito demonstrari potest Adds the Holy Doctor its pointed out with your Finger all further Contest ceases or might we speak in Cardinal de Riclelieu's own words lately quoted Seems little profitable because The true Church cannot but Ascertain all of true Doctrin 11. Hence you haue à 4th Inference Sectaries who in all their quarrelling Polemicks Still insist vpon particular Controuersies The Real presence Transubstantiation The worshiping of Images c. And dare not so much as offer to haue their Protestancy Sectaries make known the weaknes of their own cause tryed by the Iudgement of any Euidenced Orthodox Church Publish to the world the weaknes of their vndefensible Cause and plainly giue ouer to plead by Reason 12. I 'll tell you à Story for the substance very true concerning à Discourse between à Pert Nouellist and à Catholick The first would needs debate the Controuersy of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Catholick though Sectaries manting an Euidenced Church not very learned yet of à good Iudgement willing to see some effect of the Conference prudently demanded vpon what Grounds the Dispute was to be held on and finally ended The other replied vpon Scripture But said the Catholick what shall be done If you and I agree not about the Sense of Scripture Nouellist We are if things be so to Appeal to the Fathers Catho But what if we vary as much about the Sense of Fathers as about Scripture Nouellist Wee are then to recurr to the Primitiue Church and examin what Doctrin are driuen off all grounds of Arguing She deliuered relating to our Question in those purer times Catho O Sr Wee are yet in Darkness farr off from the last sound Principle For how shall you and I
it No more can these men if you set aside A selfe-wilful Perswasion satisfy Reason why they belieue as they doe then the worst of Arians tell you why they belieue Arianism 20. It would bee ridiculous in this contest to bring in Scripture as à Rule of their Faith For first we here enquire not after the Obiect of their Belief But call for rational Motiues whereby they are induced to belieue Protestancy 2. We Say Though Scripture were in à General way owned Scripture here not pleadable The most immediate Rule and the Sense of it could bee known by the priuate Reason of some men in the world yet The Sectary gain's nothing vpon the Concession because He knowes not nor shall euer know vpon any sure Principle That his The Reason Reason hath the singular Priuiledge to hit right on the Scriptures true Sense whilst all His Aduersaries and they are very many openly oppose it as improbable 21. One may yet reply For as much as The Sectary Belieues which is not much For it lies in à few Fundamentals If the protestant abstract's from what Doctrin he likes not He has the same Euidence of Credibility as we Catholicks haue And so far ioyn's with vs in Beliefe In other Matters of Contest He neither Belieues nor Disbelieues but Abstract's from all Contra. 1. Thus the Arians and all Heretiques proceed who first chuse and lay claim to so many Tenets of Christian Doctrin as pleases Fancy and then tell vs They haue Reason to chuse to Diuide and separate from the rest We why may not the Arian do the like demand and here is the main Point what rational Euidence haue they to do so Who made Beggars For all they haue they took from the Church such bold Chusers Again if they prescind or abstract They are obliged to Design an No Church fauours this Doctrin euidenced Orthodox Church which abstracted like them and positiuely taught so much Doctrin is precisely necessary to Saluation And no more This is impossible O yes The Primitiue Church seem's to haue abstracted from many Doctrins now taught by the Roman Catholick Contra. Who tell 's you so Your lame Negatiue way of Arguing Wee read not of Purgatory nor of Transubstantiation c. Pitiful The euidenced Roman Catholick Church by Her Constant Tradition speak's of both and also positiuely auouches that all now taught was then Anciently deliuered Here is our Principle and wee Sectaries vrged to name the Orthodox Church which abstracted as they do now vrge Sectaries to oppose it by producing the Authority of another more ancient Church which Spake then as they speak now Or which abstracted from such Particular Doctrins as they would abstract from But this is Impossible Out of all I Conclude Sectaries haue no Euidence of Credibility for any Doctrin belieued by them and Consequently no true Faith at all but Opinions only and those false too Now we must solue two or three difficulties of another Nature 22. A. 6. Obiection Reason Assures the Catholick that God speak's by the Oracle of the Church Ergo his Another Obiection Faith is vltimatly resolued into Reason I Deny the Consequence For if wee make à right Analysis The Act of Faith is not yet in Being in that Sign or Priority of Nature when Prudence tell 's Him God speak's by the Church The nature of that Iudgement serues only to induce the vnderstanding to Faith or to fix it vpon an vnuariable state of Belieuing And Consequently must be resolued into its own clear Principles Preuiously penetrated before the Catholick belieues Faith followes and relies immediatly vpon its own Obiect which is God's Reuelation proposed by the Church or by Scripture infallibly interpreted Now 23. If you Obiect 7. It is my priuate Reason which The equiuccation discouered makes me to belieue the Church I Answer The Proposition is equiuocal For it may either signify what I call Reason independently of all known Obiectiue Euidence makes mee to belieue the Church And that Sense is very false Nay its impossible One sense false to hold euery internal Act not resoluable into Obiectiue Euidence in à matter of such Consequence Reasonable This as I said aboue Patronises the worst of Heresies and Atheism also 24. Or Contrarywise the Sense may be The Church The other true when the Iudgement is grounded on rational Euidence glorioussly marked by clear and Conuincing Motiues known and applyed by my formal Act of Reason makes it Reasonable and that 's most true Wherefore euery rational Iudgement in the â—resent matter must be fixed vpon rational prudent Motiues distinct from the Act we iudge by The Iudgement is no more but Conditio applicans à Condition whereby the Obiectiue â—uidence is laid hold on and set before an Vnderstanding The Ground hereof is clear For we know not by Obiects extrinsick to our Knowledge but by vital Acts which interuene between the Intellectual Power and Obiects Now if any Ask why may not this Iudgement mistake and erre I Answer first by Proposing the like Question Why might not the Iudgement of the Primitiue Christians when they saw or heard of the Apostles great Wonders haue also been à Mistake or Errour Solue Why this Iudgement cannot be erroneous the one you solue the other I Answer 2. The Iudgement cannot if it pitch vpon what really is the Obiectiue Euidence be Erroneous For no fundation of Errour as wee now Suppose Lies there Therefore none can be deriued from thence into any vnderstanding A pure fountain yeilds no pudled water 25. A. 8. Obiection Faith is an Act of à reasonable power and consequently Conformable to Reason Therefore Faith Considered two wayes Reason regulates Faith or is its immediate Rule Answ The Act of Faith may be Considered two wayes First as it is à prudent reasonable Submission to Gods Reuelation 2. As it s terminated vpon the Reuelation proposed by the Church or As prudent how it is resolued any other infallible euidenced Oracle Consider it vnder the First Notion of à prudent Submission it euer Implies or rather presupposeth the rational prudent Iudgement now mentioned And this Iudgement preuiously set fast vpon such Motiues The resolution otherwise if considered as it relies vpon the Diuine Testimony as conuerted the world may well be Said to denominate the Act of elicite Faith à rational Obsequiousness Yea and its extrinsecal Rule also as will appear to euery one that makes à right Analysis or brings Faith to its last Principles But consider again the very Act it Selfe or precisely as it tend's vpon the Diuine Reuelation proposed by an Infallible Oracle it reason 's not at all nor more proues or Scientifically knowes its Obiect as Faith Than Science as Science belieues This Proues that submissiuely Belieues Not can Faith which euer presupposes its Obiect and Rule proued to Reason Scientifically proue either without lossing what is Essential to it I mean Obscurity
to Principles before we know what these men belieue Yet most certainly we should first haue had some light concerning their Beliefe before we hear talk of its Principles We should know how many Articles the Professors of it maintain as necessary to saluation How many also they reiect as Heretical We should know what it is one may boldly renounce Particulars omitted as an Opinion proper to Protestants And what it is he must hold as Protestant or be damned All this I Say and more Should in the first place haue been fully explained to the end we may haue some hint of the Thing Principled before we are informed of its Principles The Proof of à Thesis euer presupposes the Thesis plainly set down You neuer heard of any Tenet publickly exposed in Schools to The pretended Faith of Protestants Cannot be known All may abiure that Faith without danger of Saluation the Examination of others But euery Opponent knowes what 's Asserted All here run's in à contrary Strain A Faith is spoken of reducible to Principles which is so remote from all humane vnderstanding that none shall or can euer tell me what iâ— is Or speak thus And you speak truth VVhat euer the Protestant maintain's as he is Protestant though called Faith may without danger of our Souls be boldly renounced by him by me and the whole world besides 5. The Conuincing Reason of what I now Assert is so groundedly laid forth in this present Treatise that no Sectary shall ouerthrow our Proofs Read I beseech you The. 1. They haue no Essence of Religion Disc C. 20. n. 7. and what followes you find there à Sect of men called Protestants but without the very Essence of Religion Read also the. 2. Discourse you haue there in seueral places the whole Faith of Protestants brought to à List of meer false Opinions or rather to flat Heresies Their Their Negatiues disowned Doctrin Common to all Insufficient negatiue Articles of not Praying to Saints Of no Transubstantiation are cashiered by them The Doctrin common to all called Christians without more is à plain Fourb unless they deny the sacred Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation also with Arians Their Pretence to belieue so much of Catholick Doctrin as pleases their Fancies is not singular to them but common to others no Protestants 6. Now and it s euer to be noted we enquire after the singular Faith of Protestants as contradistinct from Popery And Where the main difficulty is And what Should be Answered all other known Heresies And desire That this Faith as it is Peculiar may be reduced to Principles I Say the Reduction is vtterly impossible and the Reason is best expressed in few words Their Faith is Phansy They haue nothing like Faith to found on Principles But to Se this proued You are once more wished to read the Discourses and Chapters already quoted for I will not take so much pains for the Doctor as meerly to blot Paper and repeat in this place what is there Conuinced Thus much Noted 7. Be pleased to hear two Propositions which come neerer to our present matter One is VVhateuer Faith the Sectary 〈◊〉 Claim to as peculiar to Protestancy be it what you will if Two Propositions contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church is not reducible to Principles 8. Another Assertion All the Principles tediously made vse of by the Doctor we may Suppose him very conuersant in the best are wholly impertinent And haue no more to doe with the Faith of Protestants No more support that Nouelty then if one should tell you Abraham begot Isaac If I proue this you 'l Say the Doctor has ventured vpon à desperat Attempt If not I disgrace my selfe 9. To goe on and proue We must first well distinguish The Doctrin contained in these Principles between the Doctrin contained in these Principles supposed to vphold the Protestants Faith and the Application or Inferences drawn from it in order to that end The Doctrin is sometimes true sometimes false and often not well expressed dubious But the Application of it to Protestancy And this And the Application are to be distinguished most Concern's the Doctor when true is as remote from the purpose or no more Concern's the faith of Protestants then if one should Say God made the world I say when is true for if false or dubious it s wholly impertinent 10. Thus the Doctor begins and pity me that I trouble the Reader and my Selfe also with meer Parergons which relate The first Principle not at all to Protestancy First An entire Obedience to the will of God being agreed on to be the condition of Mans happines no other way is in it selfe necessary to that end than such whereby Man may know what the VVill of God is Answ This general Doctrin though true Support's no more the particular faith of Protestants be it what you will then the Faith of Arians or Pelagâ—ins For all these and Catholicks likewise may grant A meer parergon to the present Controuersy There is no other way necessary to happines than such whereby à Man may know what the will of God is yet must withall acknowledge the Inference the Reduction or Application to this or that particular Doctrin wherein these Parties dissent from one another wholly impertinent vnless more be Sayd For Example the worst of Heretiques hold with Catholicks There is no other way to be saued but by Christ Iesus our Redeemer But as the Arian neuer offers immediatly to draw from thence his Denyal of à Mysterious Trinity So the Catholick would be as far to seek should he aduenture without more to build the Infallibility The reason why it â—s impertinent of the Church or the Doctrin of Transubstantiation vpon that General owned Truth only The Reason is A Principle Common to all or more Considered as Common stand's firm giues light T' is true so sar as it reaches but cannot possibly extend it selfe to all the different Tenets Wherevpon Men fall when they vary and dissent among Themselues Here the Principle becomes vseless without more light or à new Supply of other Proofs which relate immediatly to euery particular Doctrin really true or pretended to be so 11. Thus you Se the Doctors errour whilst first he giues The Doctors errour you à Principle common to all And will next build the particular Faith of Protestants vpon it I Say this is impossible For à truth so General as is now noted giues no more Support or Light to Protestancy than to Arianism Had the Dr better explained these General words There is no other way than such whereby Man may know what the will of God is And then adioyned But Protestants in behalf of their new Faith Teach and Proue such and No application made of the general Principle such to be the only only wayes whereby Man may know the Will of God and Papists cannot
infallible no aduantage by them The Substance of all is thus If Diuine Faith cannot be without an Infallible Assent all other Infallibility He means in the Proponent is rendred vseles Answ Why so I beseech you The Apostles Faith was certainly Infallible That therefore an Infallible Proponent of Faith is vnnecessary did that render our Sauiours Infallible Doctrin Infallibly proposed vseles In like manner the Church teaches Infallibly The Faithful Man elicites Infallible Faith grounded vpon Her Doctrin Doth this make Her Teaching Vseles When the internal faith of euery Belieuer so necessarily depend's vpon an Infallible Oracle that none euer belieued without some one or other absolutely Infallible 25. But now Ad rem Make hauocke of Faith as much as may be Destroy Christian Religion Say boldly and falsly Were all Proponents of Faith faâ—lible the Roman Catholick Church both is and euer was fallible Say also Protestants Arians Pelagians and all the rest are fallible Speak once to the Purpose and tell me For here is the only doubt Why should the Protestant with his fallible Faith be in à The Protestant yet would not be in à better Condition then the Arion better and à more Secure condition than the fallible Papist or the fallible Arian with that faith they lay claim to This the Doctor neuer meddles with nor can the difficulty be solued by him 26. And Hence To rid my Selfe of the rest which followes for really I am more weary of this Sport then the Dr euer was at killing flies you shall Se with what Candor I Proceed I freely permit the Doctor to make vse of all his following Principles yea of the whole Thirty in Number And say notwithstanding this ample Concession He shall neuer Proue or infer from any of them So much as One true Tenet Though all were granted which the Doctor can rationally desire peculiar to Protestants which can be owned by these very men that pretend to belieue Protestancy an Article of Faith necessary for saluation Here is my Reason The General owned Truths as that à rational creature may antecedently to any External Reuelation certainly know the Being of God c no more belong to Protestants than to others The Doctors false Principles as Nothing yet proued his 16. and 17. are though Supposed true euince nothing for Protestancy as is already Proued No more do his other Controuerted Principles denyed by innumerable Christians proue any thing His obscure Ones and his 27 and 29. appear to The reason hereof briefly giuen me of the darker sort must be further explained For truly I vnderstand not what is meant by those obscure words Which reiection is no making Negatiue Articles of Faith with the rest that followes Be it how you will thus much I defend that whether the fore mentioned Principles be True False Controuerted or Obscure no Verity peculiar to Protestants can be deduced from them absolutely necessary to Saluation 27. I Say deduced either by lawful Consequences or by the Addition of any receiued Principle And I Speak thus because Perhaps the Doctor may Answer He intended no more at present but only to set down some general Grounds wherevpon Protestancy by the ayde of further Proofs adioynable though not as yet not made vse of Can be established If this be his Reply I Answer First He has gone most lamely to work The Doctors whole work hitherto most imperfect leauing the whole Matter vndertaken halfe done halfe vndone in à word incompleat I Answer 2. There are neither Proofs nor Principles to goe forward withall I mean whereby to Euince the truth of one Pure Protestant Tenet held by Sectaries themselues necessary to Saluation And I coniure the Doctor who must hold his abstract Principles hitherto laid forth very imperfect He cannot goe on and Compleat it to aduance further That is to euince by some other more immediate Proofs the absolute necessity of Belieuing one Protestant Article This cannot be done 28. The Reason why I Speak thus boldly is the Verity hinted The vltimate ground of my Assertion at in the beginning and proued aboue Protestancy as Protestancy has no truth in it No Essence of Religion No One Article Conducing to Saluation And Hence it is that the Doctor keep 's off at distance Or rather run's on as you se partly by assuming false Principles against the Catholick Church Partly with Generalities which relate no more to Protestancy then to Arianism 29. Now here in passing you may well obserue The different Procedure of Catholicks from Sectaries The first tell you plainly what their Faith is Besides the common Doctrin admitted by all Called Christians They giue you in particular à list of theer Credends The Real Presence Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saints and in the first place of the Infallibility of their Church peculiar to Catholicks only They moreouer How differently the Catholick and Sectaries Proceed Assert without the Beliefe of these Articles after à due Proposal made none can be saued And here to omit other Probations taken from Scripture Councils and Fathers They ground their Beliefe vpon the Authority of God's own vniuersal euidenced Oracle which hath taught the world from the Apostles Age. 30. The Sectary on the other side neither dares nor Can name one Article Singular to Protestants Mark my words Or Preach this Doctrin to any of his Hearers Such and such particular Articles you are as Protestants Obliged to belieue as most essential Tenents of our Religion or will be damned if you reiect them The Sectary cannot name one Protestant Article iudged by him necessary to Saluation He cannot build one peculiar Protestant Article vpon plain Scripture vpon ancient Tradition or any other receiued Principle much lesse Proue its Truth by the Authority of à Church which euer Shewed the Marks and Signatures of God's Infinite Power and Wisdom It may be Some Sectary will here Cauil at our Articles and Say indeed we plainly deliuer them but needlesly multiply too many If this be Obiected I Answer first The Assertion is no Principle but à meer vnproued Supposition I Answer 2. in this place it is an Impertinency where we only vrge the Sectary to name but one A possible Cauil answered Article Iudged by him Essential to Protestancy and necessary for Saluation As we plainly giue in our Seueral necessary Articles Thus much Comply'd with We are as ready to Proue the Truth of our Catholick Positions as to Euince vpon sound Principles the Sectaries false and Improbable CHAP. XVIII The Doctors Inferences proued no Inferences but vntrue Assertions Hauing answer'd his Principles and Inferences Satisfaction is required to some few Questions hereafter proposed 1. IT followes Saith the Dr 1. There is no necessity at all of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth The first Inference is à meer Tautology of those things which they may be certain without c. Answ Here you
concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Eternal Father The Pelagians as busy to cancel Original sin The Donatists as Zealous to perswade men that the true Church was not vniuersally Therefore their sin and Apostasy the very same extended as euer Protestants were earnest busy and Zâ—alous to haue this present Church reformed in her Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Adoting the Sacred Host praying to Saints And what els you will Now I Subsume 16. But all these Accusers all these rebellious Reformers Because all tend to the destruction of Christ's true Church as like as like can be to one another are wicked and ayme at the Ruin of Christs true Church which is Manifest For had euery one of them done what they desired or reformed according to their Capricious humours There had not been at this day any Orthodox Church in the world Now here in my Question which certainly deserues à candid Answer If all Heretiques A difficult question proposed ancient and Modern reform the Church according to their particular Sentiments most euidently Christs true Church is destroyed Why therefore should I or any if we were yet to seek à better Religion rather adhere to the Reformation of à fallible Protestant than to that other of à fallible Arian or à Pelagian You Shall haue à Strange Answer 17 We are told when the Arians went about to reform the Church was pure but now Her known corruptions force Sectaries out of true loue to their Souls at least to reform themselues Our Sectaries Answer is an vnproued Supposition If the Church will learn Her duty by their good example She may if not She must remain in her errours Answ Is not this more then ridiculous First to make an vnproued Supposition their Proof and then to say nothing but what both the Arians and other Heretiques haue put in their mouths and And contain's nothing but what your old Heretiques taught then to Speak taught them to speak For did not these wicked men pretend as dear loue to their Souls Did they not Clamour as loud against the Churches imagined errours in those ancient dayes as euer Protestants haue done in these latter Say therefore why should the Protestants Reformation be esteemed more secure and Orthodox than what the Arians endeauored to introduce It will be hard to Answer whilst this Principle stand's firm If all reform the Church is ruined 18. Some may Reply Protestants without all doubt who haue diuorced themselues from the Church therefore clamour so loud because they haue strong Proofs at hand whereby to Another Reply examined euince that that once faithfull oracle is now guilty of notorious errours which no Arian could then do Answ Here is the main Point I would willingly be at and haue examined to the bottom I therefore press these Nouellists to pitch vpon some one particular Sectaries are vrged to pitch vpon Some particular controuersy Controuersy Transubstantiation for example or this now debated point of Idolatry in adoring the Consecrated Host and vrge them first to Argue by the plain words of Holy Scripture When all they can Say is said I will demonstrate that the Arians produce Passages of holy Scripture far more significant might we rest in the meer sound of words for their Heresy The sound of words in Scripture more plain for Arians then for Protestants than euer Protestant alleged against Transubstantiation or any other Catholick Tenet 'T is true your Arians make little account of any Authority but what seem's to them plain Scripture or appear's deducible from Scripture and this was the old Protestant way But our Newer men haue some respect to the Consent of Fathers and an ancient Church These we presse to dispute closely in Forme and to make our supposed errours or Sectaries Obiections hitherto Proposed haue been solued their Contrary pretended truths known by virtue of any one receiued Principle It is Answered thus much is done in their Books already set forth We Reply All their Obiections hitherto proposed haue been as fully and clearly solued as either they or we solue the Arguments of Atheists against God and the Iewes Cauils against Christ Or if they haue any new ones yet in store which require further satisfaction it is certainly most easy to propose them in good Form This done I will engage they shall no sooner appear in publick then haue à full and satisfactory refutation 19. We are told again such and such Books published Sectaries pretence of Books not answered reiected by Protestants haue not been answered As if forsooth all Books set forth by Catholicks were refuted In â word here you haue all It is very true the Cauils The Ieers and tedious length of some books haue not been answered with the like Cauils Ieers and length But what 's this to our purpose whilst we vrge for Arguments whereby it may appear to à disinteressed what hath been answered by Catholicks and what not Iudgement that Catholicks haue forsaken the ancient Orthodox Faith And that Protestants now lately had the singular Priuiledge of setling Religion right on its old firm foundations All Arguments hitherto proposed of this nature or which tend to infringe any particular Catholick Doctrin haue been dissolued and torn in preces ouer and ouer Or if as I now said there yet remain any vnanswered our Adversaries may vouchsafe to let vs hear them 20. Sectaries reply We haue indeed offerred to solue their Obiections as also to attaque Protestancy with many Arguments An other plea of Sectaries but as our Solutions are slight so our Arguments against them seem light and forceles Call me to mind one or two only 21. They haue been told If the Roman Catholick Church be fallible and Protestants as fallible Iewes and Gentils may Arguments vnderâ—alued by them as forceless iustly Scorn Christianity when they se à fallible Protestant attempt to settle an erring Papist in the right way to Saluation or à fallible Papist to do the like on an erring Protestant whilst neither the one nor other can know infallibly which is the right way to Saluation They haue been told 2. To make Scripture alone Though most Conuincing the sole Rule or Iudge in Controuersies encreases the Scorn of these Aliens from Christ who hold it more then ridiculous to appeal to à Iudge for the Decision of their doubts when none of them after the appeal made can Certainly know what the Iudge Of Sectaries unreasonable appeal to Scripture alone Speak's or this Rule of Scripture regulates What I say is manifect for So various and discordant are all rhese in their Interpretations of God's word that the Arians auouch it Speak's Arianism Protestants Protestanism Papists Popery Pelagians Pelagianism and so of the rest Imagin I beseech you that two who accuse one another of high Treason Should come before à Iudge and desire to haue the final sentence pronounced against the Criminal person
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
it self deriues from that Oracle of Truth I say Contrary As such Opinions when true Add no more weight or certainty to that Doctrin than it had antecedently from the The Fundamental ground of our Answer Church So if false They make not the Doctrin less certain Take one instance God reueals this Truth The Diuine word assumed Humane nature One preaches the Truth but Adds no degree of certainty to the Doctrin in it self which in the highest degree was most certain before his Preaching An other falsly as Arius did opposes the verity it is not Therefore less certain in it self because He contradicts it And thus we discourse of our Church Tenets indubitably most certain vpon Church Authority whether Hereticks deny or grant That Matters not the Doctrin stand's firm still as before And as we see by daily experience neither riseth higher in certainty nor fall's lower in the iudgement of Catholicks because Sectaries side with it or bend against it 22. Thus much proued The Paralogism is at an end The Catholicks held The Donatists Baptism valid so they would haue done had these Hereticks duely Ministred it and with all which is possible afterward denied it valid So independent Church Doctrin is of dissenting mens opinions The Donatists again slighted our Catholick Baptism the Church regards it not For as the Opinions of the Goodnes of their own Baptism heightned not the Churches certainty concerning it So their Contrary Opinion of its insufficiency made not the Truth less certain to the Catholick Apply what is here noted to our present case and you will see the like Conclusion Protestants Say we may be Sectaries Siding with vs neither Lessens nor increases our Certainty saued in Catholick Religion The Opinion is true But as asserted by them is no more but an Opinion which therefore Add's not one grain of more Certainty to Catholick Doctrin For had they denied vs à possibility of Saluation as now by meer Chance they grant it Catholicks would haue giuen as little eare to That as They now doe to their many other false Opinions So it is Church Doctrin as I now said neither fall's nor riseth in certainty vpon the account of our Sectaries Opinions 23. You will Ask what then gain we by the Concession of Protestants when it giues vs no more Assurance in this particular than we had before from the Church I haue answered aboue We gain thus much That they cannot rationally impugn any Catholick Doctrin without contradicting Them selues For if confessedly This bring 's men to Heauen the Religion is sound And implies no essential Errour The concession then as I said serues well as an Argument ad Hominem to stop the mouths of Sectaries And showes withall That they end controuersies For its What their Excession Serues for horridly vniust to dispute against à Faith which all grant saues souls We pretend no more nor can pretend it And here is the Reason 23. No Catholick nor indeed any other doth or can belieue à Christian Verity vpon this ground or Motiue that Sectaries say its true for their saying so is neither Gods Reuelation nor the Churches Doctrin But à meer Opinion as taught by them But an opinion chiefly theirs is to weak to ground any faith vpon Therefore if I belieue as I do Saluation most safe in the Roman Catholick Church I belieue it vpon à Motiue totally distinct from the Protestants Assertion It is true their Assertion or siding with vs may induce one to reflect on the great power Truth has in working vpon men most refractory Though it Adds no new degree of certainty to Catholick Doctrin I haue insisted longer vpon this point because it vtterly destroies what euer Mr. Stillingfleet can say against vs vnless he will quarrel vpon this score that I here suppose my Church Doctrin most certain which is not the Question now But may well be supposed in all good law of disputation And shall God willing be proued in the next Discourse 24. Page 619. you proceed to à second Answer of his Lordship And Argue thus If that be the safest which both Parties agree in the Principle makes much for the Aduantage of Protestants And why We Catholicks are bound Say you to belieue with you in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree The Sectaries Argument taken from the Eucharist in the faith of the Church of England That in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and Real body and blood of Christ truly and really c. Answ 1o. If we belieued As you do The motiue of our Faith would be As is now said quite different from the Motiue of your Opinion And so it is de facto in the belief of euery Catholick Mystery But I waue this And say Your Principle is ill applyed For you and we agree in iust nothing concerning the Eucharist but thus far only That what we see look's like bread We say that very Christ who was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross is really and substantially present vnder the form's of bread after true Consecration You by à strange fancy lay hold of Christs Presence existing in Heauen And think thereby to make your selues partaker of his real body We say Christ is rruly Worth nothing and why and really in two and more places at once you make this vtterly impossible We put the real Presence or local being of Christ in the very Obiect before our eyes vpon the Altar you put it in your faith or Fancy rather Hence your question afterward viz. Whether we do not allow any real and Spiritual presence of Christ besides the Corporal you mean the Real manducation is soon answered For we distinguish what you confound together And say if by these Terms Spiritual Presence you would exclude the real obiectiue Presence of Christs sacred body we dissent from you And absolutly hold that Real obiectiue Presence which may be rightly called Spiritual because by it Christ is placed Totus in toto totally in the whole host and totally in euery part of it Contrariwise if you make it only à fancied Presence of Christ or say Hee is not really vnder the Forms or Accidents of bread wee leaue that lean Sacramentarie Doctrin to you vtterly disanow it and still dissent from you 25. The whole cheat lies hudled vp in those vnexplicated words The worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body c. As if forsooth your two terms The fallacy discouered Faith and Spiritual could make vs agree in one Tenet whereas we most vary about this very Faith and the obiect of it And also disclaime your fancied Spiritual Presence Hence we say you haue neither true Sacrament nor true Faith nor receiue worthily nor really partake of Christs true body nor of any benefit of his Passion We say you feed not spiritually but only tast natural
à little how we proceed 2. I proue my Catholick Doctrin by the Publick Authority of an euidenced Church That 's my Principle And our Aduersaries to Oppose me come armed with two or three maim'd The Sectaries opposition against the Church is null And why dark Sentences of the Holy Fathers and think this enough to cast Popery out of the world No such Matter my good Countrymen There is yet much more to do before you speak probably You explode Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saints We Ask whether you euer had à Church as Euidenced as Ancient as vniuersal as Commissioned to teach as ours which publickly maintained your Tenets and censured The Roman Catholick Doctrin Show vs such à Church vpon solid Principles the work is done you giue weight For weight Euidence for Euidence and may Speak boldly Nay I say more you may well triumph For vpon the Supposition we are vanquished But Fail to do this and fail you must you are silenced yea impossibilitated to write more Controuersies Se more of this Subiect aboue Disc 1. C. 19. 3. A second inference The Atheist and Protestant plead alike That is As the one Argues against God iust so the other doth against Christ's Church All know the more ancient Atheists offer'd not positiuely to Demonstrate the Non-existence of God for there is no Principle to ground that Sensless Assertion vpon But chiefly excepted against the Proofs The Atheists way of arguing parall'd with that of Sectaries drawn from the visible works in Nature and thought these so weak to Euince à Deity that there might well be none Thus our Sectaries proceed For stark shame they dare not deny à Church of Christ Yet their whole labour is so to obscure Her Euidence that no man can possibly find out the Oracle by Signes Miracles Conuersions and Antiquity Therefore as the Atheist in effect denies God or at least stand's doubtfull of his Being So the Sectary to parallel him because He denies the Churches glorious Euidence cannot but remaine doubtful whether there be any such Oracle or no. Again as the Atheist bewrayes his folly in giuing the Lie to the vniuersal Iudgement of mankind when he Saies the works of Nature proue not à Deity So the Sectary run's the same Carreer betrayes his folly and giues the Lie to the whole Christian world when he saies the Manifest works of Grace visible in the Catholick Church conuince Her not to be God's Oracle 4. A third inference The sole Euidence of the Roman Catholick Church visible by Her Marks so clearly conuinces and carries on the whole Catholick Cause without exception A Church clearly euidenced cannot be excepted against So utterly vanquishes the Protestants Plea of Errours entring into this great moral Body that it is highly improbable yea à flat Calumny to impeach Her of any Here is my reason Meer doubts or crasy Topicks can not reuerse Euidence But the Churches Antiquity Her vast extent Her Progress Her Miracles Her Conuersions and the other like Signes are â—x sensatis sensibly and vndeniably euident Therefore all impleading Her of Errour is more than improbable vnless She has erred in shewing such Marks as haue made the world Christian Now further If this Euidence stand's firm Her Doctrin is made euidently Credible by it that is so worthy of Acceptance by diuine Faith That Reason after so much Light seen is obliged vnder pain of damnation to yeild Assent to the Doctrin For as none can prudently belieue before this Euidence be attained Qui cito credit levis est corde Eccles 19. 44. One too quick in belieuing is not wise So none after t' is had can without damnable sin Disbelieue 5. Hence I Argue The Doctrin of the Primitiue Church was made euidently credible to reason That is worthy of all Acceptation in the three or four first Centuries or was not The Primitiue euidence of Credibility If not none could then belieue with diuine Faith For the Euidence of credibility necessarily preceed's Faith And as Faith in it self is strong most certain and victorious ouer Incredulity Iohn 1. 5. 4. This is the victory which ouercom's the world our Faith So this preuious Euidence answerably brings Reason to so firm à State of belieuing certainly that nothing Proposable can Eclipse that clear and manifest light 6. Contrarywise if those Primitiue Christians had the Euidence we speak of and were thereby obliged to belieue We Catholicks Is yet manifest in the Roman Catholick Church are Most secure for the very same Euidence still continues to this Age in the Roman Catholick Church Miracles go on Conuersions of Nations go on the Succession of Pastors goes on The fulfilling of Prophesies goes on Sanctity of life in Thousands and Thousands is manifest to our eyes and senses Euery day the Church growes older and which is enough to conuince the most obdurate Heretick the louely vnion the vnanimous Consent of so many Nations though different in tongues in manners in Education conspiring and openly Professing one and the same faith hath not only gained our Church à publick Reputation the whole world ouer but moreouer proues this great Truth That she and none but she is Gods Sacred Oracle 7. If then and here lies the force of my Inference it had been à flat calumny and more than vastly improbable to haue taxed the Apostolical Primitiue Church of Ertour after so great The force of the Inference Euidence laid forth to Reason in Her Marks and Signs it is no less sinful in the Protestant now no less vngodly at this day to accuse the present Church of corrupted Dectrin whilst She frees her self from the Calumny by giuing in the very same Euidence of Credibility For here is my irrefragable Principle The like full euidence of motiues lead's reason to draw Thence à most firm and certain Faith Destroy this Euidence in any that proues Himself to be Gods Oracle you must deny it to Christ our Lord when he preached To the Primitiue Church also and finally to the Modern Catholick Church Do so All Faith perishes Grant it to both the Ancient Church and this now in being All pleading against our Catholick Doctrin is meer Vanity 8. The Sectary may reply Though the Euidence we insist on hath some weight Yet it followes not that all the Doctrin An Obiection Proposed our Church teaches is made euidently Credible For he can iustly except against the Doctrin relying vpon other solid Grounds and most approued Principles Scripture for example the Authority of holy Fathers the Records of Antiquity the Form of the Primitiue Church are his Principle and by these he hopes to proue our Churches Doctrin False which done the Euidence we build vpon signifies nothing 9. I am very willing to solue this Obiection the Answer I hope will show vpon what vnsteedy foundations Protestancy stand's To proceed with all clarity This is Questionable whether we or Protestants teach the Doctrin of Iesus Christ