Infallible Teacher to learn us now infallibly what that Written Word speaks in a hundred As great necessity now to learn us what Scripture speak's as what Christ tought controverted Points as then was necessary to declare the Substance of Christs Doctrin which he delivered by Word of mouth I say the substance for without all doubt the Apostles and the 70. said explicitely much more in thir Preaching then meerly what Christ had implicitely and in fewer words commanded them to Preach yet They neither did nor could swerve in any Doctrinal Point Therfore in the publishing his Doctrin They had the Assistance of the Holy Ghost before his Ascension Though it was then more amply confirmed and promised anew not only to the Apostles then living But also to their Successors for ever 6. And this is what our Saviour Dogmatically Gods Spirit with his Church for ever Teaches Iohn 14. 16. of a Comforter the Holy Ghost who shall abide with you for ever which words implying a continual aboad cannot buâ— be understood in an Absolute sense Yes say They He shall be with them for ever But how Mark the gloss in regard of Consolation and Grace A meer Guess Not only for Consolation and Grace The only question is whether it hitt's right or no For who tell 's you Sr That this and no other is the Absolute sense of Christs Words Why may They not as well import the Assistance of Infallibility as that of Consolation and Grace Prove your Gloss and by Scripture This we urge for We Catholicks say without drawing further Proof from either Councils or Fathers which you hold Fallible That Christs following words Iohn 16. 13. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will teach you all Truth taken in their obvious sense warrants this Infallible Assistance for ever Can your Fallible Spirit assure me of the contrary You say Yes For these last Words are Restrained to the Apostles only Here is another Gloss or Guess as unlucky as the former For who Restrains here Christ or You If you do it you may as well restrain the Consolation of Grace to all the Apostles Successors as Infallible Assistance 7. We prove both the One and the Other Blessing granted to the Church by our Saviours own Words Matt. 28. 20. I am with you always to the end of the world and moreover Affirm that the Consolâ—tion of Grace granted the Church whose duty is to Teach us Truth Benefit's little in order to that Consolation of grace nothing in a whole Church without Infallibility End unles it be accompanied with the further Priviledge of infallibility For what comfort hath Any whether Learned or Illiterate to Hear that the Pastors of Christs Church have mâ—â—h interiour Consolation and Grace if this sorrowful Thought afflict his hart All and every one of thâ—se Pastors notwithstanding the plenty of their Grace may cheat him intâ— damnable Error and teach There is neither God Heaven nor Hell 8. I might further show How utterly inconsistent this supposed and yet Vnexplicated Consolation of Grace The Consolation of Grace and want of Divine Assistance uncompossible in the whole Church is with the Spirit of a whole Church which may Deceive us But the thing need 's no Proof for it is evident That God who hath promised to direct us by his Pastors cannot comfort them so plentifully with Celestial Inspirations and Permit all to delude and cosen us with Pernicious Errors Will he give them grace Think ye to Talk only and not to teach his Verities certainly To live holily for his grace serves for some end and Leave them to a Possibility of Corrupting his Spouse his own Sanctified God Courts not his Church with comfort and permitt's it to betray his Truths Church with fals Doctrin This in a word is to tell God That he court 's the watchmen of his Church with Heavenly Consolation who nevertheles may Betray his Cause and give up his Citty to the Devil when they please For here in They are left to their own wills and Fancies God you know is Truth and He loves Truth Truth is that which he first established in his Church And it Answers to that first Operation of Christian which is Divine Faith the ground of all Sanctity To tell me therfore That He comforts a whole Church by A Paradox of Sectaries Grace and yet leaves it so tottering upon Vncertainties That none can with absolute Assurance say He either teaches or hear's Truth delivered in any Article of Christian Faith is worse then a meer Chimaera And makes our Bountifull Lord not only a very Niggard of his Graces But also gives him a most high Affront The Grace therforâ— of Consolation The comfort of Grace supposeth the favour of Infallibility which he allowes his Church as a Church ever implyes or supposeth that Arcb-favour of Infallible Assistance Rob it of this Priviledge and other Graces avail little 9. And here by the way I must needs propose one question to our Protestants It is whether God Supposing his Promises already made can A question proposed whether the Church can withstand an loose all grace according to their Principles permit that the whole Church Vnassisted by his infallible Spirit loose withstand and reject what ever Grace he gives or hath given it If they say Yes It is Possible Then I Infer God can permit that the Whole Church may turn Traitour and become Impious For a Church which withstands looseth or rejects all Grace is traiterous and impious If they say no it is against his Goodnes to permit such a Universal Impiety They must acknowledge That he cannot but preserve a Church for ever whether consisting of Elect or no we dispute not in his Grace and favour Truth as necessary to the Church as Grace and this infallibly Ergo I say He cannot buth Infallibly also supposing his Promises Preserve it in Truth by the special Assistance of his own Unerring Spirit Truth being as all know as necessary to the Church as Grace is And thus we se in notorious great Sinners who although they have a thousand Incitements of Grace to amend their lives yea better themselves by it in some particulars yet as long as Divine Truth necessary to Christians is wanting Their state is Deplorable To conclude then Here is my Dilemma Either it is possible That the whole Church That is All the Teachers and Hearers in it may abandâ—n all Gods Revealed Verities and neither Teach nor Hear one Word of his Truth or 't is impossible If the first be granted 'T is not only possible that the whole Church may revolt from God and Truth But may loose all Grace likewise Grant this and say next what will become of our Protestants Elect people who Becaus Predestinated to Eternal life cannot but have Grace Observe well A Paradox of Sectaries the Paradox They cannot Loose grace yet 't is possible never to hear a Word of
Truth For all their Ministers are fallible What kind of Elect are these who have Certainty of Grace but no certainty of Truth with it Now if on the other side they hold it impossible That the whole Church may desert Gods Truths They grant what we ask And must say it hath the infallible Assistance we plead for The Reason hereof I have amply delivered in the former Discours Chap. 3. Becaus al the Human Science Wit or Learning in Nature alone can no more Secure a Church God preserves his Church aâ— Sound in Truth as Sanctified by Grace from Error Then give it Grace God therfore doth and will ever graciously prevent it with both these Blessings And as Infallibly keep it Sound in Truth as Holy and Sanctified CHAP. VII More of this Subject 1. BY what is said in this short Digression you se how pittifully our new men mangle the Text now Cited I am with you Always to the End of the World Hear their Gloss Yes say They. This Promise was made to the Apostles and their Successors But in a different degree For it was of continual and infallible Assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of continual and fitting assistance but not infallible The like is repeated afterward Protestants trivial Distinction of Fitting and infallible Assistance when They ask What we say to this Marry Sr I say it 's nothing to the Purpose For you neither declare what this fitting continual assistance granted these Successors as distinct from the other allowed the Apostles is nor can you declare these different Degrees And though you did so contrary to the They still run on in Generals Churches sense you only vent your own feeble and fallible Sentiments without Proof which I neither ought nor can in Prudence Believe To be plain Therfore be pleased to Answer Hath God Revealed to you what this fitting and continual Assistance granted the Apostles Successors is No. Doth any Ancient Council or Unanimous consent of Fathers Mince These Words and Dogmatize here as you do or only mention a Presence of the Spirit of consolation and Grace excluding infallible Assistance No. All is contrary as I could demonstrate were it here my task to prove Truth against you but this is done by others as 't is to force you to prove what your Fancy only vents against it And mark how Fancy goe's to work Christ saith I am with you always to the end of the World That is saith your Fancy He is present by his Spirit by a fitting Assistance But not by an Assistance Infallible This gloss Not by infallible Assistance is your own For neither Gods Word nor Vniversal Church nor General Council nor the Consent of Fathers nor Antiquity ever uttered any Thing like it Grant therfore it be Vnreasonable as you say to put your Party to prove a Negative Viz. That any of the Fathers denyed this place to extend to infallibility I am sure it is most Reasonable to force you to a Proof of your own Affirmative For you doctrinally Teach That Christ in this place Allows no certain Infallibility to his Church This because positively asserted is positively to be made good by a more strenuous Proof then Fancy only You say again Those of your Party only delivered what they Conceived to be the Meaning of this and other Places of Fathers which do no more then prove the Perpetuity of the Church What They conceived weak fallible Men Pray Sectaries Conceipts instead of Proofs what am I the better for their Conceipts Must I change my Ancient Faith for the Rowling and never agreeing Fancies of a few Ministers Why may not an Arian or Pelagian if sole conceiving can do it as well gain me to his party as a Protestant to His who Thinks that the Church is Fallible To that of the Fathers I Answer Their indubitable owning a Church Perpetual Evidently could we say no more supposeth a Church constantly True and Holy And the Constant Truth of it implyes infallible Assistance as is already proved 2. Protestants may yet reply They deliver what An Objection they conceive to be the Sense of Christs Words I am with you always c. Catholicks can do no more and Mark well As the words do not explicitly exclude Infallible Assistance from the Church always so neither do They explicitly include it For Christ saith not explicitly I will be always with you to the End of the World by my Infallible Assistance This then the case stands They Restrain Christs Promise and we see to Extend it too far They we say come to short of the Sense by cutting of Infallible Assistance We Catholicks They say go beyond the Bounds and add more to the Text than Christ Spoke Both of us therfore are Glossers and why is not Their Gloss as Orthodox as Ours Here is a better Objection then any hitherto proposed The Solution of it Ends all Controversies And the Solution might easily end all Controversies would Sectaries pleas to wave a few Self-conceipts and prudently Acquiesce to Reason whilst Truth plead's againsts their Errors 3. First then though I press not much this Point Sectaries have no Reason to prefer their Interpretations 't is evident That we Catholicks are the Elder Brothers as Numerous at least as They and to speak modestly as Learned Why therfore when both They and We interpret Scripture and stand as it were equally ballanced becaus 't is yet supposed uncertain who guesseth better why is not I say Our Interpretation could we prove no more as good as Theirs contrary to us If They prefer Their Gloss before Ours something of Weight beside meer Fancy must turn the Scales and Ballance more for them then us We alwayes ask for this greater Poyse in controverted To these of Catholicks matters and can get no answer 4. Secondly I must necessarily here Note an unworthy An unworthy proceeding of Sectaries proceeding of Sectaries with us when we Produce Scripture Fathers or Councils for Catholick Doctrin Their humor and 't is a a strange one run's on thus First They begin with their Glosses and labor to pervert that Sense which the Catholick owns And if after much Trifling they can Disguise this Sense or Twine it of â—â—om the Catholick Meaning They hold the Work done and cry Victory Mark in our present matter Their Frigid way of Arguing and it is alike in all other Controversies That Text say They The Holy Ghost will teach you all Truth may be Restrained to the Apostles only That other The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith may have the Sense They allow of and no more This Promise of our Saviour I will be with you always c. May exclude Infallibility And when They bring the Close of a Point debated to their own Self-seeming it may be They think all safe Wheras 't is most evident that nothing is yet so much as probably concluded For as They say The Sense
of them certainly knows what he sayes They have Christs Promises of a Spirit of Truth ' abyding with some Christian Teachers find them where they can for ever to the end of the world but now They must say because all Pastors are fallible That Christ keep 's not his word if all may deceive and Teach both fallible and false Doctrin Finally they must own such Believers as S. Paul mentioneth Who receive the word of God as it Truly is the word of God but have not one Pastor or Doctor that dare show his face and say he Teaches this word infallibly Yet infallible Believers and infallible Teachers seem neer Correlatives the one if Faith come by Hearing staggers without the other and Infallible Hearers of Gods word suppose Infallible Teachers methinks when the Apostle saith Rom. 10. 14. None can hear without a Preacher he supposeth as well the Preacher instructing infallible as the Hearer infallibly instructed CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrin of Christ necessarily requires infallible Teachers 1. THe proof of my Assertion is more fully declared Chap. 4. n. 6. and relyes on this Principle Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly under that notion of fallibly taught Doctrin is not the Doctrin of Christ We are of God saith Scripture Iohn Epist 1. cap. 4. v. 6. He that knowes God hear's us he that is not of God heareth us not Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of errour Which is to say in other Terms He that hear's an infallible Teacher hath the Spirit of Truth and he that hear's not an infallible Teacher wants this Spirit of Truth Again Epist 2. v. 9. Every one that recedes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ hath not God c. But every one that Hears only a fallible Teacher easily recedes and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ Therfore he hath not God nor the Spirit of Truth in him 2. Upon these grounds I Argue further Christ Doctrin infallible in it self is either now taught infallibly by some Pastors lawfully sent or fallibly If the first we must own infallible Teachers of this infallible Doctrin If the second That is if Christs infallible Doctrin be taught only Fallibly ex parte Docentis it followes evidently first That though God speaks infallibly yet no man hath certainty of what he saith It followes secondly That such a fallible Teaching of Christs Doctrin may be cavilled at and disputed against For Doctrin taught Fallibly may be cavilled at and disputed against all Doctrin taught fallibly and which by force of its Proposal or merit of the Doctrin may deceive and be false is lyable to cavil and dispute Therfore this Doctrin may be also cavilled at and disputed against It followes thirdly That really Christs Doctrin perchance perverted by a fallible and false Delivery may not be Taught at all The reason is No other Doctrin is or can be taught but what is fallible and may be false but Christs Doctrin is nor fallible nor can be false Therfore that Doctrin which is only Taught fallibly as it is so delivered is none of Christs infallible Doctrin Consequently if any man would now utterly abjure all the taught Doctrin of the Christian world he might do it without being an Haeretick I prove it He who only abjures and Denies Fallible Doctrin which may be false neither abjures nor denies Christs Doctrin nor any Christian Verity which cannot be false But all Christian Doctrin that can be Taught Sectaries say is Fallible and may be False Therfore he who Denies such a fallible taught Doctrin denies not Christs Doctrin and cannot be upon that account an Haeretick You will say He who Denies all Christian taught Doctrin certainly Denies some of those Objective Verities which are revealed in Gods Word and therfore is an Haeretick Very true if he be sure That his Teacher delivers those Verities infallibly But our Protestants say Because all Teachers Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly implyes no Denial of Christs infallible Verities are fallible none can have that Assurance from them or any Therfore their Doctrin as it is taught fallibly may be cavilled at yes and denied also without the guilt of Haeresy The reason is Whoever only Denies the fallible Teaching of infallible Doctrin yet not known for such Denies not the Objective infallible Doctrin in it self but the Formal fallible Delivery of it and this he may boldly say is none of Christs Doctrin 3. The substance of what I would here expresse may No assurance can be had from men that Teach Christs Doctrin fallibly perhaps more plainly be reduced to Form thus A society of men who can do no more but only Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false can assure none that they Teach Christs infallible Doctrin which cannot be false But all societies of Christians can do no more but Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false for all Churches all Councils all Fathers all Papists all Protestants and Mr. Poole with them are as they say Fallible in their Feaching Therfore not one amongst them can assure any that he Teaches or Delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ I say That he Teaches for if we meet with a Simplician That tel's us He builds his Faith and Religion not upon any Preachers talk but on the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture I answer Unles Objective revealed Verities no sufficient ground of infallible Faith he first learn of some Infallible Oracle what Scripture exactly speak's in a hundred controverted places he shall never by his own poreing on a Bible either arrive to the depth of God true meaning or derive infallible Faith from those Objective revealed Verities The reply supposeth That all Truth couched in Scripture is as easily understood with the unclasping of a Bible as the sun is seen at noon-day If so Ministers hereafter may for the most of men shut their books stop their mouths and preach no more 4. Some yet perhaps will say One may preach the infallible Doctrin of Christ though himself be fallible in the Delivery of it which feem's manifest for every Catechist or Preacher though he delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ yet delivers it not infallibly why therfore may not Ministers in England teach as those do infallible Doctrin though ex parte subjecti docentis they Teach it fallibly I answer first Ministers in England have no Infallible Church to recurre to in case They erre for their whole Community is fallible The Catholick Preacher hath a sure Oracle to rely on an Infallible Church that unbeguil's him if he swerve from Truth which is a mighty Advantage and a great The Advantage of an infallible Church Disparity in the present question Now if you say Sectaries may as well rely on infallible Scripture for their Direction as we do on an Infallible Church I deny the Supposition and shall shew hereafter That not so much as one Article of Protestancy
say 'T is the Church ought to be certain and infallible It seems enough say some that this Faith be taught upon a rational Evidence which Evidence finally resolved comes to no more but to a Moral certainty These as I am informed ground themselves on this Principle That all the Assurance we can have of Christian Religion hath for its whole Foundation moral Certainty only and it seems a prop firm enough to support it More it cannot have 6. The Objection contains two parts To the first I answer If Divine Faith be in the world Reason Divine Faith must have an infallibie Teacher convinceth that the object of it be propounded by a Certain and infallible Teacher and then most when Points fundamental lye under Dispute and are in controversy Faith therfore requires two things essentially to omit other Necessaries an Object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object made by some Teacher to Christians which Doctrin the Apostle ratifies Rom. 10. 15. How shall they hear without a Preacher By virtue of this Proposition whether we call it Cause or an Essential Condition the Elicite Act of Faith followes in a Believer and intellectually layes as it were hold both on Gods Revelation and the Thing revealed Observe now well Gods Revelation none doubts it is certain and infallible Divine Faith which resteth on this Motive and proceeds from Grace is also certain and infallible The only Difficulty remaining concerns this Proponent of Faiths Object and it is whether He that Directs me and endeavours rightly to settle my Faith upon Gods infallible Revelation do his work with assurance fallibly or infallibly 7. I say first Gods infallible Revelation avail's nothing in order to Faith unles Christians by their Faith lay hold on the Certainty therof or own it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent The reason is Because God speaks infallibly to Christians for this End That his infallible Word may have influence into Faith and support in with Certainty If therefore this revealed Word be not Certainly Proposed as it is infallible if it be not duely applyed to a Believers understanding under its The object of Faith must be infallibly applyed own Notion of certainty that strength of infallibility lyes as it were dead without Operation and profits Belief no more then Food doth a Body into which it cannot enter The similitude is fit For as Food though apt to strengthen a Body is just as if it were not unles it be duely Applyed so Gods Certain Revelation though most Proportionate to strengthen a Soul in Faith yet in order to this Effect it looseth all Efficacy while a due Application of its infallibility is wanting 8. To illustrate more this necessary Truth I say secondly When a Revelation lyes darkly in Scripture as it often doth in High points of Controversy according to the measure or degrees of Certitude which the Proponent of Faith gives to the Revelation and saith God speaks thus An Assent answerably followes with like Certitude in the Hearer and not a stronger If therfore the Proponent only say Doubtfully I think God speak's as I preach but am not Certain Gods Revelation is received according as 't is propounded Doubtful also is the Assent given to this Preaching If he say What I teach is Probable The Assent can be no more but Probable If finally He truely say I teach Infallibly what is revealed the Assent Answers and is Infallible The reason is clear For as no Eye can see Colours in darknes before light makes them visible yea and according to the measure of light it see 's them so no Intellectual Eye can discover a dark Revelation before he borrow light from his Teacher and as The light is lesse or more so He see 's that object lesse or more perfectly A dubious and uncertain Proposal therfore made of a certain Revelation when it doth not Clearly manifest it self is like a glimmering light And neither doth nor can apply the Objective infallibility Therof with Assurance to mans intellectual Faculty which yet seek's after Certainty in matters of Belief This needs no proof For he who proposeth only Doubfully a Revelation which is Certain in it self both in actu signato and exercito saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare A timide proposal of Divine Revelation begets no more but a doubtfull Faith what God speak's and perhaps I do not For my Declaration only Doubfully guesses at the Certainty of the Revelation And it is against the nature of all Doubt to convey Certainty into any understanding As long therfote as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me For want of an undoubted Application made by an infallible Proponent it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith then fire at a great distance warm That is no more Then if it were not Certain in it self or not at all in Being Whence I conclude That a certain Revelation if obscure in Scripture requires a Certain Proposition Because It little avail's me to know this truth That if God speak's he speak's infallibly unles hîc nunc in these circumstance when he speak's to me for my Saluation I yeild my certain Assent to the infallibility of his Word which cannot be done unles I have Assurance from my Teacher that he speak's as I ought to believe infallibly Upon these undeniable Principles I say thirdly Our Sectaries can have no Divine Faith Sectaries can do no more but doubtfully guesse at what they Believe and consequently as Protestants never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith I prove the Assertion All Faith which hath no other Certitude then what is derived from Those who propound the object of it id est Gods Revelation uncertainly and doubtfully is no more but wavering Opinative and doubtful But the Faith of Protestants is evidently such Because no man or Society of men amongst them can without doubt and fear infallibly say God speak's as I preach and I infallibly preach as God speaks For if he averr thus much with Truth he Propound's the object of his Faith infallibly and therfore is so farre infallible If he do They cannot propose Faith infallibly not his preaching must be finally resolved into his own timid weak and wavering Opinion which weighed comes to no more but this Levity I hope well and think I preach what God hath infallibly Revealed yet am not certain because all I say for ought I know is fallible 9. If you will se this Truth farther Evidenced do no more but ask of any Protestant Why for example He believes that all the Churches on earth are fallible That Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist That Faith only justifies That there are two Sacraments and no more c. His first refuge perhaps will be to Scripture But demand again Whether Scripture in plain and Express Terms Delivers these supposed Doctrins If he be not more then
how useles a Book These impious Glosses are laid forth only to show Sectaries how Scripture may be abused sole Scripture is with These men to end their Differences yea and what monsters are produced out of it by those that pretend most to Gods written Word And what is the reason think ye That these Sole-Scripturists These Arians These Protestants These Anabaptists c. are so various so opposite in their Tenents begot as they think out of the true written Word From whence the abuse proceeds of God Is it for want of wit learning or languages They thus Differ No. Is it for the want of Study and conferring one place of Scripture Clear as they think with others Obscure No Both Arians and Protestants have done this long ago Is it that all these Sectaries go against their Conscience or wilfully draw Gods Word to a pervers sense He never spake let the Innocent cast the first stone at the Guilty Truly I suspect it in Some yet cannot judge that All are Conscious of so hideous an Impiety 6. The true Reason therfore is These Sectaries The true reason is given after the Rejecting of Gods infallible Church the Oracle of Truth will by no more then half an Ey of Human Reason dive into the deep Secrets of Gods Eternal Wisdom Obscurely revealed in Scripture and herein they neither shew Judgement nor Learning With this pur-blind Eye of weak Reason They go to work They steer on their cours they judge They Determin They Define They Pronounce their fallible Sentiments on these High Mysteries which never the lesse Reason alone is uncapable to comprehend or Master Hence Why Sectaries vary as they do They vary as they do Hence it is they weary themselves out with opposite frivolous Interpretations of Gods Word which is but one whilst they are so divided in their Tenents Hence it is That almost every year we have a new Religion broach'd in England Such a jumbling we must expect such endles Dissentions amongst them And t is a just Judgement of God for their Pride who truely are no more but poor Schollers yet Disdain to learn of a good Master that 's willing to teach them all Truth 7. I call it a Iumbling for from Scripture by Reason of its les clear speaking arise these Dissentions and though it be quoted a Thousand times says no Endles Confusion about the sense of Scripture more now Then it did sixteen hundred years agon And therfore cannot end them They next fall upon a doubtful conferring one Passage of the Bible with another Several Versions and Languages are examined much Adoe they make And all is to know what God speaks in such Texts but without fruit For their Differences are as High as ever And neither Party gaines or looses the Victory Since Scripture alone nor the Comparing of Texts together is able to draw either side from their Preconceived Opinion After the Conferring of places They are hard at it with Fallible Explications when behold express Scripture is cast away by these two Combatants And now either the One must learn of the Other what God speaks in Scripture by a human fallible Explication which is no Scripture or nothing is concluded Arians and Protestants equally uncertain Who is then to be held the Master Interpreter the Arian or Protestant Neither And they have both Reason for it For neither ought to yeild in their own Principles The quarrel Therfore goes on and is endles If after Their fallible Explications of Scripture they proceed to Inferences This followes That followes c. All is plain Sophistry for Vpon what unsteedy Foundations Haresy stands Scripture Vitiated with a fals Explication can never Support a true Illation And upon such unsteedy Foundations all Haeresy stand's Scripture not understood is the Ground doubtful Collations of places fallible Explications fals Illations are the Superstructure They have no more And thus you se how useles a Book Why Scripture is useles in the hands of an Haeretick A question propose and answered of Scripture is in the hands of an Haeretick who neither can tell me so much as Truely much les Infallibly what God speak's in These High controverted Points of our Christian Faith 8. But you 'l ask how then happens it that Mr. Poole and Protestants hit right in yeilding an Assent to some Catholick Verities for Example to a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence and Contrary to Arianism Protestants acknowledge a Trinity by Oversight Profess the Son to be consubstantial with his Eternal Father in one Divine Nature I answer They light upon these Verities by an Oversight or as I may say meerly by Chance By Oversight For believe it had Luter thought well On 't He might with more ease have denyed These High Mysteries of our Faith then the Real change of bread in the Holy Eucharist By Chance For as by chance They Stole Or by Chance a Bible from the old Catholick Church so casually They took from her Here and There as it pleased Fancy somewhat of her Ancient Tradition also And upon This ground of Tradition or the infallible Doctrin of the Catholick Church They Believe as Vnawares engaged in a Belief They labour in vain to find Scripture for it well as they can These Sublime mysteries Being thus unawares engaged in a Belief They weary their Heads and wear out their Bible to find expres Scripture for it which cannot be found Becaus forsooth they will Believe nothing upon Tradition or the Churches infallible Doctrin I say Expres Scripture cannot be found that Assert's Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence or the Word to be Consubstantial with his Eternal Father Therfore if they Believe these Verities They must Ground their Faith not upon sole Scripture But on Scripture explicated by that never erring Oracle of Truth the Catholick Church Or on the Word of God not written which we call Tradition You se Sectaries must own the Churches Interpretation or become Arians therfore how our Protestants though in Actu signato they seemingly Reject Tradition and the Churches Interpretation upon Scripture yet in Actu exercito They own both and must necessarily do so or become plain Arians Yet here they are pinch'd again For if they Believe these Mysteries upon Tradition or on Scripture interpreted by the Church They are neither Papists In doing so They are neither Papists nor Protestants nor Protestants No Papists for Papists hold Tradition and the Churches Interpretation infallible No Protestants For They profess to Believe no more then God hath expressed in his written Word Though now they must leave that Hold and believe upon the Catholick Motive or renounce the Faith of these Articles 9. If Mr. Poole pretend expres Scripture for these High Verities of Christian Faith The surest way will be to produce it without Remitting me to other Authors or Adding his fallible Glosses to Gods Word For every Arian knows
Papists erred in Doctrin They might more easily have erred in corrupting Scripture Purity or say it is the Word of God and not corrupted by These erring Papists For These men who erred in Doctrin might as well have insinuated errors into the Book of Scripture They had time enough to do it These men who changed the Ancient Primitive Faith of Christianity might as perfidioufly have Altered the Bible They wrought secretly a fals Belief into mens harts concerning an unbloody Sacrifice Transubstantiation c. And why might they not as cunningly have foisted into Scripture Words and Sentences suitable to such supposed errors Believe It is easier to corrupt â— dead book then to pervart innumerable living men it it is much easier to corrupt a dead Book then to pervert so many living Christians and bring them to a Belief of so palpable hideous and erroneous Novelties 5. Here then is my Dilemma Either the Catholick A Dilemma Church had erred when Luther and Protestants took the Book of Scripture from it or was pure in Doctrin If pure Most wicked were They for deserting it If the Church had then erred or was corrupted in Doctrin Neither Luther nor any Protestant can have Affurance that they read yet True Scripture For all the Certainty They can have of this Book is miserably uncertain and at last Comes to this doubtful Iudgement It may be we have true Scripture It may be and more likely not God only An unanswerable Argument knows All depend's on an Erroneous Church that gave us Scripture which might as well in the vast compass of a thousand years have guilfully changed this our Book from its Ancient Truth as cheated Christianity into a fals Belief 6. Some may yet say All now Agree as well Catholicks as Protestants upon the Verity and Integrity of Scripture Therfore its needles for many Books at least to Question this point farther I answer Protestants destroy the very Ground of Certainty Catholicks agree well Becaus they take this Book upon the Warrant of Christs never erring Church which cannot Deceive them But Protestants who Ruin this Ground of Infallibility destroy with it all Certainty of scripture in order to themselves Their Agreement therfore is no more but Verbal whilst the Principle which supports a Real one is shaken a pieces by them Hence you se How Mr. Poole speaks at Catholicks Confession no Proof of the Truth of Scripture to Mr. Poole random when he Tell 's us He knows Scripture to be the Word of God Becaus Catholicks confess and acknowledge so much I answer first Their Testimony with him is worth nothing For They had before he was born lost all Credit by introducing fals Doctrin into the Christian World and why not say I as well a fals Bible Such Doctrins He dares not admit of upon the Testimony of Catholicks yet With no colour of reason do Protestants Admit of a Bible upon the Churches Testimony and reject her Testimony in other matters He will Kiss their Hands and Take from them such a Bible as They are pleased to give him 2. The Testimony of Catholicks in this particular is with him Fallible and may be Fals But a Testimony that may be fals can never give any Assurance of True Scripture which of necessity must be had or none can ground Faith upon it 3. Mr. Poole is pittifully out in all he saith For he neither Doth nor can Admit of Scripture upon the Confession or Testimony of Catholicks Why Catholicks hold Scripture to be The Church holds her own Testimony Infallible Mr. Poole rejects this therfore he makes null the Churches Testimony to himself the Word of God Becaus the Infallible Church of Christ Assures them it is Gods Word This infallible Testimony of the Church Mr. Poole utterly Disown's and Therfore he must of necessity by his own Principles Reject the Catholick Testimony 7. Other perhaps will say That God by Special Providence ever preserved Scripture pure in all Essentials Though He permitted the Church to deceive Souls and lead them into Error What an Antiscriptural Assertion have we Here How is God Affronted What a lame and half Providence is granted him Sectaries affront God by allowing him no more Then a half Providence What no more but only to have care of a Book to secure That from falshood and in the interim to Permit his own immaculate Spouse his Church which Scripture should instruct to play the Harlot to Deceive the World and err Damnably O but what er'e becom's of the Church we must say our Protestants have True and incorrupt Scripture or no man can know what he is to Believe I answer And we must either have a True and incorrupt Church or none can be Assured of True and incorrupt Scripture It avail's little to have Verities shut up in a Bible if the Church erred in delivering them to Christians Say I beseech you what doth it avail Christianity to have the Pure letter of Scripture clos'd up in a Bible and preserved from Error if Christians Universally had been as it were Deserted by Almighty God and permitted before Protestants appeared in the World to Err in the very Substantials of Faith delivered in Scripture Yet it was so For confessedly not only those Antient condemned Haereticks as Arians Protestants say all Christians erred for a thousand years Pelagians Donatists and the Later Graecians but also that great moral body of Catholicks if our Protestants say true Erred in the very Fundamentals of Faith Since they Taught as they do still their Church to be Infallible an unbloody Sacrifice c. Gross errors therfore Reign'd amongst them whether we suppose the Scripture Pure or corrupted Imagin then which is utterly Fals Though Haereticks cannot prove it fals That our Scripture had been corrupted They had then Erred becaus the Book was falsified Suppose again which is True that Scripture is not corrupted you have still the same Effect which is Error in Doctrin drawn out of the very Words of pure Scripture The Reason surely is Becaus the Church did not rightly understand Scripture if so you se how Scripture not understood as easily begett's Errors as Error equally prejudicial whether it be caused by a false Church or falsified Scripture if it were corrupted What then matters it in Reference to poor beguiled Souls whether these great supposed Errors arise from Scripture misunderstood or Scripture corrupted Error is Error and alike Prejudicial in both cases I say therfore It is as great an Evil to have a Church that should teach Truth to deceive the world in bringing in a Deluge of Errors to the Ruin of the Ancient Primitive Faith as to have a Bible corrupted For 't is Error and fals Doctrin wrought in mens Harts That undoes them Now whether That be caused by a fals Church or falsified What Sectaries ought to fear Scripture it imports little Our Protestants Affirm the first and may
justly Fear the second God say they permitted the Church to Err and he may say I as well have permitted it to Vitiat Scripture They say Errors Insensibly grew up in the Church And I say they might as Insensibly have crept into Scripture Be it how you will from this Old erring Church Our New men suppose They received pure sincere and uncorrupted Scripture just as the Holy Ghost writ it A meer Impossibility For never greater Chimaera was fancied then to couple a Fals Church and True Scripture together â—â— True Scripture and a Vniversal fals erring Church 8. Some perhaps may say The Arians Donatists and other Haereticks had and have still True Scripture though they erred in Doctrin I answer No God a mercy to them For if They have True Scripture They may thank an unerring Church that preserved it uncorrupt before Heresy began and after But grant me No assurance of true Scripture if all Erred universally once as our Protestants do that both Haereticks and Catholicks likewise universally erred in Doctrin most Fundamental no man can now have Assurance of True Scripture O but the Unanimous Voice of all Christians Affirming Scripture to be the Word of God and pure without corruption is a Weighty moral Proof for its Integrity I answer none at all For if no Society of Christians unerrable and sound in Doctrin had that book in Custody The old Papists might for ought Protestants know have either by Chance or Fraud changed words in Scripture For example Those words Matt. 26. This is my body from what they once were This is a sign of my body and the Cheat was to maintain their Doctrin of the Real Presence But you will ask how could this be done I have told you By Malice or Inadvertency But when could it be done I answer in that Could Sectaries say when Papists first became Idolaters They might be informed concerning these Corruptions very Age Year or Month when these Papists first began to be Idolaters and worship a piece of Bread for God Then it might well be don Name that age Exactly and you have all Our new men Answer This Idolatry was brought in amongst us But they knew not When it began with such Secrecy and Silence This Text of Scripture therfore I say might have been corrupted with like Secrecy Though no man knows when And here by the way observe a strange Paradox of our Protestants So notorious a known A Strange Paradox of Protestants Novelty as this supposed Idolatry is which might most justly have Struck Terror into all mens Harts Visibly entred a Church diffused the whole World over yet none neither Friend nor Foe saw it cryed out against it or Has left it upon Record And one single Particle of Scripture cannot be changed but all must know it How can these two Consist together You will say The Primitive Church was Pure and so preserved true Scripture How do our Protestants know so much if it was Fallible Thus much of an Argument ad hominem which I desire Mr. Poole to Answer not to mistake As he may do if he think my endeavor is to prove Scripture corrupted in any Substantial Point no! 'T were Blasphemy to say it The Argument therfore proceeds from the Protestants fals Supposition yet true with them that the Church is fallible and has erred Then I say None of them can have Assurance of their Bible or of True incorrupt Scripture CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher 1. HEre is my second Proposition And nothing can be more evident might he Evidence of a known Truth prevail with Wilful men Arians we see are against Protestants in the Essentials of Faith Protestants against Catholicks and They against Both. All of them Acknowledge Scripture to be Gods Word Sectaries deny the Plainess of Scripture yet every one in practise Denies the Perspecuity and Plainess of it For if plain Why stand they at Variance with one another about this Plainess Protestants Doctrin is plainly delivered in the 39. Articles The Arians Doctrin is plainly in Their Writings The Catholick Doctrin most plainly in every Catechism No Advers party Impugn's these Doctrins for want of a plain Expression but for want of Truth It is quite contrary in Scripture for He were a Devil that should mention the want of Truth in Gods Word yet you see most Learned men vary about this Clearnes seek for it and cannot find it Though I have partly given the Reason Hereof yet Becaus the matter requires it I shall now add a word more for a further Explication 2. All know that the Objective Verities writ in Holy Objective Verities and the belief of them different Scripture and the Belief of those Verities in a Christians Hart are to be distinguished By the first God speak's to us By the second we yeild Belief to his Word All know likewise That if my Belief be true Faith it must say Exactly and expres that in mente which God speak's in Scripture neither more nor les And this is Saving Faith not the Objective Verities not saving Faith Objective Verity as it lyes in Scripture For if that could save us it would be enough to put a Bible in ones Pocket And say here is the Faith that saves me Though I know not what is in it or Believe Amiss Thus much is clear without Dispute in an Orthodox and an Arian whilst they turn to that passage of Scripture and Read I and my Father are one Both of them have the same Objective Verity before their eyes But the One only hath the True Belief of it in his Hart. Observe now How darkly Scripture speak's in this one great Fundamental Article And how easily we may swerve from One Instance of Scriptures Obscurity this Revealed Truth without an Infallible Interpreter For the words precisely considered may either signify unity in Affection as appears Iohn 17. v. 21. 22. or a Consubstantial unity and in this Indifferency to several Sectaries gloss The Church Interpret's senses lyes their Obscurity To Clear all and make them speak a Full sense the Arian superadds his Gloss and draws out of the Text as also from that other Iohn 1. 5. 7. no more but a Vnity in Affection only which is Haeresy The Catholick Interpretation teacheth a Consubstantial Vnity or One-nes in Essence and 'T is true Faith yet is no more formal expres Scripture then that of the Arian For Consubstantiality is no where Formally read in Scripture However it is believed and ground 's our Faith whilst the Arians Gloss is rejected And why hath it this Preference think ye Why is it better then the Arians No other Reason can be rendred but a most True one Viz. That the Church doth not only fully Express the Objective Verity darkly couch'd in Scripture But also Delivers this Full and clearer sense Infallibly For I say If the Churches Interpretation
and all Sectaries would as well Agree in one harmony of Doctrin By force of that clear Interpretation none of Them Denies The clear Sense of Scripture interpreted by Scripture it Self If all agreed in the Sense of Scripture There would be no dissenting as they now agree in owning Scripture to be Divine They accord not in the first therfore Scripture is not its own Interpreter Or if any yet without Proof strongly Assert so much Most Evidently in order to these Dissenting men it is as useles an Interpreter as if it were none at all For it Composeth no Differences Take here one Instance Sectaries to prove Scripture conspicuous and clear without an Interpreter quote these and the like Places Thy word is a Lantern to my feet A Lante◠shining in a dark place c. We answer Scriptures are truely a Light when that outward cover of Ambiguous Words wherin the Sense often lyes Enclosed is broken open by a Faithful Interpreter And withall we add 'T is vainly frivolous to make Them such shining Lamps as to silence all Preaching and Interpretation yet this follows if Sectaries Gloss right For it is ridiculous to interpret or teach that a Lantern shines which I se bright before my Eyes Observe well The Protestant makes Scripture clear without a Teacher The Catholick Interpretation absolutly necessary to Scripture saith Interpretation is Absolutely Necessary Scripture it self Delivers not in Formal Words either the One or Other Gloss Therfore it doth not ever Interpret it self Home or declare its own Meaning Nay it cannot do so For all Interpretation Properly taken is a New More Clear and Distinct Light Superadded to the Formal Words of Scripture But no Hagiographer says This Sacred Book makes any such new Addition of Glosses Therfore it cannot Interpret it self And this is what the Apostle 2. Petri 1. 20. Seem's to teach Scripture is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of its own Explication 4. I say 2. No Private man whether Catholick Arian Protestant or Other can upon his own Discours or Iudgement only so Interpret a Difficil Scripture with Certainty as to Assure any that God Speaks as He Interpret's The Reason is Every Private Judgement is Fallible and lyable to Error which Truth that of the Apostle Romans 3. Omnis homo mendax Teaches But a Iudgement A Iudgement lyable to Errour cannot give certainty of the Scriptures sense Fallible and lyable to errour can with no Certainty give me that Sense wich God Reveals in a Difficil Place of Scripture Therfore I cannot Trust to it nor assuredly Ground my Faith on such an Interpretation And thus much Protestants Acknowledge for They say Neither Church nor Ancient Fathers are to be Relyed on as Infallible in their Interpretation of Scripture Therfore much less can a Minister or Lay Man Assume to Himself the Infallible Spirit of Interpreting or Resolve what a whole Vniversal Church is to Believe Alas such a man want's Certitude in what He saith he want's a Perfect knowledge of both Scripture and Antiquity never perhaps exactly perused He want's a Constant Stability for what He Judgeth this Hour He may upon after Thoughts change the next For as He is Fallible so is he also Changeable in his Iudgement 5. Yet More What Private Man Dare when he See's the Learned of contrary Religion at debate Concerning the Sense of Scripture step in amongst Them and say My Masters you are to Believe me and Acquiesce to what I judge of the Sense c. 'T is I And not You That know Gods Meaning Would not such a Thing be cast out of all Company Yet This is our very Case when a new Vpstart Puft up with his own Sentiments Tell 's either Catholick or Protestant what the Sense of Scripture is in Controverted Points of Faith And Hence I say The Catholick cannot Assure a Protestant without a better Proof then His own Opinion That the Sectary Err's in his Interpretation nor can the Protestant upon his own Assertion Remove the Catholick from the Judgement He makes of the Scriptures Sense Both As private men Catholicks and Protestants are both Fallible of them are alike Fallible if no other Certain Principle be laid hold on Here then is the Difference The Catholick for his Interpretation of such Places prudently Relyes on a firmer Ground then his variable Judgement The Protestant hath nothing to uphold the Sense He Defends But his own wavering and unsteedy Thoughts which are as changeable as Were moral certainty sufficient why is it to be more granted the Sectary then the Catholick the Man is fallible Here is the best Support for his interpretation and Faith also If he tell you he hath moral assurance or Interpret's as the Primitive Church did I answered above He only thinks so But Proves nothing Let him show that the Primitive Church ever Interpred those words The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth as he now Interprets them If he say He Believes as his own Judgement Interpret's I grant this is too Pittifully True But what am I the better on that Account Can we Rely on a Protestants easy fallible and erroneous Judgement in so Weighty a matter At last surely he will hit On 't And say he Interprets as the Holy Ghost Suggesteth Happy man did He so But we shall find it otherwise Presently However becaus the Word is of comfort let him hear it on Gods name For it is the Resolution of our whole Question The Holy Ghost only interprets Scripture Certainly 6. I say therfore 3. No other But the Spirit of Truth the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture certainly Iohn 16. 23. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will Teach all Truth But one and a most necessary Truth is to have Scripture faithfully Interpreted Therfore this the holy Ghost Teaches if he Teach all Truth Again Iohn 14. 16. He is called a Paraclete or Comforter abyding with us for ever But he is not a permanent Comforter unles he Solace as well by his Spirit of Truth mentioned Iohn 17. 19. as with other Interiour Consolation To allege more Texts obvious to all is needles The Assertion delivered in These general Terms is undoubtedly True and Protestaents I think who endlesly talk of their Interiour Spirit will not Deny it The difficulty by whom the Spirit interpret's 7. The only Difficulty which will trouble Them is Seing this Al-teaching Spirit usually Interpret's not by Private Illustrations nor Assumes every Private man to be the Oracle wherby he speak's and interpret's Seing also He leaves Scripture still as Speechles in order to its own further Explication as it was 16. hundred years agon The Difficulty I say is to find out that Oracle And a Christian Society it must be for Angels are not Interpreters wherin He Presides as Master and by it interpret's Scripture Find this Speaking Oracle out and we have enough Hear it and we hear Truth To our purpose then 8. Doth this Spirit
I say is Whether Their Positive owning of a Sign or Figure only Be an Article of their Faith or no more But One of their Inferiour supposed Truths If this later They never Had nor can have any determinate A Dilemma that cannot be answered Faith of this Sacred Mystery which yet God hath most certainly Revealed unto us in Holy Scripture And consequently They believe nothing of the Blessed Sacrament by Divine Faith For Inferiour Truths are no Articles Inferiour Truths are not Articles of Faith of Belief with Them Contrarywise if They say the Belief of a Sign or Figure only is one of their Articles of Faith And the Thing Believed an Object of Faith They must certainly eat their own Words and confess That the English Church makes new Articles of Faith And such as never Had the Approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it Self For the whole Christian World of all Ages never Believed so Some perhaps will Answer They Believe in General Christs own Words Some Sectaries believe they know not what to be true Though They know not well what he meant when he said This is my Body Answer If they know not what he spoke why do They charge Idolatry on us By the force of their Inferiour supposed Their inconsequences Truths for Adoring Christ in the Sacrament I am sure Arius of old was an Haeretick For Denying the High Godhead of our Saviour upon the Vncertainty of his supposed Superiour Truths And Sectaries are now in a wors They are in a wors Condition Then Arians Case whilst they contradict all Orthodox Churches in the Belief of this Sacrament And make us Idolaters Meerly upon the Vncertainty of their imagined Inferiour Truths 15. Another Proposition is Thus. Nothing ought to be imposed as a necessarij Article of Faith to be believed by all but what may be evidently propounded to all Persons as a Thing which God did require the explicite belief of Observe the Vnexplicated words Evidently Propounded to all Persons Who must propound these Articles of Faith Must God Angels or mens private Fancies Do it No. The Oracle of Truth Christs own Christ Church Can only propose Faith unto us Church find it where you can is both to Propose Faith to us and to Decide all Difficulties when they Arise among us as is Already Proved Submit to This and all Controversies are Ended Here is also another loos Proposition Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of Another Proposition too General and insignificant all Ages Sr say you plainly where this Catholick Church was in all Ages and tell us exactly How many Articles it Held Necessary and sufficient to Salvation And we shall Drive you out of your Generalities which Prove just nothing To a more open and Plain They run on in General 's Doctrin wherof you are as much afraid as the Divel of Holy water We know not what you mean by the Catholick Church 16. Well But the next Assertion will clear all It is sufficient Evidence that was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith which was not admitted into the Ancient Creeds Pray you prove This sufficient Evidence by a clear Principle Vpon what Ground doth the The Belief of the Creed not Sufficient c. Assertion stand Distinct from your own Fancy The Baptizing of Infants The Admitting of so many Books for the exact Canon of Scripture The Belief all ought to have of the Holy Eucharist Are not Explicitly set down in Necessary Particulars not Expresses in the Creed the Ancient Creeds Therfore we must have Recours to the Catholick Church both for the Faith of these And many other Articles But we have said enough of this Subject 17. You go on Nothing ought to be judged a necessary Article of Faith but what was universally believed by the Catholick Church to be delivered as such by Christ and his Apostles Sr Before this Proposition be cleared you These Authors say not what is meant by These dark Terms Believed by the Catholick Church are to Declare what you Mean by those Terms Believed by the Catholick Church For if Rightly Suppose There was never any True Church But the Roman Catholick only continued Age after Age And upon This Supposition Reply which is easy to your Assertion and the Ten following Points You 'l say I mistake your Meaning concerning the very Notion of that Church which your Fancy makes Catholick And if I licence you to Enlarge The Catholick Church as far as you Pleas or To comprise in it All who have had the Name of Christians Though otherwise known Haereticks your Proposition to us is de Subjecto non supponente of a Subject not Supposable And the annexed Points are highly Impertinent They are to specify what and where This Catholick Church is Name Therfore Exactly The Catholick Church upon grounded Principles and all is don 18. After the ending these Negatives They inquire what we ought Positively to Believe as Necessary to Saluation And remit us without any further Proof but their own saying to the Articles of the Ancient A question proposed Creeds This is largely refuted already Next they propose a question Whether any thing which was not Necessary to Saluation may by any Means whatsoever afterwards become Necessary so that the not Believing it Whether The Church Can Define any Thing anew necessary to Salvation so that the not believing of it becomes Damnable becomes Damnable The Question If I mistake not Drives at This To shew that the Church can make no new Definitions of Faith Necessary to Saluation Because all Faith Necessary is Antecedently supposed as it were laid in The very Churches Foundation before it Defines Which Foundations were both Fully and Solidly laid when Christ and his Apostles Taught the World For the Earth was full of his Knowledge He taught his Disciples all things he had heard of his Father The Messias when he came would tell them all things c. Therfore a Church solidly Founded and before it Defines The reason of the Doubt full of Truth can make nothing so Necessary to Saluation by a new superadded Definition that the not Believing of it Becomes Damnable The grounds of Sectaries shewed Null though the Church made new Definitions 19. Before we Answer the Question it will be good to shew you the Nullity of our Adversaries Grounds and the Inconsequences of them Herein lyes the chief strength of all That 's said A Church must be a Church before it can Define and Consequently There must be a Vnion in Belief by which The Church is Constituted in Being Antecedently to its new Definitions Very Good All this in True but makes The Reason Nothing Against the Church though it Define anew I 'll prove it and Explicate my self by one Instance In a Kingdom
Ancient Orthodox Church of the Jewes undeniably Profess and believe this Doctrin none can gainsay the Proposition The consent of act Churches a strong Principle The Minor is as certain for no Authority under Heaven plain Scripture excepted can be greater then the Vnanimous Consent of all Curches No contrary judgement is able to struggle with so much strength Therfore put the case first you will The supposition hold's not de facto for no Fathers teach so have what I would say better Evidenced upon a supposition That more then one of the ancient Fathers should expresly Deny a Purgatory whilst all Churches teach the contrary Suppose secondly that God should command me to believe the One or Other And that which prudence evidently Tell 's me is the most What we are obliged to upon the supposition Credible I am obliged if I proceed rationally to Adhere to the Church because it is evidently the stronger Proof and to deny the Fathers Authority Therfore I am bound much more to yeild my Assent now when all Churches Affirm the Doctrin and not one Father Denies it And our very Adversaries must say as much as I prove For do not they own the Holy Book of Scripture to be Gods Word how consequently Sect 〈…〉 es must grant what is now asserted they proced I Dispute not because all Christian Churches in the world do so If therfore that Authority be warrant enough for a Bible it is as weighty for the Doctrin we stand for And this was my Conclusion Perhaps you will say Very An Objection many among the Schismatical Churches Deny a Purgatory Contra. And very many also Deny the Canon of Scripture you Admit of Doth this make the Bible of less esteem among you Know therfore We speak Here of Church Authority and not of Schismaticks receding from a Church weaken not the Churches Doctrin Schismatical Parties receding from those Respective Churches wherof they were once members Know also that the self-Opinion of such Partisans is not to be compared with the Sentiment of a whole Church against them You may Reply Again We are now forced to make use of Schismatical Churches to Defend our Doctrin of Purgatory Answer No such matter We need not their Help but say Salutem ex inimicis nostris when Adversaries agree with us in a Truth it is an Advantage to our cause witnesses upon this account are multiplyed Et vox populi vox Dei if The number of withnesses for a Truth gives some Advantage All teach as we do it is certain we profess no Erroneous Doctrin At least the Argument Ad hominem Against Sectaries hath place who value so much of the Greeks and other Heterodox Christians We care not for more Besides the Greek Church when it was most Orthodox prayed for the Dead in a state of sufferance as is already proved 3. Weigh now well the Reasons Pro and Con. Reasons pro and con are weighed All the Churches in the world Defend a Purgatory that is a place wherin souls are temporally punished No Church reputed Orthodox ever denyed it I say more No Schismatical Church under the Notion of a Church contradicted that Doctrin Therfore our professed Faith is undoubtedly certain upon this very ground or if it be not one may call the primary Articles of our Faith into Question And The Parallel All and none A clear Conviction The second Principle thus you have the first Parallel All Churches stand for our Affirmative No Church Defend's the contrary Negative of Sectaries A most Evident Conviction A powerful Proof against this Heresy 4. The second Principle is S. Austins known Doctrin De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 4. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Consiliis c. What the whole universal Church hold's and was not first instituted by Councils What all believe is Apostolical Tradition but ever in use and retained Recte Creditur is rightly believed to be no other but an Apostolical Tradition But it is most certain that the whole Vniversal Church prayed for souls departed with intention to free them from a temporal Punishment The Greeks the Latins and the Ancient Hebrews Prayed so as is already proved And this had no first Rise from any Decree No Sectary can say when the Church first began to pray for the Dead suffering terment of Councils therfore it is an Apostolical Tradition which Truth Alatius further demonstrat's upon several Occasions Ponder therfore things impartially And ask now what Tradition have Sectaries for their Negative The Dead are not Assisted by Prayer They have none they are here put to silence for neither the Tradition of the whole Church nor of any part of it reputed Orthodox ever favoured Their Opinion or delivered what they teach Make then the Comparison All Tradition is for our Catholick Verity The Parallel and Nothing like Tradition for the contrary Heresy All and nothing make a strange Parallel And so it is at present 5. The third Principle Many Ancient and learned Fathers so interpret those known passages of Holy Scripture interprrted by Fathers a third Principle Scripture usually alleged for a proof of Purgatory that Scripture it self Speak's what the Church Teacheth Not one Father gives such a sense to Scripture as may Ground a positive or absolute Denial of Purgatory I cannot insist upon all Take for an instance that one passage of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. He shall so yet be saved as by fire And know that besides those learned Notes of Bellarmin upon the Text Lib. 1. De Purg. Cap. 5. and the Bellarmin Fathers there quoted most significantly expressing the Catholick sense Leo Alatius produceth others and Page Leo Alatius 311. Cites Manuel Caleca a more Modern Author Lib. 4. Contra Graecos who Saith the place cannot be understood of Hell fire for the Apostle speak's of a fire wherby souls are saved which is not the fire of Hell but a Purging Manuel Caleca his reason fire and by this They are to pass to happines And so much the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Per which insinuates a Passing strongly signifies Thus Caleca who hath much more to our Purpose It is true some Authors think the Apostle speak's of the fire of Tribulation Others though less probably of the last burning of the No Fathers makes Scripture to Deny a Purgatory world but no Father makes the Text or any other of Scripture positively exclusive of Purgatory for This is no Consequence We are to pass through Tribulation and the fire also at the judgement Day Ergo there is no penalty to be endured in a third place Here you have an other Parallel Most learned Fathers interpret The Paralled Scripture Conformably to the Churches Doctrin not one positively favours the Contrary Opinion of Sectaries Iudge you therfore and cast as it were into a ballance the express Sentiment of Many against
The Sectary interpret's These and the like passages as his own Fancy suggesteth And if this Fancy hit not right He is undon for He hath no surer Principle to rely on either in this or any other Controversy but His own self conceipted Gloss The Reason is He hath no infallible All sure Principles fail Sectaries Church no clear Scripture no undoubted consent of Fathers no Vniversal Tradition distinct from his Gloss that can so much as make it probable Therfore his own unproved interpretation Doth all it is his last Principle and Strongest Hold He never goes Higher nor can advance one step further I am so confident of this Assertion that I challenge our Adversary to come to a just trial in this one Controversy A fair Offer And if He can Answer to our Authorities now quoted upon the Assurance of plain Scripture undoubted Tradition or the plain Consent of Fathers I 'll cry Peccavi and Ask forgivenes of my rashnes Thus they proceed 9. On the Other side when the Catholick interprets Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries against his Faith He never makes his interpretation to be the The last Proof of a Catholick is not his Interpretation greatest light or surest Proof of His Doctrin but most prudently Answers I am bound to interpret your less clear Authority brought Against me becaus I am Assured Aliunde by the strongest Principles Imaginable whether my Gloss hit right or no that my Faith is most certain Christs Church tell 's me so Fathers Confirm it None ever Opposed it but known Hereticks Here saith the Catholick are my last He hath assured Principles to rely on Principles Upon these I rest And can you my Adversary Imagin that I being so well grounded Ought to leave my certain Principles for a Dark sentence or your unproved Conjectures It is impossible You will se this more clearly by one Example The An Instance Catholick Believes a Purgatory The Sectary saith His belief is against Scripture Wisdom 3. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them No such matter Answers the Catholick for if the word Righteous point at such as are perfectly just and need no Purgatory your proof is proofles or if the word Torments particularly signifies as it doth a racking or torturing forced on Malefactors to confess the Truth before a Judge the Text is wide enough from your purpose For no such punishment shall touch the just departed Now mark The Catholicks just Demand saith the Catholick Will you Sir have me to part from clear and certain Principles wheron my Faith relies for a Scripture whilst the very sense of that Scripture is at least doubtful and obscure and therfore may be well explicated without violence no way Contrary to the Doctrin of my Church It would be a sin and a great one against prudence to yeild upon so slight a ground I should make saith He an ill bargain should I as it were exchange the sure Principles A woful Exchange of sure Principles for uncertain Glosses of my Faith for your uncertain Glosses and you have no more Though you read the Text now cited till your eyes be weary 10. Upon the Occasion now offered give me leave to Tell you one great Truth Viz. All of us must Vnavoidibly either firmly Adhere to the Doctrin of our Catholick A great Verity worthy of Reflection Church in these points of Controversy Or may Sectaries Glosses sway with us we shall be sure to Assent to that which is not only an Heresy but according to Ordinary Prudence and clear Principles a thousand times more improbable and Difficil Observe it in our present Controversy Sectaries hold it no improbability to say That the Souls of good men do not enjoy compleat Happines till the Day of Judgement Any thing may pass but Popery yet this very Assertion if we respect Authority The Improbable proceeding of Sectaries and reason also abstracting from Faith is less probable then our Church Doctrin is Those quoted Scriptures prove Nothing to this purpose as we shall show presently for to find mercy at that great Day inferr's not that all Souls must stay out of Heaven till the second Coming of Christ to judgement Note the like strain in other Controversies They will have me to Deny the Infallibility of my Church and will give me in Place of it their own fallible word which I am sure cannot Stand in Competition with the sole Humane Authority of my Church They will have us to deny the Popes Supremacy And what Do they inforce on us in lieu of that Nothing but Their own jarring heads that agree in Nothing And these must Teach and Govern us in place of a Pope They will have me to Disbelieve my Scripture interpreted by the Church and to believe their Interpretations who are both Churchles and Scriptureles Mark well and judge you whether that which Sectaries They would drive us upon greater Improbabilities would Drive us upon be not in a high measure more improbable and difficile then what we now believe and it must needs be so for as I told you the only support of their whole Religion as Protestancy is neither Scripture nor the Consent of Fathers but their own Glosses forced on both without further warrant Follow them closely through all Controversies you will find I speak Truth Contrarywise The Catholicks Security when He interpret's when the Catholick Interpret's He hath ever at hand a certain Principle distinct from his Interpretation which is his security For saith He I must either Interpret an Authority when it is Dubious or desert those Convincing Principles wheron my Faith is grounded which are without Controversy most certain But to do so is madnes and a notorious sin against Prudence Thus much by way of a Notandum Our Adversaries Objections 11. We come now to Combate a little with our Adversaries Objections but the Quarrel will not be long For besides what is refuted Already and some other Parergons not much as I think to the Purpose the remainder may be easily dispatched 12. He saith first Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what They declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation Mark the word Declare and se Sir what a law you lay on A hard Rule given the Fathers the Fathers they must tell their Readers when they write My Masters so much you are to believe on the account of Divine Revelation and so much not or if They fail in this Declaration they may as you seem to say afterwards speak only their own fancies and Imaginations Contra. St. Austins writes of Purgatory and holds it as we shall se presently But Declares not Explicitly that the Doctrin is of Divine Revelation nor Explicitly that it is his own fancy If therfore He Declares neither Explicitly upon what Principle The Argument is
Their own self-voting from the nature of a rational Proof and Principle When a Rebellion is manifest in a Kingdom the sole Authority of them who began it is insufficient to make it Justifiable And the Authority of Sectaries is as forceles to Justify their Evident Schism against the Church Whilst Evidence comes not against our Church it stand's most firm upon its ancient possessed right This long Possession proves our Church Orthodox Examples Hereof Mr. Stillingfleets Exceptions against our pleading Possession are proved to be weak forceles and meer ungrounded Suppositions Though the Obligation of proving Evidently lies on our Adversaries who are the Aggressors yet we prove not only a personal Succession of our Popes and Prelates in forgoing Ages but also manifest a Quiet Possession of Truth that descended with these continued Popes and Bishops from the dayes of S. Peter to this very Age. No just Exception can be made against our Tradition which is Evidently its one Proof for there cannot be a clearer Mr. Stillingfleet supposeth that our Right of pleading Truth is a meer Occupancy He is to prove this becaus he is the Accuser No Antecedent Law hath determined Contrary to what we Challenge by vertue of our Possession We have both the Law for us and ancient Possession besides And there is no Reason when we allege two Proofs Law and Possession that we Quite the one which is Possession as Mr. Stillingfleet pretend's we should do which is against all rational Discours of this subject It is improbable to say that Protestants first saw these supposed errours imputed to our Church when others as Quick-sighted more numerours and Learned then They saw them not for ten whole Ages before Luther It is a degree of madnes to suppose that all those worthy and Learned Professors of the Catholick Faith were either so stupidly blind as not to have seen such supposed errours or so wickedly Hypocritical as to have wincked at them after their plain Discovery It is a Paradox to say that our new men saw these too plain and visible errours when that great Catholick Church which Sectaries make more large then the Roman saw them not but permitted Rome to countenance these supposed errours without check or reprehension Of the Impossibility of errours entring the Church after the first 4. or 5. hundred years Though Sectaries should convince which is impossible the Roman Catholick Church to be guilty of errour yet they cannot show that they have set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations as it once stood pure All Principles fail them in this particular Fancy only and nothing like a rational Proof uphold's this charge of errour against our Church Mr Stillingfleets Assertions are refuted If the Roman Catholick Church has erred by imposing unreasonable conditions Sectaries who Profess themselves fallible in all they say may have erred more and spoil'd all they went about to mend Nothing can be more unreasonable then to make a few Rebellious people receding from an ancient Church first to accuse it and then to sit judges in their own cause and condemn it None can probably show that these late Reformers of Protestants who opposed all other Religions are untainted or purely Orthodox As no men before the Donatists made the Church so strait as they did so never Christians before these later Sectaries made it so wide as to hold in it all the Hereticks in the world Protestancy as Protestancy is no Christian Religion at all if the belief of that Doctrin which is common to all Christians be amply sufficient to Salvation Protestants may Anathematize all the Doctrin within the compass of their reformed Religion and yet be saved THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS Of the Churches Evidence and Improbability of Protestant Religion PRotestants as they make not good their own Doctrin by Proofs grounded on certain Principles so they never impugn the Roman Catholick Faith by rational Arguments Catholicks contrarywise prove their Churches Doctrin by undeniable Principles The Grounds of Catholick Religion are briefly laid forth As it is an evident Principle that all those Wife and Learned Doctors who taught Christians Popery for a thousand years were neither fools nor perversly blind So it is more evident that God suffered not those millions of Christians instructed by these Teachers to be grosly abused with fals Doctrin whilst there was no other Catholick Society in the world â—o unbeguile them All other Sectaries who deserted the Roman Catholick Church erred grosly and it is improbable to think that Protestants only among so many straying Teachers were the only priviledged people elected by God to mend had any thing been amiss in a old decayed Church without mixture of errour or marring more then they mended Protestancy is unevidenced and an improbable Religion that is no Religion but a fancied opinion No Doctrin fallibly taught as Protestancy is can be ultimately resolved into Gods infallible Revelation Scripture alone without an infallible Interpreter makes no man infallible A Doctrin which at its first rise was and is still opposed by all Christians excepting the Sectaries who broach it is as improbable as Arianism A Church essentially errable may loâ—s all Truth and consequently all grace and so become divorced from Christ. A Doctrin proved improbable by undoubted Principles cannot be made credible by rational Arguments unles Truth be contrary to Truth Of the slight way of Sectaries Arguing against Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet like his other Brethren in a Discours of Purgatory begins with Ieers with Mistakes and dissembling of Difficulties He states not the Question rightly between the Latin and Greeks The Dispute between the Latins and Greeks is clearly laid forth by Leo Alatius a Grecian What passed in the Council of Florence concerning This Dispute The Greeks most certainly both before and after the Council held a place of punishment for souls departed from which place they are freed by the Prayers of the Living They also hold that souls enioy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement The weaknes of our Adversaries cause is best seen by a Parallel of Proofs for Purgatory and against it The Catholick Principles for Purgatory S. Austins was not the first that held Purgatory Mr. Stillingfleet misunderstands two passages in S. Austin The Sectary when He Explicates Scripture or Fathers makes his own Gloss the surest ground of his Interpretation When the Catholick explicates a dubious passage He relies on a sure Principle distinct from his Interpretation Objections are Answered How the Supplications of the Church respect mercy and Forgivenes to be shewed the just at the Day of Judgement An Objection is proposed in behalf of Sectaries and solved in another Discours concerning the Blessed Sacrament The Grounds of our Catholick Doctrin for the Real Presence The contrary Opinion of Sectaries is proved to be meer Fancy Sectaries cannot by vertue of any one received Principle remove the Catholick from the plain and Obvious senfe of Christs most significant words The
Disciplina quâ fiunt Christiani Vbi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianorum The sense of this whole sentence is this We are not therfore to appeal to Scriptures nor are our debates to be determined here wherin there is no victory or a very uncertain one For although there were no Collation or comparing of places together that might stay the two Advers parts yet the order of things requires this to be first proposed which is now only to be disputed viz. To whom the Faith appertains wherof the Scriptures are From whom and by whom when and by what Persons that Discipline is wherby they were made Christians For where there appeares the Truth of Discipline that is as Macereus and Pamelius interpret the Rule and of Christian Faith there you shall have the Truth of Scriptures the Interpretation of it likewise and of all Christian Tradition Observe well The whole context of these words saith first that debates can never be ended by Scripture only 2. That before we Dispute by Scripture we ought to know and by other Reasons who those are to whom Scripture belong's 3. That where the Discipline or Rule of Christian Faith is previously known by other grounds distinct from Scripture there you have the True Interpretation of Scripture and all Christian Tradition After a full ponderation of these words I leave any man to Judge that loves Truth whether that Doctrin be not here most remarkably expressed which is taught and mantained by the Roman Catholick Church 26. Mr. Poole from his 12. page to his 37. hath no work for me for his whole strain is to run on in cavils and finding fault with such Arguments of Catholicks as He forsooth judges inefficacious to prove the Churches Infallibility whereas God knows Had He had where withall to do it He should have gon a contrary way and proved positively by Scripture Fathers and Tradition the Churches Fallibility but Herein He is silent because in real Truth He hath nothing to say The ground of the Churches Infallibility which Mr. Poole never toucheth on is briefly hinted at above n. 15. and further laid forth Disc 1. c. 1. and 2. and I desire an express Answer to it Now and then He hath something against the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who with him are fallible because they speak of the Churches Infallibility and the good man never reflect's that he and his little book are far more fallible I wave such trifles 27. Page 37. He begins with his Distinctions of the Judge and rule of Faith and saith first The supream and truely Infallible Judge of all Controversies is God and Christ. Very Good but nothing is yet Done unles you fallible man can say in all the Differences between us what God and Christ speak what is judged for you and against us which is so far from being a Truth proved that in Every Controversy it is the very thing in Question and meerly supposed by you without either Proof or Principle You say again The External and political Judges to wit the Governours of the Church are subordinate to the supream Judge Answ Very true But what then Marry this followes that if they really contradict the supreme Judges sentence They must give their subjects leave to argue whether it be right in the sight of God Hold Sir a little If you rationally contradict them you must first prove your self wiser then these subordinate Judges are and Evidence their Errours by undoubted Principles which is impossible For either these Judges are Infallible or fallible if you grant the first you cannot rationally contradict them And if they be fallible How dare you a private fallible man speak contrary when your very Contradiction is no better then their opposite Assertion is I mean purely and poorly Fallible In a word without any certain Principle to rely on which you shall never have you too boldly take leave to oppose your Judges and make your self a Rebel by it You say 3. There is in Every particular Person a secret Judge which is called Reason or Conscience I must Ask once more what then Have not Arians Pelagians Quaquers and all other Sectaries reason as well as you What therfore this Instrument of reason can apprehend judge and work in you after your fashion it doth the like in these other after Their fashion Do you not therfore se how little you advance your cause by talking of your Reason which unles it be Evidenced by sure Principles to be better then that of your Adversaries proves just nothing And add what private Spirit you pleas to help your Reason out They will talk as much of their contrary Spirit to help theirs These two points are so largely declared and proved Disc 2. c. 5. that I believe your Answer to them will prove unreasonable 28. Page 40. You goe first very warily to work for no man knowes what you would say Then you are manly resolute in your Decisions We willingly acknowledge say you and reverently esteem the true and rightful Governors of the Church orderly assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whose decisions are to be highly valued c. Here is no man knowes what Pray you speak out and name more clearly the Church you reverently esteem of Tell us who these true and rightful Governors of it are and do not put us of with an old piece of a long since rejected Doctrin They are those who hold closely to the Truths of Scripture for we must know who these are Finally say when Councels are regularly assembled not according to your Fancy but which will be a long work for you let us have lawes prescribed wherby we may know by sure Principles more particularly without this general talk when Councels are orderly assembled or unorderly A word now to your resolute Definitions You say first this Judge of the Church is not infallible but subject to errour Answer And so are you Sir also fallible when you oppose your self to the Judgement of a Church whether it be your own English Church or the Roman Catholick If therfore the Judgement of both Churches were supposed fallible as the one is not your singular Judgement is no more but fallible also and what gain you by that Thus much only You Contradict the Church fallibly and the Church again Contradicts you fallibly and thus you may remain Contradicting one another to the Worlds End without the Decision of one Controversy unles you make it Evident by undoubted Principles that you are to judge the Church when you please and the Church is not to medle with you or your Iudgement You say 2. this judge of the Church being subject to higher Authority and tyed to a higher rule if its Decisions be Manifestly repugnant to that Superiour Rule they are not to be obeyed Answ You purely suppose what should be proved Viz. That the Decisions of the
Religion and but one only certain and infallible Perhaps he will say that though his Proposition be fallible yet it is highly probable against the pretended Infallibility of the Roman Church no other society of Christians laying claim to infallibility Mark by the way what this Adversary drives at It is to tell the world a word of comfort viz. That Christ Iesus hath now no certain and infallible Religion taught or learned in the whole Christian world And to make this most fallible and false Proposition good he back 's it by another of his own as false and fallible viz. It is at least highly probable that the Church of Rome is fallible Pray you on what leggs doth this high supposed probability stand I 'll tell you it stands only on Mr. Pooles weak thoughts and unwarranted word more you have not For never did any ancient Council or universal Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers hold it a thing highly probable that either Christian Religion or the Catholik Church of Rome is fallible Doth the Scripture favour any where this wild Assertion No not one syllable is found to that purpose we have texts enough to the contrary some I shall quote on a fitter occasion You will ask what then is it that Mr. Pooles proves against us in the fourth Chapter of his Nullity I answer just nothing His whole strain is thus After much tampering with those convincing places of holy Scripture usually alledged for the Churches Infallibility and spoiling all with his fallible fancies he goes negatively to work and tell 's us Such and such texts turned out of their genuine sense by his glosses come not home nor prove any Church infallible and it is no wonder for as perverted by him they are none of Gods Scripture but his own scribled whimsies Take here one instance for many that text of S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. 15. where the Church is stiled the pillar and ground of Truth seem's plain enough open and significant for the Catholik sense Now comes Mr. Poole with his glosses page 86. and saith perhaps here may be an Ellipsis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be writ for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if so Timothy was the pillar not the Church Again The Church here spoken of may be that wherin Timothy was placed not the Roman 3. The term of pillar notes the solidity not the infallibility of the Church 4. It may note the Churches Duty not her practise with a long c. Observe wel Vpon these wretched fallible suppositions Mr. Poole seem's to conclude that those words are unconcluding for the Infallibility of any Christian society Put I ask by what Authority must I suppose his Ellipsis or that the Church spoken of was Timothy's Church not the Vniversal That the term pillar notes not the Infallibility c Doth God speak thus in Scripture or rather doth not Mr. Poole vent these wild Fancies without Scripture or any unquestioned Authority This later is most evident And can he think by such farfetcht glosses either to rob the Apostle of his plain obvious sense or to make me believe that his guesses hit right on Gods true meaning delivered in this text If he reply the meaning may be as he guesses I answer and it may not be as he guesses Who is here to judge between us Who can tell me that Mr. Pools May be is a prop sure enough to build my faith upon He is therfore to show positively by a Propositio quiescens that is by some cogent proof and undoubted Authority that S. Pauls words must be understood as he glosses and consequently is obliged to make good some one of these desperate Propositions Christ Iesus hath now no infallible Religion taught or learned in the Christian world All Christian Societies are fallible That holy and universal Church mentioned in the Creed is fallible c. But to wave such proofs to lay hold on a Text in Scripture and torture it as he pleaseth and after the misusage to tell us the Text proves nothing is only to sport with Gods Word and say that Scripture made no Scripture by whole heaps of fallible glosses is proofles The foundation is good but the superstructure is naught Give me the strongest place in Scripture for any Article of Christian faith I can by pidling at the Text with unevidenced glosses both so pervert and poyson the words that at last they speak haeresy Yet on such unproved conjectures Protestant Religion stands and can never have better footing while Gods unwritten Word is rejected and no infallible Teacher is allowed of that learn's us Truth One word more and I end Had those two Gallants Luther and Calvin when they took upon them to reform the darkned world of Popery thus allarm'd their Hearers My Masters We Preach indeed a new Gospel upon the best conjectures we are able but you must know that all we say is fallible How sick would such a saying have made the strongest stomack amongst them For if fallible if uncertain Doctrin it was none of Christ Iesus Doctrin and therfore stood in need of a more pure refining And how know our Protestants but that yet a new sort of People may start-up and make it their task to reform all the fallible Reformers that have troubled the world since Luthers dayes Had I no other just exception against our Protestants but thus much only That they yet know not where about They are in their reformation and because fallible can never know whether for example the thing they have in hand be yet a meer Embrio of Religion or of a more perfect shape a new layd egg or a hatcht chicken whether they themselves are yet only Novices Proficients or Masters in the trade of Reformation I say were there no more This alone would fright me from ever being Protestant Believe it the Professors of an uncertain and endles reformable Religion shall never come to settlement till they renounce the cheat and Believe as the Apostle teaches ad Gal. 1. 8. Licet nos c. Altough we or Angel from heaven preach otherwise to you then we have preached to you let him be accursed which is fully to say Believe him not And here by the way observe how destructive these words are of an uncertain and fallible teaching in matters of Religion for admit which Mr. Poole grants that all Christian Communities all Councils all Fathers all Tradition c. deliver only Fallible Doctrin that is Doctrin lyable to errour I only may not but am obliged to disbelieve this Truth of S. Paul and believe him or an Angel sent from heaven if either of them preached contrary to this fallible Learning Why Doctrin that is fallible may be false but the preaching of an Angel sent from heaven cannot be false and therfore is more certain then Christian Doctrin that may be false But I am obliged to quit the lesse certain Doctrin for the most certain preaching of an Angel
impudent he must say No. All therfore he can reply is That the Ministers of his Church after a perusal of Scripture find these Verities contained there and Propose all to him as things Certainly revealed Therfore he believes them Here we come to the trial of Protestants Faith and mark well How unavoydably They are forced to grant That when a pretended Revelation Sectaries must own an Infallible Proponent is not manifest for them But lyes if at all very darkly in Scripture it must be brought to light and made more clear by some Teacher Some one or other if it have influence into Faith must Apply it and Propose it to a Hearer as Gods certain Word Without this Application made by a certain Teacher no Christian can but most temerariously admit of the Revelation as Divine and Certain 10. Demand therfore in the last place Whether all the Ministers in England are able to propound certainly and infallibly the above mentioned Doctrins darkly at least and indeed not all contained in Scripture as Gods revealed Truths to any The answer must be Negative They cannot for if they propose them infallibly Ministers are infallible Ergo say I none can Believe these Doctrins for Gods certain Revelation Because the Proposal of them absolutely necessary to apply the Revelation is defective weak dubious and uncertain The Faith therfore which followes upon so unsteedy a Teaching cannot but be answerably rowling That is in one word no Faith at all And Protestants have no better 11. Some perhaps may say Though Protestants have no great Certainty of the Doctrins above specified because they are neither expresly in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher yet their Faith in Fundamentals universally held by all Christians stand's sure enough and is infallible Such Truths shall never fail and so far the Pastors of the Church may it is likely be held infallible 12. Hereafter we shall treat more largely of Fundamental points and Therfore at present will wave what is not pertinent to answer this Reply And pertinent Why Doctrine of Protesta as Protestants is uncertain it is to say first That not one Doctrin peculiar to Protestants as Protestants because neither expresly found in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher can certainly be believed upon Divine Revelation That these Sectaries teach not their own Protestant Tenents infallibly is granted That Scripture doth not in express Terms without intolerable glossing deliver one of them shall be made after a few pages most evident And thus if this last Reply be to any purpose it brings Ruin to that part of Doctrin which is called Protestancy I say secondly There is scarce one Article of Christs Sacred Doctrin so clearly expressed in Scripture which may not would men take the liberty as Sectaries do by wilful Glosses to alienate it from the Churches sense be perverted Arians have taught them this mode of Glossing and they exactly follow it Separate therfore the words Doubful words of Scripture separated from the sense of an Infallible Interpreter ground not Faith of Scripture from the Sense of an infallible Interpreter we can Believe nothing we have no more but a body without a Soul guesses without certainty And upon such uncertainties the whole Faith of Protestants doth and must rely which is deplorable And here ask them when They appeal as They ever doe to Scripture What they mean by Scripture which needs Interpretation even in Points most Fundamental Must we admit of their Interpretation Why so more then of others as learned as They Why not as well on the present Churches Interpretation This is as good to say no more as their fallible Guesses are But of this Subject hereafter I say thirdly Never The Church in all her Doctrine equally infallible any Catholick Church hitherto held it self infallible in a few Fundamental Doctrins and not in others Therfore Protestants are more insolently bold whilst they attempt to make this Distinction then ever any Church yet was What That meer fallible Men shall be my Doctors and ex tripode define So far the Church holds infallible Doctrin But no further T' would be well nigh eight Degrees of madnes in me to believe them Admit once of this A new Haeretick may step out and defend as stoutly yea and upon as solid grounds that Scripture it self it not infallible but only in a few Fundamental Matters yet unknown to the world If you say this sounds too harshly and cannot be granted Parallel I beseech you your own wild Assertion with it The Church is Christ's Schole and se whether that runs much smoother Thus it is Christ hath erected a School which is his Church where Christians are to learn his Sacred Doctrin But when they come to it They find more then the half of its Doctrin doubtful fallible unsound uncertain Alas Aristotle's or Plato's School can cfford us Topicks and uncertainties enough I hope Christs School can learn us better Fourthly Were the Church falsly supposed Fallible in the delivery of some Doctrin lesse Fundamental it would be much safer to believe it then Protestants who may err in all they say And then most when being void of proofs They stand trifling with a Distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Herein as in all other things they are most fallible and must I think ye credit men that can say nothing certainly 13. Fifthly and I end Admit once of a Church with this half infallibility in fundamentals our Sectaries who so furiously oppugn that whole infallibility which we ascribe to the Roman Church must Answer their own Arguments against us For here we question them as they do us Where or in what Rational Queries made to Protestants Subject is that partial infallibility lodged What Pastors designable are endewed with it How shall we make our Addresses to them in doubts and difficulties if none know where or who they are What kind of infallibility is this By whose assured Testimony can we learn what is de fide funaamentali what not What if these Pastors be devided amongst themselves in their Decisions of fundameetals whose judgement is finally to be stood too c. These and the like Questions most easily answer'd by Catholicks when They give an account of their Belief as I shall shew in the Resolution of Faith press so strongly upon Protestants that not one of them shall ever have a satisfactory Answer Perhaps to Protestants pretence to a private Spirit solve them some will recurre to the private Spirit and say This tell 's them all Truth in these doubts Contra. Ask only here Whether this Spirit makes them or their Pastors infallible or can direct others to find out such infallible Pastors If they reply Those are such as Teach Gods Word purely the Answer is impertinent for we ask whether it Assists any to Teach Gods pure Word infallibly And who they are It may be others will say that Christ never had since the Apostles
it out and Believe securely No other but the The Roman Catholick Church only Evidenced Credible Roman Catholick Church only is thus Evidenced Se Chap. 8. 9. 10. The second Principle This Holy Church which Age after Age without any late rise like that of Protestancy hath stood constantly ever since Christ and drawn whole Kingdoms and Nations to its Belief was either on set Purpose raised up by It was not founded by Christ to cheat the world Almighty God and conserved in Being for so long a time to Cheat the world into a false Belief which is Impious to think or must be owned as it deserves for the only undoubted most manifested and gloriously evidenced Church of Christ Se Chap. 8. n. 5. 6. 4. You will say Notwithstanding all the glorious Marks we can lay claim to and grace our Church withal very many Learned Men do oppose it If then the Argument above have force This very Opposition of so many Weaken's much and takes of no few Degrees of that Moral certainty we stand for Contra. Very many Learned men opposed both Apostolical and Slight Opposition not Valued of Primitive Doctrin Atheists band against God and Iewes against Christ the Arians yet impugn a Trinity Are our Sectaries affrighted upon that Account or weakned in their Moral Certainty of thar Mystery whilst They Believe it No. Every Trivial and slight Opposition therfore made against a Verity which strongly Defend's and powerfully plead's foâ—â—it felf can neither dant nor discountenance it The Opposition then in our present Matter if to the purpose It ought to be deeply rational and brought to certain Principles ought to be well Grounded and deeply Rational grounded I say not upon what This or That private person by his sole fallible bosom Thoughts holds Reasonable for so every Arian will make good his Haeresy But the Opposition if rational must go further and rest at last upon a Solid and satisfactory Principle which well laid forth gently forceth every Prudent Sectaries destitute of any Rational Proof against the Catholick Church and Disinteressed Man to Acquiesce and yeild to it But this cannot be done in our present case for Sectaries are so utterly destitute of what ever look's like a Rational Proof or any received Principle They are so disinabled to speak with sense against the known Evidence of the Roman Catholick Religion That And I do assert it boldly They shall as soon turn Christianity out of the World as rationally abate or lessen the plain and undisputable Evidence of this one Christian Society 5. This blessed Society therfore stands thus upon firm Solid Principles for the Catholick Church Ground upon solid and undoubted Principles I shew you saith this Church Those very Motives which anciently countenanced the Preaching of Christ and converted the world And These plead for me With what urgent contrary Proofs can you my good Protestants deface such Glorious Marks of Truth or make them either Insignificant or forceles Arguments Is this weightily done by drawing a few trivial Glosses Sectaries trifle out of mistaken Scripture By telling us of Council contradicting Council By quoting our Authors wrongfully By relating a story not worth the hearing of a Pope or Prelate Are these Manly proofs think ye or sufficient to Eclipse the Glory of the Ancient Church Toyes Trifles Frivolous I shew you again Other Evidences of the Catholick Church saith this Church That the most Wise of the World the most Learned the most Holy Their Number is numberles notwithstanding the Opposition made against me have Age after Age even before and after The most wise and Learned of the world notwithstanding the Opposition made against this Church lived and dyed in it your Haeresy began Constantly professed my Faith lived and dyed in it without Change and Alteration Tel me were These Millions of Souls learned and unlearned for a thousand years and more All mad All besotted all seduced by Fooleries It is worse then Madnes to say so Here then is a principle in moral matters the Surest imaginable for our Church This Nubes testium alone and of such witnesses which is ever to be reflected on makes it evidently Credible And by what contrary rational Proof or received Principle can our Adversaries enervate or make null the Testimony All These wise and Learned cannot be supposed mad or seduced by Fooleries of these innumerable Givers in of Evidence who led on by Motives which They thought Rational and what passed for Reason amongst so many and such qualified Persons ought to passe for Reason with all Believed this Church and dyed in it happily I 'll tell you had our Sectaries Salomons Wisdom Protestants cannot Answer This one Argument They would yet be unable to satisfy This one Argument probably much less to Evidence it forceles upon either solid Proof or any received Principle The reason is No proof can vainquish an evident Verity But it is an evident Verity that God Cheated No proof against Evident truth not the World by means of so numerous a multitude of Catholick Professors It is an evident Verity That all those Wise and Learned Catholicks were neither Mad nor for so long a time Deluded by Fooleries He therfore who when rational Proofs fail cannot If Sectaries slight such witnesses They slight themselves much more speak a reasonable word against these Millions of witnesses But slights and undervalues them doth not only slight the greatest Authority on Earth But also if he be a Protestant must slight Protestancy if an Arian Arianism For these Sects have neither Authority nor Witnesses comparable to those of the Catholick Church 6. For conclusion of this matter be pleased to note That as our Adversaries are destitute of rational Proofs reducible to received Principles whilst They impugne the clear Evidence of our Church so they also want them in all other particular Controversies For whether They go about to oppose our Doctrin Soctaries never come to Principles or to prove their own You can never draw from them Proof brought to an undoubted Principle as I shall most amply show hereafter They are Opponents 'T is true when they tell us we have changed the Ancient Doctrin of the Church brought in novelties and I know not what We hear such Talk but where is the Propositio quiescens or grounded Proof to make this Charge good They say so And that is all And yet if possible They are worse at it in proving Their own Doctrin Take here one Instance you shall have more hereafter We demand A question proposed upon what rational Proof can These men Believe the Sacred Mystery of the Blessed Trinity and deny the Catholick Doctrin of Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament Are they forced to Admit of the one and Protestants believe one Mystery reject another with out proof Reject the other by clear and manifest Scripture Evidently no. Scripture is without controversy more
Austin Learnedly Consider's lib. 22. Civitat Cap. 5. Chiefly at those words St. Austins Discourse Si rem credibilem crediderunt If men saith he Believed a thing credible he speaks of the Resurrection of the dead and the like is of any other Mystery in Faith videant quam sint stolidi se what fools Those are who will not believe Si autem res incredibilis est If the thing be incredible This is most incredible yea and the strangest miracle of all that That which was deem'd Incredible gained Belief the whole World over The Argument is convincing and proves as well that those after Conversions wrought upon Infidels by Roman Evangelical Preachers were Admirable and truely Miraculous Millions have been converted by them These numerous multitudes therfore of Believers were either drawn on by fooleries If so Fooleries could not induce Millions to contemn the world and become good Christians They were mad And here lyes the Miracles saith St. Austin Viz. That Fooleries could induce so many to Contemn the World and become good Christians Or Contrarywise They believed this Roman Catholick Church upon weighty rational Motives If so Why are not our Protestants obliged to believe as they did upon the same prudent Inducements If They Tell us The Church Taught an other Doctrin when these great Conversions were made then it Teaches now They do not only most unlearnedly Suppose what is to be Proved yea cannot be proved because utterly false But also speak not one Word to the Purpose For both our Progenitors in England and innumerable others were drawn from Error by Popish Preachers And even in this present Age the like glorious Conversions are and have been wrought by these Blessed mens Labours Why these Conversions are to be esteemed Miraculous and Theirs only Now if you ask upon what Account such Conversions are to be esteemed Miraculous This one Instance answers you Imagin you saw a little Flock of Sheep or Lambs sent into a Desert full of ravenous Wolves withall That these Lambs though at first many were devoured yet at length render'd the Wolves so Tame and so abated their Rage that they became like Lambs mild and submissive Would you not say that such a work were prodigious and above the force of nature This is our very case Behold saith our Saviour Luc. 10. I send you as Lambs amongst Wolves And these you must subdue It was done Behold saith the Roman Catholick Church I send my Preachers still abroad to the Remotest parts of the World and have changed Wolves into Lambs That is I have made Infidels once Rebellious to Christ Subject to his lawes the Vitious I have made Virtuous and brought thousands of them to no other Religion but Popery This work with the Assistance of Gods Grace is done Et est mirabile in oculis nostris and 't is admirable Had our Protestants made such Changes or drawn so many Infidels to their new Faith they would have talked of wonders But because Catholicks Why Protestants flight Miracles and Conversions gained them to the old Religion all is Nothing So it is They have no Miracles and therfore Slight them No Conversions and thersore undervalue them A Strange proceeding Those very wonders which induced the world to become Christian Because they yet eminently appear in the Roman Catholick Church must ly under Contempt Those Ancient Proofs of Christianity are now proofles Those Primitive Evidences of Miracles Conversions c. the Church is in fault for shewing them cannot be seen by these later Men who yet have Eyes to discern the Book of Scripture by its own Light and Majesty And by the way mark the Paradox The exteriour words of a Bible for of these A Paradox of Sectaries we only speak are Evidences enough for Scripture yet those glorious works now mentioned are forsooth no Evidence of this Church The very Majesty of the style Ascertain's these men that God Speak's by that Sacred Book yet all the perceptible miraculous Majesty which the Church shewes us cannot perswade them that he speaks by this visible audible and most known Oracle of Truth A Bible well known its true upon other Grounds to be most Sacred discouers its Divinity and immediatly proves who writ it Yet a Church so gloriously marked sayes nothing who Directs it Is this Reason or Religion think ye Can Reason produce this unreasonable Thought in any That the wise Providence of God hath permitted so eminent so numerous so pious so learned and so long standing a Multitude of Christians as Catholicks have been and yet are to be Cheated into Errour even whilst they evidence their Faith by such Proofs and Motives as Christ and his Apostles manifested Christian Religion What Shall we think that Miracles Conversions of Souls casting out of Devils Sanctity of life c. which were once convincing Arguments of Christianity are now showed to countenance a Falsity To judge so is the most improbable Sectaries judge improbably Thought that ever entred a Christians Hart yea and impossible unles we hold that God can leave of to be Goodnes it self or make Falshood more apparently evident then Truth the whole World over which is proved to be a gross errour 8. Other Arguments we have for a greater Certainty then moral previously Evidencing the Roman Catholick Religion before we Believe wherof more in the next Chapter It is now sufficient to say That our Protestants grant thus much First because Protestants grant Evidence of Credibility to the Roman Catholick Religion the more learned of them allow Salvation to those who live and dye in this Faith But most sure it is That Saving Faith hath at least moral Evidence and Certainty for it 2. Whilst They talk of no man knowes what Evidence manifesting Christian Religion in General They only plead for our Catholick Faith and speak not a word in behalf of Protestancy The Reason is If both these Religions are not True Motives Evidencing true Religion inseparably follow that but the One only The Motives which Evidence true Religion inseparably follow That and cannot belong as I have already proved to the Other which is false Therfore They or We are obliged to show them But Protestancy cannot show so much as one prudent Motive for it self as will most clearly appear in the 10. Chapter Ergo what Evidence there is for true Christian Faith Catholicks have it or there is none in the World for any Religion CHAP. IX A short Digression concerning the Shufling of Protestants in this matter 1. HEre I cannot but reflect on the slight endeavours of some later Sectaries who offer at Mr. Stillingfleets weak endeavours Much in an Empty Title called The Protestants way of resolving Faith yet in prosecuting the matter They handle it so unluckily that no man Hear 's a word more spoken in behalf of Protestanism then of Arianism or of what ever other Haeresy Motives and Reasons they give none for Protestant
a lawful Syllogism wherby They prove That Their Reason hath ever the good luck the singular Priviledge to fall right on the True sense whilst No Princiciple to prove that Protestants reason hitt's right Others as learned as They swerve from it If here They talk of the Vnction teaching Truth of the Spirit c. They will be urged again for a Principle to prove That these Favors singularly belong to Them and not to Others who Dissent from them But we will wave this Argument And only note how in all those Disputes which our Protestants hold either with Catholicks or Sectaries take for an Instance the Arians the True sense of Scripture is so far of from being a The sense of Scripture when Two Sectaries dispute is Ever the thing in Question received Principle by both these Litigious Parties That it is ever the Thing in Question and must be proved by another own'd and admitted Principle if the Discours stand upon solid ground 3. One example will give you more Light Mr. Poole Assaults an Arian a far weaker Adversary then a 'T is proved by an Instance Catholick with a Scriptural Proof for that High Mystery of our Faith the Sacred Trinity and argues thus Scripture saith Iohn 1. c. 5. 7. There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father Word and Holy Ghost and these three are one But the Sense of this Scripture saith Mr. Poole is That God is one in Essenceâ— and Three Distinct Persons The Father Vnproduced the Son Produced and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Both. Ergo we must admit a Trinity Observe well The Arian Admit's the first Proposition or the Words of Scripture And here is the only Principle agreed on by these two Disputants But utterly denyes the second Viz. The Sense drawn out of these Words And tell 's The Arian admit's of the words of Scripture but denies Mr. Pooles sense his Adversary that this Sense is the very Thing in question but no received Principle And therfore must be proved not supposed against him Proved I say and by Sole Scripture which yet cannot be done Though we turn to all the Texts in the Bible Most justly therfore may the Arian tell Mr. Poole If his Faith fall upon such a Determinate Sense now given He Believes it either Becaus His private Judgement molds Scripture to that Meaning or Becaus He takes it upon the Authority of a Church which he professedly Disowns and will not Believe 4. In reference to what is here said note first That as the True sense of Scripture is supposed and not proved against an Arian by force of Scripture in this particular Mystery so much more it is ever supposed and not proved when Protestants dispute against Catholicks The reason is Their private Judgement Protestants first frame to themselves a Sense of Scripture and then triumph first makes what sense they please which is no received Principle and afterward They vapor like Conquerours as if sole Scripture did the deed and defeated us Upon the great Assurance I have of This my Assertion I chalenge Mr. Poole or any Protestant They have not one Text of Scripture against the Roman Catholick Faith without the mixture of Their private Iudgements to produce one Text against the Roman Catholick Faith which without the Mixture of Their private Judgements or unadmitted Glosses speak's so much as Probably against it The more plausible place they insist on is That of St. Iohn cap. 6. Vnles you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. For communion under both kinds which nevertheles must have twenty Glosses and as many self Iudgements upon it before it can put on a likelyhood of a proof against us 5. Note 2. That whilst the Sense of Scripture lyes under dispute and is not agreed on by the two Parties Why Protestants loose labour when They argue by Scripture at Difference For example a Catholick and Protestant It is but Labour lost in the Protestant to Assault his Adversary with Texts of Scripture For the Catholick Answers Olim possideo prior possideo I have ever believed the sense of Gods Word to be such as you know we Catholicks own And can you my Antagonist What the Catholick answer's perswade your self to drive me out of the Possession of my Ancient Belief by your Sole private Judgement or Those new Glosses you father on Scripture If so A worthy Gentleman who by right of his Ancestors for a thousand years and upward now quietly possesseth his lands May be turn'd out of House and Harbor upon the private Judgement of some New upstart Fellow That Tell 's him He verily thinks the Ancient Writings for his Lands are not wel Understood Therfore he will first do him the favor to explicate them according to his private Opinion though contrary to the Sense hitherto received which done he will drive him out a doors and make him a Beggar This is our very Case 6. Contrarywise when the Sense of Scripture is How we may argue from Scripture agreed on we may Argue as Schoolmen do and draw from it Theological Conclusions which though often Various amongst Divines yet the Principle admitted I mean the Sense of Scripture remain's unquestioned and is maintain'd without Contradiction Without Such an agreed on sense which either Scripture as it often doth Deliver's plainly enough or The common consent of Learned men makes Highly probable or The Church of Christ declares certain 'T is to no more purpose to Dispute out of Scripture then to speak Arabick to an Illiterate Peasant Yet the loose Behavior of our Protestants is such that it lead's them without the guidance of these Lights first to Fancy The Fancy of Sectaries a Sense of their own and then draw strange Conclusions from it So Mr. Poole After he had by his own Interpretation perverted that Text of St. Paul The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth might wel say The Church is not proved Infallible Thus much is noted if the word Reason signify a formal Discours 7. Perhaps Protestants may reply For in Truth it Another Acception of the word Reason refuted is the hardest thing in the world where to have them in their Answers That Reason here imports not any Discours at all But an immediate clear Light Transfused into their Mind when they read Scripture like a Beam shot from the Sun wherby their Eyes as perspicuously discern the most Abstruse Sense in it as men do the Sun by its Light or the first known Principles of nature by Their own Indisputable Evidences Is this Reply think you rational that draws not so much as a Dram of Reason after it For if their new Faith hath set new Eyes in their head It hath not surely pluck't out their Neighbours Eyes who yet I hope may see what is discernable by All. None then ever questioned the Suns-shining at Noon-day or Writ Commentaries on the first
of these Places now cited May be as Protestants understand The bare Saying of Sectaries stand's for no proof so I say The contradictory Proposition is every whit as good The Sense May be as Catholicks understand Who must Therfore whilst we are Both yet supposed to stand as it were on equal Terms Determine what God hath absolutely Revealed in these Scriptures I say absolutely For the question here is not what a Particular man may Imagin God to have Spoken But what He hath de facto Spoken The Reason hereof is clear Because God Speak's not in so weighty a Matter as this is to Try mens Wits or to Hear Them tell him Lord such may be the Sense of your words Faith relies not on what private men think God hath revealed Though I cannot say what it is Nor can our Faith Rely on what we only Think He may have Spoken But on what He hath actually Revealed And we have means thanks be to God To know this Absolute Sense as I shall declare in the 9. Chapter where the Objection is fully solved 5. In the mean time be pleased to reflect first That Protestants Glosses as iniurious to Gods Word as Those of the Arians when meer Fallible men Peremptorily put upon Scripture a Sense which They cannot so much as probably prove But by their own Erring guesses only to be the true meaning of the Holy Ghost and this in a matter which Highly concerns Saluation They plainly Injure Gods Sacred Word Protestants are these fallible men and do so Ergo they injure Gods Word The first Proposition is clear in the Case of Arians who Becaus They peremptorily give a Sense to those Scriptures which relate to the Real Vnity of Three Persons in one Divine Essence the matter is of High importance and cannot prove it But by the force of Their Erring Guesses only They wrong both God and his Word The second Proposition is as Evident For The Proof Protestants absolutely say The Scriptures now cited include not yea positively exclude a perpetual infallibility allowed the Church This sense and 't is a Point of highest Importance For the clearing of it End 's all Controversies they cannot prove But by their own Erring guesses only And therfore injure Scripture in saying God hath spoken that which cannot be so much as probably proved was Spoken 6. Reflect 2. It is not enough that Sectaries tell us upon their own fallible Parole That our Places of Sectaries come not home to the difficulty Scripture May be interpreted as they please or come not home to prove the Churches Infallibility For Admit thus much Gratis They yet convince nothing Because it is one thing to say and God knows only to say it our alleged Scriptures for example that of St. Paul The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth prove To say we prove not our Doctrin is not to say They prove the contrary not a Church Infallible and a quite other positively to Teach and prove it to be Fallible The most they can infer out of thiâ— Negative Such places prove not were all granted they desire is that They give the slip to so many Texts of Scripture or infringe so much force of our Proofs Alas This only is to pull as it Their weak endeavour is to pull down not to build up the Machin of their new Doctrin were so much of a House down But it doth not therfore follow that They positively give in as good Texts to the contrary Sense or Build up the Structure of their new Doctrin concerning the Churches Fallibility To pull down one Proof is not to destroy all we can say we have more Strings to our Bow then one much les is it to build up an opposite Doctrin The Machin these Sectaries would fain build lyes in this one positive Assertion The whole Church is Fallible This say I Fancy only Erect's For it stands unprop't Fancy doth all with them That is it neither is nor can nor shall ever be positively proved And hence 7. Reflect 3. If Protestants who rely totally on Scripture Proof Positively Assert as They do That the whole Church is Fallible They are obliged both in Conscience and all Law of Disputation to prove what They say For Asserenti incumbit probatio Observe my reason When Luther and Sectaries came amongst us and troubled the world They heard the voice of a whole Ancient Church against them owning the infallible Assistance of Gods Directing Spirit for which we now argue The Church pleaded thus Olim possideo prior possideo This Spirit of infallibility I long since have had and yet upon Scripture proof do Believe Well Now enter these Sectaries They first reject Church Authority and then make Scripture speak as Fancy pleases and first Reject the Authority of this Ancient Church next They fall abord with our Scriptures And becaus they are good at Guessing They tell us Verily These Scriptures seem not to prove a Church Infallible Becaus They are able to interpret all to a contrary Sense To this we have Answered Their seeming is no proof Withall That Catholicks as Many and Learned as They both can and do interpret them otherwise Hitherto therfore their cause is nothing Advanced More then is necessary And it is That whilst They positively establish a new coyned Doctrin of a whole Christian Church fallible contrary to what Antiquity ever owned I say 't is necessary That they bring some Positive proof and make good Their unheard of Assertion 8. And here we may have plain dealing if Sectaries Protestant have no Text of Scripture against an Infallible Church please Turn then to your Bible Gentlemen and shew me any Text like this The whole Church of Christ is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The Holy Ghost will not ever Teach it all Truth God hath placed Pastors and Doctors in his Church But such as may suffer us to be carried away with every wind of fals Doctrin c. Such Expressions we read in our Bible for the contrary Verity Have you any thing like them in yours to prove your opposite Asserted Doctrin I say any like them For I Press not to have from you the same Formal Words But will be content with one plain significant Text and we will stand to Scripture Or if Scripture please you not we will accompany you to Councils and Fathers which so much as Meanly makes the whole Church of Christ Fallible Such a Scripture I tell you once more you cannot produce Ergo you only vent your Fancies you talk and prove not you believe a Doctrin which you cannot show was ever Revealed in Gods Word You may perhaps trifle it out and Tell us as you are wont to do of our errors de facto It is nothing to the purpose For What we desire of Sectaries we enquire not here after your proofles Assertions They are Answered a hundred times over nor ask what
of Truth Reside in the late and hardly yet well known Congregation of Protestants Doth he Teach and Interpret Scripture by this Society The Spirit resides noâ— in Protestants of men No Most certainly no For that Society wherin This All-knowing Spirit Presides as Master is Taught infallibly Those He instructs to Interpret Scripture Both Teach and Interpret Infallibly For Truth it self can make none his Instruments and Interpret by them either falsly or fallibly But Protestants Because They profess to be Fallible profess themselves to be Fallible in what ever they Teach and interpret Therfore they ioyntly own themselves to be No Teaching or interpreting Instruments of the Holy Ghost Observe well the Reason This blessed Spirit when it learn's a whole Church what it is to Believe cannot but Interpret Infallibly by those He Teaches to interpret Our Sectaries deny this Grace of Interpreting infallibly to All Societies of Christians The Reason is convincing Therfore they deny it to Themselves For they are amongst These All And in doing so They Divorce their little Company from the Infallible interpreting Spirit of the Holy Ghost Consequently This Spirit leaves them For 't is most evident He Interprets not by such or for such as deny and Abjure his Infallible Interpretation God forbid may Sectaries Reply we Abjure it not But only modestly say We cannot Teach infallibly as he Interprets in our Harts No. To what purpose then doth this Divine Spirit lay up his infallible learning in your Harts if you can never utter it or Teach others after your Instructions secretly received as this Spirit speak's in you infallibly Here is Light indeed closely hid under a Bushel unseen by All Beneficial to None This short Discours can Protestants discover Sophistry in it let them speak totally Evert's their private Spirit And evidences That their Interpretation of Scripture finally comes to no more But to a Fallacy or a self-imagined Fancy All I would say here is summoned up in these few words Protestants confess that they neither Teach nor can Interpret Scripture infallibly Therfore by their own Confession They aro neither Oracles nor Instruments nor Interpreters of the Holy Ghost who Teaches and Interprets by none when â—e delivers Doctrin for a whole Church But by such as do it Infallibly Hence 9. I say 4. One only Society of Christians There is Hell One only Siciety that Teaches Infallibly gates shall not prevail against it or seduce it by Error which Teaches and interprets the Word of God Infallibly This one Dove is Chast This one Spouse is Loyal This one Oracle is Infallible He that Hear 's it hear's Christ He whâ— slight's it slight's Christ and draw's upon him the Malediction of a Separated Heathen and Publican Matt. 18. 17. Si Ecclesiam non audierit c. You do I know prevent my meaning For by this Spouse and Oracle I understand no other But that long standing Ancient Holy and Catholick Roman Church which Which is the Roman Church ever taught the World in foregoing Ages before our Sectaries seâ— footing in it Beside this faithful Oracle I do demonstrate in the 1. Chap. of the next Discours There never was is or shall be any thing like a Catholick Holy Church Now as it is Ecclesia Docens a Church Teaching and consists of Prelates united with one Head Directed by the Holy Ghost it Teaches and interprett Scripture infallibly As it is Ecclesia Discens or the Church Learning it receives and by virtue of the same blessed Spirit both Instruction and Interpretation infallibly 10. The Truth of my Assertion stand's firm upon the undeniable Grounds already laid no less well proved then presupposed Here is the summe of All. A summary of the precedent proofs The wise Providence of God hath left Sufficient means wherby we may know exactly the Sense of his Scripture in matters concerning Saluation whilst Learned men of different Sects are at endles Debates about this Sense and persist most obstinatly in what they have once laid hold on God therfore most assuredly will not have us run on thus in jarr's to the worlds end and conclude nothing There is means then of a Reconciliation afforded if we please But that 's not Scripture alone which cannot interpret it self but lyes still in that ancient darknes as it was first writ nor can it be mans Private Iudgement for that is both Various and Fallible Certainly it is not the Protestants Spirit For this we se changes every year And confessedly is Destitute of the Holy Ghosts Infallible directing Spirit It is no condemned Sect of Ancient Haereicks acknowledged for such both by Catholicks and Protestants Enthusiasm's no man believes Angels interpret not Scripture What then Remains but that we have recours to that One Ancient Holy and Vniversal Roman Church as wel for Instruction as Interpretation By this sole Oracle the Holy Ghost interpret's and teacheth or we must grant which is lamentable that we are turned loos into an inexplicable Labyrinth of Gods deep Secrets revealed in his Word without hope of finding any Exit 11. To prove my Assertion further positively by Scripture and the Authority of Fathers would be both tedious to a Reader and little avail with Sectaries And I wave as much as may be the useles Repetition of so often quoted Authorities who turn of Scripture by far-fetcht Glosses and undervalue Fathers as being fallible Yet while they do so know well enough their own misery at home within their brests which is nothing but a Spirit of Fallibility You find Proofs amply alleged out of Scripture Councils and Fathers to our present matter in our Polemical writers chiefly when they treat of the Iudge of Controversies However one Text though often quoted I will here give you Sectaries may tamper long enough with it before they return a probable Answer 12. The great Apostle of the Gentiles writing to A solid proof from Scripture the Ephesians Cap. 4. after he had warned them of keeping unity in Spirit and Faith also vers 11. Add's And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other Pastors and Doctors c. And why gave he these Teachers The following words Answer For the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the Body of Christ How long are these to continue To the Worlds end until saith Scripture we meet into the unity of Faith and knowledge of the Son of God c. What intention had God in establishing These Apostles Evangelists and Pastors in his Church That now we be not Children fluctuating and carried away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is turned about with every wind of Doctrin in the wickednes of men in craftines to the circumvention of error Thus the Hierarchy The Hierarchy of the Church that Teaches of Christs Teaching Church is constituted And by no other then Truth it self Now I say No Society of Christians
certainly know without a Teacher what this Infinite Wisdom judgeth of the Truth they seek Observe the proof after This is the very case of Sectaries No more do they certainly know in their Principles what God hath already Revealed in that one Text This is my body and the like is of innumerable others then if he had never Registred those Words in Scripture They may guess at the Sense and miss more they cannot do Now if they tell me of no man knows what Moral Certainty or of Fundamentals clearly enough made known in Scripture we Answer fully to both in the next Discours 3. They may thirdly object If a Protestant cannot depose his Judgement nor think that the Church and Scripture say one thing Becaus his Reason finds them Opposite to one another He may stand for Gods Word against the Church To confirm this He may tell us also that the Church which An Objection containing the ground of all Haresy seem's to engross all Judicature and right of Interpreting Scripture is no more but a Party and a Party cannot in Reason be Iudge for it Self when the Protestant stands out and is in Controversy with the Church Here briefly is the Ground of all Haeresy and the old Plea of all Condemned Sectaries 4. To Answer the first I Ask what is this Protestant Is answered that cannot Submit his Iudgement Is he an Angel from Heaven or one immediatly Taught by the Holy Ghost No. He is a poor simple fallible and erring Man Why then may not he yeild to the Church as well as his Ancestors have done before him and the Wisest part of Christianity doth now The true Reason is Becaus he perversly will not submit And though he palliat's his Pertinacy with a Specious Pretence of Gods Word yet he hath not one Syllable in Scripture for him The most He can know if yet so much is that what he reads is Scripture but what God saith in that Scripture he cannot know at all but by Fancy only when he judgeth contrary to the Church O but God Illuminates him about A paradox of Protestants illuminated the Sense Why you my Friend more then an Arian as Strong in Fancy as you are But why you more then a whole Ancient Church Doth God tender you so dearly and not his Church Will he And of a whole Church left in Darknes Illuminate you and leave his Church in Darknes Will he give you the Spirit of Infallibility and take it from his Church Away with these Trifles not worth Refuting neither God nor Scripture nor Church is here stood for But a Self-conceipt only The Church no Party but Iudge 5. Now to what is Added of the Church being a Part and therfore no Iudge I 'll say one Word and first ask what is the Sectary that opposeth himself to the Church Is not he a Party also Will He then take upon him to Iudge and censure the Church And cry out against it as partial if it meddle with him The Church is already impowred by Christ to Iudge in Spiritual Causes as I have proved But no Particular man is more 'T is proved Authorized to Iudge the Church then a Vassal is to Iudge his Sovereign after Treason committed And the Instance is fit as you may se If some in a Kingdom tumultuously rise up against both King and Country as Sectaries have done against the Pope and Church They are accused and brought to a Trial before their lawful Sovereign the Fact is examined whether Treasonable or no. Will these impeached Men think ye fly from the Judgement of their Sovereign or plead He is a Party and therfore seek for Justice to a Forreign Prince No most certainly The King The Church the high Tribunal from which there is no appeal and Country where they offend have Power to Iudge them And so hath the Church in Spiritual matters from which there can be no Appeal And the Case is most Evident for the Church Becaus whilst Sectaries by their Schism or new Doctrin contrary to it become Rebels They have no Tribunal imaginable left them to Appeal to secluding this Iudge But their own Self-judgement which is the Delinquent The Church thus Sectaries make the Delinquent Iudge rejected Neither God Immediately nor Scripture more explicitly nor Angels Ministerially judgeth for them Therfore their last Appellation is to a very Friendly and too partial a Iudge Too partial a Iudge Their own what they Please And this is most evident in every debated Controversy where no other Judge is allowed of by them but Scripture and it were well would they stand to it But it is Scripture as They are pleased to Interpret 6. They may Object fourthly Those Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors mentioned in the Text Though granted Infallible are against all Reason supposed to be the Teachers of the Roman The pretense of other Lawfull Pastors beside those of the Roman Catholick Church Church For most surely There were other Orthodox Teachers beside these continued Age after Age in the world Why therfore doth the Church of Rome draw all that 's good to it self and Allow no other Christian Society at least a share of these Doctors and Teachers c Mark the Objection which acknowledges a Succession of other Orthodox Pastors and Teachers in the Christian World Age after Age Shewed Null And take with it my plain Answer If Sectaries lay claim to such They are obliged plainly to point them out And say where or when they lived who they taught c. But they are not designable Becaus from Luthers days upward There were none except the Roman Pastors in the Christian world But known confessed and condemned Haereticks And They were no Orthodox Teachers as I largely prove in the first Chap. of the next Discours Be pleased to read it They may Reply fifthly This Argument Such Pastors are not A Reply answered designable therfore were not is purely negative and proves nothing Well But I hope this Proposition Asserted by Protestants Such Pastors and Doctors distinct from the Roman Clergy were Successively found to have been in the World is Positive And therfore must be proved However Negative Arguments in such matters and of the like nature with this That is when things are of themselves Perceptible and yet not Seen Are both strong and Convincing For Example When negative Arguments have force If a company of quick sighted men stand up in a tower set before a plain and look round about them yet se nothing within the compas of the eye like a high Mountain They may well conclude There is no such Mountain within their sight Now I say A Church consisting of such Supposed Orthodox Pastors as Protestants imagin Distinct from the Roman is as visible and discernable as a Mountain in this present Case Yet were never seen by Protestants nor others Therfore it follows They were not at all unles we
recurr to an Invisible Society of such men now as well exploded by later Protestants as Catholicks 7. A fifth Objection flow's from the pen of a Late Mr. Stillingfleet Writer after this manner Cannot you conceive that there should be a Number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility If not saith he I 'll help your Vnderstanding a little Suppose And it 's only a Supposition That all the members of the Roman Church should be destroyed in one Age do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches sound at least in the Belief of Fundamentals without Infallibility I have answered already No. And given my Reason Becaus a Church A Church separated from Divine Assistance cannot persist stable divorced from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost is pulled from the Center of Truth which supports it and consequently the Doctrin of it must needs reel and totter now as is supposed to rely on no firmer a Hold then on mans unsteedy fallible Reason or on a Testimony meerly Humane and therfore Uncertain Neither have we without this Assistance more Security Without Infallible Assistance no security of fundamentals of true Belief in Matters called Fundamental then others As is clear in condemned Arians who no sooner left the Church directed by this Spirit of Truth But Errours followed them in points most Fundamental And yet like black Ghosts do and will haunt them without Repentance to the Worlds End 8. Before we end this matter I have one Question to propose It is Whether If all the Ancient Fathers A Question proposed to Sectaries that ever lived Had plainly interpreted Scriptures as the Roman Catholick Church now interpret's them contrary to Protestants They would then Disavow Their own Glosses And submit to the undeniable Authority of so many worthy Fathers Might Reason or Religion set one unlucky Adversary aside called Prejudice make the Answer Sectaries would say Yes And do so were The unanimous consent of Fathers against them Grant thus much And say boldly The Authority of The whole Antecedent The Authority of a whole Church more weighty then that of Fathers and this present Roman Catholick Church is in true prudence of greater Force to withdraw Sectaries from their new invented Glosses contrary to it Then if all the Fathers Together Had plainly interpreted Scripture as the Church interpret's Why Nothing on earth can Parallel this Churches Authority much les make it Inferiour to The Fathers only part of the Church the universal consent of Fathers The Reason is These Fathers were only a part of it particular men and Singly considered Fallible But a whole Church Embraceth a greater number and cannot be misled into Errour Nay I say Though we Impiously suppose Were the Church supposed Fallible the Authority of it is as great as the Fathers That this whole Church might swerve from Truth yet the Testimony of it is as great as that of the Fathers who as Protestants say may all err and swerve more easily This Reason is Reinforced if we reflect on one undeniable Truth which is In all controversies now between us Sectaries can pretend no more But thus much only That the sense of some few Fathers only They never pretended all whilst they interpret Scripture is though often obscure more against the Churches interpretation then for it Here is the most they can say with any Conscience Though we grant not so much when the whole Doctrin of a Father is well examined However Gratis Admit of the Supposition at present And se what follows A clear Testimony Though Fallible hath more weight then another that 's Obscure and Fallible Thus much only The Sense of such and such Fathers is doubtful and Sectaries say Fallible The Churches Sense is clear That is you know what it Teaches and Though falsly supposed fallible is yet far more firm then the other Testimony That 's confessedly both obscure and Fallible 9. This Discours convinceth that Sectaries cannot If Sectaries say the more clear Church Doctrin is the more manifest is its Errour They speak without Principles and suppose what is to be proved impugn the Churches sense given of Scripture by any thing that hath the look of a probable Principle For the Church Defend's it self upon two undeniable Grounds The first Positive And 'T is The Churches own Authority nothing can be greater The other Negative Viz. Never any of known credit neither Fathers generally nor Oecumenical Councils much less Scripture Probably clearly contradicted that sense which the Roman Catholick Church Gives of Scripture And here by the way You may se to what an Exigency our new None of undoubted credit Ever clearly contradicted the Churches sense of Scripture men are Driven for want of Principles They say The Roman Catholick Church is Fallible The Fathers are fallible All condemned Haereticks are fallible They themselves are fallible Thus much supposed Tell me I beseech you by what probable Principle can They so much as seemingly show That either They interpret Scripture better then we or That Any of us all ever yet arrived to the True sense of it in controverted If all are Fallible by what Principle can Sectaries prove their Interpretation to be the best matters Which yet is absolutely necessary For we can have no true Faith without the true sense of Scripture You know if the blind lead the blind There is no safe conduct And if the Fallible man Guides the Fallible both may mistake Their way and err grosly You will have no Answer returned to this Difficulty But Sectaries Fancy and Fancy only Or shew that Any had the true sense of Scripture 10. Some may Reply Protestants have the words of Scripture as clear as the Holy Ghost was pleased to Write them in Fundamentals As also the consent of Fathers at least for those Fundamentals They wave other By-Passages of Scripture and care not much A Reply of Sectaries whether their Interpretations be right or wrong I Answer first To say nothing of many Others They They cannot wave all Difficulties cannot wave one Difficulty concerning the Real presence of Christ in the Sacred Eucharist which is either a Fundamental Doctrin or none is Both Scripture and Fathers are in this particular most expresly against them as is proved Hereafter 11. But let this pass I Answer 2. We have as good Scripture as Sectaries can lay claim to in every Point which they call Fundamental And with it the In Fundamentals we are at least equal and in controverted matter far superiour consent of Fathers also In other controverted matters we own the same Scripture they own And moreover have the sense of it Declared by this long standing Church wherin we infinitly surpass them Speak therfore of matters out of controversy or wherin all Agree we are at least equal with them And for others in controversy
Because the Church stand's for us there No Authority Allegeable contrary to the Church can be comparable to it can be no Competition Unles They render our Churches Testimony of no Force by substituting a greater in its place For their sense which is impossible Alas They want Principles to go about such a work And Therfore must Reduce all they talk against us to Fancy only 12. What I would say here may perhaps be more clearly Expressed Thus. If Sectaries have plain Scripture for Fundamentals we have it also and take along with it Those Fathers They Admit of If in Iudgement against Iudgement Spirit against Spirit other Matters now in Controversy They rely on their private judgement when they interpret Scripture our judgement That 's opposit is to say no more as good as Theirs If they plead by the Spirit of Truth working in them we might set our Spirit against Theirs And Ask whether's better Thus far we stand most evidently upon equal Terms with them Now be pleased to observe what I say They have not one plain text of Scripture nor one plain Testimony of any Council or Ancient Father wherby they can so much as Probably offer to Prove That Protestants have Nothing for Their sense of Scripture but Fancy the sense of Scripture owned by Catholicks is Erroneous in points debated between us And Beside the judgement of innumerable Fathers We have also The Authority of a whole learned Church that Approves our sense They have neither Church nor Scripture nor Councils nor Fathers for Theirs Let therfore the world Judge How far they are from convincing our sense of Scripture to be erroneous by any known or received Principle unles their Fancy enter in and pass for a Proof which we utterly Reject You will say If in all controverted matters we make so much of Church Why Church Authority is to be highly esteemed Authority There is no Disputing Against us For the Church will ever stand for its own Doctrin I answer And if we Value not of it so Highly But Admit of our Sectaries Glosses upon Their bare Word We are worse then mad when 'T is evident They cannot prove that sense to be erroneous by a stronger Principle Then our Church Authority is that denies the Errour The Church Therfore fortified with most solid proofs drawn from Scripture Councils Fathers and Tradition most justly stand's for itâ—s own Interpretation And hence I say Whatever Sectaries can allege against it will show it self an impertinency Though Cavils may be raised There is no Rational Disputing against it You have the Reason hereof already Because what ever Sectaries can lay hold on like a Principle or That wherby They may Attempt to prove the Catholick Interpretations fals will Appear more then feeble to stand against The long standing Authority of this one Holy and Catholick Church But of this subject more afterward in the following Discours 13. And thus much of our Protestants strange unsetled Religion And Vndeniable Apostasy both from Church and Scripture We shall se in the next Discours How They recede from Reason also In passing be pleased to take these few Considerations along with you 14. A Religion destitute of all Appearance of any Ancient A Recapitulation of the enormities of Protestant Religion Church to side and symbolize with As Protestants most evidently are Their Recours to the third of fourth first Ages is Ignotum per ignotius and no less and Vnproved then a Supposed whimsy A Religion which hath not one syllable of Scripture for it as 't is evident men of this Profession have not And because they ever glory in Scripture-proof I am forced to tell them They cannot produce one text for Protestancy without Their fallible Glosses if I wrong their cause let them speak out and shame me I 'll suffer the Affront yet fear it not But Remember I call for plain Scripture A Religion which never yet had one General Council to Confirm it no Vniversal Tradition to Warrant it not one Professour before Luther to Own it A Religion which holds the Belief of all Christians to have been Fals for a thousand years together And the Prelates misled by Errour who taught Christians for so vast a time A Religion whose Professours take upon them to Reform others Before They find Their own pretended Reformation arriv'd to any Shadow of Perfection who espy errors in a Church never Discovered Erroneous By Thousands more Ancient and Learned then They. A Religion which hath the very look of Haeresy turn it which way you will which opposeth all men And is opposed by the Rest of Christians which is setled on no other Ground But the bare Vnproved Word of those Vncommissioned Men that Teach it which Changes every year and hath no seeming Principle for a Ground of Constancy not one Motive to make it Rationally credible Such a Religion I say Dishonors God Injures Iesus Christ seduceth poor Souls and as unworthily as weakly stands out against that Ancient Roman Catholick Church which is every way Blamles unless faulty in This that it made Protestants Their Progenitors And the Rest of the world Christians If I here overlash in Asserting too much let our Adversaries come closely to any one Particular and vouchsafe fairly and rationally to make my Errour known THE THIRD DISCOVRS OF The Vnreasonable Proceding of Protestants in some chief Handled Points of Controversy Be pleased to observe what I shall Note Hereafter You shall ever find our Sectaries either sculking in Generalities or supposing what is to be proved or wording it by Scripture misinterpreted or finally making Controversies endles without Appealing to any other Iudge but Themselves THE FIRST CHAPTER Protestants are Vnreasonable whilst They seemingly hold a Catholick Church Distinct from the Roman neither known nor Designable by any 1. THis is an Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church And was Sectaries are required to point at a Catholick Church before Luther so three dayes before Luther deserted the Roman Faith My humble sute is That our New Men will pleas by a plain Designation I ask not for a Definition of the Church to point me out the True Church which then was or now is Holy and Catholick Protestants as I here suppose were not then visible in the world There were 'T is true Arians Pelagians Abyssins Graecians And perhaps some Remainder of Donatists with other Haereticks whether more or fewer Known Haereticks constituted not the Catholick Church yet the Article of our Creed was then true it import's not to our present Question Notwithstanding it is Evident That some Christians then living unanimously Professed Their Belief in a Holy Catholick Church My demand therfore is whether That Believed Article was then True or Fals If fals for want of a true Catholick Church Speak out plainly And say that Christians Believed a Church which then Really was not in Being If True The then Holy Catholick
to Observe these Three Things 1. If we Consider the Motive of Faith which is Gods Veracity what ever He Speaks little or great is with one and the same Respect and Profound Reverence to be Assented to And here is no Difference between Fundamentals and Others 2. If we speak of the Proposition One concerns the formal Object of Faith of Faith Herein also There is no Difference For no man can Believe a Fundamental Doctrin Sooner Then Not Fundamental unles the one as well as the Other be Sufficiently Proposed 3. If we The other relates to its proposal Speak of the Matter Revealed I have shewed Above That some Points in Themselves or Per se More Essentially Constitute Yea And more Conduce to Piety Then others But This makes no Distinction between The Third to the matter believed Fundamentals and not Fundamentals in the true sense of our Question Because the lesser as well as the greater Are upon Gods Testimony Equally Believed in every true Vniversal Act of Supernatural Faith wherby we say All is to be Assented to That God Reveal's CHAP. VI. Some Few Propositions of A late VVriter are Briefly Examined His Discours of Fundamentals Destroy's Protestant Religion 1. I Say Briefly For I leave much to be Answered Mr. Stillingfleets Propositions refuted by more Learned Adversaries One Proposition is The very Being of a Church doth suppose the Necessity of what is required to be Believed in order to Saluation Very good but what then Marry This followes If 't was a Church it Believed all Things Necessary before it Defined How comes it Therfore to make more Things Necessary by its Definition First A word ad Hominem Protestants Add to what They conceive Essential to a Church a company of new unproved Negative Articles They proceed not consequently to their Principles Protestants Have now a Church Essentially Constituted or Have not If not Protestancy is no Christian Religion If They have such a Church why do They Add to that which They Conceive to be the Essentials of it A Cluster of new Articles never owned by any Orthodox Society For example No Sacrifice no Purgatory no Transubstantiation c. Could they proceed Consequently to their Principles they should neither Deny a Sacrifice a Purgatory c. nor Assert them But hold them meer Parergons Because They have a Church Essentially founded without them Why therfore Do They either Deny or Affirm Why medle They at all with these Articles Why load They Protestancy with the Vnnecessary Burden of so many unproved Negatives when their Church hath its whole Being before these Negatives can be thought of 2. In Catholick Principles both the Proposition and Question are most Simple For we own more Essentials In Catholick Principles The Proposition and Question are more then simple then Sectaries Do and Therfore say As there was a Church in Being before any Word of Scripture was writ and consequently the Writing of Scripture Added no new Being to it Though it declared Things more Explicitly so in like manner The present Definitions of the Church Alter nothing of the Ancient Foundations of Faith But only declare more As Scripture when first writ altered not the Antecedent Churches Doctrin So the Church now Alters nothing of the Ancient Faith explicitly Christs Verities contained in Scripture and Tradition And this Power the Church ever Had in all Ages Mark well what is said here For it Clear's All the following Fallacies of our Adversaries Discours 3. A Second Proposition What ever Church own 's those things which are Antecedently Necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church And here They say we must Distinguish those Things in the Catholick Church which give it Being from those Things which are the Proper Acts of it as the Catholick Church Very true But the only Question They wave the Difficulty is How much precise Doctrin That is which gives Being to the Catholick Church This our Adversaries Content with a general Word of a Churches Being wave whilst Catholicks Catholicks say All that God Reveal's is Necessary to the Being of the Church say plainly All that God Reveal's and is taught by the Church as Revealed is so Essentially necessary to the very Being of it That not one Article can be rejected after a Sufficient Proposal Dare Protestants say thus much of Their Negative Articles No Purgatory no Real Presence no Sacrifice c. Or own these as Essentials of Their Church of Protestancy To that Distinction of the proper Acts of the Church And One is the due Administration of Sacraments from the Faith connaturally precedes the use of Sacraments Being of it I answer the Faith of Sacraments which Connaturally Preced's the use or exercise of them is most Essential to the Being of a Church and This Belief every true Christian Hath 4. A third Proposition The Vnion of the Catholick Vnity of the Church and the Agreement are the same Church depend's upon the Agreement of it in making the Foundations of its Being to be the Grounds of its Communion For the Vnity being intended to preserve the Being there can be no reason given why the bonds of union should extend beyond the Foundation of its BEING which is the owning the Things necessary to Saluation It is not worth the while to catch at these improper Expressions The Vnion of the Church Depend's upon the Agreement of it For Nothing certainly Depend's on it Self now the Vnion of the Church whether we speak of the Objective Doctrin or of Faith tending into that Doctrin is Essentially its Agreement Therfore Properly it Depend's not on Agreement But really is Agreement As truely as Vnum Verum and Bonum Are Ens à Parte rei Whence I Say Vnity is not intended to Preserve the Being of the Church as a Cause preserves its Effect For Vnity essential to the Being is The very Thing Preserved Vnity essential to the Being of a Church is the Thing preserved by Almighty God by Almighty God And therfore cannot Preserve an Antecedent conceived Being without Vnity But let this pass Consider what follows They say The Bonds of Vnion should not extend beyond the Foundation of the Churches Being c. Very good What is next This it is Whatsoever Church imposeth the Belief of other Things necessary to Saluation which were not so Antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Meer Talk without proof Church Break 's the Vnity of it and those Churches who desire to Preserve Vnity are bound therby not to have Communion with it so long as it doth so Here is little said less explicated and least of all Proved First they say not How much Doctrin precisely makes up the Catholicks extend not the unity of the Church beyond its Foundations for They Believe so much as God hath revealed and no more Churches Being nor shall ever tell us by their Principles 2.
or Commonwealth There is always an Agreement or Settlement in some great Matters before it Proceed to make new Laws yet 'T is not Common-wealths though antecedently setled may make new Laws consequent to say That the Agreement ought to be so Explicit in all Things in all Points in all particular Matters that nothing afterward can be Decreed anew It is Therfore sufficient That these new Laws Arise from some first solid Principles of that Common-wealth Antecedently setled in Being And if this be so They oblige as Much as the former Conventions Did when it was first setled Though they were not at all mentioned at the first Founding of the Common-wealth 20. Answerably Hereunto One may say Christ founded a Church Assisted as is here Supposed by a Spirit of Truth the Holy Ghost and first setled it upon some fewer Principles from which All other after-Definitions might Proceed or be Derived The The Church assisted by the Holy Ghost Derives new Definitions from its first Setlement Church thus Assisted Defines anew upon the former Setlement just as the Commonwealth makes new Laws upon its first Agreement Such Definitions Therfore because they Proceed from an Infallible Oracle call them yet new or old as you pleas Are as certain and of as great necessity to be Believed As those new Laws are Obligatory and of necessity to be Obeyed Here is one Disparity which is not to the Purpose Viz. That the Commonwealths Laws proceed from Human Authority The Churches Definitions from Divine Assistance Those oblige under a temporal The parity holds exactly Punishment These under Eternal But the Parity exactly Hold's thus far Those Laws were implicitly and virtually contained in the first grounded setlement of the Commonwealth These of the Church in the first setlement of Christianity Those may be called New These may be also called so Those become Necessary to be Obeyed These become Necessary New Laws are to be obeyed and new Definitions if any were are to be believed to be Believed Now further As no man Doubt's But That the Church may make new Laws in order to Obedience so none can but most Vnreasonably Doubt of its Power in Setting forth new Definitions It is very True Here may be much of a Quaestio de Nomine Whether They are to be called Old or New Because of their different Respects Relating to the first setled Vpon different respects these Definitions may be called either new or old Foundations of Christian Doctrin from whence They Proceed They may take a Denomination and be called Old Because Radicated in Those old certain Principles But if we consider them as more Ample Express and significant Declarations of Gods Eternal Truths They may without Offence or Clashing in the least with Church-Doctrin be called New Definitions Thus much is Briefly said to show how groundles our Adversaries Grounds are 21. But we will not leave the Difficulty Thus. To Answer therfore with more satisfaction Be pleased to note It is one Thing to own a Church perfectly Founded Two things to be noted and fully Instructed in all things Necessary to Salvation And an Other to suppose that all know explicitly what That Perfect founded Doctrin is which God will have to be believed as Necessary to Salvation This later Requires a clear Proposition made by some Oracle of Truth of the necessary Doctrin As is evident in Scripture it self For though I own all that Scripture saith to be True in the Sense intended by the Holy Ghost yet I must learn by a sure Teacher what it saith in a hundred difficil Passages 22. Now to Question Whether any thing which was not Necssary to Saluation may Afterwards become so Necessary that the not Believing it is Damnable c. I Answer The Question answered Nothing is now Necessary to Saluation After the Churches Definition which was not Necessary Before yea and Believed by the Apostles Themselves The ground of my Assertion is Because the Apostles immediatly Illuminated The Apostles the first and best knowing Masters of Divine Mysteries by Christ our Lord were made Partakers of His Divine Mysteries They had Primitias Spiritus the First Fruits of the Spirit Believed as we believe Taught as we Teach and never Delivered Doctrin contrary to the Church in After-Ages Hence Divines commonly Hold That the Church properly speaking The Church makes no new Articles of Faith but only declares more explicitly what was Anciently of Faith makes no new Articles of Faith But only Declares more Significantly and Expresly what Those well Instructed Masters of the Church Christs own Disciples Both Believed and upon several Occasions Taught others And here one Grand Cheat is to be taken Notice of Sectaries Think that All those Christian Truths which the Apostles Believed Explicitly are now Explicitly enough upon Record in Holy Writ It is an Errour Our Saviour as St. Iohn Testifies All that the Apostles believ'd is not explicitly in Scripture Cap. 21. v. 25. Did many Things which if writen in particular the whole World would not contain Might not then the Apostles also Believe many Things As a Sacrifice of Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory c. yea and Teach those Verities Though they were not so plainly Delivered in Holy Writ yet expresly enough But that Haereticks might Cavil at them 23. Here then is my Resolution which is most Catholick The Resolution Doctrin Christ our Lord Established a Church that is to Tell us Truth to the end of Ages This Oracle which Relies not on Gods written Word only But on the Vnwritten also undoubted Tradition answerable to Necessary Ocsions of new Haereticks rising up Or of Schism made in Christian Societies c. Often Proposeth more The Church useth clearer Terms in her Definitions Explicitly what the Primive Faith was And the Apostles Believed Not that it makes new Articles if we speak rigourously But proposeth the old ones again in more Clear and Significant Terms And how can Sectaries blame this Procedure when They without the Warrant of Gods Word written or unwritten Propose and Declare as They think the Ancient Sense of Scripture it self to their Hearers in a Hundred Passages Sectaries without Gods Word written or unwritten make new Definitions For example Christ said This is my Body They by A new Proposition Define This is a Sign of my Body Will they licence Themselves to Propose what they please out of Gods Word Already writ and Storm at a whole Church if it do so or Further Declare what was not Writ yet ever Believed Though perhaps not by all so explicitly as 'T is after the Churches clearer Definition The Church in this Proceeds upon a certain Principle indubitable Tradition Sectaries Have neither Tradition nor Scripture For what they Propose anew You se therfore whoever Pertinaciously Whoever Denies the Churches Definitions Denies the old believed Articles Denies the Definitions of the Church Denies not only the new Declared But the
Errors by pure Scripture Venture probably on such a VVork when you bave not so much as one VVord of Scripture that inables you to Advance a Proof against us Relying on these Grounds and firm Principles 15. We easily Solve another trivial Objection of Another objection solved of Scripture containing all Things Necessary Sectaries which is Scripture contains all Things Necessary to Saluation Therfore we need no new Definitions made by the Church I might say much less do we Stand in need of Protestants new Declarations forced on Scripture without a Church But y'le Answer in a Word Though Scripture contained all the Oral taught Apostolical Doctrin and what ever els is Necessary to Saluation which is Fals yet when we se with our Eyes that Sacred Book pittifully Abused by Haereticks not only Haereticks make Scripture useles in lesser Matters as They account of Them But in the very Highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith it must needs be a useles Book in Their Hands without an Infallible Interpreter And therfore cannot Decide Controversies nor Tell us what is Necessary to Saluation as I have largely proved Disc 2. Nay farther Some may justly Question It may be doubted whether an Angel could write a Book so plain of other High Mysteries which the vulgar would not misunderstand Whether if a very Angel writ a Book as full of other High Mysteries yet unknown to the World as the Bible now Contains And used his best Skill to Express Those Vertties in the most Clear and significant Language Imaginable Some I say may Doubt whether such a Written Book left only to the Private judgements of Those whole Multitudes who now read Scripture would not be misunderstood in a hundred Passages if no After Teacher Regulated the weak Readers of it in Their Difficulties or did not comply with the Duty of an Infallible Interpreter Therfore the Bible which is now Extant And contains the High Mysteries of our Faith often less clearly expressed much more need 's an Interpreter And perhaps the wise Providence of God would have it writ so on set Purpose that Christians should have Recours to a Living Oracle of Truth and Learn of it what They cannot Reach to by their own simple Reading You Church Doctrin is repeated again and Again None can be ignorant of it will say an Angel can write a Book as clear to all Capacities as the Churches Definitions are Very True What then That Book only once writ is left as we now Suppose to the Sentiments of private Ignorant Men as the Bible now is in Their Hands But God hath provided that the Churches Doctrin be not only once Delivered No. It is Laid forth anew it is implanted anew it is repeated and cast like good seed Again and Again into mens Harts and Memories by Faithful Pastors and Teachers who shall never fail the Church to the End of the World 16. A third objection The Churches Definitions Because Men declare them and all Men are Lyars cannot be Infallible and Therfore Ground no Faith Contra 1. Ergo Neither Sectaries Novelties Nor the General Doctrin A cleur Conviction of Sectaries owned by all Christians of one God and one Christ Becaus men Teach them And all are Lyars may yet be Fallible and Fals also Grant or Deny the Sequel you are Silenced Contra 2. If All are Fallible and consequently may be Lyars in what they Teach why Vent you my good Friends So many Negative Doctrins which may all be fals Truely if There be no Infallibility in the World you neither ought to Vapor as you do with your Inferiour Negatives not Blame our They Condemn Themselves whilst their Censure is Fallible Contrary Positives For in Doing so You condemn your own Iudgement and Advance no Proof against us Your Fallible Censure were our Church Fallible Goes not one Step above a tottering Fallibility And therfore is too faint to Oppose the Churches contrary Doctrin Though falfly Supposed Fallible Mark well I Our Churches Doctrin Though supposed fallible is as Good as Sectaries Confessed Fatliâ—â—e Doctrin must say it once more You Fallible men tell me That my Churches Doctrin is Fallible Admit of the Fals Supposition it is yet upon all Accounts as Good as yours or as This very fallible Affirmation is That says it's Fallible And if in real Truth it be Infallible it is much Better 17. One word more If Any People on Earth ought to stand for the Infallibility of a new Invented Religion The Abetters of Protestancy could they Proceed consequently should Do it Why They Deprive Men of their Estates cast them into Prison Bannish some Hang up Why Sectaries persecute Catholicks while Iewes are tolerated others And All this is Don Becaus poor Catholicks cannot in Conscience conform to a Religion that is Professedly Fallible and Vncertain Now if such Crueltly can be practized on Christians whilst Iewes And the worst of Haereticks are Tolerated to live quietly For a Thing that 's only Fallible and may as well be Fals as True we are The Reason is because we cannot believe a Religion That may be as likely Falsas True surely at an End of all good Discours grounded on Christian Principles What To Bannish us to Confiscate Mens Estates To Shed our Blood For a Religion That may be Fals when we Believe our Creed And Profess as much as these newer Sectaries make Essential to any Religion of Christians is to speak moderately an unheard of Severity Yet so it is They Do not Harrass us as they do Because we Believe in one God and one Christ or own a Doctrin common to all Christians For themselves Believe so much But Here is our supposed Mark well our supposed Crime Crime We cannot Assent to a Religion that may be Fals we cannot Subscribe to a Company of new Negative Nothings And Therfore we are lashed and Persecuted Nay and I 'll tell you a Wonder our Guilt goes not so High A wonder never enough to be admired For though we were in our very Harts Arians or As we are Catholicks yet if in the Exteriour we do as Sectaries do we are still lovely Children of the Church of England Learn Therfore this Truth it is Vndeniable All the Storms of Persecution Raised against us Are not upon any In real Truth we are persecuted because we will not be plain Hypocrits Account of want of True Faith But for this Sole Reason That we will not Believe one Thing and Force our Consciences to Profess an Other Which is to say We are Handled thus roughly Because we will not Dissemble with God and Man and become plain Hypocrits Herein only Lies our Trespas Iustus es Domine recta Iudicia tua Iudge you my God whether that no-offence Merit 's These Scourges 18. By what is now said You may easily Perceive That when Sectaries seemingly Bemoan our Blindnes God knows how much of The Grief lies at their
Harts And Tell us They have Done what is possible to Convert us to Drive us from Superstition Sectaries cannot say to what they would convert us And Draw us to the Purity of Their New Gospel They only give Words without Substance For to What would they Convert us Will They have us Believe the General Received Doctrin of all Christians We were Converted to this before Protestants Appeared in the World Do they desire to Convert us to a Belief of their New Negatives These are at most uncertain Inferiour Truths no way Essential to Christian Religion Put Our positive Doctrin weighed with Sectaries Negatives the case by a supposed Impossibility that our Contrary Positives were only Inferiour Truths like Protestants Negatives They might notwithstanding most justly hang in the Ballance with Them and would certainly outweigh Them Because a more Ample and Vniversal Church own 's Them All therfore They can Drive at when They Pretend to convert us is That We carry They only careser the exteriour form of Protestancy about Vs The Exteriour form of Protestancy in our Demeanour Though we still remain Catholicks in Hart They care not That is as I said now They would Convert us to be plain Hypocrits 19. From this and the precedent Discours it follows A Fallible Religion cannot defend it self That whosoever Embraceth a Fallible Religion which may be Fals can neither Defend his own nor impugn another upon any grounded Principle much less can He Persecute his Adversary to Death or Imprisonment Though He Nor the Professors of it persecute others mantain's a contrary Religion in like manner Fallible The Reason hereof is Clear Because The Defense of a Religion That 's Fallible And the opposition made against another Answerably weak and Fallible cannot go beyond the Strength The Reason is Evident of that last Ground wheron the Defense or Impugnation ultimatly resolved have their Footing But if the Religion be Fallible and uncertain The last Ground wheron the whole Machin either of Proof or Opposition stand's must needs be A Distastful opinative Conjecture Which without Certitude or Satisfaction is as A Defender of a Fallible Religion cannot preserve himself from Scorn unfit and forceles to Convince another of a contrary Belief as to preserve it self from the Scorn and Contempt of him though he profess no more but a Faith that 's Fallible Put the Case That a Pelagian and a Protestant are hard at a hot Dispute The Question proposed is Whether of these two Religions we suppose them both Fallible is the better With what Proof or Principle can this Fallible Protestant Assault his Fallible Adversary when He knows he cannot go one Step further then to what is purely Fallible If he interpret Scripture that 's Fallible if he Quote Fathers both They and He are Fallible if He cite Councils the Definitions with him are Fallible if He cry up his own Religion as having the Vpperhand in Probability He only throws his single vote into the Vrâ— which when 't is examined comes to no more But his Own Sic videtur or Self Fallible He can neither convince his Adversary nor persecute him but most unjustly Conceipt And Hence it follows That as He cannot Prove his Religion against his Adversary so He cannot but must unjustly Persecute him if he Refuse to Embrace that which cannot be Proved But most certainly his Proofs go not beyond the Bounds of Vncertainty and Therfore cannot oblige his Adversary to Believe him And Thus these two Combatants may wink and fight to the day of Iudgement without ending one Controversy or falling on any Thing like a certain Principle 20. I 'll say here a strange Word And think it very True Would A Learned Atheist write a large Volume An Atheist might say as much against God as against the Existency of God or A Learned Iew against Iesus Christ They might prove as much by a Roving fallible Talk Grounded on no Principles against These great Verities of Christian Faith as ever Protestant hath yet Proved against the Roman Catholick Church Protestants can say against the Roman Catholick Church For Their new Mode of writing is a long loos wearisom Discours without Reducing either Proof for their own Religion or Opposition made against Catholick Doctrin to Any Thing like a received Principle Mark this in all particular Controversies you will find meer uncertain Conjectures to be the last ground wheron either Their Proofs or Arguments Against us stand most unsetled Yet it should be Otherwise For whoever will venture to impugn a Religion That 's Held by the greatest part of Christians Infallible must strike Home and Reach to sound Principles Before He Touch it much less break it a Pieces Sectaries may say They are able at least to Defend Christian Religion in General owned Their Defense of Christian Religion in in general is to no purpose by all the World For the rest of Protestancy it may go whether you will Nec seritur nec metitur They are not solicitous My God are we come to this Pass now What must all the Disturbance of Sectaries their Schism and Rebellion made Against a Church their Glosses on Scripture And the whole Machin of Protestancy End thus in a Non Probatur it cannot be proved Is that only now asserted Defensible to wit the common Doctrin of all Christians That precisely taken is no mans Religion And Needs no Defense 21. Some other Objections yet remain But are all Solved upon the Principles now established One is If every Doctrin Defined by the Church be Fundamental the Church layes its own Foundations Contra There was Fundamental Faith in the Church before Scripture was writ Did Scripture Therfore lay New Foundations of Scripture Declared anew the Antecedent believed Doctrin of the Church Faith Because it Declared anew that Antecedent owned Doctrin Thus we Say the Church Declares the Ancient objective Faith of foregoing Christians ever implicitly at least Believed And not otherwise A second Objection less to the Purpose The Teaching Church either Believes in that Instant Sht Defines a thing Necessary to Saluation or doth not If She doth It was Necessary before the Definition newly made If not She Defines something Necessary to Saluation which was not before Necessary To answer the Objection I might ask whether St. Iohn when he writ this Proposition The Word is made Flesh Believed that Article of Christian Faith before he writ it or no If yes it was of Necessity to be Believed before If not He delivered something Necessary to Saluation which was not so before In one short Word Here is the solution to No Real Difficulty The Church at least Implicitly Believed before what The Church Believ's Implicitly before She Defines but more Explicitly after for her own Definition it Defines yet may and doth more Explicitly Believe the same Mystery in that very Instant She Defines Because God Speak's that Truth more clearly
Authority have force to weaken our Churches Doctrin Nothing Therfore less Then The Clear and Vnanimous Consent of These Ancient Worthies truly Pillars of our Church can be Admitted of as a Received Principle We stand to this and the other now named Principles Thus much Premised we pass on to the Trial of Protestants Proofs CHAP. IX Protestants Cannot make Good Their Charge Against the Roman Catholick Church Concerning Causal Schism 1. THe Assertion saith thus Much. There neither is nor can be Proof against the Roman Catholick Church wherby it is made Guilty of Errour And Therfore none can Rationally Say That this Church was or is The cause of Schism in Protestants The Reason Hereof is best laid forth in these Few Words Proofs against Proofs fail when Principles are wanting this Church cannot But Fail when Received Principles are wanting to Support Them But Received Principles are Here evidently wanting To Sectaries in Their Charge Against our Church Therfore Their Proofs must Fail and Consequently when they are Resolved can come to no more but to meer Proofles Calumnies 2. To Show you That all Principles Fail them in This Matter You shall Se how Ingeniously we Proceed We Licence our Adversaries to make Vse of all the One plain Dealing with Sectaries Principles which the whole Christian World Own 's as Vndoubted Will They Please to have Recours to well Grounded Reason to plain speaking-Scripture without Glosses to the Vnanimous consent of Fathers or Definitions of Councils and Vniversal Tradition We are contented And will Acquiesce All we seek For is to Exclude Their own Proofles Word from entring in as a Received Principle You Se here is Liberty Enough And The Liberty given Them we Allow it withall Petition Them for Almighty Gods sake That they will Vouchsafe to Deal candidly with us And take to any One or More of These now named Principles and Dispute closely in Form Either Provided they will Dispute in Form by Syllogisms or That known shorter way of Enthymems By this Procedure we shall se the Rise and Progress of their Discours the Validity of Their Arguing whether it be Convincing and Finally rest on a Received Principle or contrarywise Lame and Deficient Reason is reason to all sorts of men and Though we are Papists we yet know well what Reason and Evidence is May it therfore Pleas our new Doctors to Begin with that Common Principle to us both of Holy Scripture Their Argument if to the Purpose cannot But be much to this Sense What Scripture saith is true But Scripture saith The Roman Catholick Church is at least lyable to Errour Ergo it may Their Argument from Scripture Ends after the First Syllogism err We deny the Minor And Expect a Second Syllogism to Prove it which Shall be more Fumbling and Proofles Then this very Minor that is Fals. I am so confident of this my Assertion That I in treat our Adversaries to Go on in Form And Prove Their Minor if Their Cause be good the Labour is not great And let us have the Honor to Answer Them Again They may Argue What Ancient Councils Define And And will be as Forceles if drawn from Fathers Holy Fathers unanimously Teach is True But These Say the Catholick Church of Rome Hath Erred or can err Ergo. We here Deny The Minor Also which shall never be Proved by a second Syllogism either Evidently or Probably In the mean while And let Them Remember so much Their Formal Schism is not only probable But Evident Though the Proofs fall short to Evidence the Pretended Cause of it 3. Some Perhaps will Say This way of Arguing doth not the Deed. No. They will go Otherwise If they will come to particular Controversies to work and Descend to Particular Controversies And shew us how Council hath Contradicted Council How Transubstantiation Purgatory Praying to Saints worshiping of Images c. are late Novelties Introduced into our Church Here They Hope to have us upon an Advantage And With such Doughty Doings They are able to make our Church Guilty of Causal Schism And Acquit Themselves of the Formal Crime Observe a Shuffling And Know Before we Catholicks are like to get a Sight of our Evidenced Errours We must Travel far And run over All those long Worn-out Controversies which have Troubled the world And to no Purpose For a Hundred years and More However we are Content We are willing may it pleas them to Dispute in Form and bring Arguments to Principles May it Pleas our Adversaries first to begin with one particular Controversy And so closely to follow the Matter by a continued Arguing in Form That at last They bring their Discours to a sure Owned Principle But I well Foresee Because Conscious of their want of Principles to ground a Convincing Discours on They 'l not Hear to this Proposition Therfore to leave Them without Excuse I 'll Propose another way Another way proposed Which every man shall judge most Reasonable Let them vouchsafe at least to Set down Plainly one of Their Protestant Tenents conrrary to our Catholick Doctrin For Example Transubstantiation is a New Invented Opinion lately brought into the Roman Church And then So closely to Give us the last and strongest Grounds They have for the Assertion without long tedious Discourses that nothing Appear superfluous Much may be said in a little compas Their Vndoubted Scriptures if any be aâ— Hand Their Ancient Councils Their consent of Fathers Their Ancient Tradition And which I highly Value of some Ancient Orthodox Church Authority Must of Necessity enter here to Vphold their Assertion if 't be Defensible This Don. I 'll Engage to The Authors Engagement Place against what ever Sectaries Allege The contrary Proofs of our Catholick Religion for Transubstantiation And Add to them the Testimony of our Learned Church And if These put in just Ballance or compared with the Other Do not in the Judgement of every Disinteressed Scholler Quite Outweigh all that Protestants can say Against us I 'll here Promise never to Trouble them more with Controversies But if on the Otherside you evidently find These men after all their Noise of introduced Novelties so cut of from Proofs so profoundly silenced That They cannot What will appear by this way of trial bring to light so much as one Passage of Scripture nor one Ancient Council nor the Vnanimons consent of Fathers no nor one clear Sentence of a Father And least of All Any Ancient Orthodox Church contrary to our Doctrin or that Plainly and Positively Defends Theirs You will I Hope Bear with me if I say once more Their new Opinion Relies on Fancy And that I Mistook not when I called this Treatise Protestancy without Principles I say that Positively Defends their Doctrin For I would have Them Know Their Negative way of Arguing We Read not forsooth of the Word Transubstantiation will if it Appear once more on Paper look
Succession of Their Church of Their Bishops of Their Pastors by virtue of any Immemorial Tradition Let Sectaries must solve Their own Argument them also Vouchsafe to give in that Title wherby They lay claim to a Possession of Truth What ever is Allegeable for the One or Other whether it be Tradition Scripture or Fathers will suffer more Contradiction from innumerable Called Christians then the least Article if any were little of our Catholick Faith Therfore they must Solve their own Argument The Reason is If they plead Traditioin for a continued Succession of a Protestant Church ever since Christ the whole Christian World yea even Protestants themselves Oppose the Paradox If Their Plea for Pure Protestancy be Scripture They 'l meet with as many Adversaries Having not one Syllable for it in Gods Word If finally They make a Belief Common to all Christians to be Their Essential Faith None likes the Doctrin Both Friends and Enemies Catholicks and Haereticks stand against them Therfore I say once more They must solve Their own Objection The Argument is solved 6. Now you shall have my Answer And I say An Argument That Drawes all the Force it has from the Opposition of Enemies And They were all known Opposition of Hereticks no proof against it Haereticks that Opposed our Catholick Tradition Destroys not only Evident Truths but also Impugn's Christ and Christian Religion Atheists make Objections Against God Jewes Against Christ yea And the very Instance now allowed of supposeth some wilful Zelots contrary to the common received Tradition of so many Monarchs undoubted Succession You Christian Truths meet with Adversaries He that will side with such Opponents shall at last desert Christianity se Therfore How weak this way of Arguing is Believe it There is no one Christian Verity but hath its Adversaries Therfore the Man that will Side with such Opponents and Cavil also Because a Company of Dismembred and jarring Sectaries Do so must look how He striks lest he cut to deep and Wound those He would not hurt For at last He shall be forced to shake of the very name an Notion of a Christian I 'll say in a word what is more amply laid forth Disc 1. Chap. 7. n. 4. 5. We have an Ancient Church against these Scattered Companies of Novellists A Church united in Doctrin Against their Iarrs and Endles Dissentions A Glorious Church manifested by such Marks and Motives as made the world Christian And these plead against Their Vnevidenced Opinions Finally we have most certain Tradition against their uncertain Guesses Vpon such Proofs which cannot be shaken we stand Therfore unles our Adversaries beside the Multitude of Opponents bring rational Proofs against our Possession which Rest at last upon undeniable Principles We are safe and cannot be Danted Alas The meer Number of known Enemies without Evidence Clamours of known Enemies without a rational Trial. Proofles to warrant what is Pretended Seem's much like unjust Clamours in a Disordered Common-wealth Loud 'T is true but as Sensles as Loud when Reason ought to have place and plead the Cause by Proofs and Principles Therfore we Appeal to Principles may They bear Sway we are content if not We told you Above Though as many Hereticks rise up against us As there are Atheists opposite to God And Iewes to Christ We Regard them not if they come Vnarmed and only Fight by the Votes of their own Scattered and Devided Companies But enough is said of this Subject in the Discours now Cited 7. Here I 'll only Add one Consideration more And it is to Assure our Adversaries Though They run to pass't Ages that is the whole world Over and Gather all the Votes of Enemies either against the Possession or the Ancient Tradition of our Church They only give us a Number of jarring Suffrages which bound up together cannot Amount to a weak Probability A weak probability though granted cannot clear Sectaries from Schism However Let Truth suffer Suppose them weakly Probable is this enough think you to warrant Sectaries Foule Schism Is here Ground enough to Iustify an Evident Divorce made from an Ancient Church wherin Their Ancestours Lived peaceably time out of mind Age after Age without Trouble and Disturbance No. All is improbable For what ever is less then Evidence Grounded on sure Principles will shew it self to be as it is a Proofles Cavil Against so long prescription and immemorial Possession of our Ancient Faith 8. Some may yet Reply All that 's Said hitherto An Objection Shows only a Personal Succession of Popes Prelates Pastors and People in foregoing Ages But is far from Proving the main point in Controversy They mean a full and quiet Possession of Truth which we make so Hereditary to These Popes and Bishops Descending from St. Peter That it was never lost This They say is to be Proved I Answer We are yet obliged to prove nothing For the very Testimony the Vnanimous When the Church gives in Her Evidence Sectaries are to Disprove it Consent the Constant Tradition of our united and learned Church without more are most pregnant Arguments as well for the Possession of Apostolical Truth laid claim to as For the Personal Succession of our Catholick Pastors Therfore unles Sectaries can weaken this Plea by a Contrary Evidence more strong then our Churches Tradition is and then the Proving is incumbent on them we stand firm upon our Olim Possideo which cannot be shaken I say by a contrary Evidence Stronger then our Churches Testimony and Tradition Speak now it 's your time of Proving What have you to Alledge against This sole Want of Principles makes Sectaries Cavils improbable Consent and Tradition Is it Scripture Produce it And we are silenced if not Vouchsafe to Hold your Peace Hereafter Have you the Consent of Fathers or Ancient Councils to make your cause Good against our Pleading Tradition and the Ancient Possession of Truth with it No. Examen These learned Volums you 'l not find one clear sentence favoring your unjust Process Against a Church That made your Progenitors Christians What then Remains Sectaries own Votes as weightles as the Arians to Scare us with But your own-self Simple Votes and if these Cast as it were in A ballance Against our Ancient Possession can out weigh it and so Deprive us of our Right The Arians long since had Destroyed us all for Their Votes were as weighty as united as yours Yes and more numerous 9. Well Though we are not Obliged to prove A Few Proofs briefly hinted at though we are not obliged to prove what both Tradition and our Ancient Possession Convince I 'll yet Hint most briefly at a few Proofs in Behalf of our just Possession First it is an undeniable Verity that Christ founded a Catholick Church And 'T is as Evident Sectaries Confess it that He invested the Roman Catholick Church in an Ancient Possession of Truth 2. It is an undoubted Verity
that Christ Christ Abandoned not the Church He Founded never abandoned the Church He founded For He told us Hell gates should not Prevail against it He gave Assurance of his being with us to the end of the world The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. If therfore Christ stood to his Word and once established the Roman Catholick Church in Truth it is Orthodox still and Preserved in Truth by His special Assistance 3. It is an Evident Verity that God whose Providence never Failed his Church could not permit this Ample and Ancient Moral Body of Catholicks to Cheat the world by its pleading a Possession of Truth if 't had none for a thousand years together when which is deeply to be Pondered there was not any A Truth well to be Pondered other sound Church on Earth for so vast a time to Teach Christians the Orthodox Faith of Iesus Christ 4. We have our quiet Possession Acknowledged by innumerable Votes of most learned Fathers 5. And 'T is a Greater Proof For nothing Scripture excepted can Parallel it The Testimony and warrant of this Ample Catholick Society carries with it our Evidence no less for an actual Prescription Then for the Right and Title of our long pleaded and enioyed Possession And who can suppose that all those Innumerable Professors of this learned Church by whom this Evidence was conveyed Age after Age were all besotted or deluded with Errour 6. And 'T is an Evident Demonstration No Ancient or modern Church reputed Orthodox by the Christian World ever so much as Quarrelled with the Roman Catholick Church or once No Orthodox Church Ever censured us for the want of a just Possession Questioned the Right of Her Possessing Ancient Truths delivered by Christ and his Apostles none Censured it none Condemned it upon any supposed want of a most just Possession but only Known and Professed Hereticks And to these our English Schismaticks Adhere An Inference grounded on these Proofs with these And no other They side If therfore The Foundations of our Church were once laid firm by Christ If He stand to his Promise Expressed in Scripture If his Assistance Fail not the Church Once Established by him If God could not 〈◊〉 this great Moral Body to Deceive Christians by Pleading a Possession of Truth when it had none And when there was no other Orthodox Church to deliver Christian Verities to the world If Finally The Authority of our Church And the Testimonies of most Ancient Fathers may speak in our Cause And this Convincing Proof also have place None Ever Gainsaid our Ancient Possession But know and condemned Hereticks We may well Hope to silence our Adversaries at present or if these Perswasive Reasons with many other Insisted on Hereafter Become insignificant to Their Obdurate Harts when They can not speak a Reasonable word Against our Evidences what shall we Do But Commiserate Their Condition You se How roundly I deal with Sectaries cannot Answer our Proofs Them And say They cannot speak a probable Word Against These Positive Proofs Though whilst we plead Possession it is their Task to Prove who are the Accusers And Charge Heresy on us 10. Observe therfore If they say our Saviour What They are to Prove once setled not the Roman Catholick Church in Truth They are to Prove it If they say He violated His Promise And preserved not the Church He founded in Perpetual Truth They are to prove it If They say We misunderstand the Scriptures now cited They are to Prove If They say our Catholick Church cheated the world for ten whole Ages together by pretending Possession of Apostolical Verities when it had none They are to Prove If they say our Church was once Sound in Faith but failed Afterward They are to Prove And withal Distinctly to point at some other Orthodox Christian Society that Succeeded in the place of the Roman Church now falsly Supposed Fallen into Errour And This will give Sectaries work enough Again If They Slight The Authority and Testimony of our Church Evidenced by most glorious Miracles And other Illustrious Marks of Truth They are to give in Lieu of that a more Valid Testimony a stronger Authority For Their Pretenses which is impossible If Finally They Talk of any Orthodox Church That plainly Censured or Condemned the Roman of Errour and Heresy And Herein we Vrge Them to speak to the Cause the Proof lies still on their side or if they Prove not Believe it our OLIM POSSIDEO is impregnable The Presciption and clear Evidence of a long quiet Possession are our wall of Defence not to be battered or Beaten down by Calumnies 11. Thus much premised You shall se in Brief How The Objections of our Adversary shewed forceles all comes to Nothing Wherwith This late Writer too weakly Oppugn's our Ancient Possession who After His Telling us Part 3. c. 5. Page 627. That the Proof lyes upon us He gives this Reason And let it be His first Objection 12. They who Challenge full and quiet Possession by vertue of immemorial Tradition and succession from Their Ancestours ought to produce the CONVEYANCE of that Tradition from him who alone could invest them in that Possession Mark these Mysterious Words Ought to produce the Conveyance of that Tradition from him c. What signifies This Had He said They ought to Produce a Conveyance warranting the Possession of Truth to be in their Church we would have sent Him back to the Proofs Already Alledged And Here only Insisted on our Tradition But to Demand for a Conveyance of our very The Efficacy and force of Tradition Tradition which is either by it self it s own most manifest and clear Conveyance or must be proved by another clearer Tradition And so in Infinitum Tend's Methinks a little towards Non-sense Truely I know not what the man would be at Would He Have us Think ye to Produce a Letter written by Christ Iesus for Conueyance Here must Signify Charta or No Charter or writ stronger then Tradition Instrumentum wherby it may Appear that the Tradition of our Church is Sound and Orthodox This would signify just Nothing Becaus Sectaries might more justly Cavil at such a writing And say it is Forged Then they can now Except against the greatest Testimony Imaginable of a whole Learned Church that must Give Credit to this Writing if 't have Any Therfore He who can Doubt of this Attestation of a The Reason far Extended Church May more Rationally Doubt of the Writing it self Though it were now actually laid before our Eyes to Read Se more of This Subject Above Chap. 7. n. 7. 8. Perhaps our Adversary will say we are to produce Scripture if not for The Conveyance of our Tradition at least for the Possession of Truth we pretend to I Answer This is now Don Our Proofs are Already given n. 9. 10. where I Tell you that Christ founded the Roman Catholick
the Plea of Possession and be tryed by the Law I Answer It 's a strange Piece of an Argument The Question ought not to be removed from the Plea of Possession And say it must not be removed Vnles you can Show by your Logick That when A Man hath two Good Proofs for a Verity He ought not to make use of both but is to Content Himself with the one only Thus it is We prove the Churches Infallibility by significant Scripture as a Possessor Bonae Fidei proves the Right to His Lands by his Ancient Writings And An Instance as He Add's to His Writings a just Possession So we plead Also Possession in our Case Why therfore should we throw Away this second proof taken from Possession unles An Evident Law Come Against it which we expect from you but Fear it not Sir you Possess a Benefice And can if need be show How you came by it whether it be a Writing or some Thing equivalent it Imports not You have beside the Possession of it Suppose now Any One would Endeavour to Disturbe you or Doubt of your supposed Right You would Plead both These Titles Would you not Answer This and your Objection is solved 17. A Fifth Objection page 628. Lyes I know not How wrap't up in twenty Obscurities It is much to This sense We must prove that there is no other way to Interpret the Law of Christ but by our Church Withall That the Church cannot come into a Possession of Any Thing but what was Originally Given Her by the Legislator Mark upon what Duties we are Sectaries put us on Duties which they cannot Comply with Put. We must prove And by the â—aw For Here is the last Trial with These men that our Church Interpret's faithfully whilst They sit Down speechles as it were in their own Cause And must not prove That their Church Interpret's better Moreover Note also by the way How the whole Question is The Question is removed from the Law to Interpretations now removed from the Law and comes to This Issue whether Our Interpretation or Theirs be more Conformable to Gods Word Most certainly Their Interpretation is worth little becaus confessedly fallible And Therfore Proceed's not from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost As is Amply Declared The proof lies on our Adversaries Disc 2. c. 9. n. 7. 8. 9. where we propose the Difficulty And Prove That One Only Oracle Christs own Spouse which is Assisted by the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture Infallibily Now if our Adversary Except's Against our Scriptures And Reasons there Alleged The Task of Proving will ly on Him For He must either Prove That our Proofs are Proofles or That His Far surpass them in worth And a clearer Evidence And He will find an Insuperable Difficulty in Both. All I say now is Though the Interpretation of our Church were Fallible it is as good as yours And if we respect its Age which gives some Preheminence it may be Accounted much better We have largely Answered to the other part of the Objection in the whole first Discours And Proved that the Church cannot Come into the Possession of Any Doctrin but what is Allowed of by the Legislator It 's otherwise A fallible Church may boldly Err. I am sure with your Church which becaus Fallible may Alter when and as often As Sectaries Pleas. To end Our Adversary Should have known that the Matter now Debated Depend's not Immediatly on the Churches Infallibility for Here is our Immediate Plea The Church was Once true And ever since its first Foundation Pleaded Constantly this quiet Possession of Truth Ergo unles that first ground be shaken And this Pleading Possession be Evidently Disproved it ought to be supposed true still And thus You se how the obligation of Proving lyes irremovably on our Adversaries 19. There yet Remain some other wordy Objections but I wave them becaus They are solved And in real Truth are meer Suppositions and no Proofs Sometimes They will Have Tradition to be Proved which is its Own manifest Proof Sometimes They tell us that a bare Possession in matters of Religion is a sensles Plea They suppose we have no more Somtimes that we are plainly the Imposers And They Not Aggressors And both are supposed I pass these and now hasten to one Objection more solved in a Third Proposition CHAP. XII An other Objection And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism 1. SOme may Argue further And say we have A simple Objection hitherto Supposed a Wrong Principle Viz. That our Errours are to be shewed us Evidently which is not so For it is Enough to make them known by strong Moral Proofs These sufficiently Convince us as Guiltly And Clear Them of the crime of Schism Neither can we have stronger Arguments Then moral in this Matter Becaus Principles of Faith are not Evident in Themselves All Discours Therfore built on Them must Fall short of Metaphysical Evidence Observe in Passing If our Protestants As They think Bring strong moral Arguments Against our Supposed Errours We give Them As Good as They Bring And clear our Cause by as strong good moral Solutions to those Arguments They say the one and we the other Who must be Believed Or Who must Judge here And if Again They hold themselves by Force of such moral Proofs Acquit of Schism which all Sectaries Pretend to we Charge it again on them By far more valid Arguments Who Iudges now Who is to be Believed Neither of us yet For Hitherto we only Talk without Principles Yet the Catholick hath his Principle in Readines A LONG ANCIENT POSSESSION now insisted on The Catholick Answer founded on a certain Principle which is eleven Points of the Law But By what good Law do our Protestants take this Right from him or Turn him out of Possession By what strong moral Proof grounded on an undubitable moral Principle can They convince us of Errours and clear Themselves of Schism I 'll Tell you and 't is a Truth They have neither We would Gladly Hear of Protestants Proofs against us reduced to sound Principles Proof nor Principle to rely on But their own Proofles word If I wrong them They can Right Themselselves and convince me by good Arguments in Form To what is Added of the Vnevidence of Faith I Answer Though the Principles Therof For example the Words of Scripture or the Definitions of Councils want Metaphysical Evidence in themselves Becaus only revealed Principles of Faith once admitted of may ground a certain Conclusion Truths Yet They are certain And once Admitted of as Certain can Ground a Discours which if well Deduced need 's no more to Faulter or Deviate from good Form then if we Argued out of Euclid's Principles Thus much per transennam Now to answer the Argumen Home Here is 2. My Third Proposition Protestants Cannot so much as Probably Acquit Themselves of Schism nor Probably impeach
cannot be Parallell'd with the Imperceptible Graynes of a beard with Tares peeping up c. However This we can say Certainly so many years since the beard was not gray now it is So many Months since Tares were not now they are Let our Adversaries Proceed with like Evidence against us and say Certainly not doubtfully such Supposed Errours Then were not in the Church but afterward Began and within the precise Compass of so many years But This They cannot probably Hint at The last Instance of a childs Conception is the worst of All For if you know its Birth you know the conception was nine Months before according to the ordinary cours of nature Though if both were hid from us it is a Forceles instance Vnles we suppose that all Trivial Matters must as well be known and stand upon Record as Things of greatest Concernment The late woful Burning of London will I 'll warrant it be Exactly Recorded when the birth of twenty Infants is never thought on and so should the General Ruin of Faith in a whole Church have stood Registred 8. One word more Though These Examples were Could Sectaries shew how such changes might enter the Church that proves not they entred to the Purpose as indeed They are not at most they would only shew and Pittifully enough How such supposed changes might perhaps be made But are far from Proving They were made so De facto For this carries no likely-hood of an Argument with it I 'll Shew you how These Errours might Enter the Church insensibly How these Changes might get in with Silence Ergo it was so Thus they were made De facto A Potentiâ ad actum non valet Consequentia No man can Argue from a An Inference from a meer Possibility to The Act is Null meer Possibility of their Clancular Entrance that in real Truth They entred in Such a manner Sectaries may say They Suppose these changes made upon other Principles And now only shew by Instaâ—â—es How They might get in without Noise and publick Notice Here we may have plain Dealing if it please our Adversaries Shew you Therfore My Good Friends by any Thing like a Solid Proof or Principle That the change we now speak of was Actually made in the Church Say plainly This Supposed Novelty was not in such an Age but afterward And let a solid Proof make good both Their examples neither Prove these pretended novelties introduced nor suppose them proved by any known Principle Assertions And then Your Instances of Tares and Beards growing gray will be to no purpose Because the Changes which you say were made are now upon your Supposition strongly proved Aliunde That is By other solid Grounds and this without the help of these weak instances Here therfore is an Vnanswerable Dilemma for you You either endeavour to show that the Supposed Novelty of the Real Presence entred the Church Because your Examples of Tares and a clock index convinceth the Actual Entrance of it And This Inference as I said now is Non-sense Thus it might Enter Ergo thus it did Enter Or Contrarywise You can clearly Prove that the Church began such a Novelty by undeniable Grounds without Protestants make their own Instances impertinent and forceles depending of these Instances If you do this solidly your instances are worth nothing For if you Convince by an undeniable Principle that the Church brought in this new Doctrin in any Age you need not at all to talk of a gray beard or of Tares peeping up insensibly Because you must now suppose the pretended innovation clearly Proved by other far better and undeniable Grounds Do this and you make your own Instances Eo ipso Null and as impertinent as Forceles For Most An Instance against Them surely No man in his wits will go about to prove that Protestancy for Example came into the world insensibly as a board grows Gray when he can evidently Demonstrate by other undeniable Principles the Palpable Beginning of it And thus it is in the present Controversy 9. One may yet say They cannot 'T is true Demonstratively Evidence the supposed change now in Controversy yet are able upon strong Moral Their pretense to make Novelties in the Church to be highly probable is more then improbable Proofs to make it highly Probable Contra 1. If you make it highly Probable Talk no more of Tares and Beards For one Proof of this nature will be of more Advantage to your cause then the secret peeping up of a Thousand weeds in a garden Contra 2. If this your Assertion be made probable it must stand upon a strong Moral certain Principle wherof none can but most imprudently Doubt Deal Candidly Give us in plain language this High Moral certain Principle wheron your Assertion hath Footing and you 'l Gain much But if after the Offer you Turn us of with words or lead us by a loos Discours to what you may say is Morally Certain Though thousands more learned vow the Contrary you 'l only First Discredit your self and next your Cause much more Speak plainly on Gods Name Here is place for it Make your undoubted Principle known wherby your Assertion is proved And you will do more then Ever Protestant did yet or shall do Hereafter Contra 3. It is a meer whimsy to suppose Proofs highly probable against This ever Taught and unchangeable Doctrin of the Catholick Church which stand's Firm First upon Christs own Express words No proof can be probable that stands against undeniable Principles This is my Body 2. On the Irrefragable Authority of so many most Ancient Fathers that speak not only Dubiously of the Mystery But as clearly Defend it as the Council of Trent Defines it wherof more largely Hereafter To These Principles We Add the Testimony and Express Belief of our whole Learned both pass't and present Roman Catholick Church Too strong a Proof to be Battered or shaken by Empty words Wherfore Every one may Consider what a hard Task Sectaries have in hand if They go about to make Their Contrary Assertion highly Probable First They are Obliged It will be hard to find an Orthodox Christian Society of greater Authority then the Roman Catholick Church to Prove and by a sure Principle That Christ spake improperly or according to Their sense 2. That all or at least most of the Fathers Erred in their Doctrin of the Blessed Sacrament 3. That They quite Overthrow the Roman Catholick Doctrin by the Authority of some other Church that was ever Held by Christians more Orthodox and Apostolical then our Roman Church is All this is to be don not by Talk But by Sober Solid and Vndeniable moral Principles which both Friends and Enemies ought if They be Rational to acknowledge as Principles Morally Certain When Sectaries shall pleas to do what is here plainly required And it must be performed if they speak pertinently Then I shall begin to think That They meer
so much as Probably shew That They have mended the Matter or set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations as it once stood pure It is therfore a most Discomfortable Reformation which only Tell 's us of our being Out of the high Rode of Truth Vnles the Reformers lead us and this with Assurance into the unerring way from whence we Strayed If This be not Don it follows upon the Supposition That both They and Their pretended Reformation most discomfortable We are yet pittifully Out and Therfore both of us must look after some third Guide to Reduce us 16. Now that Protestants are utterly unable to perswade any Rational man That they have exactly brought Christian Faith to its Ancient Purity is more then Evident Sectaries have nothing like a Principle wherby their Reformation is proved Probable It is one thing to say we have Erred and an Other to prove that they are Right For beside Their own bare Word which is worth little They have nothing like a Principle neither Scripture Councils nor Fathers to Ground a probable Discours Pertinent to that Purpose For None of These ever Knew what a Protestant was It is True They Pretend Though God knows to little Purpose That Scripture Councils and Fathers are against our Errours But it is one Thing slightly to tell us we have Erred and an Other solidly to Prove that They are Right and have broughr Christian Faith hitherto much Tainted to its Ancient Purity This last is the only Difficulty And I Conjure Them as They will give an Account of their Religion to Almighty God without Tergiversation or Far-fetch't Discourses Directly and Clearly to Solve it The Proposition to be Proved and Positively What They are obliged to prove is Thus. Protestants Becaus they will be Reformers are every way Right in Their Faith from which Faith Catholicks have Swerved Observe it You shall never have They can give no direct Answer to the Difficulty a direct Answer to chis Difficulty They may tell you Catholicks have Erred They follow Scripture Their Rule of Faith is what was Delivered in the first Primitive Ages and They know that better then Papists Do. They Hope all is well with Them c. And thus They I put you of with Empty Words But to Prove Solidly that Proposition is impossible Believe it Those Bonzies of Iapan had more Plausible Proofs to defend their Pagods and Impugn Christianity Then our Adversaries have to Evidence Protestancy to be the Primitive Faith and impugn the Now-standing Catholick Roman Religion CHAP. XIV A VVord to a Few Supposed and Vnproved Assertions VVherby Some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism 1. THeir first Proposition There is no Society of Mr. Stillingfleet Christians of any one Communion but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to The Assertion is Fals in Protestants Principles unles it be granted that their ample Catholick Church can destroy Christianity the general Foundations of Christian Society I Answer If the Assertion fall on That Imagined Vniversal Catholick Church more Ample then the Roman which must be a Society of Christians of one Communion it is Fals in Protestant Principles Vnles they say That this great Catholick Church can Impose Things to be Belieued or repugnant to the general Foundations of Christianity Again if it Relate to the Roman Catholick Church it is a meer unproved Fancy of their own For This Church as is largely shewed Defends its Infallibility by Proofs as Certain as the Common Grounds of Christianity are Be it how you will You have here our Adversaries Acknowledgement That their particular Church of Protestants may impose Things Contrary to the Grounds of Christianity Protestancy becaus Fallible may Impose Things repugnant to the Grounds of Christianity And this I easily Believe without further Proof 2. The 2. Proposition There being a Possibillity acknowledged that particular Churches may require Vnreasonable conditions of communion the Obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable But only so far as nothing is required Destructive to the ends of Christian Society The The Author of the proposition sure enough supposeth himself fit to judge what is Destructive No Protestant can avouch so much as probably wherin the Church hath imposed Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants Profess them selves Fallible in all They Teach Assertion if I mistake not Supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to be only a particular Church Deficient and lyable to Errours which is not yet so much as probably Proved and Therfore I say the Obligation to Communicate with it is Absolute and Indispensable But let us wave this at Present and contrary to Truth Imagin That this Church hath imposed Vnreasonable conditions Destructive of Christian communion c. We Ask Again and very seriously who are They that can Mend the matter in case it hath Don so Or who dare Avouch by the Force of any received Principle that Such and Such particular Conditions imposed on Christians are Vnreasonable Where are the Equitable and infallible Iudges appointed by Almighty God to Decide in so weighty a Matter Are they Protestants No. It is impossible Hear my Reason If the Church hath Erred by imposing such Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants who Profess themselves Fallible in All They say may Err More Yea And spoil all whilst They go about to set Things Straight However if They dare Venture on so difficile a Work And therfore may more likely spoil Then mend what they Conceive Amiss They are First obliged to Prove And this not by Talk But by undeniable Principles That just so Far our Church Err's so Far it requires Vnreasonable Conditions of Communion And next That They the Illuminated men of the World have don no more But exactly Cancelled the Errours of our Church leaving all untouched that is not Destructive to the ends of Christian Society For we must believe They are the skilful Masters that always hit Right Though confessedly Fallible You shall sooner draw pure Gold out of meer dross Then get any Thing like a Tolerable Proof from these men to countenance One of these Desperate Assertions Alas They only Word it without Proof As Arians and Nestorians Do. And here is All you Have from Them 3. The 3. Proposition Nothing can be more unreasonable The proposition supposeth what is to be proved then that the Society imposing such conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. I Answer And nothing can be more Vnreasonable then to make a Receding Party from an Rebell 's are not to be Iudges in Their own Cause Ancient Church a few Rebellious People against it Iudges in their own Cause The Arians judged thus for Themselves and so do Protestants All rebellion in Kingdoms and Commonwealths is Patronized if those who Revolt may Clear Themselves from Guilt upon their own Votes and saying Such conditions imposed
Nor Protestants of Their Schism on us are Vnequitable and Grievous We therfore who Rebel will sit upon the Bench and Iudge so The Kingdom Believe it is to Decide in such Cases and not the The Church is to Iudge in this Cause of Schism Rebel's And so the Church is to Judge you As it did the Arians And not you The Church Your Complaint of unequitable Conditions imposed on you is only an Unproved Fancy begot in your Non-age when you never Heard good Word of Rome Passion still foment's it Sophistry Advanceth it but All will not Do. Most truely That Talk of unjust Conditions The Plea of unjust Conditions only a Mask of an injustifiable Schism is Meerly a mask to Cover an Unjustifiable Schism a Pretense to Defend what cannot be Defended Pull the Visard of which is don by putting you to the Proof of your Talk and the Proposition Appears in its own Likenes Ugly and Deformed 4. The fourth Proposition Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture Reason and Tradition That such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion The not communicating with that Society which requires those things cannot incurr the guilt of Schism Here wants a Minor which I shall supply with a contradictory Proposition thus But there is no sufficient Evidence from Scripture Reason and Tradition That such Things Imposed on Protestants by the Church of Rome are Vnreasonable Conditions of Christian Communion Therfore Protestants not A General task of unreasonable conditions Proofles Communicating with that Ancient Society which justly requires those Things cannot but make them Guilty of Schism Who must now judge between us Or Finally say whether that Major or This contrary Minor carries the greater weight of Truth with it The first is What Sectaries say in this Proposition Any Heretick may Assert and as probably only a Supposed and an unproved Assertion That both Arians and all condemned Hereticks may vent against us The Minor is Grounded upon the acknowledged Ancient Purity of our Church Which Vnles clear Evidence Overtrow it cannot but Defend it self as strongly Against such Calumnies upon its own Prepossessed Right and Innocency As the best of Kingdoms doth against a company of known Rebels When Therfore These Novellists Pretend to have sufficient Evidence from Scripture Reason and Tradition What Sectaries are Obliged to do by more then Talk only for Vnreasonable Conditions imposed They are Obliged to Descend to Particulars And make the Charge Good by valid Proofs reducible at last to Ovvned and allovved of Principles amongst Christians If this be not Don They may Vapour against our Church as the Iews Do against Christ But shall never Advance so far They make Controversies Endles as to a vveak Probability or make an End of one sole Controversy And mark what Doings we have Here. They vvill have no Iudge on Earth Clear Principles Fail Them in every Controversy And yet we must Hear and only in a General way Of sufficient Evidence Dravvn from Scripture Reason and Tradition Against our Vnreasonable Conditions If there be such Evidence Shew it And let us se the Ovvned Principles wheron it lastly Relies But truely So much Ill luck Follow 's them That Their want of Principles only Causeth Proofles Talk you never find a Controversy solidly handled or brought when They go about to Prove their own Doctrin Positively to any thing like a Proof or Principle And They are as unfortunate when They Oppugn Ours 5. The fifth Proposition By how much the Societies are greater which are agreed in not Communicating with a Church imposing such conditions By how much the power of those who rule those Societies so agreeing is larger By so much Suppositions without Proofs What are these Abuses Who is to reform the more justifiable is the Reformation of any Church from those Abuses and the setling the bonds of Christian Communion without them Here is the Thesis And a Thing like an Hypothesis comes limping After as well as it can Thus. On these grounds the Church of Rome Imposing unlawful conditions of Communion it was Necessary not to communicate with her and on the Church of Englands power to reform it self by assistance of the supream power it was lawful and justifiable not only to redress those Abuses but to settle the Church upon its proper and true Foundations So that the Church of Rome's imposing unlawful conditions of communion is the reason why we They pretend to settle and have no Ground to build on do not communicate with Her and the Church of Englands power to govern and take care of her self is the Reason of our ioyning together in the service of God upon the Principles of our Reformation Did you ever Hear men Vapour much What are these Principles Name one Talk much Suppose much and Prove just nothing Here you have them Observe it We Hear a Noise of Vnlawful imposed Conditions of great Abuses in our Church of the English Churches Power to Redress these Abuses Yet no man Knows nor shall ever know by any solid Proof what these Conditions and Abuses are Much less That a few Protestants have power to Redress Were there Abuses in the Church Protestants have not Principles to redress them them were there any such in the Church wherof more Hereafter 6. At present to Answer the Difficulty I will say two Things The first If the Power Number or Largenes of these pretended Reformers justify Their Reformation it 's more then evident That a Far greater Power Number and Largenes of those who Oppose it makes More Oppose these Sectaries Reformation then approve it it Vnjustifiable Now not only Catholicks But all the Christians in the World Altogether more Powerfull Larger and Learneder then a few Protestants Stifly Oppose this late Reformation as an Heretical and Schismatical Novelty Therfore that little Justification which their own Power and Largenes Gain 's to Protestancy is not only much weakened But made Null by a greater Power that withstands it I say 2. This Proposition is utterly Fals and Becaus Fals cannot be Proved Viz. That by how much Societies are greater It is not true that by how much Sectaries are more Numerous and greater by so much more Their Schism is Iustifiable and their Power larger in Agreeing not to Communicate with an Ancient Church wherin They vvere Baptized By so much more Iustifiable is their Pretented Reformation For the Society of Arians which Agreed in not Communicating with the Church of Rome was more Numerous Greater and Powerful then ever Ptotestants were in England They had their Emperours Their Bishops Their Councils Their Churches and a World of Followers Say therfore I Beseech you did their This Truth is clear in the Arians Number Power or Greatnes Iustify either their Heresy or Schism Or doth the greater Power and Number of Agreeing Rebels in a Kingdom against Their lawful Sovereign Justify that Treason You
And in Rebels also of a Common-wealth will Say The Arians Erred But Protestants hit right on the Roman Abuses and this makes their Reformation Iustifiable Meer Proofles empty Words The Proofles Talk of Sectaries For do you not se and evidently That all you Speak to this sense is a wretched Supposition and a pure Begging of the Question And Becaus it is so can either We or any third Indifferent Judge Believe you sooner speaking in your own Cause then credit an Arian that will say the very same For his Heresy O But Confessedly both Catholicks and Protestants acknowledge the Arians to be Hereticks And as Confessedly both Catholicks and Arians yes And all other Sectaries Say also you are Hereticks What Therfore get you by this Reply Will you Tell us next That you are Better at your Proofs against us then the Arians are The Arians laugh at you And say with Truth This very Assertion is Proofles Believe it Though the Arguments of Arians against our Ancient Church wherof they were once Members The Arguments of Arians are more difficile Then ever Protestants yet Proposed against our Church Doctrin are both Deficient and Strengthles yet They go far deeper into Difficulties vvhich look more manly On 't then vvâ—at hitherto any Protestant hath Proposed against us If you say This is my own unproved Assertion I will first Appeal to the Iudgement of any Indifferent and Vnconcerned Scholler for sentence in the case Next if this like you not Be you first Pleased to Propose one of the strongest Arguments you have Against any particular The Grounds of the Assertion are declared Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church One I say and in Form which may at last be Driven to an ovvned Principle And then Though I do Anathematize The Heresy I shall Advance an Other in Behalf of the Arians And if this in the Judgement of every good Scholler do not more Puzzle you in your own Principles then yours me against the Church I 'll Sectaries cannot solve the Arians Arguments without recurring to our Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture yeild up the cause Here is fair Play offered The ground of my Assertion is first Becaus Protestants cannot so much as Probably solve the Arians Difficulties without Recurring to the Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture vvhich they Reject 2. Neither Catholicks nor any can solve them Otherwise then only Negatively That is by shewing they do not Convince But to Infringe their Force Positively Or To Evidence them fals Abstracting from Tradition and The Reason why Arians Difficulties are harder then those of Protestants Negatively and Positively Protestants Arguments are Solved the Authority of the Church which is more the Proof of Catholick Doctrin then a Direct Solution to difficulties is Impossible Now on the Other side Protestants can Propose no Difficulty Against us for Protestancy But we will first Shew it Negatively Vnconcluding And next by Positive Proofs break in pieces the Seeming Force of it For example They Argue against the Real Presence A body cannot be in One Example Hereof tvvo places at Once We Show first Negatively that their Argument concludes not and then Introduce Positive Proofs partly drawn from Gods Omnipotency partly from other Undeniable Grounds Which both weaken and Dead the Argument And thus we Proceed with them in Other Controversies Concerning the Popes Supremacy Praying to Saints Purgatory c. 7. I have Complained all along of our Adversaries Asserting much and Proving Nothing You will yet se more of this Proceeding in some who Think They strongly Vindicate the Church of England from the Guilt of Schism CHAP. XV. More of These Authors Confused Doctrin is Refuted 1. IN a Chapter Intituled Protestants not Guilty of Mr. Stillingfleet Schism The Catholick Opponent Argues If the Roman Church was corrupted in Doctrin it Follow 's That for many Ages before Luther there was not one Visible and Orthodox Church throughout the whole World And consequently during that Time Every good Christian was obliged in some point or other to Contradict the Doctrin and Desert the Communion of all Visible Churches in the World Which If all particular Churches were corrupted in Doctrin the whole Catholick Church was also corrupted I say cannot but Imply a Leaving of And also a strong Opposition Against the Church Catholick What ever this Catholick Church be For this Catholick Society is not a Chimaera in the Ayr But is Essentially Constituted of either Pure or Particular tainted Churches Now our Adversaries say All particular Churches throughout the whole World were tainted Ergo what ever is meant by the Catholick Church was also corrupt and Therfore upon the Supposition men are obliged to desert the Communion of the Catholick Church He Grant's no particular Church was free from Errour They say all Churches had erred It is necessary to separate from all erring Churches therfore as necessary to separate from the whole Catholick Church What Sectaries Reply Tainted Yet more I am Obliged to Desert all Corrupted Churches Therfore I am obliged to Abandon the Communion of the Church Catholick After much Talk and Quibling about the Meaning of one Visible Church and the Errours of particular Churches whether Several or the same in particular Societies of Christians c. These men Grant That there was not One Church of any Distinct Communion from others free from Errours The Arians the Nestorians the Eutychians the Greeks the Abyssins Hussits And finally Catholicks Had Erred Therfore all the Churches in the World consequently the Catholick Church had erred before Luther But it is Necessary to Separate from the Communion of all Erring Churches Therfore 'T is as Necessary to Separate from the Communion of the whole Catholick Church 2. To This Argument They Answer There can be no Separation from the whole Church But in such Things vvherin the Vnity of the vvhole Church lyes c. Novv vvhen men Separate from the Errours of all particular Churches They do not Separate from the vvhole Becaus those Things vvhich one Separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make them all put together to be the vvhole or Catholick Church For a further Explanation They tell us Two Things may be Considered in all particular Churches One that Belongs to them as a Church The other that belongs to them as a particular Church What belongs to them as a Church Implyes the Common Ligaments or grounds of Vnion betvveen all particular Churches vvhich taken all Together make up the Catholick Church Novv these vvhich belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the Essence of a Church vvithout them And therfore supposing That I should Separate from all particular Churches I do not Separate from the communion of the whole Church Vnles it be for something without Which those could be no Churches 3. Here in brief is their Confused Vnproved and This Doctrin of Sectaries confused
unproved and fals Fals Doctrin I call it confused Becaus when They Tell us There can be no Separation from the vvhole Church But in such Things wherin the Vnity of the whole Church lyes They should Declare Expresly and Particularly Wherin that Vnity of the whole Church Consists But to leave us in Darknes Concerning no man knows They speak confusedly of unknown Ligaments and of as unknown Vnity what Ligaments and Pretended Vnity of a Strange Imagined Catholick Church without Saying How far these Ligaments reach or Wherin Precisely This exact Vnity lyes is only to Turn us of with Talk and Teach just nothing If They Answer The Vnity of this Doctrin is found in the Fundamentals of Faith we are yet as No man can Imagin what They will make Fundamental far to seek as Before For who Knows what these new Protestants will make Fundamental and Vnfundamental Doctrin They may say one thing to day is Fundamental and change it to morrow However Admit that They Declare Themselves and Tell us Punctually so much and no More is the Fundamental And if we could it would only be their own unproved Fancy and Necessary Doctrin of the Catholick Church it will be only their Own Supposed and Vnproved Assertion and Occasion anew as hot a Dispute as Any other Controversy between us Vnfortunate are These Men in every Thing they Say and it cannot be otherwise for wanting Ground to Build on and a Church to regulate Their Faith Whatever They Vent against our Catholick Doctrin must of Necessity be as Much Their own Supposed and Vnproved Fancy As if an Arian Disputed Against us 4. Observe Yet How They Still run on with these unproved Suppositions When men Say They separate Themselves from the Errours of all Particular Churches They do not Separate from the whole c. Blessed are such Protestants Separated and Poorly suppose that they run away with Truth only and left all the Errours behind Them Men But who are They for Gods sake Protestants Yes And I must take their Word for it we have no other proof Pray you Tell me When that first Protestant Gyant Martin Luther stood up and Separated from all the Societies of Christians Throughout the whole World from Catholicks from Arians Abyssins Graecians c. Who Assured him â—nd here we urge for a Satisfactory Principle or VVho can yet Assure our Protestants That both He and Who Assur's them so much or that they are not more deeply in Errour by their own wilful Separation They are not More Plunged into Gross Errours by this wilful Divorce Then if They had remained as once They were Honest Catholicks Can in Reason Suppose That All and every One of these Societies that Quitted Rome were Corrupted in Doctrin And without so much as a seeming Probability Hold Luther and his Followers the only Pure and Vntainted Christians of the World These are Paradoxes and vast improbabilities For if All These Erred when They left the Roman Catholick Church As evidently They did what God or Angel was it That Directed Protestants to hit right every way and to Avoid all Errour These Hereticks when They Separated were Fallible men and actually Erred our Protestants are as Fallible and may have don wors These Protestants Separation parallelled with that of other Hereticks Protestants proof is their own word and nothing Els. Whether Protestants dare assert that Their reformed Protestancy is so Right that it can not be made better If They Affirm we urge for Principles to prove it All that formerly deserted the Roman Catholick Church erred upon what proof are Protestants Exempted from the like Errour followed their own self Judgement in making that Divorce Yet Missed of Truth Protestants can only Say so much And therfore very likely may have Missed more How then shall we know and by a satisfactory Proof That this rare Reformation which Opposed all Religions is Vntainted and Orthodox I 'll tell you Protestants after an Infamy cast on all the Churches in the world Say so And what They say Though whole Armies of Christians more learned and numerous Stand against them must be thought True Is not this a Jolly Proof In a word Here is my Dilemma Either They must Assert that Their whole Protestant Doctrin now Established is without Blemish Pure and Orthodox or yet Hath its Errours if this last it needs another Reformation If they make it so Pure that it cannot be made better They only say without proof what All the Condemned Hereticks in Christendom Assert for Themselves and Moreover will have Christians Believe The greatest Paradox ever Heard of viz. That They Only had the good Luck to hit Right whilst All Foregoing Sectaries who Abandoned the Roman Church Were and yet Are tainted with gross Corruptions The Reason why both They and All other Hereticks that left the Mother-Church are in Errour is drawn from the Impossibility of doing the Work They have gon about For it is not in mans power to change or Reform Religion No. Only one High Priest God and man Once made a change who was Holy Innocent Vndefiled Separated from sinners and made Higher then the Heavens Men Therfore wicked as Luther was Guilty One Only High Priest had Power to Reform Religion of high Crimes Born and Brought up in sin and now buried in Contempt Are unfit Instruments for such a work They may marr Religion but to mend it is Impossible 5. Again That Distinction made Above between the Common Ligaments of a Church and particular Errours in all Churches Which yet do not Vnchurch Them is Frivolous Vnproved and most Fals. For first there neither are nor can be any Common Tyes or Grounds of Vnion amongst all Christians now in Being which considered by an Abstract Notion sufficiently Conslitute the Necessary Doctrin of the True Catholick Church My Reason is No Doctrin Common Doctrin Common to all Christians is not Sufficient to Saluation to Arians Nestorians Catholicks and Protestants or Vniversally held by all Christians can be more Proved to be saving Faith enough for Christians Then if we Gratis Assert That a belief in one God only common to Turks Iewes and Christians is full Faith enough for us all Scripture as I have largely proved in a foregoing Chapter Requires yet more Explicit Faith of many Particulars 2. It is utterly Fals That the True Catholick The True Catholick Church is not found amongst Christians That Err in Faith Church may be found amongst all Particular Erring Churches The Primitive Christians were a Body apart and as Distinct from the Arians in those Days as We are now from Protestants And therfore no Doctrin Common to that Church and Arians was ever Thought sufficient Catholick Doctrin Otherwise Arius might have Told the Nicene Otherwise Arius would not have Erred in matters of Faith Fathers yes And These should have Assented to him You unjustly Condemn me For Admit That I have my Particular Errours you
may have Yours Also We are all yet of One Church and Need not to break of any Catholick Unity Becaus though both you and I err We may yet retain the Essence of a Catholick Churck Hereticks hitherto Never Pleaded thus for their Cause But as Pertinaciously Defended Hereticks as strongly defend their particular Errours as the Common Doctrin of Christianity their Private Opinions as They did the Common Doctrin of all Christians Only our Protestants now Pressed with Vnanswerable Arguments concerning the plain Naming of a Catholick Church before Luther like men living by shifting Seek out a woful Subterfuge and make all Erring Churches partly good and Catholick in the Common Ligaments of Christianity And partly Naught and Heretical in Their particular Errours Wheras the Spouse of Christ is but One Immaculate moral Body and can be no More Tainted with Errour then the pure Primitive Church was No nor more Corrupted then the whole Bible The entire purity of the Church Necessary now is and yet remain Purely Gods Word 3. Grant which is the greatest Chimaera Imaginable That the Common Ligaments and Grounds of Catholick Faith are to be found amongst all the erring Societies of Christians Protestants have yet an endles Task in hand Which is to Perswade All men Opposit to them That They by their Discerning Spirit Have just Protestants cannot prove that they have taken so much Doctrin to themselves as is purely Catholick hit the nail on the Head And taken so much to Themselves as is Purely Catholick Doctrin without Mixture of Errour with it Believe me it will be hard to prove so much done And if They Prove it not by Vndeniable Principles Farwell Protestants say I For They may be more in Errour by Their late Reformation Then all those Erring Churches together Which They have gon about to Reform 6. In another Chapter Intituled the Reformation of the Church of England justified These very men after they had made the Catholick Church like a Common field layd open to all those Inhabitants who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith Tell us That the Roman Church stand's Guilty of the violation of Publick Right and Add's Neither Proof nor Inference Good many Particular Doctrins many Superstitious Practises which have no Foundation in Scripture or Consent of the Primitive Church Therfore this Roman Church is Separated from the Communion of the Catholick Church And so is become Schismatical But their Church of England hath hit Right and is only so far Separated from Rome as Rome hath Devided Her self from the Belief of the Vniversal Church What have we here A Cluster of meer superfluous Words I am Astonished to Se men run on with such proofles Generalities However We will have Patience and friendly Ask How far is that large field of the Catholick Church to be extended Point out the Limits of it Name those Christians and Them only Not one of These particulars can be proved by certain Principles who Inhabite that large field What are those Fundamentals of Faith How many are there of Them ninty nine or a Hundred Specify with a Proof at the end of it but Proofs are now out of fashion with Protestants Those particular Fals Doctrins of the Roman Church so contrary to Scripture Say once Plainly what that Catholick Church is From which Rome Separated and something is Don But above all make good your wild Assertion That just so far you are Devided from Rome not one Inch more or less as Rome is Separated from the Vniversal Catholick Church To do this justice Requir's an exact Proof of these three Things First That you particularly Shew us Three Propositions to be proved What or how much the Precise Doctrin of that imagined Catholick Church is which dwell's in your Fancy 2. Wherin the Roman Church hath Swerved from that true Doctrin 3. And this will cost you some pains make good upon any Received Christian Principle That you are right in your Faith And have just Divided your selves so far from the Roman Church as this is from Another Church more Vniversal and Catholick Could these men live to Mathusalem's Age They would never come neer to the likelyhood of a rational Proof for any one of these Particulars I say of a Proof For I would have Them know That to talk at random and vent their own fancies as They do here will weigh but little when Reason comes to Ballance all with a close Arguing in good Form 7. When again They are Told in the same Chapter That the Separation of Protestants was not only from the Church of Rome But as Calvin Confesseth from the whole Christian World which necessarily Implyes a Separation from the True Catholick Church They Answer We have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherin the whole Christian VVorld is Agreed Is this so great No Heretick Separated from the Vniversal Doctrin believed by all Christians a matter to be Praised for Not to Separate from what men cannot Separate if they Own Christ and Deserve the name of Christians Mark well I beseech you Neither the Arians nor Nestorians nor Donatists Nor any other condemned Hereticks Separated from any Thing wherin the whole Christian World Agreed in For They Believed in Christ a Saviour and Redeemer and Thus much all Christians Hold But is This Faith enough to save us without Believing more Pray you Answer Again These Hereticks Added something what got Them the Name of Separatists or Hereticks to that General owned Belief of All And this got them the name of Separatists or Hereticks not Becaus they Deserted the Common Doctrin of the whole Christian World But becaus They Abandoned that Ancient Church wherin they were Baptized Protestants have Don the like in leaving the same Ancient Church And have Added That to Their Specifical Religion which was neither the Common Doctrin of All Christians no nor Held by any Christian Society in the World Vpon this Account Therfore They as justly Deserve the Name of Hereticks and Separatists as either Arian or Nestorian And thus much I Prove by their own Concession Protestants proved Schismatichs by Their own Doctrin For They grant that the Donatists were Separatists and Schismaticks Becaus they confined the Catholick Church within their own Bounds of Africa Yet by Their good leave These very Donatists Dissented in nothing that was held all over Common Christian Doctrin For they Acknowledged the same Christ as we Do yet were Hereticks Vpon the Account of their particular The Donatists no Schismaticks in Protestants Principles Doctrin Though They clashed with nothing held Vniversally You will say But They did Clash For without all Proof They Confined the Church to one place Only Contra. And you my good Friends without all Likelyhood of Proof make the Church a mighty wide One You give it Arms which embrace all called Christians Though Hereticks in their particular Tenents Did therfore the particular
subscribe to Popery Se The Roman Catholick Church Opposed all known Sectaries And us Orthodox Society ever opposed it A manifest Proof of Truth The Marks of Truth more manifest in the Roman Catholick Church then in any other Society Could not be permitted by God to cheat the world Discours 1. c. 7. and chap. 9. n. 10. 8. 4. A Church which Opposed All the Sectaries in the World since Christianity Began And was never Opposed by any Author of credit or Orthodox Society of Christians But only by Known Condemned Hereticks most Evidently Professeth True Religion The Roman Church only hath Age after Age made this Opposition against Sectaries and never was Opposed by any But known Hereticks This is an Vndeniable Proof for the Truth it Mantains Disc 1. c. 7. n. 5. 9. 5. A Religion which hath Had in all Ages most Indubitably more Illustrious marks and signs of Truth Accompanying it Then all the other Sects in the World put Together Either ought to be Owned for Christs Sole and Pure Religion or We must say That God can make a Fals Heretical Sect more Credible Clear and Evident to Reason by Signs of Truth and Sanctity Then his True Orthodox Religion is Reflect seriously Can We Think that Miracles Conversions of souls Casting out of Devils Great Austerity of life Efficacy of Doctrin c. Once convincing Arguments of Truth in the first Ages are now Shewed us in the Roman Catholick Church to favor such Errours as Sectaries impute to it or to Countenance any thing like Antichristian Doctrin To judge so is an Improbable Paradox And here you have an Other most evident Proof and Principle For the Truth of Catholick Religion Disc 1. c. 7. n. 8. 10. 6. A Church which hath manifestly Don great Service The Evident Service don for God by the Roman Catholick Church Without Note of Dishonor put on it by any Orthodox Society Proves it Pure and Holy A Church Once True is still True for God by defeating his Enemies And gaining him Friends And yet Labours to Do him more Service A Church which never had Note or Mark of Dishonor put on it Censure Private or Publick Issuing from any Vniversal Church is Blameles Pure Holy and Vncorrupt in Doctrin In all The Roman Catholick Society justly Glories which No other Sect called Christian can Do. And 'T is an Vndeniable Proof For its Integrity Disc 3. c. 8. n. 2. 3. 11. 7. A Catholick Church Established by Almighty God And therfore Once True must upon the same Grounds which then Proved it Orthodox ever after be Acknowledged as True Hear my Reasons 1. That infinite wisdom which Founded this Once True Church made it a School not to Teach a Few first Christians Or For a Time only But to Instruct All And for ever The Word of our Lord Remains for ever And It taught not Christians for a time only 〈◊〉 then left of to be true Reasons of the Assertion laid forth this is the Word that is Evangelized among you 1. Pet. 1. v. 25. That Word then which Those Primitive Christians learned yet Remains And is now Taught by the same true and Indeficient Church Founded by Christ 2. The Gifts of God Rom. 11. 29. are without Repentance That is unchangeable What ever Therfore Moved an Infinite Wisdom to make a Church once True or for a time Evidently Shewes that Mercy farther Extended and Continued to the end of the VVorld 3. The Necessity of Having Christians Instructed in Truth Souls are now as Dear to God and as well Provided of means to Attain Salvation as the Primitive Christians were Requires the Continuance of Truth in that Church which Christ first Founded He VVill's All to be saved and come to the knowledge of Truth 1. Tim. 2. 3. If All None at this very Day are Excluded from the Means of learning Christ's Verities Taught only in that Church which He established Grace Remained with this Church Therfore Truth also 4. The consolation of Grace Sectaries say it Permanently Remain's with Christs Church For Ever Therfore Truth also is as Permanent And as Inseparable from it Truth being as Necessary to a Church as Grace is 5. The Rock which is Christ Stand's Immovable and Vnshaken Therfore the true Church Built upon this Rock and Corner-stone 1. Cor. 10. Can no more Fail or fall from Truth Then Christ can leave of to be an Indeficient Verity To say then That God once Founded his true Church upon the Rock Iesus Christ And grant That afterward He Permitted either Men or Devils to Pull it down to Deface it with Errour and fals Doctrin is so Desperate a Paradox That I think no Christian dare Avouch it in such Terms 12. Now mark my Inferences upon These premised Inferences upon the premised Considerations Considerations The Roman Catholick Church was Once the True Church Sectaries Consess it Once it was Built on Christ Once it Taught Christian Verities without Errour Once it was Owned by Christians for Christs School Once it Euangelized the Word of God Purely Therfore if God be yet as favorable unto Souls as He was Anciently If He Subtract not Means from us Necessary to Salvation if his Gifts be unchangeable If his Intention of setling Truth for ever amongst Christians Alter not If He Bless his own Society as well with Truth as with the Consolation of Grace This Catholick Roman Church And no Other Once True Was Is and Shall ever be so for the Future Ecclesia invicta res est They are known words of a great Doctor etsi infernus ipse commoveatur The Church is invincible And continues the same Although Hell it self be moved and Struggle Against it We may Thank Eternally our Blessed Lord for that great Verity registred in the Gospel Portae inferni non praevalebunt adversus eam Vpon No other Church but the Roman Catholick this we Ground our Faith And Therfore you Have here Vndeniable Principles Disc 1. c. 3. n. 2. 3. and Disc 2. c. 9. n. 8. Now if to Weaken these Arguments Sectaries will pretend to another Catholick Church more Ample then the Roman Se them clearly Sectaries cannot probably say when Our Church brought in the Novelties laid to its charge Confuthed Disc 3. c. 1. Per totum 13. 8. A Church or Religion vvhich vvas once confessedly Orthodox And no man can probably say vvhen it ceased to be so Or When it brought in such Visible and Perceptible Novelties as Sectaries charge on it by meer Vnproved Calumnies is Evidently a True Church still The sole Voice of this Ample learned Roman Society Had The Ancient Possession of Truth allowed this Church is a stronger Proof Then Sectaries contrary Cavils Antiquity Owns the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church we no more which cryes out against These Fancied Cavils And the Ancient Possession of Truth Allowed it in Foregoing Ages will be Iudged in any Tribunal of the World a more convincing Proof An incomparable
are obliged to Answer directly without Ambages I or No. Let them say Plainly These Proofs are Good or show them to be Fallacious and if they Hold them Fallacies Let this be Evidenced by Contrary clear Proofs grounded on Received Principles Thus We Proceed Proofs and Principles Parallelled 22. For Example we say This is an Vndoubted Principle we are here forced Again to Parallel Proof with Proof and Principle with Principle that the Apostolical Church Evidenced by Miracles great Sanctity of life Efficacy of Doctrin Admirable Conversions c. Proved it self by these very Marks and Signs to be no Counterfeit But a True Orthodox Church And Here is an Other sure Principle Laid by it The Roman Catholick Church And no other Society of Christians Hath Age after Age Evidenced it Self by the very like Signs of undoubted Miracles of Admirable Conversions of Efficacy in Doctrin of Dispossessing Devils c. This whole learned Society Own 's these Wonders They have been and yet are Manifest to mens eyes and senses The Ancient Miracles and Conversions Proofs for Miracles and Conversions wrought by the Roman Catholick Church Stand upon certain Record Authors of unquestionable Fidelity Recount the later Not only Friends but Enemies also Allow them so much credit That they justly Deem the Man neer a Degree of Madnes That shall Offer to Deny All That are on Record Therfore The Church which Hath Ever Manifested And yet Doth Manifest These Wonders Proves its Doctrin in that Manner As the Apostles and Primitive Church Proved Theirs Observe now well If Sectaries go about to Infringe the Validity of this One Proof or vvill What Sectaries are obliged to â—o if they Deny These Proofs yet Deny these Miracles and Conversions vvrought by our Church They are obliged to Ground that Denial on a Proof as Strong if not Stronger as is This Cloud of Witnesses produced by Catholicks For the Contrary Affirmative And this is not only Improbable But vvholy Impossible It is therfore meer Talk at Random to Tell us As They are wont Many Miracles have been Fained Senses may be Deceived Papists are too Credulous Historians sometimes Recount Things upon too slight Credit All are weightles Words unproved Guesses Toughts of Fancy and Fancy only As Vnproved Guesses no Proof wide from Proofs and Principles as Truth is from Heresy Disc 1. c. 9. 23. Again it is an Evident Truth That the Roman Catholick Sectaries without proof censure the Roman Catholick Church never censured by any Vniversal Church Church hath Don God Great Service And never was Censured by any Vniversal Church Say Therfore upon what Owned Principle can Protestants Deny this Good service Don for God Vpon what undoubted Proof Dare they so freely Censure and condemn it I 'll tell you their own Saying Doth All. They have no Better Proof 24. 3. It is a most Evident Truth That all those Wise and Learned Doctors That Taught Christians Popery for a Thousand years and more Were neither Fools nor mad men nor Two other most certain Truths Vniversally blinded with Errour If this be not Evident thus Much certainly is The wise Providence of God never suffered those whole Millions of Christians Instructed by these Teachers to be cheated so long and Abused with Fooleries Now my harty Wish is That our Adversaries will Once plainly Tell us by what Proof or Received Principle they are An Vnanswerable Difficulty proposed to Sectaries able to convince That all These Learned Doctors no less wise then They were Besotted so long or that God for so vast a time Owed so much ill will to Innumerable poor Christians as not only to Se them cheated and Misled But They are to prove not by Talk but sure Principles First That all the Learned Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church were besotted with Fooleries for ten Ages Secondly That God permitted Innumerable Christians to be cheated for so long a time Thirdly That Protestants have Exactly setled Christianity Right on its Ancient Foundations more utterly to withdraw his Providence And suffer them to Grown under so lasting a Misery of Falshood And this which is ever to be Noted whilst There was no Other Christian Society in the world to afford them true Instruction in the Pure Christian Faith May it please Sectaries candidly To clear this one Difficulty upon a Rational Principle They will much Oblige me This Don Let Them also Vouchsafe to Add a Word more for my Satisfaction It is If They Digest These Harsh Propositions All those Doctors were Fooled God Deserted his Church for so long a time That They next come to a Solid Principle and Prove That Protestants among so many other Sectaries were the Only Elect people appointed by Providence to Mend what They conceived Amiss in an old Decayed Church And They must Shevv this Don vvithout mixture of Errour in their Reformation Yea and vvithout Danger of Marring more Then they vvent about to Mend. They tell us of their setling Christianity Right Again on its Ancient Foundations Here is place to make that Talk good let us have a Strenuous Proof for it If they say they do it by Scripture not one clear Text can be quoted without Twenty Glosses and Fancies added to it And yet all will not Do. If again they will need 's shake Hands with us And say We and They are all One and right in Fundamentals It is an unproved Assertion But might it Pass No Assurance can be given That they have setled all straight in Non-fundamentals Se Disc 3. c. 10. n. 2. and C. 9. n. 3. 2. 25. 4. Amongst the many other Evidences of our A fourth Evidence of Catholick Religion drawn from Gods special Providence our Roman Catholick Religion This is none of the least That God by special Providence hath Preserved it both in Being and Honor for 16. whole Ages This Church hath Stood so long Invincible and Glorious in the heat of all Persecutions It Resisted the Violence of Iewes and Heathen Princes It Encountred known Hereticks and Defeated Them No Counsel or Wit of Man nor Power of Devils have been hitherto Able to Dissolve it whilst Whole Kingdoms and Common-wealths lost their Ancient Glory And were Subverted Whence I Argue as the Learned Gamaliel once did Act. 5. 39. If this Counsel and work be of men it will be Dissolved But if it be of God you Sectaries who so vigorously Oppose it cannot Dissolve it Now here is A Convincing Argument my Dilemma Either this Church Subsisted for so vast a time by meer cheats and Humane Policy or was and is Protected by Gods special Providence If the first be granted It would have Perished long Ago and come to nothing And if God by Special Providence Preserved it in Being It is Vndubitably the Orthodox Church of Christ And cannot be Argued of Disloyalty To confirm this Truth I ask Whether the Reasons now Alleged Whatever Argument Proves Christian Religion in General
to us to be grounded on Scripture In this Sectaries always fail The new mode of Sectaries interpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion Here is the sequel of Sectaries We Catholicks Prove not what we assert therfore they make the contrary Doctrin an Article of their new Faith Faith cannot rely on such Negatives Of the means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture The Holy Ghost only speaking by the Oracle of the Church Interpret's Scripture infallibly in those matters which concern the general belief of all Protestants who profess themselves to be fallible in what ever they teach are no Instruments assumed by the Holy Ghost to teach and interpret infallibly Gods Word No Sectary can judge the Church but the Church is to judge all Sectaries THE THIRD DISCOVRS Of the unreasonable proceeding of Protestants in some Chief matters of Controversy PRotestants who seemingly hold a Catholick Church before Luther larger then the Roman Catholick Church and cannot design it Proceed unreasonably and must falsify that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church Before Luther there were no Christians in the world for a thousand years at least but Roman Catholicks and known Hereticks neither those Catholicks alone as Protestants say nor the known Hereticks nor both together constituted the true Catholick Church therfore there was no true Catholick Church on earth for so vast a time No abstract Doctrin common to all who are named Christians is sufficient to constitute Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet is confuted and his Doctrin shewed improbable Faith in Christ only as a Redeemer is insufficient to Saluation A more explicite Faith of other particulars is proved Necessary If Catholicks and Sectaries are right in the fundamentals of Faith all the pretended Reformation of Protestants comes to a slight work about Non Essentials which may have made Things wors then before It is not the less or more weight of things revealed that makes Faith less or more valued of but the Submission we yeild to Gods Veracity which is one and of equal Authority in what ever he Reveal's Though a Distinction were granted between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Yet Protestants cannot so much as probably sever the Fundamentals from the others by any known Principle If there be no Catholick Church owned at least infallible in Fundamentals all Faith both of Christ and Creed may perish before the world end 's And if there be such an Infallible Church in Fundamentals Sectaries ought to design it and say to whom that Spirit is granted in what subject it resides c. A Protestant who so far Denies Christs true Church That he cannot say where it is and endeavour's to reform others before he have certainty of his own half well made Reformation cannot probably go about to withdraw a prudent Catholick from his Religion Some Propositions of Mr. Stillingfleet are examined His Discours of Fundamentals destroy's Protestant Religion He Speaks of the Being of a Church and saith not precisely how much Doctrin constitutes that Being He cannot name any Orthodox Church that ever Excepted against the Articles believed by the Church of Rome He makes the Negative Articles of the English Church not to be Articles of Faith but only inferiour Truths held only in order to peace and tranquillity His Church therfore is essentially Hypocritical which may believe one thing and must profess an other Though Protestants were very Papists in hart yea and Anathematized all These Negative Articles They may be looked on as Blessed Children of this new Negative Church if their Exteriour be fairly Protestant-like He makes his Church no more an English Church then a Church of Arians and of all condemned Hereticks He saith the English Church makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian world and of Rome it self The Assertion is Evidently Vntrue For no Orthodox Church no Heretical Society no Consent â—f the whole Christian World Ever taught That a Doctrin wherin all Christians agree is sufficient to Saluation When Sectaries Say Christs gave to his Disciples a Sign only of his Body This very Doctrin is either an Article of Their Faith or one of their Inferiour Truths If the first They believe that which never had the approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it self If the second be granted They have no Divine Faith at all of the Blessed Sacrament The Nullity of our Adversaries ground 's is declared though the Church made new Articles of Faith If we speak rigourously The Church makes no new Articles but only declares more Explicitly what was anciently believed The Fathers call the Church a rich Treasury wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is securely preserved The Analogy of Faith is explicated There was a Platform of Christian Religion before Scripture was Writ and the Apostles separated Themselves and Preach't to several Nations Sectaries who seemingly acquiesce in the Judgement of one or two Ancient Fathers most inconsequently reject the Authority of a Learned General Council that is of greater weight and Estimation If the Churches Definitions are therfore to be thought fallible because men declare them and all men are lyars much more are our Sectaries Novelties and Glosses on Scripture to be valued of as Fallible upon the same ground These fallible men tell me my Churches Doctrin is fallible suppose falsly it were so it is altogether as good as this very fallible Proposition is that sayes 'T is Fallible and if which is true it be infallible it is much better No man that holds His Religion fallible can probably endeavour to convert an other though the contrary Religion Professed by this other be acknowledged to be no more but fallible Much less can he persecute Him for not yeilding Assent to a fallible Religion All the Storms of persecution raised against Catholicks are not upon any account of want of Faith but for this sole cause that we will not believe one thing and force our Consciences to Profess an other Which is to say we are persecuted becaus we will not be Hypocrits The Vnreasonablenes of Protestants Schism laid forth from the VIII Chap. of the third Discours to the XV. THe Separation of Protestants from the Roman Catholick Church is as plain and manifest a sinful Schism as ever was Decryed Rebellion in a Kingdom or any Violation of a Countries Right The formal Schism of Sectaries is evident but the Causal charged on Catholicks is no more but an unproved Calumny Proofs brought to received Principles fail Sectaries whilst they make the Roman Church to be the cause of their Formal Schism The supposed errours charged on the Roman Catholick Church by Sectaries are not like the first Principles in nature Evident ex terminis and therfore must be proved by a Discours grounded on certain Principles We Licence Sectaries in their Discours against us to make use of all Imaginable sound Principles Scripture Fathers Tradition or what They pleas and only exclude
Testimonies of Fathers are as clear for our Catholick Doctrin as the words of the Council of Trent A Parallel of Proofs for and against the Doctrin of the Real Presence The way of Sectaries is chiefly to loos Themselves in proposing difficulties against us without casting a serious thought on sure Principles that solve them They find the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament uneasy to sense but reflect not that They believe two or three other Mysteries fully as hard if not more difficile for Example a Trinity the Incarnation and Original sin It is most Evident what Ever Principle whether it be Scripture Church Authority or consent of Fathers that moves to believe these Verities that very Principle is as pressing forceable and urging yea and often more express for the Belief of our Sacrament wherat they boggle What the Sectary is obliged to prove if He except against our grounds in this Controversy We admit of Christs plain Words according to their most obvious sense we find them so understood by a number of the most venerable ancient Fathers as we understand them and moreover have a Learned Church that speak's as both Scripture and Fathers speak Can Sectaries now exact of us that we leave these strong Principles and rely on their word because They will have us do so It is impossible unles They give us in lieu of the se as plain Scripture as plain Testimonies of Fathers and produce the warrant of some other Church more ancient and Orthodox then ours is that once Patronized their Novelty If they say They can explicate our Scripture and ancient Fathers I have Answered above Their explication is worth nothing unles it be grounded on more express Testimonies that favour their Novelty then our contrary authorities are for Catholick Doctrin If again they reply As we must explicate their Authorities brought against us so They can explicate ours alleged against them I Answer if a stop be made here neither they no◠we yet come to the last Principles But here will be the final Decision of all We appeal to the clear Words of Scripture They have Evidently non so express We appeal to the most manifest Testimonies of Fathers delivered i◠this Controversy The Council of Trent speaks not more clearly They Oppos◠a few dark Sentences help't on with their Glosses contrary to the Fathers sense a◠is largely proved Lastly we appeal to the Judgement of our Ancient and fa. extended Church Herein they are forced to yeild for they have no Church comparable to it that Defends their Novelty The Churches Evidence Why God permits Heresy to be in the World A FEW NOTES UPON MR. POOLES APPENDIX AGAINST CAPTAIN EVERARD 1. I Say a few for I must be brief finding very little to stay me in the Appendix which is not directly solved in the foregoing Treatis And therfore wonder not it I often remit the Reader to the former Discourses as occasion requires it being impossible to reply to an Adversary upon this subject of Infallibility without touching on what is sayd already where the Direct Answer is given to His objections I would not indeed have writ thus much against Mr. Poole but only to hinder a little vanity in the man for if no notice had bin taken of his Appendix He might perhaps have thought too well of his work and judged it so learned a piece that none would Dare to meddle with it To gain what time is possible I pass by all His jeers his harsher language and Calumnies cast on Catholick c. Those Personal exceptions also uniustly made against the Converted Captain and some vulgar Difficulties solved a hundred times shall give me no work at present who will only fall and closely upon that which Mr. Poole its likely may think most material and to the purpose And because the best strength He hath lies in the beginning of the Appendix I 'le examin that most and make his errours manifest by sound proofs and Principles Briefly 2. The occasion of Mr. Everards Conversion was a Discours held with a Catholick Gentleman Who Asked me saith the Captain whether I was so certainly infallibly assured of the Truth of the Christian Religion that it was not possible for me or those that taught me Christianity to be mistaken therin and He gave me this reason for his question that otherwise as to me Christianity could be no more then probably true And we could not condemn the Iew or Turk or Pagan since they were as well perswaded of their several wayes as we could be of ours upon a fallible certainty And for ought we knew not having any infallible certainty for our Christianity some of them might be in the right and we in the wrong way sor it is possible you may be mistaken Thus Mr. Poole Appendix page 8. who slight's the Discours as silly weak and ungrounded 3. I say Contrary The Discours is strong rational and most convincing The ground of my Assertion further declared Disc 1. c. 1. 2. is thus A Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on cannot but be fallibly taught by all Teachers now within the bounds of Christianity is by force of its Proposition and merit of the Doctrin precisely considered most certainly fallible and may be fals But such a taught Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on and merit also of the Doctrin or force of its Proposition is fallible and may be fals is not the certain Doctrin of Christ which cannot by the vertue of any Principle it hath or merit of the Doctrin and force of its proposition be either fallible or fals Ergo such a taught Doctrin is not Christs certain Doctrin which neither is nor can be fallible or fals Now further A Doctrin which is not Christs certain Doctrin because remo 〈…〉 from certain Principles can be no other but the Doctrin of mans errable judgement or Fancy And consequently gives as little Assurance to him that teaches it fallibly or those that hear it as that of the Jewes gives to them Observe my reason equally Convincing in both cases Therfore we say the Doctrin of a Jew gives If you say the Doctrin of a Jew is not only fallible but fals also you suppose what is to be proved against him no Assurance to Him that Teaches and those who hear it because it is removed from all infallible Principles and relies only on his errable judgement or Fancy that teaches it but the Fallible Doctrin of these Sectaries now mentioned is also removed from all Infallible Principles for no man amongst them can deliver Doctrin infallibly Therfore it relies only on an errable judgement or fancy that teaches it and by good consequence is none of Christs infallible Doctrin But if it be none of Christs Doctrin it gives no more Assurance to them that Hear it than the Doctrin af a Jew gives to any of his Sect Ergo. Here briefly is my
Faith precisely rest's alwaies on Gods Revelation as the last and ultimate Motive without the mixture of any other See Disc 1. c. 5. n. 5. 6. as also Chap. 6. Now if you desire to know more concerning the certainty of him that Proposeth the Object of Faith darkly revealed in Holy Scripture read the 4. Chap. of the first Discours 10. By what is said hitherto you se Good Mr. Poole that true Christian Religion must either signify the Objective Infallibility of Gods Revelation or the Assent of Faith wherby we Captivate our understanding and submit to an Infallible Veracity both the one and other goe farr beyond the mean measure of meer Probabilities or the highest moral certainty Therfore your Instances of Iamaica and a Calf are here useles and insignificant I say True Christian Religion or to speak in your words The Truth of Christianity For if by the essential Truth of Christianity you will understand the prudent Motives or Inducements that precede Faith and shew us where True Christianity is professed and call these the Essentials of Christian Religion know first you have none of them as is proved Disc 1. C. 8. 9. and 10. Know secondly that these Motives previously pondered before we believe though most requisit to belief are not the Essentials of Faith whether you take Faith obiectively For the matter believed or subiectively for the Act of Belief But objects of Science as you may read in Chapters now Quoted For Faith which essentially constitutes Religion follows in every good Christian after the Consideration of these Motives and sub Notione fidei or as Divine Faith ultimately relies not on them 11. Vpon these Grounds all comes to nothing that you have P. 10. and 11. where you say If besides the Infallibility of the Thing there be required Certitudo subjecti the Infallibility of the person you will bring this fox out of his hole by a notable Dilemma A word only in passing Pray you Sir what 's here understood by the Infallibility of the Thing You either mean Gods certain Revelation and this certainly most infallibly is not to be called a Thing but ought to be spoken of with greater Reverence or you mean and your context bears no other sense the material Objects of our Christian belief now these solely considered can no more properly be called fallible or infallible then probable and improbable No man saith that a stone which he sees in the high way is either fallible or infallible probable or improbable The Reason is Because these Terms certain fallible infallible probable improbable c. note ever the tendency of vital Acts proceeding from an intellectual power And therfore most improperly belong to objects neither vital nor intellectual Thus much only by the Bye Now to your foxing it and fearful Dilemma Either say you a subjective certainty or infallibility of Belief mark your own words of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians or it is not If it be not necessary then Papists too vainly boast of it and must Confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians and infallibility necessary only for the Pope and Councel if a subjective infallibility be necessary for particular Christians then every Papist in England hath a Pope in his belly c. Here is the substance of your Dilemma and it is a strange piece of confused Stuff Observe well You begin with the Subjective infallibility of the Belief of the Truth of Christianity and then run further then to Iamaica to talk of that which you call the probable evidence of it Good Sir the evidence of credibility belonging to true Christianity is totally distinct from the infallible belief of it That if we make a right Analysis precedes Faith Faith followes and is far more certain then the judgement is all have of the Evidence of Credibility See Disc 1. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. Briefly I say first The belief of true Christianity is subjectively infallible in every faithful Christian who therfore may have as sound Faith as the Pope himself or any that sitt's in Councel The Reason already given and further declared Disc 1. c. 1. is thus God an infinite Verity speaks to us for this end that we believe him He speaks infallibly Faithful Christians believe both what He speaks and answerably to their power as He speaks Ergo they believe infallibly Again A fallible Belief cannot be ultimately resolved into an infallible Revelation none therfore that holds himself obliged to Believe an infinit Verity owned as infallible can proceed doubtfully upon that Motive for he knowes An infinit Verity speak's not doubtfully or opinatively I say secondly Infallible Faith of the Truth of Christianity is miscalled if you style it probable Evidence it is not probable but certain because it relies on an infinit Verity It is not Evident but obscure because Argumentum non apparentium Thus much is undoubtedly true if we speak of the Assent of Divine Faith Now if when you talk of particular Papists haveing a Pope in their belly you grosly Imagin that every one can Define or Declare infallibly Christian Doctrin in order to the whole Church as the Pope and Councel Doe you fight with shadowes no Papist hold's such fooleries And by this you se the last strength of your weak Dilemma brought to nothing 12. You are also as unlucky in your next Assault where you Chalenge the whole Club of Jesuits to Answer solidly By the Grace of God you shall have an Answer that will make you silent hereafter Thus you go on Were the Popish opinion of the Churches infallibility true in it self certitudine Objecti so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the infallibility of Scripture true in it self and certitudine Objecti as the must desperate Papists Grant For they say the Scripture is Divine true and certain in it self but not quoad nos therfore hitherto there is no difference It is not worth the while to insist here upon a Catacresis or abuse of words or to say how incompossible these two termes combined together are in the Papist Opinion and certainty of the Object For Catholicks in Matters of Faith content not themselves with a bare opinion where there is certitudo Objecti or Gods certain Revelation duely proposed that exacts from them no Opinion but a sure Assent of Faith And so we say that the infallibility of the Church is a matter believed by us because God hath revealed it consequently it s no Opinion But Sir this is not what I ayme at We will hear you say all And come to the strength of the Difficulty If say you it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist that He hath such probable evidence of this Doctrin of the Churches infallibility why should it not be as sufficient a fundation for a Protestant that He hath such nay infinitly more probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Since the evidence of the later is granted by the Papists
from our Protestants Principles where you se enough I say it once more of their great sin and Haeresy CHAP. IV. Replyes to these Arguments are answered 1. ONe perhaps may be God surely will never permit all the Pastors of Christianity to erre and deceive the world at least this is no Consequence They may erre Ergo they do and will actually erre for many things may be which never will be I answer and many things actually happen Answer to Objections which were never suspected would be and why may not this diffused Errour be one of them who knows the contrary In Protestants principles we have the greatest Presumption imaginable for this actual errour of all For they say That ample and ancient Church of Rome and all condemned Haereticks with it erred set then these aside it is impossible to design plainly such Christian Teachers as never de facto erred 2. The very possibility yes and facility also of All falling into Errour makes the actuality of it fearfully doubtful now men had been mad to loose both Lives and Goods to dye ignominiously on Gibbets for any doubtful and uncertain Doctrin The Apostle put other thoughts in the primitive Martyrs hearts other words in their mouths Scio cui credidi certus sum I know who I believe and am certain No Hearers therfore can certainly rely on any doubtful and uncertain Religion 2. The second reply Admit that all Christian Pastors Second Reply teach erroneous Doctrin yet no great mischief followes for Those who hear them are either conscious of the Falsity And if so they are not to believe their Teachers or They erre invincibly which is a blameles Errour and Therfore cannot in justice be held an Offence The first part of the Reply supposes some instructed Christians wiser then all their Teachers together which is an Impertinency never heard of The second touches not the difficulty for here we blame not such as may perhaps invincibly erre But say That the blame goes higher and is unworthily cast on God who obliges Christians to believe the Pastors of a Catholick Church and yet gives them such disabled ones that all of them may erre universally and teach Doctrin contrary to his revealed Truths Here lyes the mystery of iniquity upheld Protestants Mystery of iniquity by Protestants and the uglines of it appears in this wrethched Assertion God will have me to believe a Catholick Church yet this whole Catholick Church that is all the They cast blame upon God Pastors all the Councils all the Fathers Doctors and Prelates of this Church may teach me such false Doctrin as God never intended I should learn They may if fallible teach us that Christ is not God that Heaven is not a place of Eternal Happines nor Hell an abode of Eternal torments Such Haeresies have been spread by Those who went under the name of Christians and why may not I beseech you all Christian Pastors abuse the world as much if Gods gracious ordinance concerning the Churches infallibility faill us 3. A third reply It is one Thing to teach Truth Teaching Truth infallibly and another to teach it infallibly Put therfore the case That Almighty God foresaw from Eternity that though all Pastors of the Church potentiâ antecedente antecedently might erre yet some at least ex suppositione consequenti or consequently would not erre but teach Christian Verities faithfully Suppose I say only thus much We have sufficient Assurance of Truth actually taught in the world without that Previous infallible Assistance we plead for which seems here useles for if either man or Angel Delivers a Verity it matters nothing whether it arise from a Fallible or infallible cause Our Faith therfore hath strength enough if it rely on Truth actually Taught though the Teacher wants infallibility I answer If God foresaw that all the Pastors of his Church would not erre or teach false Doctrin This Verity is either revealed to Christians as a Divine Truth or no if not we make that revealed which is not revealed and consequently can ground no Assurance on it if it be revealed and known to us this very Revelation viz All the Pastors of the Church shall not erre is an undoubted Principle which assented to by true Faith is our Security Because such a Faith supposeth the contrary Actual errour of all essentially excluded by virtue of Gods Revelation For it is impossible that God tell us this Truth All the Pastors of my Church shall not erre in any age and yet in sensu composito of this Revelation permit them to erre universally Observe in one Instance the security we have by force of such a Revelation 4. Suppose that God had revealed to Isaac that his Father Abraham would not sacrifice him and withall that Isaac firmly believed that Verity He had been as indubitably secured from dying at that time as if Abrahams hands had been tyed in chains or wholy made impotent to give a fatal blow Now mark the Application As Gods Eternal Prevision of Abrahams not taking Isaacs life away Antecedently supposed the cause therof actually also foreseen antecedently I say in a foregoing signe os nature so likewise it is in our present case when from Eternity he knew that all the Pastors of his Church would not actually err and revealed this Truth in time His All-seing wisdom Previously pro priori signo rationis foresaw also the total cause of their actual not Erring which cause as I have already proved was not the power of mans weak variable and mistaking Reason But the most certain Principle of Gods special and Divine Assistance When therfore God as the Objection supposeth revealed that Verity All shall not err he did not only by virtue of his Revelation impossibilitate the contrary universal errour bur warranted more that all of them because prevented by special Assistance could not erre And this is what Scripture Energitically tells us of Hell gates not prevailing against the Church of Christs Being with the Church to te end of the world wherof more hereafter In the interim you see that Christian Christian Faith relies on Truth taught by an Infallible Oracle Faith doth not only rely on a meer contingent or hap hazard Delivery of Truth but on Truth taught by an Assisted and infallible Oracle which All must assert or grant that although Christ himself by a supposed Impossibility had been fallible in No certitude of Truth had Christ and his Apostles taught it Fallibly his Preaching or the Apostles likewise fallible in Their writting Scripture and only because lyable to errour had delivered Gods Verities contingently by chance Christian Religion might yet have stood as firme and unshaken as now it is which is a horrid and an unheard of Haeresy 5. A fourth reply We cannot prove by good reason if we set aside some ambiguous Passages of Scripture which only seemingly say the contrary that the immediate Proponent of true certain Christian Faith Catholiks