can cite Snares as if he fauored your late inuented Accidental mutation for you say he affirms these expressions of Fathers are more accommodated to that Sr. I haue read this learned Author in the place you quote 3. part Disp 50. sect 3. and perused also his 4 th Section where he Snares abused treat's largely of the Conuersion of bread into Christs body and expresly mantain's à Real action necessary in this Conuersion and calls the change Real and Substantial and it must be called so when the Terminus à quo and ad quem are as they are in this Mystery Real and Substantial T' is true he cites Diuines who say the Adduction of Christs body vnder the formes of bread is sufficient to verify à Real change Bread ceasing to be because of Christs body present without à new action or production terminated vpon that body and it is à probable opinion in Schools but as remote from your Accidental extrinsecal mutation as Heauen is from earth and to as Little purpose as an other wise question is when you Ask whether those who are changed by Regeneration A quaestion answered may be said to be Transubstantiated by it Friuolous Sr. when the Terminus ad quem in conuersions is substance it beares properly the denomination of Transubstantiation or Transelementation when it s meerly an Accident or quality as in Regeneration the denomination followes the nature of the quality produced and is rightly called an intrinsecal accidental change but not Transubstantiation Had you reflected on what is here said your pretty Criticism where you torture à poor Greek word and learnedly examin whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Gregory comes from the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might well haue been spared I giue you your Choise take whether you will your cause lies where it was nothing at all aduanced But really I am weary of this sport which is more irksome to me then to kill the flies you so often talk of Howeuer I must haue patience and briefly say à word to one or two authorities more pitifully abused by you 13. That known passage of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Catech The Testimony of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 4. occurr's next in your 573. page The words are He Christ our Lord changed water into wine at cana in Galilee by his sole will and is he not worthy to be belieued that he changed wine into blood For if inuited to à marriage he wrought then that stupendious Miracle viz of changing water into wine shall we not Confess that much more he has giuen his body and blood to the Sons of the Spouse wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let vs take with all certainty the body and blood of Christ And he giues this reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For vnder the Type or Species of bread his body is giuen thee and vnder the type or species of wine his blood is giuen thee that by taking this body and blood of Christ thou mayst be made partaker of his body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so we shall be Christophori Carrying Christ when we receiue his body and blood into our members Soon after he saith Do not therefore consider this as meer bread and meer wine for it is the body and blood All along most clear and significant of Câ—rist according to his own words for although sense suggest that it is bread and wine yet let faith Confirm thee and do not iudge of the thing by thy tast but hold this most certain by thy Faith that the body and blood of our Lord are giuen thee so that there arise no doubt at all in thee Again towards the end of this 4. Catechesis he repeat's and most energetically the verity he would haue vs learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Knowing and holding it most certain that the bread which is seen by vs is not bread but the body of Christ and the wine which is seen by vs although it seem to the sense of our tast to be wine The Church Speak's not in clearer terms yet is it not wine but the blood of Christ Thus this ancient Father and worthy Bishop speaks so significantly that the witt of man shall neuer force on him any other sense but that which the Roman Catholick Church taught in the Council of Trent and teaches to this day 14. Now listen à little to Mr Stilling glosses and say in Conscience whether they haue so much as à seeming probability Mr stilling glosses improbable First he tells vs it is euident and it was for his purpose to cry Euidence at the begining that Cyrills design here is to perswade the Catechumens from whom the Mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed that the bread and wine were not meer common Elements but designed for à higher vse to â—xhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Is this Sr your Euidence Is it euident that Cyril here intended to instruct the Catechumens only We read that the Saint was à laborious Preacher and complyed with that Charitable duty euery Sunday and day in Lent Surely all who heard him were not Catechumens and why may not these instructions contain part of that Doctrin he publickly deliuered to his Auditors All you can proue is that his first Catechesis was to the lately Baptized but that this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only is not probable Turn to the Edition of S. Cyril Paris print 1609. You will find after the Dedicatory Epistle vnder this Title De scriptis Cyrill That in his last fiue Mystagogical institutions he gaue solid food and explicated the Diuine Mysteries of our Faith of Baptism Chrism the Eucharist and that great Sacrifice of the Mass which Certainly belong to Christians of riper knowledge than Catechumens were Again I' ft be euident that S Cyrill is made to mâ—sse of his ayme the Saint in this Catechesis concealed the Mysterious presence of Christ in the Sacrament He missed extreamly of his intent for no Catholick can speak now with greater clearity of the Mystery or more fully express the Churches sense then S. Cyril did aboue thirteen ages since Yet one word Say I beseech you what need was there then of concealing this Mysterious presence i' ft be no more but as you say à piece of bread deputed to à holy vse or à meer sign of Christs body present Such à Mystery requires no secrecy at all Catechumens might as well haue heard of it without torturing their vnderstandings as now they hear of the Sacrament of Baptism Lastly is it euident that S. Cyril aimed at nothing but to show that bread and wine were not meer common Elements but things designed for à higher vse or as you say to Exhibiâ— the body of Christ to Belieuers T is improbable First because you add that to the Text which
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
Since you proue not so much as one of these few Articles to be of Diuine Reuelation but by the book which records them And this you do whilst I iustly question not only the book but the Truth of this very article which you make Diuine because it is in your Bible But enough of this subiect at present whereof see more C. 9. n. 7. All that is said there and further enlarged here makes this Truth not only probable but demonstratiuely euident That Scripture alone is no vniuersal Means to end Controuersies debated between Christians and no Christians which is the only Thing we now insist on yet Iesus Christ hath left sufficient means whereby such Aliens may be reclaimed from their Errours and attain saluation Scripture doth it not for all Therefore à more satisfactory way must be thought of 3. Now if we begin to speak of the Fathers with à learned Heathen t' is labour lost for He who belieues not the Diuinity of The Fathers of no Authority with à Heathen Scripture will little regard the Fathers Authority To tell à Heathen of the high Mysteries of our Faith augment's his Difficulties puzzles Reason and rack's his vnderstanding To weary him with à long narration of Ecclesiastical history is most impertinent when as yet He neither belieues Scripture nor Fathers Yet this man may be conuerted to Christian Religion if he followes Reason Vnless we say which is intolerable to hear That our Lord Iesus will haue this poor man lost or left without means to attain Saluation by 4. The next Aduersary the Protestant may attaque shall be if you please à Roman Catholick we will here to gain time omit his Contest with Arians and other Hereticks And his whole The sectaries attempt vpon Catholicks vain and why endeauour if he goe Closely to work must either be to Establish his own Protestant Tenets by Scripture Fathers and Antiquity or forceably to disswade all by virtue of these Principles from the Belief of our Catholik Doctrin I say it is impossible to do either Because the Sectary has not in the whole Bible one clear and express Text for any one Tenet of Protestancy as t' is reformed Nor so much as one clear and express Text against any one Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Religion Therefore as Scripture cannot Pass an obligation on him to belieue one Article of his new Faith so it cannot oblige him or me to disbelieue one Article of our Roman Catholick Doctrin For vpon this supposition it neuer meddless with the one and often omit's to speak of the other in plain open and significant Terms For example Scripture neither expresly denies Transubstantiation with the Protestant nor in that plain open Term affirm's it with the Catholick it neither clearly Saies there are Two Sacraments only nor in express Words allowes of Seuen It neither clearly denies Purgatory nor vnder that express word asserts it How then can the Protestant when he hath not one clear syllable in Scripture for what he hold's in these particulars nor à word against our contrary Doctrins euer probably venture Not one Text in Scripture clear for Protestancy nor one against Catholick Doctrin to decide these and the like controuerted Matters by the plain and express letter of the Bible It is impossible The Reason is it cannot determine that whereof it speaks not clearly nor become an intellectual Rule or Measure whereby we are to iudge what 's true or what 's false concerning these controuersies if it Meddles not with them in express Terms I say in express Terms For what euer is less then that or not express must either bee the Sectaries Gloss or his fallible Deduction I reiect both and appeal to him who wrote the original Book with all it's candor and simplicity If I find Protestancy there well and good If otherwise no Gloss no Deduction shall preuail with me to belieue the Nouelty vnder pain of damnation vnless he who tampers with à Text first bid's me belieue vnder pain of damnation that he is an vnerring man or that his Glosses or deductions are infallible which I am sure is not God's command Again If I find nothing plain and express in Scripture against my Catholick Doctrin but much for it I should be worse then foolish to change my ancient Faith vpon the slight ground of farfetch't Glosses and fallible inferences 5. Shall I say yet more clearly what I here aime at Some Christians there are now in being who Belieue the true Doctrin of Christ so firmly that though an Angel preach't Contrary Galat 1. 8. They ought not to be remoued from it if therefore Protestants belieue their own Doctrin so stedfastly and say that Papists for The Asssâ—rtiâ—n proued example err in the Belief of Christ's true Doctrin they are to Euidence it by à more indubitable Principle than that is which the Apostle vnderstand's by the preaching of an Angel But such à Principle can be no other nor less certain than plain and open Scripture How Therefore can the Protestant so much as weakly hope to disswade from Popery and perswade to his opinions by meer guesses weak inferences weightles coniectures c. without plain Scripture Now to shew you he hath no more but guesses Let him please to Discuss rigidly with me but one point in Controuersy by Scripture only That of Transubstantiation wherein he think 's to haue most Aduantage may perhaps occurr and like him best I say after All he can allege for his opinion or against our Catholick Doctrin shall be no more but meer Coniectures improbable Glosses vncertain Topicks false Suppositions and the like And are these think you weighty enough to establish his Opinion which he meer Coniectures are Protestants only proofs hold's to be reuealed Doctrin No certainly The Doctrin of Christ stand's so sure vpon certain known Grounds that an Angel though he preach otherwise is not to be belieued and if it be not thus stedfastly founded it is not as I obserued aboue Christ's Doctrin How easy were it for the Sectary to end much of these debates by à due examination of this one Controuersy I vrge him to it yet you 'l see he will refuse this Modest Challenge 6. Wherefore I shall neuer comprehend why these men trouble the world as they do with writing Controuersies What is their aime Is it to draw any one Soul to Protestancy or only to giue à proof of wit and show that they can speak against God's truths which an Angel cannot Disswade from If this later be intended the Arians of old did so before them And the Diuel can do it much better than either Arian or Sectary If it be to conuert men to Protestancy The Attempt is desperate vnless they come strongly armed with plain express and Significant Scripture Whereof there is no fear at all For had they clear Scripture against one sort of their supposed erring Christians Papists for example they would not spare vs
one whit but most willingly Silence vs with Gods own plain language This we look for but in lieu of it what haue we Fancies Coniectures Glosses friuolous Discourses And thus forsooth Popery must down I marry and Protestancy be thought the pure and most refined Religion 7. By what is said already you see how vnluckily these men run Sectaries argue improbably out of the way of all probable Arguing whilst Scripture is made so clear that by the light thereof All Controuersies now raised amongst dissenting Christians can be determined Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you no Purgatory no Inuocation of Saints by plain and express Scripture Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you plainly that to deny Purgatory or Transubstantiation is as necessary to Saluation as to deny à Quaternity of Diuine Persons Now if it be not clear in such matters Why keep you à coile about these Negatiues Why do you threaten vs with God's iudgements for mantaining the Contrary Doctrins Why haue you not only made an vproar in the world about Doctrins meerly vnnecessary but more which may lay sorrow at your hearts why haue Negatiue Opinions the cause of Sectaries Separation you shamefully separated your selues from an Ancient Church whereof your Ancestors were members And this is desperately done for à Company of Negatiue Opinions Though it import's not one straw whether they be belieued or no. Contrariwise if you make the Belief of these Non-Articles necessary to Saluation they must be proued by the plain and express word of God which is vtterly impossible and therefore I said right that Scripture cannot end Controuersies between dissenting Christians Catholicks for example and Protestants 8. And thus much in effect our Newer men grant who talk much of à few simple Truths sufficient to saluation called fundamentals Is is not enough saith Dr Taylor in his 2. Disswasiue P. 168. That we are Christians that we put all our hope in God who freely giâ—es vs all things by his Son Iesus Christ That we are redeemed by his Death that we are members of his body in Baptism that he giues vs his spirit that we do no Euil that we do what good we can c. Is not this Faith ruâ—e Righteousness and the Confession of this faith sufficient vnto saluation Obserue well If such à faith of à few Nouellists and the like simple Truths which no Arian denies vnder such general Terms Of Sectaries simple Truths and cannot be proued sufficient by plain Scripture be enough to Saluation what need had Sectaries to Calumniate our ancient Church and expose Christianity to the scorn of Iewes and Atheists for lesser Matters as they think than these fundamentals or few simple truths are Do we disown any of them No. We are Christians as well as they we put our hope in God we say all things are giuen vs by his son Iesus Christ we are redeemed by his Death c. Wherein then lies our Offence O we hold strange Nouelties Inuocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation I dâ—â—y they are Nouelties but be it as you will They are out of the 〈◊〉 â—f your simple Truths and in your Principles no more but Opinions and can you haue such cruel hearts as to persecute vs banish vs and shed our blood for meer Opinions Where is your Châ—rity Again I argue Ad hominem If to hold à Purgatory be only â— Opinion your denying it is no more but an opinion also Therefore you cannot proue your Negatiue by plain and express Scripture for if you do so it well be no longer an Opinion but à 〈◊〉 led Truth and certain Doctrin Conuince this if you can and thâ— tell vs that Scripture decides all Controuersies between vs or his an obligation on vs to belieue more then These few simple Truths 〈◊〉 No Purgatory for example No Transubstantiation or say plainly that Scripture doth not put an end to these Controuersies which Truth is euident by manifest Experience 9. It is strange to see how endlesse Sectaries are and to no purpose at all in quoting Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of Scripture in all things necessary but afterward spoil all with à new Scripture sayes not how many are necessary Whimsey For they make iust so much as they please à few Simple Truths serue the turn to be Necessary and sufficient Here are three insuperable difficulties First They speak without book For God neuer told them in Scripture how many or how few of these Truths are necessary and Sufficient Therefore if I admit this Principle the Protestants sole Word must secure me though I know well that their word is neither à necessary nor à sufficient warrant for my saluation Hence 1. I vrge them to show by plain Scripture the number of these fundamentals precisely necessary 2. I must tell them If Scripture be clear in à few Fundamentals and so much only be necessary and sufficient this reasonable Quaestion may well follow What 's the rest of the Bible good for with them Most certainly the far greater part of it where it speak's not of these few Necessaries may be cast away as vseless and impertinent 3. These Nouellists Pronounce and Proue against themselues in all such Controuersies as are now in debate between them and Catholicks For if Scripture which tell 's vs of all Necessary and Sufficient things to saluation comprised in à few simple Truths whereof there is no strif now omit's whilst it mentions Sectaries proue against themselues these to speak plainly in behalf of our Protestant Opinions Nâ— Sacrifice No Transubstantiation c. With what Conscience can they tell vs and They haue often said it that this Book alone can decide these controuersies and recall vs from Popery to their new mode of Protestancy I would willingly haue Satisfaction to this one difficulty 10. Well To answer all they can pretend to out of the ancient Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of scripture in order to things necessary be pleased to obserue that the learned Tertullian against Marcion but chiefly in his book de Praescript cap. 16. at those words We are not to recurr to Scripture wherein there is no victory or à very vncertain one c. And S. Austin S. Chrisostome with others may perhaps seem to à less diligent Reader to be of contrary iudgements Tertullian now cited saies Scripture is insufficient to decide Controuersies concerning Religion amongst Christians S. Austin De Bapt. Contra Donat lib. 2. C. 6. plead's much for it's sufficiency I say here is no Contrariety both speak well both deliuer Catholick Doctrin Know therefore that Scripture is deuided into two Parts or Sections as you may read in Sixtus Senensis Two parts of Scripture distinguished Lib. 6. Bibl. Annot 152. Who cites S. Chrisostom for it The one vsually called Pars Directa or direct part treat's of the abstruse Mysteries of Christian Faith and this which is Matter of Contest between vs and Sectaries
Tertullian reiect's and hold's insufficient to end disputes And so doth S. Austin also Epistola 49. Ad Deo gratias The other named Pars reflexa and the clearer which speak's of the Foundation of Christian Religion of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world ouer of its marks and Signes of its Perpetuity and infallible Assistance of Nations flocking to it c. This part I say the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word is so perspicuous and clear that it silences all Sectaries and euidently subuert's their Errours But to tell me it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Transubstantiation the number of Sacraments c. And the very sense of Scripture which should end all is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties To assert this I say is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience And therefore I will extort this confession from our Aduersaries may they please to answer that as they shall neuer proue one of their Protestant Opinions so they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin by clear and express Scripture 11. Some obiect S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian S. Austin's Discourse with an Arian who faith Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum c. Bâ—rnob neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou to the Authority of the other Let vs contend by the Authorities of scripture which are common witnesses to vs both Here two things seem clear First That S. Austin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council as Sectaries do now the Church 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to conuince an Arian A word only in passing Dare the Sectary offer thus much or dispute with the Catholick for the supposed Obserue the question here proposed Truths of pure Protestancy or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus I would willingly see some attempt made this way but am sure He will not dare to do it Because he saith His Protestancy or these Negatiues are not reuealed but only à number of inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controuersies when the Protestant ingenuously grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the sufficiency of Scripture help not the Sectary at all Irenaeus for example call's it the Rule of Faith S. Austin A Diuine Sectaries quote Fathers to no purpose Balance Theophilus Alex A firm foundation Gerson A Sufficient and infallible Rule Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part yea and of the obscurer also when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle But what makes all this for pure Protestancy or for its Negatiue Opinions Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith whereof it is vtterly silent Doth it weigh such Negatiues or tell vs what they are worth Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures vs out No Sacrifice on the Altar No purgatory No Transubstantiation Toyes trifles There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposit Verities of Catholick Religion or in behalf of Protestancy Therefore though S. Austin appeald to Scripture against an Arian and had his reasons for it yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent when after their Appeal they find not one sentence for Protestancy or against Catholick Doctrin Now to S. Austin 12. I say first The Saint reiected not the Authority of the Why S. Austin waued the Nicene Council Nicene Council which he euer honourd but only waued that as an vnmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus who no more regarded the Nicene Definitions than Sectaries now do the Council of Trent Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions Thus our Catholick Witers haue answered à hundred times yet we must haue this Crambe recocta serued vp again as à new vnsauory Obiection I say 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter which he Saith is à body without à Soul but to the true genuine Sense Thereof which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuersal consent of Christ's vnerring Church For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin to belieue the Churches sense of Scripture and to belieue Scripture it self which most manifestly commend's vnto vs Church Authority Had then the Saint argued thus against his Aduersary He had conuinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conuiction Council yet thou cans't not deny but that Scripture commend's à Church founded by Christ diffused the whole world ouer what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the sense of Scripture That is the sense of the Holy Ghost And can be no other for à Church which swerues from the true sense of Gods word is no Church founded by Christ But the Vniuersael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy errour Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers stand's opposit to thee also And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it self 13. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture God in Essence and three distinct Persons not so plainly expressed there He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduersary of errour None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself Lib. contra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith viz. of Baptism conferred by Hereticks which though not clearly expressed in Scripture is yet held à true and valid Sacrament His words are Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum c. Although no example of this thing the validity of Baptism by Hereticks can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by vs in this particular Cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesia when we now do that which pleases or is agreable to the Vniuersal Church which Church the Authority of Scripture it self commend's Vt quoniam As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue whilst it commend's the Church and euery one fear 's to be deceiued in the obscurity of this Question Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat Let him consult the Vniuersal Church
without Progenitors successors without à Pedegree New Teachers without commâ—ssion Protestants indeed but without Principles 15. Hence I argue and it is à demonstration against Sectaries If neither Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christians in forgoing Ages euer owned or so much as heard of Protestancy before one vnfortunate Fatherles Luther broached it If no Antiquity so much as once mentioned one Professor of that Religion if no Tradition handed to Luther the new Faith he taught all which is without dispute manifest Protestancy most enidently is vpon this very account both an Vnwitnessed and an Vnprincipled Religion And not only improbable but in the highest degree improbable But no Authority can release an vnprincipled Nouelty from its own intrinsick miserable and â—ssâ—ntial state of improbability Therefore our Sectaries votes of no weight at all cannot make it probable And thus Controuersies are ended because an improbable Religion And for this reason improbable because vnprincipled is not defensible 16. To add more to this Discourse I Ask whether one Arius opposing the whole Church represented in the Nicene Council Protestancy as improbable as Arianism defended probable Doctrin or no You will answer No. Very good Yet he quoted Scripture and might one insist vpon the exteriour letter or sound of words more plain and express in the behalf of his Heresy than all the Protestants on earth can produce Fathers plain and Expresss for their Nouelty of Protestanism I would say Neither Theoderet nor any other Father speak's half so clearly to the Doctrin of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass c. As these words to omit others My Father is greater then I may the exteriour letter regulate here seemingly express an inequality between the Father and the Son Now if the seeming clear sound of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrin probable against the Church Then much less can the more obscure Testimonies of some Fathers make the Doctrin of Protestants probable against the Church Now. And if we speak of followers that Arius gained in his time There is no comparison He had more than euer England had Protestants in it 17. One may yet reply The Nicene Fathers cited plain Scripture against Arius Very true And so do Catholicks against Protestants For Christs Sacred words This is my body are as significantly plain against Protestanism as any Text those Fathers then vrged or yet can be vrged against Arianism The Arians not Conuinced by Scripture only But this you see did not the deed nor was then the last conuiction And why Here is the reason Because as Protestants now wilfully Gloss this plain Passage of Scripture and many others So the Arians then wilfully Glossed all those Scriptures alleged by the Nicene Fathers And yet hold on in that strain to our very dayes as you may read in Crellius and Volkâ—lius Yet more As the Arian Party then only Glossed but without the help of any antecedent Church Doctrin known to the world or vniuersal Tradition to settle their Glosses on So our Protestants now do the very same There is no disparity betwixt them They Gloss 't is true but giue vs Churchles Glosses Finally as those Fathers at that time did not only reiect the Arians Glosses but established also their own Definitions vpon Scripture How Conuicted interpreted by the known deliuered Doctrin of the then present and the more Ancient Church for they represented both And thus ended that Controuersy So we Catholicks proceed against Protestants And bring all debates to the like last period The Church or nothing must end them Without recourse had to the known and owned Doctrin both of this present and precedent faithful Oracle They and we may interpret Scripture long enough They may Cauil And we may hold on in our Answers to the end of an other Age without hope of ending so much as one Controuersy But of This enough is said already CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 1. SEctaries may obiect first We Suppose all this while But proue not The Orthodox world to haue hitherto maintained the Doctrin now taught by the Roman Catholick Church concerning Transubstantiation Inuocation of Saints c. Therefore our Discourse seem's vngrounded I answer 1. The Reply is not to the Purpose in this place whilst we only press Sectaries to giue in Proofs for their Contrary Positions This wee say They Cannot doe Now if wee bee as farr of From Proofes or Cannot ground our Tenets vpon vndubitable Principles Controuersies are ended without more Adoe Because The first Obiection answered both of vs if the Supposition hold's haue no Articles of Religion to Propugn But weak opinions which whether true or false import not Saluation Nay the Truth of them could it be known is scarse worth any mans Knowledge I Answer 2. Our Proofs to say no more now Stand firm vpon Church Authority once at least owned Orthodox on our Councils and ancient Tradition neuer yet repealed nor excepted against But by Hereticks only May it please our Aduersaries to come Closely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets by the Authority of any like or better Church than ours is We haue done and must yeild But this they know is impossible And therefore neither will nor can Answer our Discourse If they say our Church where its contrary to Protestancy has erred Vrge them to proue the Assertion by any Principle either equal to or stronger than our Church Authority is And you will haue them driuen again to their Glosses or to some few gleanings of Fathers In à word to no Principles 2. They may obiect 2. We haue took much pains to proue Nothing against Protestancy For we know some late Professors namely Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet stifly maintain A second Obiection Proposed these Negatiues of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass No Inuocation of Saints c. To be only pious Opinions or inferiour Truths Neither reuealed by God nor Essential to Protestant Religion Therefore whilst we vrge them to ground such Negatiues vpon plain Scripture vpon the Authority of an Orthodox Church Councils Tradition c. They tell vs we meddle not at all with the Essentials of Protestancy But only dispute against Opinions And Contrary to iustice force them to proue meer opinions by Scripture Church c. wich is more then we can press vpon them or doe our selues For haue not wee Catholicks many Opinions in Schools which none pretend to ground vpon so strong Principles as we settle our Articles of Faith on Yes most assuredly Opinions then and Articles of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled And thus Point's at à distinâ—tion between Faith and Opinion the Protestant discourses in the present Matters Here saith He is the only difference That Catholicks lay Claim to more Articles
but à Protestant opinion To assert 3. That the Ancient Church was right in faith And the present Church not or That She hath imposed meer Opinions to be belieued by Christians in place of Articles of Faith is à flat Calumny an improbable opinion which neuer yet was nor can be grounded vpon any rational Principle And can these opinions think ye which all Catholicks reiect pass for the grounded Essence of Protestancy They must or it has no Essence at all And mark well As they proceed with vs here so they doe in all other Controuersies They tell vs not only the Creeds but Scriptures much more contain all things necessary to Saluation That 's only their Opinion They tell Particular Proofe Thereof vs Their Belief now and that of the Primitiue Christians for the first Three or Four Centuries is one and the same It is their Opinion meerly And demonstratiuely vntrue They tell vs They own à Church before Luther but to say where or when it was distinct from the Roman Catholick or as They Imagin much larger than the Roman is only an Opinion and most improbable In à word They are euery where so narrowly confined That whether they build or destroy Impugn our Religion or offer to establish their own They neuer get out of the reach of Their own tottering improbable Opinions 8. And because I find this strain runs through Mr Stillingfleets whole Book He cannot surely be iustly offended if for my better Satisfaction concerning his Rational Account I require his rational Answer to one Question which I hold very reasonable Thus I propose it You Sir defend à Religion called Protestancy You allow it some essential Doctrin distinct from Popery and all condemned Hereticks Your Title supposeth this Doctrin well grounded The grounds of Protestant Religion Answer I befeech you giue me first without fumbling that Doctrin peculiar to Protestancy which essentially makes it à Religion Giue vs the Specifical difference of it if 't haue any And A question proposed to Sectaries Next Ground this Doctrin be it what you will vpon the vndubitable Authority of some known Orthodox Church Orthodox Councils or vniuersal Tradition but Fob vs not off with your vnproued Opinions Tell vs no more of belieuing Creeds only The Scripture only the Four first general Councils only without more these Onelies we except against Yet doe you only thus much as I now require T' is easily done if your cause be good And I will recall what euer I haue written against you And craue pardon for my rashnesse But the Catholick knowes well because Heresy can haue no grounded Doctrin This task is impossible I am now to shew the Protestant the impossibility of it also 9. Imagin one who belieues the Creeds as the Sectary pretend's to doe yet so That interiourly And from his very heart He abiures and slights all those Negatiue Articles called the opinions of Protestants I speak not here of his exteriour demeanour nor Countenance his dissembling i' ft be so My Question is this Whether such à man haue internal essential sufficient faith to make him à true belieuing Protestant He hold's himself one vpon this conuincing Reason That he firmly belieues what euer the Professors of that Religion maintain Sectaries must make meer Opinions their Articles of Faith as both essential and sufficient to Saluation Besides He knowes well No obligation lies on him to belieue by Faith the Negatiue Articles of Protestants neither can he because God has not reuealed them Such à man therefore hath compleatly essential Faith enough and is à true belieuing Protestant or if he be not yet got so high or haue not the Protestant Faith compleatly necessary and sufficient to saue him He must help it out by belieuing some one or other Protestant Opinion And Consequently the Belief of Opinions must either constitute him essentially à Protestant Or He will neuer be one yet this is most vntrue for God obliges none to belieue vnreuealed Opinions as Articles of Faith 10. We must goe yet further Suppose this man belieues the Creeds The Roman Catholick Church and euery particular Doctrin She teaches iust so as the best Catholick Belieues And whereas before He only slighted the opinions of Protestants now in place of them he firmly adheres to the Contrary Catholick Positions viz. To The Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation An vnbloody Sacrifice Praying to Saints worhiping of Images And in à word to all that the Church obliges me to belieue The difficulty farther vrged This man in heart is certainly Catholick I Ask whether he is yet à true belieuing Protestant In our Sectaries Principles Hee is For first he belieues his Creeds or Doctrin Common to all Christians And there is the Essence of their sauing Faith O but all is spoiled by belieuing the Church And what euer Doctrin She teaches Why so I beseech you why should this spoile all if in Conscience the man Iudges Her Articles to be reuealed Truths A Catholick you say may be saued Though he belieues thus much Therefore there is no reason to damn this man vpon any Account of his want of Faith For the Faith of His Creeds saues him And the beliefe of our Catholick Articles ruin's not that Faith Ergo. Again You must say His abiuring your Negatiue Opinions doth not Vnprotestant Him if he belieues the Creeds why then should the firm adhering to our contrary Positiue Catholick Articles which you call opinions make him less Protestant You may reply If He hold's them only as opinions He is still Protestant But we now suppose He belieues all as Articles of Faith Very good This then followes ineuitably Not to belieue them as Articles of Faith besides Owning the Creeds essentially makes him Protestant Ergo This also followes To belieue some one Negatiue or more then the Creeds Formally express Add to them the common Doctrin of all Christians The four General Councils c. is essentially necessary to Constitute him Protestant Now This very More which is nothing but à Sectarian Opinion essentially enters in to make him Protestant or Hee shall neuer bee one Thus much I intended to proue and I hold it proued demonstratiuely 11. You haue what I would say plainly laid forth in this vnanswerable Dilemma He who iudges all the Negatiue Articles of A dilemma Protestants false And belieues the Contrary Positiues taught by our Catholick Church As reuealed Truths is yet Protestant or not If not the belief of some thing els Truth or vntruth is essentially requisite to make him Protestant But the belief of That be it what you will now superadded to Constitute him à Belieuing Protestant is no Truth reuealed by God But only à Protestant Opinion without which he wants the Essence of that Religion Ergo most euidently the Belief of Opinions essentially constitutes him à belieuing Protestant Consequently some Doctrin which God has not reuealed makes him Protestant And the belief of his Creeds is not Faith
enough to make him one These Inferences seem euident if not I petition Mr Stillingfleet to discouer where the fallacy lies 12. Now on the other side if such à man as belieues his Prouing what is intended against Sectaries Creeds the Roman Catholick Church And all the Articles She teaches iust as I belieue them be notwithstanding essentially Protestant still He is both Protestant and Catholick together Catholick He is whilst He Assents to all without Reserue which the Roman Church teaches And he is also Protestant for He belieues his Creeds And what euer our new men require as essential to their Religion Wherefore vnless The not-belieuing their Negatiues or his submiss yeilding to our Positiue Contrary Doctrins destroy that essential Faith of his Creeds which is impossible He is in these Principles both at once Catholique and Protestant 13. And thus you see How Our new men end Controuersies For now in their Principles There is no more quarrel about Religion The whole contest being purely brought to this whether Party Opines more securely iust as the Thomists and Scotists worthy learned Catholicks dispute whether Schoole teaches the better Opinions Though if the Supposition stand it will be difficult to find out disputable Opinions between vs. what our Aduersary iâ— obliged to 14. Be it how you will Mr Stillingfleet must of necessity change his Tittle The grounds of Protestant Religion For now Protestancy with him consists with Popery or rather is Popery And Popery If we speak of Religion is consistent with Protestancy The Essence and grounds of the one and the other cannot but be the same if which is euer to be noted Protestancy as Protestancy hath not one true essential Article of Orthodox Faith peculiar to it selfe For hauing none The Abettors of it must either bee Catholicks or Profess no Religion 15. And here by the way you may note the difference between vs. As the Catholick own 's all which the Church defines to be de Fide And necessary to Saluation So contrariwise the Protestant own 's nothing within the compass of His Articles to be de Fide or in like manner necessary For both He and I may boldly renounce what euer he hold's as Protestant without danger of loseing our Souls And hence it is that Opinions only and false ones too essentially constitute this whole Religion I speak here of Articles proper to Protestancy For to belieue the Creeds the four General Councils to Assert that the Sacraments giue grace to the worthy Receiuer that Faith and repentance are necessary or what els can be thought of as Matter of Diuine Faith All I say and euery one Constitute the essence of Catholick Religion and are known Doctrins of the Roman Orthodox Church in so much that the Protestant has no proper Special or peculiar Tenet of Religion left him at all which is true to propugn And for this reason He is obliged hereafter Iure humano Diuino to write no more Controuersies of Religion wanting Matter to write of And no less obligation lies on him to leaue off all further quarrelling in behalf of his improbable Opinions I would willingly see this plain discourse answered 16. Some perhaps not penetrating the force of it may A weak reply answered Reply The old strife is now on foot again For as we call the particular Tenets of Protestants Opinions and improbable also So they in like manner say All that the Catholick Church maintains aboue the Common Doctrin of Christians or the Articles of the Creeds c are only church-Church-Opinions as improbable as Theirs The Doctrin of Transubstantiation seem's as improbable to them as No-Transubstantiation to vs. Inuocation of Saints more improbable than not to trouble Those blessed Spirits with our Prayers c. Answ The reply setled vpon no Foundation is more than simple For either these men Cauil because we call their Negatiue Articles Opinions or Term them improbable Opinions Sectaries themselues call them Opinions that 's vnexceptionably plain Though they know well that the Church neuer speak's so meanly of her contrary Positiue Doctrins The only difficulty remaining is whether they are improbable or no And this stands most clearly euidenced already vpon an vndeniable Principle viz. That when Luther first broached them They were opposite to the whole Orthodox world And for that cause were then as improbable and Heteroclite as one Rebels vote is against à whole Kingdome or as Arianism was against the Vniuersal Church Now since that time they haue gained no more Probability than Arianism And so the old Improbability still clings to them And for this reason the Sectary is to find out à Catholick Church which defended his Negatiues or any one specifical Tenet of Protestancy as Ancient or reputed as Orthodox as our Church then was or is now Thus much done we will allow more to his Opinions than Probability But to doe it is Impossible 17. Thus the first part of the Obiection aboue is solued who are to proue the Protestants Negatiues To That is added of our pressing Sectaries to proue their Negatiues by plain Scripture I answer we iustly exact so much proof of Mr Rogers and his Complices the greater part of Protestants I think who hold them Articles of Faith These are to produce their Scriptures And only vrge Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet that call them inferiour truths or pious Opinions to settle these Negatiues or any Tenet of pure Protestancy vpon so much as any thing like à Probable Principle And here we expect their last Propositio quâ—escens for Probability But this cannot be giuen whilst we know The true Church of Christ decries them as improbable and Heretical errours 18. It is very true and that 's next obiected Catholicks haue opinions in schools differently Principled from Articles of Faith but t' is nothing to the purpose when the diffecence betwixt these and our Sectaries Tenents is that Catholick opinions if How Catholick Opinions differ Protestancy probable are euer reduced to probable grounds our Sectaries opinions contrary to the voice and iudgement of à whole Church can haue no such foundation And for this cause we iustly impugn them not as False Opinions only but as Heresies Now to the last Plea of Sectaries making fewer Articles of Faith than the Church doth The Answer is easy It belongs not to them God knowes wholly vnknown to the world one Age past To giue vs now à right measure of Faith The attempt is no less vain than prodigiously bold But Say on How will they Abbreuiate By what Rule By what law By their improbable opinions Here is all Well therefore may they Lament these vnlucky Opinions which haue ruined many à poor Soul and giuen infinit Scandal to the Christian world Vae homini illi per quem Scandalum venit CHAP. XXI Protestants granting Saluation to Catholicks by à clear inference drawn from their Concession end Controuersies of Religion VVhat force their concession hath VVhy they
possibility of Saluation to those of the Protestant Chvrch in case of inuincible ignorance How we dare deny it where there is à preparation of mind to find out and embrace the most certain Way to Heauen What 's this Are you yet only in Preparatiues to find out and embrace Is one whole Age gone And Truth not yet found out among Sectaries are yet preparing to belieue you The Catholick firmly belieues A better Religion cannot be found than that is He now embraces And you are Still in à state of seeking and preparing for it Sr à meer Preparation to take Physick in à mortal infirmity cures none no more can à Preparation to belieue if one meet not with the right Faith saue any Good Physick actually applyed cures the body And Faith actually informing the soul saues vs. 16. It is not now my intention to dispute that case of inuincible Ignorance great Diuines fauour not the Opinion See our learned Countriman Thomas Southwell Analyfis fidei Disp 3. Cap. 9. 1. 150. And Michael de Elizalde de formâ verae Religion is inuenienda Quest 37. n. 596. The rest which followes of men being saued by The Terms of Gospel A language I vnderstand not And of our Stalking to the interest of the Church of Rome is vain Talk euery Arian will say as much But no close Arguing 17. Page 614. You offer at à Saluation to our Argument already proposed It is most safe for Saluation to take that way which All parties agree in To this you neuer directly Answer But wholly Our Aduersary waues the main difficulty waue the difficulty First you tell vs again without Proof of the Errours and corruptions in our Church And say it is hard to conceiue there should be that Faith and Repentance which you make necessary to Saluation with such à multitude of errours Sir These fancied errours either destroy Diuine Faith of the Creeds and Fundamentals Or do not If destructiue of Faith You contradict your Self And falsify your own Proposition which saies Catholicks may be saued in their Religion For without Diuine faith no man can be saued If these Supposed errours destroy not Faith The ground of Saluation is apt of it's own nature to produce in à Soul Contrition Repentance pious Conuersation The fear and loue of God c. Vnless we wilfully hinder such holy effects of Grace And here you haue an vnanswerable Dilemma 18. Suppose these miscalled errours destroy Faith There is no Possibility of Saluation at all Suppose they destroy it not But consist with it much less can they vnroote Repentance Piety A dilemma the loue of God à nd the other virtues which bring men to Heauen The reason is euident Essential Errours were There any stand directly opposite to Christian Faith which is true therefore in the first place they must shake or rather destroy that ground of Saluation before they reuerse Repentance and other Christian Virtues Now if you say we haue indeed à kind of Faith but so defectiue that it beget's no Repentance no piety c. You speak only your fancy destroy the very Essence of Faith And Consequently the Catholick must at last be damned for want of Faith or if you make the Errours so minute as not to rase out Sauing Faith that stands in being still so do other Christian virtues likewise and Saluation with them The Argument is conuincing 19. Page 615. You are wholly besides the Question And fall vpon particular cases impertinent to our present purpose You first inueigh bitterly against Death-bed Repentance where Our Aduersaries impertinencies you deliuer intolerable Doctrin 2. You vniustly Calumniate As if Catholicks taught Repentance not necessary before death whereas the world knowes both Doctors in Schools and Preachers in their pulpits most Zealously inculcate the great danger of continuing in Sin and delaying Repentance Sr these difficulties worth examination And throughly Canuased by others are in this place impertinencies Therefore though you would lead me astray yet I 'le not follow you But press you to Answer directly to the point in hand Giue me à man For example An humble S. Francis who liued euer à Penitential life and delayed not Repentance vntil death there haue been innumerable in the Church profoundly humble and penitential the Question is whether you dare damn such vpon the Account of wanting true Faith true Repentance the fear or loue of God c Damn such And you deny the possibility of Saluation to all Catholicks Saue them And you grant that true Repentance piety and other Christian virtues are consistent with Catholick Faith And thus I remoue you from your particular case of Death-bed repentance For although all such were Damned which is hideously impious to Assert Yet you see our Question has à large extent in order to millions of other Belieuers who liued piously all their life long Now if you Say that Doctrin which holds Saluation possible to one who euer liued à lewed life and only repent's at death is perniciously impious you only vent your Opinion And here is an other impertinency 20. Page 617. You come to that which is the proper business And t' is to examin the strength of our Inferences Protestants grant we may be saued And the Church asserts it also To An Instance brought in this you say his Lordship return's à triple Answer Who first begins with the confession of Protestants This was the way of the Donatists of old which would hold as well for Them as the Church of Rome To proue the Assertion you instance in one particular of Baptism Both Catholicks and Donatists granted Baptism was true among the Donatists but the Donatists denied it to be true Baptism among the Catholick Christians Therefore on this Principle the Donatists side is the surer side if the Principle be true It is the safest taking that way which the dâ—ffering Parties agree on Answ 1. Here is no Agreement concerning the main point of Saluation For the Catholicks and Donatists iointly and vnanimously neuer openly Confessed that Catholicks could be saued as now we and Protestants by one consent say it But let that pass 2. The Catholicks To no purpose and Donatists agreed that Baptism administred by Hereticks was valid and good That 's true Doctrin But both parties neuer agreed that it was lawful for à Catecumen to take Baptism from the Donatists vnless in Case of necessity See S Austin Lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 2. 3. O but thus much followes The Donatists Baptism is more safe than that of Catholicks vpon this Principle That both Parties agree'd so far and it is safest to take that way wherein differing Parties agree consequently the Catholicks Baptism is less safe because the Donatists denied it to be true 21. Answ This whole Discourse is à meer Paralogism the Fallacy lies here That the Opinion of dissenting men is supposed A Paralogism answered to Add more security more certainty to Church-Doctrin than the Doctrin
it self deriues from that Oracle of Truth I say Contrary As such Opinions when true Add no more weight or certainty to that Doctrin than it had antecedently from the The Fundamental ground of our Answer Church So if false They make not the Doctrin less certain Take one instance God reueals this Truth The Diuine word assumed Humane nature One preaches the Truth but Adds no degree of certainty to the Doctrin in it self which in the highest degree was most certain before his Preaching An other falsly as Arius did opposes the verity it is not Therefore less certain in it self because He contradicts it And thus we discourse of our Church Tenets indubitably most certain vpon Church Authority whether Hereticks deny or grant That Matters not the Doctrin stand's firm still as before And as we see by daily experience neither riseth higher in certainty nor fall's lower in the iudgement of Catholicks because Sectaries side with it or bend against it 22. Thus much proued The Paralogism is at an end The Catholicks held The Donatists Baptism valid so they would haue done had these Hereticks duely Ministred it and with all which is possible afterward denied it valid So independent Church Doctrin is of dissenting mens opinions The Donatists again slighted our Catholick Baptism the Church regards it not For as the Opinions of the Goodnes of their own Baptism heightned not the Churches certainty concerning it So their Contrary Opinion of its insufficiency made not the Truth less certain to the Catholick Apply what is here noted to our present case and you will see the like Conclusion Protestants Say we may be Sectaries Siding with vs neither Lessens nor increases our Certainty saued in Catholick Religion The Opinion is true But as asserted by them is no more but an Opinion which therefore Add's not one grain of more Certainty to Catholick Doctrin For had they denied vs à possibility of Saluation as now by meer Chance they grant it Catholicks would haue giuen as little eare to That as They now doe to their many other false Opinions So it is Church Doctrin as I now said neither fall's nor riseth in certainty vpon the account of our Sectaries Opinions 23. You will Ask what then gain we by the Concession of Protestants when it giues vs no more Assurance in this particular than we had before from the Church I haue answered aboue We gain thus much That they cannot rationally impugn any Catholick Doctrin without contradicting Them selues For if confessedly This bring 's men to Heauen the Religion is sound And implies no essential Errour The concession then as I said serues well as an Argument ad Hominem to stop the mouths of Sectaries And showes withall That they end controuersies For its What their Excession Serues for horridly vniust to dispute against à Faith which all grant saues souls We pretend no more nor can pretend it And here is the Reason 23. No Catholick nor indeed any other doth or can belieue à Christian Verity vpon this ground or Motiue that Sectaries say its true for their saying so is neither Gods Reuelation nor the Churches Doctrin But à meer Opinion as taught by them But an opinion chiefly theirs is to weak to ground any faith vpon Therefore if I belieue as I do Saluation most safe in the Roman Catholick Church I belieue it vpon à Motiue totally distinct from the Protestants Assertion It is true their Assertion or siding with vs may induce one to reflect on the great power Truth has in working vpon men most refractory Though it Adds no new degree of certainty to Catholick Doctrin I haue insisted longer vpon this point because it vtterly destroies what euer Mr. Stillingfleet can say against vs vnless he will quarrel vpon this score that I here suppose my Church Doctrin most certain which is not the Question now But may well be supposed in all good law of disputation And shall God willing be proued in the next Discourse 24. Page 619. you proceed to à second Answer of his Lordship And Argue thus If that be the safest which both Parties agree in the Principle makes much for the Aduantage of Protestants And why We Catholicks are bound Say you to belieue with you in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree The Sectaries Argument taken from the Eucharist in the faith of the Church of England That in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and Real body and blood of Christ truly and really c. Answ 1o. If we belieued As you do The motiue of our Faith would be As is now said quite different from the Motiue of your Opinion And so it is de facto in the belief of euery Catholick Mystery But I waue this And say Your Principle is ill applyed For you and we agree in iust nothing concerning the Eucharist but thus far only That what we see look's like bread We say that very Christ who was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross is really and substantially present vnder the form's of bread after true Consecration You by à strange fancy lay hold of Christs Presence existing in Heauen And think thereby to make your selues partaker of his real body We say Christ is rruly Worth nothing and why and really in two and more places at once you make this vtterly impossible We put the real Presence or local being of Christ in the very Obiect before our eyes vpon the Altar you put it in your faith or Fancy rather Hence your question afterward viz. Whether we do not allow any real and Spiritual presence of Christ besides the Corporal you mean the Real manducation is soon answered For we distinguish what you confound together And say if by these Terms Spiritual Presence you would exclude the real obiectiue Presence of Christs sacred body we dissent from you And absolutly hold that Real obiectiue Presence which may be rightly called Spiritual because by it Christ is placed Totus in toto totally in the whole host and totally in euery part of it Contrariwise if you make it only à fancied Presence of Christ or say Hee is not really vnder the Forms or Accidents of bread wee leaue that lean Sacramentarie Doctrin to you vtterly disanow it and still dissent from you 25. The whole cheat lies hudled vp in those vnexplicated words The worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body c. As if forsooth your two terms The fallacy discouered Faith and Spiritual could make vs agree in one Tenet whereas we most vary about this very Faith and the obiect of it And also disclaime your fancied Spiritual Presence Hence we say you haue neither true Sacrament nor true Faith nor receiue worthily nor really partake of Christs true body nor of any benefit of his Passion We say you feed not spiritually but only tast natural
to Principles before we know what these men belieue Yet most certainly we should first haue had some light concerning their Beliefe before we hear talk of its Principles We should know how many Articles the Professors of it maintain as necessary to saluation How many also they reiect as Heretical We should know what it is one may boldly renounce Particulars omitted as an Opinion proper to Protestants And what it is he must hold as Protestant or be damned All this I Say and more Should in the first place haue been fully explained to the end we may haue some hint of the Thing Principled before we are informed of its Principles The Proof of à Thesis euer presupposes the Thesis plainly set down You neuer heard of any Tenet publickly exposed in Schools to The pretended Faith of Protestants Cannot be known All may abiure that Faith without danger of Saluation the Examination of others But euery Opponent knowes what 's Asserted All here run's in à contrary Strain A Faith is spoken of reducible to Principles which is so remote from all humane vnderstanding that none shall or can euer tell me what iâ— is Or speak thus And you speak truth VVhat euer the Protestant maintain's as he is Protestant though called Faith may without danger of our Souls be boldly renounced by him by me and the whole world besides 5. The Conuincing Reason of what I now Assert is so groundedly laid forth in this present Treatise that no Sectary shall ouerthrow our Proofs Read I beseech you The. 1. They haue no Essence of Religion Disc C. 20. n. 7. and what followes you find there à Sect of men called Protestants but without the very Essence of Religion Read also the. 2. Discourse you haue there in seueral places the whole Faith of Protestants brought to à List of meer false Opinions or rather to flat Heresies Their Their Negatiues disowned Doctrin Common to all Insufficient negatiue Articles of not Praying to Saints Of no Transubstantiation are cashiered by them The Doctrin common to all called Christians without more is à plain Fourb unless they deny the sacred Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation also with Arians Their Pretence to belieue so much of Catholick Doctrin as pleases their Fancies is not singular to them but common to others no Protestants 6. Now and it s euer to be noted we enquire after the singular Faith of Protestants as contradistinct from Popery And Where the main difficulty is And what Should be Answered all other known Heresies And desire That this Faith as it is Peculiar may be reduced to Principles I Say the Reduction is vtterly impossible and the Reason is best expressed in few words Their Faith is Phansy They haue nothing like Faith to found on Principles But to Se this proued You are once more wished to read the Discourses and Chapters already quoted for I will not take so much pains for the Doctor as meerly to blot Paper and repeat in this place what is there Conuinced Thus much Noted 7. Be pleased to hear two Propositions which come neerer to our present matter One is VVhateuer Faith the Sectary 〈◊〉 Claim to as peculiar to Protestancy be it what you will if Two Propositions contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church is not reducible to Principles 8. Another Assertion All the Principles tediously made vse of by the Doctor we may Suppose him very conuersant in the best are wholly impertinent And haue no more to doe with the Faith of Protestants No more support that Nouelty then if one should tell you Abraham begot Isaac If I proue this you 'l Say the Doctor has ventured vpon à desperat Attempt If not I disgrace my selfe 9. To goe on and proue We must first well distinguish The Doctrin contained in these Principles between the Doctrin contained in these Principles supposed to vphold the Protestants Faith and the Application or Inferences drawn from it in order to that end The Doctrin is sometimes true sometimes false and often not well expressed dubious But the Application of it to Protestancy And this And the Application are to be distinguished most Concern's the Doctor when true is as remote from the purpose or no more Concern's the faith of Protestants then if one should Say God made the world I say when is true for if false or dubious it s wholly impertinent 10. Thus the Doctor begins and pity me that I trouble the Reader and my Selfe also with meer Parergons which relate The first Principle not at all to Protestancy First An entire Obedience to the will of God being agreed on to be the condition of Mans happines no other way is in it selfe necessary to that end than such whereby Man may know what the VVill of God is Answ This general Doctrin though true Support's no more the particular faith of Protestants be it what you will then the Faith of Arians or Pelagâ—ins For all these and Catholicks likewise may grant A meer parergon to the present Controuersy There is no other way necessary to happines than such whereby à Man may know what the will of God is yet must withall acknowledge the Inference the Reduction or Application to this or that particular Doctrin wherein these Parties dissent from one another wholly impertinent vnless more be Sayd For Example the worst of Heretiques hold with Catholicks There is no other way to be saued but by Christ Iesus our Redeemer But as the Arian neuer offers immediatly to draw from thence his Denyal of à Mysterious Trinity So the Catholick would be as far to seek should he aduenture without more to build the Infallibility The reason why it â—s impertinent of the Church or the Doctrin of Transubstantiation vpon that General owned Truth only The Reason is A Principle Common to all or more Considered as Common stand's firm giues light T' is true so sar as it reaches but cannot possibly extend it selfe to all the different Tenets Wherevpon Men fall when they vary and dissent among Themselues Here the Principle becomes vseless without more light or à new Supply of other Proofs which relate immediatly to euery particular Doctrin really true or pretended to be so 11. Thus you Se the Doctors errour whilst first he giues The Doctors errour you à Principle common to all And will next build the particular Faith of Protestants vpon it I Say this is impossible For à truth so General as is now noted giues no more Support or Light to Protestancy than to Arianism Had the Dr better explained these General words There is no other way than such whereby Man may know what the will of God is And then adioyned But Protestants in behalf of their new Faith Teach and Proue such and No application made of the general Principle such to be the only only wayes whereby Man may know the Will of God and Papists cannot