proves it in every place Of their Faith Spread abroad c. What Think ye was this not yet written Word of our Lord or the true Analogy of the Thessalonians Faith As well Dilated as Approved of What Finally was that Form of Doctrin commended in the Romans cap. 6. 17 Why Did the Apostle blame the unsetled Galatians for Being so soon Transferred into another Gospel and Denounce Anathema cap. 1. 6. if they believed an Angel Preaching contrary to his former Doctrin All these and many other Passages of Holy Writ manifestly Declare Before the writing of Scripture there was a plat-form of Christian Religion That there was Divine Doctrin Taught by the very Founders of Christianity before the Writing of Scripture There was a Plat-form of Christian Religion made by the very Apostles before they Separated Themselves and began their Preaching to several Nations And to comply with this Rule or Form of Faith Blessed St. Paul Though full of the Holy Ghost went to confer with St. Peter and the rest Gal. 2. 2. Act. 15. 36. Upon it The Apostles Held Councils yea Councils held upon that platform and Scripture writ and as some Grave and Learned Doctors Affirm by the Measure therof the Holy Scriptures were written Se the notes on the Rhems Testament Rom. cap. 12. v. 6. 3. Be it how Sectaries will There was Faith in the World before written Scripture The Apostles who taught it Had their Rule of Doctrin prescribed by a The Apostles had their Rule of Doctrin from a certain Master good Master the Holy Ghost for they Taught not Christian Doctrin upon their own frail Iudgements considered as Men. No they had ever the Guidance and Direction of this Blessed Spirit with them and as His Instruments Delivered so much as this Master according to Christs Promise gave Assistance to and neither more nor less Now those Pious Christians The first pious Christians had their Rule from the Apostles who heard this Apostolical Learning made it most certainly Their Rule Their Measure of Faith Their Analogy and Form of Doctrin Whence I argue This Form or Rule of Oral Doctrin First laid up in the Brests of the Apostles and afterward Delivered to different Nations was neither All set down in Holy Scripture for Volumes would not contain it nor All intierly lost 'T is pitty such a rich Depositum should Perish Therfore it yet Remains somewhere in safe Custody That Doctrin is yet preserved in the Church But no Place is fitter for it then that which the Fathers call Thesaurarium dives the Rich Treasury of the Church where 'T is still Preserved and Those Timothies I mean those Evangelists Those Pastors Those Doctors mentioned Ephes 4. 11. Appointed by Providence to Edify the Mystical Body of Christ The Chief Preservers of this Legacy and Noble Depositum are as Necessity Requires to impart it and make it known to the World by their Definitions Least like Children we be carried away with every Wind of fals Doctrin And The Ground of Tradition herein lyes the very Ground of all Apostolical Tradition This is not mine but the Great Vincentius Lirinensis own Doctrin now cited Where pondering that of the Apostle O Timothy Keep thy Depositum He Asks Quis Est bodie Timotheus nisi vel universa Ecclesia vel specialiter totum corpus Praepositorum c. Who is now or at this The whole Church or Rulers of it preserve this Depositum Day our Timothy But either the Vniversal Church or more specially the Whole Body of those Guides and Rulers set over it that are Themselves to have the intire knowledge of Divine Worship or to infuse it into others c Afterward Quid est hoc Depositum What is this Deposited Doctrin He Answers Id quod tibi creditum est 'T is that which is committed to Thee not that Thou Invent's that which thou hast Received not what Thou hath Fancied of thy own Head It is a thing not of Wit but of Doctrin Non usurpationis propriae not of thy Private Vse Fashion or Practise Sed The Church no Author but Keeper of Divine Doctrin publicae Traditionis But of publick and known Tradition brought to Thee handed to Thee wherof thou art not to be Author sed Custos But a Keeper and Preserver Then he goes on Depositum Custodi Catholicae Fidei Talentum c. 4. And thus you Se we have a Church a Catholik Principles wheron the Church proceed's Talent of Faith committed to it A Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin laid up in its Treasury We have a Moral body of Timothies of Teachers united with one Supream Head and Pastor That Assures us more Explicitly by its Definitions what the Ancient Deposited Doctrin is And Reclaim's us if we swerve from it We have Express Scripture that both A Mystical body of Teachers Gods written and unwritten word Sectaries want all Proves and Approves the Churches Proceeding in Doing so And this Sacred written Word faithfully Interpreted And the unwritten Deposited Word also most Infallibly Proposed is our Form our Rule and perfect Analogy of Faith O Had Sectaries but Half as much For what They boldly Assert contrary to us And because every Man is a Chutch with them They Define more then our Church Defines The Consecrated Host is Bread only a Figure of Christs Body only There are two Sacraments only Works Iustify not but Faith only c. Had I say These men but half Protestants have no Authority for their Definitions so much Authority for their Definitions How would they warble out the Notes of their Novelties But God hath Silenced them For they have neither Church nor Scripture nor Ancient Depositum nor Tradition nor Analogy nor Rule of Faith nor Motives to Make Talk only of a Nullity and an unproved Negative Religion what They Define probable nor Any other Thing to talk of But of a meer Nothing I mean the Nullity of Their unproved Negative Religion 5. What hitherto is said of Catholick Definitions made by Pope and Councils Chiefly Relates to such Matters as have been Anciently without Dispute Revealed yea And believed also Though not perhaps in order One way of Defining to all so Explicitly And this way of Defining some Divines call Propositionem That is a Reproposing of Mysteries formerly Believed whether clearly Deduced Gods unwritten word of equall Authority with his written word out of Gods Word or drawn from undoubted Tradition 'T is the very same For as the Oral Taught Doctrin of the Apostles was and is certain as Doctrin Registred in Scripture so all that really is Gods Vnwritten Word when proposed to us by the Church as such is in Substance of equal Authority and Credit with the Written For it is not the setting down of Truths in Velume or Partchment that Add's more Weight to them or makes them higher Verities And here by the way I cannot but Reflect on the
of Priesthood give me warrant for either show your letters Missive For if you cannot I may as prudently believe Arius old Haeresy as your new learning Truely Sr replyes Mr. Poole my Answer is The Lord I hope senr us I cannot say more 3. Here the Philosopher busies his thoughts and question 's Reason whether he may in prudence ground The Philosophers reflection his Belief in Christ upon a Mysterious and yet unevidenced Book which above thousand years together was never own'd by any true Professors of Christs Doctrin Whether he may do so upon the bare Word of these late men who without Mission began their Preaching only a hundred years agon Who have no unity want Miracles have made no Conversions nor are able to tell him what the Book saith in those difficil places that puzzle his understanding It is impossible saith he to Acquiesce without further Proofs drawn from Reason Tell me therfore good Mr. Poole seeing Scripture as you say contains strange Mysteries above my Reach and no few seeming Contradictions which standing in reason rather affright then invite me to accept of it can you give me Assurance by good Motives or Arguments Protestants cannot prove the Holy Scripture Not from Papists extrinsecal to the Book That it is Divine or writ by the holy Ghost and not by Chance of Ignorance or Illusion Answ I can First the Papists once owned this Book as Gods own hand Writing Phil. O never mention these men They are now as we suppose forgotten Surely you are able to evidence your Book which is the sole Ground of your Faith without Ayde or Arguments borrowed from Papists I 'll do it therfore saith Mr. Poole The Spirit of God bears witnes with my Spirit that this book is Divine and Gods Sacred Word I am yet an Infidel answer's the Philosopher Nor from the Spirit and know little of Gods Spirit much les of yours my search is only after Prudent Motives to which Reason ought to yeild and accept of this Book as Sacred and Divine Which Sr. you are oblig'd to produce and not wink and fight it out with me by an unknown Spirit which in Real Truth warrant 's as well a Jew to make good his Talmud or a Turk his Alcoran as you your Bible There is yet one Argument more saith Mr. Poole to prove the Divinity Nor from the Majesty of Stile of Scripture independent of Popish Tradition viz. The Majesty of the Stile the Sublimity of the Doctrin the Purity of the Matter c. These and the great Reverence all bear to Scripture seem powerful Inducements to admit of it as Gods Word Philosop They are strong Fancies of your own head and how void of all Reason I will evidently demonstrate Scripture not like the first Principles in Nature First no man can Assert that Scripture is the Primam Cognitum or per se Notum a Thing known Immediately by its own light as the first Principles of Nature are which yet this Majesty proves or nothing for if so I should se it yea and All without dispute would admit of one and the same Canon of Scripture 2. As much Majesty appear's in the Book of Wisdom or Ecclesiasticus which you Reject as in the Song of Salomon or Ecclesiastes Admitted by you 3. If contrary to our Supposition we might once call to mind that now forgotten Church of Popery There was no want you know it well either of exteriour Lustre Glory Majesty Conversions Miracles or of Preaching sublime Doctrin to set it forth Yet this Glory and Majesty you scornfully cast of as an Insufficient Proof for that Church and here without either Conscience or Reason you Adore a far lesser Exteriour Majesty and by it will Out-brave me with a Book the Truths wherof are yet as unmanifested to me by Arguments drawn from Reason as those very Writings are which you call Apocryphal 4. And here by the way observe your great Nor by the Purity of it which is the thing to be proved Simplicity in arguing You prove the Divinity of Scripture by the Purity and Majesty of it The first is in question For I who have perused Scripture and find no few seeming Contradictions in it must have my doubts cleared and that Purity evidenced by Proofs extrinsecal to Scripture before I believe it Pure Concerning the Majesty of the Stile Learn your Error Two things are to be distinguished in The Exteriour Connexion of words not the Divinity of Scripture Scripture The Exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words we read which solely considered is common to other pious Books writ by Holy men without Special Assistance of the Holy Ghost And here is all the visible Majesty that Scripture presents either to our eyes or Reason which therfore convinceth nothing What makes Scripture Divine The other is and herein consists the Vertue and Majesty of Scripture That God by his firm Decree and gracious Ordinance hath pleased to seal as it were This Book and own it as his Sacred Word Now this signature because External to the Letter or Syntax of Scripture is no Object of Sense nor your reason For you do not evidence it by Antecedent None proves the Bible by his Faith but his Faith by the Bible antecedently owned Sacred The Reverence shewed to Scripture no proof rational motives You may well say it is the Object of your Faith or Fancy But I hope you will not prove the Divinity of your Bible by your Faith but Evidence your Faith by your Bible Antecedently proved Divine to Reason by good Inducements Hence I Answer to that weak Argument drawn from the Respect and Reverence which all give to Scripture And say it carrieth not one grain of Weight with it For even Christians much more Infidels must first know upon Prudent Inducements That the Bible is Sacred before they Reverence it and not prove it Sacred Because they Reverence it For none proves this man to be a Prince or Prelate because he doth him Homage But therfore He complyes with that duty because he is Antecedently known or owned for a Person of such quality Here saith the Philosopher are a few Exceptions against your Religion and my Difficulties proposed To solve them 5. Believe it old Papists hitherto forgot must Catholicks prove their Religion shew themselves and be remembred again They and only they though we Imagin no Scripture written are able by an Oral and never interrupted Tradition to Assure a Heathen of Christ our Lord of the Miracles he wrought of the Apostles he called to Found a Church of the great Conversions they made They And the Scripture and they alone can warrant Authentick written Scripture and show who writ it and how it was handed down by continued Professers of their Faith Age after Age to this present day They and only they do still preserve Vnity in Doctrin Reclaim Infidels Shew their Credentials Produce their Credentials for what
yours it hath more Unity in Faith Yours is Rent and torn apieces with Divisions And Loe great God Here is that Glorious Edifice which you after all your perfect Idea's of a Church have erected For this you dyed and never shed your Blood to Establish my false erroneous Synagogue of Popery Permit Reason to judge in this case and say whether the Devil be an ill Advocate if Protestants avouch Truth And stand to their professed Doctrin That the Church of Rome drowned in a Deluge of Errors abandoned the first Verities of Christian Religion for a thousand years together And that their Church as it is now in Being is the most choise goodly and only refined Religion in the world 3. My last Argument hinted at in the Title is Foundations laid of new Haeresies thus A new coyned Haeresy without Motives of Credibility may be as well or better defended by plain speaking Scripture then Protestancy It is believe me the easiest thing in the world to draw Haeresy out of the Words of Scripture To make good my Assertion Read first St. Hierom in his Dialogue S. Hieroms Reflection Adversus Luciferianos Paris Print anno 1509. at the very end of the Dialogue This great Doctor then to reduce some beguiled by the Luciferians who held that a Bishop or Priest once Deserting their Faith could never again be admitted into the Church which they endeavored to prove by that text of St. Matthew cap. 5. v. 13. You are the Salt of the earth but if the salt hath lost its savor wherwith shall it be salted Ad nihilum valet ultra it is good for nothing hereafter c. St. Hierom I say to refute these hath an excellent Reflection Nec sibi blandiantur si de Scripturae Capitulis videntur sibi assumere c. Let them not flatter themselves if they seem to assume out of Scripture Of Errors drawn from Scripture what they say For the Devil hath spoken things out of Scripture Scripture God know's doth not consist in what we read but in the sense of it Otherwise saith the Saint Possumus nos c. I am able to coin a new Opinion out of Scripture and say That none are to be received into the Church that wear shoos or have two coats For that is Scripture 4. It were most easy to go on with this true Reflection of St. Hierom and draw new Haeresies every Particulars hour from Scripture One will say The Sabbath-day is to be kept Sacred in place of Sunday and bring Scripture for it Exod. 20. 8. Another That we are as well to abstain from Eating of Blood or things Strangled as from Fornication it is a Decree of the Apostolical Council and Scripture Actor 15. 29. A third That Infants aae not to be Baptized There is ground for it Matth. 28. A fourth That we are not to Contend in Law but quit our Coat if any man will take it and Cloak also Matt. 5. A fifth That no Euangelical Preacher is to carry Gold or Silver with him or have two Coats Matt. 10. 7. 5. Suppose that a new Sect of men should rise up A new Sect of men rising up this year in whole Multitudes and rigidly adhere to the exact letter of Scripture in these Particulars is it possible to convince them by Scripture It is impossible And have they not think ye more plain Text's of Gods Word for these Tenents then Protestants have for pure Protestancy Yea most evidently For they produce nothing but express Scripture without Glosses And do they not believe in Christ and admit of every jota in Scripture Yea and therfore are sound in Fundamentals Moreover Do they not acknowledge both Christ and Scripture upon the same Tradition or other Evidences as Protestants do Yea and are ready perhaps to joyn in Belief with them when they se Scripture as plain for any Protestant Doctrin They only add a Superstructure Have as good a Church as Luther had of these Articles And have They not as good a Church as Luther and Calvin had a year after their new Preaching Yes They swarm with multitudes of Followers and multitudes make a Church Why then is not the Belief of these men all grounded in Scripture as good as that of Protestants I think it is of two Evils the Better if more Words of Scripture can more advance the Worth of either Religion But I tell you and truly That neither of them is good because unreasonable and they are therfore unreasonable Because no mans Reason can in this present state of Christianity whilst God Govern's us by the Light of Prudence fall upon a Religion or Believe a Church which evidently Appears A Religion without prudent Motives is no Religion naked and destitute of all Rational motives inductive to True Belief Now Scripture alone without the Interpretation of a Church evidenced by forcible Motives is what you please to make of it And a Church not at all manifested by rational motives is no Church and Therfore cannot interpret Scripture If you ask why we say That Protestancy is so bare of Motives and consequently no Church I have answered above Because this Religion never had nor shall have any such perswasive Inducements or the like Signs of Truth for it as Christ Iesus and his Blessed Apostles manifested when they first taught the World and by virtue of those Motives gained innumerable Souls to Christianity Look then about you and find me out a Society of Christians that is evidenced by such Signs as hold a strict Analogy with those of Christ and his Apostles and you have the True Church But this is the Roman Catholick Church What proved Christianity anciently proves now the Roman Catholick Church only and no other as I have largely proved Dare you therfore own the true Christ and his Blessed Apostles who wrought Miracles lived Holily preached Efficaciously upon such Motives You must also own this true Church upon the like grounded Proofs Were Miracles Sanctity Efficacious Doctrin c. Rational inducements to Believe in Christ They are now both powerful and perswasive to Believe this Church To Deny as I said above all Miracles to this Church even the greatest as is the Raysing of dead men to life is to Deny Sense Reason History The forceable Motives of Faith cannot be taken from our Church and all Authority And to appropriate These and other Motives to Protestants is only an attempted Plagiary which cannot be done It is true These men glory in a stolen Bible and 't is all they can pretend to besides the bare name of a fruitles and unevidenced Church but the marks and Characters of a true Church They shall never have nor take from us And thus much of infallible Teachers and the Motives of true Faith THE SECOND DISCOVRS OF SCRIPTVRE THE FIRST CHAPTER Scripture is useles if none declare infallibly the sense of it 1. WHen on the one side I consider
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
or the unchangeable Divine Word seemingly Changed when he took Flesh upon him and became an Infant These are Higher Mysteries and greater Difficulties If Human Reason might be judge and give a final Sentence But I 'll tell you once for all That man shall never be a Proficient in Christs School that will undertake to conquer High Mysteries no to be pried into by our weak discourses as I may say the great Difficulties of Faith by Examining the High Mysteries of it If he goe so to work he is cast into a Labyrinth and can find no Exit All therfore he is to do is to Learn and Examin whether God the Infallible Truth hath Revealed and taught us these Mysteries by any unerring Oracle Next How we are to submit in matters of Faith He is to Captivate his understanding And humbly Submit to him without further search who neither can be Deceived nor will Deceive us But enough of this Digression 6. We se thirdly Though Protestants Anathematize The whole Religion of Protestants is nothing els but addition to Scripture or subtraction from it all that Add to Gods Word or Take from it yet I 'll tell you Their whole Religion as Protestancy is either made up of no Scripture at all or is nothing els but a meer Addition of their own Glosses to Scripture or finally a wilful Subtraction from it To the Words now cited they add a sign a figure and God knows what more Is this Scripture When St. Iames 2. cap. 24. Dogmatically teaches that a man is Justified by Works and not by Faith only our New men tell us the Apostle speak's not of Justification before God but before Men. Is this Scripture When St. Paul Rom. 2. 6. plainly Affirm's That God will render to every one according to his Works Calvin and Beza Assure us He will do so indeed if there were any such But the Mischief is None can do a Good Work before God Is this Scripture No. These and such like Interpretations Our Adversaries do not own for Scripture yet They must own them as Tenents Essential to their Religion Ergo I say Meer Fallible Glosses which are no Scripture make up Protestant Religion as Protestancy And hence Doctrin of the 39 Articles as Protestancy not Scripture it is that their Doctrin delivered in the 39. Articles stand's there with all Clearnes that is you know what they say But when 't is Brought to the Test and is examined by Scripture you may seek long before ye find a word like it as 't is Protestancy 7. You see lastly That the Interpretations which Protestants give to those Texts of Scripture cited by How Sectaries abuse Scripture cited for Catholick Doctrin Catholicks for their Doctrin are meer Human Extra-scriptural and Anti-scriptural Glosses of their own Fancy We cite the Apostle 2. Thess 2. 15. For Tradition beside the Written Word For the Real Presence This is my Body Matt. 26. For Iustification by Good Works that of St. Iames 2. 14. For a Sacrifice to be continued to the Worlds End Malac. 1. 11. For Extream-Vnction Iames the 5. 14. For the Verity and Infallibility of the Church that of St. Paul 1. Timot. 3. 15. And what for Gods sake have we from our New Men to these plain Passages speaking Popery But a Return of meer Mock-fool Glosses Hatch't in their own Heads which have so little Shadow of Scripture in them That with force they drive the very life and sense out of Gods Word And They proceed so unluckily Sectaries make Scripture clear where 't is obscure and obscure where 't is clear That where Scripture is clear They make it obscure and where it is obscure They will seem to make it Clear by superaded glosses What can be more clear for our Catholick Doctrin of the Real Presence then those words of St. Luke 22. v. 19. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur This is my body which is given for you Yet with their Glosses they so Torture the Text That every Particle in it suffers Violence In so much that Iacobus Scripture tortured by Sectaries Gordonus observes in his first Tome of Controversies printed anno 1612. Controversia prima de Verbo Dei cap. 26. n. 11. pag. 121. No fewer then two hundred different Glosses have been added by Protestants to Obscure the plain sense of Christs own Words Some as this Author notes abuse and misinterpret the Pronoun Hoc Others the Verbe Est Others Corpus Others meum Others the Relative quod Others the Proposition pro Others the Pronoune Vobis Others finally the Verb Datur Yet after all this perverting and woful mangling of Gods Word we must Believe that our Protestants speak forsooth Scripture and nothing but clear Scripture On the contrary side we have seen more then enough in the Beginning of this Chapter how Vainly They cry up the Clarity of Scripture in Mysteries most difficil not fully expressed in Gods Word What man in his Wits can say That any Scripture through the whole Testament Speak's half so clearly of the Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son with his Eternal Father as the Text now quoted is for the Real Presence Yet those Scriptures must be Clear for that Christian Verity and this Obscure for the Real Presence 8. To conclude this point Methinks it highly imports when we deal with our Adversaries concerning How to proceed with Sectaries when They Explicate Scripture Their Explications of Scripture That we do not so much at least in the first place make it our Work Positively to Disprove them by other Texts and Authorities which our Writers usually do and laudably as to put them to the Proof of their wild Glosses which seem's most Reasonable For Asserenti incumbit probatio When therfore They go about to Obscure Scripture where it is plain with new Interpretations the world never heard of bid them not only Interpret but Prove Their Interpretations For example That the words of our Saviour now cited must be alienated from their genuin Sense and tortured as they are by Protestants Proceed thus with them put them to the Proof and you 'l soon see them at a Nonplus CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 1. MY first proposition Draw's Proof enough from the precedent Chapter For if Scripture be Obscure and speak not clearly all Verities revealed in the book it cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter But 't is more then evident that it speaks not clearly many Verities Concerning the Highest Mysteries of Religion Therfore it cannot Regulate Faith relating to These Mysteries without an Interpreter I prove the Minor Scripture which solely considered according to the Exterior Letter both may The bare letter of Scripture may and doth easily beget error and Doth as easily beget Error as Truth in the Intellectual Power of man Speak's
Truths in Themselves yet so long as they are not proved to be positive revealed Truths or Spoken by Almighty God Protestancy stands like a Starveling void and empty of all revealed Truths Protestancy as so hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by God And consequently as it is this New Religion hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by him who upholds all Christian Verities I mean Gods certain Revelation 6. To se this Assertion more clearly Evidenced Hear a little what our Sectaries Answer Some tell us They know right well there is no Purgatory Becaus God hath not revealed it in Scripture There is no real Presence for the same Reason and so they Argue for the rest of their Negatives To this and whatever els can be proposed we have answered Though These Suppositions are very Fals yet Admit of them as True Viz. Thaâ— a Purgatory or Real Presence are not mentioned in Scripture All that follows from hence is That God hath been as it were Silent and omitted to speak of such Objects That Protestants inferences Still proved improbable is as we now falsly suppose He hath neither said there is a Purgatory nor Denyed it Now this Negative God hath said nothing of such a matter as it cannot Ground a positive Belief of a Purgatory so it cannot Ground a positive Belief of the Contrary or No Purgatory Whilst What both Catholicks and Protestants are obliged to prove therfore the Catholick Believes a Purgatory He is obliged to show that God hath Positively Revealed it And if the Protestant Believe no Purgatory He is also Obliged to show that God hath spoken Positively this Objective Truth There is no such place To say then God hath made no mention at all of a Purgatory in Sçripture and to infer from Thence a Belief of no Purgatory is in plain Language to Say I may Actually Believe that by Divine Faith which God never Spake The most therfore That can be Deduced from this Negative were it True God hath Omitted to Reveal a Purgatory is That no man yet knows nor can know upon Revelation whether there be such a Place or no. But to draw from it an Absolute Faith of no Purgatory is and I can term it no better then the last of Nonsense For how many Things are there known to God Which He hath omitted to Reveal Can I Therfore upon that Non-Revelation Rush on them with my Faith and Believe them for his not Speaking at all Yet thus Sectaries Proceed They have Protestants Believe Negatives becaus God hath not Reveal'd them good store of Negatives But not revealed Negatives And They will Believe them Becaus God hath not Revealed them Here briefly is my Discours if it Faulter or seem Faulty to our Adversaries my humble Petition is That they will Vouchsafe to unbeguil ' me and Friendly shew me where the Fallacy lyes If this Discourse be faulty my wish is to hear of the fallacy 7. Some perhaps will say We have Fought all this while with Shadows And supposed These Negatives No Purgatory No Transubstantiation c. To be Objects of Protestants Faith But we err not knowing Their Doctrin For They are only Held Inferiour Truths One Reply refuted Approved by the English Church to mantain Vnion amongst Protestants And not owned as Articles of Faith Thus Two later Men whom you may se largely Refuted Discours 3. c. 6. n. 7. All I 'll say at present is Because Sectaries seldom Agree in Doctrin it is impossible to Confute them all at Once To my Sectaries agree not in Doctrin purpose then There have been Certainly And are yet Protestants I think These the more Numerous That Hold the now named Negatives Articles of Protestants Some own these Negatives Articles of Faith Faith And Against such our Proofs have Force Others that Deny the Doctrin And exclude them from being Articles are in a worse Condition Because upon the Supposition They are Forced to grant That Protestancy hath no Articles of Faith Protestancy as Protestancy contain's not so much as One Article of Divine Faith in it For the whole Reformed part of it is made up of pure Negatives Consequently if Any should utterly Abjure that Religion He would not Abjure one Truth Revealed by Almighty God Se more of this subject in the place now cited And Both are Confuted know That our Adversaries will have Much to do To come of Hansomly whether They Grant These Negatives To be Articles of their Faith or Disown them as Articles This is fairly spoken without Clamours And Mr. Stillingfleet in his Preface to the Reader Believe it Some who tell us They have not Leisure Enough to kill flyes may sweat at it take whether part They please before the Difficulty be solved 8. They may Reply secondly And Endeavor to A second Reply of Sectaries worth Nothing Prove at least one of their Negatives Thus. There is no Purgatory Becaus God hath Revealed in Scripture two Places only Heaven and Hell which seem's Exclusive of a third Place I answer That word Only is neither Scripture nor Revelation Cast therfore that Particle away and Propose the Argument as we ought to do And it falls to nothing Thus it is God hath Revealed two Places and these Eternal it is most True Ergo he hath Revealed the not Being of a Purgatory is Fals and a meer Non-sequitur 9. They may Reply thirdly Catholicks Believe A Third at bad many things upon as pure Negatives for Example A Trinity of Three Distinct Persons in one Divine Essence and no Quaternity or no more Persons then Three yet this Negative is not Revealed in Scripture To Help on this worthles Argument I Grant more That not so much as a Trinity of Distinct Persons is plainly Revealed in Scripture Doth it Therfore Catholicks believe not upon Negative grounds follow that Catholicks Believe that Mystery and Deny a Quaternity upon Negative Grounds No such matter They Believe a Trinity and no Quaternity upon the solid Positive Grounds of their Church Interpreting Scripture upon a Universal Perpetuated Tradition And the Infallible Word of God not Written Protestants are destitute of such Proofs in the Articles they Hold. For They neither have an Infallible Church nor Tradition Nor Written nor Vnwritten Word to Rely on Therfore They Believe upon Fancy oâ—â—y 10. To End This Matter I will here Briefly Becaus An Objection answered conceiâ—â—ing Novelties introduced i 〈…〉 the Church it is Consequent Answer to an old Trivial Objection made by Sectaries against our Present Roman Church which They Accuse of Novelties introduced since the First Primitive Ages And weakly as They are wont Argue after this manner Your Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Praying to Saints of an Vnbloody Sacrifice c. Were not Taught for Three or Four Ages after Christ Therfore say They We may now well hold the Contrary And Believe no Transubstantiation no Sacrifice c.
no Truth in that Article of Our Creed I Believe the Holy Catholick Church To Evidence further what I now Asserâ— Do no more But Forget as it were or cast out of your mind all Thought of Roman Catholicks from Luther upward to the fourth Age. Then Look About you And Consider Exclude the Roman Catholick Church Haereticks only remain well the Remainder of other Christians For that Vast Interval of Time You will find none but Professed Haereticks Schismaticks or Both as Arians Nestorians Pelagians and such a like Rabble of men Again Forget these as much as if They had never Been And only Think of the Roman Catholick Church Diffused the whole World over continued Age after Age Will you not have a Holy and Vniversal Church Presented Exclude Haereticks you yet have a glorious Church to your Thoughts Yea most assuredly And a Glorious Church too It is therfore Evident That the Roman Catholick Society was not only Necessary to make Vp the Church But was Moreover the Sole and only Essential Church of Christ as I have already Proved CHAP. III. The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is Vnreasonable if Faith in Christ Only Suffice for Saluation A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary 1. I Must Needs have a Word more with our Adversaries upon this Subject and Note That if a General Belief in Christs Sacred Person Office and Dignity be Saving Faith enough for a Christian which some endeavour to Prove by that Text of St. Iohn 20. 31. And these Things are written That ye might Believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God And that believing ye might have life in his Name If such a General Faith I say makes us all as well Catholicks as Christians without more Our Protestants need not to storm at us as They do for want of True Faith For we Catholicks Agree and Believe in Christ God and Man as firmly as They do And in this one Article only may we credit them All Necessary Essentials of Christian Faith are included It is true Catholicks say a more Explicit Faith is required as I shall presently Declare But Protestants who do not May rest Protestants slight work about things not Essentials contented And withall confess That the great Coyle They have kept in Reforming Catholick Doctrin comes to no more But to a slight Pidling about Non-Essentials which for ought is yet known Hath done more hurt then good And made Things wors then They May have don more hurt then Good were Before 2. To Drive the Difficulty home I Ask seriously Whether any one Article Peculiar to this Religion as If Protestants hold their particular Doctrin necessary to Salvation other Hareticks will pretend the like Protestancy That is beside the General Belief in Christ and owning Scripture c. Be necessary to Saluation If yes Then will Arians Pelagians Donatists and other Sectaries say also what they hold Particular is also Necessary And Therfore Doctrin Above or Beyond the Belief in Christ or not Vniversal is of like Necessity If Protestants answer No or Assert that nothing Particularly held by them because not Vniversal Catholick Doctrin implyes this And if not two strange Sâ—quâ—ls undeniably follow Necessity But a Belief in Christ only Two rhings follow The One is as I have now Noted That without Fruit at all They have made a shamfull stir with their Schism in Blustering all this while about non-Essentials and petty Differences which may be Believed or Not without Danger of loosing Saluation 2. It follows That as Protestants here Acknowledge a Church so Vniversal wherin all may be Saved that Believe in Christ in like manner Any one and upon as good Reason May make it Wider and allow Saluation A large Church must be allowed of by Protestants to all whether Iews or Turks that Believe in God only without Explicit Faith in Christ Vnus Deus Vna Fides Therfore in Place of Christs Church we may have a Gods Church more large and ample erected in the world 3. You will say Scripture is most Evident for a Belief in Christ Might a Defender of the now large Imagined Church which affords Salvation to all that Believe in God Answer He would tell you That the Explicit Belief in God implyes some kind of Implicite Belief in Christ And that is enough which He is ready to Make good when you have proved your Abstract Faith in Christs Sacred Person to be Sufficient to Salvation A better Answer is Scripture most Certainly Obligeth us to Believe in Christ Explicitly But doth it leave of there and not joyntly oblige us to More necessary to Salvation then Belief in Christ only Believe other Articles also Explicitly when they are plain in Scripture And sufficiently proposed Such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist c. Can we therfore after we Own these Truths Delivered in Gods Word hope for Salvation without an explicit Belief of them If so St. Iohn c. 6. 53. saith not True Vnles ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you Surely we cannot do this like Christians Unles we believe it The Belief of Sacraments necessary If no The Belief of these Sacraments constitute the Essentials of Saving Faith and so doth also the Belief of much Moral Doctrin set down in Scripture Read what St. Paul Writes Cor. 1. 6. 9. concerning the Vnrighteous Idolaters and Fornicators c. And tell me if you Own Gods Word whether the Apostle doth And of other Moral Doctrin not Disinherit all Vnbelievers of his Doctrin Therfore something more is Necessary for Christians united in one Faith to Assent to Then only to Believe in Christ 4. The true Fundamental Ground of my Assertion is This. What ever God Speaks in Scripture who never spake Idle word whether the Matter may seem to our weak Capacities little or great is after a Sufficient Proposal of the same Weight and Authority To Believe rherfore in Christs is a Fundamental Article and in one Sence Known to every One most Fundamental But to Reject or Abstract from His other Verities Revealed in Scripture or to make les Reckoning of them Becaus they Appear little to us is to Affront God And Tell him That we will Believe him so far as we pleas But no farther Wheras on the contrary side he Assures us That his Word is equally engaged in all He Saith And All Truths in Scripture are of equal Authority that his Eternal Truths whether little or great are not to be Valued of by what is spoken But by the certain Authority of him that Speak's them Hence Divins Assert and most Truely That no man can Believe so much as one Article of Christian Faith upon the Motive of Gods Revealed Testimony unles He readily Embrace All other alike as equally Proposed upon the same Authority For where we have the Same Motive we must yeild the Same
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
inconsequent Proceeding of Protestants who must Trust our Church for the Handing down to them Gods written Word Sectaries ill Consequences whilst most Vnreasonably They Reject Her Authority when she Declares what the unwritten Word is I say most Vnreasonable For if it can Deceive in this later it may as well have deceived Christians in the first and given them fals Scripture Wherof se more in the second Discours 6. 'T is true There is Another way of Defining Another way called by Divines Asseveration called by some Divines Asseveratio or The Asserting of a Truth not so Explicitly at least Believed before as when the Church Defines against open Haereticks what was Antecedently of Faith And Herein the Church Proceeds not so much upon a Previous Known Act of Faith as upon the General Owned Principles of Catholick Belief wherunto Theological Discourses drawn from sound Divinity And other Principles partly Evident and partly in a high Measure Morally Certain have Access And are most Prudently Ioined Not That the Definition in it self Relies on those lower Principles But on Gods Gracious Assistance ever with his Church in the Delivery of Truth However Providence will have this way followed as a Vsual and Necessary Condition Because men of Reason in so weighty Matters are not as Sectaries do to Define at random but industriously to use Reason And Proceed on rational Principles But This belongs more to Divinity then to Controversy For I think the Church never yet Defined any thing against Haereticks that was not Antecedently a known and owned Truth of Faith Though not so fully expressed as it often is by the Churches clearer Proposition Thus we say The Real Doctrin of Transubstantiation The Real Doctrin of Transubstantiaton as old as that of the Trinity c. is as old as the Doctrin of The Trinity or the Consubstantiality of the Son with His Eternal Father Though the Words Expressing these Mysteries more significantly and clearly are of a later Date 7. Now to the Objections And one Hinted at above is The Church was solidly Founded in the An Objection Apostles time in all Things necessary to Salvation Therfore These Post-nate Definitions of it are to no Purpose To confirm This Our young Antagonist Ask's Whether the Apostolical Declarations of the Ancient Primitive Of Apostolical Declarations lost Faith were lost in the intermediate Ages or no If not lost Shew them saith He And There is no Need of new Definitions If they were lost in their Passage down the Church now wants them And therfore can Define nothing Were the Play worth the candle I might here Demand of Protestants whether Their Declared Sense This is a Sign of my Body Added Is retorted to Christs Words This is my Body which Sense They suppose to be Apostolical was lost in the intermediate Ages or no If not lost shew us that Apostolical Declaration and 'T is enough But this is impossible If 't was lost or rather never in Being How dare Sectaries make such a Declaration on their own Heads without Producing the Apostles Warrant I Answer The Answer The Church was solidly founded as 'T is now That which is sufficient in one Age Serves not always briefly to the Objection The Church then was solidly Founded just as 'T is now the Doctrin is one and the Same And every Article of it was ever and is now still either explicitly or implicitly Believed Yet These new Declarations are Necessary Because the Proposition of a Doctrin sufficient in one Time or Age Serves not for all Times and Ages when New Difficulties occurr And Haeresies rise up against it The Church therfore ever vigilant and Desirous to quiet all speak's Again more clearly the old Received Verities Causlesly too often Bogled at by Sectaries I say more clearly For 't is one thing to Assert Such a Verity is not at all contained in Scripture or in the Ancient Deposited Different Circumstances require clearer and more ample Declarations Doctrin of the Church And another To say it is so clearly There That in order to us and different Circumstances it needs not at all a further Declaration Sectaries continually Declare Their Sense of Scripture For They have no other Deposited Apostolical Doctrin to Talk of And why may not the Church Authorized by Christ with Better Reason do so too To what is Added to Help on the Objection I have answered Deposited Doctrin following the Church through all Ages is securely preserved The Deposited Doctrin Orally Delivered without writing is not lost But still remain's in the Churches Treasury 'T is as it were Handed down from Age to Age and Inseparably accompanies the Church through all Ages Yea and is kept there Though not in Chists or Coffers as securely as if 't Had been engraven in Brass or Marble And Sectaries must say thus much Sectaries must grant This. if They own Scripture for Gods Word For are not They now as well Assured upon the Churches Testimony or Vnwritten Tradition That St. Iohns Gospel was Indited by the Holy Ghost As if the Church produced a Hand-writing to Evidence that Verity Yes most Assuredly Whoever therfore Dare call into Their urging for a hand writing of Apostolical Doctrin is proved frivolous Question the Churches Authority Asserting a Doctrin Though it Produce no Manual Writing For it May as easily Doubt if it show you One Whether that very Exhibited Evidence be Authentical or no. Let us only Imagin that the Apostle that writ the last Part of the New Testament had exactly set down the whole Canon of Scripture which the Church now Receives Let us Suppose again That very copy to be left in the Hands of some Pious Christians Living in those Days No hand-vvriting distinct from Scripture is comparable to the Churches ovvn Authority and so long Preserved Vntil After Haereticks excluded from the Canon such and such Books of Holy Scripture as Luther lately Did St. Iames Epistle Both they and Luther might more Rationally have doubted of that very written Instrument then any can now Doubt of a whole Churches Authority owning the Canon of Scripture to be as it is No Charter Therfore no written Instrument Though once truly made when the Author is gon can Parallel the Churches Testimony in what it Asserts The The Reason Reason is Because a Manuscript only Tell 's you what it Contains but not Whose it is and though it did so Men might yet question the Forgery of it unles an Authority beyond Exception extrinsecal to the writing take away all Fear of Cozenage and make it Vndoubted Tradition surer then any Manuscript This Reason proves Tradition Necessary in the Church as well for the owning of Scripture as other Verities 8. I have said thus much to show How neer to a Piece of Non-sense our Adversaries Draw when To Cancel the later Definitions of the Church They urge us to produce the old Apostolical Declarations whereby
11. One word now to a Tedious Harange of Ieers 'T is a mile long at least and Wearies one out before He run's it half Over After our Adversary had Answer to our Adversaries Ieers of Milstones Talked of Milstones hung about our Necks of the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation c. He Tell 's us When the Apostles were sent to Preach all that Christ Commanded This must be Vnderstood that the Church had Power to Teach more if She pleased Alas the Apostles were only Tutors to the Church in its Minority But the great Divine Mysteries of the Seven Sacraments Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass were not fit to be Declared till the Church was at Age VVhat not one VVord of Necessary Points all this while Nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christs Vicar on Earth c Thus our young Tully Tattles To Retort his Argument I might here load him with the lesser Milstones of his Inferiour Negative Truths For these hang about his Submissive Neck if He be a Child of the Church of England And are as numerous as our contrary Positives But he will say they weigh little Because They are light Negatives Be it so Were the Apostles Think Ye so Tongue-tyed so Sparing of their Words as not once to Hint at one of these Inferiour Truths What not a Syllable The Apostles strangely sparing of Protestants Doctrin Through the whole Bible of two Sacraments only of no Purgatory of no Sacrifice Nor of a Sort of New Men that were to Peep out sixteen Ages after and Reform the World O were They alive Again how would Sectaries storm at their Silence And utter Forgetfulnes of These New Nothings which yet are the very best Essentials of Protestancy or it hath no Essence Thus men might Talk But Ad Rem 12. This whole wordy Argument is just like Protestant Religion purely Negative And brought to its best Sense Draws apace towards Non-sense Thus Christ and his Apostles Declared not to the VVorld These Doctrins of the Popes Supremacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass of Purgatory c. Therfore they are no Foundations of Faith I first Deny the Antecedent How will Scripture Speak's more expresly of the Popes Supremacy then of a Trinity you prove it Marry Thus. Scripture saith nothing of them I Deny that also It speaks more Expresly of the Popes Supremacy And of a Sacrifice Then of a Trinity of Persons in One Divine Essence or of Infant Baptism But let us Gratis suppose it do not so Here lyes the Strength of your Objection which is Improbably Negative Scripture saith not that the Apostles The Objection Improbably Negative Believed and Taught a Sacrifice the Popes Supremacy c. Ergo They neither Believed nor Taught them Observe well your Negative From the not Registring of all in Scripture that the Apostles knew Believed and Taught you infer They knew no More or at least Believed and Taught no More Which is as Vnlucky a Sequel as this You Sir have not Writ Down in your Rational Account of Protestancy All that your Learned Head hath in it All you Believe and Teach Others Therfore you Know Nothing Believe Nothing Teach Nothing But what is Expressed in that Book In a Word I have Answered The Successors of the Apostles Teach what is Apostolical Doctrin above n. 22. The Church of Christ that is The Heirs and Successors of the Apostles with whom the Mysteries of Faith were Deposited Teach us what Apostolical Doctrin is and This Positive Approved by Scripture And all Antiquity hath more Weight in it Then twenty of your weak Negative Discourses 13. But we must not Part thus I said just now Your Objection Against us is an Improbable Negative And I Appeal to your own Conscience whether it be not so For can You or any Prudent Man Imagin that all the exact Words or Express Doctrin Delivered by It is improbable to say all that the Apostles taught is registred in Scripture the Apostles in their laborious Sermons when They Preached to Iewes and Gentils are Recorded in Holy Scripture No. I may well say in St. Iohns Sense speaking of our Saviours Works the whole World or whole Volumes would not contain them Therfore All They taught cannot be Supposed to be either lost or Shut up in Scripture Take here your own Instance of St. Paul it Vndoes you He Blessed Man Act. 20. 20. 21. Kept nothing back that was profitable to them But shewed them and taught them publickly from House to House Testifying to the Iewes and Gentils Penance towards God and Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ You upon this Testimony too simply Demand What not one Word all this while of the Necessary Points nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christ Vicar on Earth I might Ask you Nothing all this whole of Infant Baptism of the Eternal Consubstantiality of the Son with God His Father Good Sir Reflect whilst the Apostle spak of Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ He might well have Declared both these now named and many other Particular Christian Verities I do not say He did so at that Present But This I 'll Defend Against you Because Scripture only relates in a General Way what St. Paul Preached A weak Inference of This Adversary You can neither Probably nor Positively Infer That he omitted to speak of These and other Necessary Doctrins I say in a General Way For Do you think that St. Luke Recounts in Particular all the Doctrinal Points that the Apostle Delivered when he went Preaching From House to House Or can You Perswade your Self that All the Hagiographers put together have Recounted all the Doctrinal Matters not one omitted That Christ our Lord ever Spoke and the Apostles Taught upon several Occasions Pray you ask your Conscience whether you can Iudge this Probable If It does not follow that what Scripture relates not is not to be Believed not The Argument Scripture Relates not those particular Doctrins wherat you Cavil which is yet untrue Ergo They were neither Believed nor Taught is not only a Negative But an improbable Negative 14. To conclude Let me Friendly ask you whether this your Positive Assertion The Apostles never Believed nor taught a Sacrifice or the Popes Supremacy Be an Article of your new Faith or only one of your Inferiour Truths If you Affirm the first You are Obliged to produce Positive Scripture for it And then it will be a A Dilemma that cannot be Answered Superiour Truth Revealed by God Though perhaps in your Principles not Necessary to Saluation Grant thus much And you too Clearly own Revealed Articles over and above Those which the whole Christian World and Rome it Self Believes Now if it be only an Inferiour Truth And not in Gods written Word With what Sectaries offer to reclaim us by Scripture and have not one Text to that purpose Conscience or Countenance can you Protestants who Always Pretend to Reclaim us from our
change Wherfore with all Certainty let us take this Body and Blood of Christ For his Body is given thee under the Form of Bread And his Blood is given thee under the Form of wine Although sense tell thee Otherwise yet let Faith confirm thee in this Truth You have the most of them in Bellarmin and the other Author named above That which appears Bread is not Bread Though it seem so to the Tast But it is the Body of Christ And that which appears wine is not wine as the tast Iudges it to be But the Blood of Christ The Consecrated Bread is not a figure only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Body of Christ But the very Deified Body of our Saviour The bread and wine are Supernaturally changed or Transmade into the Body and Blood of Christ Christ was Carried in his own Hands To the exteriour Sense it seem's to be Bread But know by the sense of your Vnderstanding That it is my Body not an Other But the same in substance which shall be Delivered to Death for you Other Fathers say The same body is on the Altar If Any Doubt of These Authorities I oblige my self to quotâ— the places exactly Now only omitted becaus they are vulgarly known vvhich is in Heaven The same Blood is in the Chalice which Issued out of our Saviours side He gaue us that very flesh vvherin he walked here to be eaten to Saluation It is the same flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our Sins which was on the Cross vvhich was Born of the Virgin This Body vve Receive and Eate vvith our mouths and have it Mingled with our Bodies 9. Thus the worthiest Fathers of our Christian Faith Speak And as I said just now Neither the Council of Trent nor Any Modern Catholick can speak more significantly in Behalf of the Doctrin We All Profess I Say also No Ancient Fathers ever Expressed The expressions of Fathers as significant for This Mystery as for a Trinity Themselves with Greater Energy when They treat of that High Mystery of our Faith The Sacred Trinity which Sectaries joyntly Believe with us Then These have Don in the present Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament I Appeal to our Adversaries own Consciences And ask whether They can Contradict me If they Do I must Tell them they cannot Think it or if They Seriously Judge so Their Judgement Becaus Contrary to the greatest Part of the Christian world is Weightles And finally resolved comes to no Sectaries may with greater Ease Deny Any Christian Verity then this Mystery They are at least obliged to Match us with equal Proofs The Catholick Principles Briefly Declared more but Fancy I have told them often in this Treatis That any Heterodox May with greater Ease and lesser Violence Offered either to Scripture or the most Primitive Fathers Turn off all that can be Said for the Proof of any Christian Verity Then They are able to Enervate the plain VVords of Christ and Fathers now alleged for this Mystery 10. Be it How you will Our Adversaries if They 'l yet Wilfully run on in an Heresy Are at least Obliged to stand on Equal Term's with us To give us Proof for Proof Weight for Weight Measure for Measure Here are our Principles We have Plain and Express Scripture for our Catholick Verity They have not a Word We Plead our Cause by a Constant and never Interrupted Tradition They have None We have a Renowned Ample and most Learned Catholick Church which both Believed and taught this Catholick Doctrin They have neither Orthodox Church nor Chappel that Taught or Talked seven hundred years agon of Their Tropes and Figures only We have the General Consent of Fathers They have only Patches and Fragments weighed out of their Circumstances for Their Condemned Opinion We have Miracles Clear and Vndeniable Miracles which confirm our Doctrin Sectaries want all these Proofs and Principles Both Ancient Fathers and Modern Doctors Recount Them who cannot be Supposed to have wilfully Damned Their Soules by Obliging Posterity to Believe Impostures upon Misinformation They have neither Miracle nor Sign But the Empty Sign of a Piece of Bread For their too long known And as long since Decryed Heresy Finally And here is a sad Thought for Sectaries If ever Heresy was in the A sad Thought fâ—r Sectaries World This of Theirs is or never any Deserved That Name At least All the Marks All the Signs All the Characters of Heresy follow it That can be Imagined It is a late Found out and a new Invented What Marks and Signs accompany This Heresy Opinion The Chief Author of it Berengarius no Saint I 'll promis you is Known The time When And the Place Where it Began The few Followers it then Had the Trouble it Caused among Orthodox Believers the Opposition made Against it The Trial The Examination the Sentence and Condemnation of it Are Known And All upon Record Almost every Catholick Author that Handles this Subject Assert's and Proves what I say by Vndeniable History Could our new Men Allege But half as Much Against our Catholick Could Sectaries Say but half as much against our Catholick Doctrin could They weaken it by one of These Proofs Doctrin Could They Point out The First Broachers of this Popery Could They name the Place the Time of its first Rise Or Tell us what Orthodox Church After a Severe Examination Condemned it They might take courage Speak Boldly And well Hope to Drive us of our Principles But when we find them Vnaccountable in These Particulars and see Evidently They cannot look one of these Difficulties in the face nor Hint Probably at the least Sign of any Novelty in our Doctrin When Again we Reflect How easy They might Cavil more justly Their Tenent is to Sense and Ours contrary very Difficil And therfore could not hiddenly Creep into the world without Clamours Against it When we seriously Consider That both the Latin and Greek Church though now at Variance in other Points yet well Agree But nothing is spoken probably in one Profession of Faith concerning this Mystery Finally When we know that the Greatest part of the Christian world Wherof many were and are no less Profoundly Learned then Eminent in Sanctity Hath notwithstanding the Opposition made by Sectaries believed as We Do to this Day and Dyed in Other Confirmations of our Catholick Verity that Belief We may Hope to Silence these Men Hereafter and Well Conclude That our Doctrin which Stand's sure on Christs plain VVords Which the strongest Pillars of the Ancient Church Vphold which the Roman Catholick Church yet Defends And no Orthodox Church ever Opposed Which Indubitable Miracles have Confirmed and none Denyed But Known and Professed Enemies of Truth We may I say rightly Conclude That our Faith is Anciently Catholick And therfore True And That the contrary Opinion of Sectaries is a meer Fancied Novelty And Therfore Fals and Heretical 11. We
your Eyes and inables you to see the Rule 4. The Church is the Interpreter but not infallible and Authentick the witness or guardian of this Rule Observe well We have here a number of words but Nothing proved Nothing so much as cleared Say therfore plainly What tradition is it that conveyed to you the books of Scripture Most surely it is the tradition of the Roman Catholick Church for you have no other If therfore you dare trust this Church in a matter of so weighly importance as to hand to you Gods Sacred Word you may as well and with as good Conscience believe what ever other Doctrin it Teaches by Tradition See Disc 2. C. 2. n. 4. 5. You talk secondly of Reason that see 's this Rule of Scripture and you certainly mean the true sense of it or you say nothing Now I would willingly learn how your Reason comes to have the priviledge or preheminence of knowing such Secrets before your elder Brethren the Papists or your more neerer Allies the Quaquers or the old Arians The like doubt I move about the Eye-salve that annoints your Eyes you call it the Spirit of God And I am sure there is no Donatist or Pelagian but will say as much of his contrary Spirit But above all Satisfy me in one doubt and plainly point me out the Church that interpret's Scripture as you do in all those matters of Controversy now between us I tell you Sir There was never any such Church in the world fallible or infallible that favours your glosses and interpretations of Scripture 32. Page 46. You have a Fling at the Captains Arguments against the judgement of Reason who if you relate truely for I have not now his Epistle by me saith first Reason must submit to the judge therfore it is not the judge You Answer It is not the supreme judge but subordinate and tyed to Rule Contra. Every judgement with you is fallible and may easily Swerve from the rule or mistake the supreme judges Sentence if it do so it is erroneous and not to be followed Say therfore who ties your judgement that is fallible and may be fals to any certain Rule This should be Answered 33. He Objects again The judge must be Infallible but reason is fallible Ergo. You Answer The Maior is a pittiful Petitio principij Contra. Your Reply is more pittiful Observe well All judgements you say are fallible and many are not only fallible but fals also Most surely you will not have us to follow any fals judgement and yet we must follow a fallible judgement Vouchsafe to tell us whose fallible judgement we are to trust to in these weighty matters of Controversy And I have all reason to be satisfied in the doubt because it avail's me Nothing to know that I must rely on a fallible judgement which may be fals Vnles you teach me whose fallible judgement it is I am to rely on For example When you interpret a passage of Scripture contrary to the Churches Sense your explication is fallible Answer therfore why will you rather have me to rest on your judgement that is fallible then on the Churches contrary sense though it were falsly Supposed fallible If you say All things considered your explication is more probable you are the very man that pittifully begg's the Question and speak's without any probable Principle 34. Now if wearied with those Interrogatories you say roundly and this must be answered in your Principle that every man is to follow his own judgement in these debated matters The Arian is to follow his private judgement the Socinian his the Quaquer his the Donatist his c. you do not only license all the Hereticks in the world to remain still in their Heresies But moreover Counsel them to believe Falsities for you know or should know that these private judgements are all fals If finally you Answer We must rest on a judgement that is True although it be fallible I know not what you mean for no man amongst you can assure me in these high points of Controversy when a judgement is to be reckoned of as true that is fallible because Truth is most easily separated from an Act that is really Falliâ—â— 35. In a word Sir your whole Mistake lies in this You sound not to the bottome the signification of these words The Iudgement of Reason For Reason in this place cannot be taken for a weak Discours or the private Sentiment of every erring man after He hath humm'd over or paus'd on Scripture the Arian or Socinian will make his Religion good this way but the Iudgement of Reason Goes further and ought to be deeply rational indeed that is It must rest at last upon a solid and satisfactory Principle which throughly pondered work 's powerfully upon every prudent disinteressed Vnderstanding and gently forceth the man that layes prejudice aside to acquiesce and yeild without fear or trouble The Catholick Church of Christ only most evidently proposeth these undoubted satisfactory Principles wheron a rational judgement doth rest securely when the Faith Shee holds is resolved No Sectary ever yet shewed nor shall hereafter show any think like a Satisfactory Principle to ground a rational judgement on when He believes contrary to this Church All he can do is to tell us what He thinks but you shall never learn from him upon any solid Principle extrinsecal to his own bosome thoughts That God speaks as He thinks But I have said so much of this Subiect Disc 1. c. 7. n. 4. 5. and Disc 2. c. 5. n. 8. 9. 10. that it is needles to add More 36. To the 3. Argument If Reason were judge a man might pleas God without Faith I know not whether you propose it fully enough you Answer this would overthrow the Church You are much deceived for the Church teaches that none â—an please God without Faith In your fourth Answer your are â—â—ing up again your Reason to a Law and Rule in things you understand not Sir if you understand not you want cords to tye fast withall and therfore may easily not close with the supreme judges sentence But of this we have said enough already You will find the substance of what followes in your Appendix refuted upon several occasions in the Treatise Had I more time I would say a word to your Glosses upon these two places of Scripture quoted by you In the first though S. Peter saith contrary 2. Pet. 3. 16. that Scripture is difficile to be understood you will have it easy unles it be to the ignorant and ungodly and 't is likely you suppose there are none of these ignorant or ungodly people among you Upon the other Text 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. you seem to inferr from the Vtility of Scripture a sufficiency in order to Saluation which is as good an Inference as if you said Your head is profitable to make you to live therfore it is sufficient Or the Principles of Philosophy can instruct you
to learn Divinity Ergo they make you a perfect Divine Sir the general Truths contained in Scripture because they teach us to believe the Church Tradition and other Apostolical Doctrins orally delivered are in this general way able to make us wise to Saluation but none can so much as probably draw from hence that all things in particular necessary to Saluation are explicitly set down in Scripture Every Catholick Writer that Explicates the Text shewes your Deductions to be weak and unconcluding That work therfore being don to my hand I end wishing you much Good and eternal happines FINIS Besides other faults noted in the beginning you have these In the Advertisment pag. 18. l. 22. Invocations R. Innovations p. 19. l. 16. of long standing Church our R. of our long standing Church p. 22. l. 5. were R. where in the Treatise p. 49. l. 7. Fallibility R. infallibility p. 158. l. 28. improperty R. impropriety p. 176. l. 18. Marck R. mark p. 239. l. 3. above R. about ERRATA CORRIGENDA Page 4. line 5. oft Read of page 6. last line retour R. return p. 11. l. 4. put R. but p. 17. l. 24. reach R. reaches p. 19. l. 10. as it R. as it is p. 22. l. 13. feaching R. teaching p. 22. l. 23. true R. true p. 24. l. 8. Insalibility R. Infallibility p. 22. Title Teachere R. Teacher p. 25. l 1. trough R. through p. 26. l. 1. foor R. for p. 27. l. 2. asserward R. afterward p. 30. Tit. futher R. further p. 39. l. 24. te R. the p. 40. Tit. Relyes R. Replyes p. 41. l. 16. in R. it p. 43. l. 11. assurance R. assurance p. 46. Title Relyes R. Replyes p. 47. l. 27. fundemeetals R. fundamentals p. 53. l. 14. dot R. doth p. 58. l. 2. vetities R. verities p. 69. l. 4. it if followes dele if p. 69. l. 9. praging R. praying p. 69. l. 23. Realon R. Reason p. 71. l. 17. whick R. which p. 74. l. 1. fo rit R. for it p. 77. l. 17. Father R. Fathers p. 77. l 30. standingh R. standing p. 81. Title dele certainty p. 90. l. 7. owing R. owning p. 93. Marg. loct R. lost p 94. l. 12. is R. it p. 94. l. 13. Prophet R. Prophets p. 103. Marg. sew R. few p. 113. Tit. Prave R. Prove p. 141. Marg. propose R. proposed p. 143. l. 6. pretend R. pretend's p. 144. l. rotterin R. tottering p. 149. l. 20. other R. others p. 158. Marg. te R. to p. 159. l. 2. Christ R. Christs p. 159. Marg. no Read not p. 175. l. 6. opposit opposite Read opposite p. 178. l. 5. stead R. instead p. 182. l. 22. were sent R. they were sent p 182. l. 27. casting of R. casting out p. 184. Marg. uncompossible R. incompossible p. 186. l. 5. buth R. but p. 189. l. 17. see R. seem p. 195. Marg an R. on p. 209. l. 28. interpred R. interpreted p 212. Marg. Siciety R. Society p. 215. l. 4. Propecying R. Prophecying p. 217. l. 24. if self R. it self p. 218. l. 5 yo R. you p. 222. l. 29. Objection R. Objection p. 228. l. 9. of R. or p. 256. Marg. cansists R. consists p. 256. l. 12. nos R. not p. 260. l. 7. ptosed R. proposed p. 261. Marg. datiful R. dutiful p. â—62 Marg doclare R. declare p. 269. l. 10 ' caslesly R. causlesly p. 275. l. 29. both we dele both p. 278. l. 13. reclaim R. convert p 295. l. 15. Chutch R. Church p. 302. Marg. uncluding R. unconcluding p. 311. Marg. care for R. care for p. 313. Marg. in in dele in p. 314. l. 16. sht R she p. 318. l. 32. ditt R. durt p. 329. l. 26. unevidentced R. unevidenced p. 330. l. 29. An R. and p. 342. l. 30 party R. parity p. 344. l. 5. An R. and p. 346. l. 10. these R. those p. 350. l. 10. Cutch R. Church p. 351. l. 13. for long a time R. for a long time p. 352. l. 26. onveyed R. conveyed p. 356. l. 1. infallibily R. infallibly p. 358. l. 15. Argumen R. Argument p. 359. Marg. Soy R. Say p. 362. l. 15. wales R. walles p. 363. l. 21. impiously dele pâ—â—ctam p. 363. Merg then then R. then p. 365. l. 31. licencence licence p. 372. l. 2. convinceth R. convince p. 375. Tit. Curch R. Church p. 375. l. 14. ad R. and p. 378. l 13. chis R. this p. 382. l. 29. overtrow R. overthrow p. 402. l. 18. that is R. it p. 405. Marg. mare R. more p. 406. Marg. smay R. sway p. 412. l. 14. confuthed R. confuted p. 417. l. 10. toughts R. thoughts p. 420. l. 7. ns R. us p. 424. l. 18. unworthly R. unworthy p. 425. l. 30. and is dele and p. 441. Marg. whac R. what p. 443. l. 4. teachers R. teaches p. 448. l. 18. Cathalick R. Catholick p. 449. l. 7. expreffing R. expissing p. 452. l. 11. ttial R. trial p. 453. l. 17. Cutches R. Churches p. 460. l. 20. Ground R. Grounds p 501. l. 6 worst R. wors p. 516. l. 15. Scripiture R. Scripture After Page 431. is Page 332. R. 432. There are without doubt many more faults in Orthography passed over to say nothing of points ill placed of Capiâ—â—l letters to often and comma's needlesly multiplyed What ever is found amiss impute it boldly to the Printer or to the Author and please to pardon both for the first knovwes not a word of English and the other has not the language perfectly
nothing probable for an Objection as soon solved as seen is far off from the nature of a sound Principle We say therfore if to pray for one an other Here on Earth lessens not Christs Honor there is no danger of lessening it by our recours had to the Saints in Heaven now in a most Glorious and happy Condition And thus no less a Doctor then S. Hierom Adversus vigilantium Paris print 1609. pag. 590. Solves the Difficulty at those words Dicis in libello tuo c. Thou Vigilantius saith in thy Book that whilst we live we may pray for one another but after Death no Prayer is heard for Any Here is the Objection Mark S. Hieroms Answer Si Apostoli Martyres adhuc in corpore constituti possunt orare pro ceteris quando pro se debent esse soliciti quanto magis post coronas victorias triumphos If the Apostles and Martyrs yet living in a mortal body can pray for others when they are solicitous for themselves much more can they do that Charity after their Crowns Victories and Triumphs He goes on Vnus homo Moyses c. That one Moyses obtained pardon for thousands Exod. 32. And the first Martyr S. Stephen living prayed for his Persecutors Act. 7. Et postquam cum Christo esse coeperint minus valebunt And what shall they be able to do less now when they are glorious with Christ in Heaven Meliorque erit vigilantius cams vivens quam ille leo mortuus And can thou Vigilantius a living Dog be better then that dead Lyon He alludes to S. Paul that prayed for others whilst he lived Tu vigilans dormis dormiens scribis I tell thee Vigilantius waking thou sleep's and sleeping writ's these things against prayer to Saints Thus S. Hierom. And not only S. Austin lib. 22. de Civit. c. 8. to omit innumerable others Approves the Doctrin but that worthy Bishop also S. Greg Nyssen in his Oration of S. Theodore Martyr Paris print 1615. page 1011. and 1017. confirms the Practice of it Pray for us saith S. Gregory addressing himself by an earnest Petition to S. Theodore when the Scythians threatned a war to the Country make intercession to him who is our common King and Lord. As you are a souldier fight for us and defend us And as a Martyr speak freely for your fellovv servants here A few lines after And if more Prayer be needful assemble together the vvhole Quire of your Brethren Martyrs and joyntly intercede for us Put S. Peter in mind move S. Paul and the beloved Disciple of our Lord S. Iohn that they be solicitous for the Churches vvhere once they vvore Chains passed dangers and finally Dyed Say now what lessening is here of Christs Honor by the prayer of this Ancient Saint and most learned Prelate Or what answer can be returned to these three Authorities The other Difficulty is as forceles For if Scctaries can explicate how the blessed Soul of our Saviour in Heaven hear's our Prayers which I hope they will not Deny I speak of his Sanctified created Soul all Difficulty ceaseth in the present Controversy How They hear is opinion se Bell. cap. 20. n. Argumentum tertium But That they Hear is certain Doctrin 7. Now if Sectaries tell us They can so explicate These Fathers as to make their words insignificant to our Purpose I would first learn what can be said to S. Hierom S. Austin and S. Gregory now cited But this is not all for I am to assure them further That their explications when contrary to the Doctrin of a whole Church as also to the obvious sense of either Scripture or Fathers quoted by us are so far off from being Principles that they merit not the name of mean probabilities which Truth is more amply Declared Discours 4. c. 4. n. 8. 9. Where I prove that no Interpretation of Sectaries can be Allowed of unles it rely on an extrinsick Ground much surer then His Gloss is that interpret's which therfore must be plain Scripture The undoubted consent of Fathers Vniversal Tradition or such like convincing Principles Hence I said when the Catholick Interprets a dubious or Difficil Passage He never makes his Gloss to be the ultimate Proof of his Doctrin But supposeth that proved by stronger Principles distinct from His Interpretation All is contrary with the Sectary who makes His Gloss to do all to be the last and surest ground of his Opinion without the Support of any better Proof then his own word is And thus much is evident in other Controversies now Debated between us as you will see Hereafter 8. From this want of clear Principles all the too manifest and most Discernable Faint proceeding of our Adversaries in matters now controverted shewes it self so openly that one with half an Eye may Discover it It is From want of Principles That they now begin to be weary of Protestancy and hold that a Faith Common to all Sectaries is sufficient to Saluation if this may Pass They need not herafter to stand more for Protestancy then Arianism or for any other condemned Heresy For the same Principles were there Any would make both Sects equally Credible Hence it also is That you have them ever Cavilling at our Religion and 'T is the easiest thing in the world to Find fault Yea and to cavil at the verities of Holy Scripture it self you se Arians do so but still you find them wanting in that which concern's them most which is to bring their Novelties to the grounds of either Scripture or any Ancient Church Doctrin Herin they are as mute as Fishes and say not a word It is from want of Principles That when they explicate a Council or Father alleged against them They are tediously long about little that is in relating the circumstances to be as They would have Them but whether they hit right is ever a matter of Dispute and nothing like a received Principle From hence it also is That when They make such and such Doctrins to be Inâ—oâ—ations Praying to Saints Purgatory or what els you will The very last ground They standon comes to nothing but Negative Arguments weak Conjectures blind Guesses Fancy and meer Vncertainties It is From the want of Principles That when we produce undeniable History for innumerable Miracles wrought in our Church An odd Answer is at hand They cannot believe them as if forsooth Their Parole or meer Vnbelief had force enough to make null all that is writ of this subject by most approved Authors From want of Principles it is That they ever place against our clear Authorities no more but meer uncertain Testimonies And pick out of our Writers all they can pilfer for Their Advantage wheras if they had a good cause in hand and sound Principles to rely on They should beat down the Doctrin of long standing Church 〈◊〉 by undeniable Proofs taken from Scripture Councils and consent of Fathers wherof more presently From hence it also
is That when a Doctrin pleaseth them Tradition is approved of But if it be contrary to their Fancy then Tradition is of no account or value For example Prayer for the Dead is as well a universal Tradition of both the Greek and Latin Church as to hold that Canon of the Sectaries Bible to be the Word of God yet the one is admitted of And the other set light by And upon what Principle Distinct from unproved Conjectures Do They take and leave as they list Finally it is for want of Principles That in lieu of solid Arguments in every Controversy now handled you have words in stead of Substance margents painted with Greek and Latin now a story told of a Pope or Prelate now a jeer now a jest in handsom language c. And thus they hold on in their Merriments Thoughtles as it seems of an accounting Day to come before a sever Iudge and a long Eternity that follows And to what purpose are these light Skirmishes and petty Doinâ—â— in a serious matter wheron salvation depend's whilst God is dishonored souls are beguiled Christs sacred Truths also infinitly suffer by them who will yet be named Christians 9. I call them here petty Doings For when on the one side I set before my Eyes our Roman Catholick Church once founded by Christ and therfore must hold it most Ancient and confessedly true When again I find it of a vast extent diffused the whole world over And as much renowned as largely Extended When I see it glorious Evidenced by Miracles powerful in the Conversions of Infidels eminent in Sanctity And most profound learning When I consider How it hath stood invincible in the heat of all persecutions and call to mind the Heresies vainquished by it Age after Age To say no more now of other signal Marks wherwith it is made illustrious and visible to all VVhen I say I consider these Truths Methinks evident Reason Tells me that a few slight Cavils cannot much annoy or hurt it No. Either clear Demonstrations or were it possible more then Demonstrations ought to enter here and shake this our strong Fortress Or if they do not Common Prudence obliges me to own this for Christs true Spouse or to Grant which is hideously Against the Grounds of Christianity that there is no such Thing as an Orthodox Church in the world 10. Now on the other side when I cast my Thoughts on a Few late risen Company of Divided Sectaries utterly Destitute of all prudent Motives without Antiquity Miracles Conversions or other Evidences of Credibility when again I seriously ponder how slightly they goe to work against us How weakly They attempt with meer Trifles remote from Proofs and Principles to Vnroot as it were this strong Building of our Catholick Society I stand astonished and must needs say They seem to be men not too thoughtful of Eternity And never can wonder enough at Their boldnes whilst They dare as they do to take pen in hand and presume to write against an Ancient Church that made the world and their own Progenitors Christians But what is Hitherto briefly hinted at will be more largely laid forth in the ensuing Discourses 11. Now it is high time to end an Advertisement and to tell our Adversaries my absolute Resolution It is thus Let who will pretend to Answer this Treatis either in part or whole Nothing shall draw me to Reply unles He that Answers come more closely to Principles then I ever yet saw in Protestant Writer It is a sin to trifle our precious time away in Cavils I 'll hartily thank any that may pleas to Answer upon Grounded Principles but if He fail Herin His labour will be lost and mine hereafter spared All I shall Do if I do so much will be to tell him were He misseth in the Main point which is to come closely to Principles THE INTRODVCTION BEfore we enter upon the following discourses I must need 's have a word with Mr. Poole whose Nullity and Appendix but chiefly the request of a friend induced me to write this Treatise It is very true after one serious perusal of this Nullity I had enough of it and therfore judged it unnecessary and indeed not worth the pains to answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to follow the Author through his Mazes and long wandring parergons I returne him undoubted grounds of true Religion they are undeniable which at least destroy his best Principles and if I mistake not this is fully as much as a Nullity deserves However if he desire more he may probably have it in another Treatise Now if you ask why I took this way of answering if yet you 'l call it an Answer I 'll tell you My ayme is not so much to meddle with this Nullity as to speak for the Catholik cause and prove something which shall not be answered Again It is more then tedious ever to be encountring a few old worn-out Arguments set forth in new dresses which have been confuted a hundred times over Thirdly No small part of this Nullity seem's to be too trivial while later Catholik writers are introduced speaking as Mr. Poole thinks disadvantagiously and against our Faith Now Sixtus Senensis sayes this now Bellarmin that now Stapleton a third thing c. And are these think ye doughty Doings for such an Antagonist that offers to strike at the very root of the Roman Church Alas what he cites thus were all he cites true is a Nullity indeed and a meer nothing for Church Doctrin depends on no mans private opinion But when we make an inspection into these Authors as I have done on several occasions and find them quoted by halfs weighed out of their circumstances mangled and traduced to a sinister sense we must speak truth That cheats will go on their way and rather play at small game then sit out or seem to do nothing Had Protestants any thing like a good cause in hand or Truth on their side they would certainly plead more manfully for it and never like poor people in harvest go thus a gleaning up and down our Authors known for professed Catholiks who little God knows intended to favour Sectaries by such segments as they are pleased to pick up much less to furnish Protestants with armour against Catholik Doctrin But what will ye Sectaries can do no better Yet I must tell you what they ought to do whilst they embrace a Novelty and cast of the old Religion They should make the ancient Canons to roar against our Doctrin they should confound and overwhelm us with undeniable proofs drawn from plain Scripture ancient Councils universal Tradition and the unanimous consent of Fathers Of these we hear no great noise Next and this most concerns them They should also positively prove and establish every Article of Protestant Religion as Protestancy by such plain open and illustrious Authorities then a Bellarmin a Stapleton a Maldonate and others might well follow the rear But to
misse in his teaching as hit right on the Infallible Doctrin of Christ The Minor is granted by Mr. Poole For all Churches whether Roman or English Arian or Grecian are lyable to errour want special Assistance in their Teaching and ought positively to renounce all Societies of infallible Christian Teachers Therfore the conclusion undeniably followes which is That none can with certainty Teach the Infallible Doctrin of Christ And from hence also followes an utter ruin of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too as I shall hereafter Demonstrate For if all Pastors all Doctors all Teachers of Christian Religion may erre in the Delivery of their Doctrin all Learners of it may likewise erre in Hearing it and if so we have no certainty That God is now Adored in Spirit and Truth by either Teacher or Hearer 9. The ultimate reason why a Total ruin of Christian The utter ruin of Christian Religion followes the fallible Teaching of it in a whole Church What all Euangelical Preachers lakoured for Religion accompanieth the fallible Teaching of it is thus proved None can teach Christian Faith that doth not Propose or make Almighty God to be the Author of it And therfore our Saviour Iohn 7. 16. told the Iewes That his Doctrin was not his but his Fathers that sent him Yea The Prophets also and all other Evangelical Preachers chiefly laboured in this to perswade their Hearers that God was the Author of that Doctrin they taught Now say I None can Propose or make God the Author of Christian Faith that doth not own it as a Doctrin asserted by his Eternal Veracity infallibly revealing Truth for this is the Formal Object of Christian Faith But He that only Teaches fallible Doctrin which may be false deserts this Formal Object and can neither own God for the Author of it nor his infallible revealing Verity Ergo he must own a fallible Authority to uphold this Doctrin which is utterly Destructive of Christian Faith The reason will be yet more evidenced if you propose it after this manner A Doctrine which by force of all the Principles it hath is meerly fallible and The last ground of this Doctrin no more may be salse But Christian Doctrin as it is Taught by all Pastors and Ministers of the Word c. is thus fallible Ergo it may be false But God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to Teach a Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to Teach a Doctrin or Religion that is fallible I prove it He sent none to Teach any other Doctrin but that which is founded and intrinsecally relies on his Eternal infallible Verity revealing Truth But such a Doctrin can neither be false nor fallible Therfore this taught Doctrin is certain and infallible For to grant that God sent Pastors to teach a Doctrin which relies on his infallible Revelation is to say He assist's them to teach it infallibly CHAP. III. Other proofs for Teachers and a Church Infallible 1. I Argue again thus Supposing the promises of Christ made in Scripture Gods Goodnes cannot oblige the whole moral Body of Christians to believe a falsity or to contradict his certain revealed Verities But if all Pastors and Doctors may erre in their Instruction whilst they teach Christian Doctrin God would God cannot oblige us to believe a falsity as indifferently oblige us to believe a falsity and contradict his certain Verities as to hear truth when by chance it is taught which is contrary to his Goodnes The first Proposition is evident and confessedly true For our Adversaries say it is repugnant to all conceptions of Gods Goodnes to require of men under pain of Damnation to Believe something as infallibly true which is really false The other also is as clear For if all Pastors all Doctors who have the charge of souls may because fallible as well Teach false Doctrin as true as easily erre as Deliver Christs pure Verities Christians are by virtue of Gods Command already intimated bound both to hear and obey them Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church that is as S. Chrysostome expounds the Prelates and chief Pastors of it let him be to thee as a Heathen c. Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Guides your Leaders and Commanders and be subject to them For they watch as being to render account of your souls Again vers 7. The Apostle command's us to imitate the Faith of these Pastors and Teachers From these and other innumerable places of Scripture known to all I argue What is possible may be reduced to Act but it is possible That all Pastors and Teachers may erre and Deliver false Doctrin to the Christian world and in case they do so I am upon these plain expres Ordinances of God obliged to Believe them Therfore I must Believe them although they Teach false Doctrin And if so God obligeth me to Believe a Falsity or which is a real Verity I am forced to grant this undeniable Truth that his All-seeing providence doth now and ever will Preserve a Church whose Pastors and Teachers are infallible in the Delivery of Christian Doctrin Without this certain established Infallibility in some one or other Society of Believers Christianity is no more but a meer tottering reeling and uncertain Religion yet I must listen to it whether Those who teach it stand or fall that is whether they erre or not teach an imposture or Truth 2. To confirm this proof I ask whether God after he had delivered his own certain Verities infallibly and made also by his Divine Assistance Those first Masters of the Gospel his Blessed Apostles infallible in their Delivery of these Verities whether then I say in the ensuing ages he divorced himself from his A question proposed to Sectaries Church and withdrew all Special Assistance from it or yet continued that gracious favour to some Pastors and Doctors of a Christian society If he continued that care and providence for the Direction of some Pastors in Truth Those because so guided are still infallible in their Teaching Contrary wise if he abandoned that charge and deprived all Pastors for the Future of infallible Assistance This woful consequence followes That Christian Religion once strongly supported by Gods unerring Spirit ever since the Apostles Preaching hath lost that Hold and now stands tottering on no more steedy ground then what the weak mutable and erring Sentiments of men can afford it Now how unmeet these are for so great a charge Salomon Sap. 9. 15. sayes enough Cogitationes mortalium timidae incertae providentiae nostrae The cogitations of mortal men are fearful and our Providence vncertain yet so it is and here mark the hideous crime of Protestants who first Divorce Christ from his Church and violently pull Religion How Sectaries transgresse from its center which is Gods infallible directing Spirit and then make all the taught Doctrin of
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
openly Significant and Expressive for the Real Presence then for a Trinity Doth the Difficulty of the Sacrament rationally retard their Belief The Trinity is yet a more difficil Mystery to Reason O but the Trinity was ever Believed by the True Church So say I was The other Mystery also But speak Reason now And say what Church was it which ever believed the Trinity The Roman Catholick Church surely For Arius and others impugned that Mystery Now Protestants say this Roman Catholick Church erred in believing Christs Real Presence and if so They are most unreasonable in relying on it for the Belief of a Trinity For if it erred in the Belief of one Mystery it may as well have erred in the other They may say the best and most Ancient Fathers held a Trinity Very true And as evidently They believed Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist But what will you say if I infringe the Authority of these learned Father in this matter I can do it though not in Real Truth most easily being assisted by the Principles of Protestants who tell us that the whole Roman Church That is All the Fathers and Doctors of it erred for a thousand years together in believing the Catholick If the Church had erred the Fathers may more likely have erred Doctrin of the Blessed Sacrament Wherupon I inferre Those Ancient Fathers who both learnedly defended and piously believed a Mysterious Trinity may more likely have erred in doing so then that a whole Church for so vast a Time hath patronised erroneous Doctrin and falsly believed the Real Presence Most undoubtedly The wisdom and Authority of this long standingh Catholick Church is in true Prudence of greater sway and value then the sole Authority of those far fewer Ancient Fathers can be though most Venerable and worthy all Respect that writ of the Sectaries who slight a whole learned Church may more rationally slight the Ancient Fathers Sacred Trinity Those men therfore who have the Boldnes to slight so great a Church cannot wtih so much as a colour of Reason Reverence more highly those Ancient Fathers But enough of this Subject Let us now go on to a further consideration of these prudent Motives and se more particularly what Religion gives us the best Evidence of Them CHAP. VIII A few Reflections made upon these Motives of credibility No Religion hath Motives founding moral certainty but One only which is the Roman Catholick Religion 1. NOte first If God as we now suppose guides All Christians prrfesse not Christs true Doctrin us by his Providence and hath established true Religion in the world it is as certain that all who profes Christianity for example Arians and Pelagians believe not intierly Christs true Doctrin as that some blessed by so singular a Favour both rightly believe and profes it It is again most certain That How God lead's us to the knowledge of true Religion if this wise Providence draws us not to the knouwledge of true Religion by Euthusias'ms private Illustration or the ministery of Angels it leads us on by extrinsecal Motives suitable to Reason by rational Inducements or discernable Evidence And these we call known Signs Cognisances of Truth evident Marks clear Characters or plain speaking Language which plead as it were in Gods behalf and as clearly shew us where true Religion is as These visible Creatures manifest a Deity or as that Star which brought the Sages to Bethlem pointed out the Saviour of the world None can Deny These plain Inducements of Faith But such as deny those first and most clear Manifestations of Truth which Christ our Lord and his Blessed Apostles evidenced when by Their admirable Miracles strange Conversions Sanctity of life c. They withdrew beguiled Soules from Error and wrought Faith in Them Before one Word of Scripture was registred 2. Note 2. And it is the Reflection of a learned Author As no man enters on a Dispute with others God as it were Disputes against Falshood with rational Arguments but be hopes to get the better so God when he proposeth true Religion to Christians engageth as it were in a Dispute with the Devil and all those Sectaries who oppose it And therfore cannot hope But is sure to conquer and convince his Adversaries otherwise it were folly to begin a Dispute which would not end to his Honor. Now if he convince he doth it And silences all Opponents of Truth by the Force and Efficacy of such powerful Arguments laid out to Reason as are able to silence all Opponents For strong rational Inducements perswasively work on Reason And clear mans Intellectual power from all Mistrust and Doubt 3. Note 3. It is impossible after the Establishment of true Faith amongst Christians That God either will or can permit a false Religion to be more Speciously evident to Reason by Force of rational Motives then his true Religion is For were this possible He would oblige Reason A false Religion cannot be more Speciously evident to reason then Gods true Religion is by rational Inducements to embrace a fals Religion which is highly repugnant to his Goodnes And upon this ground I say more It is impossible That a false Religion equalize the true One in the Evidence of rational Motives For if the evidences for Falshood be equal with those other of Truth God would stand guilty of arguing less efficaciously in behalf of his own Verities We Nor can equalize it in the Evidence of Credibility must then conclude That Gods true Religion ever most eminently surpasseth falshood in the grace and lustre of those Motives which evidence it to Reason And from hence it followes That no man can in Iustice appropriate those rational Inducements which draw reason to Rational Motives belong not to all called Christians find out true Religion to all who go under the name of Christians For amongst these whether Arians or others you have false Religions but the Marks Motives and Cognisances of Truth cannot belong to a false Religion unles God propose error as Speciously evident to Reason as his own Revealed Truth which is now proved impossible 4. These few Reflections premised Let us look about Two Religions in Competition us and cast a serious Thoughr on two Religions only which as it seem's stand justling with one another yea and will needs come into Competition for Truth The one is the Ancient and long Continued Roman Catholick Religion The other is that late Novelty of Protestanism Let reason I say go here impartially to work let it make a diligent enquiry after the Rational Motives which as it were plead in behalf of these two different Religions Both are not Both cannot be True both have not the like Evidence true and Therfore both cannot be evidenced by the like Marks ande Cognisances of Truth the One must yeild to the Other What do I say yeild The first appears like a glorious Sun Procedens crescens
Doctrin as Protestancy As They ought to have done in the first place after so glorious a Title 2. To prove what is said have patience to hear some few parergons There are say They in the question of resolving Faith these three questions to be resolved First Why I believe those things to be true which are contained in the Book called Scripture 2. Why I believe the Doctrin contained in that Book to be Divine 3. Why I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine Revelation Mark here a Shufling and remember once more the Title The Protestants way of resolving Faith Is it so Is it the Protestants way Yes Surely then the Questions here proposed and the Answers returned are most Pertinent to help on Protestants in their resolving Faith That is to make Protestancy These Authors wave what they should Explicate evidently credible by clear and rational Motives You will say They are so And I say They are no more to that purpose of Protestants resolving Faith or giving of prudent Motives for Protestancy then if such a Religion had never been in the world I prove my Assertion The Arian will say I believe Arians believe Scripture as much as Protestants those Things to be True which are contained in Scripture I believe the Doctrin in that Book to be Divine I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine Revelation and this I do upon as good Grounds as you Protestants if not on better For if you admit of these Verities upon the greatest Evidence which things of that Nature are capable of So do I too But say I beseech you what more Advantage have you upon this Concession for your particular Religion then I have for mine For let these Books be True let them contain Divine Doctrin let us believe the Revelation in them to be Sacred yet both you and I are to seek which of us hath the better Religion and this cannot be decided by owing three Truths wherof no Christian ever doubted Why therfore do you when it is your particular Task to resolve Protestants Faith never meddle with the Question But wast time in proving that which when it is proved help 's you no more then all other Christians who are contrary to you in Belief Will you se this clearly 3. I freely grant that those things in Scripture are True They are Divine the Books themselves are of Divine Revelation But next ask What is this to Protestant Religion Or how is the Resolution of Protestants Faith advanced upon the owning These Verities Nothing at all And the Reason is for rhough all Christians acknowledge in general Scripture to be most Divine yet they are at endles Disputes concerning the Doctrin of it Now no Man I hope To have Scripture in our hands gives no Assurance of true Faith will say Because he hath this Book in his hands or owns it as Gods Word that therfore He rightly Believes the particular necessary Doctrin in it For were this true known Haeretiks would be as sound in Faith as any To conclude then The Roman Catholick enquires not here after any general Proof of Scripture He proved that before Protestants were born But he urges for Motives What Catholicks require of Protestants and rational Inducements wherby Protestancy as Protestancy is evidenced to have any ressemblance with the Primitive Doctrin of Christ and his blessed Apostles Known Marks and Cognisances of Truth must manifest this particular Doctrin And not a general talk of the Divinity of Scripture which every Arian and Haeretick would own were there no such thing as a Protestant in Being 4. They hold on in this proofles strain and tell us how Moral certainty is Assurance enough that Christian Religion is infallibly true Be it so it is nothing to the purpose For we enquire not in this place after the moral Evidence of Christian Religion in General which as it professed by condemned Haereticks Protestancy unevidenced hath none But we ask for the moral Certainty wherby Protestancy is evidenced This is not so much as spoken of though the Title of resolving Protestants Faith requires a direct Answer to this Difficulty They say again There can be no greater then moral Certainty for the main Foundations of all Religion and the chiefest is the Existency and Being of God The Assertion is falss as I could demonstrate were it now pertinent to handle that question But Let it pass Give us I beseech you as much Moral certainty of Protestant Religion as All acknowledge for the Existency of a Deity and we are satisfied But of this we hear not a word We have Talk enough of the Moral certainty of Christian They Answer not to the difficulty Religion which Answers not to the Title of resolving Protestants Faith 5. They say thirdly Suppose God gives the must infallible Evidence of any Religion some who are bound to believe that Religion can have no more then Moral certainty of it Transeat totum at present What makes it for Protestancy We here ask Why Protestants believe as they do Why They adhere to their new Faith and preferr that Before all other Religions Rational Motives Can be produced or not We hitherto hear of none And therfore suspect yea know very well there are none for it 6. They say fourthly Moral certainty yeilds us sufficient Protestants altogether in Generalls Assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true What Religion is infallibly true upon moral certainty Is it Arianism or Pelagianism No. Is it the Roman Catholick Religion No. Is it Protestancy Yes Then produce Rational Motives which may ground a moral certainty more of this Religion then of any other Sect and we acquiesce But this you cannot do 7. They say fifthly Where there is evident credibility in And prove nothing for their Religion the matter propounded there doth arise upon Men an obligation to believe Very good To believe what Give us this evident Credibility of Protestancy and something is said to the purpose Hereof yet we have no news nor are like to have and consequently Protestants cannot be obliged to Believe as they do After some other Parergons 8. They say sixthly The last Resolution of Faith is not into the infallibility of the instrument of conveyance but into the infallibility of that Doctrin which is therby conveyed to us Shall we eternally have these Empty words and no Substance You talk here of an infallibility of Doctrin and we would have the Riddle expounded Is it the Roman Catholick Doctrin Or yours Or Arianism What for Gods sake avail's it to hear a noise of infallible Doctrin and not to know who rightly professeth it Your Doctrin therfore of Protestancy is to be Evidenced this is all we look for 9. They say seventhly If the Doctrin of Christ be true and Divine then all the promises made were accomplished Now that was one of the greatest that his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all Truth Very
well to Distinguish between express Scripture and the superadditions of Mens Glosses fallible Explications Interpretations c. Now if When Sectaries interpret Scripture truely They borrow light from Church Doctrin in this particular Mystery of the Trinity Mr. Poole Interpret's Scripture truely it is not God knows His skill that doth it No. The Reason is Becaus be borrows the Truth from the Churches Interpretation of Scripture and so fights against an Arian with anothers Weapon Where by the way observe a strange proceeding of Protestants who when They dispute A strange proceeding of Protestants out of Scripture against an Arian They 'l have the Churches Interpretation good against him and His naught against them And when they Dispute by Scripture against Catholicks They will have the Churches Interpretation forceles against themselves and Their own wretched Glosses powerfully strong against the Church Were there ever such Doings in the world before these dayes 10. But we have not yet said all concerning Scripture Interpretations of Scripture Inferences out of Scripture c. Wherfore Becaus we are gone so far Pardon a further trouble of giving you a few more Notes on this Subject They will shew you if I mistake not upon what rottering Principles the Grand Cheat of Protestant Religion stand's for want of Infallible Teachers CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 1. WE have almost seen enough how Sectaries either through Malice Ignorance or both make Holy Scripture a Book that proves all Religions Like Wittingtons bells It ring 's out what Fancy will For in Scripture is Arianism if we believe the Arians Here is Protestanism if we believe Protestants Here is Quakerism if we believe Quakers Here is what you will and All Haereticks lay alike claim to Scripture and the sense of it what you will not And it must be so whilst These men have a Bible in their hands and Construe all as they pleas Gloss as they pleas Interpret as they pleas without Limit or Restraint It had been much better Methinks if such Sole-Scripturists had never read Scripture in these debated Points of Religion then after their reading to se it made a Book that only begets Dissentions so grosly wronged and abused it is Yet no Body is in fault Pure Scripture cryes the Arian pure Scripture saith the Protestant nothing but Scripture saith the Puritan And there is no Redress for these Evils All run on in their wilful misunderstanding Scripture not one of them will yeild to another nor which is worst of all and plain Perversnes Seek after a means which is yet offered them to come to a right understanding of it 2. Truely I have often wondred at our Protestants men as they say of a more Sober Temper then your Quakers and Puritans are How it is possible Protestants Plea for Sole Scripture after they know right well with innumerable Holy Fathers this Plea or pleading sole Scripture to be nothing els but an old Trick of all condemned Haereticks That they can lessen themselves so much had they no other motive to retard them as to tread the Footsteps of such unworthy Sectaries and patronize a Doctrin which cannot but breed Dissentions to the Worlds end This it is Sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith Sole Scripture speaks plainly in all things necessary to Their false Doctrin Saluation On these two Hinges chiefly Protestant Religion turns about and will do so until God at his good pleasure judge it time to turn it out of the World Two Cheats they are and great Ones as I shall Demonstrate 3. Mr. Poole to mend the matter having supposed Mr. Pool's three Positions that sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith withall That there is enough said in Scripture to end all Controversies were men humble and Studious c. Seem's in the 7. Chap. of his Nullity page 226. to ground Protestant Religion on these three Positions The first is That the Books of Scripture are and may be proved to be the Word of God 2. That in the Substantials of Faith those Books are uncorrupted 3. That the Sense of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary Points There is no Arian but will most easily admit of these three Propositions How then were they all True can they more establish Protestant Religion then Arianism For a Principle common to two Advers parties cannot considered meerly as a Principle agreed on by both more Advantage the cause of One then the Other If therfore an Arian Assent to these Propositions they ground no more Protestant Religion then they do Arianism Mr. Poole wants a fourth Proposition The Truth is Mr. Poole is highly wanting in a fourth Proposition which if proved would have done him more service then the other Three And it should have been to this Sense Seing Scripture speak's plainly all Doctrin necessary to Saluation Certainly it ought to teach Protestancy plainly I mean the particular Tenents of Protestants as these stand in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin For if these be necessary to Saluation Scripture hath delivered them plainly or if it have not done so We must Conclude They are not necessary to Saluation Thus much premised we will shew you in the ensuing Discours how slippery and fallacious Protestant Doctrin is as it Relates to Scripture and Interpretation of Scripture 4. The first proposition No infallible Church no No Infallible Church no certainty of true Scripture Assurance of True and uncorrupt Scripture To makes my Assertion good against Protestants I will only propose this plain Question From what men of Credit and Integrity had the first Protestants Their Bible It From whom had Protestants their Bible was not drop't down from Heaven into their Pulpits with Assurance of its Purity or Certainty that no Change was made in it contrary to Truth since the Apostles Times Were they Iewes Infidels Turks Arians or Graecian Haeretiks that gave them Scripture Too perfidious to be trusted in a matter of such Consequence Too unfaithsul either to preserve true Scripture by them till Luther quit his Cell or then to put into his hands a Bible Vncorrupt in every Point Were they Catholicks Let our Adversaries shame the Devil and speak Truth 'T was from them They had their Bible together with the Originals But these Papists These very Catholicks if we may credit Catholicks in Protestants Principles cannot be relyed on for Scripture Protestants had not only Corrupted the Writings of the Ancient Fathers But also through Malice or Ignorance Had grosly erred a thousand years together and Changed the Ancient Doctrin of the Primitive Church They had Secretly wrought into mens harts a fals Belief of the Chutches Infallibility of an unbloody Sacrifice of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and such like errors Admit of this Supposition who is there amongst Protestants that shall dare to look on his Bible with good Assurance of its If
If the Churches Interpretation were as fallible as the Arians Christians might follow either as they please were as fallible as the Arians Christians might indifferently Adhere to Either yea and changeably now take one then the other as they please A greater Probability can ballance nothing in this or the like particulars as I shall largely prove hereafter In the mean while by what is now said we may learn first Though Scripture in this and other Mysteries hath its Darknes yet by the good Providence of Almighty God we are provided of a Sure Interpreter which is absolutely Necessary For if Every one interpret according to fancy Haeresy is easily Drawn out of Gods Word And if none interpret Faithfully the Scripture still lyes hid in Obscurity which makes it for that part a Useles Book to Christians The necssity of an infallible Interpreter Learn farther That None can ever know exactly by Human Industry or his Sole pondering the Bible let him be another Salomon for Wisdom what God hath Revealed in these difficil Mysteries of our Faith without an Infallible Interpreter To prove my Assertion I 'll give you one Instance 3. Suppose that two or three most learned Heathen Philosopher well versed in Languages and all Human Literature had this Book of Scripture put into their Hands and were perswaded by the extrinsecal An instance of Philosoohers reading the Bible Authority of all Christians that God here speak's his Eternal Verities Withall That if they read the Book and by their Sole reading without Recours to any Interpreter possess the True sense of it They have True Saving Faith Well They read it and with as much Humility as any Protestant can do yet If They ask of none but Their own Iudgement errour followes Ask of none But their own judgement what it means in the more difficil Passages Tell me I beseech you And here I appeal to the moderate Iudgement of every Christian whether Catholick Arian or Protestant What Faith or Religion would these Philosophers produce out of Sole Scripture Solely Read and pondered by them My Thought is 'T is no more but a Thought That the Result of their Reading would end in Coyning a Religion different from all Others now in Christendom I am very confident They would never pitch upon Protestancy no nor Their doubts would be Endles upon any Sect now extant Alas they would Doubt and Stagger at every hard passage in Scripture yea and by the very Instinct of Nature if they own'd Scripture for Gods Book would humbly Supplicate Those who gave them the Book to lay open the Mysteries therin and Assure them of its meaning in a hundred Places yet none can do this good office for them But One only Society of Christians that layes claim to Infallibility and proves it Demonstratively if Faith be in the World 4. Be it how you will thus much I conclude Our Protestants are in the very same Case without an infallible Interpreter as the Philosophers are with Sectaries are in the very same case without an Infallible Interpreter no Interpreter These make Scripture speak what They think it speaks right or wrong And Protestants do the like whilst They give their sentiment on Mysteries above their Reach without an Infallible Teacher Pray you Reflect Had Christ Iesus and his Apostles never Taught any thing by Word of Mouth But only thrown the Book of Scripture amongst Christians Strange Confusions Had Christ and his Apostles given to Christians a Bible without an Interpreter when They left the World and commanded them to make that use of it which every Private Iudgement thought best what a Religion think ye should we have had at this day in Christianity any or none or a thousand different ones as good as none God only knows I do not Yet will say This is out very present Condition if an infallible Interpreter of Scripture be Rejected We may wrangle to the Dissentions would have followed without hope of union Worlds end but agree in nothing Dispute but conclude nothing we may raise Difficulties one against another But allay none And thus the contest must run on without Redres or Remedy All Appellation here to Antiquity to Councils Fathers Appellation to Antiquity remedies nothing being fallible with Protestants and Tradition help 's nothing Becaus they are Fallible And were they otherwise we vary as highly about the Sentiments of Fathers in every debated point of Controversy as we do about Scripture it self 5. We se thirdly How utterly impossible it is for a Protestant to draw from the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture the True Sense and meaning of Gods Word in any controverted point of Religion The Reason is Scripture never speak's plainly and expresly the Protestants Sense in these debated Controversies observe it in All and you 'll find it so What do they therfore to help themselves They first Reject an Infallible Interpreter and next as the Arians do superadd their own Fallible glosses to make Sectaries make Scripture to speak what They would have it say not what God speak's Scripture speak not what it Truly says But what They would have it say And thus they think Scripture cleared and Their Work don Take here one Instance for many Catholicks and Protestants have been at Variance a hundred years and more about these Sacred Words Matt. 26. This is my Body The different Senses drawn from them are Contradictory And therfore cannot be True This is my Body Really saith the Catholick and here is my internal Faith No saith the Protestant This is my Body figuratively or a Sign of my Body And this is my Belief Arians and Protestants vitiate Scripture after the same manner Mark I beseech Just as the Arian saith I and my Father are one and superadds his Gloss of one in Affection so the Protestant here vitiates the Text by his Gloss and adds to Scripture what God never spoke a Trope a Figure a Sign and I know not what And after This Injury don to the Words He Believes not for Gods Express Word But for his own far-fetcht and dear bought Interpretations which are no more Scripture then if he should tell me That An Example That text of St. Matthew cap. 3. verse 17. This is my beloved Son were to be forcibly stript of its Verity and misinterpreted Thus This is only a Sign or Figure of my Beloved Son No more doth Scripture through the whole Gospel warrant in the least an Improperty of speech in the one Text now cited then in the other I little Regard The Protestant dscourses and glosses contrary to this Mystery of Faith let us have plain Scripture much les their Inferences which are all Human and Fallible O but to say that Christ Body is Really Present under the Species of Bread yea and in a thousand places at Once is an Vnintelligible Mystery Why more Unintelligible then a Trinity of Persons in one Essence
describing the number also and given good Scripture for both which cannot be don 2. That Faith only Iustifies 3. That after he hath better pondered the Text of St. Peter 2. 3. 16. He prove by Scripture the Plainess of it in all necessary Points to Salvation A fourth proof concerning the Canon and Certainty of Scripture would choak Mr. Poole But I 'll not give him so undigestible a pill may He pleas to satisfy the three former Demands by Scripture only without Glosses and ungrounded Inferences drawn from what he thinks to be Gods Word But is not 6. Some perhaps may ask why all this time whilst we have Discoursed of Scripture of its Certainty of its Sense and Regulating Faith c. None of Mr. Pooles Arguments against us are taken notice of Hath he none or do I Dissemble them I answer The man hath nothing like an Objection To prove Scripture to be the Word of God He Relyes on the Confession and Testimony of Catholicks This Mr. Poole hath nothing like Arguments we have Refuted above To prove it uncorrupt in the Essentials of Faith He Tell 's us that by looking into the Nature and quality of those Various Lections which are pleaded as Evidences of Corruption we shall quickly find them to be in Matters of les Moment It seem's They are little Becaus Mr. Poole without Proof will have them so I could shew him great ones in the Protestant Bible But let them pas And be pleased to note how poorly he shifts of the Difficulty That Presses The Difficulty is concerning the best Originals which Protestants have hitherto met with none of them I believe ever yet saw the Autograph or Hand-writing of either an Euangelist or Apostle These Originals I say cannot be proved Uncorrupt if that Church which had them in Custody for a thousand years brought in a Deluge of Errors into the Christian World Finally to prove that a Protestant hath a Sufficient Assurance of Understanding the Sense of Scripture in things Necessary to Saluation He allegeth Gods Promise Iohn 7. If any man will do his will he shall know of the Doctrin whether it be of God But Protestants do Gods will thus much must be added or the Proof stands on one Leg and Papist Do not Gods will Ergo Those have Assurance of the true Sense of Scripture and These have not Here is the doughty Argument and that which follows is as weightles Protestants saith He have the Assurance of Reason Papists have no more and if that will not do They have the Assurance of the Spirit which God promiseth Luk 11. Here is work enough for another Chapter Yet in passing I cannot but reflect on a mistaken quotation Mr. Poole misquotes Sixtus Senensis in Mr. Poole page 230. where he cites Sixtus Senensis And both err's in the Annotation and Doctrin of Sixtus concerning the Clarity of Scripture Sixtus Therfore libre 6. Annotat. 152. not 151. as Mr. Poole Quotes § Quod autem Answering an Objection of St. Chrysostom plainly Afferts that when Scripture is said to be clear 't is not to be referred to the Whole Bible but to a Part of it only wherfore saith He St. Chrysostom divides Scripture into two Classes The One contains the hidden and abstruse Mysteries of Gods deep Wisdom And this part is not clear at all thus much Mr. Poole conceil's Altera sectio The other Section or Part of it compriseth the First and chiefest Principles of all things to be Believed and Chief Precepts of living And so much is clear Observe well The first and Chiefest Principles of things to be Believed infer no Clarity in every Particular revealed Mystery For He that believes this one Principle of Faith That the Church is Holy and the Pillar of Truth Hath a First great Principle and may learn by it all Truth If you please to se how Mr. Poole abuseth Sixtus read him in the page now cited It were most easy to Take him tripping in other Citations But that is not my task at present This only came in by Chance CHAP. V. The Reason of private men and their private Spirit cannot interpret Scripture 1. MR. Poole told us above That Protestants have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture Happy They if they were the only Reasonable men in the World But why are not Papists as Reasonable Why should the Pelagians the Arians or Honest Quakers be left out of the list of Rational men Or if These would Monopolize the Assurance of Reason to Themselves for their Sence of Scripture Why are They not to be Credited upon their Parole as well as Protestants For their proof is to say They have it crede quod habes habes and so will an Arian or Quaker say too Admit Were Reason allowed of to sentence the Sense of Scripture we must know whose reason hitt's right therfore which is fals that Reason be allowed of as Judge or an Iustrument to sentence the Sense of Scripture where it speaks obscurely We are nothing Advanced nor one whit the Wiser unles we know whose Reason it is that hitt's right on the Sense Now all of them most evidently do not so unles we impiously say that God hath revealed Contradictions in Scripture Becaus these mens Reason draws contradictory Senses out of Scripture and in All do not Interpret Scripture truely High Points of Faith also Say then good Mr. Poole whose Reason must yeild and to whom Must an Arians submit to yours or yours to an Arian Whose Reason must yeild and to whom whilst we vary about the sense Must mine bend to yours or yours to Mine Or may we all hold on to the day of Doom as Devided in Faith as we are in Iudgements concerning the Sense of Scripture Allow once of these Endles and Eternal jarrs in Religion here on Earth which this one Principle of Following private Reason establisheth and you may seek for another Heaven then Christ hath promised to the Children of Peace Hereafter That is for none at all God forgive these late Tumultuous Spirits the True cause of our wofull Dissentions But let us go on And 2. Pray you tell me when Protestants say They have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture in controverted Points of Faith E. G. The Trinity what signifies this word Reason with them Doth it import a Formal Discours much of that nature as Schoolmen use when they establish their Tenents in Divinity Sectaries are to say what this word Reason signifies If so the Principle of this Discours must be admitted of and own'd by the two Advers parties when by Reason only They plead for the True sense of Scripture And the Conclusion of the Discours must If a formal Discours two Advers parties must agree on a Principle be drawn from Premises founded on This received Principle Thus much supposed I might here ask first Upon what known and admitted Principle Do our Protestants ground
natural Principles Yet we se These new Sectaries not only highly at Variance about the Sense of Scripture but also Gods Church which hath Eyes as well as They as highly opposite opposite to them However the Church must be Counted Pur-blind and They only sharp-sighted though the Light they fancy may licence any Haeretick to say what he pleases For as They Set Light set up against Light up their Light so an Arian may set up his against it And swear 't is the Clearer of the two for his sense And who can gainsay him 8. From this Discours it follows that the Assurance of Reason wherof our Protestants talk so much is a most insipid Word For it doe's not signify a Formal Discours for want of a known and received Principle Nor That quicker immediate Light â—f all Fooleries the worst now refuted I 'll go farther and say No Christian by Reason only can dive into the Mysteries of Scripture That no Christian by the force of Reason only when he reads These difficil Mysteries in Scripture can so much as once fasten a prudent certain Iudgement either upon the Thing revealed or the Ratio credendi Not upon the Thing revealed For that Transcends the Capacity of Reason nor upon the Motive why he Believes For by the force of Reason only he cannot know exactly Guess he may and miss that God speak's expresly in such a sense Therfore if upon his own Half-sighted and too daring Conceit He will proceed to a setled Iudgement and say positively what God speak's He tells the Story before he knows it And consequently highly offends against Reason For Reason dictates that we must first Learn Before we undertake to Teach or rashly enter into the deep Secrets of Gods Divine Wisdom without a certain and infallible Doctor 9. Therfore before we come to the Assent of Divine Faith A master an infallible Proponent is necessary who without Ambiguity assures us that God Speak's and in such a determinate Sense This once admitted Reason hath no place at all in the very Elicite Act of Faith or if it enter it spoiles Faith as I shall presently declare 10. I 'll therfore Explicate my self further and The Different Operation of Reason in a Catholick and in a Protestant withall shew how Reason goes to Work in a Protestant And how differently it Proceeds in Catholicks The Protestant hath no more but the bare Letter of a Bible before his eyes And toyl s hard with that one weak Instrument his own Reason to find out Gods Sense Therin He Read's he Humm's He Pausses He Expound's He interpret's and afterward Believes what he thinks is True Marck well He Sectaries know what they think but know not why They belive knows what He Thinks but yet knows not upon any Rational Inducement or solid Motive Extrinsecal to his Thought that God speaks as He Thinks Question him in any Particular and you will find what I say most True For example Why when He reads Those Words This is my Body he believes Christs Sense to be This is a Sign or Figure of my Body Ask him where is the Rational Inducement that lead's him to own this sense If Rational He is able to give an Account of it to others If herein he show himself unacountable He doth not only expose his Belief to the contempt of Vnbelievers but to Those thousands of believing Christians that oppose it Nevertheles 'T is so For he can render no other Reason for this The proof is given new coyned Sense But that after the reading of Scripture pondering the Words examining the Difficulties and conferring places together He is wrought into a Perswasion That God Speak's just as he Thinks and no otherwise where you first se That all the Reason he hath walk's round in the compas The Reason of Sectaries laid forth of his own weak Head without Shewing so much as a Resemblance of any sutable Evidence of it to others who notwithstanding know Reason as well as He. You se secondly That such a man Acts How They proceed more the Part of a Pope then ever any did that Sate in Peters Chair For he positively Defines what Scripture saith without the Extrinsecal Help either of Ancient Tradition or the Continued Sense of the Church Never Pope defined so at Random 11. And upon this Occasion I say more When Of the sentiments of Fathers expounding Scripture the very best of Fathers whether a St. Austin a St. Hierom or who you will differently as it often happens expound and Interpret Scripture by their Private Iudgement grounded upon Vnevidenced Principles or upon meer conjectural Probabilities Their private Sentiments can Advance us no further But to an Opinion only which therfore I may without offence Reject and never bring us to a setled Act of Faith Yet a far more Vnevidenced private Judgement in a Protestant doth all And as the only Light he see 's by serves him both to apprehend that God Speak's and in what Sense he Speaks Upon so great a want of Evidence his whole Faith depends Hence we se thirdly If Faith be a discoursive Act as some of our New men hold That is an Act founded on a Rational objective Inducement which inclines the Mind to Iudge as they do and Believe as They Iudge it No Protestant can say why he Believes as he doth is impossible for any Protestant to Answer the question why he believes that God speak's and in such a Sense by the Strength and Light of his own Iudgement For stead of the Rational Objective Inducement which ought to He only return's you the subjective Light of his own Iudgement for Answer incline him and we inquire after He returns only the Subjective Light of his own Internal Iudgement which being only a fallible Act Clear's nothing without some kind of further Evidence nor Answers the Question why he Believes Unles this be the WHY That becaus he thinks his own Thought true He is pleased to believe as he think's Where you find the reason most unreasonable Becaus it is Vnresolvable into either Rational Motive or any known and received Principle 12. We se 4. Though we Allow to Protestants as much of the private Spirit as their Harts can wish for wherby They are as it were pushed on to Judge The private Spirit supposes but proposeth no new Motive of Faith and Belieue Yet this Spirit being only As They say The Operation of Grace chiefly fortifies the Power that Believes But proposeth no new or further Rational Motive of Belief For it must suppose the total motive Antecedently proposed discernable by more then one only Before it can either push or work to any purpose Protestants say it And this is what some Protestants Assert Viz. That the Operation of the Spirit is more by way of Efficiency ex parte subjecti credentis in order to the begetting Faith then suppletory of the Rational Inducement That objectively
moves and draws men to Believe Be it how you will Protestants cannot prove that the Operation of Grace is their peculiar inheritance though indeed our Protestants have an odd Spirit They cannot shew probably That the Operation of Gods Divine Grace is more their peculiar Inheritance then others who Believe contrary to them But of this hereafter In the Interim note That in the Discours hitherto we inquire not so much after the Reason of Protestants for the Canon of Scripture as for its Sense in Points of Controversy Wherof you will se more in the next Chapter CHAP. VI. The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture which proves the Churches Infallibility is more Amply Refuted 1. WE noted above That it much Avail's when Sectaries take a liberty of glossing Scripture as they please to urge them to a Proof of their Interpretations By this close Dealing we shall learn much of their Fallacious Spirit and se How they both abuse their Readers and which is worse the Sacred Word of God 2. In the former Discours we Handled that Controversy Scripture most significant for Infallible Teachers concerning the Infallibility of Pastors and Teachers in the Catholick Church To prove the Verity we allege such Express Scripture That I dare affirm the whole Bible speak's no where any Truth of our Christian Faith then This in more plain Catagorical and significant Terms Might The words without patches of vain glosses have their open and obvious Sense 3. For the infallibility then of Living Teachers we cite what Christ said Luk. 10. 16. He that Hears you hears me c. or as the Greek read's and perhaps more significantly Hearing you he Hears me and Argue thus He who hears Christ speak Hear 's a Teacher Arguments for Infallible Teachers subjectively Infallible in Doctrin and Teaching But He who Hear 's those who are pointed at by that particle You Hear 's Christ speak for hearing you he hears me Ergo he Hear 's Teachers subjectively Infallible in their Doctrin and Teaching 4. To this a Grandy amongst our Sectaries Answer 's The gloss of Sectaries That Saying of Christ He that hears you c. was Absolutely true in the Apostles who kept themselves to that which was revealed by Christ But it was only conditionally true mark the Gloss in their Successors id est So long and so far as you speak my words and not your own Observe I say the injury done the Text by a Self-conceited Glosser And he speak's peremptorily it was but conditionally true in their Successors Who saith so Good Sr Christ Or you Prove your Gloss which Overreaches the Text and All the Words which God ever spoke Must I therfore be fooled into a How desperatly fallible men go about to perswade that all Pastors are fallible fals Belief And hold all the Pastors in Christs Church Fallible Becaus you a meer fallible Man are pleased to tell me They were fallible or that All they had was only the Small allowance of a Conditional but of no Absolute Infallibility Evangelical Sincerity requires a proof of an Assertion so newly coyned Produce it A new Sectary may say that the Apostles were only conditionally infallible but Their Suecessors absolutely infallible then and let it be plain Scripture Unles this be done Any New Haeretick may give the quite contrary Gloss to Christs Words And say That the Apostles were only conditionally infallible whilst living with Christ They might be rightly instructed in case they erred But that the following Pastors of the Church were made Absolutely Infallible Becaus they had not the Personal Presence of so good a Master to reclaim them in case they swerved from his Doctrin Thus much is said and only said without Proof And your Gloss good Sr hath no better Proof to enhaunse it But your own Saying which is not worth a rush O But they are strange kind of Sectaries say you who deny the Apostles Infallibility They are so indeed And as strange They are who deny to the true Church Infallible Teachers But this is not what I aym at All I now say is That if such Sectaries appear perhaps amongst you in England They prove Their Assertion as well by venting their Fancies vented without proof by both these Sectaries Glosses upon Christs Words as you do yours You say Those words were only conditionally True in the Apostles Successors But prove nothing They say The Words were conditionall in the Apostles Themselves But absolute in their Successors And prove nothing You are here both alike unles Luthers proof help you out Doctor Martinus Lutherus vult sic habere sic volo sic jubeo You have not more You reply Where the Command is for preaching Matth. 28. the Restraint is added What Restraint None at all When sent as lawful Missioners to preach Christs Doctrin Then They could deliver no Other Doctrin sent by Him and as Members of the Church then founded Herein they could neither go beyond How far the Apostles and true Pastors are Infallible nor fall short of their Commission I say as sent For no man God knows saith that the Apostles or 70. Disciples or the Pastors of the Catholick Church were or are Infallible in every Ordinary matter wherof they casually discoursed 5. Well But the Message These 70. Disciples were sent upon required no Infallible Assistance For they were not to deliver fully Christs Doctrin But only to prepare for it By telling their Hearers That the Kingdom of God is at hand Here is also more then is probable or can be proved For is it probable think ye That these 70. sent to preach reiterated nothing but these few words The Kingdom of God is at hand Is it probable that They were so Toung-tyed as to say nothing at all of this Kingdom of Christs Sacred Virtues or of his Miracles wherby He founded this Kingdom c. Be it how you will They were Infallible at least in the delivery of that Message For had Christ sent by his Eternal Father Personally delivered the Message He had spoken Infallibly But saith the Text He who Hear 's you hear's me Ergo these 70. were Infallible in the Message they delivered You reply again Though the Apostles and those 70. Disciples were supposed infallible Before An obje ∣ ction Christ Ascension yet nothing can be drawn from Hence for the Churches continuall Infallibility First Becaus were Sent abroad by Christ when there were no Infallible Writings containing Christs Doctrin 2. They had sufficient Evidences of Miracles in curing diseases and casting out Devils to attest that Infallibility To this second Answered I answered above That the Church hath the like Evidence of Infallibility by Miracles Casting of Devils c. The first Objection is Proofles Becaus Infallible writings alone make no man Infallible as is evident in all known Haereticks who have Gods Infallible Word yet most certainly pervert it There is therfore as much need of an
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
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
since St. Paul writ These words can so much as probably show it self permanently blessed with an Apostolical Teacher but our Ancient Roman Church only where the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet lives in every lawful succeeding Pope No Society of Christians can lay claim to such continued The Roman Catholick Church only shewes through every Age. Prophets as this Church hath had in it Age after Age whether by Prophets we understand with Scripture 1. Cor. 14. 1. Holy Men praying and Propâ—â—cying or such as Foretel Future things our Church hath had abundance of these if undoubted History may gain credit No Prophets laborious Evangelists Society of Christians can shew so many laborious Evangelists as this one Church alone and St. Paul points at 2. Timot. 4. 5. They are Those who have indefatigably through every Age without Cessation Preached and carried Christs Sacred Gospel to Vnconverted and most remote Nations Thus St. Austin sent by St. Gregory Pope Anciently was an Evangelist to our English St. Boniface to the Germans Blessed St. Francis Xavier and many other Evangelical men were so also to the furthest part of the world No Society of Christians But our Ancient Roman Church only can reckon up so long a perpetuated Hierarchy of lawful commissioned Pastors and profound Learned Doctors Pastors so many profound and learned Doctors who labored unto Death in Christs Sacred Vineyard and innumerable shed their Blood in Defense of it These being undeniable Truths 13. I Argue thus This known visible and never interrupted Society of Evangelists Pastors and Doctors This Ecclesia Docens or Teaching Church constituted The Argument by Christ himself was ever and is still Infallible and Becaus Directed by the Holy Ghost Teaches and Interpret's Scripture infallibly or It can err And cheat that ample Flock of Christians committed to its charge into damnable Falsities If the first be granted we have all we wish Viz. An infallible Hierarchy of living Pastors who shall Successively instruct us infallibly to the worlds end If contrarywise this whole Hierarchy can Deceive and lead us into damnable Error These two woful Sequels Undeniably Follow Fearful Sequels from Sectartes fals Doctrin The first That the Holy Ghost Directs not Teach's not that living Hierarchy of Pastors which Christ appointed to Teach us here on Earth For both This and every other Society of Christian Teachers may Beguile us with fals Doctrin and misinterpret Scripture Grant so much and it followes 2. That our Learned St. Paul Mistook himself and Uttered not one word of Truth in the place now cited For if these Pastors and Teachers appointed by Christ to Teach and so specifically here noted can Delude us yea and have de facto erred as Protestant Assert 'T is possible That They neither comply with the Work of their Ministery nor Edify the moral Body of Christ but destroy it nor persever in teaching Truth until we all meet together in a Vnity of Faith that happy day is not yet seen nor finally after all Their Endeavours Afford means to persever stedfast in Christs Sacred Doctrin They find yet a great Part of People called Christians like wilful Children resting on Self-opinion only They see them tossed and turned about with every wind of new Learning Such is the Fault and unlucky fate of Novellists who will be so wantonly Childish as to slight an Oracle Undeceivable Here then is the Conclusion The Apostles Words are True Therfore Sectaries vent a hideous The Conclusion Vntruth whilst they say these now named Evangelists Pastors and Doctors may Deceive and lead us into Errour CHAP. X. Objections are answered 1. PErhaps they will reply We mistake St. Pauls meaning For the Apostles Euangelists Prophets and Doctors c. Wherof he speaks are long since dead an gon They were those who Preached whilst Christ lived on Earth or soon after and Teach us still by the written Word now in our Hands Since those days we have had no Other Euangelists and Pastors continued in any Christian Society that either taught or interpreted Infallibly Roundly spoken But without book and as Falsly as fallibly Let Sectaries prove this gloss contrary to the express words and bring their proof to a received Principle For who see 's not the Obvious Sense of St. Pauls Testimony plainly perverted whilst He points at Teachers Successively abiding in the Church to the Consummation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to the coagmentation of Saints or until they be joyned together in one Faith and all meet in a Unity of Belief and knowledge of the Son of God The Deceased Apostles now in Heaven will 't is true se this last Day But are not now with us nor Teach until that Consummation be Therfore Others Succeed and teach in their Place so God hath ordered to the End of all things I have Answer'd to what is added of their present Instruction by the Written Word The Bible The written Word insufficient to reconcile differences I said cannot Because it interpret's not if self Reconcile our Differences And no deceased Euangelist appear's now either to Arian or Protestant to instruct them when they Fail or mistake Gods True Sense This very Scripture therfore requires an Interpreter in whom all must Acquiesce or we may run on in endles Dissentions to the day of Judgement But yo will ask Who is in fault Seing no man blames himself nor the Bible He read's Christ Answer 's He who hears not the Church is both the accused and faulty Person And upon this Occasion I answer to a second Objection 2. Our adversaries may say All Appellation from a Lower Tribunal to a Higher is lawful And they do so For they Appeal from the Church which only consists of men to God and his Word the Highest Sectaries by appealign from the Church to Scripture Tribunal imaginable therfore their Procedure is blameles I answer It were most blameles could They know Infallibly what God certainly saith in his Word But this they cannot know in controverted Points But by the Infallible Oracle of his Church To this Tribunal Christ sends us for Satisfaction in all In real Truth appeal not to Scripture but to Fancy only our Difficulties If we reject or forsake this Oracle in real Truth we appeal not to the undoubted Sense of Gods Word But to our own unsteedy Sentiments which are Fancies only and nothing like Gods Word Will you se this clearly Imagin only a new sort of Sectaries who will both Appeal from Church and Scripture to Gods interiour and eternall infallible This instance proves the Assertion knowledge of Truth They Appeal from the Church Becaus it is made up of men from Scripture because They understand it not in a hundred Passages Therfore they will rely on what God knows to be True and guess at it as well as they can Would you not esteem such Men mad and upon this Account That they cannot
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
implicitly if it be of Faith Though He yet know's not so much yea and may sometimes rationally Doubt whether the Church Proposeth it or no as a Matter of Faith So Schoolmen of different Judgements often Dispute whether such and such Points are de Fide And becaus They are contrary in their Positions either These or Those Contendents light where it will err Materially yet I say The Erring Party who Admits of All that the Church Proposes as Faith to be de Fide Believes Implicitly upon his Universal Assent to All The very A man may believe Implicitly what by Error he denyes Explicitly Matter which He by Error Explicitly Denyes yea and hath as True Faith as the Other That Hitt's on Truth Neither is there so much as a seeming Contradiction between These two Judgements of True Implicit Faith and an Untrue Material Explicit Error For the one is No Contradiction between true implicit Faith and untrue material Explicit Error so far from Opposing the other That the Erroneous Judgement in Actu exercito yeilds to Truth and resolved into all the strength it Hath saith no more but This by a Conditional Tendency If what I Affirm be not contrary to the Churches Doctrin And hence it is that Catholicks God be ever Blessed do not only easily lay down their material Errors when the The Reason Church Declares against them But most usually also in Their learned Volumes submit All They write to Learned Catholicks submit to the Churches Censure Sectaries submit to nothing but Fancy the Judgement of the Church which Implyes a tacite Retractation or an unsaying of whatever shall be Censured or Sentenced to be Amiss O would our Protestants Acknowledge such a Living Judge of Controversies They might make excellent good Vse of Their Bible But to snatch that Pure Book from Catholicks as they have Don And afterward to Debase it to Prostitute it to every Wild Fancy That shall pleas to meddle with it is plainly to Abjure and Renounce all Possibility of either knowing what Fundamentals are Or of ever Arriving to better Settlement in Faith then now we se which indeed is none at all Therfore though they Protest a Thousand times That they Believe every Thing in Scripture with the like Implicit Faith as we do the Church it Avail's nothing whilst every Private man makes that Book to speak what he would have it That is what his Fancy Pleases 2. Others finally have Recours to the Apostles Creed and say All things there as They Relate to The Belief of the Apostles Creed not Sufficient for Salvation Scripture and no more are Fundamental Points of Faith First Admit of the Assertion without any likelyhood of Proof Protestants have little to glory in For There is not so much as One Article of their Religion as Protestancy Observe it well contained in the Apostles Nothing of Protestancy in the Apostles Creed Creed Therfore nothing of their Religian as Protestancy can be Accounted Fundamentally Necessary to Salvation 2. One may Admit of All those Express Words in the Creed I Believe in Iesus Christ His only Son and be an Haeretick For the Arians grant this and yet are Haereticks Becaus They Deny the High Godhead of Christ and Consubstantiality likewise with his Father which are not evidently deduced out of those Words And Here I would gladly know of Protestants when either Arian Let it please Sectaries to answer this Question plainly or any Sectary That doth not only Abstract from Christs supream Divinity But Positively also Abjures it yet in some manner frigidly own 's Christ for the only Son of his Father whether I fay such an One may be Reckoned of as a True Believer in Fundamentals 3. Though the Creed Compriseth much in that One Article I believe the Holy Catholick Church And therfore some Ancient Fathers most Deservedly Magnify the Protestants cannot plainly point at the Church which the Creed Call's Catholick compleatnes of it as an Excellent Summary of Christian Faith yet Protestants for their lives cannot say what or where this Catholick Church is And it is very hard to oblige me to the Belief of a Church which is neither known nor can be Pointed out Now were it known a great Difficulty yet remain's to be Examined Viz. Whether God will ever Preserve this Church Infallible in the Delivery of Fundamental Doctrin or supposing His present Decree Whether He can so leave it to a Possibility of Erring in Fundamentals That Christians may absolutely loos all Faith both of Christ and Creed If This Second be Sectaries are pressed whether They grant or Deny a Church infallible in Fundamentals Granted We have no Assurance after all Christs Promises to the contrary But that Christianity may totally Perish before the Worlds End If they Say God will ever Preserve a Church Infallible in Fundamentals They must joyntly Acknowledge a Continued Vnextinguished Society of Christians wherof some are Pastors and Teach Infallibly these Fundamentals and some Sectaries must solve their own Difficulties Hear them also Infallibly I would have these plainly Marked out And withall have Sectaries know That All their Difficulties Proposed against an Infallible Church must be solved by them if they grant such Infallible Teachers of Fundamentals as is largely Baptism and the Eucharist not in the Creed Proved Above 4. To Omit that the Creed Delivers no Explicit Doctrin concerning Baptism and the Eucharist Though the Belief of these are also Necessary to Salvation Thus much I observe That Catholicks Catholicks Admit of the Creed without Glosses without Glosses and Interpretations own the candid and plain Obvious Expressions of the Creed in All and Every particular Article of it Therfore They are at least if not more as good Believers of the Creeds Fundamentals as Sectaries And if which we Deny They Err by Ignorance in lesser Matters as Protestants May and Do Err in Greater They must yet grant that the Belief of Fundamentals is Faith enough to save both Parties This Supposed 3. I must Needs have a word with my long forgotten Friend Mr. Poole and Ask why He Deem's it such A word with Mr. Poole a Strict piece of Justice to chafe as He Doth at a converted Captain upon the Account of his changing Religion as if he were a Lost and Perished Soul An Instrument forsooth He will Prove Append. p. 2. if not of Gods Mercy to reduce him to the Truth from which he is revolted At least of Gods Iustice And a Witnes on Gods Behalf to leave him without Excuse What needed I say so much Ado about Nothing For both the Captain and all Catholicks whilst they Believe the Creed Relating to Scripture are very secure and Confessedly right in Fundamentals Which being Supposed It is more then Impertinent in the Protestant to Keep such a Coyl about lesser Matters Protestants keep a Coyl to no Purpose about matters not Essential or to Reduce the main
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.
old Believed Articles And consequently is lyable to Damnation 24. You se moreover It is not only suitable to Reason But necessary also for the very Preservation of Christian Religion That the Church to whom the Mysteries Necessary For Christian Religion of our Faith were committed Though it makes no new Articles nor Supposeth any other Foundation then what was laid by Christ and his Apostles May yet as That the Church declare more explicitly Necessity requires Declare more Explicitly the Primitive Doctrin of Christianity For by what better Means can we possibly arrive to the Knowledge of Primitive Doctrine those Necessary Truths which the Apostles either Believed or Taught Then by their Heirs and Successors The Successors of the Apostles Teach in the place of Those deceased Masters I mean The vigilant Watchmen who were and Still are substituted in the Place of those First Infallible Deceased Masters They Blessed Men ran up and down the World from Country to Country from House to House Testifying the Faith of our Lord Iesus Christ yet neither committed all the Truths Delivered by them to Holy Writ nor supposed The Apostles writ not all They taught the Ignorant and Vulearned fit Instruments to Teach as They had Taught The Legacies Therfore of our Christian Truths were left in surer Hands I mean Chiefly in the Custody of the Successors of those first great Masters Whence it is That the Deposited Doctrin commended to Timothy Apostle commend's to Timothy more then once the Keeping of a Depositum of mighty Value which the Fathers and none more expresly then Vincentius Lirinensis call the Common Catholick Doctrin Or to speak Talentum Catholicum saith Vinc. Lir. in this worthy Authors words upon the Text 1. Tim. 6. 20. lib. contr prof Hae. Novit Biblioth Patrum Tom. 4. cap. 27. Talentum Catholicum Fidei The Catholick Talent of our Faith Aurum accepistis Add's Vincentius aurum redde Thou O Bishop Pastor and Doctor hast received Gold render as pure Gold again c. What things thou hath learned so Teach Adorn and Illustrate and mark Here a further Declaration of the Deposited A further Declaration of Deposited Doctrin allowed of Doctrin Allowed of ut cum dicas Novè non dicas Nova That when Thou proposest Things anew Thou Teach not new Things but the old Doctrin And hence it also is That the Church of Christ is stiled by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives a Rich Treasury The Church called by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is Kept And not only once Kept and then lost But as a Depositum ought to be it s Handed down from Age to Age from Church to Church Successively continued to the Worlds End If therfore you look for the Apostolical Depositum Leap not I Beseech you over the Heads of all those Christians who have been betwixt Us and the first 3. or The Apostolical Depositum is in the Churches hands 4. Ages As if it were to be found There and no where els But Demand of this present Church now in Being 'T is She that Knows better And Inform's us more exactly of Apostolical Doctrin Then all the lost Writings of the The present Church best inform's us of Apostolical Doctrin Ancient Church could have done or those that are hitherto preserv'd can do Because they are all lyable to endles Disputes and Consequently can absolutely Decide no controversy Now if any one Boggles at this Assertion as if we could not have sufficient Certitude of The most Ancient writings are lyable to Dispute what the Ancient Church Delivered by the Testimony or Tradition of the Present Church But further Requir's Express Records to be Produced of all that was ever Taught Let him correct his Errour and know That what is Carved in Brass or Writ in Velume cannot be more securely Kept then Apostolical Doctrin Deposited in the Hands and writ in the Apostolical Doctrin better preserved in the hands of Christs Pastors thenif't had been carved in Brass Harts of Christs faithful Pastors is now Preserved For what 's in Brass or Partchment Time may wear out and blemish But that which God hath committed to his Church and Chief Pastors therof who are to Teach Christians Age after Age shall never Perish never Pass or be put out of Remembrance And this Doctrin the Church Deliver's more Explicitly in her Definitions chiefly when she Declares Truth against Haereticks CHAP. VII More of this Subject Objections are Answered 1. TO go on with our Discours I would willingly Know when the Apostle Exhort's the Galatians cap. 1. vers 8. 9. Not to Believe an Angel Preaching contrary to what He had Preached and They had formerly Received As also the Thessalonians 2. c. 2. 14. to Hold the Traditions learned by Word or Epistle Whether All that the Apostles Orally taught was neither writ nor can be supposed lost we can Imagin that all the Apostles Orally Delivered was Either Expresly Registred in Scripture or the whole Substance of that Divine Doctrin of equal Certitude with Gods written Word is now Totally lost Neither is Probable The Essentials therfore of that Doctrin laid up sure in the rich Treasury of the The Essentials of it remain in the Churches Treasury Church still Remain with Christs own Faithfull Pastors And this is the Depositum mentioned in Scripture wherby the Church Assisted by the Holy Ghost Regulates Her self when She Defines Therfore great Divines Assert That the Church never Teaches or will Teach any new Verity that was unknown to the Apostles The Doctrin of Divines Se Greg. de Valentia De Fide Disp 1. Quaest 1. Puncto 6. § Illud vero And § Hinc quoque Suarez Disp 2. De Fide Sect. 6. n. 18. Tanner Disp 1. de Fide Quaest 1. Dub. 7. n. 211. 2. St. Paul Methinks confirm's this Doctrin Roman 12. 6. According to the Rule of Faith Wherupon our What is meant by the Analogy of Faith Sectaries Because the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Endlesly talk of the Analogy of Faith Let us bring Words to Sense and Sense to Principles What is This Analogy This Measure or Proportion of Faith Is that which every Mans private Fancy fall's upon to be Faith the Measure and Analogy of it God forbid If so Faith would be as Various as Fancy is Changeable in Haereticks We must therfore find out a better Analogy And if you say it is Scripture I Answer Before the writing of Scripture A perfect Rule of Faith before Scripture was writ There was a true and perfect Rule of Faith Otherwise These words of St. Paul Presupposing the Rule He mentions before he writ This Epistle are insignificant Again When He Tell 's the Thessalonians Epist 1. c. 1. of Their being a Pattern to all that Believed in Macedonia and Achaia Of the Word of our Lord sounded out by them Scripture
from an Ancient Church This Formal Schism Cover all as much as is possible under the smoother Term of an Actual Separation is as clear on our Protestants Side As the Suns Shining at Noon day like Dirt it lyes at their Doors and They will never be Able to Sweep it away But to Say That Catholicks laid such Nastines There But to say that Rome was cause of it is a meer unproved Calumnie or That Rome caused This Sehism neither is nor shall be any more then a meer Supposed Whimsy An Vnproved Calumny As long as Truth is in the World 6. Say therfore I Beseech you Good Dear Countrymen Why was the Roman Catholick Church the Cause of your Schism Why Separated you your Selves from it You Answer A multitude of Corruptions What Sectaries allege as cause of their breach of Superstitions of new Forged Articles in Faith of Innovations and I know not what more made you leave this Church so Far as it had receded from its Ancient Purity Very good The Charge Drawn up goes High And is evidently Hainous But Say on Are your The Question is whether Proofs answer to the Charge Proofs Answerably as Strong or Equally Evident To make the Charge good Against this Church Both Accused and Condemned by you Or which Comes much to one Are these Proofs as Manifest To justify your Formal Schism as 'T is evident that you Made it Such an Evident charge Or are as manifest to justify that Formal Rupture as 'T is Evident it was made against a Church and so Tragical a Separation from it Acted by you Must both in Law and Conscience Be Supported and Born up by Evidence The Weightines of the Matter Requires it Weak feeming Probabilities meer crazy and Conjectural Arguments Atheists Vent such against God and Jewes against Christ are Here too Slight and Forceles Either to Acquit you of your Weak crazy Conjectures prove Nothing most sinful Formal Schism or To make us Guilty of the Causal 7. Come therfore Let us not word it Longer But go closely to Work We Appeal to Reason and undoubted Principles in this Controversy These and not Talk nor meer Conjectures must Vphold your Proofs if you have any Against our Ancient Church To Proceed Therfore clearly 8. Note first That the Supposed Errours charged on Errours charged on our Church are not Evident ex Terminis the Roman Catholick Church by Protestants are not like the first Principles in Nature Evident ex Terminis By their own Light Their Evidence Therfore if any be must be laid forth in a Solid and Convincing Discours And This Discours if Convincing is to be Driven on by a Medium which either by it self is or doth at last Rest on some Therfore must be proved by Discours reduced to owned Principles Known and Owned Principle Owned I say and Admitted of not by the One or Other Dissenting Party But Common to them Both. If such Principles Fail or the Discours which is carried on Derives not Strength and Certitude from Them The Force of Arguing turned either into a Roving Talk or Clamours is Lost Becomes Lame Deficient and Vnconcluding 9. Note 2. Whilst Sectaries by Imputing Errour to the Roman Catholick Church make it the Cause The Self-saying of Sectaries is excluded from being a Proof of Their Formal Schism They are not to Suppose That Their own bare Assertion or Saying We have Erred can be either Proof strong enough Or any Thing like a satisfactory Reason in This matter For their Saying is no Received Principle I Note thus much on set Purpose Becaus I really Perceive a strange Humour in our Protestant Writers You have in their Books Protestants Humor In Writing Controversies 'T is true Difficulties now and then hinted at Words multiplied Much Talk in General Intricate Discourses carried on in Darknes And This to Amuse a vulgar Reader weak Conjectures Enough now Drawn from This now from That Vnevidenced Authority Margents charged with Greek and Latin And Learned Margents They are or must be Thought so But after All you se the main Difficulties waved you Find Nothing Proved Nothing clearly Reduced to They bring nothing to undoubted Principles any other Owned Principle But Their own Proofles word and Bare Assertion In so much that I am Apt to Believe if I think Amiss God forgive me All that Protestants Aym at in their Polemical Writings is only to Keep up Talk in the World And Glory when They have the last Word in a Controversy whether a Proved Word or no it Imports not so it can be said They have Answered 10. Note 3. If As we Both must and will exclude The Principles They are to Rely on whilst They condemn our Church of Errour the Self-saying and Own-voting of Protestants from the Nature of a Rational Proof whilst They Accuse and Condemn our Church of Errours They are Necessitated to have Recours to other Principles And I think There can be none better nor more Free from all Exception Then These I now Name 1. Plain speaking Scripture 2. The Vnanimous Consent of Fathers Add to These if you Pleas the Indubitable Definitions of Ancient Councils 3. Vniversal Tradition Proofs which run on in good Form and Finally Rest on These or the like Foundations are Solid Undeniable and concluding If They swerve from such Grounds They Become both Faint and Forceles And cannot But Participate much of Fancy which we utterly Reject 11. By the Recours to Plain Scripture We Exclude All weak and unproved Glosses of Sectaries By Recurring Exceptions justly made Against Protestants to the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers we Highly Except Against an Vnworthy Proceeding of Protestants who if by Chance They meet with a Patch or maimed Sentence of a Father which because Dubious seemingly Makes for Them They Triumph as if the Victory were Theirs Soft and fair Say I There is no such matter For no Doctrin Doubtfully Delivered by a Father and 'T is then doubtful when it justly may Admit of Different Interpretations Can Pass For a Received Principle Principles are clear Much less hath it force to Blemish the Purity of an Ancient learned Church whose sole Authority is greater Then The Dubious sentiment of a Fatherless then the clear Iudgement of the Church can be the Dubious Sentiment of any one Father And Thus much our Adversaries must Acknowledge For Though a whole Torrent of Fathers undeniably Comes against Them As is most evident in Twenty Controversies Take for Example that one of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Dayly Offered up in the Church Or the Real Presence They Answer Forsooth the Fathers were Sectaries Reject the Evident Testimony of Fathers when most clear against them and fight with a dubious Testimony of one or two Fathers against the Church men and Had Their Errours c. Why then I Beseech you when One or Two of Them Speak only Doubtfully in a Controversy I Grant no more should Their
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-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
from the English Church And therfore Charge Schism on us know That Clodius accusat moechos You Led the Danse And first Schismatiz'd from a more Ancient Church then we have don You yet Though Formal Separatists were not the Schismaticks But Rome that Gave you Cause And just so we say We are indeed the Formal Separatists from you But your Errours gave us just Cause to Part from you And therfore the sin of Schism is on your side And thus These Two Dissenting Parties Their Dispute is Endles because Neither own 's a Lawful Iudge nor can come to certain Principlet may Dispute until They both are Breathles And stand gazing on One an Other without further Progress Vnles They bring Their Discours to Vndubitable Principles or have Recours to some Third Equal Iudge between them or Finally Grant which Evidently follows That without a Iudge or Certain Principles The worst of Haeresies may be Defended if every one may first Accuse his Adversary And then give sentence for himself For there is no Arian no Nestorian But Every one Thinks well of his Heresy and will pretend as Protestants do that his Arguments are not solved Thinks well of his Errours And will at least Pretend as our Protestants do that his Arguments for them Are not solved CHAP. XI Of a late VVriters Exceptions Against our Pleading Possession 1. IT is very True Did not I se the Strain of Sectaries Mr. Stillingfleet Arguing to be Every where like it self weak and deficient I should scarsly have thought that a man of parts could Have missed so enormously as one doth in this Controversy whilst He gives you hints of hitting the nail on the Head and saying much to the Purpose Thus it is 2. We Plead a lawful Succession from the Apostles times And a quiet Possession of Truth with it by vertue of an Immemorial Tradition Our Adversary Tell 's us The Obligation of Proving lyes upon us Of proving what for Gods sake Marry that which We are urged to prove what is by it self an Evident proof Immemorial Tradition most Evidently Proves in so much that we are now urged to prove that Proof which is alone its Own most clear Light and undeniable Evidence They Proceed here just as if One should bid me Prove that All Mankind Descended From Adam If Scripture were not undoubted Tradition would prove we all came from Adam Had we no other Argument to Convince the Truth but immemorial Tradition Because some forsooth may Imagin without proof that God in One Age or other though they cannot say when broke of this lineal Descent By creating a new sort of men from whom we come and not from Adam which is Sensles For the Very Tradition alone has more weight in it to convince the Affirmative We all came from Adam then A pure Imagination without proof to perswade the contrary Negative Take one Instance perhaps more pressing and significant A Kingdom or Commonwealth Proves the Succession of its Monarchs or Princes for so long a time by a Constant Tradition never called into Doubt or questioned by Any Suppose some Zelots should begin to Quarrel with the states of the Kingdom And Tell them Gentlemen you are all Mistaken Believe us In An Instance one Age or other though we know not when it happened The lineal Race of your supposed Kings Failed A Vsurper Got to the Throne by force fraud or both And it was He it's true we cannot name the man that brought in Novelties strange Opinions Dangerous Maxims contrary to your Ancient Lawes and Customes Imagin I say thus much would not these Novellists think ye after no Smal contempt be put to their Proof or be scornfully laughed at should they urge the Kingdom to Prove what is proved by certain Tradition This is our very case We prove We prove as clearly the lawful succession of Popes and Catholick Pastors as Any Kingdom the succession of their Monarchs the lawful succession of our Popes of our Prelates of our Pastors and People by Vndeniable Tradition from St. Peter to this present Age And we are now called on To prove that which the very strength and Efficacy of Tradition Proves by it self without more Adoe A most impertinent Demand For if He that Denies the lawful lineal succession of Monarchs in a Kingdom warranted by undubitable Tradition must if He stand to it be put to His Proof the Kingdom Proves enough by its immemorial Tradition Much more are these men forced to Prove in our Case if they Oppugn the Tradition of a whole Vniversal The Churches clear Evidence Church For the Church gives in Her last and clearest Evidence when she Pleads undeniable Tradition No man can require more 3. You May say First Beside Tradition wherby the lawful Descent of Monarchs is Proved There are also Records at hand to Confirm the Truth of the Tradition I Answer The Church hath as Good The Churches Records as Ample as any in a Kingdom Records wherby she manifesteth the lawful succession of Her Popes Prelates and Pastors as any Kingdom on Earth produceth for the lineal Descent of its Monarchs Therfore it is you that must show And by sound Principles as well these Records to be forged or Vnauthentick as Oral Tradition which is a Distinct Proof to be Fals and Fallible Both are above your Power Skill and Learning Be it otherwise the Proof Certainly lies on your side And 'T is all I Intend at present 4. You may Reply secondly The Instance of Records contrary to the Church cannot be produced Monarchs succeeding in a Kingdom Vpheld by Tradition is Forceles if Contrary Records be produced and Prove that a Vsurper Got in and interrupted the right line of Succession The like may have been in the Church when Her Popes and Prelates became Vsurpers and changed the Primitive Doctrin of it Mark a Supposition For a Proof and withall Observe How you cast the Obligation of Proving on your Self For The Obligation of Proving is incumbent in our Adversaries Now it 's your Task to Produce These supposed Records Contrary to the lawful Succession we Plead for Shew them therfore And Argue by them or if you fail in this as you must Fail The Tradition from our Ancestours stand s still in its Ancient vigour unshaken against meer unproved Cavils and Calumnies 5. You may Thirdly Reply That Instance of Monarchs lawful Succession in Their respective Kingdoms when warranted by undoubted Tradition seem's good and convincing because no Man Questions the Right no Man within the Kingdom Doubts of the Acknowledged Succession But all is contrary in our present Controversy For innumerable called Christians do not only Doubt But expresly Deny that Right and lawfulnes of Succession which we Attribute ro our Church to our Popes and Catholick Pastors Therfore because the party Fail's The instance is forceles First a Word Ad Hominem Let it Pleas our Adversaries to Declare plainly the
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
Church in Truth And promised to be with the Church He Founded to the End of the World Withal that no Orthodox Church Ever opposed this just Possession c. It therfore lyes on our Adversaries to Disprove These Scriptures And to Weaken those Reasons by sound Principles or at least to Offer at an Answer which I Think will be Difficil to Do by Any Proof That 's weakly Probable 13. In the Interim you se the Strain of Sectaries Writing The Strain of Sectaries writing Controversies Controversies It is Ever to be Cavilling at our Tradition at our Possession and Prescription And Thus they run on as if their Cause were not at all Concerned Though it should be otherwise For do not Protestants Protestants pretend to a Possession of Truth as wel pretend to a Possession of Truth as Those They call blind Papists Yes And will They not say that the Truth they Lay claim to is either a Belief Common to all Hereticks or the Particular Doctrins of the English Church Yes For they 'l have no Mixture of Popery with it Well Now we Vrge them to produce a Conveyance From Him alone But can produce no Conveyance from him that could invest them in it who could invest them in the Possession of Either the One or other Doctrin Here You 'l have them Silent For not so much as a Syllable of Scripture nor one clear Sentence of a Father least of All Any Ancient Tradition Ever Favoured such Extravagancies However you must have patience And Hear Sectaries Loud in Their Complaints Against our Tradition and Ancient Possession And 'T is no wonder For 'T is easier to Cavil at Truth Then to speak sense For Falshood 14. A second Objection It is Plain in this Case viz. Of Prescription or Possession The full Right depend's not upon meer Occupancy But a Title must be pleaded to Shew that the Possession is Bonae fidei so that the Question Comes from The Possession to the Goodnes of the Title Answ By This Word Right or Title I understand a just and meet Reason Allegeable For What 's meant in this place by Right and Title that wherunto a man layes Claim And wherof He had Possession for long a Time As if One should Ask an Ancient Gentleman by what Right He Hold's His lands And How long He hath Had Them He Answers They were setled on Him by His Ancestours And here is His Title Both they And He have quietly Possessed Them without Cavils Cavils Against known Right Proofles for a thousand years c. Suppose now A wrangling Lawer should Tell the Gentleman Sir whatever becomes of your long Possession I Question your Right or Title And therfore say your Possession is not Bonae fidei But a meer Occupancy Would not This busy Fellow think ye if He said no more be put to His Proof when the Gentleman shewes His Right and justly plead's his long Possession Yes most Assuredly Here is Our very Case It is more The Right and Churches Title certain that the Roman Catholick Church was Once most lawfully invested in the possession of Truth by the Gracious Goodnes of Him that founded it Then ever Any was lawfully setled in Right of His lands For so much â—he whole World and Sectaries also Acknowledge as undoubted And Here is The Churches First Right or Title It is Again most Evident That Innumerable of unspotted Fame of Great Learning Sanctity and Vertue Have not only Avouched This Blessing to be once Conferred on the Church But Moreover have professed Themselves to be The Heirs and Professors of it Heirs of this Ancient Right And so Far the Professors of Those Primitive Verities That They â—onveyed them Age after Age to posterity I say No more yet but only what they Professed Now Starts up a Minister And Tell 's the Church just as the Lawer It 's Tacitly supposed by our Adversary an Occupancy but not Proved Doth the Gentleman She hath no Right nor Title But a meer Occupancy That 's no Possession The Church proves this Right first to have been Conserted by one that could give it Then She shewes it to have Remained with Her in Every Age By sure Witnesses of Vertue and Integrity Must not therfore this Minister Think you that Contrast's with such Witnesses And Encounters such an Army of old Tryed Souldiers be put to His Proof and Fight lustily by Evidence And if possible with Stronger Proofs Is All manfully Don Pray you Judge when He wholy supposeth what Should be proved And is pleased to Miscal our Ancient undoubted Right our just Title and Vnquestioned Possession by a new Coyned word of Occupancy Let him Keep the Occupancy to Himself and Apply it to His Protestant Religion That Hath neither Right to plead by nor Title nor any Ancient Possession 15. A Third Objection If we plead Possession by immemorial Tradition from Ancestours many things are to be Contested and this is one That no Antecedent Law hath determin'd Contrary to what we challenge by vertue of Possession Very Good When you Sir Shew us this Antecedent Law Contrary to what Our Adversary is to Show an Antecedent Law contrary to our Possession we Challenge by vertue of our Possession wee 'l yeild But you are to make this Evident And Consequently the Proof Lies on you which will be a hard Task For we Know There is no such Law against us 16. A fourth Objection Christs Law hath Determin'd Matters of Difference between us one way or other For Example Whether the present Church be Infallible or no. If the Law has Determined Against us Possession And Prescription signify Nothing If for us The Question must be wholy Removed from the Plea of Possession And be tryed on This Issue whether Christ by his Law hath determined on The Legislators Determination your side or Ours I Answer The Legislator hath most plainly Determined for the Infallibility of that Church which He founded And though you slight those Sacred Texts Super hanc Petram Pasce Oves Eâ—o Vobiscum or what Els you pleas They are yet Vigorous Proofs Against your meer Cavils Therfore Because you Offer to be Tryed upon this Issue Whether Christ We like our Adversaries Offer hath Determined for you or us we Accept of the Challenge And are ready to Dispute by Scripture only Produce then your Texts as plain and significant for the Fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Once Confessedly True As these now Hinted at and many more Cited Above are for Her Infallibility This don you may Vapour as much as you Pleas And Offer to be tryed by Law c. But we know your Want you have not after All this Talk a Syllable of Scripture Sectaries Have no Scripture Against the Churches Infallibility Against our Churches Infallibility Now to the other Horn of the Dilemma where you Say if Christs Law has Determined on our side the Question must be removed from
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
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
None and see where the greatest weight lyes 6. The fourth Principle is the Express Doctrin of The fourth Principle Fathers Themselves as well Greek as Latin whether it be grounded on Scripture on Tradition or both matters not at present Here we only Appeal to the Their Positive Doctrin To transcribe all they have said on this subject would be a long work Bellarmin novv cited cap. 10. hath many Leo Alatius adds other Greek Authors favour the Church Doctrin Greek Authors as well Orthodox as of Schismatical from his 57. page There you have Gennadius the Patriarch St. Epiphanius express to our purpose S. Chrysostom Hom. 69. ad populum and S. Damascen both approving and praysing S. Chrysostoms Doctrin Eustratiâ—s Priest of Constantinople Michaël Glycas a Schismatick Eugenicus Nomophilax adversus Synodum Florentinam Meletius Alexandrinus Epistolâ ad Chios who saith Expresly it is an Apostolical Tradition and grounded also in Scripture To Hold that the Dead have great Assistance by the good works of the Living But let us return to the more known Authority of Fathers S. Denis or some other Grave Author Eccles Hierarch cap 7. parte 3. saith that Dionysius S. Cyril of Hiâ—r S. Chrysostom the venerable Prelate prayes over the Dead to the End that all his sinn's committed through humain frailty may be forgiven him Say I beseech you what signifies this remission of sin's obtainable by the Prayers of the Prelate S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 5. We make Prayers and offer up the dreadful Sacrifice on the Altar for the Dead believing it to be a mighty Help for their souls What can be more plain Popery S. Chrysostom Hom. 21. in Acta Alatius quotes the words in his own language which begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. God saith He hath layd open to us many wayes to salvation Oblations Oblations and Prayers for the Dead Prayers and Alms for the Dead are not things vainly don in their behalf No They were instituted by the Holy Ghost who will 's that we endeavour to help one an other Be most assured the Dead have much profit by our Orizons The Saint hath more to this purpose in his 41. Hom. upon the first of the Corr. Theodoret cited by Alatius page 71. lib. 5. Histor cap. 36. Tell 's us that Theodosius the younger lay prostrate at the Reliques of S. Chrysostom praing for the Souls of his deceased Parents Arcadius and Eudoxiâ— that God would grant them pardon for their Offenses c. Alatius besides These cites Theophylact S. Cyril of Alexandria Metaphrastes and other Greek Authors You have the Latin Fathers Largely quoted by Bellarmin supra cap. 10. And their words are so plain for our Doctrin The Latin Fathers accord also Specially S. Austins that none without violence can draw them to any other sense then what the Church Teaches Most surely you will now expect that Sectaries Answer us with like measure And give in lieu of these Testimonies briefly hinted at others as clear and significant for their Opinion And this They are obliged to when besides the alleged Authorities we have an Ample ancient and learned Church that speaks in the language of the Fathers and Teaches the very Doctrin They Deliver But all is Contrary 7. I 'll tell you a great Truth and 't is worth a serious reflection Sectaries have not so much as one Ancient Father Greek or Latin not one Ancient Writer Sectaries want of Authors reputed Orthodox not one Council new or old not one word of Scripture that either Positively and Expresly Denies a Purgatory or Prayers for the Dead or the relief we now plead for afforded them in a place of Punishment What not one No. Parallel The Parallel therfore many with None and you will se what foundations Our Adversaries Novelties Stand on I say Expresly and Positively being well acquainted with Sectaries Proceding as well in this as in other Controversies Sectaries way of Arguing Here They will first be upon you with their Negative way of Arguing We read no such word as Purgatory in the Ancient Fathers 2. You may have a Company of blind inferences drawn from Scripture and Fathers before the sense of either be Agreed They make Deductions from Scripture before the sense of Scripture is known on 3. As far as Conjectures can reach they will set Glosses enough upon the best Testimonies allegeable out of Scripture or Fathers c. But mark it all this while you have Nothing Express nothing Positive and significant against us And Do they think that a meer Negative Argument hath force enough to overthrow a Doctrin Positively Professed by a whole Church and so many Learned Fathers Can they perswade Themselves that Their Inferences Forced from Scripture or Fathers are of any validity whilst the very sense of both lye under Dispute Take for an instance An Instance that of S. Iohn Apocal. 14. Blessed are the Dead that Dye in our Lord Amodo from hence forth they rest from Their labours The Question is what Amodo relates to whether to the day of every mans Death or to the last Judgement Day whether the Scripture speak's there of perfect Souls only or of others what is meant by that word labours For if it signify the sufferances and persecutions of this present life the Text Proves nothing for our Adversaries Notwithstanding all these Doubts undecided Their Inference goes on And 't is that S. Iohn here Excludes all sufferance in Purgatory Alas such Deductions are too weak to Oppose Weak Deductions an Express owned Doctrin all over the world as is now proved Yet you have no better from these men Nothing Express nothing openly significant Against us 8. I touched in the last place on Sectaries Glosses and interpretations forced on such Testimonies as are usually cited for our Catholick Faith And here How differently Catholicks and Sectaries proceed I will briefly Discover not only their Cheat but moreover shew you how differently we and They proceed as well in this present Controversy as in all other Disputes between us Observe well The Truth is thus When we Produce Scripture Councils or Fathers against their Novelties They make their own Interpretation to be the last and surest Ground wheron The Sectary makes the last ground of his Opinion to be his own Explication The Catholick hath his Religion proved before He Explicates Their maintained Opinion ultimatly relies Contrarywise the Catholick never interpret's Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries but He ground his Gloss on a surer Principle then his sole Explication reaches to I will explicate my self more clearly by one Instance Besides the Authority of our Church and all other Societies called Christian we allege for example St. Denis his Testimony St. Chrysostoms or any other to prove that Prayer for the Dead Avail's much for their comfort and remission of sins that is for the lessening of the pain due to sin
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
That 's not enough Sectaries are to Prove it Beares that Sense here An Instance That the Word EST in our Saviours Proposition hath determinatly that Sense and no Other You know Scripture saith Hic est filius meus dilectus This is my beloved son c. Now no Man can Inferr Becaus EST sometimes is Rendred Signifies That Here it looses its Proper sense And only Avail's as much as if you Said Christ only Signifies or is not otherwise the Son of his Father Then a material Picture Hang'd on a Wall is a Sign or Figure of the Prototypon This cannot be admitted of Vnles I say a Stronger Principle which is Impossible Force us to Approve of such an Heretical sense And thus We Discours in our Present Matter 3. Note 3. All the Principles which can be Thought on to Force Catholicks from the Received Sense of Christs Own Words or to Favour our Adversaries Cause must be Reduced to one of these Heads To No known Principle upholds the Doctrin of Sectaries Plain speaking Scripture To Vniversal Tradition To the Catholick sense of Christs Orthodox Church in former Ages or Finally to the General Consent of Fathers If none of these Principles Vphold Protestants Doctrin it Fall's of it self And wholy Relies on Fancy Thus much supposed 4. Here is my Proposition and an Inference also A Proposition against Sectaries Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one of these now Named Principles VVithdraw Catholicks from the Plain Received Sense of Christs VVords They cannot Prove that EST in our Saviours Affirmation Imports only as much as if you said it Signifies Therfore the Doctrin which Denies the real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is wholy Vnwarrantable and Built on Fancy Only 5. The Proofs of my Assertion are as Vndeniably The Proofs of it are no less clear Then the Proposition it self Evident as the very Assertion it self For it is Manifest No Scripture plainly Teaches I say no More now That the Verb EST in Christs Proposition Beares only this sense it Signifies And it is as Clear no Vniversal Tradition Approves of this new Fancied Sense What then Remains But that our Adversaries take Recours to some Ancient Orthodox Church or To the General Consent of Fathers I say therfore If they A Fair offer made to Sectaries can Name any Vniversal Church Nay any particular Church Reputed Orthodox the whole world Over That Interpreted these Words as They do or Clearly Denyed Christs true Body and Blood To be under the Formes of Bread and Wine after Consecration or Believed that Natural bread only hath the Name of Christs Body Though it be Really no more But a Sign only a Figure only a Resemblance only of his Body If I say Protestants you shall se will never Answer Directly to what is here proposed any one of these things can be proved They 'l Come of Gloriously And Gain Thousands to their Opinion But I know all is in a high Measure Impossible I say a Sign only a Figure only For We Catholicks both speak with the Fathers and Truely Believe The Eucharist to be a Sacrament And consequently a Sign of Invisible Grace Yea and a Figure also a Memorial of Christ Himself and his Sacred Passion But this is not the Controversy between us The sole Question therfore is Whether it be so purely a Sign or Figure that What They are to Answer To. the Thing Signified is not in the Sign And the Verity in the Figure That is Whether Christs Sacred Body and Blood be not Truely and Substantially within the outward Sign and really Present There This VVe Affirm and Sectaries Deny Though never Orthodox Church Denyed it with Them 6. To clear this Point And Add If Possible more Weight to our Assertion We Have an Ample Holy and Learned Catholick Roman Church whose sole Authority set Scripture aside is the Greatest on Earth The sole Authority of our Roman Church is Sufficient to Convince Sectaries of Errour Which confessedly hath believed and taught this Doctrin of the Real Presence for at least a Thousand Years I say Ever since Christianity began And can any one prudently Perswade Himself That so Chois and Learned a Society That yet Speak's in Christs ovvn Language And Literally believes his words as They are in the Gospel Hath for so long a time lived in a Cheat and taught Millions of Soules a most Damnable Errour Admit of this Vast Improbability We have yet a Demonstration No Other Orthodox Society Ever opposed our Catholick Doctrin against Sectaries And 't is No Orthodox Church can be named that ever Opposed Found fault or Blamed the Belief of the Roman Church Concerning this Mystery Therfore the Doctrin of this Learned Society is undoubtedly Certain upon a double Account that Christ Taught it And no Vniversal Church ever Condemned it 7. In the last Place we are to Say a Word of the other The last Principle which is the consent of Fathers Principle Which is the Vnanimous consent not of a small Number but of Many most Ancient Learned and Holy Fathers These can well Declare what Scripture Teaches of This Mystery And what Christs Orthodox Church ever Believed If All Readers Have not the Originals at hand They may see them in the Authors Cited above I shall only Hint at a few For to Transcribe All or Half of them And Quote the Places Exactly Would Needlesly lengthen a Digression which I Intended to make short In passing I 'll only say thus much If Sectaries with all the Skill Fathers express for Catholick Doctrin They have can Interpret These few Testimonies Which I shall briefly Glance at They may with the same Ease Yea And far less labour Explicate the Words of the Council of Trent and make that to speak Protestancy Or to Deny the Real Presence 8. Some Fathers therfore Dogmatically Teach What we take into our mouths is not that which nature These Fathers are Faithfully cited Though to avoid Tediousnes in a short Digression I thought it best not to give the Reader more Trouble then is necessary by quoting Exactly the places made But what the Blessing hath Consecrated And that by Consecration the very Nature of bread is changed Thou hast learned that of bread is made the Body of Christ and the wine and water is put into the Chalice But by the consecration of the Heavenly Word it is made Blood The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Sacred Invocation of the Adored Trinity were simple bread and wine But the Invocation being once don the Bread indeed is made the Flesh of Christ and the VVine his Blood The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made Flesh Christ by his own Will once changed water into wine and is He not worthy to be Believed that He changed Wine into Blood Mark a substantial
is Given for you They Answer No. It was not his Body but a Sign Only of His Body Given for us Observe well This Interpretation of a Sign Only is a Gloss of Fancy For neither the Word Sign is in Scripture Nor a Sign Only is any Ancient Father We Cite Again that Unanswerable Text of St. Luke This is the Chalice the new Testament in my Blood which Chalice is shed for you And mark the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Case and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Different Case What Answer our Sectaries Marry Beza Tell 's us St. Luke Here either spak a Solacism or a Marginal Note Cre'pt by chance into the Text Here is His best Solution And who Tell 's Mr. Beza so But his own Fancy We Produce moreover Those Testimonies of Ancient Fathers Briefly Hinted at Above And say no Wit of Man can solve Them Chiefly That Authority of St. Cyril Of VVine changed into Blood as water was Once changed into VVine They Answer The Change was only Moral of Wine Deputed to a Holy Use which is Against the very Nature of the Instance And consequently a Strong Thought of Fancy We say No Universal Tradition No Ancient Church ever Opposed the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church concerning this Mystery Herein our Ad 〈…〉 rsaries are Silenced And cannot Design the Orthodox Church that opposed our Doctrin as both We and the whole world beside now oppose their Novelty Parallel therfore the Proceedings of Sectaries Against us A Parallel between their Proceeding and ours Sectaries mangle and pervert most clear Authorities with ours Against them And you will find them to stand upon Quicksand without Principles The very Straits They are put to Demonstrat this Evidently whilst as you have seen They Mangle Pervert Misconstrue and Gloss Every clear Authority cited against Them And We on the other side candidly Admit both of Scripture and Fathers Quoted by Them without Any other Gloss but what the very Text and Context of the Testimonies Allow of 5. And Hence it is that you Always have our Adversaries Sectaries bold in asserting but weak at their Proofs bold in Asserting But Cold Vnmanly and Weak at their Proofs Besides what is now said the true Reason is No Proof can touch much less Vainquish a Verity that Stands firm upon undeniable Principles Plain Scripture the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers undeniable What our Catholick Proofs are Tradition the Authority of a Holy and Vniversal Church and this Negative No Church ever blamed our Doctrin are Strong Supports for the Faith we Profess And can our Sectaries who are as Scriptureles as Fatherles as Fatherles as Churchles and Finally Destitute of All other Principles Think to Dant us with a few Gleancings Gathered Sectaries cannot deny Them now out of This now out of that Ancient Writter when They Evidently se with their Eyes the whole Torrent of Antiquity contrary to Them Can they Perswade Themselves that Because one Theodoret For example Of Theodorets Authority Saith the Mystical Signs after the Sanctification Recede not from Their Nature but Remain in their first Substance Figure and Form are Seen and Touched as Before which words are literally True if we Speak as We Admit of his Words this Author Doth of the visible Accidents of Bread and Wine Can we I say Think that this one Authority Though it were a Hundred times more Difficil Hath Weight enough to turn the Scales Force Enough to Drive us from the Faith which Scripture Church and Fathers most manifestly Deliver It is impossible The obscurer places of Scripture and Fathers are to be Interpreted by the clearer All know when Divines Explicate Scripture or Fathers They Interpret the obscurer Passage by the Clearer And never make the Darker Place to give Light to the more Evident Observe Now. Theodoret saith the Mystical Signs Recede not from their Nature But Remain as before I say so too The only Difficulty is what he Meanes by the Word Signs and Sectaries Glosses without Proof Theodoret cannot be supposed to contradict other most Learned Fathers He is to be Explicated were he obscure by the sense of other Fathers Nature Sectaries Tell us The Sense is Bread and wine Recede not from Their True Substance First This is their Gloss without Proof For the Visible Signs of bread and wine are not the Invisible Substance of Bread and Wine 2. Theodoret in all law of Arguing when His plain Words Force not on us this sense of Sectaries ought to be Catholickly Interpreted And Had we no other Reason but this That it cannot be Reason To make so Learned a Father Though once he stray'd a little to Clash with all Antiquity it were Enough At most His Words are Doubtful And upon that Account capable of Explication is it not Therfore more Just to Explicate Them by the Clear and Vndeniable Doctrin of a Whole Church And other Fathers then to Draw these Fathers from their Open and Manifest Sense to His if it be supposed Obscure as in Truth well Pondered it is not Let Reason Judge Here. 6. By what is said Already We may well pitty the desperate Condition of Sectaries who Pertinaciously Defend an Heresy without so much as a colour of Sectaries want Principles Scripture Church or the General Consent of Fathers For these Principles and none can Parallel them Most evidently Fail our Adversaries Urge them Again and Again to speak more Pertinently to their Cause then is Don hitherto You get nothing but the Old Story told over again And it will never be Better for I se too Plainly Their Humor It is God knows Sectaries Tristing and wherin it Appear's To spend or rather to Mispend their whole Life and Labour in Trifles They Think to Cavil at the Proofs of our Doctrin Establisheth Theirs As if it were sufficient to make their Novelty good Because they can Talk against our Ancient Faith Just as if One to Prove Himself an Honest Man might do it Pithily by calling his Neighbour a Knave 7. I must yet Add one Significant Word more And 'T is very Necessary to lay forth our Adversaries Weaknes as well in This as in All other Controversies Observe Solid Proofs for a Doctrin stand firm and unshaken against all Opponents it VVhen Proofs of a Doctrin Stand on solid Grounds and Principles the Objections Against it are like Fathers cast Against the Wind forceles And return upon the Opponents to their Confusion wherof I think you Have Already seen Enough in this Present Controversy But contrarywise When the Proofs are Meagre Barren and Void of Strength They are ever so with Sectaries The Very Opposite Principles for Truth Dash All Discountenance All and Evidently Shew those Arguments to be Feeble And Truely would our Did Sectaries Proceed Candidly They would se Themselves Convinced Adversaries once Deal Ingeniously Candor would
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
not so Evidently Credible when He saith He would not believe the Gospel unles the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it The Infallibility of it therfore must by proved by some good Principles extrinsick to Scripture but the Sectary hath not one sound Principle Distinct from the Tradition and Authority of the Church wherby this Infallibility is proved Therfore Scripture in order to Him is not so Infallible as the Church is to the Catholick If any Deny my principle and make the Scriptures Infallibility Discernable by its own light by the Majesty of the style purity of its Doctrin or efficacy it works in the minds of those who read it c. I think there are evident Demonstrations against the Paradox For as I noted Disc 1. C. 2. 12. n. 4. Two things are to be considered in Scripture first the exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words and so much precisely is not the Scriptures total Infallibility which sayes more besides that exteriour language and necessarily implies A Divine Act a Volition or Decree of God wherby the Hagiographers that writ the words were infallibly assisted and determined to record truth and nothing but Truth Now this Divine Volition or Decree becaus it is essential to God and therfore no other but God Himself can be no Object of our senses when we hear or read Scripture Consequently it is to be Discovered by a Discours grounded on Principles distinct from the outward letter of Scripture wherby we may come to a sure Evidence of its Infallibility not at all yet within the reach of our senses And this no Sectary can do as I shall presently make Evident 17. I say Therfore if the Motives now alleged for the Churches Infallibility as Conversions Miracles Vniversality c. induce not immediatly to believe that Church they demonstrate to be Infallible much less can the exteriour words or sintax of Scripture be a fit Medium to Convince any of its Infallibility And to prove this besides what is often noted in the Treatise Chiefly Disc 1. C. 8. n. 7. Ill here only Propose two Questions The first Whether if St. Iohn who was infallibly Assisted had not recorded that short sentence in His Gospel The Word is made flesh but some other not infallibly Assisted by the Spirit of God had written the very same Verity as it were by Chance My Question I say is whether the Sectary that now reads this sentence in S. Iohn Gospel can more Discover an Infallibility in it by force of the outward words then if they had been Casually written by one without Infallible Assistance I think He will not dare to say yes or if He Do I 'll urge Him to prove it by Principles when the outward words are the Very same in both Cases and in like manner clear to all that read them My second Demand may yet perhaps better evidence what I ayme at and is thus Suppose that our Sectaries should put the book of Eclesiastes which they hold Canonical into the hands of twelve learned Gentile Philosophers and with it the book of Wisdome or Eclesiasticus also not held Canonical by them Suppose again They desire these learned and disinterressed men seriously to read these three books and after the reading Sincerely to tell them which of them hath Gods Spirit in it or contains his infallible Verities For this may be easily gathered by the very natural evidence of what they read by the Majesty of the style Efficacy of speaking which appears Clearly enough in the outward letter Thus much don seperate these Philosophers by four and four into three Companies put them into three different cells much after that manner as some say the sevently Interpreters were separated Let them with all sincerity read examin and peruse these Books and if when the work is ended they unanimously accord that a greater Divinity a stronger infallibility appear's in the song of Salomon then in the other two books we will say something is proved and hold it as strange a Miracle as that which S. Austin recounts of the 70. Interpreters Now if Any tell us this light of Scripture though sufficient in it self is not evident to every one that looks on it because the blindnes or perversnes of mens minds may keep them from the Discovery of it The Reply hath no place here for we suppose first these Philosophers to be disinterressed learned upright and sincere as well in their reading as in the judgement they give of it And secondly we will suppose that all those are not blind whom Sectaries make blind nor only those quick sighted I mean themselves whom they will have so 18. To these Questions I add one more it may pass for an Argument Ad hominem against Sectaries who hold all the Definitions of our Church even when they are true to be yet fallible I Ask whether these Quick sighted men are able to Discern the Fallibility of these Definitions by force of the outward words therof only as they Discover the infallibility of Scripture by the Majesty of the style and outward Sintax And mack where the force of the Difficulty lies As Infallibility necessarily implyes Divine Assistance in order to the Truths Delivered in holy Scripture so the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions implyes a want of that Assistance in order to those Definitions I Ask therfore whether as the first is Discernable and visible enough to their Eyes by the very context of the outward letter They will consequently grant that the other also is as clearly visible and Discernable by the very words of the Definition If They Answer yes First they need not hereafter to impugn the Churches Definitions by any other Medium but this that they are without further proof by themselves evidently fallible So much is said by them and it proof enough 2. They may as well say They know when a man tell 's a lye and this by force of his very speaking as that they know the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions by her speaking For if their eyes can Discern the want of Divine Assistance in the one case which really is not wanting they may more easily Discern the want of Truth in the other which really is wanting And if this be not a Paradox there was never any in the world Now contrarywise if they cannot Discover the Churches supposed Fallibility in her Definitions meerly by her Exteriour words because that is a thing invisible I would gladly learn how They come to know the Infallibility of Scripture by the words Therof for that is as much if not more invisible and as far removed from our eyes and senses 19. Some who pittifully suppose Scriptures to be proved Divine and Infallible by the very light which is in them Object first When we see the sun and the vast extent of the light it has we may well infer it comes from that luminous body And may we not say These proportionably inferr from the
clearnes Greatnes Majesty and Coherency of those Truths revealed in Scripture that they must certainly come from none but God Answ What will not men say at last who dare Propose such evident improbabilities Why the whole world agrees in this that the light comes from the sun for it is evident to our senses but do all unanimously agree about the very Canon of Scripture or the clearnes of those books all admit of which are evidently obscure in a hundred passages and so seemingly incoherent in many other places that it is mighty Difficile to reconcile them Again What more Greatnes or exteriour Majesty can any Discover in Salomons Proverbs then in the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus or in those two pious Hymns Te Deum and Gloria in Excelsis such arguments therfore are not only slight but improbable 20. They Object 2. The works of Creation Evidence Gods Wisdom Power and Greatnes Ergo God can give as great evidence of a Revelation Answ I grant He can do so But What then Doth it follow that He hath don it de facto by the words internal to Scripture which is here only to the purpose without the light of orher Motives as Miracles Conversions and the like which as I now said immediately manifest the Church and not the book of Scripture 21. They object 3. No other way is conceivable that it should be evident that a Doctrin comes from God and consequently is infallible but that it contains things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of human reason things only tending to Advance Holines and Goodnes in the world And this Doctrin to be Delivered by persons who wrought Vnparrallel'd Miracles And They ask whether all these be not in the most evident manner Imaginable contained in the Doctrin of Christianity and in the books of Scripture I Answer first The Opponent is far from Conceiving any thing like a probability in this Objection For if it be evident that a Doctrin comes from God and therfore is infallible because it contains Things suitable to the Devine Nature the very Gentils without other Motives should as well see this Evidence as we se the light of the Sun Now if you say its an Evidence but not perceptible by all you runn into Darknes Destroy the Nature of Evidence and make it now evident now unevident when and to whom you please If again you say its an Evidence sufficient to breed Faith you beg the Question and speak improbably for nothing can beget Faith but what is owned for Gods infallible Word upon prudent Motives and the Testimony of some Infallible Oracle To confirm what is here said I Ask whether if Christ and his Apostles had appeared in the World and only preached the high Mysteries of our Faith as a Trinity the Incarnation Original sin with other Doctrins now registred in Scripture that advance Holines of life c. But all this without doing one Miracle Converting one Nation or shewing any the least wonder that they were sent from God to teach as they did My Question I say is whether upon this supposition either Jewes or Gentils would then have believed them or could have discovered an Infallibility in a Doctrin thus Orally Delivered or writ in patchment meerly by the force of the words If Sectaries say Yes They do not only speak a Paradox which no Christian ever uttered and make our Saviours Argument Against the Jewes Si opera c. If I had not don works amongst them which no other did they would not have sin null and inefficacious but moreover are convinced by this clear proof Suppose And it implies no impossibility that God who hath yet within the vast reach of His Omnisciency a Thousand other Verities unknown to the world and not at all revealed in Scripture or Delivered by the Church for certainly He hath not revealed all He knowes should now both inspire and Assist twelve poore Fishermen to preach infallibly these Truth never heard of before yet so that they Teach only but do no Miracles work no Conversions shew no wonders and give no other Testimony of their being sent from God but by their own bare word Would any men in the world think ye prudently believe them meerly for their preaching or would Sectaries as well Discover the Infallibility of these Verities taught by their preaching as they now Discern the Scriptures infallibility No the whole world would prudently set light by such Doctrin though in it self both Divine and Infallible for want of prudent Motives to make it evidently Credible and so all would have don had the Apostles only preached the Divine Truths already registred in Scripture without further Motives Therfore more is required to prove that a Doctrin comes from God then thus much only that it contains in it self things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of humane reason and conduceing to piety I say in it self for if we goe to a strict Analysis of the Scriptures Verities we are not to suppose as the Opponent doth but to prove that all these Verities are suitable to the Divine nature which both Jewes and Gentils Do Deny And therfore must be further proved 22. Now if on the other side They grant and most truely that none would have Discovered any Infallibility in Apostolical Doctrin without further evidence of Miracles of signs and wonders we have our Intent For it followes inevitably that Scripture cannot be Discovered to be Divine by it self nor Infallble by vertue of any light contained in the words or Sintax therof It followes 2. that Mr. Stillingfleet is more then a little out in his seventh Interrogatory part 1. Chap. 7. p. 230. fine where He Ask's whether it be not the highest Disparagement of this Divine Doctrin to make it stand in need of an Infallible Testimony of any that call themselves the Catholick Church Good Sir reflect These Motives of Credibility manifested by Christ and his Apostles their Miracles Conversions Sanctity c. taken purely as Motives previous to the Faith of those who believed were either fallible or Infallible take whether side you will If Infallible you evidently see that most certain Doctrin stood without Disparagement so far in need of those Inducements that it would never have been believed without them as is already proved though most infallible in it self If you hold those previous Inducements to be only Fallible you must yet Grant that the belief of that Apostolical Doctrin stood still in need of them without any Disparagement Therfore much less doth the Testimony of an Infallible Church Evidenced by the like Motives Disparage it I say the Testimony of the Church Evidenced by clear Motives For as the learned Snares Observes 3. Par. Tom. 2. Disp 31. Sect. 2. n. Dicoâ—primo The very Miracles of Christ precisely and solely considered or separated from all other certain Principles would not have proved Him to be the eternal Son of God because
God might have wrought Miracles by one that was purely Man and not Omnipotent and He did so de facto by his Disciples as He for told them Iohn 14. 12. Majora horum facient that they should do greater wonders Therfore other Principles and none could be more strong then Christs own Testimony besides His Miracles were necessary to beget certain Faith of his Godhead in Believers And so we say The Testimony of the Church Evidenced by signes and wonders is also necessary to beget a full Assurance of the Scriptures Infallibility without it we have no Divine certainty of Gods Word 23. Now I return a second Answer to the Objection and say A person that is not infallible can speak of things suitable to the Divine Nature and above the reach of humane reason of vertue and Godlines c. For not only the book of Herman or Hermes Called the Pastor highly valued of by some Ancient Fathers but other writings also though untruely ascribed to the Apostles often speak Divinely yet never were admitted by the Church as Canonical or Gods Infallible word Nay more Some parts of the Gospel and the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude also were not for a time received as Canonical by the Ancient Church though they spak then as Divinely and were as Insallibly Gods word as they are now the Ancient Church that had eyes as good as Sectaries red them yet Discovered no Infallibility or Divinity in them upon this account that they spak of things suitable to the Divine nature And who sees not but that the books of Wisdom and Eclesiasticus contain as high Doctrin as Divine Precepts as are in Salomons Proverbs or Eclesiastes yet the later are Divine with Sectaries and the former not And here I would willingly learn whether the first Protestants that admitted of the later and rejected the Other as Apocryphal did so because they smel't as it were a Divinity in those they received by the very reading and not in the former I am sure the more learned Protestants give other Reasons For these grounds therfore I say the Argument above is so unreasonable that I wonder men of judgement Ventured to propose it Now if they believe the Scripture to be Infallible because of the Miracles and other wonders internal to the book wrought in confirmation of its Doctrin Make a right Analysis and Ask why they believe these Miracles to be Infallible Scripture and follow them closely till they come to a Propositio Quiescens or an undoubted Principle And you 'l find the very Reason returned you to be the thing in Question Although we granted which is not true that Scripture it self said all things contained in the book are infallibly Gods Word For it would be demanded a new How They know that very Assertion to be Scripture 24. For these Reasons some Sectaries will say The Scriptures infallibility is to be proved by Discours not grounded on the meer light or Majesty therof but by probable Principles extrinsick to it And here is one Argument We know by humane Authority Morally certain that Scripture was writ by holy men Prophets Euangelists and Apostles I answer we know not so much of all the books in Scripture without the Churches Testimony For it is doubtful who writ the books of Iosue and Iudges and it is still in Controversy whether Salomon writ the Proverbs and therfore some not only Catholicks but Sectaries also are of opinion that if we rely on humane and historical Authority only we have greater and more particular Assurance that S. Thomas for example writ his summ of Divinity then we have Assurance of the particular Authors of no few books in Holy Scripture Again though we had this certainty grounded on History yet no man among Sectaries who say all Churches erred before Luther can tell us upon moral certainty whether the first Authentick Originals were afterward Corrupted or no by Ancient Hereticks and the supposed erring Church of Rome Se more of this subiect Disc 2. C. 2. n. 7. 8. Others again may Argue from the Miracles wrought by Scripture immediatly And one was as Baronius recounts that this sacred book in Diocletians time being cast into the fire the flames were forthwith extinguished I Answer first both this and other Miracles were only wrought in the true Church and at most prove which is to be noted that the book is true pious and holy but is far from Convincing that we now only inquire after which is its infallibility For God might have don the like Miracle for a true Christian Catechisme Had Diocletian who desired to rase out all memory of Christianity cast that into the Fire also Others argue from the Accomplishment of Prophesies which proves little without the Testimony of the Church First because the very Prophesies and the fulfilling of them must be proved to be Divine Scripture and this cannot be don abstracting from Church Authority 2. These two things are to be distinguished A power to Prophesy and to write as Hagiographers Did Canonical books One may prophesy who only heares from a Prophet what was told him upon the Prophets own Authority but none can write infallibly Canonical books of Scripture but such as have immediately the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct him In a word here is the last and most true Resolution of all these Difficulties Unles Sectaries rely on our Churches Testimony for the Infallibility of Scripture they are evidently beaten out of all likelihood of other Principles wherby to prove it is infallible Yet this very Principle of the Church in order to them doth little or nothing for reasons clearly alleged Disc 2. C. 2. n. 6. 7. It is needles to repeat them in this place 25. And it is as needles to prove my second Assertion above n. 12. Which is Though Sectaries had Probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility in general yet that doth them no service because it is a useles book in their hands This Proposition is so Copiously proved in the second Discours C. 1. and 2. Where much is said of Sectaries endles dissentions concerning the sense of Scripture though admitted of as Divine that no Unorthodox man shall acquit Himself of the Difficulties there proposed All I 'll do now Though it hath not been my Custome to tire the Reader with long Authorities of Ancient Fathers is to mind him of one only Tertullians Testimony in his book de Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos cap. 19. His words are Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est Rigaltius read's par incertae aut parum certa Nam etsi non evaderet collatio Scripturarum ut utramque partem sisteret ordo rerum desiderabat illud prius proponi quod nunc solum disputandum est quibus competat fides ipsa cujus sint Scripturae à quo per quos quando quibus sit
Disciplina quâ fiunt Christiani Vbi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianorum The sense of this whole sentence is this We are not therfore to appeal to Scriptures nor are our debates to be determined here wherin there is no victory or a very uncertain one For although there were no Collation or comparing of places together that might stay the two Advers parts yet the order of things requires this to be first proposed which is now only to be disputed viz. To whom the Faith appertains wherof the Scriptures are From whom and by whom when and by what Persons that Discipline is wherby they were made Christians For where there appeares the Truth of Discipline that is as Macereus and Pamelius interpret the Rule and of Christian Faith there you shall have the Truth of Scriptures the Interpretation of it likewise and of all Christian Tradition Observe well The whole context of these words saith first that debates can never be ended by Scripture only 2. That before we Dispute by Scripture we ought to know and by other Reasons who those are to whom Scripture belong's 3. That where the Discipline or Rule of Christian Faith is previously known by other grounds distinct from Scripture there you have the True Interpretation of Scripture and all Christian Tradition After a full ponderation of these words I leave any man to Judge that loves Truth whether that Doctrin be not here most remarkably expressed which is taught and mantained by the Roman Catholick Church 26. Mr. Poole from his 12. page to his 37. hath no work for me for his whole strain is to run on in cavils and finding fault with such Arguments of Catholicks as He forsooth judges inefficacious to prove the Churches Infallibility whereas God knows Had He had where withall to do it He should have gon a contrary way and proved positively by Scripture Fathers and Tradition the Churches Fallibility but Herein He is silent because in real Truth He hath nothing to say The ground of the Churches Infallibility which Mr. Poole never toucheth on is briefly hinted at above n. 15. and further laid forth Disc 1. c. 1. and 2. and I desire an express Answer to it Now and then He hath something against the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who with him are fallible because they speak of the Churches Infallibility and the good man never reflect's that he and his little book are far more fallible I wave such trifles 27. Page 37. He begins with his Distinctions of the Judge and rule of Faith and saith first The supream and truely Infallible Judge of all Controversies is God and Christ. Very Good but nothing is yet Done unles you fallible man can say in all the Differences between us what God and Christ speak what is judged for you and against us which is so far from being a Truth proved that in Every Controversy it is the very thing in Question and meerly supposed by you without either Proof or Principle You say again The External and political Judges to wit the Governours of the Church are subordinate to the supream Judge Answ Very true But what then Marry this followes that if they really contradict the supreme Judges sentence They must give their subjects leave to argue whether it be right in the sight of God Hold Sir a little If you rationally contradict them you must first prove your self wiser then these subordinate Judges are and Evidence their Errours by undoubted Principles which is impossible For either these Judges are Infallible or fallible if you grant the first you cannot rationally contradict them And if they be fallible How dare you a private fallible man speak contrary when your very Contradiction is no better then their opposite Assertion is I mean purely and poorly Fallible In a word without any certain Principle to rely on which you shall never have you too boldly take leave to oppose your Judges and make your self a Rebel by it You say 3. There is in Every particular Person a secret Judge which is called Reason or Conscience I must Ask once more what then Have not Arians Pelagians Quaquers and all other Sectaries reason as well as you What therfore this Instrument of reason can apprehend judge and work in you after your fashion it doth the like in these other after Their fashion Do you not therfore se how little you advance your cause by talking of your Reason which unles it be Evidenced by sure Principles to be better then that of your Adversaries proves just nothing And add what private Spirit you pleas to help your Reason out They will talk as much of their contrary Spirit to help theirs These two points are so largely declared and proved Disc 2. c. 5. that I believe your Answer to them will prove unreasonable 28. Page 40. You goe first very warily to work for no man knowes what you would say Then you are manly resolute in your Decisions We willingly acknowledge say you and reverently esteem the true and rightful Governors of the Church orderly assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whose decisions are to be highly valued c. Here is no man knowes what Pray you speak out and name more clearly the Church you reverently esteem of Tell us who these true and rightful Governors of it are and do not put us of with an old piece of a long since rejected Doctrin They are those who hold closely to the Truths of Scripture for we must know who these are Finally say when Councels are regularly assembled not according to your Fancy but which will be a long work for you let us have lawes prescribed wherby we may know by sure Principles more particularly without this general talk when Councels are orderly assembled or unorderly A word now to your resolute Definitions You say first this Judge of the Church is not infallible but subject to errour Answer And so are you Sir also fallible when you oppose your self to the Judgement of a Church whether it be your own English Church or the Roman Catholick If therfore the Judgement of both Churches were supposed fallible as the one is not your singular Judgement is no more but fallible also and what gain you by that Thus much only You Contradict the Church fallibly and the Church again Contradicts you fallibly and thus you may remain Contradicting one another to the Worlds End without the Decision of one Controversy unles you make it Evident by undoubted Principles that you are to judge the Church when you please and the Church is not to medle with you or your Iudgement You say 2. this judge of the Church being subject to higher Authority and tyed to a higher rule if its Decisions be Manifestly repugnant to that Superiour Rule they are not to be obeyed Answ You purely suppose what should be proved Viz. That the Decisions of the
true Catholick Church which is ever assisted by the Holy Ghost can be tepugnant to any Superiour Rule and therfore touch not Catholicks in the least manner But if you speak of the Decisions of your English Church which because fallible may be repugnant you license your self by your own Principles to disobey it And look you to that You say 3. The judge is Constituted by God in the Church not for the Command of mens Consciences but for the regulation of their Actions and Preservation of peace in the Church which is not Violated by mens inward and unknown Sentiments but by their External demeanour and sensible Effects of them Answ Most pittiful Doctrin What is all the preaching of Sectaries Come to no more but only to teach how the Exteriour Actions of men are to be regulated and peace may be preserved This Truely more be longs to the Iustiâ—ies of Peace in their Several Districts then to Ministers if therfore they goe no deeper into Consciences by their Doctrin they certainly preach not the Word of God for I read Heb. 4. 12. the Word of God is lively and forcible and more persing then any two Edged Sword and reaching unto the Division of the soule and Spirit of the ioynts also and the Marrows c. And these men go no further then only to give instructions concerning the Exteriour Regulation of Actions or preserving of Peace If therfore their Hearers were very Hypocrits Iewes or Arians in hart and only demeaned themselves fairly in the Exteriour like Protestants Ministers are not to medle with them but leave them to their own Consciences without Check or reproof wherof se more Disc 3. C. 7. â— 17. 18. Now if Mr. Poole will find some Mystery in the words he useth Command of mens Consciences let him read S. Paul to Titus 2. 15. Haec loquere Speak these things and rebuke Cum omni Imperio with all Command and Authority And so Pastors should Speak to Consciences Cum Imperio in Gods cause and people should obey them The Apostle gives the reason Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates your Guides or Commanders for they watch as being to render an account for your Souls And if they must render an account of Souls they may certainly speak like Prelates to their very interiour Consciences 29. Page 41. you say the Scriptures of the old and now Testament are the Infallible rule and ground of Faith Answ They are so Faithfully interpreted Se Disc 2. C. 4. where you have your Errours Discovered and the Objection fully Answered You say again Vniversal Tradition rightly understood is of great use and like a channel wherby Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us Answ the Parenthesis which alone is refuted in the Discours now cited the rest of your Assertion hath no hurt in it But you add a Mysterious piece of Divinity where you distinguish between Rem Tradiâ—am the thing Delivered Traditionem and the Tradition or Delivery of it and say Papists by Tradition understand the first that is res tradita Answ either I understand not you or you which is more likely misconceive the Doctrin of Catholicks For they distinguish between Tradition and the thing Delivered For example The Baptizing of Infants the keeping of Sunday in place of the Sabbath are Objectively Doctrins delivered and the Testimony Consent and Acknowledgment of the whole Universal Church witnessing these Verities are rightly called the formal Tradition therfore you mistake our Doctrin It is true as this word Faith sometimes signifies the matter revealed by Almighty God And most properly the internal Assent we yeild to the Revelation so this word Tradition may also signify either the Doctrin delivered or the formal Delivery of it but this makes not to your purpose You say again Tradition taken for the vehicle or conveyance of the books of Scripture is in some sort necessary to bring the Rule to you yet is no more a part of the Rule then a Basquet is Nourishment wherin bread is brought to feed on Here is your learned instance Believe it Sir if you take the Basket and find Nothing but a stone in it you will have a poore dinner And if you make Tradition minutely like the Basket in some sort necessary you may well have a stone for bread that is no Scripture given you for Scripture Tradition therfore whether part of the Rule or no is absolutely a necessary conveyance and must be Infallible 30. Page 44. you tell us Scripture is the Object only rule and standard of Faith by which all Controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged Answer The Proposition is only your own bare word Scripture alone can be no rule without an Infallible Interpreter as is proved Disc 2. c. 4. And had we no more to say but thus much that Scripture proves nor it self to be Infallible it were enough But grant which you yet Convince not that it is infallibly Gods Word an insuperable difficulty remains to be decided And it is whether you Sectaries know so exactly the sense of Scripture in all controverted matters that your fallible Glosses are to be stood to contrary to the judgement of a learned Ancient Church Hence I say you talk at random when page 48. you tell us There is enough delivered in Scripture by which all Controversies might be ended would men be humble studious and Self denying Lay your hand on your hart and speak your conscience can you judge this to be true Or can you perswade your self that none are to be found within the limits of this Ancient Church as humble as learned and studious as a few Ministers are in England Why vent you such Paradoxes without proof or so much as a probability You say again page 48. after some parergons of conditional and absolute power That if the Church be sufficient to end all Controversies because all must submit to its decrees and Doctrin the Scripture in like manner may be said to be sufficient because all are obliged to submit to the Decrees and Doctrin therof I Answer all are to do so when they know by an infallible Interpreter what the Scriptures Teaches but this in controverted matters is ever the difficulty You say it speak's one thing and we say the contrary therfore Scripture alone which is as silent now as it was Sixteene ages since is a less meet Meanes to end these Contentions Contrariwise the Church proposeth all shee teaches with the greatest clarity and if any doubt occurr is ready able and sufficient to declare it self further Scripture that hitherto never ended any difference between us cannot do so For a further satisfaction read the 5. Ch. of the 3. Discours 31. We return now to your 44. page where you tell us First Tradition is the Vehicle to conveigh the rule of Scripture to us 2. Reason is the instrument or Eye wherby you apprehend and se the Rule 3. The Spirit of God is the Eye-salve that annoints
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
time any infallible Church on earth even in fundamentals All therfore we have now to Direct us is only the book of Scripture without other Proponent and every mans private Reason Contra. It is Evident That Scripture makes no man infallible both Arians and Others read it and yet grosly err in Points most Essential Deny therfore a Church unerrable in Essentials and say boldly that as Arians have already erred in some Fundamentals so others might before this day have wholy erred and outed both Christ and Creed with every Article of Christian Religion For weak Reason alone is insufficient to Preserve Christianity in its Purity as I have shewed above wherof also more hereafter CHAP. V. A word with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty 1. HEre we come to examin the other part of the Objection proposed above n. 5. And thus Mr. Stilling fleet some later men Discours concerning the certainty of Christian Religion They say first and most truely That the ultimate Motive wheron Faith relyes is Gods infallible Testimony with all That none can question the fallibility of this Revealed Testimony when it is Sufficiently proposed and made known to us The only Question therfore is How it comes to be made known or discovered in order to those things Protestants Doctrine about Moral Certainty which are immediatly Revealed They say secondly Moral certainty may be a sufficient foundation For the most firm assent if the matter to be believed be the infallible Truth of a Doctrin upon sutable Evidence Though we have now but Moral Certainty of that Evidence The Assent may yet be firm to such a Doctrin as infallible They say thirdly Moral Certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Physical supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures as in Mathematical and Physical as to Theirs Here briefly is their Doctrin Some further Explications of it will perhaps more opportunely have place while we make our Exception against it And 2. My first Exception is These Authors do not sufficiently explain what they would have here understood by Moral certainty wherin there is a great Latitude One Degree of it excludes all Rational doubt Degrees of Moral Certainty And thus we say He who never saw Constantinople may yet upon the indubitable Testimony of so many witnesses who have seen it affirm without fear There is or hath been such a Citty in the world An other Degree of this Certitude reaches not so high As we se in School Opinions Some Philosophers Tell you it is Morally certain That sublunary Bodies as Fire and water are composed of Matter and Form That Accidents are really distinct from Substance and Motion yet now there are some that deny it and hold as they think a contrary Philosophy more Morally certain Therfore when we come to apply this Moral certainty to Disputable matters we do seldom or never agree about it I doubt not but These very men we now treat with will say what They judge God knowes that That part of Protestant Religion wherin it differ's from all Christians is upon Moral Certainty True yet the Rest of the world opposes them and Avouches it hath not so much as one Degree of Probability for it That therfore which is here meant by Moral certitude must if these Authors speak to the purpose be a Certainty wherof no man can Rationally doubt Thus much supposed 3. I say first and by this Assertion you may discover the grand Cheat of these Novellists Christian A grand Cheat of Navellists discover'd Religion as it is fancied and variously Professed by innumerable who go under that name and Notion hath so little of this Great Moral Certainty for it That it is an Haeresy to Allow it a mean Probability Why Arians Pelagians Eutychians Donatists Socinians And all other condemned Haereticks called Themselves Christians and professed some part of Christian Religion truely But had They I beseech you a great Moral Certainty For the other part of their Errours and Haeresies falsly vented by them as Christs Doctrin You wil say No. But they had it for the Fundamentals of Christian Religion wherof no man ever doubted and thus much they Defend upon that Certitude Admit of this as True though I hope Prorestants grant That Arians do deny Fundamental Doctrin What is it to the Purpose to tell us All condemned Haereticks and Protestants These men wave the main Question with them have Moral certainty for one Part of Christian Religion wherof None ever doubted And to give us nothing of this High Certitude for the other Part which is in Controversy and Specifically belongs to Protestants Had these men therfore come home to the Dfficulty They would not have here mispent time in Proving what needs no Proof viz. That the General Doctrin owned by all Christians as is a Belief in one God or of Christ a Redeemer c. Hath at least Moral certainty for it But They should have shewed That Arianism as Arianism or which had been to the Purpose That Protestancy as Protestancy stands so firmly built on High Moral Certainty That None can prudently doubt of Protestants under the general name of Christians perswade Nothing for Protestancy it Now this They fraudulently wave And only put us of with a general word of the Certainty of Christian Religion as if Protestancy hid under that Specious name had safety and Sanctuary enough or as if it were all one to say The part of Christian Faith universally agreed on is certain Ergo Protestancy as Protestancy goes along with it upon equal Certitude Alas This is that which only requires proof and is the thing we Absolutly deny 4. Again And here is my second Exception These Authors cannot apply their Moral certainty to the Faith of any Religion that beares the name of Christian At least it is neither appliable to Catholicks nor Protestants For proof hereof Note first That moral Two Reflections made on Moral Certainty Certainty taken in what Height you please is an Act of the Judicative Power in man subjectively setled in his Mind who hath it And ever falles on a Determinate Object for in Objects à parte rei there is neither Probability nor moral Certainty Every Thing imaginable being either in it self Real and Stable or not independent of any Moral Assertion As is clear For should one say now It is morally certain that there is such a Citty as Rome in the World Rome is or is not independent of what is asserted morally Certain Note secondly Though the greatest Moral certainty Moral Certainty may be False usually excludes a rational doubt in order to what is asserted certain yet in rigour it may be false And Therfore ever implyes some weak Degree of Fear of anxiety and suspicion to the contrary Had any one said a few dayes before the Burning of London little then foreseeing that sad Disaster that That Noble Citty would not in so strange a