Credibility of Scripture is not grounded vpon any vniuersal fallible Consent but stand's firm vpon other stronger antecedent Motiues Nay it cannot Originally depend therevpon Seing that Consent is an Effect of those other preuious Motiues as S. Austin often cited fully and most amply declares Be it how will 4. The greatest Difficulty yet remain's for if we enquire of The Sectarles Plea taken from any vniuersal fallible Consent is groundless Sectaries where we may find this common Consent we haue but à very slippery Foundation to stand vpon Because not only Heretiques of old denied the greatest part of Scripture But to come to chese neerer times the Machiauellians and Socinians also called Christians hold many things in that Sacred Book so far aboue all humane reach that they Say it is vnworthy God to require from any à firm beliefe of them Add herevnto the multitudes of Heathens Iewes and Turks who imcomparably whole Multitudes against Sectaries surpass Christians in number All these you know Vnanimously reiect our Scriptures How then can the far lesser number of Witnesses agreeing in one consent Plead so much as probably against such multitudes of Opponents If no other motiue be alleged in behalfe of the Scriptures Credibility but only the Consent of few against many 5. But to silence all Sectaries hereafter Who insist so much vpon this vniuersal Consent we will here gratis suppose the Argument drawn from thence to be most conuincing Yet withall Assert it so little aduantages the pretences of Protestants That Sectaries plainly Conuinced it vtterly ruin's their vndefensible Cause For where haue these men any vniuersal Agreement of Christians for their Canon of Scripture Where haue they it in behalf of their iarring Opinions Where for their Negatiue Articles Where for their particular Sense of Scripture which not only the Roman Catholick Church but others also reiect as false vngrounded and Heretical If therefore this Common consent for the Bible Obserue the Proofs were more Vniuersal then it is it help 's not Sectaries whils't their singular Opinions their Canon and Sense And in à word their whole Religion as Protestancy is so particular to Them selues That the rest of Christians ashamed to own it will be no Partners with them 6. And thus you see where the Weaknes of this whole Plea lies They will haue à vniuersal Consent for the bare letter of Scripture Let that be so It s nothing to the purpose if afterward without any thing like à Vniuersal agreement they misinterpret the Book and make it speak what God neuer meant But this is done and I proue it vpon an vndeniable ground thus The Book of Scripture misinterpreted Proues nothing Whilst these men cannot name or Design à Church reputed Orthodox fiue or six Ages since which as vniuersally maintained their new Doctrin as She then owned the old letter of the Bible They misinterpret the Book And gain no more But Sectaries do So and t is proued by vrging that vniuersal Consent for the meer letter then the Arians â—r worst of Heretiques gain But to name such à Church for their Nouelties is imposible and consequently no less impossible to resolue one Article of Protestancy into God's Diuine Testimony expressed in Scripture 7. A 2. Obiection Christians faith seem's not resoluable into the Diuine Testimony speaking by the Church because How the Chutch is both the Truth belieaed And the Motiue also why we belieue the Church is Res credita ot the Material Obiect belieued Witness that Article of our Creed I belieue the Holy Catholick Church Therefore it cannot be Ratio Credendi or the Formal Obiect which moues to belieue I Answer first Sectaries must solue this Difficulty For is not the very Doctrin contained in Scripture according to them the Res Credita or the Material Obiect belieued The Incarnation I hope whereof we read in Scripture the like may be said of euery other Mystery is the Truth belieued with such à faith as they haue And the Sectaries must solue this difficulty very same Word of God wherein thefe Truths are contained is also the Ratio Credendi or Formal Obiect mouing to belieue For demand why they Assent to the Incarnation T' is Answered because God has reuealed it in Scripture No other Motiue can be pretended Therefore the same Scripture differently considered is both the Material Obiect or Verity belieued and likewise the Formal which moues to belieue And thus we Say The Churches Proposition Or rather God speaking by the Church may well be the Truth belieued and à Motiue also why we belieue wherein there is no Difficulty at all Take here one Instance in known Philosophy which teaches that light both terminates our Vision and so considered is the Material Obiect seen withall it moues By two Instances we ciear what is asserted the Power to see it and vpon that Account is rightly called the Formal Obiect In Acts of Faith you haue the like Instance For example When the Iewes Assented to the ancient Prophets vttering these words Haec dicit Dominus c. Our Lord speak's thus They belieued that God spake by the mouth of those Prophets it was one of the Materal obiects Assented to by Faith and they belieued also for those Prophets words as God's own Voice and had respect to them as to à Formal obiect Why they belieued 8. A 3. Obiection If the Church be the Primum Credibile or the first Belieuable Oracle whereby God speak's to all How and in what Order we belieue the truths Proposed by the Church in this present State We are to declare how and in what order those Truths are deliuered by it which all are obliged to belieue And this cannot be done without Confusion and perhaps danger of à Circle also We haue partly Answered aboue where it is said That as the Apostles after the Knowledge had of our Sauiours Miracles belieued first in à General way He was the true Messias So we in this present State induced by all the Motiues of Credibility already laid forth belieue first in General That this Manifested Oracle is Christs own Spouse This general Assent first precedes which infallibly teaches the right way to Saluation And this truth we Assent to immediatly vpon the Churches Proposition or rather vpon God's Testimony speaking by the Church without depending on Scripture Iust as the Apostles belieued Christ our Lord to be the true Messias vpon his own Testimony proued Credible by Miracles and other Signal Wonders Thus far there is no Confusion at all nor any danger of à vicious Circle Now further This General truth admitted we proceed to the Beliefe of other particular Verities proposed and herein also follow the Apostles Steps and practise who assented to euery single Article which our Sauiour deliuered afterward vpon his own Word Why therefore may not we also Afterward we descend to other particulars belieue euery particular
is not like the Turks Alcoran stuffed with fooleries but as I am informed some who liued long there and knew the language well say it contain's most excellent moral precepts tending to the preseruation of iustice and à Ciuil life The Iew denies the new Testament The Arian and others the sense of our Scripture How therefore can Scripture alone proue efficacious to conuert these aliens from Christ or be supposed à fit means obliging all to belieue when yet they know not without more light what they are to belieue or why An other way therefore must be found out whereof more afterward In the mean while 9. I truely stand astonished when I consider how pittifully Mr stillingfleet return's no probable Answer Mr Stilling endeauours to soule this most conuincing Argument Read him who will Part. 1. Chap. 6. from page 175. to P. 179. and he shall find him tediously running on but ner'e à whit more forward in his iourney where he ends then at the beginning T is all à long à pure Petitio principij and worse The Question moued is How the Protestant can conuert à Heathen or proue infallibly that the Bible is Gods word Mr Stilling Answers his Lord Primate vndertakes not this task in the first place nor offer 's to Conuince à Heathen that the Bible must be infallibly belieued to be Gods word No but first the excellency and reasonablenes of Christian Religion Considered in it self is to be proued by shewing that the precepts of it are iust the promises such as may induce any reasonable man to the practise of those precepts that the whole Doctrin is very wisely contriued that nothing is vain and impertinent in it that those things which seem most hard to belieue in this Doctrin are not such things â—s might haue been spared out of it as though God did intend only to puzzle mens reason with them And thus he goes on in his draught or Idea of Christianity and so proues the Truth of Christianity by telling à Heathen What it is or what it teaches The Heathen most iustly except's against These proofs so may à Christian too if no more be said and professes all this talk hitherto besides à meer begging the Question seem's to him à pure cheat and fallacy You proceed strangely saith the Heathen for what is à supposed He makes à meer supposition his Proof verity amongst you Christians you turn into à proof against me that denies your supposition You labour to take my difficulties away by proposing to me those very things which cause them Mark well .. You first make the excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion in it selfe à fit medium to proue Scripture Gods infallible word wheras that supposed reasonableness of your Religion is as dark and obscure to me who am no Christian as the infallibility of your Bibles Doctrin Therefore you proue one vnknown thing by an other wholly as much vnknown I deny both your Bible and reasonableness of your Religion proue the one or both or you speak not one word to the purpose 10. You suppose 2. à Principle which neither Catholick nor protestant euer yet owned viz. That that which you call Christian Religion is known ex terminis to be true by à meer declaration of its Doctrin wheras no Doctrin euen the most Primitiue was euer made discernable from errour by à bare saying it was true without Euidence of Credibility laid forth to reason before beliefe some precedent Euidence of its credibility laid forth to reason And therefore you are told in the other Treatise against Mr Poole â— 21. That if Christ and his Apostles had appeared in the world and only preach't the high Mysteries of our Faith or spoken as you do of the excellence and reasonablenes of its precepts or promises without further euidence they would haue no more drawn Iewes or Gentils to their Doctrin then twelue little Children could now draw vs to the belief of many other verities not yet reuealed had God inspired them to teach without miracles or any other supernatural wonders My reason is As the Bible euidences not it self to be Diuine scripture so the intrinsecal reasonableness of Christianity is no first euidence to it selfe both therefore must bee proued by Clearer Principles Belieue it Had Christ and his Apostles only insisted vpon the reasonableness of Christianity the very Iewes would haue silenced them alleging greater preuious euidence for their Religion shewed by Moses and the Prophets 3. Saith the Heathen because you dare not meddle with the motiues of Credibility which you Scornfully call à Grand Salad too often serued vp by Papists you speak at random when you giue me no other satisfaction to my difficulties than by telling me they are worth nothing You Affirm 4. Nothing is impertinent in Christian Religion I answer The belief of à Trinity of God made an Infant Your whole story of à Serpent tempting Eue and of Sampson Mr. stilling proofs found weightless with your Mysterious book of Apocalyps seem to my humane vnderstanding not only impertinent but improbable You tell me 5. of Christian Religion agreeing with those books you call the Bible That is you would say the Christian Doctrin of the Bible agrees with the book which is idem per idem and therefore highty dissatisfactory vnless you proue both the Bible and Doctrin by further Arguments You say 6. The Heathen ought to belieue some thing besides that he hath heard or seen vpon the report of honest men He answers he doth so farr as those reports moue him to assent and therefore denies not the matter of fact that there was once such à person in the world as Christ but because you say all this Testimony is no more but moral and may be false the Heathens belief goes no higher Iust so the Turks belieue there was such à man as Mahomet the Chineses such à man as Confusius but what get we by iudging there were such persons as these in the world Doth it here vpon follow all they taught Nothing yet proued was true or infallible Doctrin No such matter You say 7. The Heathen must belieue that Christ dyed rose again wrought many miracles and sent his Apostles to preach his Doctrin c. He answers these being Articles of your faith registred in Scripture you Sr either vrge him to belieue them as you ought to doe certainly and infallibly and this you cannot exact for you belieue them because they are in Scripture and yet you haue not proued to the Heathen so much as probably that Scripture is of Diuine inspiration Therefore you suppose what he denies and pittifully beg the Question 11. Or. 2. You will haue him yeild an assent to them vpon the humane testimony of many Christians which you say is fallible and may be false and that auail's nothing for thus the Turks belieue the Alcoran the Chineses their bible vpon the Testimony of innumerable witnesses You say 8.
to the Receiuer Speak out Sir What is it that has relation to the Receiuer only The very body and blood of Christ vnder the Type of bread and wine which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee These substances of his body and blood as really present work their effect in à worthy Receiuer where you euidently see that the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred body and blood is presupposed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul Therefore to talk of à presence which hath relation to à Receiuer only without the true supposed real verity of Christ body and blood present is no more then à peruerse and an improbable Gloss if S. Cyril speak sense 18. Your next Gloss vpon these words It is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the Body of Christ is worse if worse can be For you only frigidly say Hereby is meant no alteration i◠the Substance of it but only that it is not That common Bread it was before Sir the contrary is now demonstratiuely proued against The change made in Chrism wholly different from that in the Eucharist you But you hope to help your self by an Instance which S. Cyril hath of Chrism in his 3. Mystag Pag. 525. where he Seem's to Parallel the change made in Chrism or holy oyntment with the Change of bread in the Eucharist By the way If Chrism be so sacred à thing it is à shame you haue no more vse of it in your Church but let that pass and mark the Parallel and your own mistake with it A change there is in both bread and common ointment but as different in Themselues as they are differently expressed by this Father The one change is Real and intrinsecal made in the Substance of bread and wine The change of common ointment is not so but Moral into à grace or Gift or Christ S Cyrills words take away all ambiguity See saith he That thou think not this ointment to be common or meer ointment For as the bread of the Eucharist after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread but the body of Christ here is the real change So this holy ointment is no longer naked or common ointment after it is consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyrill's words denote the difference but à grace or Gift of Christ and the Holy spirit which operates through the presence of the Diuinity Here is the other and à quite different change Bread is made the body of Christ Chrism his holy and sacred Gift The Parallel or parity therefore as I now said lies in this That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were and this is enough for Cyrills intent who only proues Chrism to be à holy thing but it fail's when he positiuely and expresly diuersifies the nature of these changes of bread into Christs body of Common ointment only into à grace or à gift of Christ And Hence Sr your Question whether we may not as well proue à Transubstantiation in the Chrism as we do in the Eucharist is both fond and friuolous We Answer No because the real change of bread into Christ's body fully expresseth Transubstantiation the Terminus à quo and ad quem being Real and Substantial The other Change of ointment into à Gift of Christ denotes à moral change quite different and nothing like the other which is most real S. Ambrose next cited no less abused then others 19. Your next and last Gloss abuses S. Amb. De ijs qui initiantur C. 9. who saith Bread is no longer that which Nature has framed it but that which the Benediction of Consecration has made it You Answer It is the body of Christ but not in our gross sense Pray Sr Inform vs à little of your more quaint meaning Say how bread is Christs body if it still remains as substantially bread after the Benediction as water in Baptism remain's substantially water Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed cease to be water because it is à Sacrament No certainly yet bread if S. Ambrose speak truth ceaseth to be that which nature framed it You endeauour to make These words forceles because S. Chrisost in Act Hom. 23. saith of Baptism I'ts virtue is so great that it suffer's not men to be men and then you wisely ask whether we will grant it Transubstantiat's them Friuolous The Saint only speaks of the virtue of Baptism which as he obserues makes vs sons of Adoption That is it Changes à soul from the miserable state of Sin into à happy state of grace and so permit's not men once infected with that leprosy to be men as they were before vnregenerate And therefore he adds in the ensaing words The great power of the Holy Ghost is that it Transform's our Manners and makes them composed What is here of any thing like Transubstantiation or of à ceasing of that which nature hath framed But enough and fully enough of Mr Stillingfleets most improbable glosses so I must and will term them vntil some surer Principle than fancy giues them more strength which shall neuer be 20. To end I 'le say à great Truth Had this Gentleman twenty Cyprians twenty Cyrills twenty Austins as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament as the Testimonies Had this Aduersary so much Authority for hy opinion as wee Produce in behalfe of Catholick Doctrin No man Could belieue any thing now cited are significant for Catholick Doctrin Had he à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his Opinion fiue or six ages since as the Catholick Church then held and yet hold's our Catholick Doctrin Finally had he Scripture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Christs body as it is euidently clear for the Real Presence I verily think no prudent man could or would belieue any thing of this great Mystery And consequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Christian Religion Because Fathers vpon the Supposition are directly contrary to Fathers Church stand's against Curch and Scripture against Scripture But now when he hath not one Clear Testimony of à Father much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church nor so much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick Position I must Conclude that his Glosses already laid on these Fathers are not only improbable but more than highly improbable 21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet may reply His glosses T' is true because they are the Sentiments of à fallible man are indeed lyable to errour but He bidds me look well to my Refutations and beware of setting to high à value on them whilst I oppose him For my Opposition because I may mistake amount's to no more but to à weake degree of Fallibility so that Hitherto He and I stand vpon equal Terms Answ If the contest be thus much only whether his Glosses are not clearly refuted the Iudicious Reader after à due
Ponderation of my Replies is so far to iudge between vs. But here is not all I must Say more Though I am as fallible in excepting against His glosses as he is in making them yet my Faith depend's not vpon my Exceptions but vpon the Doctrin of my Church The express words of Scripture and Fathers These oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe But all that Mr Stilling hath for his Faith is only the vncertainty of his own No man builds faith vpon his own Glosses coniectures ancient Church he has none nor express Scripture nor one Clear sentence of any Ancient Father And will hee Dare to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his Glosses or the opinion he would mantain by them vpon no other Ground but his weak Coniectures I appeal to his own Conscience for an Answer Well Be it how you will thus much is euident and T' is the only thing I aime at in this whole Discourse if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Aduersaries of different Religions when no surer Principle is at hand to rely on but the fallible Glosses of the One and à contrary fallible combating with those Glosses in the Other they may both as the world goes now sit long at the sport before one Controuersy Other mean◠to end Controuersies then meer Glosses be ended Therefore God as I said aboue has Prouided vs of an easier way to end these weighty difficulties or we may All turn Scepticks Some may say The old mode of the World was to dispute by Scripture and Fathers dare we reiect this way of arguing as insufficient Answ No truely It is an excellent way amongst Christians though insignificant to Heathens when the Aduerse Parties can Clear the sense of Scripture and Fathers vpon certain Principles But if the very sense of Scripture and Fathers be called into Question As now à daies it is by Sectaries We must of necessity haue Recourse to an other more Clear easy and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vse among the Holy Fathers Whereof more afterward In the Interim the ensuing Chapter may giue you entertainment CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 1. THis Assertion not slightly proued in the other Treatise Disc 2. C. 4. I hold so certain That the wit of man shall not rationally contradict it And to giue yet more light to what is there said Be pleased to exclude or mentally only to cast aside All thought of an vnerring Church of her infallible Tradition al so of the Definitions of General Councils For all these which Sectaries hold fallible are Essential to an vnerring Church If any such thing be in the world whereof we shall Treat afterward Next look about you And consider well what remain's to end Controuersies withall or to regulate Diuine Faith You haue VVhat Principles Sectaries Can Pretend to distinct from an Infallible Church first Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à Iew partly reiects Yet with such Aliens from Christ à Christian can argue rationally yea and clearly conuince them as I shall proue in the second Discourse After Scripture you haue the sublime Mysteries of Faith the Fathers Doctrin laid forth in their Volumes and the History of the Church Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries besides their priuate Spirit which can be no more à sound Principle to them than the contrary Spirit is to Their Aduersaries 2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end any Controuersy by these Principles without an infallible Church And be pleased euer to attend to the Aduersary he Treat's with If he attempt's to do good on à Heathen by Scripture or bring 's in the Reasonableness of Christian Religion The Heathen and Iew also laugh at his Folly And wish him to proue his Book to be Diuine If he proues that by the Vniuersal Tradition of all Called Christians the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him as I may hereafter about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition but desires him to goe among the Chineses and lay his Bible down by That book which their supposed Prophet Confusius wrote full of excellent Moral Precepts Thus much done the Contest Begin's The Sectary saith his Bible is Authorized by à great Prophet called Christ A learned Bonzius Answer 's and his is also Authorized by à great Prophet called Confusius The Sectary saith all Christians own his book vpon à neuer interrupted The Protestants Contest with ◠Heathen Concerning the Bible Tradition to be indited by the Spirit of Truth The Bonzius replies All China of à mighty vast Extent age after age hath the like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible What followes but that These two Aduersaries peruse their Bibles The Bonzius read's ours and Reasonably ask's whether the Sectary can infallibly proue such strange Mysteries as are registred there for example à Trinity the Incarnation of the Diuine word to be Truths Reuealed by Almighty God The Sectary answers All the infallible certainty he hath of these particular Verities lastly Relies only vpon Scripture it selfe For what euer Principle can be imagined distinct from that written word whether Church or Tradition is Fallible and may deceiue If so saith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me Because you proue the Mysteries contained there by that which causes my doubt or is the matter in Question for you say all I read is of Diuine inspiration because your Bible relates them and therefore make that à proof of your Doctrin which is the Matter in question or causes my doubt O saith the Sectary read on with Humility and you will find that the very Maiesty of the style the Energy of the words will quit you of doubting And to ease you of too much pains know we Protestants hold That the Belief of à very few chief Articles or simple Truths as that Iesus is the Christ The Diuine Word is incarnated c is faith enough to gain Heauen Contra The Heathen except's against the Protestants plea. Replies the Heathen I see no other Maiesty in the Style of your Bible than in mine and other pious books The exteriour Syntax or ioyning of words together is common to all such Writings But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man knowes what splendor shining in the bare Letter when you say that shines not to Pagans but only to those who haue the Spirit of God and are the Elect amongst you Now to what you Add of à few chief Articles necessary to be belieued and no more I answer first Your Scripture saith no such Thing nor tell 's me or you which Articles are necessary which not and if it did so you are only where you were before in darkness
Since you proue not so much as one of these few Articles to be of Diuine Reuelation but by the book which records them And this you do whilst I iustly question not only the book but the Truth of this very article which you make Diuine because it is in your Bible But enough of this subiect at present whereof see more C. 9. n. 7. All that is said there and further enlarged here makes this Truth not only probable but demonstratiuely euident That Scripture alone is no vniuersal Means to end Controuersies debated between Christians and no Christians which is the only Thing we now insist on yet Iesus Christ hath left sufficient means whereby such Aliens may be reclaimed from their Errours and attain saluation Scripture doth it not for all Therefore à more satisfactory way must be thought of 3. Now if we begin to speak of the Fathers with à learned Heathen t' is labour lost for He who belieues not the Diuinity of The Fathers of no Authority with à Heathen Scripture will little regard the Fathers Authority To tell à Heathen of the high Mysteries of our Faith augment's his Difficulties puzzles Reason and rack's his vnderstanding To weary him with à long narration of Ecclesiastical history is most impertinent when as yet He neither belieues Scripture nor Fathers Yet this man may be conuerted to Christian Religion if he followes Reason Vnless we say which is intolerable to hear That our Lord Iesus will haue this poor man lost or left without means to attain Saluation by 4. The next Aduersary the Protestant may attaque shall be if you please à Roman Catholick we will here to gain time omit his Contest with Arians and other Hereticks And his whole The sectaries attempt vpon Catholicks vain and why endeauour if he goe Closely to work must either be to Establish his own Protestant Tenets by Scripture Fathers and Antiquity or forceably to disswade all by virtue of these Principles from the Belief of our Catholik Doctrin I say it is impossible to do either Because the Sectary has not in the whole Bible one clear and express Text for any one Tenet of Protestancy as t' is reformed Nor so much as one clear and express Text against any one Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Religion Therefore as Scripture cannot Pass an obligation on him to belieue one Article of his new Faith so it cannot oblige him or me to disbelieue one Article of our Roman Catholick Doctrin For vpon this supposition it neuer meddless with the one and often omit's to speak of the other in plain open and significant Terms For example Scripture neither expresly denies Transubstantiation with the Protestant nor in that plain open Term affirm's it with the Catholick it neither clearly Saies there are Two Sacraments only nor in express Words allowes of Seuen It neither clearly denies Purgatory nor vnder that express word asserts it How then can the Protestant when he hath not one clear syllable in Scripture for what he hold's in these particulars nor à word against our contrary Doctrins euer probably venture Not one Text in Scripture clear for Protestancy nor one against Catholick Doctrin to decide these and the like controuerted Matters by the plain and express letter of the Bible It is impossible The Reason is it cannot determine that whereof it speaks not clearly nor become an intellectual Rule or Measure whereby we are to iudge what 's true or what 's false concerning these controuersies if it Meddles not with them in express Terms I say in express Terms For what euer is less then that or not express must either bee the Sectaries Gloss or his fallible Deduction I reiect both and appeal to him who wrote the original Book with all it's candor and simplicity If I find Protestancy there well and good If otherwise no Gloss no Deduction shall preuail with me to belieue the Nouelty vnder pain of damnation vnless he who tampers with à Text first bid's me belieue vnder pain of damnation that he is an vnerring man or that his Glosses or deductions are infallible which I am sure is not God's command Again If I find nothing plain and express in Scripture against my Catholick Doctrin but much for it I should be worse then foolish to change my ancient Faith vpon the slight ground of farfetch't Glosses and fallible inferences 5. Shall I say yet more clearly what I here aime at Some Christians there are now in being who Belieue the true Doctrin of Christ so firmly that though an Angel preach't Contrary Galat 1. 8. They ought not to be remoued from it if therefore Protestants belieue their own Doctrin so stedfastly and say that Papists for The Asssâ—rtiâ—n proued example err in the Belief of Christ's true Doctrin they are to Euidence it by à more indubitable Principle than that is which the Apostle vnderstand's by the preaching of an Angel But such à Principle can be no other nor less certain than plain and open Scripture How Therefore can the Protestant so much as weakly hope to disswade from Popery and perswade to his opinions by meer guesses weak inferences weightles coniectures c. without plain Scripture Now to shew you he hath no more but guesses Let him please to Discuss rigidly with me but one point in Controuersy by Scripture only That of Transubstantiation wherein he think 's to haue most Aduantage may perhaps occurr and like him best I say after All he can allege for his opinion or against our Catholick Doctrin shall be no more but meer Coniectures improbable Glosses vncertain Topicks false Suppositions and the like And are these think you weighty enough to establish his Opinion which he meer Coniectures are Protestants only proofs hold's to be reuealed Doctrin No certainly The Doctrin of Christ stand's so sure vpon certain known Grounds that an Angel though he preach otherwise is not to be belieued and if it be not thus stedfastly founded it is not as I obserued aboue Christ's Doctrin How easy were it for the Sectary to end much of these debates by à due examination of this one Controuersy I vrge him to it yet you 'l see he will refuse this Modest Challenge 6. Wherefore I shall neuer comprehend why these men trouble the world as they do with writing Controuersies What is their aime Is it to draw any one Soul to Protestancy or only to giue à proof of wit and show that they can speak against God's truths which an Angel cannot Disswade from If this later be intended the Arians of old did so before them And the Diuel can do it much better than either Arian or Sectary If it be to conuert men to Protestancy The Attempt is desperate vnless they come strongly armed with plain express and Significant Scripture Whereof there is no fear at all For had they clear Scripture against one sort of their supposed erring Christians Papists for example they would not spare vs
one whit but most willingly Silence vs with Gods own plain language This we look for but in lieu of it what haue we Fancies Coniectures Glosses friuolous Discourses And thus forsooth Popery must down I marry and Protestancy be thought the pure and most refined Religion 7. By what is said already you see how vnluckily these men run Sectaries argue improbably out of the way of all probable Arguing whilst Scripture is made so clear that by the light thereof All Controuersies now raised amongst dissenting Christians can be determined Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you no Purgatory no Inuocation of Saints by plain and express Scripture Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you plainly that to deny Purgatory or Transubstantiation is as necessary to Saluation as to deny à Quaternity of Diuine Persons Now if it be not clear in such matters Why keep you à coile about these Negatiues Why do you threaten vs with God's iudgements for mantaining the Contrary Doctrins Why haue you not only made an vproar in the world about Doctrins meerly vnnecessary but more which may lay sorrow at your hearts why haue Negatiue Opinions the cause of Sectaries Separation you shamefully separated your selues from an Ancient Church whereof your Ancestors were members And this is desperately done for à Company of Negatiue Opinions Though it import's not one straw whether they be belieued or no. Contrariwise if you make the Belief of these non-Non-Articles necessary to Saluation they must be proued by the plain and express word of God which is vtterly impossible and therefore I said right that Scripture cannot end Controuersies between dissenting Christians Catholicks for example and Protestants 8. And thus much in effect our Newer men grant who talk much of à few simple Truths sufficient to saluation called fundamentals Is is not enough saith Dr Taylor in his 2. Disswasiue P. 168. That we are Christians that we put all our hope in God who freely giâ—es vs all things by his Son Iesus Christ That we are redeemed by his Death that we are members of his body in Baptism that he giues vs his spirit that we do no Euil that we do what good we can c. Is not this Faith ruâ—e Righteousness and the Confession of this faith sufficient vnto saluation Obserue well If such à faith of à few Nouellists and the like simple Truths which no Arian denies vnder such general Terms Of Sectaries simple Truths and cannot be proued sufficient by plain Scripture be enough to Saluation what need had Sectaries to Calumniate our ancient Church and expose Christianity to the scorn of Iewes and Atheists for lesser Matters as they think than these fundamentals or few simple truths are Do we disown any of them No. We are Christians as well as they we put our hope in God we say all things are giuen vs by his son Iesus Christ we are redeemed by his Death c. Wherein then lies our Offence O we hold strange Nouelties Inuocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation I dâ—â—y they are Nouelties but be it as you will They are out of the 〈◊〉 â—f your simple Truths and in your Principles no more but Opinions and can you haue such cruel hearts as to persecute vs banish vs and shed our blood for meer Opinions Where is your Châ—rity Again I argue Ad hominem If to hold à Purgatory be only â— Opinion your denying it is no more but an opinion also Therefore you cannot proue your Negatiue by plain and express Scripture for if you do so it well be no longer an Opinion but à 〈◊〉 led Truth and certain Doctrin Conuince this if you can and thâ— tell vs that Scripture decides all Controuersies between vs or his an obligation on vs to belieue more then These few simple Truths 〈◊〉 No Purgatory for example No Transubstantiation or say plainly that Scripture doth not put an end to these Controuersies which Truth is euident by manifest Experience 9. It is strange to see how endlesse Sectaries are and to no purpose at all in quoting Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of Scripture in all things necessary but afterward spoil all with à new Scripture sayes not how many are necessary Whimsey For they make iust so much as they please à few Simple Truths serue the turn to be Necessary and sufficient Here are three insuperable difficulties First They speak without book For God neuer told them in Scripture how many or how few of these Truths are necessary and Sufficient Therefore if I admit this Principle the Protestants sole Word must secure me though I know well that their word is neither à necessary nor à sufficient warrant for my saluation Hence 1. I vrge them to show by plain Scripture the number of these fundamentals precisely necessary 2. I must tell them If Scripture be clear in à few Fundamentals and so much only be necessary and sufficient this reasonable Quaestion may well follow What 's the rest of the Bible good for with them Most certainly the far greater part of it where it speak's not of these few Necessaries may be cast away as vseless and impertinent 3. These Nouellists Pronounce and Proue against themselues in all such Controuersies as are now in debate between them and Catholicks For if Scripture which tell 's vs of all Necessary and Sufficient things to saluation comprised in à few simple Truths whereof there is no strif now omit's whilst it mentions Sectaries proue against themselues these to speak plainly in behalf of our Protestant Opinions Nâ— Sacrifice No Transubstantiation c. With what Conscience can they tell vs and They haue often said it that this Book alone can decide these controuersies and recall vs from Popery to their new mode of Protestancy I would willingly haue Satisfaction to this one difficulty 10. Well To answer all they can pretend to out of the ancient Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of scripture in order to things necessary be pleased to obserue that the learned Tertullian against Marcion but chiefly in his book de Praescript cap. 16. at those words We are not to recurr to Scripture wherein there is no victory or à very vncertain one c. And S. Austin S. Chrisostome with others may perhaps seem to à less diligent Reader to be of contrary iudgements Tertullian now cited saies Scripture is insufficient to decide Controuersies concerning Religion amongst Christians S. Austin De Bapt. Contra Donat lib. 2. C. 6. plead's much for it's sufficiency I say here is no Contrariety both speak well both deliuer Catholick Doctrin Know therefore that Scripture is deuided into two Parts or Sections as you may read in Sixtus Senensis Two parts of Scripture distinguished Lib. 6. Bibl. Annot 152. Who cites S. Chrisostom for it The one vsually called Pars Directa or direct part treat's of the abstruse Mysteries of Christian Faith and this which is Matter of Contest between vs and Sectaries
Notes in the other Treatise Chiefly Disc 4. C. 2. n. 23. 24. Where you are told That the great work of Protestants is not so much to proue Their own Religion as to spend time in cauilling at ours And by superficial Glosses to driue sense out of the Fathers most significant Doctrin and then to tell the world they are not for Popery And thus may their glosses haue place no Religion neither their 's not ours can be proued by the Fathers This most vnworthy Sectaries proceed vnworthily with the Fathers Procedure with these great Lights of the Church lenghthens Protestants books And makes Mr Stillingfleets Account to swell into the bulk you see Might I here by the way speak my thoughts concerning it I verily belieue there was neuer Book set forth which lesse deserued it's Title than this He call's it A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion yet if any one after à diligent perusal of the whole Work can show me but one Article of Protestancy proued by plain Scripture by à General consent of Fathers by any ancient Church Doctrin or vniuersal Tradition I do at this present engage to euince by my Answer That he is grosly mistaken The fairest Occasion Mr Stillingfleet had to speak home for Protestancy was Part. 1. C. 7. Where he treat's of their way of resoluing Faith yet euen here he fall's so vtterly from the Cause that he saies no more for Protestancy than Arianism See the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 9. You will ask perhaps wherein then lies the Substance of his book I Answer in two things chiefly First in à tedious wordy quarrel Two impertinences Constitute the subslanet of Mr Stilling Account with Catholick Religion His flurting at it is endlesse 2. In à gross Abuse of the Fathers by his intolerable Glosses Of neither shall he giue à rational Account to God at the day of Iudgement To proue what is here hinted at Read I beseech you the following Chapter which I place here on set purpose to lead in à further discourse concerning the Glosses of Sectaries Withall to lay forth their emptiness and fraud And finally to show whither these Vnprincipled life-less Whimseys tend at last Thus much performed you shall see Protestancy appear like it self à meer Nothing CHAP. XVI One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses and his vnexusable abuse of other Fathers 1. THough much is said of this subiect already yet because here is Occasion again I shall briefly point at two or three of Mr Stillingfleet's notorious Abuses To prosecute all or the half he has would make this Treatise as big as his volume We begin with that known Passage of S. Hierome Epist 57. Ad Damasum where the Saint saith The Church is built vpon S. Peters See and whosoeuer is out of the Communion of that Church whereof Pope Damasus was then head is Prophane an Alien and belongs to Antichrist c. This in brief is the Substance of S. Hieroms Doctrin Mr Stilling Part 2. C. 1. P. 311. Imputes not plainly these Expressions to heat or flattery although S. Hierome abused Saith he it look's the more suspicious because at that time S. Hierome had à great picque against the Eastern Bishops And then tell 's vs to no purpose what occasioned the Quarrel Reflect good Reader Is this hansom to make à Saint and most profound Doctor to Speak in so weighty à Matter against Truth and his own conscience moued therunto by flattery and no man knowes what Imagined Picques Suppose he earnestly stood for Truth against those Bishops must He Therefore be thought either to flatter or to deny truth now when he writ's to à Pope his lawful Superiour Vpon what Principle doth this vngrounded calumny Stand Pray you Answer 2. After some Parergons not worth the mentioning Mr Stilling Saies When S. Hierome Pronounces those Aliens and Prophane who are out of the Communion of the Church it either belongs not to the particular Church of Rome or if it doth it makes not to our purpose What mean these words The particular Church of Rome The sole Diocess of that Citty No. S. Hierome speak's of the Church built vpon S. Peter or of all Churches vnited in Faith with that See where Damasus then sate which only excluding Aliens That is all heretical Societies make vp the true Vniuersal Orthodox Church as shall be demonstrated hereafter Well saith Mr Stilling Suppose I grant that S. Hierome spake of the particular Church of Rome he means or t' is Nonsense of all Churches of the same Faith with the Roman yet this comes not home to the purpose vnless we Catholicks proue our Church to be as Orthodox now as She was in those Primitiue times We proue Good Sr. Proue you on God's name to Mr Stilling demand impertinent whom prouing belong's That this Church is less Orthodox now than formerly Who euer stand's in à known old path as we Doe ought not to proue he stand's there Olim possideo prior possider is his proof but one that start's aside and takes to à new way as you haue done should tell vs why he left the other high Road wherein his Ancestors walked No prince proues his Right and Title to à Rebel but if any be so vngracious as to rebel that man must show why he did so or suffer for it But of this subiect so much is said in the other Treatise that I hold it vnanswerable More shall be added in its due place In the mean while you see à pretty way of arguing which run's vpon an idle Supposition viz. That the Roman Church is altered from it self since S. Hieroms time The improbable Supposition is first to be proued before the Argument haue any force till then we may lawfully iudge that S. Hierom's Testimony concludes against this Aduersary Pray tell me If I vpon à bare Supposition should assert that Mr Stilling is no good Diuine and thence infer he is His false supposition not proued vnfit to write Controuersies might he not most iustly be angry and well deny my Assertion because the Supposition whereon the Assertion stand's is not proued No more say is t' is proued in the present Matter viz. That our Church Doctrin is altered from it self since the primitiue times Proue that vpon sound Principles and you will doe more then Euer Protestant did hitherto 3. Hence all Mr Stilling following talk of Paralogisms fall's to nothing It is he saith our perpetual Paralogism when the Fathers are cited in praise of the Church of Rome although sometimes their Rhetorick swell'd too high in their Encomiasticks They are his words That we will needs haue these praises to be vnderstood as well of that Church in our present age as in the Fathers time when it better deserued them And he add's As though it were not possible for à Church to be eminent for purity of Doctrin in one age and to decline from it in another Answer All this is
ouerthrow any Doctrin of our Church Alas what this Oracle positiuely defin's is à stronger Principle than twenty dubious Authorities of Fathers if any such were in appearance contrary It followes 2. That the Roman Catholick Church must of necessity be either owned Orthodox in all She teaches or cannot be belieued in any thing 8. Wherefore I say à great word If this Church hath deceiued the world in teaching à Purgatory for example neither we nor Sectaries can certainly belieue that Christ was here on earth or Redeemed vs. For Ask why belieue wee this great Mystery If you Answer Scripture reueal's it you are Questioned again How One Errour in the Church Destroyes all Faith know you that Scripture is Gods word which Ex terminis euidences not it self You must Answer Vniuersal Tradition and all the Churches in the world haue owned the Book for Gods word Very good But The Church hitherto supposed most Orthodox among so many Heretical Societies and Her Tradition likewise haue actually deceiued all For She is now Imagined to haue taught the false Doctrins of Purgatory Transubstantiation c. Therefore you cannot belieue Her or any Tradition for erring in one point of Faith She is not belieuable in any This principle stand's firm Much less can you trust to the Doctrin or Tradition of known Heretical Churches whether Arians Pelagians or others For all these haue erred and most grosly Therefore you haue no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture nor can you belieue this one Prime Article Christ dyed for vs by Diuine Faith 9. Let therefore the Sectary labour all that 's possible to contract the fundamentals of Faith into the shortest room Imaginable let him mince them almost to nothing let this one Article Iesus is the Christ be Faith enough for all I say if the Roman Catholick Church speaking in the name of God as She pretends to speak hath taught but one false Article and obliged Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation Purgatory for example none can now vpon any Motiue known to the world firmly belieue That Iesus is the Christ So pernicious is one known errour of the Church that it ruins's all belief of other Articles nor can such à Church be more trusted in any thing She speaks than Scripture relied on were it false in that Article Iesus is the Christ 10. The reason à Priori is All Faith is at last reduced or finally resolued into Gods Diuine Reuelation whether he speaks by this or that Instrument by this or that Oracle imports nothing The Vltimate reason of the Assertion The difference of the Oracle he speaks by diuersifies not faith which alwaies tend's to one Center and rests on one sure Ground Gods Veracity If he speaks by à Prophet that 's his Oracle If by an Apostle he is made an Oracle If by the exteriour words of Scripture they are Oracles if by the Church She is his Oracle Now further Suppose any of these assumed Oracles speaking in the name of God declare à false Doctrin to Christians the Falsity Vltimatly redound's to God who own 's them as Oracles yet by them teaches the world Falsities It fall's out here As if à Prince should send à Legate to à State who speak's in his name and cheat the whole State by his Embassy would not all deseruedly vpon the Supposition more impute the Cheat to the Prince than to the Legate that speaks in his name The parity is exact and proues if either Scripture Prophet Apostle or Church speaking in the name of God deliuers false Doctrin God himself deceiues vs and therefore Rich. de S. Vict. Said well in this sense also Si error est quem credimus c. If we belieue an errour T' is you Great God who haue deceiued vs But if God can once deceiue either immediatly By Himselfe or mediatly by his Oracle The whole Systeme of Christian Faith is desstroyed What I say would bee true Although He should make à solemn protestation of Speaking Truth For euen then he cannot oblige me to belieue because he may deceiue in that very Protestation and deliuer à falsity if the supposition hold 11. Here then is the final Conclusion As subiectiue Faith in à Belieuer is Indiuisible That is it is either wholly good or wolly naught None can haue à piece of Faith without the whole vertue an Could the Church propose one false Article She can bee belieued in nothing Arian cannot belieue Christ to be à Redeemer if He denies the Trinity So if one Matter of Faith proposed by the Church be really Contrary to what She defines None can belieue any thing She teaches For the meer Possibility of deceiuing Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all She proposeth And this proues the Church absolutly infallible not in some points only but in all and euery Doctrin whereof you haue more in the 15 16 and 17 Chapters following 12. Some may reply I suppose all this while the Church made so stedfastly God's Oracle as not to err in any Doctrin She proposes which is Petitio Principy or à begging of the Question Contra. And Ye Gentlemen whilst you impeach Her of Errour Suppose Her Instrumentum diuulsum an Oracle tom as it were from Gods Sspecial Assistance iust as if I shoâ—ld Suppose the words of Scripture separated from the Spirit of truth You suppose Her à fair spouse yet make Her à harlot when and as Often as you please You acknowledge some Church or other find that out where you can to teach Truth yet you like petulant Schollers will forsooth be so wise as to tell her where she misseth in Her Lesson and correct Her for it And you haue done it to the purpose For you haue destroied Her Monasteries rob'd Her Altars prophaned Her Temples abused Her Children banished some and hang'd vp other Are not these fine God deceiues if the Church câ—n Err. Doings Contra. 2. I suppose nothing but what is manifest that Christ euer had à Church on earth once more find it where you can and that God speaks to Christians by this Oracle which he will be with to the end of the world And against which Hell gates shall neuer preuail Now I say if this Church which God not I makes his own Oracle and promises to teach Truth by it can deceiue but in one Matter of Faith God himself deceiues vs And this Church ceaseth Eo ipâ—o to be Catholick yea and God to be the Eternal Truth For it Matters nothing if he can deceiue whether he do it by Scripture or the Church Solue this Argument if you can 13. You may say 2. The whole ground of this Discourse à Fallacy and comes only to thus much If à man once tell à lie he must be thought à lyar in all he speaks So it is The Church speaks an vntruth in some things Ergo it doth so or may do so in all seemes no good consequence Contra.
publick Dissention Answ These men certainly neuer say their Creed I belieue the holy Catholick Church that is in mind interiourly I giue Assent to all the Catholick Church teaches Now if this Doctrin stand They may well not yeild Assent at all to any Doctrin the Church teaches but like Hypocrits may outwardly be fair Catholicks and inwardly foul Hereticks And this is to Profess one thing and belieue another Christ is ashamed of them Luke 9. 26. and so is the Apostle also Rom. 1. 16. VVho blushed not to preach as he belieued And to belieue as he preached But enough hereof is said in the other Treatise CHAP. XV. Diuine Faith in this present State of things necessarily requir's à Church infallible The Reason hereof The Church neither Defin's nor can Define by Humane Authority only Her Definitions more than morally certain are Infallible Sectaries Recourse to Moral certainty in Matters of Faith à most frigid Plea Their Fallacy is discouered Obiections Answered 1. ONe Principle established aboue N. 6. Proues the first part of my Assertion Diuine Faith which is à firm Assent to what euer God speak's So vltimatly rest's vpon his Infallible Veracity One Principle premised That if à true Belieuer yeild Assent to him as He speaks and because He speaks All the power in Heauen cannot Separate Infallibility from that Belief Herein consist's the Perfection of all Diuine Faith That without sweruing it tend's vpon a Verity Infallible and without Hesitancy hold's that infallibly true which the infallible Verity Reueal's A lesser Perfection than this is not Faith And à greater the Apostles had not if we precisely respect The perfection of Faith the Motiue of their Assent Hence all must Distinguish à twofold Infallibility One intrinsick and infinit proper to Gods Verity The Other answerable to à creatures Capacity finit t' is true yet Infallible and such the Apostles Faith was 2. Thus much Supposed not easily gainsaid by Sectaries the infallibility of one Church which we say is the Roman Catholick Stand's firm And here is the Reason As Faith relies vpon an infallible Verity that reueal's Truth So it also rest's vpon an infallible Oracle which without danger of Errour Applies and Proposes that very Truth yet obscure to Belieuers For it little auail's to haue à Verity infallibly Reuealed if à fallible Oracle which may both Miss and Mislead be our best One ground of the Churches Insallibility and only Guide or Proponent The Church therefore which Saith Indubitably I Propose what God Reueals must be infallible answerable to the Infallibility of Diuine Reuelation Ruin the One or Other Infallibility Faith can be no more but an vncertain Assent And consequently no Faith at all 3. To Reinforce this Reason Please only to cast à serious The reason reinforced Thought vpon such as haue been iustly reputed Hereticks and vpon their Procedure The Arians after the reading Scripture denyed the high Godhead in Christ His Eternal Consubstantiality also to the Father And erred The Pelagians reiecting Original Sin swerued likewise from the Verities of Christian Religion so did the Monothelits that impiously bereaued Christ of his two Sacred Wills Diuine and Humane The true Church All know condemned and yet condemns these Tenets as Heretical Right say modern Sectaries And it was well done Very Good If well done herevpon ensues another troubleson Question and it is Whether that true Church whilst She condemned these Errours and defined the contrary Truths proceeded Doubtfully Probably vpon Moral Certainty only or Spake as Gods Oracle ought If the Church defines doubtful to speak Infallibly If She Defined doubtfully it is yet also doubtful whether Christ be the high God and Consubstantial to his Father Vnless Scripture now supposed God's word in express Terms clear the doubt and raise the Doctrin to absolute Certainty which most euidently is not done 4. The whole Contest then is VVhether the Church or Arians Interpret Scripture better For the Obiect of my Assent when I belieue the eternal VVord Consubstantial being not Express Scripture but an Interpretation only it followes if the Interpretation which the Church giues be supposed doubtful She wrong 's the Arians and all other Christians whilst She obliges them to belieue the Mystery otherwise than only Sub dubio or doubfully which is not to belieue at all Again If the Churches She wrongs both Arians and All Christians Definition get à Step higher to à degree of Probability and no more The Arians Opinion for ought we know yet may be as tenable as the Contrary Doctrin now supposed Orthodox And Consequently the real Consubstantiality of the Son to his Father is no more any Obiect of Faith but meerly à disputable Matter like this or that Opinion in Schools earnestly tossed to and fro But neuer ended Doubts therefore And meer probabilities reiected too weightles for Church Definitions 5. We are next to look à little into one only Refuge left The Sectaries Plea of Moral Certainty examined Sectaries called Moral Certainty T' is à dark cloud they are lately got into our Endeauour shall be to dissipate it They may say When the Church condemned Arianism the like is of any other Heresy and defined the Eternal Word Consubstantial The Definition much aboue Probability though not absolutely Infallible was yet so morally Certain that no man can but most vnreasonably doubt of its Verity In passing I may without Offence take notice of Sectaries Inconsequences and Ask if Moral Certainty be at least had from Church Definitions when She interpret's Scripture though the Doctrin be not formally expressed There Why are not Her Definitions euery whit as Morally certain against Luther and Caluin though what She Defin's be not in express Terms Gods word I would also as willingly learn why Protestant Doctrin is not esteemed ouer all the world so Morally certain as thefe Ancient Catholick Definitions are But let these Queries not easily Answered pass We come to the main difficulty and demand 6. Whether this Positiue Doctrin Christ is the Highest God and Consubstantial to his Father be à Fundamental Article of Christian Faith finally resoluable into the Diuine Reuelation And admitted A question Proposed to Sectaries as most Fundamental by Protestants I verily perswade my self they will Say it is If not This followes ineuitably that there is no fundamental Article in our Christian faith Vpon the supposed Concession I Argue But If the Church be fallible this Positiue Doctrin Christ is Consubstantial is no Article of Faith because it cannot be resolued into an infinite Verity infallibly Reuealing Truth Therefore it is only à Moral humane Perswasion at most which may be false 7. The Proof of the Minor will best appear if we Ask why Sectaries belieue that positiue Doctrin They cannot Answer Scripture expresly Teaches it For most euidently that 's not so Will they say the Mystery may by good Discourse be deduced The true Answer proues Faith Certain from
infallibly the Infallible Testimony of the Apostles Preaching with à Diuine Infallible Assent Most certainly they Did. Yet the Infallibility of that Testimony was not known if we speak strictly of Knowledge but by Motiues of Credibility which were no Obiect of their Faith vnless you make faith to be Science The Argument retorted but Inducements only to belieue Ergo this very Primitiue Faith was vnreasonable because it was an infallible Assent built vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of that Euidence whereby those pious men were moued to belieue Hence You Se though the Motiues which illustrate the Church were in themselues fallible and not Metaphysically conexed with the Diuine Testimony yet Faith grounded on that Testimony cannot but be certain and infallible and consequently must Transcend or goe beyond all the degrees of Certitude appearing in the prerequired Motiues Mr Stillingfleet reply's This is to require Infallibility in the Conclusion where the Premises are only probable Answ He err's not knowing the nature of Faith which Discourses not like to Science For example Make this Sillogism Whateuer God reueal's is True but God reueal's the Incarnation of the Diuine VVord Ergo that is true The difficulty only is in the Minor But God reueal's which cannot be proued by another belieued Article of Faith wholly as obscure to vs as the Incarnation is I say proued by Reason because the same difficulty will be as much moued again Concerning the Proof of that second belieued Article as concerning the first of the Incarnation and so in Infinitum And Shew'd Proofles Therefore all rational Proofs auailing to beget Faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were in another Region more clear yet less certain than the reuealed Mystery is we assent to by Faith 4. Now to our Purpose We hold this an Article of Faith The Church is God's infallible Oracle And therefore Say antecedently Rational Proofs for the Churches infallibility to Faith it cannot be proued by Arguments as obscure or of the same Infallible certainty with Faith For then Faith would be superfluous or rather we should belieue by à firm and infallible Assent before we do belieue vpon the Motiue of Gods infallible Reuelation which is impossible Hence it is that when we goe about Haue not the certainty of Faith 〈◊〉 the Infallibility of the Church independently of Scripture Yea and also independently of all belieuâ—d Church Doctrin We must necessarily Euince this rationallâ— by reflex Arguments and Motiues extrinsecal to what we Belieue which are not of the same certainty with Supernatural Faith it self Now these Arguments what these Motiues Proue founded vpon the Motiues of Credibility can goe no further stretch them to the vtmost But only to proue this great verity That what euer we belieue either of Scripture or of the Church is most euidently Credible aboue all things proposable to the contrary And this great light the learned at least haue before they yeild an infallible Assent vpon Diuine Reuelation to the very Doctrin of the Church or Scripture either 5. I Say 2. Mr Stillingfleet and all Sectaries whilst They Belieue with an Infallible Assent the most fundamental Articles in Sectaries goe beyond that Euidence whereby they are induced to belieue Scripture goe beyond all Proportion of that Euidence whereby they are induced to Belieue And consequently must Solve their own â—eak Argument yet strong Ad hominem against them If I Euince not this Truth blame me boldly And obserue my Proof 6. The Sectary belieues that Verity which S. Iohn expresses in this short Sentence The word was made Flesh That is he belieues the Incarnation of the Son of God with an Assent so infallible that it cannot only be false but that he would not disbelieue it vpon any reason Proposable Though an Angel should preach Contrary But neither this Act of Faith nor its Formal Obiect the Diuine Reuelation are ex terminis euidently true Quoad â—s yet must be proued â—uidently Credible to reason or Faith becomes vnreasonable and rash For Qui cito credit leuis est corde Now further None can proue this by another Act or Article of Faith no more its own Self-euidence than the belieued Incarnation The Assertion Proued is All therefore which can be done is to make it euidently Credible by Motiues extrinsecal to Belief by vniuersal Tradition and the Consent of innumerable learned men who haue both conueyed vnto vs the Words as Diuine Scripture and the genuine Sense of them also But this very humane Tradition this exteriour Consent of all or what other Motiues can be Imagined preuious to Faith because fallible may deceiue Yet by the help of such fallible Motiues Mr Stillingfleets Our Aduersary Clearly Conuinced Faith if it rest's vpon the Diuine Reuelation is raised higher and stand's firmer vpon that Ground than the Euidence of his Motiues can induce to Therefore he makes the conclusion surer than the Premises And goes beyond all Proportion and degree of fallible Euidence preambulatory to his certain Belief What I Assert is manifest For by Faith he The Conuiction Manifest Sayes the Incarnation is so infallibly true that it cannot be false Yet all the Motiues which induce him to belieue Say Possibly it may be false or exclude not à Possibility of falshood And if this be not to Transcend all Proportion of his acquired Euidence nothing is to goe beyond it 7. The Argument will be yet more clear if proposed after this manner Mr Stillingfleet infallibly belieues the truth of that Scripture now Quoted I Ask by what means can he know That this very belieued Truth is à Diuine Verity or Scripture The Answer may be That 's known vpon Tradition or the publique Authority of all not only Christians but others also who haue conueyed the Book to vs. Very Another most Conuincing Proof good But this Publick Authority this Conueyance or what euer Tradition you will is either of equal infallible certainty with the Belieued Truth of Scripture Or less and much weaker If less and weaker Mr Stillingfleets Faith goes beyond all propotion and degrees of his preuious acquired Euidence Not to be answered And it be of equal infallible Certaintly That is If he belieues as infallibly the Conueyance of those Words For or Vpon Gods Diuine Testimony as he belieues the Doctrin there contained to be à Diuine Truth He makes one Article of Faith the Proof of another and euidently incurrs the Circle obiected to Catholicks as shall appear afterward When we examin his 170. Page and refute his Errour concerning the Moral Certainty of Faith 8. Now to the Obiection It is not possible That the Assent in matters of Faith rise higher or stand firmer than the Assent to the Testimony is vpon which those things are belieued Answer Very true But know Sr we Assent to matters of Faith vpon Gods Diuine Testimony and not for the Motiues
which only induce to belieue So the Primitiue Christians belieued vpon Christ's A Mistake in the Obiection infallible Testimony and built not their Faith vpon the exteriour Motiues Euident to Sense which meerly considered as Motiues only made his Testimony highly credible to Reason Viz. One Instance which none can boggle at That it was Diuine and infallible For example Some saw Others heard of our sauiours great Miracles of his admirable Sanctity And then discoursed The Man that doth these wonders cannot but be one sent from God It is true he preaches both new and difficult Doctrin to our eares But if he be sent from God we are obliged to Belieue him vpon his word And vpon that Word Their Faith relyed 9. Apply this Instance to the Church you haue all I would Say The Church is euidenced by Miracles Sanctity of life in Millions by Conuersions and the like signal Motiues Here are the Inducements which proue Her Gods Oracle and Clears all the Doctrin highly credible aboue what euer all other Societies called Christians haue Taught Yet our Faith is not built vpon these Motiues considered as Inducements but vpon Her infallible Testimony The Instance now giuen Concerning the most Primitiue Belieuers is so clear That our Aduersaries shall neuer weaken the force of it or shew the least Disparity 10. And thus you se all Mr Stillingfleets talk P. 113 Comes to nothing I desire Saith he to know whether an infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motiues of Credibility Answ And I desire to know whether an A Question answered and retorted Infallible Assent to the Apostles Preaching was grounded on those Motiues which the Primitiue Christians saw or heard of before they belieued what you say I 'll say Briefly Many learned Diuines hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphysically connexed with Gods diuine Testimony speaking by the Church and if that opinion be true the Motiues ground an Infallible Shewed also impertinent Assent but that 's Euidence and no Faith And therefore most impertinent to your following Inference If say you we affirm the Motiues ground an Infallible Assent there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of our Church infallible in order to Diuine faith For we Catholicks you hope will not deny but that there are at least equal Motiues of Credibility to proue the Diuine Authority of the Scriptures as the infallibility of our Church And if so why may not an Infallible assent be giuen to the Scriptures vpon those Motiues of Credibility as well as to our Churches infallibility Answ A strange kind of Argument 11. First Sir you know or should know Catholicks hold with S. Austin That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority How then do you say You hope we will not deny c No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other Treatise also immediatly make Scripture Credible independently of the Churches Tradition No Miracles were euer heard of No Motiues make Scripture euidently credible which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you more Canonical Scripture than that of Iudith which you reiect Did any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of Salomons Canticle that 's Scripture say you and refuse to dye for the Book of Wsdom cast out of your Canon Or was euer any soul sooner conuerted by reading the One than the other These Miracles Sr these Martyrdoms these Conuersions immediatly illustrate the Church and proue not à Part only but Her whole Doctrin to be Independently of Church Authority most Euidently Credible and worthy of belief whilst you se your Signs of Diuinity and no man knowes what imagined motiues in behalf of Scripture as little Euidence the Books you admit as those you reiect That is neither indeed haue any Self-Euidence in them abstracting from Church Authority Your Euidence therefore is à strong fancy and nothing els 12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole Canon or bare letter of Scripture you haue not any so much as probable for the Sense chiefly in Controuerted matters which properly is God's Reuelation without the Churches infallible Interpretation Speak Sr your Conscience plainly What can it auaile you or me to know that the Book we read is God's No Motiues for the Scriptures Sense word Seing innumerable false Religions by peruerse Misinterpretations are drawn from thence if that other Principle Deus â—â— dixit God or Truth it self speaks This and this particular Sense lies in darkness concealed from vs. This Principle then God speak's this Sense being the very vltimate Resoluent and last foundation of Christian Faith must when that Sense is Obscure borrow light from no dark mistaken fallible or doubtful Orade But the bare letter of Scripture is dark and grosly mistaken by Heretiques mans priuate Iudgement is fallible our comparing the Scriptures Passages together is meerly Coniectural and dubious Therefore if the certitude of Faith must rely vpon VVithout the Churches Infallible interpretation what God has spoken I mean the infallible Sense of his sacred word The Oracle which interpret's can be no other but an Infallible Church And here I both Petition and vrge Sectaries to assign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can be built seing all confess we are obliged to belieue that Infallible sense chiefly in matters they call Fundamental This Argument alone could we say no more forceth euery rational man to own à Church absolutely infallible in Her exposition of Scripture 13. From whence also it followes first that Mr Stillingfleet much mistakes Himself when he Saith Both sides I hope agree Our Aduersary mistaken that there are sufficient Motiues of Credibility as to the belief of Scriptures I answer There is not one firm Motiue for the true reuealed Sense and this only is Scripture if we exclude Tradition and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church Bring to light but one and I am satisfyed 14. It followes 2. That that half Tradition owned by Sectaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books of Scripture leaues them wholly Scriptureles and as Faithles The halfe Tradition for the barc letter as if they had no Bible For it neither grounds faith immediatly because it is not God's Reuelation but the fallible Consent of men Nor can it induce as à Motiue to belieue any one particular Article of Christian Religion without further certitude had from the same Churches infallible Tradition and interpretation Not sufficient concerning that most weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning Reiect therefore this infallible Interpreter All of vs iust like Arians Macedonians Donatists desperatly rely vpon the worst Guides Imaginable our own fallacious and vngouernable fancies and will needs learn of such giddy Teachers the pure interpretation of God's Word These we make our Oracles in lieu of Christs Church and in doing so may easily ascribe to God à Doctrin he disdain's to own and
that another certainty which he call's Moral For if these two certainties be equally as strong it is Senless to establish the One and reiect the Other but the truth is in matters of beliefe moral certitude has no place as is largely proued aboue 15. Against this Discourse one may first Obiect God can An Obiection proposed oblige all either to belieue what is reuealed as infallible true to vs So that there can be no possible Deception in our Belief Or. 2. He may oblige vs to belieue His reuealed Verities meerly according to the efficacy of such Proofs as intimate to vs that God Speak's And why may not Mr Stillingf build his Faith vpon such Grounds or motiues as the nearest foundation though the vltimate Principle of belieuing be the Diuine Reuelation I haue partly Answered Either those Motiues conuince withall Of no force if the Motiues be infallible Metaphysical certitude that the Reuelation doth actually Exist and than the Difficulty ceaseth for the Assent yeilded to them is infallible Or contrarywise They are as Mr Stillingfleet supposes fallible And may stand with all their Lustre though the Reuelation really were not in Being Speak So It is most clear such Motiues cannot support Faith For all which right reason can draw from them if not absolutely infallible is thus much only That our Christian Verities according to Prudence If fallible they vphold not Faith are euidently credible But by virtue of that Iudgement we reach not as yet to the infallibility of the Diuine Testimony Therefore if God obliges all de facto to ground Faith vpon his infallible Testimony which cannot deceiue He iointly Obliges vs not to The reason hereof ground it vpon fallible Motiues which may deceiue and stand as Mr Stillingfleet will haue it although God had neuer reuealed any Christian Verity Again If we are obliged to free Christian Religion from all Possibility of falshood That is if God will haue vs to belieue it as absolutely infallible We cannot without wrong done to his infinite Verity Say he obliges vs to settle faith vpon Motiues only morally certain or absolutly fallible for thus He would oblige vs to belieue that as his own Truth which possibly may not be Truth but contrarywise à lie à falshood an Errour 16. 2. Obiect Now De facto in this present State there is no Difficulty For all iudge though the Motiues be fallible yet A second Obiection Solued God has reuealed our Christian verities Answ All do not iudge so But admit some do They iudge so by their infallible Assent of Faith terminated vpon the Verities as reuealed But antecedently to to beliefe none can iudge they are infallible reuealed truths whilst Motiues only fallible ground that Iudgement 17. A 3. Obiection Suppose Eternal truth had neuer reuealed A third proposed by no Sectary more difficult the sacred Trinity the like is of any other Mystery Suppose also that the whole System of Motiues had then stood in the same vigour and force as now they appear to vs Would not God and prudence haue obliged vs in that case to belieue as firmly the Trinity as we now belieue it I answer If the Supposition implies no Contradiction as I verily think it doth at least many hold so Prudence would then haue laid vpon vs an Obligation of firmly belieuing But what followes from hence Thus much only That poor Mortals not seing the depth of things would haue been invincibly deceiued But Deception is remote from God for his wisdom penetrat's all Truth and his Goodnes could not vpon the Supposition haue obliged any Solued The ground of the Solution to belieue à falshood or that to be which really is not Therefore he could not in the Case now supposed haue afforded Diuine Assistance to make Faith supernatural because the Obiect by errour apprehended belieuable really was not Thus much is true and God might haue obliged vs to judge That the Motiues would then haue made the Mysteries evidently credible though they were not yea and perhaps further to belieue Conditionally As is said aboue 18. A. 4 th Obiection This Proposition is true We belieue for the Motiues Or we proue that God Speak's because the Motiues apply and conuey the Diuine Testimony to vs. I distinguish the Proposition We belieue for the Motiues as Inducements to settle Faith vpon another Obiect Viz. God's Testimony I grant A fourth Obiestion solued it We belieue for the Motiues That is We ground our faith vpon them as either the nearest or more remote Obiect Why we belieue I Deny it Thus the will loues good because the vnderstanding apprehend's or conueyes good to it yet loues not the by à clear Instance knowledge which conueyes it Fire laid neer to fewel burn's the approximation burn's not but is only Conditio applicans à necessary condition applying heat which burn's So we say the Motiues auaile to make it most credible that God speak's But no more ground Faith than approximation burn's or the knowledge when we prosecute Good is the Obiect of loue 19. And here by the way you se Mr Stillingfleets constant Mr Stilling Constant Errour discouereds Errour who makes the Motiues inducing to Faith the foundation of it That is in other Terms He Confound's the Iudgement whereby we Assert the reuealed Mysteries are euidently Credible with the Assent of Faith it self And will needs haue the formal Obiect wherevpon Faith is built not only to be the Diuine Reuelation but the Motiues also though they can do no more but 〈…〉 ace the VVill guided by reason to settle belief vpon the infallibility of the first Reuealer CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauor to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnleaaned Cauil 1. FRom the Page last cited to P. 123. I find nothing in Mr Stillingfleet worth any larger Answer than is giuen already Here He tells vs That many things in Christian Religion are to be belieued before we can Imagin any such thing as an infallible Testimony of our Church It is hard to guess at his meaning for he names not one Article thus Assented to Perhaps he would His meaning obscure Say That the Verities reuealed in some books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper Signatures or Motiues as the Harmony Sanctity and Maiesty of the Style may be belieued without the Testimony of an Infallible Church If so I Answer first All this Harmony or Maiesty considered only as Obiects of Sense or as preuioussly known by their Natural Euidence thus far and not further they bear the name of Motiues auaile not to belieue any Verity in Scripture if the infallibility of the Church be reiected And therefore we said aboue this Sanctity and Harmony The Church reiected no Maiesty in Scripture can gain Beliefe are assented to by Faith only after the Church immediatly Euidenced by
Her Motiues Ascertain's vs that such Books are Diuine I Answer 2. Grant such Motiues may in some weak manner and particular Circumstances conduce to belieue the Scriptures Diuinity yet in this present State when we haue à Church most clearly manifested which both Ascertain's vs of Scripture and the Sense also it would be no less than an vndiscreet rashness to cast off her Authority being the most facile and plainest Rule and in Lieu of Her to rely on another forrain vnfit way of Belieuing by Motiues not half fo clear and far less conuincing 2. Thus some Diuines Teach though à Heathen after à due Consideration of the works in Nature may come to belieue that God will reward Good and punish Euil yet none do Assert That when our Christian Articles are clearly proposed to An Instance him by the Pastors and Teachers of the Church For example That Christ dyed for vs. The dead shall rise again God will reward the iust c. That then if he reiect Church Authority he can belieue the forenamed Articles with Diuine Faith This I Deny And the reason is because that way of belieuing when à It is imprudent to reiect we easiest was of Belieuing more ordinary and facile is proposed Seem's temerarious and imprudent And so it would be should any now when the Church giues vs full Assurance of the Scriptures Diuinity lay aside Her Authority and Say I will alsolutely belieue this or that Truth to be God's word because I Discouer apparent Signs of Diuinity in what I read 3. In the next place Mr Stillingfleet Quarrel 's with à word The Roman Catholick Church which in his opinion is iust as much as to Say The German vniuersal Emperour That is particular and vniuersal together for Roman restrain's or marks out one Church vniuersal includes all Answ It is à meer Quibble exploded by A meer quibble exploded by Fathers the Fathers particularly S. Hierome Apolog. 1. aduersus Ruffin not far from the beginning who call's the Roman Faith the Catholick Faith VVhat Saith he is Ruffinus his Faith It is that there with the Roman Church preuail's or another founded in Origens Writings Si Romanam responderit Ergo Catholici sumus If he Answer 's it is the Roman Faith This Inference is good we both profess the vniuersal Faith Therefore Roman and Vniuersal are here synomimal or words of one Signification which the Apostle clearly Insinuates Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world ouer Again Epist 16. ad Principiam Virg circa medium He showes that the most ancient Saints addressed themselues to to the Roman Church Quasi ad tutissimum communionis suâ— S. Hierom's express Testimonies portum as to à place of refuge or of mutual Communion which was General Publick and belonged to all Yet more When Epist 57. ad Damasum This great Doctor positiuely teaches That he was ioyned in Communion with no other Society of men then such as adhered to Damasus S. Peters Successor where vpon the Church was built And that those who eate the lambe out of this House were prophane Did he think ye speak of any one particular Roman Diocess and not of the vniuersal Catholick Church It is contrary to his Discourse and reason also 4. Se more of this subiect in the Epistle of S. Athanasius to two Popes Iulius and Marcus Read also S. Cyprians Epistle 52. n. 1. Other Fathers Speak with S. Hierome And S. Ambrose De obitu fratris about the middle and know withall The word Roman added to Catholick is not to limit the vniuersal Iurisdiction of that See But to distinguish Orthodox Belieuers from Hereticks who were professed Enemies of the Roman Faith If therefore we may rightly comprise vnder this word Roman all other Christian Societies past or present vnited in Why the Roman Church was called Vniuersal belief with this one Mother Church There is neither Bull nor Solaecism in speech to call the Roman euer One and the same in Faith the vniuersal Church of Christ 5. Page 127. To catch Carholicks in à Circle Mr Stillingfleet Ask's why we belieue Scriptures to be the Word of God If we Affirm vpon this Ground That the Church which is infallible Mr Stilling endeauour more then weak deliuers them so to vs He demand's again and bidd's vs Answer if we can whether t' is possible to belieue the Churches infallibility any other way than because infallible Scriptures Say She is infallible which implies à plain Circle Answ It is very possible For seing Scripture demonstrat's not ex terminis its own Diuinity nor can be made euidently credible by any light internal to catch Catholicks in à Circle to the Book some other infallible Oracle distinct from it must necessarily ascertain vs that the Book is Diuine And the Doctrin there preserued is yet pure as the Apostles wrote it But this Oracle can be no other but the Church which proues Her selfe by Signs and Miracles to speak in Gods name independently of Scripture therefore the first act of Faith whereby we belieue in à General way the Churches infallibility relies not as this Gentleman weakly supposes on Scripture But vpon the Church it Selfe as the most known manifested Oracle And thus the Circle is easily auoyded 6. You will se more clearly what I aime at by one Instance taken from the Primitiue Christians Ask what induced them to belieue the Apostles Infallibility when they Preached All No Circle in the Primitiue Christians Faith Answer They belieued so because those blessed men immediatly proued themselues commissioned Oracles sent from God and made their Doctrin euidently Credible by sensible Signs and Wonders which surpassed the force of Nature Very true Iâ— like manner we belieue the Churches infallibility hauing preuious Motiues as Stronge to belieue that Truth vpon her Authority as euer Christians had to belieue that S. Paul was infallible when he preached If then there was no Vicious Therefore none in our Resolution Circle in those first Christians Faith there can be none in Ours vhilst all of vs haue infallible Oracles manifested by Supernatural Signs to rely on And Those first now mentioned had them before Scripture was written You will say this Discourse seem's to proue we cannot belieue the Churches Infallibility vpon the Scriptures Testimony It has been Answered ouer and ouer supposing Scripture be one admitted as God's sacred Word â—e proue the Churches infallibility so strongly by it against all Aduersaries who own the Book as Diuine that none of them shall euer return à probable answer to our alleged Testimonies 7. But what Saith Mr Stillingfleet Is there no difference between the way of prouing à thing to an Aduersary and resoluing ones own Faith Answer yes But we both resolue and proâ—â— We Resolue the first Act of Faith concerning Scripture How we both resolue and proue the Churches Infallibility into the Churches infallible Authority and belieue that Book to be
infallible Oracles And it is very true But we proue the like Signs accompanied and followed the Church in all Ages therefore her Hearers are also bound to acknowledge Her an infallible Oracle also In this place you should haue spoken to the Cause and Shewed Why or vpon what Account those first Signs were so powerful to Proue the Apostles infallible And these latter of the Church lesse pregnant to proue Her infallible This and t' is the main Point you wisely waue For it is vnanswerable and most frigidly tell vs The main point pressed again P. 153. You must be excused as to what followes viz. That those same Motiues moued the Primitiue Christians and vs in our respectiue Times to belieue the Church And why not dear Sr Giue vs the Disparity and we haue done but you cannot If therefore it which cannot be Answered be à bold Attempt to deny the Euidence of the Church we plead for which S. Austin Epist 166. compares with the Sun manifest to all vsque ad terminos ad terrae To the last bounds of the earth it is impossible to weaken the force of our Inference when we Say The Church is proued by her Motiues an infallible Oracle You next Terme this Expression The formal Obiect of faith à Coccysm whereby it appear's how little you are versed in School-Diuinity 29. It seem's in the Page now cited your Aduersary vrges this Argument Ad hominem If à Church be acknowledged An Argument vrged ad hominem infallible in Fundamentals The last reason why you belieue it infallible must rest vpon this Principle That the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much by her Tradition To this you return à most dissatisfactory Answer in these words VVhen you Ask â—s Protestants why we belieue such an Article to be fundamental As fâ—r an Instance Christ will giue Eternal life to them that belieue him The Sectaries Answer â—e Answer not because the Church which is infallible in fundamentals Delieuers it to be so For that were to Answer Idem per Idem But we â—peal to that Common Reason which is in Mankind whether if the Doctrin of Christ be true This can be any other than à fundamental Article of it it being that without which the whole Design of Christian Religion comes to nothing 30. Good Reader ioyn here two things together Mr Stillingfleet believes and Mark the word such an Article to be Fundamental not vpon Scripture or Church Authority for neither makes the Distinction between fundamentals and not fundamentals highly dissatisfactory and why And again before he has proued by any infallible Authority that such à Distinction in his Sense ought to be made He brings in the common Reason of mankind to Iudge in à matter which Catholicks Say is de Subiecto non supponente not capable of Iudicature Because there are no Things in being as he call's fundamentals distinguisable from others of à lower Rank Moreouer And take notice of this He belieues such an Article to be à truth because God reueal's it and belieues it to be à Fundamental Faith stand's not vpon two disserent Motiue Diuine and humane Truth vpon this Motiue that Common reason hold's it so Doth not therefore this one act of Faith rely vpon two heterogeneal Formal Obiect As Faith it is built vpon God's Veraâ—ity as Fundamental Faith it stand's tottering vpon mans fallible reason 31. What followes is as bad or worse It is sufficient Say you That the Church doth deliuer from the Consent of vniuersal Tradition the infallible Rule of Faith which to be sure contain's all things Fundamental in it though She neuer meddles with the deciding what Points are fundamental and what not Pray you Sr Answer Who shall dare to meddle with those fundamentals were they Supposable in Worse Doctrin yet your sense if the Church doth not What must your priuate Iudgement or mine decide here Quo iure by what law or Authority whilst Scripture saies nothing and you will not permit the Church to meddle in the Business were there any such thing to be meddled with Therefore you leaue all to mens priuate Opinions to make what they please fundamental and exclude from Fundamentals euery thing which likes them not And here is your fumbling way of Belieuing no man knows what whilst Their broken kind of Faith the Church tells you that euery thing She Proposes as an Article of faith is Fundamental This impregnable Principle we establish in Lieu of your loose Faith and broken way of Arguing also Lastly you are out in the main Supposition that Scripture only is the Rule of faith But hereof enough is said in the first Discourse 32. The next Thing I meet with worth any Notice is P. 158. Wherevnto we also ioyn his 170. Page It seem's D. Lawd before Mr Stillingfleet wrote his Account was vrged to giue à The main Point concerning Scripture and its sense examined satisfactory Reply to the Question VVhy or vpon what ground Protestants belieue the Books of Scripture to be the VVord of God Scripture alone Sayes not which Books are Canonical much lesse declares their Sense in matters controuerted Sectaries reiect the Churches Infallible Authority And say She is not to tell vs which Books are Scripture or what their sense is though admitted as God's word Is it not very reasonable think ye to A reasonable Demand demand vpon what Ground these men stand when either they belieue Scripture to be the word of God or giue an Assent to the particular doctrins contained in the book For clearing these difficulties you shall haue Mr Stillingfleets own word's P. 170. 33. This Question Saith he how we know Scripture to be Scripture may import tvvo things First how we know that all those books contain God's word in them Or secondly how we know the The substance of Mr Stillingfleets Answer Doctrin Contained in these Books to be Diuine If you then ask me whether it be necessary that I belieue with such à Faith as is built vpon Diuine Testimony that these Books called Scripture contain the Principles of the Iewish and Christian Religion in them which we call God's word I do and shall deny it viz. That This belief is built on any Diuine Testimony and my reason is because I haue sufficient ground for such an Assent without any Diuine Testimony But if you ask me â—â— what ground I belieue the Doctrin to be Diuine which is contained in those books I then Answer affirmatiuely on à Diuine Testimony because God hath giuen abundant Euidence that this Doctrin was of Diuine Reuelation 34. Here are two Assertions The first is That the Books of Scripture contain God's word in them And this cannot belieued vpon any Diuine Testimony Thus much granted It followes ineuitably Though one should pertinaciously reiect the whole Drewes an ill Consequence after it Canon of the old and new Testament or absolutely affirm These Bookt
Article proposed by the Church speaking in the name of God If which is already proued the same God deliuers Truth as well by this Oracle as he did anciently by the Prophets and Apostles No disparity can be giuen 9. Hence I Say whoeuer will make à full Proposition of Diuine Faith and giue à Satisfactory Resolution thereof must both Propose and Resolue it into God's Authority speaking by this one Signalized and euidenced Oracle And here in few words is the vltimate reason of our Assertion If we exclude the infallible Authority of an euidenced Church neither the Canon of Scripture nor any verity in it nor its true sense which Heretiques depraue can be admitted as Gods infallible word Therefore S. Austin Spake most profoundly where He The reason why faith must be resolued into Gods Testimony Speaking by the Church professes He would not belieue the Gospel without Church Authority Hence it followes That though one might belieue the Mystery of the Trinity or the Incarnation for the truths reuealed in Scripture yet if à further Question be moued concerning the Authenticalness of these very Scriptural Expressions All if they will finally resolue their Faith must rely on Gods Testimony speaking by the Church and belieue that very Doctrin to be Diuine because She own 's it as Diuine 10. Thus we said Chap. 20. n. 11. That the infallible Authority of the present Church consummates the ancient Reuelation which long since past and remote from vs cannot moue to belieue vnlesse Her Testimony conuey's it to vs and in this sense compleat's it And what way of belieuing or resoluing Faith can be more easy then to Say I belieue the This way of belieuing most easy Incarnation both because S. Iohn wrote it and because God speaking by the Church saith he wrote it These two Indiuisibly taken may as well make vp one total Motiue of belieuing as the Royal Prophets Testimony and. S. Peters infallible declaration added to it Act. 2. V. 25. became one entire total Motiue to those first belieuing Christians I say Indiuisibly And The Churches Testimony not meerly à Condition therefore the Churches Testimony concurres not meerly as an extrinsecal condition preuiously assented to but iointly terminates Faith together with the ancient Reuelation as shall be Presently declared Herein also there is nothing like confusion but the greatest Clarity free from all danger of any vicious Circle 11. A. 4. Obiection The Motiues inducing to belieue that God speak's by the Church or that all ar called to seek their Saluation in this one Euidenced Oracle are Church Doctrins For we all belieue that the true Spouse of Christ is Holy How the Motiues inducing to belieue vnited in Faith vniuersally spread the whole world ouer c. Therefore they can no more rationally induce to belieue that first necessary Truth Viz. All are called to one Communion of Faith Than one Article of faith obscure in it selfe rationally induce to belieue another wholly as obscure We haue Answered aboue These Motiues may be considered two wayes First as they are euidently perceptible by sense and so naturally they precede Faith and induce to belieue 2. As attested Are Doctrinâ— of the Church also vpon Gods own Authority speaking by the Church And in this Sense they precede not Faith but are Articles belieued wherein there is no Mystery at all if which is certain The same thing can be both known and belieued by different Assents vpon distinct Motiues A. 5. Obiection Scripture when newly written and proposed by the Euangelists or Apostles to the Primitiue Christians In what sense Scripture was Compleat to the Primitiue belieuers was to them so total and compleat à Formal Obiect to ground faith vpon that they needed no Authority of the Church to compleat it more Therefore it 's still à full and perfect Motiue of belieuing in order to all this very Age independently of Church Authority The Obiection brings with it its own Solution For if those Holy Writers of Scripture were Infallible whereof no man doubt's and proposed all they wrote as Gods Diuine word That very Proposition was fully as certain to them as any Church Authority whether past or present can be to vs. Hence I say though Scripture was then That infallible Publication supposed à full and compleat Motiue to ground faith vpon yet now it Cannot be so Quâ—ad nos or in order to Belieuers in this present State without more not because there is any want in Scripture considered in it self But vpon another account that Circumstances are very Why not so now to vs without Church authority different and notably changed since those first dayes For now we haue neither Apostle nor Prophet at hand to Testify or publish the Scriptures Diuinity The ancient signes of Credibility which adorned those first blessed men and made Scripture most acceptable are out of our sight Therefore God's Church succeed's with her Lustre and Supplies as it were that want or takes the place of those deceased Prophets and Apostles 13. By what is here Said you may easily vnderstand the Two Terms explicated sense of those two Terms Quoad se and Quoad nos frequently vsed in this matter though not free from Sectaries Cauils Who say Whateuer is Quoad se considered in it selfe à Formal Obiect must be so in order to others because it is à Relatiue and cannot but haue respect to our vnderstanding Answ All this is true after à full and infallible Proposition A Reuelation may be in it selfe Diuine made of the Obiect Otherwise most certainly à Reuelation may be in it Selfe both Diuine and infallible though it appear's not so to all for want of à due application to Belieuers Again It may be in some Circumstances à compleat Motiue to ground faith vpon and in another State cease to be so Many Verities in Scripture when first written and proposed by Apostolical men were compleat Obiects of faith to the Primitiue Christians yet are not by virtue of that Proposition Thought it appears not so to all now so to vs Because They neither write in this State nor immediatly Propose the truths contained in Scripture Hence it is that the Church as wee said Supplies that defect and compleat's by her Proposition those ancient Reuelations which issued from Christ and his Apostles And for The Churches Testimony Clear this reason Her Testimony Quoad nos is more clear more known and more immediatly Credible than Scripture can bee 14. 3. Difficulties may arise concerning the Scriptures Canon and sense also which none can decide but the Church only and vpon that Account Shee is more Credible and more And necessary for other Reasons immediatly known to vs than the Scriptures abstruse Sense which is very often remote from vs before God speaking by this Oracle laies the truth open in clearer Terms And what wonder is here Whilst Sectaries confess to vnderstand the true sense of God's word
will haue vs to belieue and on the other not clearly to giue light concerning what wee are obliged to belieue is to assert that His Goodnes Abandon's the care of our Saluation and leaues all in darkness Now furâ—her The Obligation of belieuing arises from The clear obligation of belieuing arises not from Faith it Selfe nor from the Euidence of the Mysteries assented to for no man saith as is often noted I belieue because I belieue or because I see the Diuine Mysteries Euidently in Themselues but contrarywise Hee Speaks thus I therefore belieue because I find my selfe anucedently to my Faith obliged to submit to the Diuine Testimony with à clear Euidence known before we belieue à most firm Assent But that which laies so strong an obligation on him must of necessity be à clear Iudgement grounded vpon Obiectiue Euidence nothing less certain can auail in this weighty affair concerning Faith 21. I proue the Assertion Whoeuer firmly belieues vpon Gods infallible Reuelation must antecedently Iudge He cannot err by belieuing or if He Iudges he may err or be deceiued it is impossible to belieue fimly vpon the Diuine Reuelation The Assertion Proued What I Assert is clear For to Say I will infallibly belieue because God Speak's infallibly and withall to keep in mind this Iudgement I may be deceiued by my Faith is plainly to Say I doe that which my Conscience tells me cannot be done Therefore that preuious light must arriue to Euidence of the Obiects Credibility whereof more presently 22. Now you shall see how the force of our Argument hinted The Argument taken from the Obligation of belieuing at is drawn from the Obligation of belieuing Ask any whether one thought ready to elicite Faith hold's himselfe bound to Assent with à firm Adhesion because God speaks Or Contrarywise stand's as yet Houering and vncertain what to doe In case he clearly sees his Obligation that necessarily implies the euident Iudgement we plead for And hence arises à firm Faith But if He remains in à wauering Condition ambiguous whether to belieue or no He can no more resolue to Assent firmly vpon God's infallible Testimony than one in à Iourney doubting which of two wayes to follow can prudently preferr Further vrged the one before the other A Iudgement then which bring 's all to an inuariahle State of belieuing is absolutely necessary And hence Diuines Teach that none can belieue before he finds himselfe obliged to doe so And when Hee see 's clearly that obligation he is bound vnder Sin to belieue 23. A further Reason hereof is thus and seem's very conuincing Whoeuer belieues induced by à doubtful or probable Iudgement without that degree of Euidence now mentioned Pash Faith blamable may Iustly fear least by his too forward Assent He imputes to God à falshood reckoning that amongst the Articles of his ouer-hasty Beliefe which was neuer reuealed This open wrong Sectaries seem to disown it Sectaries endeauour to auoyd who before they belieue the Verities in Scripture Prerequire à high Moral certainty grounded on Vniuersal Tradition whereby Assurance is giuen that the Books are Diuine As therefore à meer probability would be too weak an Inductiue to lead in that Faith they pretend to So it would be in our case also and Consequently all must Come to à degrce of Credible Euidence preuious to Faith or Faith cannot stand firmly grounded 24. Now seeing Euidence is necessary There difficulties may occur concerning it The first What we vnderstand by the Three difficulties concerning this Euidence Euidence hitherto only spoken of in General Terms 2. From whence it proceeds 3. What Christians haue it These particulars discussed we shall easily make way to our third Proposition as also to the last Decision of the Difficulty proposed 25. Briefly Euidence in this matter of Religion implies so strong à light so great à Moral certainty at least That euery well disposed Vnderstanding may without fear or hesitancy boldly Say God founded this Religion If this be errour you great Soueraign haue deceiued vs. This or none is the sure way to Saluation All other Sects are improbable And to this sense that stout Champion What this Euidence implies of Iesus Christ F. Edmund Campian Spake vndantedly Testor Dei Solium illud tribunal ad quoad stabo c. I call Heauen to witness And that high Tribunal where I shall once stand to giue an Account of all I haue said Aut nullum Caelum esse aut nostrorum esse That is Either we Catholicks are right in Faith or There is no Faith Either Heauen is Ours or there no such thing as Heauen The Euidence here touched on though called Moral is not yet inferiour to Physical certainty Why Called Moral but beares that name because the Nature and Tendency of it is such And of so great Conuiction that it quit's euery rational Man of doubt and peaceably settles the mind in à quiet State when the choise is made of true Religion Arnob. Lib. 2. Cont. Gent. Proues the truth here asserted by and excellent Argument à Posteriori Nisi aperta res esset c. Vnless saith he Arnobius his Argument Christian Religion had been manifest and more clear to all than Dayclight Incredulum humanum Genus c. Mans nature most incredulous and hard of beliefe would neuer haue consented to the difficult Mysteries of it Hence S. Austin Lib. de verâ Relig. C. S. Austin and S. Chrisostom accord 2. Tells vs none can doubt which amongst so many Religions is true And the only safe way to Saluation S. Chrysostom Serm. Quod Christus sit Deus Saies more Viz. That the Man is wholly stupid Mad and deuoid of sense who sees not so clear an Euidence or goes about to Contradict it 26. The Reason hereof more largely handled in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 8. is taken first from the Insinite knowledge and power of Almighty God who in founding Religion engaged as it were in à Dispute with Hell Heresy and all Opposers He engaged Therefore Hee is sure to Conuince The fundamental Ground of our Assertion otherwise it had been vain to haue Commenced the Dispute He began it not either to bee foiled or to haue it end in shame or finally to leaue the matter doubtful Now further if He bee sure to Conuince and conquer Hee doth it by the power and efficacy of rational Arguments laid forth to all that haue the vse of Reason For He Argues in behalfe of these But clear Arguments are potent Orators and plead so powerfully that they induce Reason to acquiesce and quit the vnderstanding of all doubt Herein lies the Euidence wee enquire after whereof more presently 27. I Say Clear For were the Arguments doubtful all would be left in Suspence which Religion to embrace Were Probability insufficient they only probable or more probable then the pretended Arguments of Sectaries of Arians for Example are
infallible no aduantage by them The Substance of all is thus If Diuine Faith cannot be without an Infallible Assent all other Infallibility He means in the Proponent is rendred vseles Answ Why so I beseech you The Apostles Faith was certainly Infallible That therefore an Infallible Proponent of Faith is vnnecessary did that render our Sauiours Infallible Doctrin Infallibly proposed vseles In like manner the Church teaches Infallibly The Faithful Man elicites Infallible Faith grounded vpon Her Doctrin Doth this make Her Teaching Vseles When the internal faith of euery Belieuer so necessarily depend's vpon an Infallible Oracle that none euer belieued without some one or other absolutely Infallible 25. But now Ad rem Make hauocke of Faith as much as may be Destroy Christian Religion Say boldly and falsly Were all Proponents of Faith faâ—lible the Roman Catholick Church both is and euer was fallible Say also Protestants Arians Pelagians and all the rest are fallible Speak once to the Purpose and tell me For here is the only doubt Why should the Protestant with his fallible Faith be in à The Protestant yet would not be in à better Condition then the Arion better and à more Secure condition than the fallible Papist or the fallible Arian with that faith they lay claim to This the Doctor neuer meddles with nor can the difficulty be solued by him 26. And Hence To rid my Selfe of the rest which followes for really I am more weary of this Sport then the Dr euer was at killing flies you shall Se with what Candor I Proceed I freely permit the Doctor to make vse of all his following Principles yea of the whole Thirty in Number And say notwithstanding this ample Concession He shall neuer Proue or infer from any of them So much as One true Tenet Though all were granted which the Doctor can rationally desire peculiar to Protestants which can be owned by these very men that pretend to belieue Protestancy an Article of Faith necessary for saluation Here is my Reason The General owned Truths as that à rational creature may antecedently to any External Reuelation certainly know the Being of God c no more belong to Protestants than to others The Doctors false Principles as Nothing yet proued his 16. and 17. are though Supposed true euince nothing for Protestancy as is already Proued No more do his other Controuerted Principles denyed by innumerable Christians proue any thing His obscure Ones and his 27 and 29. appear to The reason hereof briefly giuen me of the darker sort must be further explained For truly I vnderstand not what is meant by those obscure words Which reiection is no making Negatiue Articles of Faith with the rest that followes Be it how you will thus much I defend that whether the fore mentioned Principles be True False Controuerted or Obscure no Verity peculiar to Protestants can be deduced from them absolutely necessary to Saluation 27. I Say deduced either by lawful Consequences or by the Addition of any receiued Principle And I Speak thus because Perhaps the Doctor may Answer He intended no more at present but only to set down some general Grounds wherevpon Protestancy by the ayde of further Proofs adioynable though not as yet not made vse of Can be established If this be his Reply I Answer First He has gone most lamely to work The Doctors whole work hitherto most imperfect leauing the whole Matter vndertaken halfe done halfe vndone in à word incompleat I Answer 2. There are neither Proofs nor Principles to goe forward withall I mean whereby to Euince the truth of one Pure Protestant Tenet held by Sectaries themselues necessary to Saluation And I coniure the Doctor who must hold his abstract Principles hitherto laid forth very imperfect He cannot goe on and Compleat it to aduance further That is to euince by some other more immediate Proofs the absolute necessity of Belieuing one Protestant Article This cannot be done 28. The Reason why I Speak thus boldly is the Verity hinted The vltimate ground of my Assertion at in the beginning and proued aboue Protestancy as Protestancy has no truth in it No Essence of Religion No One Article Conducing to Saluation And Hence it is that the Doctor keep 's off at distance Or rather run's on as you se partly by assuming false Principles against the Catholick Church Partly with Generalities which relate no more to Protestancy then to Arianism 29. Now here in passing you may well obserue The different Procedure of Catholicks from Sectaries The first tell you plainly what their Faith is Besides the common Doctrin admitted by all Called Christians They giue you in particular à list of theer Credends The Real Presence Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saints and in the first place of the Infallibility of their Church peculiar to Catholicks only They moreouer How differently the Catholick and Sectaries Proceed Assert without the Beliefe of these Articles after à due Proposal made none can be saued And here to omit other Probations taken from Scripture Councils and Fathers They ground their Beliefe vpon the Authority of God's own vniuersal euidenced Oracle which hath taught the world from the Apostles Age. 30. The Sectary on the other side neither dares nor Can name one Article Singular to Protestants Mark my words Or Preach this Doctrin to any of his Hearers Such and such particular Articles you are as Protestants Obliged to belieue as most essential Tenents of our Religion or will be damned if you reiect them The Sectary cannot name one Protestant Article iudged by him necessary to Saluation He cannot build one peculiar Protestant Article vpon plain Scripture vpon ancient Tradition or any other receiued Principle much lesse Proue its Truth by the Authority of à Church which euer Shewed the Marks and Signatures of God's Infinite Power and Wisdom It may be Some Sectary will here Cauil at our Articles and Say indeed we plainly deliuer them but needlesly multiply too many If this be Obiected I Answer first The Assertion is no Principle but à meer vnproued Supposition I Answer 2. in this place it is an Impertinency where we only vrge the Sectary to name but one A possible Cauil answered Article Iudged by him Essential to Protestancy and necessary for Saluation As we plainly giue in our Seueral necessary Articles Thus much Comply'd with We are as ready to Proue the Truth of our Catholick Positions as to Euince vpon sound Principles the Sectaries false and Improbable CHAP. XVIII The Doctors Inferences proued no Inferences but vntrue Assertions Hauing answer'd his Principles and Inferences Satisfaction is required to some few Questions hereafter proposed 1. IT followes Saith the Dr 1. There is no necessity at all of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth The first Inference is à meer Tautology of those things which they may be certain without c. Answ Here you
propose an Argument for the Vulgar Latin which Mr stilling shall not answer In what euer Society of Christians we find faith intirely true we haue there Authentick Scripture But from Luthers time vpward to the 4. or 5. age faith intirely true was only found in the Roman Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians Therefore the Roman Catholick Church which read so many ages the Vulgar Latin as Authentick had true Scripture I proue An argument prouing the Vulgar Latin Authentick the Minor wherin only is difficulty If the Roman Church erred for so vast à time in any point of Diuine Faith there was no faith intirely true the whole Christian world ouer because all other Societies denominated Christians were known condemned Hereticks and consequently had not true faith Therefore either the Catholick Roman Church enioy'd that blessing or we must grant à want of faith for ten ages the whole world ouer But if this Church had Faith intirely true it preserued also Authentick Scripture for where true faith is there you haue true Scripture If not it followes that wee haue no assurance at all either of the one or other Therefore if all Churches vniuersally erred in points of faith no Church can giue so much assurance of authentick Scripture as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting See more here of in the other Treatise Discours 2. c. 2. n. 8. 13. Now we are to solue à difficulty which may arise from our former discourse where 't is said If one rely on humane authority which is fallible and may be false so much mistrust so A difficulty proposed and solued many doubts occurr concening the Originals and various Lections that none can haue indubitable assurance of Scripture How therfore could the Church without moral certainty and greater too had of the Authentick books antecedently to the Councils declaration determin so peremptorily this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick yea and to preferr it before other Latin Copies I might here first by the way demand vpon what certainty can the Sectary prefer his Edition take which hee will before the Vulgar Latin What euer moral assurance he has independently of the Churche's Testimony for his Bible the Church has greater for Hers. But to solue the difficulty positiuely I say the Church after all moral diligence proceeded in this particular vpon an The Catholike Principle ascertaining Scripture vndeniable Principle which is that God by special Prouidence preserued as well Scripture free from Material corruption as Church Doctrin pure and orthodox in both wee Catholiks rely on peculiar Prouidence and all must do so vnless they will rob Christ's Sponse of all the treasure she has and violently take from her not only Orthodox Faith but Scripture also The Church therefore in her Declaration depended not on à meer Moral fallible certainty which may be false but vpon infallible Tradition This gaue indubitable assurance of the Scriptures purity free from all material errour Here is her last Principle And thus you see à vast difference between the Church and Sectaries The Church plead's possession of Authentick Scripture vpon Gods gracious Prouidence and hath it warranted by indubitable Tradition the Sectary reiect's this infallible ground and run's away with no man knowes what Certainty and in doing so cast's himself vpon the greatest doubts imaginable concerning scripture 14. Perhaps you will say Mr Stilling p. 213. relies in this matter on the vniuersal consent of all Christians and Therefore includes the Testimony of the Roman Catholick Church I answer first Hee hath not the consent of this Church for all those Editions He approues and Consequently the greatest part of à vniuersal consent fail's I answer 2. He Sectaries Cannot rely on the Churches infallible Testimony neither doth nor can remaining Protestant admit of the Catholiks surest Testimony or Tradition for our Church own 's in this most weighty matter an infallible certain Tradition Mr Stilling reiect's that therefore he hath nothing from our Church which fauours his Assertion drawn from the most assured consent of all Christians concerning Authentick Scripture And here by the way I cannot but take notice of this Gentlemans weightles obiection Pag. 216. who grants there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from Tradition But think not to fob vs off saith he with the Tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages with the Tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick c. with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Answ I verily perswade my selfe He The surest principle to know ancient tradition speak's not as he think 's for tell me vpon what surer Principle can men now possibly be better informed of Church-tradition in all ages then by the tradition of the present Church You see He slights the Testimony of two or three Fathers needed we relief from them and I am sure the vnanimous agreement of all Fathers makes no where the consent of the Church in all antecedent ages contrary to our present Churches Tradition From whom therefore shall we learn On what vndubitable Principle can we rest or say such was the Tradition concerning Scripture in pas't ages but from the present Churches Testimony It is impossible to pitch on any other Proof which is surer or half so sure 15. What followes is yet worse Fob vs not off with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick Good Sr. designe you or name plainly that Catholick Church distinct from the Roman Catholick in all ages and to vse your own words we shall extol you for the only person that euer did any thing memorable on your side but if you do not this as I know you cannot for all other before Luther were professed Hereticks 't is you that iuggles and fob's vs off with meer empty words He still goes on thus worse and worse If I should once see you proue the A weak Argument reâ—orted infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints the Sacrifice of the mass c. by as an vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is wherby we receiue Scriptures I shall yeild my self vp as à Trophey to your braue attempts Contra 1. ad Hominem If I should once see you proue all Churches fallible the Pope no supream head No Inuocation of Saints no veneration of Images no Sacrifice of the Mass c. and the rest of your negatiue Articles If I could once see you proue two Sacraments only Iustification by faith only Christs not real presence in the Holy Eucharist by as vnquestionable and vniuersal Tradition as that is whereby Scripture is receiued we would yeild also to your braue attempts Answer this if you can or for bear hereafter to weary à reader with euident improbabilities And mark well why I call them so 16. Haue we not à more vnquestionable
vniuersal Tradition for the books of Scripture if Tradition be drawn from the voice of all called Christians whether Catholicks or Hereticks then there is for the very primary Articles of true Catholick Faith A Trinity for example the Incarnation the necessity of Tradition more and Lesse vniuersal Grace Original sin c. Yes most assuredly for innumerable Sectaries admitted Scripture and yet denyed these essential Articles therefore as their Denial made the consent and tradition of all called Christians less vniuersal for such Doctrins so their admitting Scripture with others heightned that Tradition or made it more general Say now Sr. Had those Hereticks argued as you do how little would they haue gained If we should once see you proue à Trinity Or Original sin c. by as vniuersal à Tradition as that is whereby Scriptures are receiued we would acquiese but this is not possible for both you and wee admit Scripture and consequently make that tradition more vniuersal yet we deny your primary Doctrins and therefore all tradition is not so ample for your Doctrins as for the books of Scripture Here is your vnreasonable reasoning Mr. Stilling You know well Hereticks who owned Scripture with vs denied à Sacrifice of Mass An vnreasonable way of aryuing Inuocation of Saints and other Catholick Articles and you 'l haue vs to take à tradition from these men to vphold the Doctrins they denyed Iust as if an Arian should bid me proue à Trinity from all Tradition euen of his Church when he admit's Scripture and denies à Trinity If you reply you vrge vs not to bring in the tradition of all known Aduersaries of the Catholick Church for these now named Articles but only the vniuersal Tradition of the Catholick Church in all ages we haue already answerd that 's best known by the present Churches Testimony no other proof can parallel it And thus much of the Authenticalnesse of our Vulgar Edition free from all material Corruption A further difficulty may yet be moued concerning lesser faults and the preferring it before all other Latin Copies CHAP. VIII How necessary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in the Church A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles Of Mr Stillinfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 1. NOte first It was very meete to haue among so much confusion and various sections of Latin Copies one certain approued and set forth by the mother Church to the end her Children might be vnius labij of one tongue and speak one language in their reading preaching and publick expounding One lection of scripture necessary Holy Scripture Note 2. Though the Council of Trent sess 4. declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick and preferr's it before all other latin Editions Quae circumferuntur which are now abroad it doth not thereby detract any thing from the credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew and Greek Copies whereof Authors dispute whether they be pure or no whilst the Church is silent and defin's nothing Neither doth the Council reiect the Version of the Septuagint or that ancient Latin Copy called Itala read in the Church before S. Hierom as Vnauthentick in any material point for this Argument is conuincing to the contrary As it is madnes to say Christs Church had not true Scripture since S. Hieroms time so is it à desperate improbability The Church had in all ages true Scripture to assert She wanted that in the ages before S. Hierom which is to say The Church had euer authentick Scripture Moreouer shall we think yee iudge that God whose Prouidence neuer failed suffered his own spouse to be beguiled with false Scripture for 15. ages and that now towards the end of the world he will prouide vs of à purer book by the hands and help of à few scattered Sectaries 2. Note 3. Translations may be faulty three wayes chiefly 1. More ambiguity and darknes may lye in à translated word than in the Original and this fault if any is remediless because the latin or à Vulgar language reacheth not alwais to the full Energy and signification of an Hebrew or Greek expression wherof you haue some examples in that learned Preface to the English Rhems Testament anno 1600. 2. Corruptions How Transtations may be faulty may creep into à Version by the inaduertancy or ignorance of the Translator who is neither supposed prophet nor infallible and thus Authors say that S. Hierom though prodigiously learned was not euery way infallibly secured from lesser errours yet this Prouidence God hath for the good of his Church that he will nor permit any considerable deprauation to remain in all Copies If therefore one be faulty all cannot be thought so and the faults of one by carefully comparing it with many and à diligent inspection into other Copies may be corrected See Greg. de Valent lib. 8. Analy C. 5. puncto 4. 3 dly Lesser deprauations often enter à version through the mistakes of Printers Librarians c. Of these you had many in the Vulgar Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles and they are scarse auoidable chiefly after seueral reimpressions as we daily see in other books Thus much premised 3. Listen à little to Mr Stilling strange inconsequences and groundles exceptions against the Corrections of Sixtus and Clement He saith the one Bible differs from the other as Of Mr Stilling 〈◊〉 gâ—â—und 〈◊〉 exceptions appears by those who haue taken the pains to Compare them in some thousands of places A great number indeed But the first question will bee whether these Pain-takers ought to be belieued vpon their bare word without further examination This Sr. you suppose which cannot well pass before the particulars come to the test and bear the censure of your Aduersaries wholly as learned as you haue any But say on Are these supposed differences any more but like the racings of the skin or do they giue any mortal wound to the Vital part of Scripture If you only assert the first you may not only Cauil at your English Bibles but also at all the latin translations vsed in the Church both before and after S. Hieroms time for they haue some verbal differences which you may call petty and inconsiderable faults Now if you assert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are Materially corrupted in points of Faith and manners or to vse your phrase Vitally wounded what is become I beseech you of that peculiar hand of Prouidence you own in preseruing the authentick Copies of religion safe to our dayes Or which much imports you to answer by what other more authentick Copy can you without endles disputes and vncertainties correct the Vulgar This one particular will giue you work enough before you come to à certain decision of the difficulty In à word because I think many know not too well all that concern's these two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles I
clear words of à Father and when the Glosser has no vndubitable Principle distinct from his gloss wheron to settle his Doctrin as he has not in our present Controuersy Obserue well The Fathers say What wee see is not bread but Christs very body The Sectary interpret's That wee see is not common bread indeed but Christs body Figuratiuely or Sacramentally The Fathers say it is not figuratiuely only but really his body So Theophilact Answered and the reason giuen and S. Iohn Damascen cited aboue Had the Sectary who interpret's thus an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss deliuered by any Oracle of Truth Scripture Traditions or Orthodox Church there would be good reason to giue him hearing But when we euidently see that the best and only proof of his Doctrin is no more but the very gloss he makes without Further Principles we iustly except against him and hold such glosses improbable 14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer interpret's any Authority but when t' is dubious and if it be so it neither help 's the Sectary nor hurts the Catholick and therefore ought In reason to be cast aside as either impertinent or as weak and forcelesse in all disputes of Controuersies The fundamental Christ's Doctrin not proued by glosses or any ambiguous Testimony Reason already hinted at is The true Doctrin of Christ is not proued by Glosses or any doubtful Testimony but stand's most firm vpon known and indubitable Principles or if in order to Christians it want's such supports it cannot pass for Christ's Doctrin An ambiguous Testimony therefore which seemingly opposes this true Doctrin Certainly Principled is most impertinently alleged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick Faith 15. Vpon this one sole ground now clearly laid forth I confidently Affirm all Controuersies in Religion might be easily ended would Sectaries please to lay Preiudice aside and follow manifest reason I 'le shew you how Write down first the two contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Protestants Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist Christ is not really and substantially present Next examin well the Principles wheron these Contrary Doctrins rely or are supposed to rely The Catholick vrgeth first Christ's plain words 2. The Authority of his Church and saith his Churches Doctrin is the very same that Christ words literally taken express 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of The Catholick Principles Fathers and discourses thus When I find the most significant expressions of Fathers consonant to our Sauiour's plain words and to the owned Doctrin of my Church I must assuredly rest on these as indubitable grounds or Confess that There neither is or was euer any Principle for the soundest Article of Christian Faith Examin next the Sectaries Principles Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine or to this sense This is not my body b◠à Sign only of it Euidently No. Has he any Church esteemed Orthodox by the Christian world which without Controuersy taught this Doctrin of à sign only three or 4. ages since Name Sectaries haue none such such à Church He will speak's to the purpose Has he Fathers so numerous so express and clear for his Signe and figure only as the few Testimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Doctrin If he haue let him please to produce them I 'le doe no more but lay my Testimonies by them and if after the perusal or à iust Parallel made of both All the world iudges not those I quote to be most conuincing may the literal sense stand and his both dark and ambiguous I will vndergoe any Censure You haue heard how loud and express the Testimonies briefly hinted at and innumerable more are for our Catholick Verity I challenge Mr Stilling to Confront them with others as openly significant for his opinion I verily think he will neuer goe about to doe what is desired but fob vs off with killing flies and no man knowes what 16. In the interim I Argue I am either obliged to renounce An Argument drawn from our Catholick Principles the obuious sence of these Authorities which I see euidently Consonant to the words of Scripture and to the Doctrin of my Church or by force of these Proofs am still to belieue as I doe Grant this second I stand on secure ground But if I am obliged to renounce the obuious sense of Christs words my Church Doctrin and the expressions of these Fathers c. Our Aduersaries are bound if à spark of Charity liues in their Hearts to plead by stronger Principles which may settle me in an absolute Renuntiation of my Doctrin and withdraw me from the supposed errour I liue in Is not this iustice and Charity think ye And is not the Compliance most easy For if their Doctrin be Christ's Doctrin and mine not Theirs stand's as I now told you vpon clear and indubitable Principles And Principles of that nature are easily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderstanding Now I subsume But it is euident the Sectary hath no such conuincing Principles which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal sense of Christs words and the Fathers already cited And this I proue What euer Principle obliges me to renounce or to deny the plain literal sense of such words must giue assurance that those expressions literally Why none can remoue me from our Catholick Tenet vnderstood are dangerous and apt to induce Christans into gross errour for if literally taken they do no mischief or be not apt to induce into dangerous errour why should I Deny their obuious sense because Ptotestants will haue me do so But there is no Principle so much as meanly probable whereby these expressions are proued false or inductiue into dangerous Errour for were this really so some Church or Author of Credit would long sincé haue noted their ouer much vehemency in sayng more then was true concerning this Mystery which none euer yet did Therefore I may still and without Reproof hold where I am and adhere to their literal Doctrin which my Church teaches 17. Some may teply Sectaries vrge vs not so crudely to reiect the Fathers Testimonies as only to moderate or rectify their sense by the help of our Modern mens glosses which is à blamles proceeding for we do so with Gelafius and other Authors when they seemingly make against our Doctrin and Protestants do no more Answ Protestants do more for their interpretations euer imply à peremptory and absolute denial of that very literal sense which the Father words express For example S. Cyril saith Catech. Mystag 4. He that changed water into wine by his sole will hath also A reply of sectaries answered changed wine into blood The expression inuolues à parity and implies thus much That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee so wine was really and substantially changed into Christs blood Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and substantial change of wine
Tertullian reiect's and hold's insufficient to end disputes And so doth S. Austin also Epistola 49. Ad Deo gratias The other named Pars reflexa and the clearer which speak's of the Foundation of Christian Religion of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world ouer of its marks and Signes of its Perpetuity and infallible Assistance of Nations flocking to it c. This part I say the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word is so perspicuous and clear that it silences all Sectaries and euidently subuert's their Errours But to tell me it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Transubstantiation the number of Sacraments c. And the very sense of Scripture which should end all is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties To assert this I say is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience And therefore I will extort this confession from our Aduersaries may they please to answer that as they shall neuer proue one of their Protestant Opinions so they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin by clear and express Scripture 11. Some obiect S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian S. Austin's Discourse with an Arian who faith Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum c. Bâ—rnob neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou to the Authority of the other Let vs contend by the Authorities of scripture which are common witnesses to vs both Here two things seem clear First That S. Austin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council as Sectaries do now the Church 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to conuince an Arian A word only in passing Dare the Sectary offer thus much or dispute with the Catholick for the supposed Obserue the question here proposed Truths of pure Protestancy or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus I would willingly see some attempt made this way but am sure He will not dare to do it Because he saith His Protestancy or these Negatiues are not reuealed but only à number of inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controuersies when the Protestant ingenuously grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the sufficiency of Scripture help not the Sectary at all Irenaeus for example call's it the Rule of Faith S. Austin A Diuine Sectaries quote Fathers to no purpose Balance Theophilus Alex A firm foundation Gerson A Sufficient and infallible Rule Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part yea and of the obscurer also when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle But what makes all this for pure Protestancy or for its Negatiue Opinions Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith whereof it is vtterly silent Doth it weigh such Negatiues or tell vs what they are worth Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures vs out No Sacrifice on the Altar No purgatory No Transubstantiation Toyes trifles There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposit Verities of Catholick Religion or in behalf of Protestancy Therefore though S. Austin appeald to Scripture against an Arian and had his reasons for it yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent when after their Appeal they find not one sentence for Protestancy or against Catholick Doctrin Now to S. Austin 12. I say first The Saint reiected not the Authority of the Why S. Austin waued the Nicene Council Nicene Council which he euer honourd but only waued that as an vnmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus who no more regarded the Nicene Definitions than Sectaries now do the Council of Trent Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions Thus our Catholick Witers haue answered à hundred times yet we must haue this Crambe recocta serued vp again as à new vnsauory Obiection I say 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter which he Saith is à body without à Soul but to the true genuine Sense Thereof which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuersal consent of Christ's vnerring Church For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin to belieue the Churches sense of Scripture and to belieue Scripture it self which most manifestly commend's vnto vs Church Authority Had then the Saint argued thus against his Aduersary He had conuinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conuiction Council yet thou cans't not deny but that Scripture commend's à Church founded by Christ diffused the whole world ouer what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the sense of Scripture That is the sense of the Holy Ghost And can be no other for à Church which swerues from the true sense of Gods word is no Church founded by Christ But the Vniuersael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy errour Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers stand's opposit to thee also And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it self 13. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture God in Essence and three distinct Persons not so plainly expressed there He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduersary of errour None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself Lib. contra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith viz. of Baptism conferred by Hereticks which though not clearly expressed in Scripture is yet held à true and valid Sacrament His words are Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum c. Although no example of this thing the validity of Baptism by Hereticks can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by vs in this particular Cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesia when we now do that which pleases or is agreable to the Vniuersal Church which Church the Authority of Scripture it self commend's Vt quoniam As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue whilst it commend's the Church and euery one fear 's to be deceiued in the obscurity of this Question Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat Let him consult the Vniuersal Church
of this particular Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate Thus S. Austin himselfe Answers most profoundly S. Austin And he giues an Answer to the present difficulty viz. That if the Obscurer Part of Scripture speak not plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick the Heretick is to address himself to the Church and learn by Her what the sense of Scripture is Without light borrowed from the Church we haue only words about these high Mysteries but not fully sensed words chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries whose glosses depraue the plainest Passages in Holy writ as the Protestant doth Christ's clear Proposition This is my body If therefore we go on in such à contest with words not fully sensed we may well end our liues as S. Austin notes before we end one Controuersy 14. And thus you see as the One Part of Scripture is à body without à soul before it be receiued by the Church so the Other Part is also before it be both receiued and sensed by this Oracle of Truth Vpon this ground all those other Testimonies vsually alleged by Sectaries out of S. Austin against the Donatists Of Optatus Meleuitanus and S. Chrysostom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly solued for here is S. Austins Principle The sense of Scripture intended The sense of Scripture and the Church alwaies the same by the Holy Ghost and the sense of Christs true Church concerning Scripture can neuer clash but is one and the same If therefore I know the sense of the Church I haue with it the sense of Scripture also but with this difference That what Scripture often expresses less clearly Christ's Church deliuers more fully and Explicitly Whence it followes that if the Churches sense conclude against these Sectaries the Scriptures sense where it is obscure is in like manner concluding 15. You may obiect Scripture is in the noblest manner infallible For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly and may well be à distinct Rule or Principle from that sense which the Church giues of it Why therefore should not Sectaries haue recourse to that first and noblest Principle without relying on the Churches interpretation I haue answered because they know not guess they may and miss what Scripture saies in à hundred difficult Passages Therefore they are to recurr to the Church or must make vse of their own fancies to sense it The Argument purely fallacious is much to this sense Christ our Lord when he taught his Disciples was in the noblest manner infallible being Truth it self the Apostles were only infallible in their teaching and An Obiection answered further Explanation of those Verities they learn'd by à Singular Grace or participation of Infallibility Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the first sure Principle Christ's own words flowing from the Fountain of infallibility without depending on the Apostles Doctrin not so eminently infallible Now be pleased to hear S. Austin pondering those words Psal 57. Alienati sunt peccatores c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Christ and the Church and solues the Difficulty Ex veritatis ore ag 〈…〉 Christum ipsam veritatem Taught by the mouth of Truth I acknowledge Christ Truth it self ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam participem veritatis And by the same mouth of Truth I acknowledge the Church partaking also of Verity That is I own the Church to be not Truth it self not Scripture it self but à Copartner of Truth with Christ and Scripture I own it to be not Infallibility it self yet so eminently infallible by à singular grace or participated Infallibility That to dispute against it is most insolent madness Witness the same S. Austin Epist. 118. C. 5. ad Ian If he dare to do so Saith the Saint Serm 14. de verbis Apost C. 18. or rus◠violently against this impregnable wall of the Church let him know his doom ipse confringitur He is shattered in pieces Hence you see first that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary to the Churches sense giuen of Scripture without thwarting Scripture it self You see 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles looking as it were different waies but one and the same in order to our direction and regulating Faith whereof Scripture and the Church in order to all is one Principle more Hereafter 16. In the mean while you may ask why our Sectaries keep such à Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things necessary It is hard to say what they driue at For if all this pretended clarity diffused it self through euery passage of Holy writ worse it is for them and to their vtter confusion Obserue My reason The more clear Scripture is made by Nouellists the greater is their shame whilst they cannot proue by it's supposed clarity so much as one Protestant Doctrin nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholick Faith Therefore nothing is gained this way Nay all is los t by Their casting off Church Authority when after that wicked Fact clear Scripture leaues them as Scripturelesse as Their own malice has made them Churchlesse It is true I see some Colour for their Pretence to Scripture and thus it is Like men lawlesse they haue shaken of all other receiued Principles of Christian Religion Speak of à Church She is fallible and has actually erred Cite Fathers some pitifully gloss them others roundly reiect them as men meerly Fallible Mention Tradition the very word is odious Now for stark shame whilst they bear the name of Christians it is hard to throw away all Christian Principles What 's done therefore Why Sectaries take recourse to the bare letter of Scripture I 'le tell you They lay hold of à body without à Soul I mean the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Sense and this is all that 's left them I say without the sense whereof you haue seen enough already for when the sense of God's word is controuerted between them and vs and their sense run's contrary to the receiued Church Doctrin no probable Principle can make it defensible and vpon this Ground I said right They are as Scripturelesse as Churchlesse All this is most true and I well vnderstand it But why these men labour so earnestly to make the Bible plain when not so much as one plain passage is found there for Protestancy or against our Catholick Doctrin is à Riddle aboue my reach I vnderstand it not Let then as much as you will of the book be clear whilst the Clarity fauour 's not one of our Sectaries forged Nouelties nor Contradict's one of our Catholick Tenets it neither help 's the Protestant nor hurt 's the Catholick In the next Discourse we shall treat of the Church and more oportunely solue there à few obiections of Sectaries CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate Faith 1. THe next Principle after Scripture we named the
enough to make him one These Inferences seem euident if not I petition Mr Stillingfleet to discouer where the fallacy lies 12. Now on the other side if such à man as belieues his Prouing what is intended against Sectaries Creeds the Roman Catholick Church And all the Articles She teaches iust as I belieue them be notwithstanding essentially Protestant still He is both Protestant and Catholick together Catholick He is whilst He Assents to all without Reserue which the Roman Church teaches And he is also Protestant for He belieues his Creeds And what euer our new men require as essential to their Religion Wherefore vnless The not-belieuing their Negatiues or his submiss yeilding to our Positiue Contrary Doctrins destroy that essential Faith of his Creeds which is impossible He is in these Principles both at once Catholique and Protestant 13. And thus you see How Our new men end Controuersies For now in their Principles There is no more quarrel about Religion The whole contest being purely brought to this whether Party Opines more securely iust as the Thomists and Scotists worthy learned Catholicks dispute whether Schoole teaches the better Opinions Though if the Supposition stand it will be difficult to find out disputable Opinions between vs. what our Aduersary iâ— obliged to 14. Be it how you will Mr Stillingfleet must of necessity change his Tittle The grounds of Protestant Religion For now Protestancy with him consists with Popery or rather is Popery And Popery If we speak of Religion is consistent with Protestancy The Essence and grounds of the one and the other cannot but be the same if which is euer to be noted Protestancy as Protestancy hath not one true essential Article of Orthodox Faith peculiar to it selfe For hauing none The Abettors of it must either bee Catholicks or Profess no Religion 15. And here by the way you may note the difference between vs. As the Catholick own 's all which the Church defines to be de Fide And necessary to Saluation So contrariwise the Protestant own 's nothing within the compass of His Articles to be de Fide or in like manner necessary For both He and I may boldly renounce what euer he hold's as Protestant without danger of loseing our Souls And hence it is that Opinions only and false ones too essentially constitute this whole Religion I speak here of Articles proper to Protestancy For to belieue the Creeds the four General Councils to Assert that the Sacraments giue grace to the worthy Receiuer that Faith and repentance are necessary or what els can be thought of as Matter of Diuine Faith All I say and euery one Constitute the essence of Catholick Religion and are known Doctrins of the Roman Orthodox Church in so much that the Protestant has no proper Special or peculiar Tenet of Religion left him at all which is true to propugn And for this reason He is obliged hereafter Iure humano Diuino to write no more Controuersies of Religion wanting Matter to write of And no less obligation lies on him to leaue off all further quarrelling in behalf of his improbable Opinions I would willingly see this plain discourse answered 16. Some perhaps not penetrating the force of it may A weak reply answered Reply The old strife is now on foot again For as we call the particular Tenets of Protestants Opinions and improbable also So they in like manner say All that the Catholick Church maintains aboue the Common Doctrin of Christians or the Articles of the Creeds c are only Church-Opinions as improbable as Theirs The Doctrin of Transubstantiation seem's as improbable to them as No-Transubstantiation to vs. Inuocation of Saints more improbable than not to trouble Those blessed Spirits with our Prayers c. Answ The reply setled vpon no Foundation is more than simple For either these men Cauil because we call their Negatiue Articles Opinions or Term them improbable Opinions Sectaries themselues call them Opinions that 's vnexceptionably plain Though they know well that the Church neuer speak's so meanly of her contrary Positiue Doctrins The only difficulty remaining is whether they are improbable or no And this stands most clearly euidenced already vpon an vndeniable Principle viz. That when Luther first broached them They were opposite to the whole Orthodox world And for that cause were then as improbable and Heteroclite as one Rebels vote is against à whole Kingdome or as Arianism was against the Vniuersal Church Now since that time they haue gained no more Probability than Arianism And so the old Improbability still clings to them And for this reason the Sectary is to find out à Catholick Church which defended his Negatiues or any one specifical Tenet of Protestancy as Ancient or reputed as Orthodox as our Church then was or is now Thus much done we will allow more to his Opinions than Probability But to doe it is Impossible 17. Thus the first part of the Obiection aboue is solued who are to proue the Protestants Negatiues To That is added of our pressing Sectaries to proue their Negatiues by plain Scripture I answer we iustly exact so much proof of Mr Rogers and his Complices the greater part of Protestants I think who hold them Articles of Faith These are to produce their Scriptures And only vrge Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet that call them inferiour truths or pious Opinions to settle these Negatiues or any Tenet of pure Protestancy vpon so much as any thing like à Probable Principle And here we expect their last Propositio quâ—escens for Probability But this cannot be giuen whilst we know The true Church of Christ decries them as improbable and Heretical errours 18. It is very true and that 's next obiected Catholicks haue opinions in schools differently Principled from Articles of Faith but t' is nothing to the purpose when the diffecence betwixt these and our Sectaries Tenents is that Catholick opinions if How Catholick Opinions differ Protestancy probable are euer reduced to probable grounds our Sectaries opinions contrary to the voice and iudgement of à whole Church can haue no such foundation And for this cause we iustly impugn them not as False Opinions only but as Heresies Now to the last Plea of Sectaries making fewer Articles of Faith than the Church doth The Answer is easy It belongs not to them God knowes wholly vnknown to the world one Age past To giue vs now à right measure of Faith The attempt is no less vain than prodigiously bold But Say on How will they Abbreuiate By what Rule By what law By their improbable opinions Here is all Well therefore may they Lament these vnlucky Opinions which haue ruined many à poor Soul and giuen infinit Scandal to the Christian world Vae homini illi per quem Scandalum venit CHAP. XXI Protestants granting Saluation to Catholicks by à clear inference drawn from their Concession end Controuersies of Religion VVhat force their concession hath VVhy they
Set once more pen paper and proue vs guilty of damnable Errour and you 'l damn so many that very few of your Protestants will be left in à state of Saluation I 'le make the Assertion good hereafter In the interim you Tell vs Wee palpably beg the Question whilst we suppose the whole Church is on our side and against you which is à notorious falshood Sr words are but wind I shall by the Grace of God Euidence this Truth so notoriously in the next Discourse that you if reason may haue place must confess Catholicks are the only Orthodox Church And Consequently grant that Controuersies are ended between vs. THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith HEre wee come to handle à main Matter in Controuersies And first Euidence the true Church by Her Marks and Glorious Miracles The Roman Catholick Church is proued the only Orthodox Society of Christians and Rule of Faith also VVee Euince Her absolute Infallibility and shew by Reason That if She hath taught but one false Doctrin and obliged Christians to belieue it there is now no true Faith in the world CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 1. THE first Principle God whose eternal designe is to bring man to true Faith in this short pilgrimage and after to endles Happines afford's means to acquire both And hath as Principles presupposed well laid open the means whereby true Faith may be attained As made our final End known 2. The second Principle Those want the means leading to the last happy End who are Aliens from the true Church of Christ or Separated from that Catholick Society The Assertion is so plainly deliuered not only by most Ancient Fathers But by the more learned Sectaries also That it is needless to produce many Testimonies S. Cyprian Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae Saith Quisquis ab Ecclesia separatus est c. Who euer is separated from the Church is ioyned to an Adulteress And diuorced from all the Promisses of the Church He comes not to the reward which Christ has promised who leaues the Church of Christ He is an Alien Prophane an Enemy and cannot haue God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother S. Austin lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13. Speaks fully this sense Citing those last words of Cyprian And Lib. 4. de Baptis C. 17. Saith Out of the Church there is no Saluation Yet more Epist 152. Whoeuer is or shall be separated from The Fathers Testimonies preduced this Catholick Church although he thinks himself to liue most laudably For this one wickednes alone that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ shall haue no life Sed ira Dei manet super eum But the wrath of God remains vpon him S. Fulgentius Lib. de fide ad Petrum C. 39. Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it That an Heretick or Schismatick baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and Holy Ghost if he be not in Vnion with the Catholick Church Although he giues neuer so great Alms And shed his blood for Christ yet he cannot be saued I waue other excellent Authorities known to euery one versed in the Fathers And need not to take more pains when Protestants themselues own the Doctrin The Ark was à type of the Church saith Perkins in Symb. Colum with me 785. extra quam omnes interibant out of which Ark All dyed and all are damned who are out of the Church Again In Caput 9. ad Sectaries Consent Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church are not members of the Catholick Church Humfred Ad Ration 3. Campiani We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible Church of God Finally Caluin the Master of Sectaries Lib. 4. Institu C. 1. 4. makes it absolutly necessary to be in vnion with Christs visible Church 3. The ground of this Truth is so solidly laid down in Scripture that none can contradict it For here the Church is called the Kingdom the Body the Inheritance of Christ purchased at à dear The Ground of our Catholick Truth rare the effusion of his sacred blood A Citty built vpon à Mountain The House the Temple of God the Hierusalem the Pillar and firmament of Faith c. Whereby it appears That whoeuer is out of this Kingdom out of this Citty out of this house and Temple of God whoeuer is not à member of this Mystical body or shares not in this purchased Inheritance or in à word out of the true Church be it where you will I yet define nothing is in à damnable condition A sad thought for all Sectaries because it is certain that Christ has not composed his Church of such Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the true Church and of such as oppose it Vnity and Diuision in Vnity and Diuision in Faith haue no place in the true Church points of Faith ase inconsistent in the same Orthodox Church and destroy the essential forme of it which is one Faith Now if our Aduersaries talk of à vnity in Fundamentals they are not only euidently conuinced of Errour in the other Treatise But vpon this very Account become Separaters from the Church and without Principles Assert that which neither Church nor Scripture teaches Who euer hold's not the Catholick faith entire shall Perish eternally saith S. Athanasius in his Creed but an entire Belief excludes all distinction between fundamentals and others as is manifest I little value some Protestants Glosses made vpon this Text for Glosses with me are weightles when they stand vnprincipled 4. The 3. Principle What the true Church of Christ teaches concerning the sense of Scripture That 's the sense intended by the Holy Ghost and Consequently most true The reason is Truth cannot be contrary to truth The Church and Scripture neuer Clash But alwaies speak one and the same verity This Sectaries must grant who define the Church to be an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God Therefore it cannot deceiue or teach an Errour contrary to that pure word Or if it doth so it ceaseth eo ipso to be God's Oracle And the true Church of Christ 5. If these men still go on trifling with their wonted distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals And allow à Perfect vnity of Doctrin between the Church and Scripture in The Distinction between Fundamentals and others friuolous things absolutly necessary to Saluation but not in others This is to define and not to define to build and destroy to teach and cheat in one breath For à definition which makes known the nature of à Thing must stand in its open sense without restraint and exactly agree to the thing defined Mark now Christs true Church is the Thing defined and the Definition charged with endless restrictiue Terms is drawn to Non-sense fot it tells vs the Church
Principles are here Supposed First that the Markes of the Protestant Church or of its Doctrin lie as these men will haue it in the Purity of Scripture only 2. That their Church Doctrin is either contained in the 39. Articles or implies so much as all called Christians Belieue and no more Though plain Hereticks in many particular Tenets 3. That this Protestant Community as it Teaches is either the whole Church of Christ excluding other Societies or only à Part of the vniuersal Church These Principles Supposed you haue my Demonstration 14. Scripture Marks the true Doctrin of Christs Church but it neither mentioneth nor marks out the Doctrin contained in the 39 Articles for our newer men call these inferiour Truths only And hold them not Registred in God's word Neither doth it Assert so much as darkly that à Mixture of Truth and Falshood such as all Hereticks haue owned and do own is the Doctrin of the true Catholick Church Least of all That à Doctrin common to Arians Protestants and Catholicks is sufficient Scripture disowns Protestancy to Saluation Lastly it saith no where that the Protestant Church containing that reformed Doctrin is by it Self the whole true Church of Christ excluding all other Societies nor so much as à Part of it And this I proue 15 If as reformed it be à Part of the true Catholick Church the Professors of it haue now and had before Luther some Partners who ioyn'd with them in the belief of their reformed Doctrin But before Luther they had not one sole man in the world that belieued as they belieue and so wanted fellowship because neither they nor their Partners were at all in Being Now at this instant they haue no Society of men called à Church run ouer all the world which side 's with them or hold's either the. 39. Articles or à Doctrin common to all Christians to be the true Doctrin of Christ or of his vniuersal Church All this I say is euident And. 16. Hence you see in what plight these men are who pretend to à Church marked and made euident by Scripture and A clear inference against Sectaries when they haue that sacred Book in their hands it is impossible to find so much as one Sentence or syllable in behalfe of Protestancy Those other exteriour Signes of Conuersions Miracles Antiquity c. are of no Account with them And were they otherwise most euidently they belong not to the reformed Doctrin of the English Church Here is à piece of sad newes for Sectaries who haue à Church neither Spoken of in Scripture nor manifested to Reason by one Supernatural wonder So vneuidenced à Thing it is And Consequently vpon à double Account no Church at all 17. The Sectary may reply When he Asserts Scripture Marks the true Church or Her Doctrin the meaning is not that it speak's expresly the Tenets of Protestants but only Saies it is à sufficient Repository of all things necessary to Saluation and deliuers so much plainly What euer therefore is not plainly taught in scripture ceaseth to be necessary Contra. 1. Protestants A Reply Answered granting thus much may seek long before they find Their particular Tenets because Scripture deliuers none of them either expresly or by any clear Deduction Contra. 2. The Iew and Heathen regard not the plainest Truths in Holy Writ before the book be proued Diuine The most plain Verities auaile nothing with them Yet God hath afforded means to draw them to Christianity But it seem's our Sectaries in all their talk of the Scriptures clarity neuer reflect on these Strangers from Christ nor point at the means whereby their Conuersion may bee wrought Contra. 3. The Arian and the Orthodox as highly differ about the sense of plain Scripture as the Protestant and Catholick about the sense of Christs own words This is my body And these differences either touch on fundamental Matters or there are none such in the whole Bible Contra. 4. The Protestant only tells vs what he saith of all things necessary contained in Scripture and speak's his own Sentiment boldly without either proof or Principle 18. Some obiect first God can endite à Book in as plain An Obiection solued words as any man can speak and t' is not supposed that he affected obscurity in his own Scripture already written Contra. 1. If Scripture be not obscure How is it That Christ told the Saduces they mistook the true meaning of it How is it that these Protestant Pillars Luther and Caluin so grosly contradict one an other in their Commentaries made vpon holy Scripture And this in points most material How is it that innumerable others called Christians Professe to reuerence to Read to spend the greatest labour vpon Scripture and when all is done draw out of it plain Contradictions in points as is nâ—w said most Fundamental Contra. 2. We question not what God can do but say he hath not endited Scripture plain de facto S. Peter Epist 2. 3. 16. Speaking of S. Pauls Epistles is my warrant In which saith he Certain things are hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue as also the rest of Scripture to their own perdition And the words relate not only to the Mysterious Matters whereof the Apostle wrote but to his Phrase and forme of writing also Therefore the Greeck Copies haue both in which things and in which Epistles And all Expositors hitherto euen S. Austin haue acknowledged an obscure way of speaking in S. Pauls Epistles chiefly in that to the Romans Yet we are not to say that Truth expressed without harshness God affects Obscurity the word is vnmeet but speak thus His prouidence purposely would haue Scripture deliuered in such à dark manner that all might haue recourse to à liuing Oracle His true Church which speaks more plainly and cannot swerue from any verity in Scripture No offence is giuen to pious ears In à word you haue à Verity expressed with out harshness See S. Austin lib. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 6. And S. Ambrose Epist 44. Again vote Scripture most plain what gain Sectaries by the Clarity when they neither haue plain nor obscure Text through the whole Bible for their Protestancy 19. Hence we Answer to an other petty obiection Scripture say some relates many Things not necessary to Saluation Therefore it cannot be supposed to omit things necessary Contra 1. Ergo it speak's some things of pure Protesstancy or nothing in that Religion as reformed is necessary to Saluation I would willingly haue an express Text for this reformed Nouelty and these few difficulties solued Contra. 2. Though the whole Bible were without dispute most plain or told vs all things necessary yet this neither moues Iew nor Gentil nor drawes any to Christianity without further light as is already proued We haue shown aboue how Scripture contain's all things necessary in the Reflex Part thereof It is now our Task and intent to Mark out the true
because you can lead à man to the By-places of it and show him in it some Nastiness The Instance is most Pertinent You find filth Here and there in the fair House of God and though there be more of it before your own doores yet your Church must be supposed Holy and Orthodox And ours contrarywise false and impious 14. But I wonder nothing at this lame way of Arguing Lewdness of life in some not in all sorts of men as is vainly Supposed Vnsanctifies the Church and bring 's in Errour c. For iust so Hereticks of old Argued against Catholicks Read S. Austin Sectaries argue like Heretickes of old Tom. 7 ad liter Petiliani lib. 2. Through his seueral Chapters chiefly Chap. 39. Petilianus obiected as these men do And I will Answer as S. Austin did There is no bitternes in hony nor dross with pure gold Saith Petilianus We Donatists are the purified gold you Catholicks full of bitternes and dross c. S. Austin Answer 's This is to Vapour like à mad man And to proue nothing Attendis zizama Thou attends't to the Cockle only and not to the wheat As who should say though some be yet all are not wicked Thou considers't the Seed of the Enemy sowen in the world and regards't not the seed of Abraham in whom all Nations shall be blessed Quasi vero vos iam sâ—is massa purgata Thou talks't as if ye forsooth were only the purged Mass of men the sweet hony the pure gold the refined oyle and none but you It is not so There is much naughtines among you And the saint showes wherein it was 15. In like manner one might easily lay forth the lewdnes the Hypocrisy of no few Sectaries were it not that S. Austin teaches vs to vse better Arguments and therefore C. 32. Saith How S. Austin argues against the Donatists Paciscamur ergo c. Let vs agree on this That thou neither Obiect to me our wicked men nor I thine to Thee This bargain once made thou will haue nothing to Say against that seed of Abraham now diffused ouer all Nations But Petilianus I shall press thee with an insoluable Argument and Ask Why yee Donatists haue impiously Separated your Selues from the seed of Abraham or that Catholick Church wherein all Nations are blessed And thus we vrge Protestants 16. Again Chap. 51. Petilianus obiected Ye Catholicks lay Claim to S. Peters Chaire the See of Rome I call that saith he in the words of the Prophet Cathedram Pestilentiae The See of pestilence And do not Protestants speak thus irreuerently of the Roman Chaire and Church also Both Argue alike S Austin Answers Haec non vides Dos't not thou see that all thou alleges't here is à meer lying Calumny For though thou may reproach some yet all are not guilty of the Crimes imputed to them I will auouch more Adds the Saint Si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissimè Criminaris c. If all the Bishops the whole world ouer were as bad as thou fanciest what wrong hath the Chair of S. Peter or the Church either done thee If thou perswade thy Self that those who deliuer the law do not exactly comply with it know that our Lord Iesus speaking of the Pharisies lonâ— since silenced thee Dicunt non faiunt They say but do not If then thou woulds't diffame either Church or See because men in works are not answerable to their words thou knowes't not what to say but only to reproach without Reason Thus and much more Blessed S. Austin and He ouerthrowes our Aduersaries whole Plea by it Though I verily hold them no such strangers to common reason but that they saw well the Argument The Sectary Cannot but see his Argument void of force already proposed enormously impertinent to proue either the See of Rome or that Church impious or erroneous in Doctrin 17. The true Reason of foysting in such simple stuff is an itching to Cauil because they can not closely dispute against Catholick Doctrin vpon rational Principles hauing none to vrge against vs. What remains but to scratch it is à late strain got in among them and to rub vpon old soares the personal defects of others abroad whilst God knowes they haue more festered wounds to look on and launce in their own Brethren at home Thus I say they must nip and taunt or write no more Controuersies Though it is done to their own Confusion For suppose all were true which is said of lewd and wicked men in the Church as in real Truth the half is not yet the impiety of these men Why sectaries bring to light such simple Stuffe neuer came to that height as to make vpon such Cauils the pure Spouse of Christ à Harlot on Frontlesly to impeach Her of Errour or quite to desert Her as our Nouellists haue done most shamefully No Though wicked they know well that Cockle growes vp in the same field with good Corn and that the Sin of some may stand with the Sanctity of many in the Mystical body of Christ The Haruest as the Gospel and S. Austin teach is to Winnow all and to Make the Separation But enough and more then enough of this slight and forceless Obiection 18. I haue yet one word to say of errours wrongfully Charged on vs. Were this Supposition true that the Roman Catholick Church had Apostated so shamefully in any Age as Sectaries Imagin Had She been made of à beautiful Spouse à harlot Had She fallen from the primitiue Truths into false Doctrin And consequenâ—ly Cheated Christians into Falsities for à thousand years together Christ Iesus our Lord had been obliged by virtue of A Reflection for Sectaries his promise already made in Scripture to haue appeared Again To haue sent an Angel from Heauen Or to haue vsed some other extraordinary means to establish his Church à new to raise vp the walles of his now Supposed ruined Hierusalem which he built so slightly that it all fell down in the short Compass of three or four Ages I say All For if the Church be false in one Article I can trust it in nothing The Promises in Scripture of Hell gates not preuailing against the Church of Christ's being with Her to the end of the world are manifest Yet now vpon the Supposition Hell and Heresy haue destroied the whole Building and He Blessed Lord look'd on saw his own work defaced yet after all his Engagements of preseruing it in Being repaired nothing These are harsh Heretical Paradoxes vnfit for Christians to hear yet the Sectary will he nill he must own them to his Confusion 19. To establish more this great Truth That the Doctrin of our Church is at this day the same with the Primitiue I might well Argue from the Confession of our Aduersaries Luther Chiefly and Caluin who grant so much in many particulars As that of Merit of Free will Limbus Patrum c. But withall
of that weak Declaration it appear's no other to me but As things are proposed so they are to all that belieue weak and fallible And none on earth can vnbeguile me or Propose it with greater certainty Because all are now Supposed fallible in their Teaching 8. One Instance may yet clear my meaning The Protestant reads Christs Sacred words Matt. 26. This is my Body And Proposes what he conceiues to be belieuable by Faith But An Instance doth it fallibly Imagin that the Roman Catholick Church also could Say no more for Her Doctrin or the Sense of those Words But as the Protestant doth so fallibly that all might be False it is clear That none whether Catholick or Protestant can haue Certainty of the Doctrin which Christ our Lord deliuered in that one short Sentence Why Both declare their fallible Sentiments only and Fallibly concerning the Sacrament So far their teaching reaches and not farther Therefore the Faith which should be had of the Mystery dwindles into nothing but into à fallible Opinion by virtue of that imperfect Teaching 9. Hence we learn that à Doctrin though infallible in Gods word without more Help makes no man though he be à Prodigy of wit an Infallible Teacher The reason is Infallibility Scripture alone makes no man infallible And why Proceed's not from Scripture easily misinterpreted but immediatly from Gods special Assistance And this Assistance which fixes an Assumed Oracle vpon Truth vnerrably no malice can wrest to falshood Now that the Book of Scripture as dayly Experience teaches is horridly peruerted to à Sinister sense needs no proof For all know what ruin Hereticks haue to the vttermost of their Power endeuoured to make of the chief Articles of our Christian Faith though they aknowledged Scripture to be God's Diuine Word There is scarce One which remain's Vnperuerted Some Deny the Necessity of Diuine Grace Others that great Mystery of the Incarnation Others an Equality in the Diuine Persons Others our Sauiours two Wills Diuine and Humane Thus the Pelagians the Antitrinitarians the Apollinarians and Monothelits taught and deceiued The world And when Scripture is Alleged in behalf of euery Orthodox Truth All you haue from them is à return of ouerthwart Glosses Grace must signify what the Pelagians please The VVord made Flesh How abused what the Antitrinitarians fancy and so of the rest Whence it is Euident that Scripture Alone without more light clears not sufficiently its own Truths For here you Se the most Primary Atticles disowned and Consequently Scripture abused by Priuate Spirits which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's reuealed Doctrin 10. We Catholicks require à further Help One faithful Oracle to teach which in this contest about the Sense of Gods What Catholicks require besides the bare Letter of Scripture Word end 's all Strife and Saies both plainly and infallibly Thus and thus an Infinite Verity speaks in Scripture Yet Sectaries are offended with vs because we can assert without hesitancy VVe belieue infallibly what Truth it Selfe Reueal's infallibly Nay more They are angry with God for hauing done them the greatest fauour Imaginable For to put à Period to these endles A signal Mercy of God makes sectaries offended debates raised among Christians To teach all Infallibly by his own vnerring Oracle what may and ought to be belieued Infallibly is à signal Mercy for which due Thanks can neuer be rendred Disowne the Mercy we liue and shall liue in à Spirit of Contention to the worlds end 11. Now if you Ask why the Church after She has proposed the Sense and verity of Scripture more easily beget's infallible Faith in Her Children Than the bare letter of Gods word can doe without Her I Answer The facility Diuine assistance Supposed arises from the Clarity of Her teaching known to all Vniuersally whether Orthodox or others Whence it is that few of our Aduersaries scarce moue any doubt concerning the Sense of the Churches vniuersal receiued Doctrin for that 's plain but chiefly Question the Truth of it Whereas all is contrary in our contest with the forenamed Hereticks For there is no Dispute whether Scripture be true What is chiefly debated with Sectaries The debate only being what it Saith or what the Sense of Gods sacred word is Here we fight in darkness before the Church Speak's and Declares Her Sense And if She be diuinely Assisted to teach truth as is already and shall be more amply proued in the sequele Discourse that doubt also ceases and vanishes into nothing 12. In the mean while Some may Object 1. The greatest part of Christian Doctrin is now agreed on and Supposed by Catholicks and Protestanss both true and infallible what necessity then haue we of any other Oracle besides Scripture to teach infallibly Answ The Agreement is Null and the Supposition destroies it self if all that taught Christian Doctrin since the Apostles time teach it fallibly For How could any An Obiection Answered agree in this That such and such à Doctrin is both true and infallible when He or They yea all that teach may because fallible erre in their very teaching and call that infallible Doctrin without Assurance giuen of its Infallibility Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible not infallible ex Terminis We must ioyntly own with that an Oracle which Proposes these Verities infallibly or can belieue nothing And by this you Se the Supposition destroies it Selfe For The Sectaries Supposition destroyes it selfe to Suppose à Doctrin infallible when none can Propose it answerably to its Merit as infallible or infallibly is as implicatory as to Suppose without Proof the Starrs in Heauen equal in number and from thence to Inferr they are to be iudged equal The Parity holds exactly 13. Obiect 2. Whoeuer though fallible Deliuers by chance Infallible Christian Doctrin Teaches the very sence that Christ taught Answ Very true But he giues no Assurance Aunother Errour of Sectaries That he doth so For à fallible Deliuery of à Truth as yet only Supposed not Proued infallible raises it no higher but to such à State of Vncertainty that one may iustly doubt whether it be Christ's infallible Doctrin or no. 14. Obiect 3. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity may well conuey vnto à Hearer that which God has Reuealed For why may not an infallible Verity as Reuealed though fallibly Proposed haue influence vpon Faith and work in Belieuers à most firm Assent Answ It is vtterly vmpossible For à fallible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Proposed as infallible by any neither Supposes the Truth Certain vpon other principles and this is euer to be noted nor makes it infallible It Supposes no Truth taught infalliby for Protestants Say None now can teach so All Doctors being fallible And most euidently Sectaries clearly conuinced it makes not that Verity infallible For the Verity as reuealed was antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching
principio In the beginning What is that Word saith another which was with God or how was it with God Was it One real thing Essential to him or meerly à breath à Word terminated vpon creatures without which nothing was made All know though the Arians had à Church to teach yet with that sure Rule of faith they mangled and misvsed this very passage of the Gospel Therefore difficulties much more would molest these Philosophers hauing no Oracle to interpret And as many would arise concerning other Scriptures relating to the sacred Trinity Original Sin and the like Mysteries 9. Now here is my reflection and I think euery Intelligent An application made to Sectaries person will speak as I doe Iust so much as these Philosophers haue to gloss with and descant vpon So much Sectaries may challenge but no more if we seuer Scripture from the Churches Interpretation Both haue à Body without life words without sense difficulties proposable concerning their reading but none to Answer them 10. The only difference between them is That the Philosophers yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no Schoole to go to Sectaries haue both yet run as it were from Schoole with half à Lesson with one part and t' is The difference between them and the Philophers much the obscurer part of Diuine Learning only the bare Texts I mean of holy Scripture shutting out the Churches infallible Sense And what haue you in lieu of this light which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Christians The weak and errable Sentiments of a few disvnited Sectaries And is this all we can rely on Do we belieue the Trinity the Incarnation and other high Mysteries so obscurely expressed in Gods word that innumerable haue mistaken the true Sense because à Luther à Caluin or their followers expound Whether Luthers followers or an Ancient Church is to teach it Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches Interpretation which has euer taught the world The One or Other must haue influence vpon Faith if we will belieue But most manifestly the first men only of yesterday and fallible are not our Doctors Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Ascertains vs of the Scriptures Sense of its Truth and infallible Doctrin also 11. Two things necessarily follow from this Discourse The one That Protestants Shew themselues strangely vngrateful because Sectaries manifestly vngrateful And why they slight an Oracle which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Christian Faith for in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scripture vpholds that true Assent they yeild to the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity So much is granted Or not Grant it I Ask. Why disdain they to hear this Church in other matters If you deny Their Submission to this and the like Mysteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible dissatisfactory thoughts and glosses Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitiue Churches interpretation and ground their Assent vpon Her Doctrin Nothing is got this way For the most Primitiue Recourse to the Primitiue Church friuolous exposition of Scripture was no more infallible than what the latter Church or Councils haue Defined But enough is said aboue of this Chasing all Controuersies vp to the Primitiue Ages 12. The second Inference is If God has not made Religion à matter of eternal Debate If all are obliged to belieue by diuine Faith the very truths yea the same infallible truths which God has reuealed and no other of à lower or slighter Rank If he has reuealed them for this end that all may be Ascertain'd A second Inference of their intrinsecal Worth That is of being both Diuine and infallible If the whole Christian world remain's not at this day in Errour or is not cast vpon vncertainties what to belieue If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed Doctrin stand's and subsist's firmly ioyned together in God the first Verity impossible to be separated there And if Finally as T' is there true and infallible all are obliged to learn it Nothing can be more manifest then that diuine Prouidence has established and impowred Some Oracle to teach and propose that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and Nâ—tion as it is both true and infallible 13. Thus much Supposed and proued All further Questions The Oracle teaching truth cannot be questioned concerning the Oracle ceases For it neither is nor can be another but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to interpret Scripture faithfully to rescue Gods truths from the lewd misusage of Hereticks Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abuse Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches our Faith is sound Catholick and Apostolical But if Scripture by reason of its Obscurity deceiues any or the Church could deuiate from the sincere interpretation of Gods truths there registred The Very life of true Religion is lost Faith vanishes into errour 14. Who euer seriously Consider's what is already said in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets scattered Mr Stillingfleets Obiections weightles Obiections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils vtterly void of strength Some worthy person of our Nation who he is I know not in his Guide of Controuersies Disc 3. has so broken and vanquished the little force they haue that I may well supersede all further labour herein There is not one Obiection proposed but T' is either first euidently retorted vpon Mr Stillingfleet Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Question Or 3. Impugn's all Councils Or 4. Appears so slight at the very first view that it deserues no Answer What can be more slight then to tell vs as he doth P. 508. That we He Speak's not truth are absolutely auerse from free Councils because we condemn all other Bishops but those of our Church without suffering them to plead for themselues in any Indifferent Council It is hard to say what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent Councils for he fetters all with so many Conditions that neuer any was yet found in the Church so qualified as he would haue it Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter as also P. 557. You will se what I assert Manifest It is true we condemn A Calumny for à Proof all heteredox Bishops and doth not Mr Stillingsleet recriminate and condemn ours But to say we suffer none to plead for Themselues in à free Council is à flat Calumny vnless that only be free which some bodies fancy makes free and no other A word now to one or two Obiections 15. If you saith Mr Stillingsleet require an Assent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible There must be an antecedent Assent to this Proposition That whatsoeuer Councils decree is infallible I first retort the Argument If you require an Assent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting Or hold That the conuened there deliuered true Doctrin There must be an The first Argument retorted
of faith void For suppose I belieue Euery Resolution made null by this Obiection the Trinity because God hath reuealed the Mystery plainly in Holy Scripture I Ask whether God's Testimony supposed the Principle of belieuing be more infallible then the Trinity which is belieued vpon it here called the Conclusion Say The Diuine Testimony is more Infallible I 'll Affirm the very same of the Churches Proposition For what the Church speak's God speak's Answer No. And giue this reason Because we belieue the Testimony and the Mystery attested by one Indiuisible certain Act of Faith which tend's infallibly vpon both these Obiects at once without making Conclusions The difficulty ceases And hereby you se How the Churches Testimony is the Clearer Principle first How the Churches Testimony is à Principle to the thing belieued For euery one knowes that à Formal Obiect compared with its Materialâ— which lies in darkness is the greater Light and has the preheminence to be immediatly known For it Self and not for another Whereas the material Obiect would still remain in à State of obscurity and neuer be yeilded to but by the Energy of its formal Motiue In this sense therefore the vltima ratio assentiendi or formal Obiect may be well called the more certain Principle Though as I now said the Assent be indiuisibly terminated vpon both Obiects infallibly 18. You se 2. Where the mistake of our Aduersarie lies He Supposes faith generated by Discourse First that we belieue The Mistake discouerd the Trinity for example vpon one Principle Viz. The Churches Tradition or Testimony and then descend lower to belieue the same Mystery vpon God's Reuelation distinct from the Churches Testimony As if forsooth the Churches Testimony were an â—xtrinsecal condition preparing all to belieue vpon the Diuine Reuelation This must be intended or nothing is said to the Purpose now we vtterly deny the Supposition and Say when we belieue the Trinity or any other particular Mystery vpon the Churches Testimony or rather vpon this reuealed truth God speaks so by the Church We then elicite not two distinct Acts one depending on the other but with one One Indiuisible tendency in Faith indiuisible tendency of Faith belieue at once the Formal and Material Obiect together That is we belieue God speaks the truth by the Church which is to say we Assent to it because he speak's it by his own infallible Oracle 19. This one syllogâ—sm clear's all What the Church Saies is true The Church Saies God has reuealed the Trinity Ergo that 's true We resolue the Maior or first Proposition thus What the Church saies iâ— true That is What God speaking by the Church saith is true But God speaking by the Church Saies the Mystery of the Trinity is Ergo That 's true Where you see we only Discourse could Faith be so generated which some Diuines Assert from the Formal obiect or from Gods Reuelation to the Material belieued Now Mr Stillingfleet makes this Sense of the Maior Proposition and here lies his Errour that the Church Saies of Her self not including Gods Reuelation is The Errour more Clearly pointed at an act of Faith and true But the Church of her own sole Authority saith God reuealed the Trinity Ergo I must first belieue the Mystery by one act of Faith vpon the Churches Testimony as à Preparatiue to belieue it better vpon Gods pure Reuelation which is another distinct Formal Obiect from the Churches Testimony This Discourse is implicatory First because the Churches Testimony if separated from the Diuine Reuelation can ground no act of Faith 2. If which is true it only cooperates with or consummates the ancient Reuelation in order to the Belief of any Mystery it can help nothing to bring in à Conclusion wholly as obscure as it self is That word Conueyance beguiled Mr Stillingfleet for he thought if the Churches Testimony conueyes vnto vs the ancient Reuelation What beguiled thy Aduersary it must be excluded from being infallible and much more from being à ioynt Motiue with it Herein lies his Errour 20. It is difficult enough To Say what He would be at in his two next pages Some times he will haue no want of Euidence in faith as to the Reason inducing to belieue And if he means That what we Assent to by faith must be euidently Credible before we belieue it s à Truth but if he will haue the very act of Faith elicited to be euident the Apostle Heb. 11. 1. Faith implies Obscurity contradict's him For Faith is an Argument of things not appearing Sometimes again he saith the Assent is not requried to what is obscure and Vneuident And then to mollify the Proposition add's But what is euident to vs And theresore credible In à word Obscure Doctrin if he intend's thus much only That the euâ—dence of credibility precedes the inâ—â—dent act of Faith all is well But by one Instance we may guess where he err's The manner of the Hypostatical vnion Saith he is to vs ineuident wherevnto God requires not our Assent but to the truth of the thing it selfe Answer good Sr Is the truth of the Hypostatical vnion in it selfe or of the Trinity euident to vs Where lies that Euidence The truth of the Trinity euident to no Belieuer Or vpon what Principle is it grounded Hereticks are found that for the very difficulty of these ineuident Mysteries deny both And the best Orthodox Christians ingenuously Profess they so far Surpass all natural capacities That ther is no assenting to either but only by an humble submissiue Faith which essentially implies Obscurity If therefore what you say bo true We may lawfully suspend our Assent where God giues not euidence of the thing Assented to you may Consequently suspend your Assent and neither belieue the Trinity nor the Incarnation 21. Page 140. He demands why we belieue the Resurrection of the dead We Answer because God reueal's it An Obiection Proposed But Questioned again why we belieue that God hath reuealed it We Answer because the infallible Church saies God did speak it whereby it is plain that though our first Reply be from God's Authority yet the last Resolution of our faith is made into the infallibility of the Churches Testimony For though God had reuealed it yet if this Reuelation were not attested by the Church'es infallible Testimony we should not haue sufficient ground to belieue it Therefore the Churches infallibility must be more credible then the Resurrection of the dead 22. To giue à Satisfactory Answer please to hear what I demand also Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour is Answered by Scripture it selfe the true Messias because Christ spake the Truth with his own sacred mouth Iohn 4. 26. And if he belieues Scripture He Assents again to that truth vpon S. Iohns Testimony And so firmly belieues it that if the Euangelist or some other of like authority had not wrote it he could not haue
belieued S. Iohns Testimony or that our Sauiour Spake those words Here is our solution God long since said the dead shall rise but this Ancient Reuelation being remote from vs if solely considered cannot moue vs to belieue the truth vnless an Infallible Oracle Ascertain vs that God once spake it iust as S. Iohn assures all that Christ said I am the Messias Ask now â—hy Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour vttered those â—ords He will Answer God speaking by S. Iohn an Infallible An Application of the Instance clear in Scripture Oracle Affirms it So I say God speaking by the Church an Infallible Oracle affirm's the Resurrection of the dead O but independently of Church Authority we know the resurrection is reuealed in Scripture Contrariwise we know nothing of our Sauiours words but from S. Iohns Testimony Answ we know indeed the Resurrection is asserted in à Book called Scripture But that the Assertion is Diuine or vttered by Eternal Truth we haue no more Infallible certainty without the Churches Testimony Then if any vulgar Samaritan without Diuine Assistance had said Christ spake those words I am the Messias 23. By what is now briefly touched you se first That as our Sauiours own words and S. Iohns reflex Testimony vpon them concurr Indiuisibly to the Faith of these Aduersaries So the reuealed Verity of the Resurrection in Scripture And the The ancient Reuelation and the Churches reflex Testimony Churches reflex Testimony which infallibly Ascertains vs that it is reuealed may well indiuisibly concurr as one compleat Motiue to our faith whereof more hereafter I say indiuisibly And therefore this Faith vltimatly resolued relies not first vpon Scripture only as our Aduersary conceiues without any relation to the Church and then rest's vpon the Churches Concurr indiuisibly to Faith Testimony as vpon à distinct Formal Obiect but by one simple Tendency it pitches on both together 24. You se 2. It s hard to Say what Mr Stillingfleet would haue when he tells vs. This Principle The Church is infallible must be more credible then the Resurrection of the Dead If We clearly distinguisâ— what our Aduersary Confound's he mean's the Churches Testimony is to vs in this present State the more known and nearest Motiue wherevpon the Faith of that Article is grounded we easily Assent But if he think 's we must first Assent to Scripture which asserts the Resurrection and own that as Diuine or the only Motiue of Faith without all Church Authority attesting it to be Diuine He err's not knowing our Doctrin For we Say no Scripture can be infallible An improper Speech assented to as Diuine independently of the Churches Testimony Again those words More Credible are improper if applyed to the Formal Obiect of Faith For the Formal Obiect terminates Belief the Credibility whereof goes before and is grounded on the preuious Motiues inducing to belieue VVhether we Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Title of the Chapter discussed Vpon what ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 25. In many following Pages we haue little but that the Churches Infallible Testimony must be called the Formal Obiect of Faith whereof something is said aboue And you shall haue more hereafter 26. P. 149. He thinks we Argue like men squaring Circles when on the one side we make Scripture obscure yet on the other giue it light enough to proue the Churches infallibility And then he talk's of an Apocalyptical key hanging at the Churches Scripture Proued Diuine Conuinces the Churches Infallibility girdle able to vnlock all the Secrets in it To the first I haue Answered Thus much Supposed that Scripture is proued Diuine we haue so great light from the seueral Passages thereof to conuince the Churches Infallibility that no glosses of Sectaries shall euer obscure them To the Ieer of the Clauis Apocalyptica I Answer Some one or other must vnlock those high secrets when t' is euident innumerable Heretiques by à wrong key wrest Gods word to most pernicious Senses The Question is whether you Sr or the Church must rurn the key 27. Page 152. After thanks giuen for our Coleworts so often serued â—y Those mute Persons the good Motiues of credibility He is Brisque Ieâ—rs and empty words and in earnest resolute to solue our Argument Asking before hand Whether it be not enâ—ugh to be in à Circle our selues but must â—eed's bring the Apostles into it also Reflect I beseech you We said aboue that the Apostles induced by the Signal works and Miracles of our Sauiour Assented to his sacred Doctrin as most infallible In like manner The Primitiue Christians induced by the works and Miracles of the Apostles belieued them to be infallible The force of our Argument Oracles Therefore we also in this present State hauing Motiues and Miracles of the same weight and Euidence in the Roman Catholick Church Belieue with à firm Assent of Faith that She is God's Oracle and her Doctrin most infallible The short Answer to all this saith Mr Stillingfleet is That the ground why the Christians did Assent to the Apostles Doctrin as true was because God Wholly waued gaue sufficient Euidence that their Testimony was infallible in such things where such infallibility was requisite Pray Consider well whether this be not à gliding or rather à plain running away from the Difficulty We haue vrged all this while the Parity between the Churches Motiues and those of the Apostles We haue proued and yet plead That the Euidence is à like in both The Churches most manifest Signes are The blind se The lame walk The dead rise Diuels are dispossesed c. And these termed by you vnsauory Coleworts and mute good Things were the Apostles Signs also Are not you therefore obliged in all law of Disputation What all law of Disputing requireâ— either to proue and vpon sound Principles indeed That we falsly appropriate such Motiues and Miracles to the Church Or if you cannot disparage so illustrious an Euidence to shew à fault in this Inference The Church is known as well by her Signs to be an infallible Oracle 28. Now mark how we are put off with half an Answer God â—y you gaue sufficient Euidence that the Apostles Testimony was infallible None doubt's it But Say on what want do you find of the very like Euidence in the Church Her Miracles are as manifest Her Conuersions as Numerous and more Her fame as renowned Her name as Catholick finally might we vse your scornful language Her Motiues no mute Persons speak Nothing like an Answer giuen aloud and Her Colewarts are euery whit as good as those were the Apostles serued vp To this you Answer not à word but first tell vs with your Aduersary that the Apostles confirmed their Doctrin with Signs that followed by which Signes all their Heares were bound to aknowledge them for
One only Society Proposeth Faith which is rational which is rational and consequently obliges all to belieue her Doctrin 12. Hence you see that euery one in the Choise of Religion is to ponder in the first place those weightly Arguments which make an Election prudent And then it is prudent not otherwise when Signes from Heauen Gods own Marks heighten What makes an Election Prudent the Religions Credibility so far aboue all other false and forged Sects That these at the first full Sight appear as they are horrid gastly and contemptible 13. If you will Discouer more clearly what I would haue reflected on in this Particular Be pleased to compare Heathenism Iudaism Turcism and finally Aeresy with one glorious Roman Catholick Church Speak plainly Can you find in these any thing like the Miracles the Conuersions the large Extent the Vnity and Sanctity of this one most Euidenced Oracle I need not proue the Negatiue You cannot for its Demonstrable to sense Heathenism and Heresy are now things of Scorn the whole world ouer Iudaism t' is true once had its No Society Comparable to the Roman Catholick Church in this rational Euidence Signes and Miracles wherein it far surpassed Heresy which neuer had nor will haue any like it Howeuer Christ's Illustrious Kingdom his Church Militant vastly surmount's that Ancient and now decayed Lustre of Iudaism And thus much briefly of the Euidence of Credibility which once had Faith most firm easily followes and without it none can belieue 14. A second Proposition Faith in this present State is resolued into the Authority of God the first Verity speaking by the Church This way of resoluing Faith is both plain and easy The Plainest resolution of Faith and very suitable to the common Apprehension of euery one learned and vnlearned who if Questioned why they belieue any Diuine Mystery readily Answer Sic docet Sancta mater Ecclesia So our Holy Mother the Catholick Church teaches And they Answer well For the First Instrumental Principle where into Faith is resolued must be so clear and Conspicuous à Rule that all may easily learn the Doctrin deliuered by it 15. The Assertion is plainly laid forth Deut. 30. V. 11. The Assertion Proued by Scripture The Commandment I command this day is not aboue thee nor farr off nor situated in Heauen that thou mays't Say Who of vs is able to ascend into Heauen to bring it to vs That is To know where true Faith is taught we need not to weary our selues with much Speculation or expect that God in Heauen lay open the sense of Scripture by Enthusianisms or any Priuate Reuelation Nor placed beyond the Sâ—a that thou may'st pretend which of vs can passe ouer the sea and bring it to vs. And hereby That endless Labour that euerlasting Inquisition Sectaries endles Labour made after Truth proper to Sectaries seem's reiected Originals must be examined Passages of Scripture compared History sought into Libraries turned ouer Languages learned Yea and the very particular Mysteries of Diuine Faith must be weighed by humane Reason and thus they descend into the Abyss of God's secrets before they come to Satisfaction in Religion All is toylsome all dissatisfactory all endless A more short and easy way is at hand For saith the Scripture Iuxta est sermâ— valde in ore tuo The word is very neere thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart to doe it And the Apostle Rom. 10. 8. Applyes this very Passage to the Word of our Christian Faith Hence I argue 16. But the Church is that first Instrumental Principle The Church is the first Instrumental Principle and most easy Rule which teaches our Christian Verities Scripture teaches them not so plainly Therefore Faith may well bee resolued into the first Verity speaking by the Church and whoeuer resolues it without all dependance of this liuing Oracle put 's the Conclusion before the Premises as we shall see afterward 17. I proue the first part of my Assertion 1. It is as euidently credible that God speak's to all by the Church as that he anciently spake by the Prophets and Apostles For we haue the same supernatural Signes manifested in all these Oracles à The Churches Euident Credibility parallel with that of the Apostles like as is largely shown aboue and Consequently haue with them the same Grounds of an Euident Credibility But Euident Credibility induced the Faithful to belieue those manifested Prophets and Apostles Ergo the Churches Euident Credibility euery way Parallel induces all in this present State to belieue this Oracle 2. God is equally infallible Yea one and the A second reason same Verity whether He speak's by one single Person or many and must be heard with all profound Submission Prouided that the Oracle He speak's by bee made immediatly Credible A third and by the lustre of Supernatural wonders as most euidently the Church is 3. The Church Answerable to the Prophets and Apostles is à Liuing Oracle and vpon that Account able to Solue all doubts which may occurr in controuerted Matters but the Clarity of à liuing euidenced Oracle ready to decide all such difficulties makes the Rule of Faith easy and much auail's to à clear Resolution 4. Our Analysis into God's Veracity Speaking fourth reason by the Church Stand's firm vpon that first Principal and infallible Motiue the Diuine Tâ—stimony it Selfe I call it Principal because the Church is only Instrumental as we now said whereby God speak's And this Resolution is made without any danger of à Process in Infinitum or the least Shadow of à vicious Circle as Shall presently appear by giuing the last Analysis 18. In the Interim know thus much To proue the second The other part of the Assertion it manifest part of our Assertion viz. That Scripture is not à Rule so perspicuous and clear in deliuering the very Chiefe Articles of Faith as the Church is in controuerted Matters were to proue à plain Euidence For what can be more manifes't then that wee and all Hereticks pas't and present are at endless debates concerning the true Sense and meaning of those very words we read in Scripture Yet the Ruel of Faith Sectaries confess it ought to bee clear open and manifest to all I waue all further discourse vpon this Subiect and here adioyn our last Analysis 19. One demand's why I belieue that great Mystery of the Incarnation I may well Answer first God's own sacred The last Resolution giuen Word which we call Scripture Asserts it The next Question will be Why I belieue this to be Scripture I answer The same God speaking by his own Oracle the Church affirm's it A third Question followes Why doe I belieue that God speak's thus by the Church I Answer the Ground of my Faith in All Demands answered this particular is God's own speaking and the very same with that hee spake by the Apostles As therefore his Own word vttered by
as à true Prophet sent from God before they belieued many other Verities which afterward were taught by that great Master and learned by them 14. Note 3. In the Resolution of Faith into Church Authority we vnderstand not in the first place the Church Representatiue VVe vnderstand by the Church the whâ—le moral body of â—hristians vnited in one Faith VVhat the Beliefe of Councils presupposeth consisting of the Head and Members conuened in General Councils but rather this whole large diffused Body of Christians vnited in one Beliefe all ouer the world Wherein the way to Saluation is laid forth to all The Reason of my assertion is first Because that more explicite and distinct Faith had of General Councils Connaturally as wee now said presupposes the other General Truth assented to Viz. This manifested Society of Christians is God's Church and the only way to Saluation and the truth is assented to by Faith antecedently to the beliefe of the Churches Representatiues 2. Because all Catholicks asfert that the whole Moral Catholick Body consisting The promises in Scripture belong Properly to the vniuersal Church of Pastors and Hearers cannot totally err or Swerue from Christ's Sacred Doctrin Whence it is That those Promises of the Gospel Hell gates cannot preuaile against the Church The Spirit of truth abides with it for euer most Properly and Primarily belong to this one diffused and vnited Society of Chtistians To the Pastors as Teachers to the Hearers as Schollers or Learâ—ers And if the First according to Christ's promise teach infallibly the instructed must learn also infallibly And thus the whole Moral body guided and directed by the Spirit of Truth is that stronge Fortress wherevpon all must rely at last if à â—ight account be giuen of Faith or the true Analysis be made Neither can what is now said Preiudice in the least the infallible Authority of the Church Teaching I mean of the Pope and Council assembled together for this notwithstanding is most properly called the Church has and hold's the keyes whilst it vnlock's the Mysteries of Faith and laies open Explicitly A lawful Representatiue properly the Church also our Christian Verities Children teach not Layicks teach not weomen teach not Therefore the Church Representatiue properly teaches although it be not first known viâ Analyticâ that is when faith is brought to its last Principles 15. Note 4. When Sectaries demand where doth the Church taken vniuersally as one diffused Body teach that She is Infallible or that She deliuer's Gods truths Whilst yet neither Scripture nor Councils which teach so are reflected vpon or known in All Oracles sent by God to teach were first made Credible by Motiues that Priority of nature when we belieue that great Moral Body is an infallible Oracle If this I Say be demanded I Answer by proposing à like Question Where did Moyses where did the Prophets or Apostles explicitly and signally Say at their first Appearance VVe are Infallible wee are the sure Rule of Faith and because we say it you Hearers are obliged to belieue Not à word to this Purpose What then was done God Honoured And so the Church was and iâ— yet and priuiledged such Persons with Miracles and other visible supernatural Wonders These Euidenced They actually taught the truth and were credited vpon their Teaching not because they Said in Actu Signato They taught it but because really they did so in Actu exercito and confirmed all by Signs from Heauen And thus the Church teaches to this present Day and gain's Beliefe CHAP. XIII Protestants haue no Faith to resolue And vpon that account are freed from à vicious Circle Some yet are in à Circle Two Sorts of Sectaries refuted 1. I Proue the first part of the Assertion The Protestants supposed Faith is either reduced to the Beliefe VVhat the supposed Faith of Protestants is of their own Negatiue Articles No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Altar No Purgatory c. Or to à Faith common to all called Christians which consists in belieuing One God and one Iesus Christ as à Redeemer This or something like it must be called Faith common to all For to belieue the Sacred Trinity the Incarnation with other great Mysteries is no common Faith because many deny these Articles Now my Assertion is What euer can be conceiued out of the The Obiect of this Faith must either be their Negatiues List of these Negatiues or is not inuolued in that Common Faith ceaseth to be an Article of Protestancy as Protestancy For example To belieue one God is à Tenet common to Iewes Turks and Christians That 's no Article peculiar to Protestants To belieue the Sacred Trinity and the Incarnation is common to Catholicks Protestants and other Heteredox Christians therefore no singular no Special Protestant Doctrin Besides these imagin whateuer can be Imagined you must either Or à Doctrin Common to all Christans pitch vpon things which no Christian has obligation to belieue or finally vpon such Doctrins as Catholicks own and are disowned by Protestants 2. Thus much Supposed it is demonstrable That the Protestant has no Faith to resolue who first doth himselfe so Their Negatiues no reuealed Verities much Iustice as to Cashiere all his own Negatiue Articles from being truths spoken by Almighty God which therefore are not resoluable into the Diuine Testimony because God neuer reuealed any of them Again his Articles common to all Christians without more cannot be resolued into Diuine Reuelation vnless he first excludes with the Arians The beliefe of The Trinity and Incarnation as not necessary to Saluation And afterwards proues by plain Scripture or the Authority of an Orthodox Church that such an Abstract Doctrin wherein Catholicks and all Heretiques agree is sufficient to saue Souls But to Euince either by Scripture or any Church Authority will be wholly as impossible as to proue that the Negatiue Articles are Doctrins reuealed by God 3. Vpon these grounds my Proposition stand's so firm that none can contradict it For if whateuer they doe or can belieue A Doctrin Common to all as Vnsound aâ— their Negatiues as Protestants be euidently such Doctrins as God neuer reuealed it 's manifest they haue no Faith to resolue and consequently are easily freed from all danger of à vicious Circle But this is so For cast away Their Negatiues All that remains as matter of Beliefe to them can be no other but the Common faith now mentioned Or if they require more as necessary to Saluation That More will either be Confessedly no Their particular Doctrins no reuealed Truths Doctrin reuealed by God Or not peculiar to Protestants For example Suppose the Protestant layes Claim to these two Articles Scripture Contain's all things necessary to Saluation Or thus VVhat Scripture speak's plainly is the Protestants Doctrin and no morâ— I say first Neither of these Articles are Confessedly truths reuealed by God And this I assert not only because
The Roman Catholick Church denies them to be truths in the Sectaries sense But vpon this Account Chiefly that it is impossible to Show where or in what passage of Holy Writ God euer sayd plainly Scripture Contain's All things necessary to saluation Or that such Doctrins as are plainty expressed there without more Comprehend Matter enough to Saluation This cannot passe for an indubitable Principle whilst euident Experience tell 's vs That VVhat Sectaries â—ccount clear Veritios Others do noâ— such Verities as Sectaries hold clear and indisputable are yet to this day Controuerted and not esteemed clear by many who goe vnder the name of Christians Obserue well 4. What Verity can be more clear then the Incarnation of the Eternal word Yet Arians deny it What more clear then the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Yet the Caluinists reiect it Therefore when we Come to Examin which Verities are clearly expressed in Scripture and which not we are thrown into à Labyrinth whilst no other Iudge is made vse of but the bare words of Scripture manifestly peruerted when Opposit to the Interpretation of à Vniuersal Church 5. But here is my least Exception We will Contrary to truth grant gratis That Scripture Contain's all things necessarily to Saluation Withall that the plain Doctrin thereof is matter enough Sectaries clearly conuinced by their own Principles for Beliefe The Sectary yet gain's Nothing vnless He descend's to the Particular Tenets of Protestants Mark my words And truly Assert's These and these Doctrins are plainly set down in Scripture These and these Doctrins I am as Protestant Obliged to belieue vnder pain of Damnation and no more Thus much I say ought to be done which is vtterly Impossible And the Reason is Either those Doctrins layd claim to will not be plain express Scripture Or if plain and express they cease eo ipso to be the particular Tenents of Protestants The last reason of all rest's vpon à Truth already proued and T' is That Protestants haue no Essence of Religion and therefore haue no Faith to resolue 6. In passing you may Ask. What Say we to such Protestants as make the Negatiues now mentioned Articles of their Faith These we dispatch in à word and vrge them to proue their Negatiues by Scripture which is impossible But what is to be done if they Pretend to belieue the Catholick Doctrins the Trinity the Incarnation or any other reuealed Mystery vpon God's diuine Testimony 7. Here we must distinguish between Protestants and Protestants Two sorts of Protestants refuted The older sort belieue the Scriptures Diuinity attesting the Incarnation For example by virtue of à secret and hidden Diuine Spirit of God working in their hearts this being the only light or means whereby that Diuinity is laid open to their intellectual The Priuate Spirited men plainly in à Circle Eyes These ineuitably fall into à Circle for they proue Scripture to be of Diuine inspiration because the Spirit tell 's them so And again they belieue this interiour light or Spirit to be from God moned thereunto by the very light or letter of Scripture not known at all to be Diuine but by this hidden Spirit which is as much vnknown as Scripture without their light But because the recourse to the Priuate Spirit in the Resolution of Faith is amply refuted by euery Polemick Author And now much vnderualued by our latter Sectaries I 'll only briefly Propose one Argument against all that Patronize it 8. Either this Spirit is Scripture or really distinct from A Conuincing Argument against the Priuate Spirit Scripture Grant the first Scripture no Selfe euidence is yet belieued for it Selfe only and so no more is Said but that Scripture is belieued because t' is Scripture without all further Probation If secondly you distinguish this Spirit or light from Scripture it followes that the Diuinity of Gods word is Assented To and belieued Vpon à Motiue which is not Gods word For this supposed Light of the Spirit not at all contained in Scripture is no reuealed word of God and consequently Scripture is belieued for That which is no Scripture 9. The newer Sectaries with whom Mr Stillingfleet Sides suppose à fallible Tradition as à Preparatiue to receiue the meer Books of Scripture which once owned vpon the account Other resolue Faith into the internal Euidence of Scripture of Tradition The Resolution of their Faith is made into the Diuine Light which Shines in the very Doctrin of God's word That is into the rational Euidence thereof So Mr. Stilling P. 226. And P. 222. Discourses thus Though Tradition doth not open our Eyes to see this light yet it present's the Obiect to vs to be seen and that in an vnquestionable manner To giue his Doctrin Tradition Say these Conueyes the Book more Lustre he set's it forth with the sparkling of à Diamond Nay not à man Saith he very probably belieue that à Diamond is sent hiâ— foom à friend vpon the Testimony of à Messenger who brings it and yet be firmly perswaded of it by discerning the Sparklings of it He He would Say Tradition resembles the Messenger that hand 's Scripture to vs but the very innate Splendor and Sparkling of its Doctrin is that which Faith must be finally resolued into without regard had to Tradition 10. This way of resoluing Faith differ's from the Former that it makes the pure Verity of Gods word considered Obiectiuely in it Selfe the last Resoluent or the only Formal Obiect of belieuing How these men differ from the Formar whereas the more aged Protestants superadd to that an internal vital act called the Priuate Spirit or an infused instrinct of Grace whereby the Scripture is clearly discerned to be Diuine and into this Instinct as à Medium Cognitum or the only means to see by which both discouer's the Scriptures Diuinity and it's sense they resolue their Faith This way being already reiected 11. We now Argue against Mr Stillingfleet and Say first The similitude of à Messenger deliuering the Diamond is nothing The Similitude of à Diamond Proofles to the Purpose For were that Diamond found in the streets à skilful Ieweller And who more skilful then Protestants when they read Scripture would soon know its worth by his Art and presently tell you whether the sparkling were Counterfeit or no. Can the Sectary as easily discouer the Diuinity in Scripture by its innate Light and Splendor Speak plainly If The Disparity plain between the Diamond and Scripture he can Tradition no more conduces to its Sparkling then if à Boy first put the Book into our hands or were found by chance in the Highway For as the Diamond Sparkles by it selfe without dependance of the hand which giues it so the Scripture must do if it haue that splendor in it whether Conueyed by Tradition or not Nay if another Scripture were now drop't down from Heauen were the Parity of the Diamond worth any thing
Fifteen and I le tell you which it is the Churches glorious Miracles hath so silenced Sectaries that none of them all has hitherto attempted to return any better answer than this Bellarmine thou lies't He Saies 2. The only certain Note of the true Church is its agreement with the Primary foundation of it in the Doctrin whâ—ch was infallible and attested by miracles vndoubtedly Diuine This is à strange Note or Mark which cannot be distinguished from the thing Marked as the Motiues of Credibility manifestly sensible are distinguished from the Doctrin belieued 10. Answer therefore Good Sr is this Agreement with the Primitiue Doctrin it s owns Self Euidence as à Mark should be Or do all dissenting Parties accord thus far That anciently such That 's made à clear Mark â—as the Primitiue Doctrin but now is changed from it selfe into another new Learning Most euidently no. For the whole contest between the Church and Her Aduersaries may these be â—eard is whether of vs Professe the Primitiue Doctrin laid in the first foundation of Christianity This point then being yet disputable for so Sectaries will haue it it is meer folly to make it à Mark whereby to distinguish truth from falshood And there is which Sectaries must Say is yet disputable and obscure no clearing it from Improbability vnless you say Sectaries more â—iâ—e then the rest of the world can exactly tell vs who those Christians are that now agree with the Primitiue Doctrin and who dissent from it But others as wise as they want faith to belieue such bare Assertions without Proofs and Principles In à word there is no knowing what the Primitiue Doctrin was nor can any now haue infallible certainty of the Apostles Miracles without à Church actually in Being and Infallible 11. He saith 3. If our Doctrin be repugnant to what was Originally 〈…〉 ered by the Founder of the Christian Church our Society is not the Conditional Propositions here Proofless Christian Church Answ No more Sr is Yours if it be repugnant But To what purpose are these Iss and conditional Propositions when Proofs are expected from Accusers Proue you if you can but doe it vpon sound Principles that our Doctrin is repugnant to that which was Originally deliuered you are Conqueâ—our and we no more Catholicks but Sr à hundred more of your Volumes will neuer Euince this 12. He demands 4. whether we cannot conceiue à Church should A fallible Church cannot be Consonant to Christ's Doctrin be Consonant to the Doctrin of Christ without being infallible Answ No truly T' is impossible and here is the Reason because in à lesse space then one Age there would be as many Religions in such à Church as there are Townes or villages in it And perhaps more And is not this manifest in England where almost euery year we haue à new Religion coyned Therefore to Imagin à Society of men vnited rogether in the belief of Christ's infallible Doctrin without an infallible Oracle to teach is à meer Chimera O but euery Man in this fallible Society is bound to take care of his soul and to belieue the infallible Doctrin of Christ I Answer If to take care of his Soul necessarily implies the Belief of Christ's infallible Doctrin it is impossible to take that care because he can haue no infallible Assurance of Christs Doctrin without à Church which teaches it infallibly Hereof enough is said aboue 13. Page 134. He desires to haue such Miracles wrought as may conuince Infidels as to the point of the Churches infallibility Answ He has all he can desire The Blind se A Parallel of Miracles The Dumb speak the Deaf hear The Dead rise vp to life again were our Sauiours own Miracles and conuinced Infidels but these are our Churches likewise as is largely proued Disc 2. C. 8. What would the man haue more 14. Page 135. To his no little disgrace without any Proof at all he scornfully slights that euident and most known Miracle An Euident Miracle slighted wrought at Zaragosa in Spain But enough of this aboue Disc 2. C. 9. Here I can add hauing it from à right Honourable Person yet liuing who heard His Maiesty Charles the first Say in the presence of many others The cure of that young Man at Zaragosa was certain Some herevpon Proposing à further Question whether it could be thought à Miracle His Maiesty Answered be it as you will the thing was done The leg cut off and buried was certainly restored again 15. In the same Page he Questions whether the Motiues we produce belong only to our Church But grant Saith he they do belong its hard to find the connexion between them and Infallibility We haue Answered to the first No Society of men can shew the like Motiues and therefore vrge Mr Stillingfleet to produce his Euidence That is To proue they The Conneâ—ion between Miracles and Infallibility euinced belong to any other Society But to the Roman Catholick Church only The other point concerning the Connexion Nicodemus à Prince of the Iewes Iohn 3. V. 2. long since cleared Rabbi we know thou art come à Master or Teacher from God for no man can do these Signs which thou dos't vnless God be with him Was then our Sauiour proued by the works and the Miracles he did à Master sent from God to teach And did these Signs conuince reason that God was with him when he taught None can deny it Therefore none can doubt ' but that He was also proued infallible by Virtue of His wonders And consequently the connexion between them and infallibility hold's good But The true Inference the Church and here is our Inference Euidences the very like Signes aboue the force of nature therefore reason concludes that She also is proued Infallible Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is either obliged to find à flaw in the consequence or to giue à Disparity between our Church-Motiues and those other Primitiue which he neuer goes about to do 16. I meet with nothing in His. 136. Page but loud vntruths Another Parergon to diuert the Reader concerning our Doctrin of Pennance as if we indulged sin here and yet gaue men hope of Heauen hereafter It is à Calumny euery one knowes we teach no such Doctrin and â—n this place à meer Parergon besides I therefore slight it and take notice of another straying out of the way P. 137. where he Speak's thus The Principles of any Conclusion must be â—f more credit then the Conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles â—f Faith The Trinity and Resurrection be the Conclusions And the Principles by which they are proued be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it â—ust needs follow That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Articles of faith if the Faith we haue of those Articles should be finally resolued into the veracity of the Churches Testimony 17. This Difficulty not well digested either Proues nothing or makes euery Resolution