The iudgement of Credibility not attained by examining the Mysteries of Faith he come to this setled iudgement All I read not euidently true ex terminis is yet indubitably so Now this iudgement is not first got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the Church teaches No. There is à farr easier way whereby reason after à further discourse concludes that either God hath cheated the world by the Miracles the sanctity The blood shedding of Martyrs and all those conuersions wrought by the Church or we must grant That what the Church teaches is true And this general iudgement arising immediatly from à due Ponderation of the motiues of Faith which is Science disposeth an vnderstanding to belieue this great Truth God speaks his eternal verities by that Church be it yet where you will which Christ Iesus founded And in this sense we say à general Notion or knowledge of the Church manifested by supernatural signes is vsually necessary to the belief of euery particular Doctrin deliuered by it and consequently particular Doctrins can be no first mark or sign of this Oracle Thus much is here briefly hinted at to solue the obiection Hereafter the whole Analysis shall be most particularly discussed in its due place 4. A. 2. inference True Religion is first found by its marks The true Church is known before we can know the books of scripture and cognisances before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture can be owned as Diuine We come therefore to à knowledge of these incorrupt books by the help of that Christian Society where true Religion is taught and cannot first know where true Religion is by the books of scripture only I say First know For without all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the sense is once admitted vpon the authority of Christs Church we argue and forceably as the Fathers anciently did against Sectaries by Scripture But all such arguments presuppose the Books proued Diuine and sacred The reason of the inference is These Books only contain à simple narration of our Christian verities which both Iewes and Gentils slight therefore though we cry neuer so loud Scripture is Diuine and written by the Holy Ghost we effect nothing with these Aliens from Christ vnless we first conuince the truth by proofs distinct from Scripture it self And as little is No disputing by Scripture only without the Canon and sense be agreed on done if Christians of à different belief dispute by Scripture when neither the Canon nor the sense is agreed on For example Marcion produceth his Bible The Arian his and his sense A third à Scripture without S. Iames Epistle or that to the Hebrewes Our Sectaries Crowd in with their book whilst others as learned reiect their Canon and much more that sense they force from it in à hundred passages What is to be done in this Confusion Must wee admit of Marcions Bible or submit to our Sectaries Canon and new sense also No certainly it Cannot be expected Perhaps they will say we are to dispute the question and rigidly examin who hath the true Canon and sense of Scripture They or wee This ends the difference Very good But say on I beseech you And first giue vs à sure Principle à doubtful one in so weighty à matter help 's little which may bear vp the controuersy and at last end it for vnless this principle be agreed on the result of our dispute will be nothing but à fruitles wrangling O the Fathers and Antiquity well pondered cannot but decide the debate I answer may we iudge by the effect the assertion is most vntrue The ancient Fathers peruerted by sectaries end not Controuersies For haue not we and Sectaries now read and pondered the Fathers and Antiquity for one whole age what can be alleged on both sides as well for the Canon as the sense hath been said and after all are we not still as much at variance as farr off from ending the controuersy as when we began it Say Now but vpon à solid Principle who is in fault The Sectary thinks wee vnderstand not the Fathers and we are sure he abuseth them with farr fetch 't glosses He saith their words are clear for his sence and we profess the Contrary Hitherto we come to nothing like à Principle The Controuersy therefore driuen on no further but to the sectaries bare Yea and our No hangs yet in the ayre wholly vndecided The reason is Though the Fathers words be neuer so plain for our Catholick verities yet after the Sectary hath laid his glosses vpon them they are most vnworthily made by him as doubtful and à matter of as great contest as the very sense of Scripture is which both of vs would haue cleared by the Fathers testimony That is There is as much adoe may Sectaries glosses haue place to vnderstand what à Father teaches concerning the sense of scripture as to vnderstand Scripture it self before we haue recourse to the Fathers To recurre therefore to their interpretation in Controuerted matters whilst Sectaries as much darken that by their glosses as they obscure the Scripture we dispute about is The matter in Dispute no meet Principle to end it euidently à most vnfit way to end any Controuersy vnless that which is the very matter of Dispute between vs can be supposed à meet and sufficient means to end it which is impossible Now if the sectary blames vs because we reiect that sense he drawes from either Scripture or the Fathers and he also reiect ours what haue we but wrangling Both parties hitherto only word it and stand chafing at one an other without Principles God therefore hath prouided vs à surer and easier way to end debates about Religion whereof more in the sequele Chapters CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 1. NOte first If God as I said aboue once established true Religion among Christians He made it so discernable from all false sects that it may be found out by prudent reason Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertull. lib. 1. de Testimonio animae It s more known then any other learning For to say on the one side That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the world which shall not perish and on the other to assert it cannot be proued or found out is first to cast à blemish on Prouidence and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it because none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reason or rational arguments Note 2. The Doctrin of Christ which essentially constitutes true Religion stand's most firm vpon
into blood as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine Consequently they renounce both the parity and open sense of the words And which is euer to be noted wilfully do so when they haue nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on Contrariwise the Catholick in this debate denies no express sense of any Fathers Testimony but only makes Inquiry into the Signification of words which are confessedly dubious Take here one instance Gelasius saith The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be First I make no account of this Gelasius Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi Contra Eutich He was not that holy Pope so called but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl Howeuer these two particles substance and nature may ex placito indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massinesse of bread and wine for natural qualities which flow from an Essence haue or often sustain as was noted aboue the name of that Essence they come from Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious sense but only contends that Nature and substance may signify as is most Of Gelasius How much his authority is worth vsual the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be And he giues this signification to these two words because Scripture Church and the Fathers wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends forceth him to it And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine Thus much may be said if that authority were worth any thing Read I beseech you Brereley In his Lyturgy of the Masse cited aboue pag 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined and that in very truth this Gelasius who euer he was speaking against the Eutichians as Theoderet did vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also Open the book and read you will be satisfyed I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Obiections 18. There is yet an other Reply Sectaries may say we suppose all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin The Supposition is denied because they quote t' is true not many but some Fathers and Scripture also to countenance their new opinion By the way here is occasion again to reflect on what is often noted viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers and they explicate all They cite also and we do the like and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other we are as much iarring as we were before without hope of ending Controuersies this way Now my Answer to the first part of the Obiection is We Catholicks suppose nothing but only The answer to an other reply take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church which was neuer censured by any Orthodox society of Christians Vpon these Principles therefore Scripture Church and Fathers we stand immoueable To that which followes I Answer Sectaries haue not one syllable of Scripture in fauour of their Nouelty and to omit à rehearsal of those triuial Arguments drawn from certain passages where they conceiue the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine c. I conuince my Assertion by the positiue ground abready established which none shall ouerthrow If this be the true sense of Scripture when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solue it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament Christ who is aboue in heauen is not really present on the Altar but in his sign only Or that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread only deputed to à holy vse If this I say be the true sense of Gods word Christs Orthodox Church expresly deliuered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luthers Reuolt for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth But no Orthodox Church then taught so or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture or Malicious and concealed it from Christians our Sectaries sense is not Scripture To confirm this Reason All know that the Roman Catholick Church then as well as now absolutly renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture and for that cause was not say they Orthodox in this particular Doctrin but no other Church confessedly Orthodox taught it at that time Therefore it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning All I would say is briefly laid forth thus 19. The true Church of Christs euer deliuers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters so much Protestants grant But No true Church deliuered this their sense three or four ages before Luthers reuolt Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost but à whimsy lately inuented This Argument I hold demonstratiue You will perhaps ask What is that these men can pretend to hauing neither Scripture nor Orthodox Church to rely on I 'le tell you in à word They allege How Sectaries endeauour te solue it first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers which the Catholick admit's not in the sense of Nouellists yet according to the clear plain and obuious signification of words as is now declared and He prudently giues this signification to ambiguous words because the Doctrin he owns stand's firm vpon other indubitable Principles Scripture Church and Fathers The Sectary euidently wants such Principles and therefore vapors as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities The next thing relyed on is much worse and purely nothing but fancy He reads Scripture and those euident Testimonies of Fathers as manifest for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it and these forsooth he endeauours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses without the least shadow of any distinct Principle which giues so much as à Colour to his fancied interpretations You shall see this truth most manifestly proued in the ensuing Chapter CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubious and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as vnwilling to catch flies as Mr Stilling is to kill them T' is his own phrase yet I must do so in some measure or permit à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort wauing many of lesser moment and I doe thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores For I am well assured If our
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
leaue them without excuse to silence them for euer Here is an vn answerable Dilemma Either the marks now kinted at are admitted or reiected Suppose them owned as clear cognisances of the true Church or of Her Orthodox Doctrin we most justly urge Protestants to proue what I know will neuer be made probable Viz. To shew That they had à Church three or four Ages since inuested in the signes and marks now mentioned On the other side if which is usual such marks be slighted as unmeet to manifest the true Church it must bee granted They haue no euidenced Church and Consequently no true Doctrin with it Hence I Argue Who euer belieues in an uneuidenced Church destitue of all Signes and marks of truth belieues in no true Church The Protestant belieues in such an vneuidenced Church Therefore he belieues in no Church But he who belieues in no Church belieues à Doctrin more than improbable or absolutely false And this is fancy or worse than fancy 3. What answer think ye do Sectaries return to this Argument They return no probable Answer A strange one indeed They tell vs the only Mark of the Church lies not in any external Notes but appear's in the written word of God and the Purity of Scripture So Alstedius Lib. de notis Ecclesia C. 29. Whitaker Contro 2. 9. 5. C 17. and Mr Stillingfleet here and there seem's well pleased with the fancy Contra. 1. The Church had her Marks besore Scripture was written what euer sensible Signes Then distinguished that holy Society from all heretical Conuenticles makes it yet known to the world and Still as clearly point's it out For the writing of Scripture nothing at all obscured the exteriour lustre of those Signes or prudent Motiues Contra. 2. A Mark which makes an obscure thing known is euer more clear and sensible than that is which is marked by it The Church Say Sectaries The Church more clearly manifested than Scripture is obscure and must be first known by Diuine Scripture But this very Diuinity of Scripture is more obscure than the Church For it is not its own Self-euidence nor known ex terminis to be Diuine Therefore vnless this Diuinity be made manifest by an other light it cannot giue to all the first notice of the Church which appeares More clearly to sense and reason by its own Signes than Scripture doth 4. Hence it followes 1. That Scripture which should first mark out the Church cannot do it being more obfcure than the thing marked by it It followes 2. That the Church thus marked is its own Self-euidence not Farther demonstrable to Reason Who euer therefore depriues the Church of her external Motiues or takes from her the glory of Miracles of Antiquity Conuersions c. Shall long grope in the dark before Hee find's either Church or Scripture You will say Scripture known by the vniuersal Tradition of Christians may well mark out and first discouer the true Church Tradition being à thing most known and Sensible to all Contra. This very Tradition either supposes à Church signalized with other Of what weight pleading Tradition is rational Motiues or excludes them And imports no more but the bare Consent of Christians that accept of Scripture as Gods Diuine word Grant the first we haue all that 's wished Plead only by the Second or tell à Heathen who may be gained to belieue the Church That all Christians vniuersally own Scripture as Diuine and mention nothing of Miracles or other Motiues manifest in the Church He will soon reply The Chineses haue also vniuersal Tradition or à general consent of à People largely diffused for their Bible The Turks haue it for their Alcoran yet such à Tradition alone is no Mark of God's word or the true Church Why then should it be à mark to Christians if no more be said 5. And the Heathen easily makes his Plea good by this conuincing Reason à Priori Before this vniuersal Tradition was before you so many Christians agreed in the Belief of your Bible the Doctrin Thereof was made credible vpon other Motiues These Motiues are not now extinguished or of lesser account because you haue agreed on the Scriptures Diuinity Nay they The Heathēs exceptions against Tradition only must be presupposed to haue been before you agreed For this Agreement is not the cause of the Bibles credibility but an effect of the same That is Therefore so many Christians haue agreed by à vniuersal Consent that Scripture is Gods word because it was made credible to Reason Antecedently to an Agreement so vniuersal But the ground of this Agreement was no other but the Authority of the Orthodox Church gloriously euidenced by the Lustre of her Signes and Motiues c. This Principle alone vtterly ruins Mr Stillingfleets Resolution of Faith as shall be made clear in an other place 6. Again saith the Heathen you Protestants discours not probably you iust proceed as one doth who laies Colours before à blind man and bid's him iudge of them You say that both I and Iewes are blind and cannot discouer the light which lies in the Scriptures Diuinity If this be so how can you imagin that I may find out the true Church by the light of Scripture though admitted vpon Tradition which I can no more look on than an owle on the Sun at Noon-day Neither will it help you at all if you Say Scripture interpreted both Mark 's and manifest's the true Church For I must first know that Scripture is Diuine before I giue credit to any Interpreter And though I were ascertained of that Diuinity yet I am still to seek whether your Interpretation or the Arians be better and this I cannot know without à sure Rule extrinsick to Scripture And all fallible Interpretation Yet the Heathen hath not done but pinches the Protestant shrewdly Admit saith he that Scripture Mark 's out the Church and giues vs the first Euidence of it when it tells vs. The Church is à Citty built vpon à Mountain and founded on à Rock That all Nations shall flock to it That Christ will be with it to the end of the world That it euer had and will haue Pastors Visible He clearly conuinces Sectaries and audible till we all meet in one Vnity of Faith That it is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. Can you my good Protestants show me such à Church belonging to you three or four Ages since when you had not one single man in the world professing your Protestant Religion Where was then your Protestant Citty visible on à Mountain What Rock stood it on in those daies when it was not in being What Nations what Iewes what Gentils did it then conuert to your Nouelties How was Christ then with it and taught it all Truth when there was no such Church to learn his Doctrin Giue me à Catologue of your Visible Pastors at that time or tell me how your Church was then à Pillar
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
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
become Heretiques by it The very hazard men run in this wilful Course is an open Iniury to the Supremest Verity vnauoidable in out Sectaries Principles 15. And here by the way you se the Vanity of that pernicious Doctrin published by them wherewith the world is Sectaries pernicious Doctrin cheated Viz. The Sense of Scripture is plain enough euen to the vnlearned in things necessary to Saluation in other matters not necessary à right Faith an vnerring Guide an infallible Interpreter See◠vseles and superfluous As if forsooth the Arians Pelagians Nestorians had not grosly erred in Points most necessary though Concerning the Clearness of Scripture they read the same plain Scripture which we all read Did the◠that supposed Clearness nothing secure them from Heresy in Necessaries Why should it I beseech you rescue Sectaries wholly as fallible from gross errours in other matters when the words of Scripture are more express against them than against the worst of Arians But hereof enough is said aboue 16. It followes 3. That no Christian has stability in Faith but the Roman Catholick for the most which others no members of this Church can know if yet they know so much is That the Books of Scripture are Gods word but with this half piece of imperfect Learning they neither know nor can belieue one particular Article of Christian Faith because that other The Roman Catholick only has Stability in Faith Principle the last Resoluent of all Belief God speaks infallibly this very Sense has no influence ouer their Assent and therefore is reiected by them as impertinent to ground Faith vpon One instance will giue you more light 17. The Arian and Protestant agree thus farr That those words Iohn 1. 5. 9. Three giue Testimony in heauen c. are Diuine Both Arians and Protestestants want à Stability Scripture yet so vary about the meaning and the difference is in à matter most fundamental that the One Assent's to the sacred Trinity for these words which yet the Other impiously denies Say now vpon what infallible Principle doth the Protestants faith stand more firm than that of the Arian Will Mr Stillingfleet say the Scripture is Clear The Arian takes him off that Plea and endeauours to obscure the passage by adding to it no small number of his Arian Glosses Next And why he Argues thus ad hominem and thinks no wrong at all done Can yee Sectaries belieue that your glosses laid vpon those Scriptures which Catholicks produce against you are strong enough to diuert and peruert the Sense or Interpretation of their Vniuersal Church and shall my glosses opposite to your Doctrin haue no force to diuert or weaken the late priuate inuented Sense of à few Lutherans What law is there for this I call it late and priuate as it comes from you for you How the Arian argues against Sectaries disdain to ground it vpon any Church Authority absolutly infallible in all She teaches Therefore it is your own Priuate Sense and not the Churches O but the Church of Rome in this particular interpret's Scripture faithfully though She err's in other matters Pitiful That is She hitt's right when You 'l giue leaue and misses when you think otherwise 18. One may Say again The whole Orthodox world euer proued the Mysterious Trinity from that alleged Passage of Scripture Contra Replies the Arian I and my Adherents who deny the Mystery hold our Selues as precious à Part of the His Argument Conuinces Orthodox world as you Protestants doe And hope we expound Scripture by the help of our priuate Reasoning and comparing Texts together as well as you Why not I beseech you Or giue à Disparity But say on And the contest is ended Haue you any Oracle which more infallibly Ascertain's you of that Sense of Scripture to be as you gloss then we haue who giue it à quite contrary Interpretation For hitherto we are both alike and expound all by our priuate Iudgements Grant such an Oracle Distinct from Scripture whereby you haue Assurance of God's meaning darkly expressed in those words you become plane Papists Own not Any Infallible you cast your Selues vpon as great Vncertainties as we Arians are thrown who expound Scripture by our own natural Discourse No infallible Church therefore no Stability No Orthodox world without an Infallible Church in faith no Stability in faith that specious word of an Orthodox VVorld Signifies nothing For this I Defend and haue Proued it if all Churches be fallible in their Definitions there neither is nor euer was since Christs time any such thing in being as an Orthodox VVorld 19. It followes 4. That as it has euer been the proper Mark or Character of all faithful Belieuers to yeild Submission The distinct Marks of true Belieuers and All Hereticks to the Churches Doctrin though weak reason conceiues it difficult so Contrarywise stubbornly to resist Church Authority has euer been inseparably the Mark and Badge of all Heretiques whether ancient or modern With this virulent Spirit they began to Oppose God's Oracle and held on for à time But as S. Austin obserues at last ended in shame Conterentur saith the Saint the battered Rock of the Catholick hitherto stand's firm maugre that Violence And their Scattered forces routed and broken as experience tells vs are brought to nothing CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 1. WHat followes in Mr Stillingfleets 3. or 4 next Pages seem's so slight that the very most is refuted by the grounds already established Yet to Comply with the mans humour we must follow him further How Saith He can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be Infallible when The sirst Argument retorted that infallibility is attempted to be proued only by the motiues of Credibility I Answer Iust as you make the Assent of the Primitiue Christians giuen to the Apostles preaching infallible So I make the Assent to the Churches Testimony infallible The Motiues are alike in both Cases if not greater for the Church 2. He Obiects 2. If Diuine Faith cannot be built vpon the Motiues prouing the Doctrin of Christ what sense is there that it should be built vpon those Motiues which proue our Churches infallibility Here is the old Mistake again I Answer therefore Diuine Faith is not built vpon the Motiues inducing to belieue but vpon the Infallible Testimony of Christ and his Church The Motiues ground the Iudgement of Credibility The Infallible Testimony Support's The second is à gross Mistake Diuine Faith Now if by this word Built you mean no more but rationally To induce I say none in this present State can be induced to belieue Christ's Doctrin reuealed in Scripture in case he reiect's the Authority of that euidenced Church which
of Diuine Inspiration because this Otacle saith so Then we Argue vpon à Principle proued by vs and supposed though not proued by Sectaries The Principle is Scripture is God's word We read the book which all Christians Say is Diuine And proue also from it the Churches infallibility against our Aduersaries Ex probatis concessis That the book is Diuine Here is no danger of à Circle nor any fault in this way of Arguing 8. Yet Mr Stillingfleet makes his Exceptions and will needs haue the Circle goe on against vs. You proue Saith he the Churches infallibility from such Passages Super hanc Petram Pasce oues c. But how come you to know infallibly A reply retorâ—ed that the Sense of those places is as you belieue For your Aduersaries deny any such thing as infallibility proued out of them I may Answer first by proposing the like Question How do these Aduersaries know that their contrary sense is exactly the true Meaning of the Holy Ghost Will they tell vs they think so here is all we haue from them what am I better for that When the Donatists Pelagians and all Heretiques can think as boldly as any Protestant And by their deluded thoughts vnsense as we se by experience the most choise and sacred Passages in holy writ To whom then shall we recurr in case the Sense be doubtful I Answer to the Church O saith Mr Stillingfleet Here we are got into à Circle again and though his own words see them in the page cited fine giue no force to his Probation yet I 'le help them on to all the Strength his meaning is capable of He should therefore Another Reply Answered Argue thus We belieue the Churches infallibility because the true sense of Scripture sayes she is infallible Again We belieue this very Sense of Scripture to be infallibly true because the infallible Church saith so I haue Answered The first Act of Faith wherwith we belieue the Churches infallibility is not at all founded vpon the true Sense of Scripture as yet not known in illo signo to be so much as Diuine but vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediatly credible 9. Now if we Speak of another Distinct consequent and more explicite act of Faith when we belieue the Churches infallibility vpon this ground That She declares the Scriptures geâ—â—in Sense which proues Her an infallible Oracle There is no difficulty at all Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is vltimatly resolued into and therefore again belieued vpon the same infallible Authority The sense of Scripture resolued and belieued of the Church or rather vpon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus iointly taken They ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles As if we first belieued the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation And then Vpon Scripture and Church Authority ioyntly again belieued the Churches Interpretation to be infallible because the Sense of Scripture known aliunde or without Depending on Church Authority Saith she is infallible This cannot be if Scripture and the Churches Interpretation Indiuisibly concurr to this lotter act of Faith whereof we now speak 10. Here then is à Dilemma that clear's all and free 's vs from the least Shadow of à Circle We either know or belieue the Scriptures Sense independently of the Churches infallible The Assertion Clearâ—d Interpretation or receiue it vpon her infallible Authority Grant the first There is no danger of à Circle for in case that Truth were know vpon à sure Principle distinct from the Church it would be another new and as strong à Probation of her Infallibility as if an Angel sent from Heauen should interpret Scripture to the Catholick Sense And then we might Assent to the Churches Infallibility vpon two disparate Principles which proue not one another The one Ordinary the Churches own Interpretation The other independent and extraordinary Should an Angel or Prophet sent from God interpret Say 2. We belieue the Sense of Scripture vpon the This way no two Propositions to make à Circle of Churches own infallible Authority There are no two imaginable Propositions to make à Circle of whilst that Sense internal to the letter can not be infallibly propounded otherwise then by the Church 11. Page 128. I find an vnlearned Obiection much to this Sense We Catholicks destroy all Possibility of auoiding à Circle if we proue by the Motiues of credibilty no new Reuelations Distinct from the old And this we Pretend not to For A weak Obiection in effect solued we only seek to euince by these Motiues à Diuine Assistance with the Church in euery thing She Defines but this Assistance cannot be proued from any other ground but only from the Promises made in Scripture Therefore we are still in à Circle For we belieue the Scriptures infallible because of the Churches Testimony and we belieue the Church infallible because of the Promises in Repeated Again Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church so as to secure Her from all Errour Here in Effect is the same Obiection repeated again Therefore I Answer We belieue not in the first place the Churches infallible Assistance moued therevnto by the Promises in Scripture For this first General Act of Faith wholly relies vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture because Her Testimony One Instance clear's all is made most Credible to reason by conuincing Motiues before we belieue that She is insallibly Assisted All must Say what I now Assert For before Scripture was written The Primitiue Christians belieued infallible Assistance granted the Apostles in euery Doctrin they taught being induced to belieue so by the Signes and Miracles which those blessed men Euidenced In like manner we in this present State answerable to the Procedure of these Christians hauing the same Motiues manifest in the Church may well be induced to belieue That She both now is and euer was no lesse Assisted by the Holy Ghost to speak Truth then the Apostles were for as much as concern's the Substance and Verity of her Doctrin CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffling The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communities and proue Her Infallible The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin no Mark of the Church More Mistakes and Errours discouered Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Belieues but not vpon Diuine the Testimony That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books to be Diuine 1. IN the next place Mr Stillingfleet labours to solue his Aduersaries main Argument the Substance whereof The substance of the Argument is As Christ and his Apostles proued themselues Oracles sent from God by their works Signes and Miracles Again as the Primitiue Christians
doe it He had offered at something But in doing so He would First haue receded from the General true Principle And next haue spoken à loud vntruth because Protestants haue no such wayes Now only to tell vs what all the world knowes and to make that à Principle for Protestancy is certainly more then à strange Impertinency Yet this Strain run's through all his other miscalled Principles 12. Obserue it in the three following Paragraphs Man The want of Application hold 's â—n Saith He being framed à rational creature may Antecedently to any external Reuelation certainly know the Being of God and his dependency vpon him What 's this to the Purpose All is true but the Truth is so General that it reaches not at all to the Protestants particular Faith No more doe the other two which follow immediatly as euery Reader will easily perceiue at the first view 13. Perhaps the Fift in order may proue better There can be no other means Imagined whereby we are to Iudge of the truth of Diuine Reuelation but à faculty in vs of discerneng truth and falshood in matters proposed to our beliefe which if we doe not exercise in Iudgeing Another Principle proues nothing Vnless Sectaries suppose themselues the only vpright Iudges the truth of Diuine Reuelation we must be imposed vpon by euery thing that pretend's to be so The Assertion Still too General Euinces nothing for Protestancy Vnless these words If we do not Exercise VVe must be imposed vpon Signify that Protestants only are to Iudge excluding others both Catholicks and all called Christians Say that Protestants only can iudge you speak à Paradox Allow others à Faculty in Iudgeing the Question will be who Iudges best Which is far from being decided by this abstract Principle Therefore as its worth nothing it concludes Nothing without à further Application Now if you desire to Se how Reason proceed's in Iudging of Religion Read the. 3. Discourse C. 15. 14. The sixth Way or Principle The Pretence of Infallibility in any Person or Society of Men must be Iudged in the same Way and by the same means that the truth of à Reuelation is Say good The Doctor speak's of à way but tâ—ll's vs not Reader who can know what to do by force of These General Terms whilst neither Way nor Means in particular are so much as hinted at The Arian takes his way The Protestant another the Catholick proceeds contrary to both Therefore vnless the Doctor can proue that Protestants take What Christians follow it the right way and All the rest of Christians doe not and it must be proued by à Principle distinct from this General one He abuses the Reader and will seem to speak in behalf of the Protestants Faith though he comes not neer it 15. The. 7th Principle It being in the Power of God to make The 7th Principle as bad as the rest choice of seueral wayes of reuealing his will we ought to enquire what way God has chosen Answ Once more who are these We that ought to enquire What Protestants only Haue not others before Sectaries were born both sought and found the true way to Saluation But let this pass The Principle too General concern's not Protestants at all before it be shewn vpon better Proofs that they only haue hit on the right way which neither is proued nor can be made probable 16. The. 8th and 9th Principles only fill Paper and concern not the matter now in hand In the 10th we are told that God can as well declare his Will by Writing as by men Infallibly assisted Answ All grant God can clearly declare his mind in Sectaries haue not the singular grace to vnderstand Scripture before all others Writing But the Question is whether this be done de Facto in the Holy Book of Scripture S. Peter cited aboue Sayes no. Howeuer suppose it done A second Question followes and T' is à hard one Viz. Whether that singular Priuiledge of vnderstanding Gods declared Will expressed in Scripture can be granted Protestants before all others called Christians and particularly before their Elder Brethren the Roman Catholicks Affirm The Paradox must be euinced by à stronge Proof in deed Say No or grant that others besides Protestants may as well vnderstand it as They The Principle no more Concern's them them the rest of mankind And thus you Se The Application of all true Principles to Protestancy euer Fail's and Cannot but faile 17. The 11th Principle is true But touches Protestants no more then other Christians The 12th Where t' is Sayd we are to Iudge by those writings of Scripture what the will of An vntrue Supposition God is in order to Saluation is no Principle but à false Supposition in case the Authority and infallible Interpretation of the Church be reiected But grant all Ask again who are those We that must Iudge What Protestants only Or others What followes if all diessenting in the high matters of Faith may Iudge with them If all may Iudge and differ as is most euident in the highest matters of Faith after the perusal of Scripture A new Question ensues Whose iudgement is finally to be stood to which shall neuer be decided without introducing another Principle whereby all must say Such an Oracle Iudges for all 18. Hence I briefly Answer to 13th and 15th Principles The 14th is à meer Parergon In the first we are told It is repugnant to the Designe to the wisdom and Goodnes of God to giue infallible Assurance to Persons in writing his will for the benefit of Mankind if those writings may not be vnderstood by all persons who sincerly endeauour to know the meaning of them in such things as are necessary for their Saluation Answ And mark How remote we are yet Who are the Sincere Seekers from Protestancy Grant those writings may be vnderstood by all who take the right Way and endeauour to know their meaning Nothing followes whilst the Doctor proues not by another distinct Principle that Protestants only are the sincere Inquirers excluding others who after all endeauour vsed Dissent Still want of Application from them This not done he turn's vs off with à general Proposition making no Application of it to his own particular Cause You will Se what I would Say by this one Syllogism Euidenced by this one Syllogism Those writings may be vnderstood by all who take the right way and endeauour to know their meaning But Protestants do this and Papists do not Here the Minor is euidently dubious I say absolutely false and therefore the Application of the general Principle to Protestants fail's But this failing or not applied home by another Proof The general Proposition no more Supports Protestancy then Arianism or Pelagianism Of this want of application which transcend's all the Doctors Principles when true you shall haue more presently 19. In the mean while take notice of it again in the. 15th Way These
thoughts before they pass your pen. Haue alwaies this one reflexion in mind It s easy to Cauil easy to talk much but most laborious to make sure what you say by sound Principles And Principles your Aduersaries euer haue an Eye to Had you complyed with this Aduice the greatest part of your Account if not all might well have been spared Never rely on the vain prayses of your vulgar Readers all is not gold that glisters in their Eyes nor do they alwayes speak as they think For as much as concern's your selfe shew sr rather the strength of à Father in louing your works then the weaknes of à fond Mother that hugg's her Brats though most deformed I am told you imagin it à great Acchieuement and your selfe the conquerour in hauing gain'd onc priuate man T. C. to follow your triumphant Chariot Abuse not your Iudgement there is no such matter for in good sober earnest by what I haue perused in T. C. his book rather seem's to be an answer to yours then yours to his Abstain hereafter from opprobrious Language lest you meet with some ruffing Adversary that will pay you in your own Coyn. Please to vse your Buckler better in behalfe of Protestancy and tell me when your Negatiue Articles are thrown away as not reuealed what essential Truth remain's vvithin the Compasse of Protestancy reuealed by Almighty God and necessary to Saluation If you think it the wisest Course not to take notice of what is proposed against you in this Treatise vouchsafe to clear your selfe of the Contradictions charged vpon you And because I find you much intangled in your Resolution of Faith and haue laid your mistakes open to publick view when the Spirit of answering fall's vpon you again Answer I beseech you to the difficulties Obiected in the third Discourse But aboue all Answer to God with à hearty repentance for the wrong you haue done his Church and own me Sr Your friendly Adversary THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER THE RVLE OF FAITH Wherein the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Religion is established against Atheists Heathens Iewes Turks and all Sectaries CHAP. I. VVhether true Religion be in the world The Affirmatiue proued Against Atheists Atheism euidently Shewd'improbable 1 CHAP. II. Reason reiects all sects or Religions not Christian VVhether Gentilism Iudaism or Turkcism bee erroneous and improbable 13 CHAP. III. Christianity as it stands in opposition to Iewes Turcks Infidels and Heretickes is the only true Religion 21 CHAP. IV. Whether Christian Religion since its first Propagation hath not been in like manner preserued pure and further spread by Diuine Prouidence aboue the Power of Nature 25 CHAP. V. VVhether all called Christians Belieue intirely Christ's sacred Doctrin And whether meanes be afforded to arriue to the knowledge of true Christian Religion 29 CHAP. VI. Of our Sectaries errour in their search after true Religion As also of Mr Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing 32 CHAP. VII More of this subiect Doubts concerning the seueral editions of scripture None extant more pure then the Vulgar Latin Abstract from Church Authority there is no Certainty of the best Edition Sectaries Comparing the Present Copies with the more ancient giues no assurance A word with Mr Stillingfleet 42 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 Stillingfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 55 CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 67 A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian 71 CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only though all Christians had moral certainty of the right Canon and sense also which is to say the meer owning Christs Doctrin is insufficient to proue it to all sort of People 80 CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 85 Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 94 CHAP. XII A Digressian concerning the Real Presence The Fathers plainly assert it Sectaries glosses friuolous The agreement of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrin indubitable The Catholick's certain Principle A word with Mr Stillingfleet 102 CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubions and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 119 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 138 CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate faith 152 CHAP. XVI One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses and his vnexcusable abuse of other Fathers 159 CHAP. XVII VVhy the Glosses of Sectaries are impertinent and weightles Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers Of his vnskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry charged on Catholicks CHAP. XVIII The Protestant after all his Glosses can not ascertain any of true Religion He would make Controuersies an endles work 180 CHAP. XIX The last designe of Sectaries Glosses discouered They end nothing The clear way to end Controuersies of Religion A distinction between Authority and Principl'd Authority Of the improbability of Protestancy 192 CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 205 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 granted so much The Argument is clearly proposed Mr Stillingfleet return's no probable Answer A full discouery of his fallacies 217 THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 241 CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned The properties of à Rule VVhat is meant by the Church Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out Her marks more clear than Her Essential Doctrin 248 CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church euidented by Marks of Truth nor true Doctrin made credible to reason His whole Faith is built vpon Fancy 256 CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ was is and shall euer be the Holy Apostolical and Catholick Roman Church Her Antiquity and Constant Perseuerance in the Ancient primitiue Doctrin without Alteration
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
Text. Answ After all his labour He pretend's this but How and what Sixtus pretend's with à caution often repeated in the Bull quoad eius sieri potest prout optime sieri potuit c. That is as well as then could be c. The firm or certain Argument therefore is The Church euer preserued true and Genuin Scripture which is either to be found in the ancient approued Copies both printed and manuscript or no where These Pope Sixtus diligently searched into therefore his Edition is true genuin Scripture which no Catholick denies if by true and genuin Scripture we vnderstand not an Exclusion of all lesser faults but of greater contrary to the purity of Faith and Religion and so far Sixtus Edition is blamlesse although as Tanner now cited n. 83. obserues perhaps not altogether so circumspectly done nor euery way fit to the publick edification of the Church Wherin there is à latitude within the Compass of truth and integrity And who euer read's Pope Sixtus own Bull before his Bible can force no more out of it but this truth that many faults which had got into other Copies are accuratly corrected in his Edition wherof no man can doubt with all Many faults amended by Sixtus that it contains the Vulgar Latin Edition amended at least in many things and consequently is authentick Scripture Sixtus saith not he amended all lesser faults wheron Religion has no dependance but rather disclaimes busying himself with so small à seruice 8. Mr Stilling obiects 4. The vast difference between the Clementine and Sixtine Bibles lay in this that Clement corrected the Vulgar Latin according to the Original in aboue two thousand places when the contrary reading was established by Sixtus Answ Here is no proof but only three improbable Assertions Who assures you Sr. of any vast difference between these two Editions Or inform's you so exactly of aboue two thousand different places Or why finally do you tell vs of à contrary reading established by Sixtus A reading Good Sr may be different No Contrary Reading in Sixtus his Edition and yet not contrary in any material point of faith or manners and so far Sixtus is defensible If there be any other difference or Contrariety not touching on Faith and Religion because the expression is longer or shorter lesse clear in the one and more significant in the other version this concern's vs not both may be right within the compass of truth and without any material fault But saith Mr Stilling if the Latin Copies be à sure Rule to iudge of the authenticalnesse of the Text by much more shall the ancient Copies of the Original Hebrew and Greek be à surer Rule Answ Had we now the authentick true Copies of the ancient Hebrew and Greek we should soon acquiesce but Sectaries know well this is more then doubtful yea almost certain that both are corrupted how farr I say not but morally speaking the Hebrew cannot but be corrupted by reason of the great similitude in The Hebrew text lyable to Corruption many letters and the access of points added by the perfidious Masoreths after S. Hieroms age which may change the sence of Scripture and very notably See Gretserus Defens Bellar Tom 1. lib. 2. c. 2. I wonder why Mr Stilling is so earnest for the Greek which our English Sectaries vtterly leaue when 't is for their purpose I haue told you enough already of Images translated for Idols Elders for Priests Ordinances for Traditions c. And might add more that Beza thinks those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 3. 37. of Cainan to no purpose in the Text and therefore leaues them out Others when the Vulgar Latin makes for them follow that and not the Greek Take only this one instance Authors giue many more The Vulgar reads Rom 8. 37. certus sum enim I am certain The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I think or am probably perswaded Now some to assure themselues of their Predestination read I am certain with the Vulgar not I am perswaded as the Greek doth It would be endles to tell you of Luthers ill dealing with both the lections of Greek and Latin After the wicked man had perfidiously added that particle Solam to those words Rom. 3. 28. per fidem and read by faith only Hee omit's whole sentences of Holy Scripture in his Translation as that Mark 11. 26. If you will not forgiue neither will your Father that is in Heauen forgiue you your sins 1. Thess 4. 5. That you abstain from fornication is wholy omitted by him and that whole sentence also 1. Ioan. 5. 7. There are three that bear record in Heauen c. You will find no such Grosnesse in either the Sixtine or Clementine Bible Yet more Luther is excellent in the mincing or changing the proper signification of words Isay 9. v. 6. to please the Iewes where the Hebrew Text giues the name of God El to Christ and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luther read's in Dutch stafft fortitudo To lessen the Blessed virgins plenitude of grace wheras the Greek Luc. 1. 28. read's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly full of grace Luther puts à Dutch word which as I am told signifies one pretty well gracious and no more You haue an other notable corruption of the Greek Text Galat. 3. 10. But enough of these abuses I cannot prosecute half of them See Tan. Tom. 3. pag. 319. 9. Mr Stilling last obiection is à fâ—at Calumny The Pope saith He took where he pleased the marginal Annotations in the A Calumny for an obiection Louain Bible and inserted them into the Text. Answer who would not when he read's this disingenuous and fraudulent expression Where Hee pleased but iudge that the Pope without more Adoe pick't what he listed out of the Louain Annotations and made that Scripture at his pleasure which is an open slaunder In à word here is the truth Those worthy Doctors of Louain with an Immense labour placed in their margents not their own Annotations or Comments but the different Lections of Scripture yet determined not which was best or was to bee preferred before others for they well knew the decision of such causes belongs to the publick iudicature and Authority of the Church The Pope therefore omitting no humane diligence compared Lection with lection and those lections which vsually differ most inconsiderably or very little as I haue often obserued in perusing the Louain Bibles Clement made vse of and after mature weighing all preferred that which was most agreable to the ancient Copies And here is all Mr Stilling Cauils at which yet was necessary to be done to haue one vniform Lection of Scripture in the Church approued by the sea Apostolick 10. Some may yet obiect We say the correction of Sixtus An obiection though in some things faulty contains nothing material contrary to Religionâ— or manners Clements Correction is only so farr faultless and no farther
the Vulgar let him read Gretser now Cited Bib. Max. sect 19. C. 4. and Serrarius C. 19. quest 143. And thus much of à digression CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 1. LEt vs if you please suppose that wee and Sectaries had now in our hands the very Autograph's of the whole Bible as it was once writ by the Prophets and Apostles or if you would rather Imagin the book drop't down from Heauen pure and euery way incorrupt I say the Sectary has not probable assurance of Scripture much less such à certainty as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting The ground of my Assertion is this vndeniable Principle owned as well by Protestants as Catholicks Viz Scripture solely considered according to the exteriour letter vnless the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost be had is no Scripture to the Reader For example Because the Arian read's that sacred truth My Father is greater then I and stand's meerly vpon the bare sound of words without the sense intended by the Holy Ghost Hee hath no true Scripture Whence it is that S. Austin serm 70. Temp. hold 's Hereticks most vnhappy because they take the words without the sense haue à body without Words without the true sense no Scripture à Soul the bark without the sap the shell without à kernel c. S. Hierom also in cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 11. speak's to this purpose Ne putemus c. Let vs not think that the Gospel lyes in the words of Scripture but in the sense of those words we read not in the out-syde but in the pith and marrow of it There is no need of quoting more Fathers The Principle is agreed on by all and most indubitable 2. Hence I argue Nothing is more essential to scripture than the sense deliuered by the Holy Ghost but the Protestant where he is most concerned has not so much assurance of the sense intended by the Holy Ghost as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting and I proue it He is most concerned when he opposes our Catholick Doctrin and stand's vp in defense of his own opinions but in neither has he such an indubitable assurance of the Scriptures sense as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting and this I say is euident For he cannot haue so much assurance if as weighty yea à far more weighty authority contradict's his sense But it is clear that not only the present Roman Church but other particular Churches in former ages reputed Orthodox contradict that sense the Protestant drawes from Scripture But Sectaries haue no Certainty of the sense when he opposeth Catholick Doctrin or defends his own singular opinions Therefore he has not so much certainty of the Scriptures sense as excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting Now that the sole iudgement of our present Catholick Church to dispute the thing no higher is as great vpon all accounts as the iudgement of Protestants seem's vndeniable And that the Testimony of our Church weakens the assurance of that sense of Scripture which Protestants lay claim to is most euident as wee see in school opinions when contrary to one an other for no man whether Philosopher or Diuine can prudently hold his opinion so certain as excludes à Possibility of doubting when as many wholly as learned yea more learned and numerous after à full knowledge had of it and long Study also deny that certainty Thus much I say is euident Now if the Protestant tells ' vs the Authority of his party weakens as much that sense wee make of Scripture as the contrary iudgement of our Church lessens his I answer The reply here is to no purpose For all I proue at present is that he want's this certainty whether we haue it or not is an other quaestion and clearly decided for the Catholik cause in the other Treatise Disc 2. c. 9. per totum Again were all granted the obiection would haue Thus much which is most fals only followes that neither of vs know assuredly the sense of Scripture which touches not the difficulty now in controuersy 3. My 2. Argument is so demonstratiue that if the Protestant A 2 Argument most Conuincing will please to solue it I 'le neuer trouble him more with difficulties To propose it clearly know only thus much That when the sectary read's Scripture and would haue it to his purpose He either ouer reaches the Text or fall's short of its meaning For example To those words of S. Math. This is my body he adds this as good sense This is à signe or figure only of my body Mark well We both read the same words but Catholicks deny that to be Scripture not because we deny the words but his sense we say is no scripture To that of our Sauiour I am with you alwaies to the end of the world He adds I am with you alwaies by à fitting but no infallible assistance We say this is no Scripture To that of S. Iames. A man is iustified by works and not by Faith only He adds he is iustified not before God but before men we still deny this to be Scripture And thus sectaries proceed with vs in all other controuerted Texts of Holy writ Whence I argue These Additions of à sign only of à fitting Assistance of iustification before men c are either the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost or Sectaries fancy but most euidently they are not the sense intended by the Holy Ghost for this must either be gathered out of Sectaries glosses and additions not scripture so many express words of Holy writ which is prodigiously false or must arise from the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance whereby Protestants as people Illuminated aboue all others giue vs the true meaning of Scripture and this besides the Paradox when à whole learned Church contradict's the assertion is most destructiue of the Protestants own Principle For they say the Holy Ghost interpret's by none enlightens none teaches none to deliuer the true sense of Scripture but such as do it infallibly which Truth is most vndoubted They say again when they giue the sense of Scripture or interpret God's word they do it so fallibly that it may be false or if they interpret infallibly and cannot err Eo ipso they are so farr infallible which they vtterly deny See Disc 2. c. 9. n. 8. what then remains but that the sense of Scripture proposed to vs by such fallible Teachers is only the thought of their own fancy 5. Some may reply Protestants after long perusing Scripture and comparing seueral Texts together iudge the sense of these and No more are their deductions other controuerted places by à lawful deduction to be as they declare I answer first They shall neuer come to so much as à probable deduction and I earnestly press them to
None can question whether the Doctrin be Diuine when the Person who declared it to the world was so Diuine and extraordinary à Person holy in his conuersation wrought vnparalled miracles rose from death to life conuersed with his Disciples and gaue euidence of their fidelity by laying down The question Still begged their liues to attest the Truth c. Contra. 1. Replies the Heathen Here is again the same Petitio principii for either you belieue these particulars because Scripture record's them and then you suppose Scripture to be true and Diuine which he denies or because fallible men report them you own no infallible tradition and this aduances not your cause at all for the Turks and those of China talk as much of their Mahomet and Confusius vpon fallible and perhaps false reports also for yet the Heathen knowes not what Religion is true And next wonders why you speak of miracles of power ouer euil spirits of men laying down their liues c. when you Sectaries either deny or slight all the miracles euidently done in the Catholick Church as also the power She manifest's in casting out Diuels c. And if we mention Martyrs Catholicks haue more who layd down their liues in defense of the Doctrin of this one Church than suffered for Christ whilst the Apostles preach't to the world You hint some thing at miracles like one half affraid to meddle with such Motiues and say these wonders proue the truth of Apostolical Doctrin Pray you Sr Answer When you plead by miracles Doe you only allow those which Scripture relates or others By what miracles Sectaries plead also known by History and humane Authority If you rely on the first you suppose what now is in Question Viz. That Scripture is infallible and of Diuine inspiration If you own miracles registred in Ecclesiastical history and the liues of Saints you haue as I now said of Martyrs à greater number wrought in the Roman Catholick Church in the ages after Christ than were done whilst he and his Apostles liued Slight such à Cloud of witnesses as attest these later wonders and speak no more as you doe of any certainty grounded vpon the report of honest men Own them vpon humane authority as morally indubitable and you proue by virtue of these Miracles that the Doctrin of the Catholick Church is still Apostolical and Orthodox 12. Now here by the way I must lay open your fallacy A dilemma which forceth Sectaries to à vicious Circle when you recurr to miracles recounted in Scripture only and reiect others wrought by the Church Thus I argue Either you suppose and belieue the Doctrin of Scripture to be Diuine because you find the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles recorded there and propose these as the first Motiue and inducement of your belieuing Scripture or independently of Scripture Miracles you proue the Doctrin to be Diuine yea and the very miracles recounted there to be indited by the Holy Ghost If you belieue the Diuinity of Scripture induced therevnto by Miracles related in that Holy book you aduance nothing for all you say is that you proue Scripture Diuine because it recounts these wonders which are as obscure to à Heathen as the Diuinity or the sacred Doctrin of Scripture is Therefore you make à most vicious Circle for you proue the Diuinity of Scripture by Miracles internal to the book and the Miracles themselues not otherwise known by the Diuinity of Scripture Now if you say you know the Scriptures Diuinity antecedently or before you recurr to Miracles related there Scripture-Miracles are vseles to your purpose for if the supposition stand They are yet no more but obiects of Faith and therefore cannot serue you as motiues and inducements to belieue that very Diuinity which is now supposed known aliunde and most sufficiently without them 13. One may ask if God had neuer done any other Miracles but such as Scripture relates whether these are not sufficient to work belief in all The Heathen answers negatiuely and makes them insufficient because Scripture is not proued Miracles related in Scripture Conuince not à Heathen Diuine by them And all may answer so if Scripture be not otherwise first proued Diuine before we haue recourse to miracles internal to the book Howeuer admit gratis they were sufficient the most you can inferr is That the Primitiue Church which shewed them was Orthodox but whether any other Church yet preserues the same pure Doctrin may bee well questioned by à Heathen And here in passing you may note à singular Prouidence of God who age after age has illustrated his Church with most manifest and vndoubted miracles whereof more largely hereafter Disc 2. C. 8. 14. You say lastly That which God chiefly requires from à Heathen is the belief of the Truth and Diuinity of his Doctrin He answers he is ready to do so when you proue the Doctrin to be Diuinely inspired and infallible But hitherto you handle things so faintly that though the matter you treat be excellent in it self yet your proofs most disatisfactory come not home to conuince it Your mishap is iust like that of an ill lawyer who has à good cause in hand but knowes not how to handle it Your whole Method is vnmethodical your proofs prooflesse your iumbling most intolerable In à word you giue no rational A Good Cause ill handled by Mr Stillingfleet account of the reasonableness of the Truth of the Diuinity or of the infallibility of Christs Doctrin Therefore saith the Heathen I 'le suspend my iudgement till I meet with à more knowing Aduersary who I hope will not proue Truth by simply saying he speaks it but Conuince it vpon vndeniable Principles 15. But our Heathen hath not yet done with Mr Stilling for he saith plainly Though all the proofs hitherto hinted at might pass or were supposed valid yet there is not one word spoken to the purpose in behalf of Protestancy If you wonder at the bold Assertion ponder well his reason You Mr Stilling haue treated all this while of the excellency and reasonablenes of Christian Religion considered no man knowes how Pray you lurk not in such General terms but tell me particularly what Christian Religion is thus good excellent and reasonable If good and excellent it must be now found in the world Is it Arianism Pelagianism Donatism Quakerism These sects profess Christianity Are they all excellent and reasonable Affirm it openly if you dare Perhaps you will say no. Is it Popery By no means For may your word be taken it mantains false Our Aduersary Cannot say which à mong so many Religions is excellent and reasonable and erroneous Doctrin and that 's neither excellent nor reasonable Is it Protestancy Yes surely This is the excellent and reasonable Religion And is it possible Can you perswade your self without further proof than your own prooflesse word that the perfect draught or Idea of Christianity lies so fair
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
vpon no surer grounds then meer doubtful And vncertain Glosses are added to Scripture and the Fathers which An assertion clearly laid forth seem contrary to his Doctrin most euidently stand's vnprincipl'd proceed's weakly and proues nothing But the Protestant makes his weak and doubtful Glosses charged on such Authorities as are produced for our Catholick Tenets the sole Support the only Proof of his contrary Doctrin Therefore He proceeds vnreasonably and proues nothing You shall see this euidenced in the present Matter now briefly hinted at of the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Mr Stilling Asserts She is fallible I ask how He proues the Assertion What By express Scripture vniuersal Tradition the vnanimous Consent of Fathers the Definitions of any ancient Church or Council These are excellent Principles Could He settle How Sectaries proceed to weaken it his opinion vpon all or vpon any one of them we haue done and must yeild But he proceed's strangely and I must needs tell you How The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn from the Fathers in behalfe of the Churches infallibility And thereby to establish his Position She is fallible I demand how can our Proofs be weakned His Answer must be for he has no other I will so tamper with these your alleged Texts that at last I 'le make them proue nothing for your Churches Infallibility And consequently I may hold my Contrary Position of her Fallibility very well established The inference is worth nothing but let it pass I Ask. 3. What is it he will tamper withall or how can he make null those manifest Texts which clearly lye open to euery eye east on the Fathers And euince as we shall see hereafter that the Church is infallible Mr Stillinfleets strain through his whole book For Facta loquuntur return's the best Answer My Guesses saith he And Glosses laid on the Fathers when seemingly contrary to Protestant Doctrin Shall make them speak another language no way fauouring the Churches infallibility 2. Here we come to the point And demand in the last place Whether these Glosses are so clearly their Own Selfe-Euidence that by their very light they lay à Truth before an vnderstanding Their Gloâ—ses no selfe Euidence not to be contradicted For example Whether S. Cyprian in the Passage now cited gaue only as Mr Stilling saith à tast of his old office of à Rhetorician And spake not dogmatically Is this I say an vndeniable Truth Most euidently no. For stretch it to the furthest it can be no more but à most doubtful and vncertain Gloss I say t' is highly improbable Now be pleased to reflect The Assertion concerning the Churches fallibility is no Self-euidenced Truth nor clear Ex terminis no more is our contrary Doctrin of the Churches infallibility To giue it Therefore proof and weight these Glosses are cast vpon the Fathers who seemingly at least fauour infallibility But these very Glosses which should do that seruice are as vneuident as vncertain And doubtful as the very Doctrin is They should enlighten and lend proof too Ergo they aduance not at all the Doctrin concerning the Churches fallibility For proofs which are as vncertain as the very Doctrin is which should be proued can neuer raise that to à greater measure of certainty than it had before such proofs were thought of Please to mark what I say The Doctrin of the Churches fallibility here supposed by Sectaries is vncertain and for that reason lies in it's Vneuidence vntil solid Proofs clear it or expel both the vneuidence and vncertainty But these Glosses when they appear are as vneuident and vncertain as the Doctrin is Therefore they cannot raise the Doctrin to any higher degree of certainty than to meer vneuidence and vncertainty I would haue this noted For it is à ground whereby I shal show hereafter Protestancy to be à most improbable Religion And Therefore will deliuer it once more in these plainer Terms If the Sectary has no surer Principle whereon to found his yet vneuidenced opinion of the Churches fallibility then Doubtful Glosses laid on Scripture The force of our Argument more significantly expressed and Fathers as euidently he has not And These Glosses which should proue that Doctrin be as deuoid of strength as remote from Principles as vncertain or doubtful as that very yet vneuidenced Doctrin is It followes clearly That both the Doctrin and the Glosses fall to nothing but only subsist by fancy which is à real Truth From all now said I inferr that whoeuer interpret's must haue his Doctrin firmly grounded vpon certain Principles distinct from his own interpretations as the Catholick euer hath or nothing is proued 3. Mr Stilling may reply His intention whilst he interpret's these Fathers is not to proue immediatly his own Opinion of the Churches fallibility but only to show our alleged Testimonies come not home or want force to proue Her infallible Now to shew our proofs forceles in order to what we hold is not to make good his contrary Assertion For these two things are very different Our Aduersaries reply refuted To make null our proofs And to establish his own Doctrin Answ I grant they are different But neither is nor can be done Not the first Because these Glosses are no Sâ—lf-euident prouing That the Fathers sense is rightly hit on And Principles distinct from these Glosses whereby it may be shown what Doctrin the Fathers deliuered in this particular Mr Stilling hath not any so much as meanly probable To the second I Answer If He offer 's not to proue his Tenet of the Churches fallibility by the little strength these glosses haue I auouch it boldly All further Probations fail him and for that reason he is either forced to make vse of such poor stuff to proue withall or must sit down silent And grant his Tenet cannot be proued He may perhaps tell vs our Church has erred de facto Ergo it is fallible And here is his Principle I Answer it s no Principle to me but an Heresy And as Asserted by him 't is as much yea more doubtful than all his glosses are laid together He may reply 3. His Glosses may at least be thought probable I vtterly deny that And here is my ground Solely considered they euidence not their own probability But need further proof and probable Principles to rely on But such proofs are wanting to found Probability vpon Therefore these glosses are supposed only not proued probable Had Mr Stilling plain Scripture any Orthodox Church or Fathers clear for the Doctrin maintained by him He might well talk of the strength Of his Glosses but to make Glosses probable The Sectaries Glosses not so much as Probable when no probable ground supports the Doctrin for Whose sake he Glosses is not only lost labour but share 's much of Non-sense Again Were these Glosses probable which I shall neuer grant our Answers to them are at least as probable And what gain 's
viz That that giues no Moral certainty but leaues you where you were before in à state of doubting Obserue now All you get from the Protestant when the Fathers plainly teach Catholick Doctrin is either to deny the Authority as the Elder And perhaps wiser Protestants haue done or after Mr Stillingfleets new Mode How Sectaries Shift off Authorities to Gloss them All you get when à passage seem's dubious is to squise more out of it than it has Whence it is That you euer find the Sectaries Doctrin when He tampers with à Te◠seemingly doubtful to ouerreach or to goe beyond the strength of his Quotation That is He speak's plainly what he would haue you belieue And the more plainly he speak's the further he run's from his Authority which Therefore check's his Boldness And Tell 's him I say no such thing as you Teach Take for example those words of Theoderet The Mystical Symbols remain after Consecration c. O saith the Sectary the meaning is the inward Substance of bread remain's Hold Sir there That 's more then the words allow of Mystical Symbols may as well yea far better signify the exteriour Accidents than the inward Substance of bread Therefore you ouerreach the Text And abuse your Author 12. Thus much premised We shall come to our last intended Demonstration And by the grace of God Euidence How Controuersies may be ended Though indeed the Sectaries intricate way of handling Matters makes them seem to à vulgar Reader à work without end For say I beseech you What can be more slight or more remote from Reason than after à long Profession and quiet Possession had of our Catholick Verities To see à few Sectaries late Strangers to Christianity step in amongst vs And after so many Ages strutt vp and down in à corner of the world As if They forsooth By their bringing to light again The procedure of Sectaries Slight nothing but à list of old absolete worn-out Heresies could now Ascertain Papists How much of their Doctrin is Orthodox And How much not And this ò strange Boldnes is done vpon no other Principle than vpon à few misconstrued words of some few ancient Fathers without alleging plain Scripture or the Authority of any Church for this most vncouth and strange Proceeding What can be more slight than to follow the lesser Light or rather no Light at all And to preferr That before the Luminare maius which hitherto has illuminated the whole world What can be more slight than to stand guessing at the sense of Fathers To Gloss their plainest Testimonies when these guesses and Glosses are vnprincipled and haue no more Support than the fancy of him who makes them You shall now see whither these Glosses tend And an End put to Controuersies CHAP. XIX The last designe of Sectaries Glosses discouered They end nothing The clear way to end Controuersies of Religion A distinction between Authority and Principl'd Authority Of the improbability of Protestancy 1. NOte When Sectaries Gloss Scripture or Fathers clear for Catholick Religion and after much tugging violently force some piece of their new Doctrin from Passages lesse clear Their aym is to keep vs off from the last sound Principles of ending What Sectaries aym at ◠by their Glosses Controuersies Mr Stillingfleet like one haunted with two contrary Spirits has à rare Talent this way Now He charm's à darker Passage out of all obscurity And makes it speak Protestancy So he giues light to Theoderets Mystical Symbols Now He does the contrary feat And cast's as clear words as euer Father vttered into so much darknes That it is hard to know what is said Take here one instance You haue it in his Page 217. Where he Interpret's that plain passage of S. Austin Tom. 6. co 〈…〉 Epist Fund C. 5. I would not belieue the Gospel vnless the Authority of the Church moued me therunto And to obscure this most manifest and profoundly well expressed Truth The Gentleman spend 's three whole pages in Guesses and coniectures And all is to Vnsay what the Saint had most euidently Asserted First forsooth he tell 's vs What the Controuersy was which S. Austin then discussed 2. What Church that was which moued hi◠to belieue the Gospel Here He Guesses and Misses 3. In what way and manner the Churches Authority did moue him And in this particular Mr Stillingfleet err's grosly who will needs perswade S. Austin very clear made obscure vs That S. Austin belieued not the Diuinity of Scripture vpon the Churches Authority But only the Authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists As if to belieue the Authenticalness of the Gospel could be separated from belieuing that very Gospel to be Diuine It s à whimsy As shall appear afterward In the mean while you see How all these Coniectures laid together I medle not with them at present are incomparably lesse clear than S. Austin's plain words Yet I must so far put out my eyes as to esteem them the only light to regulate my iudgement by and Consequently make Non-sense of S. Austins clear Expression Is it not reasonable think you Before I do so To ask first by what Principle I may know That these Coniectures hit right 2. Now here you haue what I wish the iudicious Reader seriously To reflect vpon Suppose one should follow Mr Stillingfleet through all those windings and Turnings wherewith he encumber's this one short Sentence of S. Austin And Answer step What the Reader is desired to reflect on by step to euery Paragraph in order Suppose Hee that vndertakes such à Task should in like manner proceed through all The Gentlemans Rational Account as 'T is Called And attend to his discourses reply to euery particular of his endles Glosses laid on Scripture and other Fathers Suppose Thirdly He should rigidly Examin euery circumstance related in the Stories of that voluminous Book Doe only thus much and you draw the book dry For besides cauils you haue no more How many volumes think ye would This way of Answering bring forth to the world before the whole Account were Answered And when all is done Much God knowes is not done to end Controuersies with Satisfaction Thus the contest goes on 3. Mr Stillingfleet like one affraid to meddle with sound Principles begins to Glosse His supposed Aduersary because no better stuff is giuen to work vpon goes not yet deeper into difficulties But turn's to the Scripture and Fathers Read's and Iudges by His own Reading That much is interpreted amiss in this Rational Account Therefore Vnglosses as fast as Mr Stillingfleet Glossed And hopes He doth very well Mr Stillingfleet discourses This Aduersary doth so also But finds or pretends to find I say no more yet His discourses vnsound at the bottom Much Confusion sollowes this way And too weak to bring in à good Conclusion Mr Stillingfleet relates his Stories set forth with à number of circumstances Our supposed Aduersary discouer's
without Progenitors successors without à Pedegree New Teachers without commâ—ssion Protestants indeed but without Principles 15. Hence I argue and it is à demonstration against Sectaries If neither Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christians in forgoing Ages euer owned or so much as heard of Protestancy before one vnfortunate Fatherles Luther broached it If no Antiquity so much as once mentioned one Professor of that Religion if no Tradition handed to Luther the new Faith he taught all which is without dispute manifest Protestancy most enidently is vpon this very account both an Vnwitnessed and an Vnprincipled Religion And not only improbable but in the highest degree improbable But no Authority can release an vnprincipled Nouelty from its own intrinsick miserable and â—ssâ—ntial state of improbability Therefore our Sectaries votes of no weight at all cannot make it probable And thus Controuersies are ended because an improbable Religion And for this reason improbable because vnprincipled is not defensible 16. To add more to this Discourse I Ask whether one Arius opposing the whole Church represented in the Nicene Council Protestancy as improbable as Arianism defended probable Doctrin or no You will answer No. Very good Yet he quoted Scripture and might one insist vpon the exteriour letter or sound of words more plain and express in the behalf of his Heresy than all the Protestants on earth can produce Fathers plain and Expresss for their Nouelty of Protestanism I would say Neither Theoderet nor any other Father speak's half so clearly to the Doctrin of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass c. As these words to omit others My Father is greater then I may the exteriour letter regulate here seemingly express an inequality between the Father and the Son Now if the seeming clear sound of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrin probable against the Church Then much less can the more obscure Testimonies of some Fathers make the Doctrin of Protestants probable against the Church Now. And if we speak of followers that Arius gained in his time There is no comparison He had more than euer England had Protestants in it 17. One may yet reply The Nicene Fathers cited plain Scripture against Arius Very true And so do Catholicks against Protestants For Christs Sacred words This is my body are as significantly plain against Protestanism as any Text those Fathers then vrged or yet can be vrged against Arianism The Arians not Conuinced by Scripture only But this you see did not the deed nor was then the last conuiction And why Here is the reason Because as Protestants now wilfully Gloss this plain Passage of Scripture and many others So the Arians then wilfully Glossed all those Scriptures alleged by the Nicene Fathers And yet hold on in that strain to our very dayes as you may read in Crellius and Volkâ—lius Yet more As the Arian Party then only Glossed but without the help of any antecedent Church Doctrin known to the world or vniuersal Tradition to settle their Glosses on So our Protestants now do the very same There is no disparity betwixt them They Gloss 't is true but giue vs Churchles Glosses Finally as those Fathers at that time did not only reiect the Arians Glosses but established also their own Definitions vpon Scripture How Conuicted interpreted by the known deliuered Doctrin of the then present and the more Ancient Church for they represented both And thus ended that Controuersy So we Catholicks proceed against Protestants And bring all debates to the like last period The Church or nothing must end them Without recourse had to the known and owned Doctrin both of this present and precedent faithful Oracle They and we may interpret Scripture long enough They may Cauil And we may hold on in our Answers to the end of an other Age without hope of ending so much as one Controuersy But of This enough is said already CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 1. SEctaries may obiect first We Suppose all this while But proue not The Orthodox world to haue hitherto maintained the Doctrin now taught by the Roman Catholick Church concerning Transubstantiation Inuocation of Saints c. Therefore our Discourse seem's vngrounded I answer 1. The Reply is not to the Purpose in this place whilst we only press Sectaries to giue in Proofs for their Contrary Positions This wee say They Cannot doe Now if wee bee as farr of From Proofes or Cannot ground our Tenets vpon vndubitable Principles Controuersies are ended without more Adoe Because The first Obiection answered both of vs if the Supposition hold's haue no Articles of Religion to Propugn But weak opinions which whether true or false import not Saluation Nay the Truth of them could it be known is scarse worth any mans Knowledge I Answer 2. Our Proofs to say no more now Stand firm vpon Church Authority once at least owned Orthodox on our Councils and ancient Tradition neuer yet repealed nor excepted against But by Hereticks only May it please our Aduersaries to come Closely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets by the Authority of any like or better Church than ours is We haue done and must yeild But this they know is impossible And therefore neither will nor can Answer our Discourse If they say our Church where its contrary to Protestancy has erred Vrge them to proue the Assertion by any Principle either equal to or stronger than our Church Authority is And you will haue them driuen again to their Glosses or to some few gleanings of Fathers In à word to no Principles 2. They may obiect 2. We haue took much pains to proue Nothing against Protestancy For we know some late Professors namely Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet stifly maintain A second Obiection Proposed these Negatiues of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass No Inuocation of Saints c. To be only pious Opinions or inferiour Truths Neither reuealed by God nor Essential to Protestant Religion Therefore whilst we vrge them to ground such Negatiues vpon plain Scripture vpon the Authority of an Orthodox Church Councils Tradition c. They tell vs we meddle not at all with the Essentials of Protestancy But only dispute against Opinions And Contrary to iustice force them to proue meer opinions by Scripture Church c. wich is more then we can press vpon them or doe our selues For haue not wee Catholicks many Opinions in Schools which none pretend to ground vpon so strong Principles as we settle our Articles of Faith on Yes most assuredly Opinions then and Articles of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled And thus Point's at à distinâ—tion between Faith and Opinion the Protestant discourses in the present Matters Here saith He is the only difference That Catholicks lay Claim to more Articles
but à Protestant opinion To assert 3. That the Ancient Church was right in faith And the present Church not or That She hath imposed meer Opinions to be belieued by Christians in place of Articles of Faith is à flat Calumny an improbable opinion which neuer yet was nor can be grounded vpon any rational Principle And can these opinions think ye which all Catholicks reiect pass for the grounded Essence of Protestancy They must or it has no Essence at all And mark well As they proceed with vs here so they doe in all other Controuersies They tell vs not only the Creeds but Scriptures much more contain all things necessary to Saluation That 's only their Opinion They tell Particular Proofe Thereof vs Their Belief now and that of the Primitiue Christians for the first Three or Four Centuries is one and the same It is their Opinion meerly And demonstratiuely vntrue They tell vs They own à Church before Luther but to say where or when it was distinct from the Roman Catholick or as They Imagin much larger than the Roman is only an Opinion and most improbable In à word They are euery where so narrowly confined That whether they build or destroy Impugn our Religion or offer to establish their own They neuer get out of the reach of Their own tottering improbable Opinions 8. And because I find this strain runs through Mr Stillingfleets whole Book He cannot surely be iustly offended if for my better Satisfaction concerning his Rational Account I require his rational Answer to one Question which I hold very reasonable Thus I propose it You Sir defend à Religion called Protestancy You allow it some essential Doctrin distinct from Popery and all condemned Hereticks Your Title supposeth this Doctrin well grounded The grounds of Protestant Religion Answer I befeech you giue me first without fumbling that Doctrin peculiar to Protestancy which essentially makes it à Religion Giue vs the Specifical difference of it if 't haue any And A question proposed to Sectaries Next Ground this Doctrin be it what you will vpon the vndubitable Authority of some known Orthodox Church Orthodox Councils or vniuersal Tradition but Fob vs not off with your vnproued Opinions Tell vs no more of belieuing Creeds only The Scripture only the Four first general Councils only without more these Onelies we except against Yet doe you only thus much as I now require T' is easily done if your cause be good And I will recall what euer I haue written against you And craue pardon for my rashnesse But the Catholick knowes well because Heresy can haue no grounded Doctrin This task is impossible I am now to shew the Protestant the impossibility of it also 9. Imagin one who belieues the Creeds as the Sectary pretend's to doe yet so That interiourly And from his very heart He abiures and slights all those Negatiue Articles called the opinions of Protestants I speak not here of his exteriour demeanour nor Countenance his dissembling i' ft be so My Question is this Whether such à man haue internal essential sufficient faith to make him à true belieuing Protestant He hold's himself one vpon this conuincing Reason That he firmly belieues what euer the Professors of that Religion maintain Sectaries must make meer Opinions their Articles of Faith as both essential and sufficient to Saluation Besides He knowes well No obligation lies on him to belieue by Faith the Negatiue Articles of Protestants neither can he because God has not reuealed them Such à man therefore hath compleatly essential Faith enough and is à true belieuing Protestant or if he be not yet got so high or haue not the Protestant Faith compleatly necessary and sufficient to saue him He must help it out by belieuing some one or other Protestant Opinion And Consequently the Belief of Opinions must either constitute him essentially à Protestant Or He will neuer be one yet this is most vntrue for God obliges none to belieue vnreuealed Opinions as Articles of Faith 10. We must goe yet further Suppose this man belieues the Creeds The Roman Catholick Church and euery particular Doctrin She teaches iust so as the best Catholick Belieues And whereas before He only slighted the opinions of Protestants now in place of them he firmly adheres to the Contrary Catholick Positions viz. To The Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation An vnbloody Sacrifice Praying to Saints worhiping of Images And in à word to all that the Church obliges me to belieue The difficulty farther vrged This man in heart is certainly Catholick I Ask whether he is yet à true belieuing Protestant In our Sectaries Principles Hee is For first he belieues his Creeds or Doctrin Common to all Christians And there is the Essence of their sauing Faith O but all is spoiled by belieuing the Church And what euer Doctrin She teaches Why so I beseech you why should this spoile all if in Conscience the man Iudges Her Articles to be reuealed Truths A Catholick you say may be saued Though he belieues thus much Therefore there is no reason to damn this man vpon any Account of his want of Faith For the Faith of His Creeds saues him And the beliefe of our Catholick Articles ruin's not that Faith Ergo. Again You must say His abiuring your Negatiue Opinions doth not Vnprotestant Him if he belieues the Creeds why then should the firm adhering to our contrary Positiue Catholick Articles which you call opinions make him less Protestant You may reply If He hold's them only as opinions He is still Protestant But we now suppose He belieues all as Articles of Faith Very good This then followes ineuitably Not to belieue them as Articles of Faith besides Owning the Creeds essentially makes him Protestant Ergo This also followes To belieue some one Negatiue or more then the Creeds Formally express Add to them the common Doctrin of all Christians The four General Councils c. is essentially necessary to Constitute him Protestant Now This very More which is nothing but à Sectarian Opinion essentially enters in to make him Protestant or Hee shall neuer bee one Thus much I intended to proue and I hold it proued demonstratiuely 11. You haue what I would say plainly laid forth in this vnanswerable Dilemma He who iudges all the Negatiue Articles of A dilemma Protestants false And belieues the Contrary Positiues taught by our Catholick Church As reuealed Truths is yet Protestant or not If not the belief of some thing els Truth or vntruth is essentially requisite to make him Protestant But the belief of That be it what you will now superadded to Constitute him à Belieuing Protestant is no Truth reuealed by God But only à Protestant Opinion without which he wants the Essence of that Religion Ergo most euidently the Belief of Opinions essentially constitutes him à belieuing Protestant Consequently some Doctrin which God has not reuealed makes him Protestant And the belief of his Creeds is not Faith
Tabernacle placed iâ— the sun Ipsa est Ecclesia saith S. Austin Epist 166. In sole posita The Church is placed in the sun Hoc est in manifestatione omnibus noâ—a vsque ad terminos terrae That is She is known by Her own apparent and manifest Euidence all the whole world ouer And because no one Father touches this point with greater Energy than S. Austin Hear yet more Tract 1. m. 1. Ioan Possumus digito c. S. Austins Iudgement concerning The Churches Euidence we can point at the Church and demonstrate it with à finger and They are blind who see it not Lib. 2. contra Crescon Cap. 36. Extat Ecclesia The Church is in Being apparently clear and conspicuous to all Again Lib 2. Contra Petil C. 32. Neminem latet verae Ecclesia The Church of Christ lies hid to none And Lib Contra crescon C. 63. The Church so clearly presents it self to all sort of men euen to Infidels that it stopp's the mouths of Pagans c. See also this great Doctor pondering those words of the. 30. Psalm Qui videbant me foras fugerunt c. Obscurius faith Hee dixerunt Prophetae de Christo quam de Ecclesiâ c. The Prophets haue spoken more darkly of Christ than of the Church And I think this was done because they saw in spirit that men would make Parties against the Church and not contend so much concerning Christ ready to contend about the Church Christ almost euery where was preached by the Prophets in some hidden or couered Mystery Ecclesia apertè but the Church was pointed at so clearly that all might see it and those also who were to bee against it I waue other Authorities for t' is tedious to proue à Manifest Truth or here to transcribe plainer Testimonies relating to this subiect Thus much premised 7. I say first Though Church Doctrin be more clearly expressed by the Church chiefly in all Matters of Controuersy than in Scripture For example you know the Church deliuers the An Assertion concerning Church Doctrin Consubstantiallity of the eternal Son with greater clarity than Scripture expresseth that Truth Yet no man can proue to reason this clearer Doctrin to be immediatly true vpon this sole ground Mark my precise words that the Church teaches it My meaning is The Church yet not manifested to bee God's Oracle by marks extrinsecal to its Doctrin leaues Reason so in suspence that it Cannot say This is the Oracle which teaches Truth or that the Doctrin of this not yet euidenced Society is Diuine and Orthodox The Assertion is so amply proued aboue that it is needles to press the Arguments further in this place All I say now is that we discourse in like manner of Scripture and Church Doctrin precisely considered as Essential Doctrin not yet made Credible by The Doctrin of Scripture or The Church not Proued true by Saying its true signes and Motiues As therefore the Verities of Scripture are not known to be Diuine Ex terminis because I read them in that Holy book But must haue them proued Diuine vpon à certain Principle distinct from Scripture So the Verities of the Church are not known Ex terminis to be certain before I proue the Church by Clear Motiues to be the Oracle of Truth whereby God speaks to Christians what I Assert is euident in Christ our Lord and his Apostles when they first began to preach For neither Iew nor Gentil belieued that Sacred Doctrin vpon their bare preaching Nay It scandalized the one and seemed à foolery to the other But when they saw it confirmed by Euident Signes and Wonders by eminent Sanctity of life by vndeniable Miracles and other Signal marks which the Author of Religion laid open to Reason Both Iewes and Gentils were gained moued to belieue by Such Inducements no less prudent than forceably perswasiue 8. The reason of all à Priori giuen aboue euinces thus much None can indubitably and immediatly own the Doctrin of either Church or Scripture as true and Orthodox but by one of these two means Either the light of natural Reason discouers that Truth Or it must be known by Faith Reason alone too weak to comprehend the Sublime Mysteries reuealed in Holy writ or taught by the Church boggles at all And left to it self reiects The reason of our Assertion at least the harder Mysteries as is manifest in both Iewes and Gentils Now to know them by obscure Faith is wholly impossible vnless one haue sufficient Assurance before hand grounded on other prudent extrinsecal Principles That both Scripture and the Church teach Diuine and certain Doctrin To know thus much the Rational man must discourse And in this present state of things first find out the Church by her Marks and Signes visible to all If reason complies not with this duty the Faith we draw from thence is no Faith but à precipitous foolish Credulity For who can prudently assent to the high Mysteries of Christianity vnlesse Reason first see it is prudent to do so This is what the Apostle deliuer's in few but most pithy words Scio cui credidi certus sum That is I first know why I am to belieue by Reason and then stedfastly belieue without further reasoning But enough of this in the Chapter cited aboue 9. The. 2. Proposition If the Doctrin of Christ's Church precisely considered according to its Essence bee not ex exterminis manifestly true or proues not immediatly that the Church is Orthodox vpon Her own meer saying that She teaches Truth It is euident She must be proued Gods Oracle by Motiues extrinsecal to Her Doctrin Now these Motiues purely considered as Inducements to belieue are not Articles of Faith but sensible reasonable and of such weight that they powerfully incline euery The Church first proued Orthodox by rational Motiues well disposed vnderstanding to this rational assent As God anciently spake by Moses by Christ and his Apostles So he now also speak's by his own true Church And lead's men vnder her safe Conduct to Saluation 10. The ground of my Assertion is no less euident than the very Position it selfe First Christ himself neuer proued his Doctrin true by meerly saying it was so but confirmed it by signes and wonders which made it immediatly credible as is sayd already So also did his Apostles And so doth the true Church to this day 2. Vnless Christians haue those prudent Inducements preuiously applied to reason before they belieue the Holy Catholick Church The wise prouidence of God must be supposed so neglectiue as not to let men know after à prudent and diligent search which or where his true Church is Though Scripture Compares it to à glorious Sun most visible to all And the Fathers say they are blind that see it not 3. All those Millions of Christians who belieued the true Church who liued and dyed happily in it innumerable shed their blood for the verities of it were not
à People mad nor besotted vpon this Account because As the Primitiue Christians more induced to belieue so are wee They proceeded iust as the Primitiue Christians did that alwaies belieued vpon Rational Motiues These Motiues then first enlightned the reason of the most ancient Christians And reason afterward preuented by grace submitted to all the Church teaches But much more of this hereafter because of greatest Consequence though it seem's Sectaries haue little regard to the Euidence of Christianity Drawn from rational Motiues 11. The. 3. Proposition The Marks of Christs Church manifest to all are more sensible and clear than the essential Doctrin is marked by them They are peculiar to the true Church only and distinguish Her from all Heretical Communities Finally taken all together and not by Piece-meal conuince this truth That God speaks to Christians by this Church Euery part of the Proposition proues it self First à Mark is more clear and sensible than the thing marked by it For who euer had seen our Blessed Sauiour walking here on earth and obserued his holy life whoeuer had heard his sacred words and seen his Miracles would haue said his Sanctity words and Miracles were more clear and euident to all than his Doctrin was of being God and man Therefore the first Christians belieued that great Mystery induced by euident works and wonders 2. These Marks are peculiar and proper to the true Church only You haue the reason hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 8. 1â—3 The force of prudent Motiues Because it is not possible if à true Church be now on earth that God can permit à false Society to equalize it much less to surpass it in the lustre of such Motiues as forcibly perswade to discern between That and all heretical Communities For were this done Falshood would be made as credible to reason as truth And God would be guilty of Arguing less efficaciously in behalf of his own Church against Iewes Gentils and obstinate Hereticks 12. Obserue well the Strength of this Argument I say in à word If an Arian could truly Assert I haue as many forceable Motiues And marks of truth belonging to my followers and Doctrin As the now supposed true Church of Christ can shew for it self could he say with truth I will euidence the like Antiquity the like Perpetuity the like lawful Mission of my Pastors the like vnity in Faith the like conuersions of Heathens wrought in and by my Church The like succession of Bishops preaching my Doctrin from Christs time to this day The like sanctity the like miracles as any Church on earth can demonstrate They distinguish the true Church from false Communities Could an Arian I say or Iew either speak all this with truth no Orthodox Christian could argue the one or other of Falshood in Doctrin For grant thus much These very men might much better handle and interpret Scripture than Protestants do vtterly destitute of all such Marks The Iew if the false supposition stand would draw the old Testament to his sense and so would the Arian the new And who could reproue them could they shew you à Church bearing these signes of diuine Authority Hence Sectaries that only Gloss Scripture and neuer had any thing like an euidenced Church which taught the Doctrin they now maintain and so earnestly Gloss for are most reproueable And vainly attempt to draw any prudent man to à belief of their Nouelties 13. By all you see how important it is to haue à Christian Society clearly marked and distinguished from false Communities with euident Signes and rational Motiues before we recurr to Scripture All faith depends on this greater Euidence laid forth to reason as Shall be demonstrated towards the end of this Discourse 14. I would haue euery one seriously to reflect on what is now said and once more to know That Christs Church like à glorious Sun euidenceth Her selfe by the Lustre of signal Marks though her essential Doctrin belieued by obscure Faith appear's not Euident Find me then out à Church euer in being since Christs time vnited in one Faith glorious in Miracles and conuersions of Heathens wherein Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent haue preached Christs Doctrin age after age Giue me à Church which was neuer censured or taxed of Errour by any Society of known Orthodox Christians She and She only is Christ's true Spouse All other late risen Assemblies are Conuenticles of Satan And these Marks do not only distinguish Her from all One only Church Shewes these Marks such Conuenticles as is now noted but Collectiuely taken conuince this Truth That God speak's to Christians by this Oracle whereof you haue more in the following Chapters 15. In the Interim we must enter vpon à further difficulty and next enquire which among so many Congregations as now are and haue been in the world is the only manifested true Spouse of Christ For all as I said aboue make not one Church vnless Christ hath composed this mystical Body of such members as rightly belieue and of others that iniuriously oppose his sacred Doctrin Now because the chief controuersy is between the Protestant and Catholick The first pretend's to à Church which teaches Christs Doctrin The Catholick vtterly denies the Pretence and pleads for his Own Oracle euidenced by prudent Motiues This I say being the Contest we are in the first place to vnchurch the Protestant and then proue by vndeniable Arguments where and with whom the true Church of Christ is CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church euidenced by Marks of Truth nor true Doctrin made credible to reason His whole Faith is built vpon Fancy 1. THe Marks of the Church as is now said are so clear to reason that they make the Oracle manifest to all sort of people to the learned and vnlearned to Iewes to Infidels and much more to Hereticks who pretend to belieue in Christ All of them are alike concerned and obliged to make à search after the true Church and when t' is found to belieue it 2. Now to find it out I Ask whether our English Protestants with these we chiefly dispute like well of the marks Questions Proposed to Sectaries already hinted at or will reiect them I propose my doubt with all candor Will they dare to say That their Church as it deliuers Protestants Doctrin or as it is now reformed in England was euer since Christ time In Being and visible to the world Can they produce à Succession of Bishops or Pastors that taught Protestancy Age after Age without intermission Can they show what Conuersions these Protestant Pastors wrought vpon Heathens to their faith fiue or six Centuries since Can they produce indubitable Miracles done by such Pastors Most euidently No. Therefore our later Protestants reiect these and the other like Motiues as slight and impertinent to euidence their Church which yet say they teaches Christs Doctrin and Wilily do so because they haue none of them Well To
our Church hath erred but in one only Matter of Christian belief She is Traiterous disloyal to Christ and can be belieued in nothing To proue The Church is traiterous if false in one Article the Assertion Suppose an Embassadour sent to à forraign state with this deep Charge that he vtter nothing in his Princes name but so much only as he is commissioned to speak Suppose again the man declares some few truths to the state as his Lord commanded But withall forges twenty other vntruths on his own head and stifly affirm's his order is to deliuer all he saith in his Masters name Would not such à man think ye be à Traitour vpon à double account First because he exceed's the bounds of his Commission and deliuers that he had no order for But chiefly because he speaks vast falsities wholly Contrary to his iudgement who sent him 2. The Application in easy The first Teachers of the Gospel were legates sent from God to à great State the whole world For in omnem terram exâ—uit sonus eorum They taught euery where and well for some short time our Christian Verities as the Prince who sent them Commanded But their Successors the Pastors and Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church in after Ages had Say Sectaries the ill luck to miscarry to turn Traitours for besides à few fundamental Truths vpheld no man knowes how They did not only exceed their commission in deliuering Doctrin to all Nations which Christ their Master neuer allowed of but more ouer forged of their own heads twenty vntruths Purgatory Praying to Saints Transubslantiation c. And spake all in their Princes name Said also they had Commission from Christ to teach so This fact if the Charge be true is Treasonable they iniured Christ And consequently not Orthodox and his Verities and betrayed their trust But à Church so perfidious cannot be Orthodox Therefore if Sectaries do not Calumniate Christ had no Orthodox Church in the world before Luther which I intended to proue and Consequently Protestants are yet no true Church at all 3. I say moreouer If the Roman Catholick Church hath taught false Doctrin but in one onely Matter of Christian belief She can be belieued in nothing yea I may rationally suspect her false in all She teaches Iust so it is If the book of Scripture deliuer's one Doctrin false which Christians now belieue I cannot credit it in any thing The reason is One and the same Motiue of my belief duely and equally applied euer moues to an equal Assent or to None at all For example I belieue Christ dyed for vs because Gods word saies so Here is the Motiue of my Assent I belieue also that he ascended into Heauen because the same word of God speaks it here is the same Motiue Imagin now by à supposed impossibility that this latter Article A Church false in one Article merits no beliefe is Gods word but false I cannot belieue our Sauiours Death vpon the Motiue of God's word For if this word be false and once deceiue it may as easily be false and deceiue me twice And there is no possible means to quit me of my errour Because whoeuer endeauours to do that is of less Authority than God's word which is now supposed to deceiue me If therefore the First Verity can reueal an vntruth none can belieue either man or Angel speaking of the high Mysteries of our Faith and Consequently All must still remain in Errour 4. Apply this Discourse to the Roman Catholick Church which pretend's at least I say no more yet to be Gods Oracle and to speak in His name She speaking in his name assures me that Infants are to be Baptized I belieue Her vpon her word She also tells me there is à Purgatory but we must now suppose with Sectaries it is à great vntruth if so I cannot possibly belieue Her in the other Doctrin of Infant Baptism For if she deceiues me once She may well do it again and which is to be noted There is no means left vnder Heauen to vnbeguile me or to draw me out of my supposed Errour for who euer attempts to do that is of less Authority than my Church which is supposed to teach to err in Her teaching and stifly to maintain the Errour Scripture cannot help here vnless it be clear vpon an indubitable Principle that the sense of it and Doctrin of my Church can differ in points of Faith which must be proued and not Supposed If Fathers be alleaged Seemingly contrary to this known Doctrin my duty is to explicate them and rather to draw the Fathers to what the Church teaches than to renounce Her Authority and adhere to the dubious and yet vnknown Sense of any Father 5. Now here is à short consideration For Sectaries I said whoeuer supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred A Reflection for Sectaries must ioyntly own it so remediless an Euil that all the men on earth cannot help or remoue the supposed errour from this Church The reason is All the Proofs and Principles setting plain Scripture aside whereof there is no danger which may be thought pertinent to impeach Her of errour will fall infinitly short and proue less ponderous less substantial to perswade that She has erred than her sole Vote and own Authority whilst she anathematizes the falshood is to perswade the contrary Viz. That She neuer erred Hence Sectaries confessedly fallible men who Sectaries Attempt desperate and why may easily spoil all they goe about to mend aduenture desperatly to reform the Church when the very Principles they should reform by were there any such in being are incomparably of less weight strength and force than the Authority of this Church is which saith She cannot erre Howeuer She must be reformed and here is the wonder before they know whether She has erred or haue the least assurance of their own half accomplish't reformation Who then see 's not euery attempt made against our Church this way to bee as really it is à folly an vnaduiced Enterprise no less impossible than in the highest manner improbable Mark what à task lies on them 6. First they are to proue She has erred which was neuer yet done 2. To giue in Principles whereby they will reform 3. To VVhat they are to proue Shew themselues well setled in à perfect Reformation 4. To euince that all those innumerable learned men of our Church from the Fourth to the present Age haue been stupidly blind bereaued of iudgement and besotted with Errour 5. Wheras other Christians both more aged and most learned espyed none of these Errours They are to proue that God made choise of such vncommissioned men to perform à work so long neglected by the Orthodox world But of these particulars enough is said in the other Treatise 7. Hence two things follow First that Sectaries only lose time when by alleging à few dark Testimonies of the Fathers they offer to
ouerthrow any Doctrin of our Church Alas what this Oracle positiuely defin's is à stronger Principle than twenty dubious Authorities of Fathers if any such were in appearance contrary It followes 2. That the Roman Catholick Church must of necessity be either owned Orthodox in all She teaches or cannot be belieued in any thing 8. Wherefore I say à great word If this Church hath deceiued the world in teaching à Purgatory for example neither we nor Sectaries can certainly belieue that Christ was here on earth or Redeemed vs. For Ask why belieue wee this great Mystery If you Answer Scripture reueal's it you are Questioned again How One Errour in the Church Destroyes all Faith know you that Scripture is Gods word which Ex terminis euidences not it self You must Answer Vniuersal Tradition and all the Churches in the world haue owned the Book for Gods word Very good But The Church hitherto supposed most Orthodox among so many Heretical Societies and Her Tradition likewise haue actually deceiued all For She is now Imagined to haue taught the false Doctrins of Purgatory Transubstantiation c. Therefore you cannot belieue Her or any Tradition for erring in one point of Faith She is not belieuable in any This principle stand's firm Much less can you trust to the Doctrin or Tradition of known Heretical Churches whether Arians Pelagians or others For all these haue erred and most grosly Therefore you haue no certainty of the verities contained in Scripture nor can you belieue this one Prime Article Christ dyed for vs by Diuine Faith 9. Let therefore the Sectary labour all that 's possible to contract the fundamentals of Faith into the shortest room Imaginable let him mince them almost to nothing let this one Article Iesus is the Christ be Faith enough for all I say if the Roman Catholick Church speaking in the name of God as She pretends to speak hath taught but one false Article and obliged Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation Purgatory for example none can now vpon any Motiue known to the world firmly belieue That Iesus is the Christ So pernicious is one known errour of the Church that it ruins's all belief of other Articles nor can such à Church be more trusted in any thing She speaks than Scripture relied on were it false in that Article Iesus is the Christ 10. The reason à Priori is All Faith is at last reduced or finally resolued into Gods Diuine Reuelation whether he speaks by this or that Instrument by this or that Oracle imports nothing The Vltimate reason of the Assertion The difference of the Oracle he speaks by diuersifies not faith which alwaies tend's to one Center and rests on one sure Ground Gods Veracity If he speaks by à Prophet that 's his Oracle If by an Apostle he is made an Oracle If by the exteriour words of Scripture they are Oracles if by the Church She is his Oracle Now further Suppose any of these assumed Oracles speaking in the name of God declare à false Doctrin to Christians the Falsity Vltimatly redound's to God who own 's them as Oracles yet by them teaches the world Falsities It fall's out here As if à Prince should send à Legate to à State who speak's in his name and cheat the whole State by his Embassy would not all deseruedly vpon the Supposition more impute the Cheat to the Prince than to the Legate that speaks in his name The parity is exact and proues if either Scripture Prophet Apostle or Church speaking in the name of God deliuers false Doctrin God himself deceiues vs and therefore Rich. de S. Vict. Said well in this sense also Si error est quem credimus c. If we belieue an errour T' is you Great God who haue deceiued vs But if God can once deceiue either immediatly By Himselfe or mediatly by his Oracle The whole Systeme of Christian Faith is desstroyed What I say would bee true Although He should make à solemn protestation of Speaking Truth For euen then he cannot oblige me to belieue because he may deceiue in that very Protestation and deliuer à falsity if the supposition hold 11. Here then is the final Conclusion As subiectiue Faith in à Belieuer is Indiuisible That is it is either wholly good or wolly naught None can haue à piece of Faith without the whole vertue an Could the Church propose one false Article She can bee belieued in nothing Arian cannot belieue Christ to be à Redeemer if He denies the Trinity So if one Matter of Faith proposed by the Church be really Contrary to what She defines None can belieue any thing She teaches For the meer Possibility of deceiuing Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all She proposeth And this proues the Church absolutly infallible not in some points only but in all and euery Doctrin whereof you haue more in the 15 16 and 17 Chapters following 12. Some may reply I suppose all this while the Church made so stedfastly God's Oracle as not to err in any Doctrin She proposes which is Petitio Principy or à begging of the Question Contra. And Ye Gentlemen whilst you impeach Her of Errour Suppose Her Instrumentum diuulsum an Oracle tom as it were from Gods Sspecial Assistance iust as if I shoâ—ld Suppose the words of Scripture separated from the Spirit of truth You suppose Her à fair spouse yet make Her à harlot when and as Often as you please You acknowledge some Church or other find that out where you can to teach Truth yet you like petulant Schollers will forsooth be so wise as to tell her where she misseth in Her Lesson and correct Her for it And you haue done it to the purpose For you haue destroied Her Monasteries rob'd Her Altars prophaned Her Temples abused Her Children banished some and hang'd vp other Are not these fine God deceiues if the Church câ—n Err. Doings Contra. 2. I suppose nothing but what is manifest that Christ euer had à Church on earth once more find it where you can and that God speaks to Christians by this Oracle which he will be with to the end of the world And against which Hell gates shall neuer preuail Now I say if this Church which God not I makes his own Oracle and promises to teach Truth by it can deceiue but in one Matter of Faith God himself deceiues vs And this Church ceaseth Eo ipâ—o to be Catholick yea and God to be the Eternal Truth For it Matters nothing if he can deceiue whether he do it by Scripture or the Church Solue this Argument if you can 13. You may say 2. The whole ground of this Discourse à Fallacy and comes only to thus much If à man once tell à lie he must be thought à lyar in all he speaks So it is The Church speaks an vntruth in some things Ergo it doth so or may do so in all seemes no good consequence Contra.
to life And for three you haue more reuiued by an other of His holy Order I mean that admirable Saint Vincentius Ferrerius So the pious and learned S. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence Recounts in his Histpry 3. Part lib. 23. And who dares say that so great à Doctor And most modest Prelate was so Frontless as to write that we read not long after the death of S. Vincentius without Assurance and Certainty The whole world would haue decryed the Folly Had it been à Fourb an Imposture or à fabulous Story 7. By what is now said of These and other infinit Operations of grace which I am forced to omit you may inferr first That the Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church are not inferiour to those done by the Apostles And consequently if our Our Sauiours Prophesy falfilled in the Churches Miracles Sauiours Prophesy was seen manifestly fulfilled in those first Apostolical Wonders it hath been also as effectually accomplished in these latter of the Church I say in the Roman Catholick Church For all those now named whom God priuiledged with the Grace of working Miracles were of the same vnion in Faith with this Church and no other It followes 2. That Humane Faith when no iust Exception comes against it But the fool-hardy Spirit of vnbelieuing Heathens and Hereticks giues Mortal Assurance of Miracles The Miracles of our Sauiour euidence this Truth He raised Lazarus from death Iohn 11. A Touch of his garment cured the infirm woman Matt. 9. He restored sight to à blind man Iohn 9. Obserue I beseech you All Iewry beheld not these Wonders But some only Yet they were wrought for the good of All and without doubt proued conuincing Arguments of Christ's great power to innumerable who actually saw them not But only heard of them and Assented to what they heard vpon Miracles made Credible vpon humane Authority humane Authority prudently credible Therefore our Sauiour Supposed That humane Faith and this before the writing of Scripture was à Sufficient Means to conuey to others à Moral certainty of his Miracles I say yet more If God euer efficaciously intended to worck à true Miracle since the Creation of the world by any of his creatures Humane Faith was and yet is the First and most Connatural way of Conueying it to the knowledge of others Who therefore excepts against this vsual course of Prouidence destroies à Principle of Nature and can belieue nothing of Supernatural Effects but what he either sees with his own eyes or find's registred in Holy Writ 8. Ask now How many Austins How many Chrysostoms how many Cyrills how many Bedes and Bernards haue vpon their Credit and Reputation assured vs of Miracles wrought in the Roman Church only like to those in the Primitiue Age They are numberless Did Christ our Lord restore life to the dead sight to the blind health to the sick The Professors of our Catholick Church by his virtue haue done the very same and the Miracles are more numerous But now and here is the chief demand Were our Sauiours glorious Works made Credible to Authority alleged thousands no Eye-witnesses vpon Humane faith and Authority before Scripture registred them So it is Behold we haue our Austins our Iustins our Basils our Bernards vnexceptionably plain for the Churches Miracles and none can without Impudency and the violation of all humane Credit probably Cauil at what these haue written None can without making very Saints Impostors and guilty of that enormous sin of grosly deceiuing Posterity pare away so much as any substantial parcel of what is Recorded Therefore vnless all humane Faith perish its desperate rashness to deny most glorious Miracles to haue been in the Roman Catholick Church which was my Assertion 9. And to confirm it more I Ask why do Sectaries to disgrace our Miracles introduce I know not what Stories of the Heathens wonders Are these credible or no If not reiect them boldly as Impertinences If Credible it seems humane Faith is of some weight with Sectaries when they read of the Heathens fopperies though of no Account for true Miracles wrought by the Church of Christ Again this Faith is much worth with these men when to lay à foul Aspersion on à Pope Sectaries in Consequences or Prelate they fill their Books with à hundred petty Stories whether true or false imports little Herein their easy Beliefe swallowes all But if à Father or Choise Historian mention à Miracle its à Fourb à dream à fiction and what not 10. One word more and I end A meer pretended Humane Authority which really is not And therefore nothing worth is shamefully made vse of to patronize that crying Sin of Sectaries Schism Our Church Say they Changed Her ancient Faith the Charge at most relies on History or Humane Faith God neuer told them so For example The Lateran Council first brought in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation some Pope or other first inuented Purgatory c. Suppose all this were as true as t' is hideously false History or nothing must make it good and yet in our present case it is no warrant for known Miracles Thus Faith riseth and fall's in value as our New mens fancy pleases Belieue it had blessed S. Ambrose cited aboue in lieu of that Miraculous Cure wrought on à blind man at Millan when Himself was present and innumerable of that Citty saw the wonder related à stroy preiudicial to either Pope or Clergy How often think you would that haue been told and reiterated in the Writings os Sectaries But now when Hee speaks of à supernatural Work of grace done at the Reliques of the holy Martyrs Geruasius Humane Faith now Valuable now not with Sectaries and Protasius not à word is said No all passes in Silence as if Christs own Marks and the Churches glory vndoubted Miracles deserued no Memory but Contrarywise Scorn and contempt 11. I said in the Assertion that the grace of true Miracles meaning such as exactly Answer to our Sauiours glorious works is proper and peculiar to the Roman Church only The proof hereof is easy First Sectaries pretend not to work Miracles For they say that power ceased long since though I might here mind them of Caluins great wonder and really it was à strange one For whereas God's Saints restored life to the dead this great Sinner hauing perswaded one Bruleus of Ostun to fain himself dead depriued the poor wretch of his life Or rather God Caluins Miracle to lay open the fraud and Hypocrisy of both the one and other turned the Fiction into à Verity for really Bruleus who Counterfeited himself dead to get Caluin the renown of working Miracles was after all the Ministers long prayer found dead indeed The story is known and writ not only by Hierome Bolsec in Vita Calvini C. 13. But by others also And here I wish Sectaries to giue some credit to humane Authority 12. Now as Protestants disclaim Miracles so do
no For this we believe by Faith And know not Scientifically Yet they plainly Mark out the great Oracle whereby God speaks to the world And therefore wonder not that Sectaries striue so earnestly to Obscure the euidence Their design is to take from vs the clearest Principle which must end Controversies Why Sectaries endoauour to obs 〈…〉 â—he Churches Lustre For cast oncâ— off à Church manifested by Antiquity Miracles Conuersions c. Nothing remains to regulate Faith but the dark and yet vnsensed Letter of Scripture which is most grosly abused by the one or other dissenting Party who force vpon it quite contrary Senses And by what means can any one come to the knowledge of Him or these that abuse it if Church Authority be excluded or decide not in this most weighty matter VVe need not saith Mr Thorndicke in his Book of Forbearance P. 2. The Heresies of the Primitiue times to tell vs what Irreligious pretenses may be set forth in Scripture Phrase Our own Fanatiks would furnish sport enough with the Foolâ—riâ—s they pretend as from Gods Spirit because they can dâ—liuer their Nonsense in the Phrase of Scripture Again This two edged sword of holy Scripture may proue an edged tool to cut their sâ—ins with who take vpon them and haue not skill to handle it Much better were it say I were the Abuse or ill handling of the Book only found among à few Fanaticks But the euil is spread further you Gentlemen are all alike whether Fanaticks or Protestants that handle gloss and interpret Scripture by Priuate reason conttary to the Iudgement of an uniuersal euidenced Church 13. A third Truth The Church thus manifested by Her Marks which are Obiects of Sense and induce reason to iudge that She only is Gods Oracle Catholicks neuer call into doubt Her Essential owned Doctrin nor seek for further Euidence thereof because there is none in this present State But humbly submit to all she Teaches This Euidence then once attained which ariseth from the Churches Marks And hath drawn Millions to belieâ—e her Doctrin We next turn to our Bible and learn there that the Language of these Motiues for etiam factâ— What these Motiues Speak loquitur Deus saith S. Austin aboue God speaks by his works and the Language of his own written word is one and the same That is what these Inducements point at God expresly deliuers in holy Scripture Obserue an exact parallel 14. The Antiquity of our Church and here is one sensible Mark we plead by giues Assurance that the first Founder was our Lord Iesus Christ No Sectary call's this truth into Question and the Gospel confirms it Luc. 24. 48. Beginning from Hierusalem c. Her Constant Perseuerance visible in all Ages God reueals in Scripture proues Her indeficiency And this is manifest in Scripture A Citty placed on à Mountain Hell gates shall not preuail against Her Om 〈…〉 m etiam infidelium oculis exhibetur saith S. Austin Lib. Con. Crescon C. 63. The Church is so well seen by all that the very Pagans cannot contradict Her She showes you à continued Succession of her Popes Bishops and Pastors from the beginning and Scripture also Ephes 4. 11. And he gaue some Apostles c. long since foretold it She giues in à clear Euidence of Her Miracles through euery age Our Blessed Sauiour prophesied it should be so Iohn 14. 12. Maiora horum facient They shall work greater wonders None can deny most Miraculous Conuersions of Kingdomes and Nations to Her Faith and the Prophesies of Christ's Church fulfilled Prophets euery where Proclaim the truth Many Nations shall flock to Her Zachar. 2. 11. She Shewes how Her Doctrin was propagated through the whole world And therefore is called the Visible Catholick or Vniuersal Church Scripture also Confirm's it Doâ—ete omnes gentes Teach all Nations Dominabitur à mari vsque ad mare She shall raign from sea to sea Finally to say much in few words which might be further amplifyed Is it true which the Church demonstrates that Hereticks as Arians Nestorians Pelagians Eutichyans Lutherans and Caluinists once Professed Catholicks shamefully abandoned Her Vnion and for that Cause iustly deserued the reproachful name of Hereticks and Separatists Scripture Foretell's vs of the Breach and Apostacy Iohn 1. 2. 19. Ex nobis prodierunt They left vs went out from vs. for had they been of vs they would haue remained And thus both Church and Heresy are visibly pointed at by clear Marks and Gods written word also Videndum it is the Expression of Optat. Mileuit Lib. 1. à little after the middle Quis in radice â—um toto orbe â—aâ—serit quis foras exierit We are to see who They were that continued in the root with the whole world and who parted from it We are to see who erected another Chair distinct from that which was before Call these and boldly Hereticks straglers from the Church and the Verities of Christs Gospel And here by the way we vrge our Nouellists to point at à visible Sectaries Vrged to Answer Orthodox Society which the Supposed erring Church of Rome abandoned as clearly as we lay forth to them the time the place the circumstances not only of their own impious Reuolt But of all other more ancient Hereticks from this Catholick Society Could the Sectary do thus much Hee might speak more confidently 15. To end the matter now in hand You see by what is said already If Christs words haue weight Math. 18. 16. In ore duorum vel trium Stet omne verbum That Truth stand's firm vpon the Testimony of two or three vnexceptionable Witnessess Wee here introduce two Testimonies in behalf of our Church which none can except against Gods own voice speaking to reason by Miracles and the Motiues now mentioned is the One And his own sacred reuealed word which most significantly teaches what these Motiues speak is the Other Hence I say Sectaries cannot dispute against this Church without proofs drawn from Motiues as strong and Scriptures as clear as are now alleged in our behalf We press them again and again to giue in their Euidence and seriously demand whether Protestancy was confessedly founded by Christ Or but once owned Orthodox by any sound Christians Sectaries Grauelled at Euery Question As all acknowledge the foundation of the Roman Catholick and the Orthodoxism of it to haue been established by Christ our Lord. We further enquire after à visible Succession of their Pastors after their visible Miracles their visible Conuersions made in foregoing Ages Nothing is answered nothing is or can be pleaded nothing in à word is returned probable Therefore Protestancy is an vneuidenced Religion no Motiues countenance the Nouelty no Scripture speaks for it and Consequently cannot but be in the highest degree improbable 16. A fourth Truth A Church which weares as it were Gods own Liuery and beares the Signatures of Divine Authority in Her Miracles Prodigious Conuersions
Council either break vp and Define nothing Or if à Definition issues forth that only shall be defined which is certain and infallible Thus much is granted Yet I deny the Consequence and Say The Argument drawn from Hostility Conuinces Here is my reason That Imagined Râ—presentatiue consist's as we now suppose of Arians Protestants Catholicks Socinians and all other called Christians For these as some think Collectiuely taken make vp the diffused Church of Christ more ample than the Roman Or if so many The Argument taken From Hostility Conuinces Constitute it not Let Sectaries please to tell vs what Christians are to be excluded or precisely how many are the Members of this diffused Catholick Body In the mean while vouchsafe to Consider the force of my Argument grounded vpon an implacable Hostility 17. This whole diffused Moral Body euidently maintain's Contradictions For example Christ is the highest God Christ is not the highest God Our Lords Sacred Body is substantially present in the Eucharist That Body is not substantially present As therefore this large Society of Christians now supposed but one great Church holds contradictions So it must be granted that the Representatiue of it also hold's the same Contradictions Or ceaseth â—o ipsâ— to Represent the whole Diffused Moral Body 18. Hence one of these three Sequels ineuitably followes The first If this Representatiue still continues to Represent which is euer to be noted and proceed's to à Definition answerable to the Sentiment of the large Moral Body in Diuision it necessarily Defines the contradictions of those Churches to The Reasons and Proofs of my Assertion be Orthodox Doctrin and were this done There is More then Hostility enough For thus impossible Contradictions are both Definable and Belieuable Or it followes 2. that our imagined Representatiue break 's vp and leaues all points in Controuersy as Wholly vndecided as they were before And this which implies an endles Hostility would I think be the Result of that Council And vpon that Account appear à ridiculons Representatiue Or. 3. This followes That some one Part or other in the Representatiue must lay down Arms and acknowledge one Church of One Denomination absolutly infallible in whose Sentence all are to rest VVithout this Acquiescency in one Orthodox and Infallible Church Errours in Faith goe on as S. Austin Speak's what we Assert we see hitherto in à remedilesse condition This truth S. Austin Lib. de symb ad Catecâ—um C. 6. Saw well where He speak's profoundly to my present purpose Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta Ecclesia vna c. She and she only is the holy the one Church the Catholick Church which fights against all Heresies She may fight but cannot be foiled And Might I here Digress à little I could Demonstrate That neuer Heresy yet of any Fame in the world appeared since Christs time but it was Crushed censured and condemned by one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church to whose Sentence the very best of Christians dutifully Submitted relying on our Sauiours secure Promise Hell gates cannot preuail against that Oracle 19. A. 3. Obiection Scripture alone though all Churches were fallible is sufficient to teach infallible Faith necessary to Saluation Answ Of all Obiections proposable this is least worth For had Scripture that sufficiency it may I hope be yet Enquired VVhether the Church also which cannot clash with Scripture has the like Prerogatiue of infallibility Scripture was infallible when the Apostles preached and yet their Preaching was as infallible as The words they wrote But here is not my greatest Exception I say Scripture and all the Verities in it goe to wrack if the Church be fabllible For grant this we haue no infallible Certainty of the Scriptures Canon of it's substantial Purity or Immunity from corruption of it's true Scripture with out the Churches infallible Testimony loseth force Sense in à hundred controuerted passages VVe cannot belieue that Christ is God or That his Ascent into Heauen was real and not à vain Vision We Cannot belieue what Sacraments are nor know the number of them without the Church Therefore vnless this Principle stand vnshaken It is immediatly more certain that the Church manifested by Her Marks is Gods own Oracle Than That Scripture setting Church Authority aside is Gods word we can belieue nothing For who see 's not but that very Book would soon haue been out of credit had not God by special Assistance preserued as well it 's Doctrin pure in Mens hearts as He preserued the words in Velume or parchment And this by the means of à watchful liuing Oracle his infallible Church 20. Again and this Reason conuinceth Were Scripture iudged sufficient to teach Saluifical Faith compleatly independently of the Church Or were the Church when that Iudgement is held not only errable but actually erroneous How can any hauing The Assertion is proued these two iudgements Scripture Infallibly â—eaches Faith compleatly The Church because erroneous fail's in this Duty Account himself à Heathen or Publican as our Lord Saith though he absolutely refuse to hear the Church His refusal Certainly is prudent and defensible vpon this ground That Scripture doth all learns him enough Therefore none can oblige him to hear the Church which may mislead and Propound false Doctrins For no man in his wits will listen to à Fallible Oracle whilst he has another at hand that teaches all Truths infallibly 21. If you reply Such an one is at least obliged to hear the Church in Fundamentals but not in others The Intelligent Person Asks whether Protestants who lay that obligation A Reply answered vpon him of belieuing fundamentals only own that Assertion sâ— infallible that to belieue the Distinction is an Article of their Faith If they say it is à fundamental Article and that he is obliged to belieue so Protestants doe not only maintain one infallible fundamental Point peculiar to themselues disowned by the Roman Catholick Church for She certainly reiect's the Distinction The Sectary Câ—nuicted of Errour but moreouer now become infallible Oracles in à Matter of greatest Importance which cannot pass because they are Professedly fallible in all they teach Therefore may truth haue place the Dictinction giuen between fundamentals is both Vnfundamental and fallible Doctrin And so without More we are freed from all Obligation of belieuing the Church for that Distinction failing to be à fundamental truth The Church is absolutly fallible in fundamental Doctrin Well then may we not hear Her at all without any Note of being looked on as Heathens and Publicans 22. Some perhaps great Patrons of Christian Liberty and freedom of mind in matters of Faith may obiect 4. The Church cannot exercise Her Authority ouer mens Iudgements or oblige any to an internal Assent Her power being limited and to thus much only as to order and regulate the Exteriour A Reflection made vpon Christian Libertins for this end that Vnity and peace May be preserued without
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
medled with it Which therefore can not make it Infallible By what is said you se our Sectaries Supposition of some Christian Doctrin acknowledged infallible is pure Sophistry for none can Assure them so much if All that teach it be fallible The very Apostolical Doctrin respectiuely to vs now liuing loses i'ts Infallibility if this Supposition stands That all Teachers are fallible Now we Proceed to à Second Argument and Discourse thus 15. If the whole Church the like is of any General approued The Churches Infallibility further proued Council can err She may not only traitorously betray Her Trust But moreouer doe so much Mischief to Christians by vniting all in Errour That they must remain in it without redress or remedy For if the Church may mistake whilst She Teaches No man on earth can be rationally Supposed wiser than She is nor goe about to Vnbeguile the deceiued by Her The Euil here hinted at is so Notoriously horrid the Perplerity it causes so Great that either Church Doctrin vnauoydably becomes despicable whilst euery one may iustly Quarrel with it Or this Principle must stand vnshaken that the Church cannot teach à Falshood 16. Some Sectaries seing the Force of this vnanswerable Argument hold the Church Diffusiue infallible in fundamentals Yet neither name nor can name those Christians who constitute an infallible Church larger than the Roman whereof enough Sectaries Oppose The Infallibility of Councils without reason is said both in this and the other Treatise In the next place their whole Strife is to Oppose the Infallibility of the Churches Representatiues in her General Councils But methinks inconsequently For what euer Reason proues Immunity from Errour in that diffused Moral Body Conuinces as forcibly the like Priuiledge in its Representatiues Which are not Conuened to deceiue But to teach God's reuealed Verities 17. Mr. Stillingfleet Part. 3. C. 1. 2. P. 506. After à larger Prologue to very little Substance Tell 's vs. It is not any high challenge of Infallâ—bility in any Person or council which must put an end to Controuersies For nothing but Truth and Reason can euer do it and the more men pretend to vnreasonable wayes of deciding them instead of ending One they beget many I say contrary If the Church and Her Councils be infallible Controuersies are ended without more Adoe For all know vpon that Supposition What to belieue and what to reiect And if they be not Owned infallible there is no such thing or things in being as Truth and Reason which can put an end to Controuersies To explicate the Assertion is to proue it 18. Doe then no more but cast away all thought of an Infallible The Infallibility of Councils asserted Church as also of Her infallible Councils It is clear that euery Doctrin Taught since the Apostles time has been deliuered Fallibly T is clear likewise All that teach it at this day highly dissenting among them selues Teach fallibly Imagin now that two aduerse Parties Ten learned Protestants on the one Side And as many learned Catholicks on the Other meet together and seriously Discuss this Point whether Protestancy or Catholick Doctrin as opposed to Protestancy be the true Religion the like is if any particular Controuersy fall vnder Debate I say the Attempt to decide any one controuerted matter is Vain and Impossible if both Church and Councils be Supposed fallible And consequently Mr. Stillingfleets Truth and Reason are no more but meer insignificant Words The Reason is Whilst fallible men pIead for Religion vpon Principles as fallible as they are that Argue the Result of that Dispute necessarily carried on by Arguments and reasoning purely fallible can end in nothing but in dissatisfactory Topicks if yet it come so far But this is so and obserue well The Protestant plead's The weaknes of two parties pleading fallibly for his Tenents or oppugn's our Doctrin and doth it fallibly The Catholick Answers and fallibly too The Protestant Replies but hath no infallible Principle to ground his Reply vpon no more hath the Catholick if the Supposition hold's any other Answer but what 's Vngrounded and Fallible Say I beseech you do not both Parties busied in this Contest vpon vncertainties run on in Darkness Haue we yet the least hope of Satisfaction Or so much as the Truth we all seek for yet discouered in this weak skirmish Whilst Fallible men and Fallible Arguments and Fallible Principles are the only Support of the whole Discourse Most euidently no. All are left where they were before in à deep Perplexity 19. I Said iust now If we we exclude an Infallible Church and her approued Councils Truth and Reason vanish to nothing and that no Principle remain's whereby these Contests of Religion can be ended To proue the Assertion further I first vrge the Protestant to name the last certain Principle or that vltimate Sectaries are vrged to name the last Iudge in these Debates Iudge in whose Sentence he dare Acquiese and Say positiuely vpon this Principle we must both rely This shall Define whether you my Aduersary or I yours defend Truth The man will not for stark shame name Himself nor any priuate Person on earth for Iudge He cannot recurr to an Inferiour Council and Oppose that against One Generally receiued the Whole world ouer He will not adhere to à Schismatical and Heretical Church and plead by Her in defence of his Doctrin against an Oracle neuer yet taxed or tainted of Errour Or if he doth so he gain 's nothing For all those are as fallible as the two Parties now in contest Where then is the Sectaries Sure Principle or last Iudge to stand to in these Debates Or whither will he goe to find out his yet Vndiscoured Truth and Reason Will his refuge be to Scripture It help 's nothing in this Case not only because Scripture omit's to speak either explicitly of the half of such And cannot pitch on any Controuersies as are now agitated But vpon this Account Chiefly That if the Church and Councils be fallible the Book it self becomes à most fallible Principle to all For neither Catholicks nor Protestants nor Arians nor any can Say with Assurance â—uch and Such is the vndoubted â—ense of Gods word in Controuerted Matters if the Churches Iudgement be set light by and look't on as fallible Yet I 'll Say thus much Were the Church fallible Sectaries may well blush first to decry Her Sense of Scripture and then to set vp the far inferiour and fallible interpretation of euery single Person against the Church 20. Some may Reply The grand Principle of Protestants The grand Principle of Protestants reiected is that Scripture in things necessary to Saluation appeares plain to all who vse ordinary Diligence to vnderstand it wherein certainly their Truth and Reason may be found Contra. And I Press not in this place the Vncertainty of the Principle which is as disputable as any other Protestant Tenet But Say more it is wholly
beseech you Why did God impart truth and infallible truth to the world The end was not to improue his own knowledge being euer Omniscient It was not that the Angels and blessed in Heauen should belieue for Faith ceaseth in that happy State All there se intuitiuely what they once belieued The end therefore The Proof is taken from the End of Diuine Reuelation why God reuealed true and Infallible Doctrin was That we yet Pilgrims on earth walking by Faith should yeild Assent to it and belieue all as both true and infallible But this is impossible if the Church which immediatly Proposes the Doctrin can clash with Scripture or with Gods Reuelation and peruert his Verities Therefore She must be acknowledged both true and infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches 3. If any reply It seem's sufficient that the Church teaches Truth though She neither proposes nor teaches it so infallibly but that some times She may swerue from it He destroyes again Christian Religion Be pleased to obserue my reason If the Diuine reuelation is to be assâ—nted â—o infallibly infallibility of reuealed Doctrin be lost as it were in the way between God and vs If the Reuelation appear not as it is in it selfe infallible when we assent to it by Faith That is if it be not infallibly conueyed and applyed to all by an vnerring Proponent as it subsists in its first cause infinitly infallible Faith perishes we are cast vpon pure Vncertainties and may iustly doubt whether such à Doctrin separated from that other Perfection of infallibility be really true or no To se this clearly laid forth Please to make one reflection with me 4. May not either Iew or Gentil well inclined to Christian Religion rationally propose this Question to the Protestants or to any Has God reuealed any Doctrin which is only true God's reuealed Doctrin is no less infallible then true and not infallible You will Answer No because the same infinite verity which support's truth is powerful enough to vphold also its infallibility Say on I beseech you Can you who pretend to teach truth the worst of Heretiques haue done so Ascertain me also that you teach and propose Gods infallible Truths infallâ—blâ— Proue your Selues such Doctors and none will euer Question further the Truth of what you teach For if you once make this clear that you teach the infallible Doctrin which God has reuealed the truth inseparably connexed with infallibility is no more disputable but manifestly Credible But if you turn me off with à fair Story of teaching truth and Ascertain me not of your teaching it infallibly euery rational man will most iustly doubt of your teaching Truth And here is the reason à Priort 5. Euery Doctrin which is taught as à Verity founded vpon God the first Verâ—ty is no less Infallible than true Therefore who euer Ascertains me of the one must ioyntly ascertain me of the other Or if he will diuorce truth from that perfection of Infallibility There is no parting Infallibility from truth he giues me no more but at most the half of that Doctrin which God reueal's Nay I learn not so much from him seing God own 's no true Doctrin men can teach natural truths which is not as eminently infallible as true Now further If I be fob'd off with no man knowes what halfes of Diuine Doctrin That is if the Proponent parts truth from its infallibility and no Authority in Heauen or earth licences any to Separate what God has ioyned together I only learn the faint Sentiments when We belieue God's reuealed Doctrin or weak Opinions of fallible Teachers founded vpon fancy which God disclaim's And which is euer to be noted man by nature fallible can do no more but only propose them as meer humane or doubtfull Vncertainties But à humane doubtful Proposition though true beget's as is said aboue no certain faith in any Therefore who euer will not vtterly ruin the very life and Essence of Christian Religion must absolutely assent both to the truth and Infallibâ—lity of Religion and consequently acknowledge an Infallible Oracle which teaches and One Church only Infallible proposes Infallible Verities Infallibly But this is only the Roman Catholick Church as is said aboue for no other Society of men laies claim to teach Gods infallible truths infallibly 6. To solue all Obiections against this Discourse it will much auaile to be well grounded in this sure Principle Viz. A certain Principle It is one thing to teach truth and another to teach Diuine and infallible truth Man by natural reason can teach truth yet is insufficient to teach Diuine reuealed and infallible Truth this must come from à higher Power either from Diuine Assistance or Supernatural Wherevpon our Answers to Sectaries Illumination If therefore the Protestant Should demand Why we cannot belieue his Doctrin euen when he only Proposes those general Verities which all Christians admit He neuer offers to Obtrude vpon you his inferiour Tenents peculiar to Protestants Answer They are truths indeed and infallible truths but not proued so because he Vnassisted teaches them If he Ask again vpon what foundation do we Catholicks lay the truth and infallibility of that Doctrin we belieue and teach Answer are grounded Vpon this firm Ground that Scripture interpreted by an Assisted Oracle the Chruch which cannot beguile any Proposes all we learn as true and infallible Doctrin 7. If he reply 3. Protestants abstract from the Churches Interpretation and hold Scripture plain enough in all fundamental Doctrin necessary to Saluation Answer He err's not knowing the depth of Scripture which is so dark and vnintelligible in the abstruse Mysteries of faith that vnless certain Tradition and the Sense of the vniuersal Church cast light vpon it or impart greater clarity to the bare letter The wisest of men Scripture is obscure will be puzled in what they read or at most guess doubtfully at its meaning And therefore may easily swerue from truth To se what I say proued 8. Imagain only that twenty learned Philosophers or more who neuer heard of Church Tradition or of her Generael re 〈◊〉 Doctrin had our Bible drop't down from Heauen with Assurance that it contain's Gods infallible truths prouided all they read be rightly vnderstood but not otherwise Suppose The most learned Philosophers ignorant of Tradition and Church Doctrin 2. They peruse that one Sentence in S. Iohns Gospel Iâ— the beginning was the Word and that Wâ—rd was with God Thâ— same was in the beginning â—irâ— God c. Suppose 3. They also confer the Sentence with all other Passages in Holy Writ relating to this Mystery Could these Philosophers think ye by the force of their natural discourse only acquire exactly the infallible truth of the Incarnation iust so as the Church now teaches and belieues No. Euery Particle would put Cannot Vnderstand it them vpon à further Scrutiny What is signified Saith one by this In
antecedent Assent to this Proposition That what soeuer those Dort-men taught is true Doctrin before you own it as true Ascertain vs of thus much And you solue your own difficulty If this Instance please not make vse of another Your Ministers in England pretend to teach true Doctrin though not infallibly Say only vpon what antecedent Proposition the Truth of their Doctrin is assented to by all before it be belieued as true and we shall without labour Answer in behalf of our infallible Doctrin 16. In à word thus Catholicks plead This generall Proposition is to be assented to as both true and infallible Viz. All And clearly solued are obliged to Hear and Belieue the Pastors of God's Church when Lawsully Commissioned to teach in God's name and as the Orthodox Church teaches Here is the Thesis or the vniuersal receiued Proposition But these Pastors and Doctors when assembled in Council are still Pastors of the Church and lawfully commissioned to teach in God's name both true and infallible Doctrin Therefore they are to be heard and belieued in all and euery Definition proceeding from that Assembly lawfully conuened Here you haue the Hypothâ—sis as indubitably certain as the Thesis 17. A second Obiection you meet with in his Page 509. Another Obiection retorted and Solued What infallible Testimony haue you he means Catholicks for this that Councils are Infallible It is not enough for you to say That the Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it For that were to make the Scripture the sole Iudge of this great Controuersy which you deny to be the sole Iudge of any I first retort the Argument and Ask. What Testimony haue you Sectaries I do not say Infallible But so much as seemingly probable taken from Scripture whereby Councils the greatest Representatiues in God's Church are made fallible Not one can be alleged 18. Now my Answer briefly is Scripture once admitted for God's word which our Aduersaries will not reflect on manifestly The Catholick Principles for Infallibility conuinceth the Churches infallibility To those express and significant Passages of holy Writ known to euery one The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth you haue them already We add the iudgement of Fathers cited aboue The guide of Controuersies C. 3. P. 147. Produces more Besides Gods Church which we hold an Infallible Oracle interpret's Scripture to this sense and here are our aboundantly full Principles for Her Infallibility Come you Sr now closely to the point confront vs if you can with as many Passages of Scripture as many Testimonies of Fathers Or and this we alwayes vrge with the Authority of any Orthodox Church which fauours your contrary Tenet of Fallibility The Strife is ended But hereof there is no fear at all And thus you se how Scripture is the Iudge Sectaries haue none for their Tenet when once admitted as Diuine and faithfully interpreted not otherwise 19. A. 3. Obiection Page 509. The Decree or Definition of à Council receiues Infallibility from the Council before the A third weak obiection retorted Pope confirm's it or not If not The whole infallibility resides in the Pope and this some Say is not de Fide vniuersali If it arise from the Council before the Pope confirm's it for that act of confirmation followes the Definition the Council is infallible antecedently to the Popes Confirmation I first retort the Argument An Act of Parlament or à law made for all receiues its force from the Conuened Members before his Maiesty Confirm's it or not If not The whole Power of making such à Law resides in His Maiesty which some will say is not so If it arise ftom the Parlament before His Maiesty Confirm's it and that Confirmation followes the Act The Parlament is impowr'd to make such Lawes before His Royal. Assent Confirm's them Here is the very same Form of arguing though in à different matter and you se the weaknes of it 20. The true Answer to the Obiection is as followes Euery Doctrin definable may be considered two wayes first as it Proceed's from God the most supreme Verity and vnder that Notion it is both true and infallible in it self before the pope and Council Define it And note they can Define no other Doctrin And solued on earth but what God ratifies in Heauen 2. It may be considered as the Doctrin of the Representatiue Church infallibly Assisted to teach Diuine truths And vnder that Notion it is called Church Doctrin proceeding from the Head and Members of one mystical Body The Head therefore Separated or solely taken Defines not in Councils The Members diuided from the Head define not But one and the same Definition proceed's ioyntly from both Head and members vnited together The Instance already hinted at giues light enough If any reply The Definition when the Council proposed it was both true and infallible Doctrin I distinguish the Proposition It might be then Certain Euery Doctrin true in it selfe is not therefore Church Doctrin and infallible Doctrin in it self that 's true but as yet it is neither known or owned as such or called Church Doctrin It was then the whole Councils or Churches true and infallible Doctrin I deny it This is founded vpon both Pope and Council infallibly assisted as is now supposed and already proued 21. I find no more in Mr Stillingfleet worth any notice That which followes in his Page 510. ouerthrowes all councils Other Obiections waued as impertinent or proues nothing What certainty haue you Saith he that this or that Council proceeded lawfully That the Bishops were lawful Bishops That the Pope who confirm's them was à lawful Pope That some By-ends or Interest swayed not many That all conditions were exactly performed c. I Answer first and Ask. What certainty haue you of any illegal Bishops of vnlawful Popes of Interest Swaying all Here because you accuse we put you to the Proof I Answer 2. That Certainty which you or any has of no By ends in the four first general Councils of their lawful Bishops of no interest swayng c. The same we haue of all the approued Councils in Gods Church To insist further vpon such saint Obiections is only to lose time or might one retaliate in Mr Stillingfleets own language meerly to kill flies to run after them and make sport with them And thus much of the Churches Infallibility I mean the Roman Apostolical Catholick Church to whose Censure and infallible Iudgement I do most willingly submit my Selfe and euery particular in this Treatise THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith THe subiect here hinted at is as all Shollers know very Speculatiue Terms according to my little Skill in the English Tongue often Fail to express what is necessary Wonder not therefore if now and then you meet with that which may seem Obscure to à Vulgar Reader My Endeauour Shall be to giue the Discourse so much Light as
eminent Sanctity and Holines of life our Lord working with and confirming their Doctrin by manifest Signes proued them Gods Oracles True and faithful commissioned Teachers And thus Is Our way also we discourse of the Church Whose vndeniable Miracles Sanctity and Conuersions wrought by Her conuince reason of this great Truth that She only is Gods Oracle All this is said supposing the Canon of Scripture already compleat For if we goe higher and consider à Church whether it be that of the ancient Patriarchs of the Israelits or finally of the Christians before Scripture was written Faith must be resolued into Diuine Reuelation by the means of some liuing Oracle Whether One or more it imports not who manifested themselues God's commissioned Teachers by Signes and Miracles Whereof more afterward 8. This much premised And it is Very easily vnderstood you shall Se Mr Stillingfleets verbose Obiections brought to Three Mistakes chiefly pointed at nothing but to meer Cauils and Mistakes Three Mistakes chiefly run through his whole 5. Chapter First he strangely confound's the Iudgement of credibility necessarily prerequired to true Belief with the very Act of Faith it Self whereas the Resolution of these two haue indeed à due Subordination to one The first breeds Confusion â—â—other yet depend vpon quite different Principles The Iudgement of Credibility whereby the will moues and command's the intellectual Faculty to elicite Faith relies not vpon that Obiect which finally Terminates Faith it self But vpon extrinsecal Motiues wihch perswade and Powerfully induce to belieue â—uper omnia 9. Here is the Reason The high Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Original Sin and the like Transcend our natural Capacities or to speak with some great Diuines are naturally Incredible Therefore Prouidence hath by the force and efficacy of extrinsecal motiues raised them from that degree of natural Incredibility and made all most credible to humane Reason And this no Sectary can deny For before that Doctrin be belieued which he embraces and before he reiect's the contrary not belieued by him He will tell you He hath Motiues and reasons as well for the one as the other Here is all we require at present 10. Mr Stillingfleets second errour is that he distinguishes not between the nature of Science and Faith Science is worth In the second Science and Faith are not nothing vnless it proue and Faith purely considered as Faith mark well my words is worthles if it proue For as innumerable Fathers affirm Fides non quaerit quomodo Faith reason 's not nor Ask's how these Mysteries can be but simply belieues Science makes vse of Principles Per se nota known by themselues And then discourses Assuming nothing but what is proued wherefore no virtue no validity can be in the progress or Sufficiently distinguished end of à rational Discourse which was not precontained in the first assumed Principles Faith t' is true has its Preambulatory Motiues as we haue seen already yet Scientifically drawes no Conclusion from them and herein Mr Stillingfleet all along beguiles himself and the reader The Motiues inducing to belieue this Truth God has reuealed à Mysterious Trinity are morally certain yet there is à more firm Adhesion to the infallibility of that Diuine Testimony for which we belieue than the extrinsecal Motiues inducing to belief either do or can draw from vs And in this sense Faith contrary to Science goes farr beyond the certainty of all extrinsecal Inducements as shall be presently declared 11. Our Aduersaries third Mistake lies here That he distinguishes not between the humane and Diuine Authority of the The third also wants à Distinction Church S. Austin Lib. con Epist Fundam C. 4. Speaking of the first Saith The profound wisdom of so many Doctors the consent of Nations the Antiquity the continued Succession of Pastors c. held him within the Pale of the Church Catholick yet this Authority precisely considered as humane and therefore fallible is not sufficient to ground Diuine Faith I say as humane for though I belieue that the Church has euer been Visible with à continued Succession of Commissioned Pastors to teach Orthodox Doctrin yet my Act of Faith no more relies vpon such motiues considered meerly as Motiues inducing to belieue Than the Primitiue Christians Faith relied vpon the visible Miracles which Christ or his Apostles wrought 12. As therefore that first Act of Faith whereby they belieued our Sauiour to be the true Messias was built vpon his infallible Diuine Authority manifested by Miracles Sanctity of life c. So that first Act of Faith whereby euery one belieues the Church to be God's own Sacred Oracle is built vpon Her infallible Diuine Authority manifested by Miracles and other signal Marks of truth whereof Scripture plainly Speak's Hell gates shall not preuail against the Church She is the Pillar and ground of truth And so much is said aboue C. 16. 17. that I know well Sectaries What caused our Aduersaries Errour cannot Answer The not reflecting vpon this twofold Authority which Mr Stillingfleet knowes Catholicks do distinguish makes his Circle charged on vs so irregular à Figure that it look's rather like à Rhomboides than à round Circle as shall appear presently with à further Discouery of his other mistakes One thing I cannot but admire and t' is That though his 5 th Chapter be tediously long yet the main and most real difficulty concerning the Resoluing of Faith is scarcely so much â—â— hinted at After à few Pages I will propose the Difficulty and endeauour to solue it CHAP. II. Mr Stillingfleets 5 th Chapter Part. 1. examined is found VVeightles The weaknes of his Arguments discouered His First and chiefest Argument retorted and solued 1. I Must and will waue all this Centlemans Parergons all friuolous excursions with his vnciuil language and if I touch in à word vpon his pretty conceipted Ieers scattered here and there it shall only be Pertransennam as if I little minded them 2. Thus he begins Page 112. The Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation for Diuine Faith and this Infallibility Our Aduersaries first Argument can only be known by the Motiues of Credibility He means in this present State Therefore this way of resoluing Faith is vnreasonable because it requires an infallible Assent vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of Euidence which is as much as requiring infallibility in the Conclusion where the Premises are only probable Answ Our Aduersary Spoil's à good Difficulty by proposing it lamely He would fain say some thing like that which Catholick The difficulty not fully proposed Diuines learnedly propose whilst they handle the Resolution of Faith But so fumbles and doth it by halfes that He â—eaches not home to the main Business 3. I Say therefore first The Argument proposed if of any force destroies all Faith euen the most Primitiue To proue the Assertion I Ask whether the first Christians belieued
both Ascertains him of the Canon and the Sense also Hence That other Obiection fall's to nothing How can there be an infallible Assent to the truth of this Proposition Scriptures are The third retorted and answered the word of God when that Infallibility at the highest is but euidently Credible I Answer and retort the Argument How could the Primitiue Christians Assent to the Apostles preaching as infallible when that infallibility at the highest was but Euidently Credible before they belieued 3. The whole Confusion lies as is said in not Distinguishing between Faith and the Iudgement of Credibility Infallibility therefore whether we Assent to Christ to his Apostles or to the Church all taught one and the same Doctrin is the Obiect of Diuine Faith but none euer assented to any Doctrin these Oracles taught infallibly without sufficient Euidence preuiously had A Discouery of the whole Fallacy of its Credibility And thus I belieue by Faith Scripture to be God's word because the Church Saith so But if you Ask why I hold all the Church Teaches to be Euidently Credible I Euince not this truth by the Infallibility I belleue But recurr to those Motiues whereby She is proued an Oracle as euidently Credible as euer any Apostle was And consequently I belieue Her Infallibility with the same Diuine Faith as I belieue the Words of Scripture 4. Page 114. He Obiect 's 3. We Catholicks make by this way of resoluing Faith euery man's reason the only Iudge in the Choise of his Religion Why doe we more so I beseech you than the Primitiue Christians who certainly had the very like rational Motiues with ours and no other before they belieued But of this Subiect we shall treat largely towards the End of this Discourse 5. Page 115. He Saith If the Infallibility of the Church of Rome be à sure foundation of Faith what will become of the Faith of all those who receiued Diuine Reuelations without the Infallibility of any Obiections grounded on Instance Church at all And he brings in these Instances First of the Apostles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament when Christ suffered which certainly was not Grounded on the infallible Testimony of the Iewish Church for at that time it consented to the Death of the â—essias 2. Of all that belieued the woman of Samaria no infallible Oracle when She declared the Discourse between Christ our Lord and her self 3. Of such as belieued our Sauiours Doctrin and Miracles related by men honest and faithful These Saith â—e had no infallible Testimony but only à rational Euidence to build Faith non and consequently an Infallible Testimony of the Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation is Vnnecessary to Diuine Faith which seem's vndoubted For very few in the first Ages of the Christian Church receiued the Doctrin of the Gospel from the mouths of persons infallible 6. By the way I much wonder Why Mr Stillingfleet omitted to touch here vpon an other Instance farr more difficult which both he and all other must solue concerning rude and illiterate Persons chiefly if of no great maturity who are induced to belieue by the Testimony or Instruction of their Parents or of Another Instance more difficult some other simple Teachers These certainly may haue Faith without acquiring that full Euidence of Credibility whereunto the learned reach yea and without any Discouery of the Scriptures rational Euidence neuer perhaps heard of much less vnderstood by them 7. Now I Answer to the Obiection None makes the Roman Catholick Church in all Circumstances the only sure foundation of Diuine Faith For the first man that belieued in The Church in all Cireumstances was not the only Foundation of Faith Christ our Lord before the Compleat Establishment of His Church had Perfect Faith resting on that great Master of Truth without dependance on the Christian Church For Christ alone was not the Church But the supreme Head of it Faith therefore in General requires no more but only to rely vpon God the first Veriâ—y speaking by this or that Oracle by one or more men lawfully sent to teach who proue their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed by them Euidently Credible In like manner the Apostles preached no Doctrin in the name of the new Christian Church whilst our Sauiour liued here on earth But Testified that he was the true Messias by virtue of those Signs and Miracles which had been already wrought aboue the force of nature Thus much Supposed 8. It is hard I think for any to Say where the force lies in The Mistake of the first Instance that Instance of the Apostles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament which innumerable Iewes then dispersed all Iury ouer and the other parts of the world not at all conscious of Christ's Passion most firmly belieued Why therefore might not the Apostles belieue the Diuinity of the old Scripture vpon the Authority of that Church whereof there were at that time many and very many Professors in other places distant from Hierusalem Hence I say the Belief of that Article neuer failed But was alwayes preserued entire in both Churches of the Iewes and Christians for we all yet belieue the Authority of the old Testament And Consequently its hard to Conceiue what this Obiection aymes at 9. Again admit à total Subuersion of the Iewish Church Had not the Apostles our Blessed Lord present who could well Ascertain them that he came not to Cancel any Diuine Supposed true its forceles Authority of Scripture for this was impossible vnless God be contrary to God but to fulfil to perfect and change the old Law into à better State O but the High Priest and the Elders also erred in consenting to Christs death Very true and the Reason is because their Priuiledge of not erring lasted only to Christ's comming and not longer But hence it followes not that then there was no Iewish Church which belieued the Diuine Verities of the old Scripture I verily think Mr Stillingfleet mistook one Obiection for another Perhaps he would haue said that the Apostles lost faith of our Sauiours Resurrection at the time of his Passion But this Difficulty is solued ouer The Apostles failed not in Faith and ouer First it is Answered that Article was not sufficiently Proposed to them Therefore we read Luke 18. 34. They vnderstood none of these things This Word was hid from them Again Had they failed in Faith ar that time They were then as Bellarmin obserues Lib 3. de Ecclesia C. 17. neither the whole Church but only material Parts of it nor could that improbable Supposed Errour haue preiudiced one whit the Faith of others who firmly belieued in Christ 10. That other Instance of the Samaritan woman is soon cleared if we distinguish between the Motiue or the natural Proposition The other Instance cleared by one 〈…〉 tion of Faith which comes by hearing and the infallible Oracle wherevpon it relies And T' is
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
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
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
and all the particular Sentences contained in them are not God's written word He could not yet for such à peruerse Denial be accounted an Heretique I Proue it None can incurr the guilt of Heresy but he who denies à Truth which God has reuealed or which stand's firm vpon à Diuine Testimony But he that denies the Books of Scripture to contain Heresy not incurred though one denyed the Books of Scripture to be Diuine God's Word in them renounceth no Truth reuealed by Almighty God For Saith our Aduersary this is no reuealed Truth nor stand's firm vpon any Diuine Testimony Therefore he is no Heretique Now further if he may without the sin of Heresy deny these Books to be Diuine Seing God neuer said so It is impossible to belieue the Doctrin therein contained to be Diuine vpon any Diuine Testimony yet Mr Stillingfleet thinks he may 35. My Reason is No man vnderstand's by the Books of Scripture which contain the Principles or Doctrin of the Iewish and Christian Religion to be meerly the Paper or Couer of the Books but he must vnderstand if he rightly conceiues VVhat is to be vnderstood by the Books of Scripture what Scripture is the very Principles and Doctrin contained in those writings For example Here is one Principle in the old Testament Gen. 17. 4. God made à Conuenant with Abraham and his seed for euer Another in the New Ioan. 1. 14. The Word is made Flesh. Answer I beseech you Can any man truly affirm that these two Principles the like is of innumerable others contained in Scripture stand not firm vpon God's infallible Testimony when T' is manifest the whole Christian world is obliged to belieue them with à Faith grounded vpon the same infallible Testimony that reuealed them Principles of Religion denyed It was Therefore no little Ouersight in Mr Stillingfleet to Speak here of the Principles of the Iewish and Christian Religion contained in à Book called Scripture And positiuely to Assert these cannot be belieued vpon à Diuine Testimony This certainly is not Defensible 36. Some may yet Reply Two things are here to be considered First the bare letter or outward words of Scripture and these we belieue not vpon Diuine Reuelation but haue them from vniuersal Tradition or the consent of Nations An Answerto such as here diflinguish The second is the Sense or Diuine Doctrine which these outward Signes or exteriour words Conuey to vs. Now this Sense or the interiour Doctrin of Scripture as contradistinct from the bare outward letter we purely belieue vpon the Diuine Testimony casting the Assent giuen to the Words vpon Between the bare words and the sense other forrain Principles I belieue Mr Stillingfleet elswhere Saies some such thing as this or must say it Contra. 1. The meer outward words though pure are no Books of Scripture And as separated from the Sense and interiour Doctrin are neither Principles of the Iewish or Christian Religion nor in rigour God's word For God neuer spake nor inspired others to write words but he iointly conueyed with them his own Sense and Doctrin also And Methinks its very hard to belieue this Doctrin This is my beloued Son as God's sacred words and not to belieue those very words to come from God vpon the same Diuine Motiue which Support's the Doctrin Moses saith our Sauiour Iohn 5. 47. Has written of VVords are Diuine me And if you will not belieue his Writings how will you belieue my Words These outward Signes therefore the very words of truth called by the Apostle 1. Thess 2. 13. Verbum auditus Dei words of hearing or heard are in very deed the VVords of God and consequently may well where none can rationally doubt of their Purity be assented to vpon the same Diuine Testimony with the Doctrine contained in them 37. The Reason is God would haue been the same Verity he now is although he had reuealed nothing that therefore which moues or determin's Belieuers to assent to the truths reuealed is not only his increated Authority but the sincere external Reuelation with it also These Two iointly The First Veritas Speaking is the Obiect of Faith concurr as one Motiue whence it is that the First Verity as Speaking or Reuealing may be rightly called the Formal Obiect of Faith I know Diuines vary about this Question Whether the external Proposition be à partial Motiue with Gods internal Verity or only à necessary condition whereby that Verity the vltimate ground of faith is applyed to Belieuers herein much may be de Nomine But none of them all Say The exteriour Reuelation is assented to vpon one Principle which is not Diuine and that the Doctrine conueyed by it is belieued vpon another most Diuine and infallible This is à nouelty VVhat Sectaries should grand Neither do I see how Sectaries can find that Lustre that Maiesty and Diuinity so often talk'd of in the purest words of holy Writ if they be not owned as God's true words vpon his Diuine Testimony 38. Let vs now briefly examin Mr Stillingfleet's Proposition without depending on what he teaches or must teach concerning the belief of words separated from the Doctrin VVe belieue Saith he the Doctrin contained in the Books of The Doctrin in it selfe examined Scripture vpon à Diuine Testimony because God has giuen abundant Euidence that this Doctrin was or is of Diuine Reuelation Here are three things Distinguishable The Doctrin Belieued The Incarnation for example The Testimony reuealing the matter bebelieued and finally the Euidence whereby that Testimony is brought to light Now all our difficulty is concerning the Euidence of this Diuine Testimony wherevpon we belieue any Mystery and we Ask from whence Mr Stillingfleet takes his Euidence He has you se abundance of it wherewith to proue that God euer Said The Diuine word was made flesh 39. The Question seem's reasonable because this Testimony which all ought to belieue and consequently doth Exist is not it's own Selfe euidence nor can it be euidenced by another Testimony of Scripture wholly as obscure to vs that God spake The Diuine Testimony not its own Self euidence that Truth For so we should goe in insinitum and Proue one dark Testimony by another equally as dark Infallible Tradition not written and the infallible Authority of the Church our Aduersaries reiect And may Say Both though admitted are Obiects of faith and consequently vnder tâ—at Notion appear as little Euident to vs as the Scriptures Testimony is we desire to proue Therefore whateuer is rightly called Euidence in this matter whereby all would discouer an obscure Testimony not yet proued God's word must of necessity be extrinsecal to the Testimony it selfe and if extrinsick no other Euidence can Therefore the Euidence of its Credibility must be taken from extrinfick Motiues Possibly be had but that which arises from the known Motiues of Credibility For by these the Church is proued an Oracle no lesse
those first great Masters vpheld the Primitiue Faith without any further ground or Process in Infinitum So his own Speaking Our resolution the same with that of the Primitiue Christians by this Oracle of the Church vphold's mine And I can go no further For the last formal Obiect of Faith has none latter That One word of Truth is enough to belieue vpon Again as those first pious Christians had any moued à doubt concerning their Inducements to Faith would haue answered The blind see The lame walk strange Miracles are wrought by ehese blessed men And therefore we both must in Prudence and will belieue that God speak's by them So I likewise bring to light the same Signal Motiues Euident in the Church and The Motiues alike Say I both must if prudence guides me and Will belieue that God speak's by this Oracle known as well by Her Miracles and supernatural Signatures as euer any Apostle was known 20. And thus you see first as I noted aboue How we passe from the Formal Obiect of Faith God's own Testimony proposed by the Church to the Prudent Inducements of belieuing wherevpon the Iudgement of Credibility not Faith it felfe is vltimatly Why we belieue And how vve proue by rational Motiues grounded Now these Inducements being laid forth to reason The Will command's an absolute Assent which rest's vpon God's word spoken by this Oracle You see 2. All danger of à vicious Circle auoyded in this way of resoluing Faith For when I belieue that God speak s by the Church I resolue not the Belief of that Truth into another antecedent Reuelation taken from Scripture yet wholly obscure and no way so immediatly Credible as the Church is for if I did so a Process in Infinitum would necessarily follow But I belieue that word of Truth for it selfe immediatly and rest there As the ancient Christians The word of truth belieued for it Selfe relyed vpon the very words spoken by the Apostles without recurring to any former or surer Reuelation If therefore those happy Belieuers made no vicious Circle in their Faith hauing no tâ—o Propositions prouing one another to make à Circle of We in our belief are altogether as free from that faulty Circular way in our Resolution It is true All of vs if The primitiue Motiues and ours the same Questioned about the Euidence of Credibility most bring to light Motiues inducing to Faith They theirs We ours both are à like significant both Supernatural as is already explained 21. You may gather 3. out of what is here and formerly noted how easy it is after à full Sight had of those signal The illustrious Signs apparent in the Church Motiues and they more set forth the Churches Glory than any Traine of attendants can illustrate the greatest Monarch That the first connatural Language which God speak's by the Church is this general Truth There only his Special Prouidence are God's own Voice Directs and gouâ—rn's where the illustrious Signes of his own Soueraignity manifest That he teaches by à Voice peculiar to Himselfe But these Signes most euidently are seen in one only Society of Christians the Roman Catholick Church Therefore he teaches by this One only Oracle And the necessary Lesson he will haue all to learn is That he has called all to one Communion what we learn by them of Faith in one Church Euidenced by Supernatural wonders This fundamental Verity we belieue And it is the first Act of faith we elicite Or that Primigenial Assent which connaturally arises from God's own voice deliuered to vs by this Oracle without depending on Scripture if we make à right Analysis This General truth once established and none can rationally contradict it We now proceed to solue à few Obiections CHAP. XI Sectaries Ohiections solued The fallible Agreement of all Concerning the Canon of Scripture no Proof at all No vniuersal Consent for the Sectaries Scripture or the Sense of it How the Church is both the Verity belieued and the Motiue why we believe Other Difficulties Examined 1. I Speak here of Sectaries Obiections knowing well some Diuines who make the Churches Proposition most infallible Sectaries Obiections only answered and herein all Catholicks agree yet hold it insufficient to be the last Principle Whereinto Faith is resolued For say these it is only à necessary Condition by virtue whereof the ancient Reuelation is infallibly applied to vs. In this Strife purely Theological and some what as I thinke de Nomine I shall not long busy my Selfe being chiefly to attend to what Sectaries do or can propose against our Doctrin 2. The first Obiection If the Catholick after à prudent Consideration had of the known Motiues already specified can belieue what euer the Church teaches and Consequently resolue why Sectaries cannot resolue their Faith into Scriptures his faith into the Authority of God speaking by that Oracle Why may not the Sectary as well vpon this one Iudgement viz. All acknowledge Scripture to bee God's word as easily belieue and resolue his faith into pure Scripture independently of Church Authority Answ Such à Beliefe and Resolution is impossible because as we said aboue none can in this As Catholicks Doe into the Church present State assent to this general Truth Scripture is God's word or belieue so much as any Verity in it if the Authority of an Infallible Church be reiected To the pretended ground taken from the Consent of all Christians owning Scripture for God's word I haue partly answered That consent alone induces not any to belieue one reuealed Article by an Infallible act of Faith if those whole Consenting multitudes be all supposed fallible First euery one knowes the multitudes of Turks agree thus far that their Alcoran is God's word yet such an agreement though very Vniuersal induces no wise man to belieue any Diuinity in the Book or to own its Doctrin as Diuine and sacred 2. And this reason hinted at aboue is more à Priori 3. The Agreement of all Christians is truely an effect of Faith or rather of the Obiects Credibility antecedently presupposed The agreement of all Concerning Scripture is an effect Credible vpon other grounds before men agreed so vniversally in that Christian truth For this Causal is good Therefore Christians agreed in that Truth because it was preuiously made Credible vpon other sound Motiues And not the contrary It is credible because all conspired in à Consent so vniuersal Wherefore if very many who now own Scripture to be Diuine should leaue off to iudge So and reiect the Book or any Part in it as fabulous That would not diminish its ancient Credibility And no more Not the Original Proof of the Scriptures Credibility Say I would the Addition of any new Consenters who now reiect it should they agree with vs highten one whit our Beliefe or make the Truth we Assent to more Credible than it was before And this proues That the Original
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
in matters most Fundamental other Rules and means must be vsed The Original Languages are to be examined seueral Passages compared together daily Reading and pondering the different places with much Prayer also seem What Sectaries acknowledge necessary What is this to Say but that their reading pondering and comparing are in order to them means and Rules more immediatly known then the hidden Sense of Scripture Herein then lies the difference that we in Lieu of their fallible reading recurr to an Infallible Church and Say her Testimony is more perspicuous easy and clear to vs than the dark Verities in Scripture are to them after all their pondering and comparing CHAP. XII The last Obiection Proposed VVhether the Churches Testimony may be called the Formal Obiect of Faith Other Notes and Considerations Concerning The Resolution of Faith 1. A 6 th Obiection If God whereof no man doubt's once said in Scripture The Word was made flesh its needless to speak the same Truth again by the Church Nay this God has spoken the Same Verity by different Oracles seem's impossible vnless the Churches Testimony be properly the Formal Obiect of Faith Answ The first part of the Obiection contains no difficulty for it is certain God has spoken the same Verities by distinct and different Oracles by different Euangelists for example And why cannot he as well speak them again by an Euangelist and the Church If the Church be absolutely infallible for the Diuersity of the Organs or Oracles He speak's by diuersifies not at all his Sacred word 2. Now to what is hinted at concerning the formal Obiect A question proposed I Ask whether this Assertion in Catholick Principles be not de Fide and reuealed by Almighty God Euery Doctrin proposed by the Church is true The Catholick Answer 's affirmatiuely And here is one Verity as an Instance for many The Church is infallible or cannot err I Ask again whether this very Proposition made by the Church may not be belieued vpon Her own Authority What somâ— Diuines answer by an Act of Diuine Faith Some Diuines Answer negatiuely and Discourse thus The Assent giuen to the Authority or Proposition of the Church is not Faith but rather an extrinsecal disposition to Faith So that by one Assent we first Say The Churches Proposition is infallible and afterward by à true Act of Faith belieue the Truth proposed by Her vpon God's pure Reuelation contained in Scripture or vpon Apostolical Tradition 3. Though this Discourse which defend's the Churches absolute Infallibility giues no aduantage to Sectaries yet it seem's Their Answer Seem's difficult difficult for two reasons chiefly First if à firm and infallible Iudgement terminated vpon the Churches neuer erring Proposition which fully declares Christ real Presence in the Eucharist for example Precedes the true belief of that Mystery grounded on Scripture or Apostolical Tradition That very faith as grounded on Scripture would be à necessary obscure act generated by the Discourse or ineuitably inferred from the Connexion between the Churches infallible Proposition not assented to by Faith and the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture The Inference is clear For the Church Saies infallibly Christ is really present And I Assent to that Truth but by no Act of Faith say these Yet from thence I euidently inferr That He is really present and this is done before I belieue the Verity by Supernatural Faith I think this cannot What is necessarily inferred vpon that Iudgement be granted Some Answer that preuious Iudgement is only à condition disposing to belieue and not the Cause or Motiue why I belieue Contra. Call it cause call it condition or what you please by virtue of that Iudgement I Assent to the truth of the Mystery in it selfe and from thence must necessarily infer that God has reuealed it before I belieue it by supernatural Faith And this is to Discourse not from the formal Obiect of Faith to the material which may be probably defended but from one Principle purely extrinsecal to Faith viz. The Churches Proposition obscurely known to the Diuine Testimony and the matter reuealed 4. A second Reason God truely speak's by the Church which is as well known by its own lustre and Miracles to be à Diuine Oracle as euer Prophet or Apostle were known to be so The Church immediatly Credible by their Signatures and Miracles No Disparity can be giuen But these Prophets and Apostles were made by their Marks and Wonders immediately Credible therefore the Church hold 's Parallel and is also by it Selfe and for it Selfe immediatly credible And hence it followes That the Churches Infallibility may and must in à General way be belieued before we come to an infallible Belief of Scripture For to Say I must first belieue by true Faith the Churches Infallibility vpon Scripture And to Say again I cannot first belieue that very Scripture to be Diuine This way of belieuing implâ—x and intricate or to speak truth But vpon the Churches Testimony seem's if not impossible at least à very implex intricate and à difficult way of Belieuing I say first belieue For none in this present state can know the Scriptures Diuinity without Church Authority 5. For these and many other Reasons I Conclude that this Proposition made by the Church She is an Oracle teaching all The Church can ground an act of Diuine Faith truth whereby men may attain Saluation is à sufficient Motiue to ground an Act of Diuine Faith vpon The learned Suarez to omit many other Diuines Disp 9. de Fidâ— Sect. 9. n. 14. Speak's most profoundly and pertinently to my purpose Ipsa Ecclesia seipsam proponit vt veram quia c. The Church proposes Herselfe as true and because she is sufficiently and euidently proposed therefore she obliges all to belieue such à Verity no less then other things appertaining Diuines teach So. to Faith Iust after that manner as à true Prophet who sufficiently proposes truths reuealed to him by God Consequently Sufficiently proposes himselfe to be à true Prophet Moreouer Disp 3. de Fide Sect. 11. n. 11. Quod Ecclesia definit Deus per Ecclesiam testificatur VVhat the Church Defines God testifies the same Verity by the Church Scripture accord's Scripture is Consonant where the Church is called the Pillar and ground of truth The Fathers accord so vniuersally that à Volume would not set forth their expressions Take only these two in place of many S. Cyril in Conc. Ephes Tom. 1. de Nicaenis Ancient Fathers Speak most significently Patribus They the Fathers there were inspired by the Holy Ghost â—ot to recede from Truth Non enim iâ—si loquebantur c. For they spake â—â—t but Christ our Sauiour witnessing â—t was the Spirit of God and the Eternal Father that spaâ—e in them S. Greg. Lib. 1. Regist Epist 24 Is yet more significant where he professes no less Reuerence to the four General Councils then to the four
Euangelists 6. Whoeuer read's these and the like Authorities cannot but Say the Voice of the Church as it Proceeds from that Oracle is the Voice of God And therefore Diuine certain and infallible Or contrarywise must grant it 's only Humane fallible and may â—r Speake so And it followes first that if the whole Church should err in the most essential Points of Faith God would not be yet Said to deceiue any because his increated Authority Speak's not by it nor is engaged to rescue this his own Spoufe from errour It followes 2. If any one denied either Purgatory or Transubstantiation explicitly defined by the Church and not so clearly expressed in Scripture He would not be guilty of Heresy though he peruersly refused to belieue these Articles precisely vpon this account That the Church Defines them The Inference is Reason also proues the Assertion clear for in doing so He denies not Gods Reuelation because the Churches Definitions no Diuine Testimony are in à lower ranck and much inferiour to all that God has spoken It followes 3. We belieue the Churches Definitions by à very different infused Habit from that whereby we Assent to the Truths reuealed in Scripture and to find such à supernatural and Infallible Habit distinct from Faith when we Assent to the Churches Definitions seem's to me à new learning vnknown to Antiquity 7. Thus much and more well considered which might be Said in behalfe of Christ's glorious Oracle And this one Principle added which all Catholicks grant viz. That the Church and Scripture Speak alwaies the same truths and can neuer be at Variance 8. Why may we not in this present State resolue Diuine Faith into the first Verity Speaking by the Scripture or Infallible Faith may be resolued into Scripture and the Church together Tradition and by his own Oracle the Church also For example We belieue the Sacred Trinity the Incarnation Original Sin c. because God reuealed them in Scripture or first conueyed them by Apostolical Tradition But these Verities which the Apostles and Euangelists long since made Credible are now remote from vs without the Churches reflâ—x Testimony whereby God ascertain's all in this State that both Scripture is Diuine The reason and that his Church speak's the very same Verities in Scripture And consequently we Assent to euery particular vpon à Twofold Motiue or rather vpon this one Formal Obiect ioyntly and indiuisibly Scripture and the Church make but one ioynt indiuisible Motiue taken because Scripture and the Church Assert's them Neither is there the least Difficulty in ioyning one reflex Testimony with another former or anciently deliuered whereof we haue examples in Holy Writ For we all belieue God made à Couenant with Abraham of multiplying his Seed because Eternal Truth said so some Ages before Moses Again we belieue that Verity because the reflex Testimony of Moses reiterat's the same Verity anciently spoken to Abraham Gen. 17. 4. An instance Other Instances of the same nature you haue aboue and more are found in Holy Writ 9. Thus much supposed It 's Methinks easy to Say if all be not de Nomine how the Churches Testimony may in one Sense be called the Formal Obiect of Faith and not in another Consider it as Diuine infallible and God's own Voice proceeding from no humane Authority but from the First Verity speaking by How the Church yeild's to Scripture this Oracle it well merit 's the name of à Formal Obiect Compare it again with the Primary Reuelation which it only compleat's in order to vs and consequently presupposes more Ancient more excellent and all things considered more worthy it must yeild to Scripture And may be called an intrinsecal condition whilst it Declares what anciently was Reuealed 10. Now if any Ask wherein the Excellence and Dignity of Scripture consists when you compare it with the Churches Definitions Diuines answer 1. Euery word and reason in Holy writ is de Fide but not so in the Churches Definitions where the Sense only of the Definitiue sentence has weight as comming from the Holy Ghost's Assistance 2. The Church The excellence and dignity of Scripture has her limits and Defines nothing but what was long since reuealed or necessarily connexed with the ancient Doctrin And vpon this account the Hagiogrophers are deseruedly called our first great Teachers who made first euery Truth they wrote à matter of Faith 3. When she Church Defines or interpret's Compared with the Church Gods word All is done for Scripture and look'd vpon as the end of Her labours But what is performed for another yeild's in worth and weight to that other it is done for as S. Austin obserues Lib. de Magist c. 9. Whoeuer desires more of this Subiect may read Bellar. Lib. 1. de verbo Dei C. 15. and Serrarius in Proleg 6. 7. 9. 12. 11. To solue other difficulties proposed by Sectaries please to Note first This Primary Act of Faith All are called into the Communion of one infallible Church whereby God teaches the true way to Saluation is grounded immediatly vpon the Authority One Primary act of Faith is grounded on Church Authority of this Oracle manifested by her Marks and Supernatural Signes Although yet the Book of Scripture be not admitted as God's word Notwithstanding when it is once owned as Diuine vpon Church Authority I can belieue this Oracles Infallibility with another Act of Faith grounded on Scripture How Scripture also terminates that Faith yet if we make à search into the vltimate Principle or final Resoluent of that very Belief We must as is said aboue come at last to Church Authority whereby Assurance is giuen that such à truth is Scripture 12. Note 2. This General truth supposed of the Church being immediatly Crediblâ— or known by her Motiues as an Oracle which teaches the right way to Saluation it therefore followes not that euery other particular Verity for example the â—â—pes Supremacy the Infallibility of Councils c. can in like manner be first and immediatly Credible or belieued explicitly when I Assent to that General Truth For it is enough that such Particulars be consequently or afterward assented to vpon the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture and the Churches own Proposition as is already declared 13. The Reason is because the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church immediatly induce to belieue that She is How other particular Truths are belieued afterward God's Oracle constituted by Prouidence to guide all in the way of Truth But how or in what manner this Duty is complyed with must be learned by the Practise and Doctrin of the same Church by Scripture and Tradition also Now that it is most Connatural to know first in à General way The Churches Infallibility before we descend to belieue euery Doctrin She teaches in Particular you may well conceiue by the Instance giuen aboue of the blessed Apostles who first acknowledged Christ our Lord
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
after our priuate perusing those few ancient Records left vs end our debate whilst you 'l turn them to one Sense and I to another Nouel Reason shall end all Catho That I wish for But quit me yet of one Scruple What if your priuate Reason be byassed one way and mine another Or what if you Iudge that Reasonable which I doe not Here the Nouellist like one struck dumb spake not à word 13. Yet the Discourse might well haue gone on for I would haue further inquired whether to do as all the Christians what is to be Iudged reasonable in the world learned and vnlearned haue done be not reasonable None can deny it Then I would haue inferred But all these Innumerable Christians The very Apostles themselues and others haue vpon prudent Motiues Constantly iudged it reasonable to submit to Mysteries aboue the reach of humane Reason Ergo that must pass as à reasonable Principle But the Reason cannot be taken from the very Act The Euidence of Credibility not taken from Faith of submission For that is Faith nor from any Euidence in the Mystery belieued or obscurely proposed nor finally from Scripture alone for that Book Considered in it selfe is not its own Euidence Therefore the Euidence of Credibility Or the Euidence Proposed to Reason is extrinsecal to what euer I belieue and fundamentally lies in the Marks and Signatures of Christs own manifested Church 14. Hence I Conclude with this Dilemma and hold it vnanswerable Either God has set before all Mens Eyes An Oracle which now teaches truth most discernable by clear Marks and Motiues from all false erring Societies Or omitted to do so Grant the first Reason is as much obliged to belieue A Conuincing Dilemma that Signalized Oracle now As the Primitiue Christians were anciently bound to belieue the Apostles Say Contrary There is no such Marked Oracle distinguishable from erring Sectaries Reason is left in à Labyrinth and shall neuer find out true Religion Wherefore Protestants who seemingly stand for Reason and slight the Doctrin of our Euidenced Sectaries vnreasonable Church are the men amongst all other most vnreasonable and as dayly experience teaches meer Scepticks in matter of Religion 15. A 5th Inference The readiest way to conuince à Sectary How they are easily Conuinced and one though no great Clerk may easily do it is in the first place at least to waue that long tedious work of handling particular Controuersies which depend vpon Authority and to plead by Reason Thus I would Argue and haue often done so with good Success You as à Protestant lay claim to à reasonable Reformation and consequently to à Reasonable Religion Say I beseech you from whence haue you the Moral Euidence which makes this Reformation Credible to Reason I speak not yet of it's Truth for Euidence of Credibility e 〈…〉 preced's the anouching of it true We Catholicks proceed candidly Euidence of Credibility is first to be laid forth and propose to the reason of euery one learned and vnlearned the very Marks and Signs of truth manifest in our Church which Christ our Lord and the Apostles euidenced to the sirst Conuerted Christians You set vp à new faced Religion and when that 's done put it out of Countenance because Reason sees nothing in it which has appearance of Credibility You auouch it true before you make it Credible which Sectaries auouch their reformation true before it be made Credible is to put the Conclusion before the Premises 16. One perhaps will Say first The reason of your Reformation stand's vpon this rational Ground that wee Catholicks were deformed or out of all right fashion in our Religion Lamentable And are you the doughty Doctors that must mend what was marred and prescribe à new Model of Religion Can you Say what is or what is not Catholicism It is too much Boldnes not only to teach more learned then They make à false supposition their Proof you Selues But à high Iniury also to make à meer Supposition and very false too to pass for à rational Proof You know wee deny your improbable Supposition And you vpon no Principle call it reasonable Howeuer Suppose the falshood that wee are out of Fashion doth it therefore follow that you are got into the right Mode of Religion No truly If the Supposition stand's wee are both out And both need à new Reformation 17. Some may yet Reply Sectaries regard not that new coyned word of Euident Credibility à Term wholly Popish They endeauour to proue the Truth of Protestancy by Scripture and Fathers And to do so much is more than to make it Credible Contra. 1. Were it possible as it is not to proue the truth of Protestancy That 's besides the matter here in hand They are still besides the matter now agitated whilst wee only Treat of ending Controuersies by Reason Now all know that Authority whose Credibility must first be Euidenced before it haue weight precisely considered as Authority is not the Reason here spoken of For Example I Assent to the Mystery of the Incarnation vpon Gods own Authority that 's Faith but no rational Inducement to belieue What we demand of Sectaries is to haue the rational Motiues which induce to belieue this Protestancy laid open before the Eyes of rational men Herein we require Satisfaction but haue none 18. Contra. 2. Could these men proue their Protestancy by If the Reformation could be proued true Scripture and Fathers it should Methinks be very easy to point at an Orthodox Church which Six Ages since publickly owned the particular Tenets of it Here is my Reason Whateuer Doctrin the Scripture and Fathers teach the Orthodox Church conceal's not but openly Professeth She is not ashamed if Orthodox to teach what God has reuealed Now further Some Orthodox Church must haue owned it Had such à Church euer owned this Reformation it must either haue been like an inuisible Ghost not perceptible which our Newer Sectaries Disclaim or contrarywise discernable by the like Marks and Signatures of the Apostolical Church And if their Doctrin was euer taught by it They are to talk no more of its Truth before Its Credibility be euidenced to Reason by the Marks and Signs of that Church which is now supposed to haue taught pure Protestancy That is in à word They are first obliged to Say plainly what Articles of Faith Protestants as Protestants hold Essential to their Religion And then to make so much Doctrin and no more first Credible then true by the known Authority of an Orthodox Church But This is impossible Hence 19. And it is the last Inference whereby one grand Cheat of our Sectaries is discouered Long haue we inquired but without Satifaction Where their Church was before Luther The Common Answer returned by some latter Protestants making little Account of an inuisible Church is much to this Sense Our Church was there where it now is and where it alwayes
I boldly Assert you The reason hereof may iustly cast away that Class of Orthodox Believers and call all rhe Christians in the world according to Sectaries Idolaters or known professed Heretiques Catholicks you se are listed amongst Idolaters because they Adore Christ in the holy Eucharist as the ancient Orthodox Graecians did Those Graecians yet of the Schism pray to Saints that 's plain Idolatry Say Sectaries The ancient and modern Graâ—cians supposed Idolaters The rest of Christians nameable the whole world ouer from Luther to the third or fourth Age whether Macedonians Pelagians or Arians were all professed Heretiques These and none but these Imagined Idolaters and known Heretiques à Monstruous heteroclite Progeny of men essentially constituted Christ's Orthodox Church Therefore he who proues Euidently that Catholicks The rest were Hereticks are Idolaters and rightly supposes All others called Christians to haue been Heretiques Proues and rightly Supposes Christ The Inference clear against Sectaries to haue had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thousand years which is à desperate Improbability deduced from our Sectaries Principle who blush not to charge an ancient Church with that Shameful crime of Idolatry though no Proof meanly probable as we shall se hereafter much lesse Euident vphold's the Calumny 11. Some may here demand why we require to haue these Why Euidence is required supposed Errours and Idolatry of our Church euidently proued against vs Is it not enough to euince this vpon moral Certainty The First Question is easily answered by proposing another of the like nature Would not these Protestants iustly require An Instance taken from Scripture proues what is required Euidence from à new Sect of men should it now start vp and pretend on the one side to belieue in Christ yet on the other as boldly impute errour and Idolatry to the holy Book of Scripture as Sectaries do to the Church They would certainly not be satisfied with lesser proofs then euident Hence it is that we in like manner exact neither Topicks nor guesses but clear Euidence against the supposed errours of our Church and reasonably do so First because She by God's Special Prouidence hath hitherto preserued Scriptures pure without Corruptions in Doctrin 2. Because all must own Scripture as both Diuine and pure vpon the Authority of Christ's Church Therefore It as highly concern's all to defend the purity of Christ's Church as the purity of God's written word it as highly concern's Christians to maintain the purity of Christ's Church as to maintain the purity of Scripture And Consequently if nothing lesse then Euidence can bring that Sacred Book into contempt or Euince it of errour Nothing lesse then Euidence can cast à blemish on the Church which giues vs Scripture and ascertain's all that it is Diuine 12. That other Pretence to moral Certainty is à meer whymsy reiected aboue in the second Discourse The Reason there hinted at much to this sense Conuinceth A Doctrin in Matters of Religion Contrary to the Publick Iudgement of the whole Christian world cannot be morally Certain But what Sectaries The pretence to Moral Certainty refuted Assert Concerning the Errours and Idolatry of the Church is à Doctrin Contrary to the publick Iudgement of the whole Christian world Ergo. I proue the Minor One great part of the Christian world is the Roman Catholick Church She stifly opposes this loud Calumny of Idolatry and errours laid to Her Charge Add herevnto the Sentiment of the Chiefest and the most A Doctrin Contrary to the publick Iudgement of the world known Arch-heretiques Who whilst they were in their wits that is before their wicked Apostasy Iudged as the Church Iudged and belieued as she belieued This Vniuersal Consent of an Euidenced Church together with the Sentiment of Her once Orthodox Members though afterward wilful Reuolters I call Cannot be Morally certain à Iudgement of Christians so publick and vndoubted that nothing Contrary to it can be morally Certain Giue me but one Instance of any Truth reputed Morally certain amongst men which euer What may well be called this publick Iudgement merited that name when witnesses so vniuersal so numerous and well qualified opposed it and I shall acquiesce But this is Impossible 13. Here again fitly comes in what we now Sayd of Holy Scripture Suppose which is true that your Chiefest Arch-hereticks once reuerenced that sacred Book as God's Diuine The Instance concerning Scripture introduced again word with the same high respect as the Roman Catholick Church euer did and yet doth Suppose 2. That Some Abetters of those first wicked men whether Arians Socinians or Others should begin to charge the Book with false Doctrin would such à supposed Calumny thinke ye euer arriue to so high Moral That Sacred Book cannot be iustly calumniated Certainty as to bring Scripture into open Contempt whilst à whole learned Church defend's its purity No the Calumny would not be meanly probable vpon this Ground that neither Probability much less Moral Certainty can stand in force when whilst à whole Church defend's its purity Witnesses of so great worth so vniuersal and numerous oppose it Apply what is here noted to the Church and you will find an exact Parity Both She and her own Arch-aduersaries once maintained Her Doctrin as Sacred and Orthodox Now rise vp à Company of iarring Sectaries who will forsooth haue their Charge of Idolatry and notorious Errours against Her passe for No more can à few iarring Adversaries iustly Calumniate the Church à Moral certain Truth The Assertion cannot arriue to moral certainty before the whole Body of Christians becomes mad and makes Scripture it selfe no lesse an erroneous Book than the Church Idolatrous For here is my Principle With one most certain Assent I hold the Church inerrable and the Scriptures Diuine Destroy the Churches infallibility or Say she hath erred you make Scripture eo ipso à Book of no credit 14. A. second Argument Those who exactly follow the A second Argument taken from the procedure of old Condemned Hereticks strain of all old condemned Heretiques and as wickedly implead the Roman Catholick Church of errour are vpon that account like them that is guilty of horrid Sin and Heresy But Protestants do so Ergo they are guilty of horrid Sin and Heresy The Maior is vnquestionable For if our Modern Sectaries exactly close with the mode of all condemned Heretiques it followes thas as those first Apostates for their malice were guilty of Heresy so also these latter are 15. The Minor is easily proued Your ancient Heretiques Our Sectaries accuse like them rebel and would reform as they did accused as boldly the Roman Church then in Being of errour as our modern Sectaries do the present Church They rebelled against it and deserted it so do our Protestants They sought to reform it so would our Protestants For example The Arians were as earnest to reform the Churches Doctrin
concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Eternal Father The Pelagians as busy to cancel Original sin The Donatists as Zealous to perswade men that the true Church was not vniuersally Therefore their sin and Apostasy the very same extended as euer Protestants were earnest busy and Zâ—alous to haue this present Church reformed in her Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Adoting the Sacred Host praying to Saints And what els you will Now I Subsume 16. But all these Accusers all these rebellious Reformers Because all tend to the destruction of Christ's true Church as like as like can be to one another are wicked and ayme at the Ruin of Christs true Church which is Manifest For had euery one of them done what they desired or reformed according to their Capricious humours There had not been at this day any Orthodox Church in the world Now here in my Question which certainly deserues à candid Answer If all Heretiques A difficult question proposed ancient and Modern reform the Church according to their particular Sentiments most euidently Christs true Church is destroyed Why therefore should I or any if we were yet to seek à better Religion rather adhere to the Reformation of à fallible Protestant than to that other of à fallible Arian or à Pelagian You Shall haue à Strange Answer 17 We are told when the Arians went about to reform the Church was pure but now Her known corruptions force Sectaries out of true loue to their Souls at least to reform themselues Our Sectaries Answer is an vnproued Supposition If the Church will learn Her duty by their good example She may if not She must remain in her errours Answ Is not this more then ridiculous First to make an vnproued Supposition their Proof and then to say nothing but what both the Arians and other Heretiques haue put in their mouths and And contain's nothing but what your old Heretiques taught then to Speak taught them to speak For did not these wicked men pretend as dear loue to their Souls Did they not Clamour as loud against the Churches imagined errours in those ancient dayes as euer Protestants haue done in these latter Say therefore why should the Protestants Reformation be esteemed more secure and Orthodox than what the Arians endeauored to introduce It will be hard to Answer whilst this Principle stand's firm If all reform the Church is ruined 18. Some may Reply Protestants without all doubt who haue diuorced themselues from the Church therefore clamour so loud because they haue strong Proofs at hand whereby to Another Reply examined euince that that once faithfull oracle is now guilty of notorious errours which no Arian could then do Answ Here is the main Point I would willingly be at and haue examined to the bottom I therefore press these Nouellists to pitch vpon some one particular Sectaries are vrged to pitch vpon Some particular controuersy Controuersy Transubstantiation for example or this now debated point of Idolatry in adoring the Consecrated Host and vrge them first to Argue by the plain words of Holy Scripture When all they can Say is said I will demonstrate that the Arians produce Passages of holy Scripture far more significant might we rest in the meer sound of words for their Heresy The sound of words in Scripture more plain for Arians then for Protestants than euer Protestant alleged against Transubstantiation or any other Catholick Tenet 'T is true your Arians make little account of any Authority but what seem's to them plain Scripture or appear's deducible from Scripture and this was the old Protestant way But our Newer men haue some respect to the Consent of Fathers and an ancient Church These we presse to dispute closely in Forme and to make our supposed errours or Sectaries Obiections hitherto Proposed haue been solued their Contrary pretended truths known by virtue of any one receiued Principle It is Answered thus much is done in their Books already set forth We Reply All their Obiections hitherto proposed haue been as fully and clearly solued as either they or we solue the Arguments of Atheists against God and the Iewes Cauils against Christ Or if they haue any new ones yet in store which require further satisfaction it is certainly most easy to propose them in good Form This done I will engage they shall no sooner appear in publick then haue à full and satisfactory refutation 19. We are told again such and such Books published Sectaries pretence of Books not answered reiected by Protestants haue not been answered As if forsooth all Books set forth by Catholicks were refuted In â word here you haue all It is very true the Cauils The Ieers and tedious length of some books haue not been answered with the like Cauils Ieers and length But what 's this to our purpose whilst we vrge for Arguments whereby it may appear to à disinteressed what hath been answered by Catholicks and what not Iudgement that Catholicks haue forsaken the ancient Orthodox Faith And that Protestants now lately had the singular Priuiledge of setling Religion right on its old firm foundations All Arguments hitherto proposed of this nature or which tend to infringe any particular Catholick Doctrin haue been dissolued and torn in preces ouer and ouer Or if as I now said there yet remain any vnanswered our Adversaries may vouchsafe to let vs hear them 20. Sectaries reply We haue indeed offerred to solue their Obiections as also to attaque Protestancy with many Arguments An other plea of Sectaries but as our Solutions are slight so our Arguments against them seem light and forceles Call me to mind one or two only 21. They haue been told If the Roman Catholick Church be fallible and Protestants as fallible Iewes and Gentils may Arguments vnderâ—alued by them as forceless iustly Scorn Christianity when they se à fallible Protestant attempt to settle an erring Papist in the right way to Saluation or à fallible Papist to do the like on an erring Protestant whilst neither the one nor other can know infallibly which is the right way to Saluation They haue been told 2. To make Scripture alone Though most Conuincing the sole Rule or Iudge in Controuersies encreases the Scorn of these Aliens from Christ who hold it more then ridiculous to appeal to à Iudge for the Decision of their doubts when none of them after the appeal made can Certainly know what the Iudge Of Sectaries unreasonable appeal to Scripture alone Speak's or this Rule of Scripture regulates What I say is manifect for So various and discordant are all rhese in their Interpretations of God's word that the Arians auouch it Speak's Arianism Protestants Protestanism Papists Popery Pelagians Pelagianism and so of the rest Imagin I beseech you that two who accuse one another of high Treason Should come before à Iudge and desire to haue the final sentence pronounced against the Criminal person
Both I suppose are not guilty The Iudge speaks once and no more but these two at discord agree not Their vnreasonable proceeding declared by one Instance about the main point which â— the true meaning of his Sentence may not Both return home as wise as they came and contend till Dooms Day vnless some other Iudge break 's off the quarrel and sayes plainly Thou art the Traitour 22 This is our very case either we or Protestants betray This Discourse driuen home and applyed to these two dissenting Parties Gods truths The one or other Party Contradict's the first Verity and boldly auerres he Speak's what he never Spake We appeal to Holy Scripture and would haue our Debates decided by that Oracle Two or three Passages He that hear's you hears me The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth He that hears not the Church let him be as à Heathen c. literally taken denote the guilty Party But our Sectaries tell vs we mistake the Scriptures meaning They Sectaries cast themselues into in extricable difficulties vary from vs in the main Point concerning the very Sense of our Iudges Sentence Is it not therefore euident that they must either recurre to some other Tribunal for à final decision or Secondly ingenuously Confesse they are the men who will not haue the traiterous Party discouered Or lastly acknowledge Controuersies can haue no End and that God has not left any means on earth whereby the notorious Deprauers of his reuealed Truths may be known One only Instance will giue more light to what I haue sayd 23. We and Sectaries appeal to Christs sacred words This is my Body We vnderstand them literally and strongly plead our cause what different senses are made of Christs own words alleging for vs not only the Authority of the western and eastern Churches but if need were of the Lutherans also They reiect all yea Say we grosly mistake the sense of Christ's words and therefore hold vs the Traitours that commit grosse Idolatry in the sight of God and Angels Consider good Reader are not such Aduersaries obliged to plead their Cause before How the Catholick plead's this Iudge of Scripture by à Church as vniversal by witnesses as Faithful by an Authority as great as we produce against them or to confesse ingeniously This Controuersy cannot be decided They may 'T is true Oppose the Caluinists to Lutherans but to Sectaries allege nothing for their Sense denote à Church either Latin or Greek that maintained their Opinion of the Eucharist Shall neuer be made so much as meanly Probable O yes the Primitiue Church taught as they teach Contra. It s vtterly vntrue as is largely proued in the first Discourse Again that 's à thlng yet in Controuersy and therefore far from being à manifest sentence against vs yet their Clamours against our Idolatry are manifest and as iniurious as manifest 24. These and yet far more forceable Arguments proposed by Catholick Authors against Protestancy our Aduersaries call Flies Small Grains gnawing of Rats c. We wholly Contrary hold them conuincing and the cause we defend most iust Here both Parties Stick in the hight of their heats Stiffe in their wayes without yeilding to one another Is it not therefore full time and reasonable think A Iudge distinct from Scripture proued absolutly necessary ye to appeal to some Iudge distinct from Scriptureâ— by whose just Sentence it may appear whether we old Papists or our young Nouellists are the guilty men that impiously oppose God's truths 25. You se whilst the sense of Scripture and Fathers is not agreed on we are aduanced no further but only to quarrel as if Contention is not the last end of writing Controuersies Contention were the final end of writing Controuersies Or as if an eternal Debate were desired and after that to haue nothing decided For this sole Reason A Iudge is absolutely necessary though our Aduersaries will hear of none hauing an horrour to admit of any Churches Iudgement whereby the cause now in debate may be happily ended Yet if we follow the Rule of Catholicks appeal to one Iudge Reason what can be more Satisfactory then to appeal to Church Authority in this weighty matter We Catholicks stand to the Sentence of our own euidenced vniuersal Church She is our Protestants are forced to appeal to another of equal Authority or their Cause is lost Iudge Are not Sectaries therefore obliged if their Arguments against vs be thought solid and their cause good to appeal to the Iudgement of some other Church as euidenced by Miracles and as vniuersal as ours is which once taught as they teach and publickly decryed our supposed Errours 26. What we now propose seem's reasonable because Protestants most certainly aâ— they defend Protestanism will not pretend to publish à Doctrin with à strict obligation laid on their They cannot pretend to teaâ—h à Doctrin which no ancient Church euer taught Partizans to acquiese in it which no Orthodox Church euer taught or if any Church euer taught so This must be as clearly euidenced as it is euident that the Roman Catholick Church taught Popery seuen or eight Ages since Here in à word is the true trial of their whole Cause Denote Point out or name an Orthodox Church which owned this Protestancy fiue or six Centuries since Controuersies are ended But if it be as it is most impossible to name such à Church The Abetters of Protestancy Sectaries proue themselues heretiques only follow the strain and Method of all Condemned Hereticks and proue themselues by their own procedure Heretiques That is They plead against Catholick Doctrin by false Calumnies weak Cauils lame coniectures vnsensed Scriptures and Calumnies their only Defensâ— abused Fathers without any Church Authority to rely on And thus all your ancient Heretiques haue Proceeded 27. Wherefore to conclude I Say in à word Protestancy Protestancy proued an Improbable Religion as Protestancy is à most improbable Religion or to speak more plainly no Religion at all The ground of my Assertion will be best laid forth in these few words No ancient vniuersal Church no Orthodox Christians in any part of the world euer taught Protestancy Ergo its improbable Nay more no Heretical Society The ground of our Assertion of men euer taught that whole Doctrin Therefore it is an vnpatronized Nouelty reiected by the Vniuersal Christian world whether Orthodox or others And Hence it is that whateuer Protestants can Say in behalfe of their own Tenets or Contrary to Catholick Doctrin comes to no more but to improbable and vnproued Suppositions Obserue I beseech you 28. They tell vs the Roman Catholick Church once true deserted Improbable Suppositions the only Proofs of Sectaries the Ancient Faith we vrge them to proue the Assertion and with good reason because neither ancient Church nor any sound Christian euer said so before themselues And what Answer haue we The
far equal that as Mahomet driues all to his belief by the sword the cause is natural so the Church drawes all to it by wit policy and humane learning and this means is altogether as natural Now if you say those first Conuersions were truely effects of grace and wrought by Gods special assistance This sequele is Clear The like made in after ages by the Church far more numerous as difficult and wholly as glorious proceed from the same fountain of Goodnes God's Diuine grace and special Assistance And note I speak here of real Conuersions wrought in Belieuers vpon solid motiues the Church shewes you millions of them not of hypocritical changes pretended hypocritical Conuersions not Valuable for God and Religion when worldly interest has à hand in them These are as soon distringuished by their false lustre as à comet from the sun they last not long but fall like blasing starrs We meddle not with them Thus much of à short digression which makes way to an other querie and 't is as followeth CHAP. V. VVhether all called Christians Belieue intirely Christ's sacred Doctrin And whether meanes be afforded to arriue to the knowledge of true Christian Religion 1. THese questions largely handled in the other Treatise are soon resolued vpon certain Principles I say therfore first All called Christians belieue not truely and intirely Christ Sacred Doctrin and proue it If Hymenaeus and Alexander Timoth. 1. c. 1. 20. once true Belieuers made shipwrack of their Faith if the Arians Monothelits Pelagians Donatists and such known Hereticks named Christians haue fallen also and lost true belief of Christian verities sufficiently proposed This sequel is euident All of them though named Christians haue not Faith intirely good nor indeed any Diuine Faith at all See the other Treatise Disc 3. c. 3. n. 4. 2. I say 2. All and euery one may with ordinary diligence come to the knowledge of the true Christian Religion I proue the Assertion Diuine Faith without which we cannot possibly Means sufficient to know true Religion please God is determinatly necessary to saluation and consequently the Religion where true Faith is taught is also necessary Therefore both these after Ordinary diligence vsed may be known vnlesse we wil say that God first makes such things necessary to saluation and then remoues them so far out of sight that none can know by prudent ordinary diligence what these necessary things are I say necessary to saluation not to dispute with Melchior Canus and others of the necessity of faith to the first iustification of à Sinner This difficulty we waue and Argue 2. God as we now suppose with all Christians yea with Iewes and Turks also is the Author of true Religion which he reuealed to the world for no other end but mans happines and eternal saluation therfore if he desires all to be saued by true Religion which is the final end therof He cannot vnles his Prouidence fail but afford meanes to know where it is professed otherwise which ill beseem's an infinite wisdom he would set vs all on work to gain Heauen by the belief of true Religion and withall leaue vs so in darknes that we cannot with all prudent industry come to the knowledge of it which is to say He will haue vs know the end of Religion and yet conceal the meanes leading to the knowledge of it 3. Again I argue 3. God who obliges not to impossibilities laies à strait command on all to belieue true Religion and not to assent to any fals sect therfore it may be known and clearly distinguished at least from the errours of infidels Iewes and Turks Known I say but how Not by its internal light immediatly for no Religion euer yet was its own self-euidence ex terminis or prudently got admittance because the Professors of it Cryed it vp as true Therfore the credibility of true Religion which must be True Religion is not its own selfe euidence laid open to Reason by force of Conuincing motiues is made as well discernable from Heresy destructiue of saluation as from Turcism or Iudaism yea and may be no lesse clearly discouered by its proper signes and lustre than à true Miracle for example that of S. Peter from Simon Magus Sorcery This cannot be denyed vnles God as I now sayd either command's impossibilities viz to find that out which cannot be found or licenceth vs to embrace any Religion called Christian whether good or bad true or fals it imports not because the best if it can be found is no more but à meer Probability or like vncertain opinions in Philosophy which may be reiected or followed according to euery priuate fancy This execrable Doctrin of the indifference to any Religion learned in the Diuels school is now à daies much in the mouths of many and I fear too deeply rooted in the hearts Nor à thing indifferent of some later Sectaries But of this more here after In the mean time you may conclude If true Religion be in the world it s made discernable not only from Iudaism but Heresy likewise and if it haue this discernibility it can be known if known it induceth an obligation to be belieued with Diuine Faith if it grounds certain Faith Subiectiuely taken in him that belieues it is no Opinion and considered Obiectiuely it implies the highest certainty Imaginable setled on God's Reuelation as is largly proued in the other Treatise Disc 1. c. 5. n. 6. 7. CHAP. VI. Of our Sectaries errour in their search after true Religion As also of Mr. Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing 1. ONe errour common to all condemned Hereticks is in the first place to find out true Religion by the book of holy Scripture alone A most improbable way as the ancient Tertullian learnedly obserues lib de Praescrip cap. 9. 15. but chiefly cap 19. at those words often cited Ergo non ad Scriptuâ—as prouocandum c. The reasons of my Assertion well pondered are most conuincing 1. The Sectary laies hold of à book which he sayes teaches truth and yet knowes not in his Principles nor shall euer know infallibly whether the book he own 's contain's the Doctrin of true Religion or ought to be valued as Gods assured word which is to say in other terms He learn's infallible truths of à Master before he hath infallible certainty of this Masters teaching truth infallibly That the Sectary wants infallible assurance of his book is euident for he saith no word of God written or vnwritten no infallible Tradition no infallible authority on earth ascertain's him of the Scriptures Diuinity So Mr Stillingfleet in seueral places chiefly part 1. c. 6. Pag 170. Therfore he can haue no in fallible Assurance of the Doctrin contained in Sectaries haue not infallible assurance of their Bible Scripture and consequently no Diuine Faith grounded on that Doctrin as I shall shew hereafter How euer grant him an indubitable assurance in à general way of some
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
indubitable Principles appliable to the Belieuers reason If therefore à Want be found of such proofs and doubts arise whether Christ's Doctrin be taught or no None can by doubtful or ambiguous Proofs of true Religion easy and Conuincing Principles only absolutly say This is Christs Doctrin and Consequently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightines of the matter that is they are clear conuincing and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting Thus much supposed 2. I say first who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox when the matter is of Controuersy and cannot The sectaries proofs as dark as his Doctrin bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle then the particular assertion is which should be proued argues improbably The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so that is he neuer goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is which should be proued therefore he Argues improbably 3. To proue the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies Take à veiw of all our Protestant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask what Protestant dare appear and venture to proue That Faith only iustifies The like I say of his other negatiue Articles Of no real Presence of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass c. I absolutly affirm He cannot make one of these Articles good by any vndoubted Principle or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer than that dark article is which should be proued One reason is These Doctrins opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also are not euidently known as truths by the light of One reason of our Assertion nature or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years agone and Consequently no vniuersal tradition is for them The only difficulty is whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers generally patronize such Doctrins And to fauour Sectaries all that 's possible we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible but withall assure them it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book and the impossibility will be thus manifested As long as these men cannot proue their new Doctrin to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted but vpon less sure grounds or less assured tradition so long their doctrin is naught and stands vnprincipled But this is so as we shall see presently And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick The difference beween the proofs of Catholiks and Protestants and Protestant The first proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine the Church assures him of both but the Sectary euer fall's short in this and cannot giue you so strong à proof for his particular Doctrin as he doth for the very letter of his book which he supposes teaches that Doctrin 4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth and take one particular Controuersy we cannot insist on all and ask the Protestant How he proues that the real presence of Christs sacred body as Catholicks assert is not expressed in the literal sense of those words This is my body His negatiue assertion most euidently is not there in plain terms We therefore vrge him to make it good by à proof that 's clear or more conuincing than his own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is And is he not obliged think yee to produce à strong proof indeed when he hath so many powerful Aduersaries to contrast with 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers vsually cited by Authors opposite to him 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church for both Churches mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day 4. The express Doctrin of general Councils which define our Doctrin positiuely and The grounds of our Catholick Tenets condemn the figuratiue presence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery related by authors of most indubitable credit These are no slight grounds of our Doctrin Let vs see by what strong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them or which is immediatly to my purpose proues his new negatiue Position Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist Not one word in the whole Bible is like it much contrary Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him No. What euer sense he drawes from thence seemingly to his purpose will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle as his own improbable position is and therefore most vnfit to perswade it Has he as vniuersal Tradition or the vnanimous consent of Fathers for his negatiue or for that sense he would force out of Scripture as he and we haue for the letter of the Text now cited Nothing at all And to show you how iustly I propose this question call to mind what Mr The Sectary answers not to any Stilling exact's of his Aduersary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should saith he once see you proue the infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints c. by as vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is whereby we receiue the Scriptures I would extoll you for the only person that euer did any thing considerable on your side Thus he speakes after this precaution giuen Think not to fob vs off with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catholik with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Your own words Mr Stilling shall here condemn you The Question is whether your Negatiue Christ is not really present in the Eucharist as Catholiks affirm be Orthodox Doctrin We exact as rigid à proof from you as you demand of vs but fob vs not off with your own talk Tradition you haue none nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers but giue vs the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time as What we iustly require of Sectaries clear for your negatiue as you demand of vs for the articles now mentioned Or if this be too much giue vs but only the indubitable sentiment of any Church reputed Orthodox four or fiue hundred years past for this your sense and assertion and I will applaud you as à most singular person But this you shall doe when you haue turned all faith out of the world that is neuer I say therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
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
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
As he thinks many à Flaw many à Mistake much iumbling much disorder in the Narration of his Circumstances Reflect well good Reader Doe you not see here à strange Confusion When after the vtmost done by these two Aduersaries You haue two quite different Doctrins raised from the same Authorities of Scripture and Fathers And that after the recourse of both to History You haue two as different Stories told you as Yea and No. In like manner after Their long discourses You haue two contradictory Conclusions drawn out And laid before your eyes to read Vpon what Principle if no more be Said can the yet perplexed Reader come to so much certainty of our Christian Truths as is necessary to Saluation By what means shall He know whether of these Two relates the truer Story Glosses or discourses better O He must peruse Ecclesiastical History Scripture also And the Volumes of Fathers And then iudge Pitiful More than half the world want's means to doe this And He who is able to comply with that laborious Task must at last trust to his own Iudgement Howeuer giue me one who will conform Himselfe to what he Reads and not draw all to à preiudicated Iudgement That man will find out Catholick Religion 4. Be it how you will The Catholick has à better And far more easy Principle to rely on in so weighty à Matter whereof The Catholicks Principle far more easy and plain we shall Treat largely in the next Discourse The Sectary has no other Ground to set footing on But his own priuate Fancy And here is the true Reason why he loues à life to stand dallying with you vpon Authority and History Goe no further He is sure to haue some Reply at hand For it is easy to trifle à long time whilst you only giue him this Authority And that Parcel of History to quarrel with The one as we haue seen He wrest's to what Sense he pleases On the other He can put so fair à Varnish by concealing some Circumstances and iumbling others together That the eyes of à vulgar Reader are easily dazled In the mean time He warily waues And is well content to doe so The last sound Principles which only can end Controuersies Wherefore Methinks one cannot fit the Sectaries Humour better than to attaque him with Authorities And next leaue the Glossing them to his fancy To recurr to Antiquity And permit him to put an other face on the whole Story Thanks be to God the Catholick Writers of our own Nation to say nothing of others who handle Matters most profoundly And in real truth haue already brought these debates to à Period giue no such Aduantage to Sectaries But relying What Sectaries would be at on sound Principles as learnedly reiect these Glosses as our new men wilfully make them without Principles Yet this is Truth As nouellists can do no more But Gloss without Principles So as I said now They are well enough content if the Catholick will doe something like them And only interpret or discourse vpon Authorities And this I call the less or not the last plain way of Ending debates Goe no further they think Themselues safe For example Read S. Austin in the place now cited I would not belieue the Gospel c. Ponder His whole Context attend to his learned Discourse Mark well how He both disputes and proues That he would not belieue the Gospel as Gods Diuine Word but vpon This solid ground That the Authority of the Church then when he wrote moued him to belieue so Descend yet to other particulars taken from his most Connexed way of Arguing Allege all plainly against the Sectary which hath been done and most landably again and again by Catholick Authors Yet after all you see Mr Stillingfleet begins new Quarrels as fiercely as if nothing had been said And if one should vnrauel what he hath wouen in his three pages would not â—e think ye to prolong these vnfortunate Strifes possibly find something to except against you And must not you to vnbeguile the Reader once more reply And except against all his new Exceptions How long may controuersies not yet brought to the last plain Principles run on without ending A shorter way Therefore must be thought of And thus it is 5. Take only that Positiue Doctrin which the Protestant plainly makes his own dogmatical Assertion when he either Adds his The clearest way of ending controuersies new Gloss to an obscure Authority or cast's one clear for Catholick Religion into darknes If you will haue Scripture Quote that Passage of the Apostle The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith This is my body or what els you like best If Fathers Cite S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Iustin Martyr or any other quoted aboue in defense of the Real Conuersion of bread into Christs Sacred Body This done First consider well what Church speak's most Conformably to the obuious Sense of these Authorities 2. Distinguish exactly between the Sectaries Gloss which contain's his Doctrin And the plain words of that Authority which he Interpret's Withall Ponder how little these two look like one another How little their Gloss. This is à Sign of my Body hath to doe with our Sauiours clear Expression This is my body 3. Stay not too long vpon the Energy of à Testimony Though plain in your behalf nor weigh ouer much the Circumstances wherein it was spoken For though both be well done yet This fitt's the Sectaries Humour Who waits for such By-Matters And in his Answers as I haue often obserued To shift off what mainly vrgeth will giue you work enough with his Suppositions his May-bâ—â—s And endles Windingâ— What is then to be done when he supposes his coniectures or Glosses to be true Doctrin This way I am sure is very solid 6. Propose with all moderation These following Questions Haue you Sir any Orthodox Church euer since Christianity began The Sectary is vrged I am sure you haue no express Scripture which without dispute as plainly deliuered the Doctrin contained in your Gloss as you now plainly Teach it Haue you any Orthodox Council which without Exception as Clearly defined it as you now Assert it Haue you any Tradition which by à continued Succession Age after age conueyed vnto you the Tenets you pretend to find in some few Fathers And now publish to the world as Christian Truths If you ground your Glosses or Doctrin on such excellent Principles we Catholicks are certainly in Errour And ought to conform to your reformed Gospel But if you fail and fail you must to doe thus much if you only giue vs empty Glosses without further Proofs we look on them as slight things cast off by the Orthodox world as both vnprincipled and vnpatronized Therefore Scriptureless as they are Churchless as they are they fall of Themselues to nothing And bring vtter ruin to your new Machin of Protestancy 7. I doe you no wrong when I draw you off
and that this Resurrection is meant in divers passages of Scripture But they deny the Resurrection of the body after Death Ergo it will be the Safest to deny the article of the Resurrection Again Dissenting parties as Iewes Turcks and Sectaries agree with Catholicks that there is but one God Ergo by virtue of this Principle men will be bound to deny the Trinity Lastly Dissenting parties Agree fully with vs That Christ is man but Hereticks deny His Godhead Therefore it will be safest belieuing that Christ is meer man And not God Answer With much wearisomness do I read these more than pitiful improbable inferences Not one of them arises from Premises which lead in any thing like your Conclusion Reduce but Premises put which infer no Conclusion one to right Form one serues for all and you will see your folly Thus it is That Doctrin in which Catholicks and Hereticks agree is safe and true Doctrin Catholicks and Hereticks agree in this Doctrin that Christ is man but not man only ergo that is safe and true Doctrin Here is the utmost your Premises can infer And I grant all Christ is truly man So I grant the Doctrin of à Resurrection from sin of one God only to be most sound and Catholick But here is your grand mistake and open fallacy with it You seem to perswade the Reader that because Hereticks agree so far with the Church Therefore it is safe to deny what euer other Doctrin She maintains Sr She maintains the Truths now mentioned yet not only Those But many more And herein there is no Agreement consequently no good conclusion for you vpon any agreed Principle For thus much only followes from thence That so far as we Agree so far true Doctrin is taught Apply this to our present matter and all is plain You and we agree thus far that Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick Religion Most true We dissent from you concerning the Charge of Superstitions An ather fallacy discouered and gross Errours imposed on vs from this you can infer no Conclusion against vs vpon the Principle of Agreement now Supposed in the other Doctrin of Saluation which goes on roundly without all contradiction I would say We agree about Saluation and that 's à Truth we differ in other points here we must dispute vpon other Grounds And lay that agreed on Principle aside for immediatly it lead's in no conclusion in such matters 31. Shall I now tell you where your whole Fallacy lies It lurk's in that pretty Term Safest For you thought to infuse into it this Sense So much Doctrin as we and Hereticks agree in is only the Safest But no more As if we Catholicks held what euer other Tenet is out of the compass of that agreed-on Doctrin implies both Vnsafety and Vncertainty You grosly mistake We hold euery other Point of Catholick Religion wherin you and we dissent wholly as Safe and certain as That is we both agree in For I tell you once more our Safety and certainty depend not vpon any Hereticks consent If then you would rack That Principle we and Arians agree to this unto ward sense So much Doctrin The Principle of Agreement abused precisely is the safest we agree in And no more Or That our maintaining that agreed-on Doctrin to be safe excludes other Catholick verities from being So Wee neither agree with the Arian nor any other Heterodox But utterly disclaim The Principle and consequently say you can draw no Conclusion at all from it against vs. Sense the Principle and all is clear Hereticks and we agree That Christ is man That sense contains certain Doctrin O but the meaning may be He is so purely man that he is not God Giue it this sense we agree not but reject the Principle as Heretical which therefore inferr's nothing like à conclusion against vs. All is contrary in the other agreed on Principle Concerning the Saluation of Catholicks For that as I said now Though it serue not immediatly to end other debates touching Purgatory Praâ—ing to Saints c. yet it drawes with it à long train of notable consequences For if we may be saued we haue true Faith in our Church true Hope true Chatity true Repentance And what euer is necessary to attain saluation More of Mr. Stillingfleets Mistakes briefly discouered 32. I 'le only briefly hint all the rest which followes from your Page 623. to the end of the Chapter To touch them is enough to take off the little strength they haue You ask first Why you ought to belieue that which both Parties agree in I Answer because you must belieue in some Church which is either your own or Two questions answered the Roman Catholick Or Both Both grant the Catholick may be saued what would you haue more You Ask again If the consenting parties may agree in à falshood what euidence haue you but that the agreed on Principle is one of those Falshoods I haue answered 1. If the Principle bee supposed false you might haue roundly said so at the beginning and spared all your superfluous labour spent to no purpose in this fourth Chapter I Answered 2. The true Church euen when Protestants consent to it cannot Agree in à falshood for the true Church speaks truth And He or They who side with it cannot swerue from truth in that You say 3. It ought to be à safe Principle indeed and no vncertain Topical Argument which men should venture their souls vpon Answ If men must be saued in the true Church be it yet where you will And in this we All agree none can in conscience call the Doctrin of it Topical or vncertain as shall be proued afterward In the mean while Say I beseech you Church Doctrin Miscalled Topical what safer Principle haue you to rely on in this weightly matter of Saluation which will not be more Topical Than that is which the true Church teaches And you approue You know or should know there was neuer any true Church since Christianity began which denied Saluation to the Romam Catholick Nay all Orthodox Christians euer granted it You side with all these Orthodox Christians and what greater Authority can there be on earth Yet this Principle must be called by you Topical and vncertain Say then what 's more certain Will you leave the voice and vote of all Orthodox Professors and run to Scripture Alas The whole book Saith no where so much as seemingly That you Protestants are in the Safe way of Saluation And we Catholicks not What euer Argument therefore is drawn from Scripture will be à lesse satisfactory Principle yea none at all And infinitly more Topical in order to saue you Than what the church teaches and you hold with it is to save vs. Now if you let goe this Principle of plain Scripture as you must or I 'le vrge you lo produce that plain Text which saues you and Damn's Catholicks you haue nothing left
the Iewes also for they neuer had any after our Sauiours Comming T' is Sectaries Iewes and Turks disclaim Miracles true that Pond vpon Probatica Ioan. 5. Or as many will haue it the Pond it self so called because the Sheep ordained to Sacrifice were washed there continued Miraculous whilst Christ our Lord preached But soon after ceased And so do all other wonders amongst that abandoned People The Turks who say God gaue Mahomet the sword and Christ the Power of working Miracles pretend to no such supernatural effects at all No more in Iustice can Heathens or the Donatists lay Claim to any whose wonders were but trifles compared with the Glorious works of Christ and His Church None of them all conuerted whole Nations to Christian Religion none of them raised vp the dead None of them after death wrought any Miracles See Tertullian writing of the Heathens In Apolog C. 22. 23. And S. Austin against the Donatists Homil. 13. in Ioan. De Vtilit Credent C. 16. As also Lib. 10. de Ciuit. C. 16. 13. I say 2. If the Miracles of Christ and the Apostles rationally proued against Iewes and Gentils the Credibility of Apostolical The ancient and modern Miracles compared together Doctrin The very like Signes and supernatural effects most euident in the Roman Catholick Church as rationally proue against Sectaries the Credibility of our now professed Catholick Doctrin I would say Church Miracles constantly wrought in all Ages since Christianity began are no less efficacious to draw Sectaries to the Belief of our Church Doctrin than those the Apostles wrought were to induce Iewes and Gentils to the belief of Apostolical Doctrin Here is one Proof The same Signes and Marks of Truth when equal in Maiesty Worth Quality and Number euer discouer to Reason the same Truth For God can no more deceiue by such works of Grace than by his own Diuine word Interrogemus ipsa Miracula saith S. Austin Tract 24. in Ioan Quid nobis loquantur de Christo. Let vs ask of Miracles what they say of Christ Habent enim si intelligaâ—tur linguam suam They want no tongue to speak with their Language is plain for Christ Iust so Say I and proue it Church Miracles Speak as planly for the Church Wherefore if the Roman Catholick Church most clearly giues in euidence of Her Miracles equal in worth quality and number with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles it followes that as those first Apostolical wonders were sufficient to conuince Iewes and Gentils of the Truth of Christianity So these latter also wrought in the Church are of like force and no less efficacious to conuince Sectaries of what euer Doctrin She teaches Now ponder What the Apostles did the Church doth well what the Apostles did They cured the sick dispossed Diuels raised the Dead conuerted Nations c. But these very Miracles haue been done in the Roman Catholick Church yea and greater too Ergo we haue the like Euidence of Truth in both the primitiue Age and this Consequently with it the same Truth The Euidence hath been partly laid forth already and shall be further proued presently The Sequel is vndeniable 14. I say 3. No otherwise nor vpon any better ground can the Sectary Oppose the Miracles of our Church than Iewes and Gentils haue opposed and yet doe oppose those of Christ and his Apostles Obserue well Will the Sectary Say our Miracles are wrought by the Diuels power So the Iewes Calumniated Christ own Glorious works Will he Say they are only fained by poor deluded or bold-lying Catholicks So the Iewes speak of Christ's own Miracles to this day Will he Say that some Miracles auouched true haue been afterward euidently The like opposition made against Christ's Miracles and the Churches Counterfeit and why may not those the Church glories in be rancked with such Contra. And why may not Christs own wonders be also listed with them The Argument if of any force equally concludes against both For if the Forgery of some proue all forged Christ's own Miracles no more escape the Censure than if one should say t' is S. Austins instance all women are naught because some haue been so Let then the Sectary show vpon good Principles That Church Miracles haue been forged and he speak's to the purpose In the interim he may well think his bold incredulous Humour makes none forged 15. One may reply There is à vast disparity between our Sauiours Miracles registred in Scripture and those we plead for only attested vpon humane Faith I Answer in order to Christians there is à Disparity in the Testimony But that fall's from the purpose now First because Christs Miracles were known and admitted vpon humane Authority before Scripture was written 2. And chiefly because both Iewes and Gentils as much slight our Scripture testifying those wonders as the Miracles themselues And make little account of either 16. But when they read these things in Scripture and moreouer both Iewes and Hereticks conuinced hear what Miracles God hath Constantly wrought in euery age yea almost euery year in his Church and yet continues that fauour to our present dayes When they hear and read of the Miracles which that one sacred house of Loreto Euidences the publick Monuments and Testimonies whereof are vndeniably Authentick and able to conuince the most obdurate Gentile When they read or hear of the continual Miracles done at the Reliques of S. Iames at Compostella in Spain the infinite number of Pelgrims resorting thither from all parts of Christendom besides Records bear witness of those great Benefits When they read or hear of that perpetual Miracle seen in France exhibited to all mens eyes in the Sacred Viall of S. Mary Magdalen wherein the precious Blood gathered by that penitent Saint at our Sauiours Passion is yet perserued and Visibly boyl's vp on the very day he suffered after the reading of the Passion A whole Nation testifies this thousands and thousands haue seen it and Spondanus ad An 1147. Saith he beheld the viole in the Church of S. Maximin 17. When again they hear or read of the vndoubted Miraculous Cures wrought vpon the blind the lame and all sort of diseased Persons by the Intercession of our Blessed Lady at Montaigu By what particular Miracles they are Conuinced English vsually call the place Sichem The euidence whereof is so vndeniable without dispute that Iustus Lipsius in suâ— Aspricolli to the Reader most iustly saith They are not men but rather beasts or purposely shut their eyes that See not those Miracles as clear as the Sun For Saith He many of them haue been manifest to our eyes and senses And Erycius Puteanus speak's as fully the sense of his Predecessor See his Praeface ad Aspricol Hâ—c ista c. These very Miracles which the Mother of God began to work at Montaigu this very Age we liue in are so manifest so many and most stupendious that if any doubt of them
read and ponder Scripture but if you moue à further Question concerning the Sense of what he reads he returns you his own fancy as the best light he has and makes that his Iudge This and no other is the Protestants Principle and the chief if not the only support of all Heresy in the world 17. I Argue 2. And hold it à Demonstration To make Religion à Scepticism eternally debatable without hope of attaining truth at last is wholly as ridiculous as if two men should goe to law meerly to wrangle hopeles of euer hauing their cause determined But this Protestant Principle VVe read Pray and ponder makes Religion à meer Scepticism without hope of euer knowing it or hauing truth finally decided Semper discentes they Another Conuincing Argument are alwaies learning but neuer well taught Ergo it is more than ridiculous 18. To proue the Minor let vs first suppose that either we Catholicks or Protestants teach and profess true Religion both certainly do not for we hold Contradictions Suppose 2. This falsity which our Aduersaries will haue supposed Viz. That the Roman Catholick Church after all Her reading and perusing Scripture is as fallible in all She teaches as Protestants confessedly are in what they deliuer after their reading Both teach as they doe contrary Doctrin Yea and fallible Doctrin yet both tell you they teach true Doctrin Say I beseech you what man in his wits To teach Contrary Doctrin and true Doctrin can belieue Either vpon their bare Assertions chiefly if we Suppose them of equal Authority when he find's the Result of their reading and perusing Scripture to end in nothing but in open Contradictions and sees plainly that the opposit Doctrin of the One Church so much abates the Credit of the other teaching contrary that in real truth both become Contemptible And hence I Said that which we call Christian Religion would iustly deserue Scorn if no Church teach it infallibly But is impossible here is not all To discouer more the gross errour of Sectaries in this particular 19. We are yet to Demand vpon whom this iarring Doctrin of the two dissenting Churches now supposed Fallible is to be laid Or whence it proceeds Can it come from Gods special A Doctrin taught fallibly Assistance think ye It is impossible Because God teaches no contradictions Nay if we consider it as contradictory no Spirit of truth can teach it Therefore we must part the Doctrins and Ascribe to each Church its own particular Opinion And then were that possible Examin which is true 20. But here lies the Misery I say boldly There neither is nor can be any appearance of certain reuealed truth in either Proceed's not from God Church not only because all Principles fail whereby to discern à certain Christian truth from Errour but most vpon this ground That we must now remoue the fallible taught Doctrins of both these Churches from Gods Infallible Verity and his Special assistance also and make them lean vpon mans weak and shallow vnderstanding We haue no other Principle to rest on if once infallible Assistance be excluded But it is manifest mans shallow But relies vpon mans weak Vnderstanding capacity communicat's no Certainty to Any concerning the high Mysteries of Faith remoued from their Center The first infallible Verity Therefore all we can learn from such Teachers is no more but doubtful Doctrin at most or if it reach to an Opinion meanly probable there is all Yet you haue often No ground less then infallible Supports true Religion heard and it is à Truth that no Principle less then one which is infallible Can vphold our Christian Doctrin Wherefore an vtter ruin of true Religion ineuitably followes vpon this Ground As Duine Doctrin infallibly taught begets infallible Faith So if taught doubtfully it begets only à doubtful Assent which is no Faith at all Now were these Doctrins respectiuely to each Church probable as I think neither would be if the Supposition of their fallibillty stand's we are only brought to the old Scepticism again and may dispute of Religion as we doe of Probabilities in Schools and so if men please They may as often change Religion as they change Opinions or apparel 21. Some perhaps will reply Protestants can certainly Say more for themselues then only to tell you They read Scripture and compare the Passages of it together by the light of their own weak reasons Could so much indeed make them accomplished Sectaries can pretend to no other Principle Doctors able to lay forth Gods eternal truths it would seem strange mighty bare and dissatisfactory to Reason Answ Here is all you haue from them For they neither do nor can pretend to more Wherefore I challenge them again and again to Say plainly what other Principle can be relyed on not wholly as doubtful and as much controuerted as their very Religion is when they either teach or interpret Scripture contrary to But to their own Comparing Scripture the Roman Catholick Church Obserue their Procedure If à contest arises betwixt them and condemned Hereticks The Arians for example All ends in à meer throwing Texts at one another And the sense must be iust so as each Party conceiues And do they not follow the same strain in euery Controuersy with Catholicks One Instance will giue you sufficient light and may well serue for all 22. They Protestants I mean read those words of our Sauiour This is my Body So do Catholicks also They compare Text with Text and Sense all as they please Catholicks as wise and learned compare also yet hold contrary Doctrin and discouer no little fraud in these new mens Deductions and Criticisms Say now plainly Who is He that acts the Sectaries seek to quarrel but to End nothing Sceptick's part Who is He that would endlesly quarrel about the Sense of Gods word Is it the Catholick No certainly He is willing to haue the cause vltimately decided He Petitions to haue these endles strifes remitted to the censure of one Supreme Iudge to à Church which manifesteth it self by euident glorious Miracles neuer yet censured by any Christians but known Hereticks and which finally has taught the world euer since Christ left it Dare Sectaries do thus much Dare they appeal to any Orthodox Church by whose iust Sentence these debates may haue an End No. They recoyle and without listening to any Iudge but Them selues would stil continue these Debates Therefore they are the Sceptists And to proue this giue me leaue to propose one Question to the Protestant He is the man we now treat A Conuincing Proof of our Assertion with Has he any Church so free from Censure of so long Continuance so glorious in Miracles as the Roman Catholick is Has He any Council as generally receiued the whole world ouer as either the Lateran or Florentine which euer interpreted Christs words or Sensed them as he doth Most euidently no. Therefore
I said well His reading and glosses and all he can Allege for himself are nothing but His own weak thoughts as far remoued from the foundation of truth Gods infallible Verity as earth is from Heauen and more 23. But its needles to Prosecute this Point further when one only reason which none can contradict giues Euidence enough against Protestants I Propose it thus What euer Doctrin they teach peculiar to Protestancy or maintain against the Roman Catholick Church either proceed's from Gods infallible Assistance or wholly borrowes strength from their own Sectaries teach Doctrin diuorced from Diuine Assistance fallible Conceptions after their reading and comparing Scripture Grant the first They teach infallible Doctrin by virtue of Gods infallible Assistance and consequently are the men who constitute an Infallible Church Say secondly that all they teach deriues force from their own weak reason guided only by the external words of Scripture vnderstood as they conceiue They teach as the Arians and all Hereticks haue taught before them à learning which is not from God Their And therefore not from God Doctrin in à word Diuorced from all Diuine Aide and Assistance stand's tottering vpon their own errable Sentiments and therefore neither is which I intended to proue Christ's Doctrin nor at all resoluable into that first Principle of truth God's vnerring Verity 24. Shall we to giue some clearer Light to the Controuersy hitherto handled compendiously recapitulate à few of these many reflections made already in the foregoing Chapters And then more establish the Churches infallibility vpon vndoubted Principles To do so may perhaps benefit the Reader 25. Say therefore Is it true that Christian Religion vltimately A briefe recapitulation of what has been Said depend's vpon God the first vnerring Verity No man doubts it Is it true that innumerable called Christians grosly misconceiue those reuealed Truths after their reading and perusing Scripture It is no less certain Is it true That the bare reading and pondering Scripture Sectaries like Arians no more ascertain's Protestants of the Verities there registred than the Arians or any other Hereticks The truth is vndoubted For from whom should they haue greater certainty Is it true That Funaticism Scripture wrested Doubtful faith euâ—ry Fanatique recurr's to Scripture as Sectaries do Experience proues it Is it true That this sole recourse to Scripture wrâ—sted to a sinister Sense vpohld's the most false Sects in the world Is it true That Christian Doctrin doubtfully taught beget's only à doubtful faith Is it true That the only support of Protestants in points of Religion Comparing Texts fallible Scepticism amount's to no more but to their own doubtful and bare pondering Scripture or to their various and fallible comparing Texts together Is it true That these men like Scepticks would stand euerlastingly quarrelling about the sense of Gods word and cannot be iuduced to hear any Iudge No Iudge speak in this cause of Religion but themselues Is it true That we urge them to make choise of what Iudge they please prouided they appeal not to their own Sentiments and Glosses as much controuerted as Protestancy is Is it true That they can name no Orthodox Church which No Orthodox Church Nor Councils Want of Infallible Assistance Fallible Professors of fallible Doctrin Diuine Reuelation wronged Doctrin neuer owned taught as they teach glossed Scripture as they gloss No Council generally receiued Comparable either to the Lateran or Florentine which fauours their Interpretations forced vpon Christs words Is it true That the Doctrin they propound confessedly proceed's not from Gods infallible Assistance Is it true That they assume to themselues the name of Christians and yet are ashamed to be called infallible Professors of the whole systâ—me of Christian Religion Is it true That they haue done their vtmost to take from God's infallible Reuelation it s own intrinsick nature of Infallibility by making it no more but morally certain in order to our Christian Faith Is it true That that half Infallibility some lay claim to in à few yet vnknown fundamentals appear's euen to Protestants not any Doctrin owned by the Christian world nor can it appear otherwise whilst à whole vniuersal Church decryes it as improbable Is it true That These Nouellists raise not their Doctrin Endles Disputes any higher but only to an endles Contest whilst no Iudge but themselues must speak in the cause 26. Are all these things I say more amply enlarged and clearly proued already so vndoubted that no Sectary shall euer rationally contradict them If the Iudicious Reader find I speak truth as he will may Preiudice be laid aside I may boldly Conclude Who euer see 's not the deplorable Condition of misled Sectaries who euer see 's not also an absolute necessity of an infallible Church to set them in the right way of truth Again is wilfully blind supinely negligent Yea vtterly Careless of Saluation CHAP. XIX Certain Principles where vpon the Churches Infallibility stand's firm The End of Diuine Reuelation is to teach all Infallibly Euery Doctrin reuealed by the fiast Verity is no less infallâ—ble then true It s one thing to teach Truth another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth Sectaries Strangly vngrateful A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Obiections 1. NOw wee come to the last certain Principles whervpon the Churches infallibilitâ— stand's most firmly Here is one The Doctrin which God reueal's as it proceed's from that first vnerring Verity is not only true but infallible The Second Principle Scripture which makes none infallible is often abused by Hereticks Principles premised The third Principle Some Christians are yet in Being That both teach and learn this true Diuine and infallible reuealed Doctrin The Proof is easy For vnless some Teach and learn it All Teach and learn another Doctrin distinct from that which God reuealed The Principle Proued and this neither is nor can be Diuine but meerly humane at most and Perhaps à foolery That therefore which the Prophet Asserts Iohn 6. 43. All shall be Docibiles Dei docible or taught of God is not so For now if the Supposirion hold's the whole Church take it in what Extent you please is deludeâ— as the Apostle Saith Ephes. 4. 14 With the wind of Doctrin in the wickednes of men in Craftines to the circumuention of errour And this brings ruin to Christian Religion 2. The. 4. Principle This Diuine Doctrin is not only A Church must be acknowledged absolutely infallible true and infallible in it self but moreouer so infallibly Proposed by one vnerring Oracle That all who will receiue it are most indubitably certain of those very truths which God has reuealed and therefore cannot err Make good this one Proposition We haue an infallible Church established not only in à few nicknam'd vnknown fundamentals but in euery Doctrin She teaches Now the Proof is taken from the End of Diuine reuelation which seem's most Conuincing For say I
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
your Proof in Calling That à Reasonable Religion which the greatest Part of Christians reiects as both false and Improbable 4. What Scripture I beseech you what Orthodox Church Why improbable what receiued Authority Nay what Reason euer yet made à few owned Verities and the fewer the better of Christian Religion The whole the full and only Essentials of it If this once passe for sound Learning I se not why à Turk that Own 's one God and Christ our Lord as à Very great Prophet May not as well account those two Articles the Essentials of Christianity as our Sectaries do their Few Fundamentals For if we once begin to Diuide Christs sacred Doctrin Nothing lesse and more valuable in Christ's Doctrin into different Shreds More and Iesse Valuable Say I beseech you where shall we stop in the Diuision And thus your own Question is retorted 5. You tell vs indeed you take some few Fundamentals to be Religion and can proue so much Reasonable I Answer The ground of our Assertion you Mislake For no halfe Pieces of Religion can be proued reasonable without the whole entirely taken and Assented to Here is the Ground of my Assertion and it is amply Proued in this Treatise Either All that Doctrin which Christ our Lord taught And the Church euer since deliuered as Faith is Fundamental Or Nothing at all can be Fundamental 6. Other Flawes I find in this Gentlemans Discourse but haue not time to pursue halfe of them Here is One and of main Importance also He neuer rightly distinguisheth between that Obiect wherevpon Reason rest's And the Obiect of Faith Considered in it self Reason euer precedes Faith A want of Distinguishing between the Obiect of Beason and Faith and is grounded vpon those rational Motiues which Induce to Belieue Faith precisely Considered as Faith relies vpon à quite Different Obiect God's pure Reuelation and Cannot Discourse For the Reasons giuen aboue not here to be repeated Only know thus Much in passing That the wrong done by this Author to the Learned Perron Veron and Others hath its Origen from this Ouersight of not distinguishing between the Obiect of Reason and Faith These Saith He loudly declaim against Reason All know it very well I Answer they declaim Perron and Others Causlesly blamed against Reasoning or Arguing in the very intrinsick Act or Tendency of Faith For Fides non quaerit cur aut quomodo is most true and So you and the whole world must do if you Belieue They declaim against Reason or all rational Discourse built vpon Manifest Motiues Inductiue to Faith is à Calumny and most vntrue 7. Another Mistake The Diuine Authority of Scripture is to be proued by Reason and only by it Yet more The great Argument Another errour for the truth of Scripture is the Testimony of the Spirit in the Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles Sr I thought ye all pretended to belieue the great Miracles of Christ and of his Apostles by Diuine Faith founded vpon God's Reuelation in Scripture This granted the rational ground why you belieue such Miracles Cannot be your very Act of belieuing them But must be extrinsecal both to your Faith and its Immediate Obiect also What I Say is Manifest For Questioned by à Iew vpon what rational ground I say rational you belieue the Incarnation or any Miracle in Scripture you will not answer the reason of our belieuing is your Beliefe but must fall vpon prudent Motiues extrinsecal to Faith Otherwise you Confound again the Obiect of Faith with that of Reason 8. You Say moreouer Though Reason Cannot of it Selfe immediatly proue the truths of pure Reuelation Concerning the Trinity for example or the Incarnation Yet it Demonstrates the Diuine Authority of the Testimony that declares them And that way Viz. by demonstrating the Testimony proues euen these Articles Euidence of the Diuine Testimony infer's euidence in the thing attested This Certainly is à Mistake First because great Diuines teach That if the Diuine Testimony be demonstrated Or euidently proued to exist The Verity attested by it is also euidently known Therefore who euer has euidence of this Truth God that Cannot err Reueals the Trinity must euidently infer The Trinity is And So Faith would be euident both in respect of its Formal Obiect and Material also But here lies not my greatest exception 9. I say in à word There is no Principle in Nature or Grace which has force to demonstrate and mark my word That No Principle giues Euidence of the Diuine Testimony God euer said The Mystery of the Trinity Exist s. And first the Doctrin in Scripture no Selfe-Euidence demonstrates not its own Verities The Beliefe of Orthodox Christians terminated vpon the Diuine Testimony is Faith and vnder that Notion obscure Infallible Tradition you own not and Though you did it would Lay no Euidence of the Diuine Testimony before Reason Nothing then remain's if you seek for Rational Euidence but that you recurr to the known Motiues of Credibility which Induce to belieue Now Sr These Motiues demonstrate not the Truth of the Diuine Testimony Euidence of Credibility and Euidence of truth But only make it euidently Ctedible And here by the way I must needs reflect vpon another Mistake You seem not to distinguish between Credibility and Truth Nor between Truth and Infallible Truth A thing may be Credible which is false◠Are to be distinguished As if three or four of good reputation for ought I know Should Conspire to inform me of the death of à Friend in England who yet liues The Relation to me would be prudently Credible yet false Truth implyes à Conformity with its Obiect and Cannot be false Infallible truth in the present matter of Faith requires moreouer the Influence of Supernatural Principles whereby the Act of Faith is determined to rest vpon its own Obiect the First Verity All these Particulars are largely explain'd in this Treatise 10. Thus much briefly noted Though more might be said we Shall Examin by the help of Good Principles How far Reason can proceed in Matters of Faith And whether by prudent reason all may Come to know where true Religion is taught and professed 11. Cardinal de Richelieu Traitte pour Conuertir ceux c. Lib. 1. C. 11. well obserues with the best Philosophers That when à Verity stand's sure vpon one clear rational and indubitable Principle its needless though sometimes not amiss to bring in more Proofs For frustra fit per plura c. One solid Ground is equivalent to many 12. I am you se engaged to answer the Question proposed All debates concerning Religion may be decided by Reason Viz. How far reason is to meddle in matters of Religion And Say in à word All debates in this most weightly Affaire may be decided and easily by Reason only But to clear the Assertion from Mistake we are first To distinguish between à nicknamed or miscalled Reason
haue neither Inference nor Principle In very reallity neither true Consequence nor Consequentia No Inference because it s à meer Tautology or à bare repetition of what the Doctor had formerly asserted without Proof or Probability And Consequently far enough from the Nature of either Principle or Inference Had the Doctor brought in any thing like an Inference He Should haue Said Vpon such and such grounds already established It followes that these and what Should be proued these particular Doctrins of Protestants are true and immediatly deduced from this or that Principle But he totally abandon's the Protestants Faith and leaues his Fellow-sectaries as faithless as they were before he wrote these Principles The True Inference therefore or all that followes is that he hath lost his whole Labour 2. The. 2. Inference The Infallibility of that Society of men yet no Inference who call themselues the Catholick Church must be examined by the same Faculties in Man the same Rules of trial the same Motiues c. Answ Here is no Inference but the same thing repeated again which for the substance lies in his 6th Principle what Reason is to examin Now if we Speak of this Doctrin considered in it Selfe we easily grant that the rational faculties in men both may and ought to examin by the Light of prudent Motiues what Society of Christians is Infallible as also what Diuine Reuelation is made euidently Credible to Reason But herein à double Caution seem's necessary The first That Sectaries assume not to themselues the sole Faculty of examining and iudging but leaue to others à share of it also The second A twofold Caution to be obserued Prouiso is that Reason in this Search go not beyond its Bounds but pitch vpon that which is Reasons proper Obiect I mean vpon those Signatures of God's own Visible Wonders already explained These two Conditions obserued All is well Sectaries will soon Se their Errour 3. The. 3. Inference deduced out of no Principle falsly No want of Motiues and Miracles in the Church Supposes but proues not the want of Miracles and other conuincing Motiues in Roman Catholick Church It is largely refuted vpon seueral Occasions in euery one of these three Discourses 4. The fourth Inference From whence it comes I know not is thus The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and reason which any Church obtrudes vpon the Faith of men The greater reason men will haue to reiect the A Speech like that of Iewes and Arians Pretence of Infallibility in that Church as à grand imposture Answ Had à Iew who hold's it against Sense and Reason to belieue that God became an Infant Or had an Arian that denyes the Trinity because the Mystery seem's repugnant to his weak Reason Spoken after this manner None would haue much wondred But that à Doctor who pretend's to belieue these Fundamentals of Christian Religion Cannot find roome enough in his head for reason and Faith in euery particular the Church Teaches argues some little want both of the One and Other But say on what is it he boggles at O à Consecrated Wafer appear's to be bread and is not bread this is repugnant Sense beguiled to sense and reason Contra. Those two Angels that came to Lot Gen. 19. appeared to the Sodomits like mortal men but were not so Was not Reason here vpon the suggestion of Sense How rectifyed beguiled And are not both these faculties now rectifyed in vs by what we read in Holy Writ which ascertain's vs they were not men but Angels Thus it fall's out in the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament Wherefore I Say Were it not that God Speaking by Scripture and the Church assures vs that what we se is not substantianly bread the whole world would guided by outward Appearances hold it bread as those wicked Citizens iudged Lots entertained Guests to be men and not Angels But when eternal Truth interposes his Authority and tell 's vs by his own Oracles what is here contained vnder the Forms of bread is God in this Mystery interposes his Auâ—hâ—rity and vnbeguils reason not bread but Christ's Sacred body Reason yeilds vpon this most prudent Ground It is the highest reason in the world to belieue God though by reason we know not how things are Here is our Principle not possibly to be reuersed vnless the Doctor proues his Contrary Doctrin by the Authority of another Scripture or some other Church more euidenced by Supernatural Wonders and Consequently more Orthodox than the Roman Catholick Church is You may read the First Discourse C. 12. n. 4. where its Proued that the immediate Obiect of Sense Ceases not to be in this Mystery 5. Wherefore I Infer that if the Doctor would haue the Infallibility of that Church reiected as à grand Imposture because A hint giued to Iewes and Arians to reiect the Scriptures Infallibility it obtrudes vpon vs Doctrins in his Opinion repugnant to Sense and reason He ought also by good Consequence to Inuite both Iewes and Arians to reiect the Infallibility of Scripture as à grand Imposture where it Speak's of the Incarnation and the Sacred Trinity for certainly these Mysteries are far more aboue all Mens weak Reason then this other of the Blessed Sacrament is 6. The Doctors 5th and 6th Inferences deserue no such names because they are not deducible from any Principles being Vntrue Assertions in place of Inferences only his own plain Assertions and most vntrue Say I beseech you From what Principles can He infer That to disown à Church which teaches Doctrin aboue the reach of weak Reason is not to Question the Veracity of God but to adhere to that in what he hath reuealed in Scripture How can this be done Whilst the whole No knowing what Scriptâ—re Speaks without an Infallible Church world see 's the holy Book of Scripture so variously Sensed by dissenting men called Christians that none can conclude vpon any clear Principle which sense is true which false without owing à Church Infallible I Say aboue the reach of weak reason But not repugnant as the Doctor supposes For no Catholick Verity can be repugnant to Euident reason though much aboue it In à word That Doctrin is repugnant to Reason from whence two Contradictions clearly follow now I vrge the Doctor to giue vs any thing like à Contradiction in the Mystery already What 's Contrary to Reason mentioned of the blessed Sacrament That Doctrin is aboue Reason which cannot be known by the ayde of natural Principles only And thus the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity of the Incarnation of Original sin and Transubstantiation also are so far remoued from our natural faculties that none but God only can discouer them by his Supernatural Reuelation The 6th Inference And What 's aboue it where the Doctor tell 's vs That the Church of Rome neither is the Catholick Church nor any sound