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
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
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
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
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
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
proue The Assertion 266 CHAP. V. A second Reason showing That if rhe Roman Catholick Church erred but in one Article of Faith thère is now no Fundamental Faith in the world VVere Errour in this Church it is à remediless Euil and cannot be amended by any least of all by Protestants 276 CHAP. VI. Other Euidences of the. Roman Churches Perseuerance in the Primitiue Faith without change or Alteration VVhether wickednes of life necessarily induceth Errour into the Church The Donatists and Protestants Argue and Err alike 285 CHAP. VII Manifest and most vndeniable Miracles peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church only proue Her Orthodox withall show that She still retain's the Primitiue Doctrin 296 CHAP. VIII Miracles euident in the Roman Catholick Church No less induce All now to belieue Her Doctrin Than Apostolical Miracles Anciently Perswaded to belieue that Primitiue Doctrin The Denial of Miracles Impossibilitat's The Conuersion of Iewes and Infidels 302 The Admirable cure wrought by Blessed S. Xauerius in the Famous Citty of Naples vpon à worthy Religious Person called F. Marcellus Mastrilli à Noble man by birth and by Profession of the Society of Iesus The Proof hinted at aboue reassumed 312 CHAP. IX A word to à few Obiections as also to Mr stillingfleets vnworthy Exceptions against that euident Miracle wrought at Zaragosa in Spain 321 CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signes peculiar to the Roman Cathollick Church proue her Orthodox And make Her Doctrin euidently credible These laid forth to Sense and Reason distinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies Inferences drawn from the Doctrin Here deliuered 333 CHAP. XI Christ and his Church made manifest to à Heathen No Prophet comparable to Christ no Church comparable to the Roman Catholick Our glorious Christ Iesus Exhibits à glorious Church Hee is proued the Only true Messias And the Roman Catholick Church His only true Sponse How the Heathen Discourses if rational And Prudent 349 CHAP. XII The Aduersaries of the Roman Catholick Church plead vnreasonably A Discouery of their fallacies The cause of all Errour concerning Religion The only means to remedy Errour 363 Arguments drawn from what is said Reflections made vpon the premised Doctrin 377 CHAP. XIII Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrin Atheists and Hereticks Argue alike The Motiues of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what euer the true Church Proposes A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church 181 A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 387 CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith 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 certainly in Matters of Faith à most frigid Plea Their Fallacy is discouered Obiections Answered 408 Other Obiections proposed by Sectaries Solued More of Moral certainty 419 CHAP. XVI Principles premised to the following Doctrin The Roman Catholick Church is à Church of One Denomination She and no other Society of Christians is Infallible Othet Grounds of Her Infallibility laid forth The Infallibility of Councils maintained against Mr Stillingfleets Supposed Truth and Reason There are no Principles whereby Approued Councils can be proued fallible Sectaries Conuinced by their own Doctrin 423 CHAP. XVII More of this subiect A further Search made into Errours called intolerable VVhether the Roman Catholick Church must be supposed by Sectaries to haue already Committed intolerable Errours Or only whether She may for the future Err Intolerably The Doctrin of Protestants proued False And most inconsequent 443 CHAP. XVIII Two Aduersaries mainly Opposit to True Religion The last and most vrgent Proof of the Churches Infallibility taken from the Necessity the Notion and Nature of true Religion Mr Stillingfleets Obiections found weak and weightles Most of them already Proposed and Dissolued by others A short Reflection made vpon some few 452 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 infallible then true It s one thing to teach Truth another to teach Diuine and Infallible Truth Sectaries Strangely vngrateful A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak Obiections 465 THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith CHAP. I. Some chiefe Contents in this Discourse briefly declared Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Churches infallibility and the Resolution of Faith The Catholick way of resoluing Faith the very same with that of the Primitiue Christians Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse 477 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 483 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 493 CHAP. IV. More of Mr Stillingfleets Errours Of that odd kind of Faith he seem's to maintain grounded on Moral Certainty VVhat Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue vpon Faith Other Parcels of his Doctrin Examined and refuted Obiections Solued 505 CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauour to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnlearned Cauil 516 CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffing The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communitier 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 523 Whether vve Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Tittle of the Chapter discussed Vpon vvhat ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 534 CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 545 CHAP. VIII The main Difficulty in the Resolution of Faith Proposed VVhat Connexion the Motiues haue vvith the Diuine Reuelation Of their vveight and efficacy God's own Language not imitable by his Enemies Faith transcend's the certainty of all Motiues The main Difficulty solued Of our great Security in Belieuing God Though vve haue not
books of Scripture hee hath not yet so much as moral certainty of that precise Canon he receiues excluding other books which he denies as Scripture For no Orthodox Church no vniuersal Tradition no consent of Fathers no definition of any Council approues his Canon or explodes those books reiected by him therfore the sectaries Canon wherof there is so Much doubt can giue no moral assurance of Gods reuealed verities vnles it were without dispute à liquid truth that their Canon only is Gods word which cannot be supposed whilst so learned and numerous à multitude of Christians oppose it as defectiue and imperfect Yet more Suppose he giues you the exact number of Canonical books hee gain's nothing because the very Doctrin of these books is no more but à Translation and therefore vnlesse the Translator or Printer haue faithfully complyed with their duty and preserued the books in their ancient purity no Protestant can assure himself or any that what we now read is without change or corruption pure in the very necessary points of Faith If you say you compare them with the ancient Original Copies of the Hebrew and Greek I answer the very best Originals men can light on now are no more but meer Transcriptions and consequently may haue been corrupted by the Transcriber The best Originals now extant are only transcriptions the Printer or Librarian Therefore the Sectary hath no Moral certainty of the bare letter in Scripture if he cannot shew vs the hand writing or Autograph's of the Prophets and Apostles wherof there is no danger because he neuer saw any Hence I argue He who hath not infallible certainty of the very letter of Scripture want's infallible certainty of the Doctrin contained in Scripture but the Protestant hath no infallible certainty of the letter of Scripture Therefore he want's infallible certainty of the Doctrin contained in Scripture for no certainty of the letter no An argument against sectaries certainty of the Doctrin drawn from thence But if he has not certainty of the Doctrin he can haue no infallible faith grounded on it Therefore Scripture alone is an unmeet means to teach him what either true Faith or Religion is 2. Mr. Stillingfleet to solve this vnanswerable Argument Part. 1. c. 6. p. 196. saies we beg the Question when we require an infallible Testimony for our belieuing the Canon of scripture yet grants such à certainty as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting and Chap. 7. p. 211. declares himself further thus Giue me leaue to make this supposition that God might not haue giuen this supernatural Assistance to your Church which you pretend makes it infallible whether men through the vniuersal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages might not haue been vndoubtedly certain that the Scripture we haue was the same deliuered by the Apostles I answer if you take leaue to make that supposition licence me to tell you you haue not that certainty of Scripture which Diuine Faith both supposeth and requires And here is one reason to omit others insisted on here after Deny this infallible assurance of the books of Scripture you haue no greater certainty that God endited those words we now read than you haue assurance that Aristotle wrote his Topicks or Caesar his Commentaries And dare you or any say that we receiue Mr. Stilling answer dissatisfactory our Bible vpon no surer ground Or can you Imagin if Christians accept these books vpon à Testimony lesse then vndubitable it may not be suspected that à thousand gross errours haue entred the Copies by the negligence or inaduertency of such as transcribed them Belieue it Were Aristotles Topicks matter of Diuine Faith none would dy after the fallible conueyance of them to our age vpon this perswasion that nothing substantially first writ by that Author hath been changed or altered Since and the same I assert of the Bible vnlesse you say that the words of Scripture were writ in some celestial and incorruptible Matter yet to be read by all or grant which is truth that as God by special Prouidence caused them to be writ pure so also he yet preserues them without blemish and now witnesseth the truth by the Testimony of his infallible Church wherof more largely hereafter At present I will only answer your difficulty about that fallible certainty which you affirm excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting and say first The vniuersal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages neuer approued the intire Canon of your Scripture for not only the present Roman Catholick Church but the ancient councils also receiued books which you reiect This truth is so manifest that it need 's no further proof therefore your Canon want's the approbation of the whole Christian world and consequently you haue not so high à certainty of Scripture as excludes all possibility of reasonable doubting I answer 2. And it is à demonstration against Protestants who say the whole Christian world for à thousand years at least erred in Doctrin contrary to the verities of Holy Scriptures for if we goe up from Luther to the 4 th or 5 th age after Christ you 'l find none but condemned erring Hereticks and Roman Catholiks no lesse actually guilty say Sectaries of these professed errours Of praying to Sainâ—s of an vnbloody Sacrifice of the the A further Argument taken from the papists supposed errours real presence c. Thus much supposed I both answer and Argue against you If the whole Christian world was for that vast time so strangely infatuated as to mantain errours contrary to Scripture when the true Doctrin therof no lesse concerned their eternal Saluation then the true letter it cannot possibly be supposed vpon any weak Probability much lesse on such à certainty as excludes all reasonable doubt that these besotted Christians preserued the letter of Scripture pure and intire whose errours are now imagined most gross against the Doctrin contained in God's word Obserue my reason It is much more easy to conceiue if all held corrupted Doctrin that the very letter of Scrtpture was by negligence or ignorance of these Corrupters of Doctrin also corrupted then to imagin the records preserued pure and Millions of Christians to read them and after the reading grosly to mistake Gods verities registred in that book And here I must mind M. Stillingfleet of his proofless and inconsequent way in Arguing 3. You Sr. say first The whole erring multitudes of Christians before Luther preserued Scripture pure yet forsooth these silly men taught one Doctrin after an other contrary to Scripture They perused the book interpreted it yea preached it to their own confusion and condemnation You say 2. It is not possible that Mr. stillingfleets arguments retorted these writings could be extorted out of mens hands by fraud or violence vnder their eyes or suffered to be lost by negligence Yet you make it not only possible but grant the Doctrin therof to haue
totally pure and incorrupt though S. Hierom obserues in his praeface to the Gospels Tot sunt Exemplaria quot Codices there are many of them Therefore He must haue recourse to the Greek which is vsual 9. Hence I argue If God shewed not particular Prouidence in preseruing our latin Edition from notable errour so diligently reuiewed by S. Hierom and approued also not only by many learned Writers in after ages but by à whole Church it is no lesse then temerarious to allow greater security to any Greek Copy for can the Sectary An Argument in behalfe of our Latin Edition say that Gods peculiar hand of prouidence alwais so attended the Transcriber or Printers of the Greek Copies that nothing could be written but pure Apostolical Scripture and with any countenance own à want à defect à subtraction of this peculiar prouidence to à Scripture approued of by à whole Church Obserue well the difficulty Where Gods special Prouidence is there we haue infallible assurance you grant God's special Authentick records had not come safe to our hands therefore you cannot rationally deny it to that Scripture which the Church approues CHAP. VII More of this subiect Doubts concerning the seueral editions ☞ If this digression Concerning the different Editions of Scripture seem tedious to the Reader he may passe to the 9. Chapter where he will find our Discourse Continued against Sectaries of scripture None extant more pure then the Vulgar La-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 1. THe first proposition If the Protestant reiect's our Vulgar Edition as not Authentick or as viciated in any material point touching Faith and manners He improbably pretend's to haue so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting To proue the Assertion I will here giue you à few Postulata vsually held indubitable by most learned men who haue writ large preludes called Prolegomena to holy Scripture Neither Catholick nor protestant shall rationally except against my suppositions First it is Certain that the greatest part of the old The first supposition Testament was Originally writ in Hebrew but whether that ancient Copy hath been euer since preserued pure chiefly after S. Hieroms time or notably corrupted by negligence or malice is very doubtful Learned men stand for the Affirmatiue and none I think can deny some lesser errours when greater are pretended You may see these different opinions of Authors in Prolegomen Ad Biblia Maxima And the particular supposed errours largely noted by Salmeron Prolegom 4. It would be too long à work to insist on this subiect and not for me to determine what is true All I contend for here is an vncertainty whilst great Authors are opposite and this is done to conclude what I intend against Sectaries 2. It is again certain that the greatest part of the new Testament was writ in Greek but here we meet with the same difficulty and inquire Whether the Greek by chance or inaduertancy has been corrupted since the Apostles time This at least if not more is The second supposition doubtful Graue Authors hold the Affirmatiue See Serarius in Prolegom Cap. 13. and Bonfrer c. 14. and the errours noted If Protestants deny them or think their own authority weighty enough to Contradict our Doctors the matter in Controuersy is still doubtful So much I plead and no more 3. It is certain that all other Bibles are only Translations or Transcriptions of The third the Original Hebrew and Greek The Greek version of the 72. interpreters out of the Hebrew or as wee vsually 〈…〉 ak the 70. is only à Translation wherin many doubts occurr One is whether that Translation be the first For Clement Alex and Euseb cited Bibl Max sect 18. c. 2. seem to hold an other more ancient before the time of Alexander the great How euer admit which is perhaps true the 70. version to be the most ancient we haue yet matter enough of Dispute concerning it and one great Question is whether at this day that version be yet preserued pure The ancient Archetyps wherof more probably are not now extant but when or where lost remains vncertain See Bib Max sect 18. c. 10. Authors say it is corrupted through the ignorance or negligence of the Librarians or the Printers See Bib t Max. c. 8. 9. Restat ergo Whence it was that those Laborious Doctors of Alcala at the perswasion of Cardinal Franciscus Ximeno The version of the Septuagint Archbishop of Toledo and afterward the Doctors of Louain making à diligent search after many Greek Copies corrected no few faults in the then extant transcribed Copy of the Septuagint yet this very correction was far from the purity of that ancient version which the Father 's vsed See Bib Max now cited where vpon that other version of the 70. taken out of an Ancient Manuscript of the Vatican Library Anno Dom. 1585. Came forth by the industry of Cardinal Anton Caraffa wherin most learned men laboured nine whole years and it was perfected about the beginning of Sixtus 5. Raign The greatest difficulty yet remains It is most certain the version of the 70. Interpreters differ's so notably from the Hebrew Text chiefly in the computation of years or point of Cronology that our venerable Bede though à great Scholler and one as humble as learned ingenuously confesseth Venerable Bedes Iudgement he cannot reconcile those Antilogies See Bib Max c. 8. fine Who then can tell me when we find these lections of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint opposite to one an other which is to be preferred Most learned men stand for the Hebrew as many for the 70. You may see these dissenting Authors quoted in Proleg Bib Max Sect 18. c. 11. and how some to accord them say That the Holy Ghost would haue the Septuagint now to add to the Hebrew now to diminish according to his good pleasure See Bib Max cap 8. fine 3. But let vs proceed to à further matter of doubting Long after the Edition of the Septuagint came forth three other Translations made by three vngodly men Aquila Symmachus and Theodotio Aquila Pontinus once à Gentil became Christian but denying Christ soon turned Iew learned the Hebrew language Of other three Translations and too critically translated the Hebrew into Greek almost word for word His spleen against the 70. Interpreters was so great that contrary to the verity of Scripture He rendred some places speaking of our Sauiour most perfidiously and wrested all to à confused and sinister sense Symmachus one of Samaria twise circumcised became at last à Professor of the Ebion Heresy and Translated the Hebrew into Greek not as Aquila did Verâ—atâ—m but rendred the sense more perspicuously Theodotion first Baptized then à Sectary of Marcions and Ebions errours lastly à Prosylite
Pius the 4. but other great schollers also profoundy learned in the knowledge of Scripture and skilful in the Hebrew Syriack Chaldee and Greek began the Great diligence vsed in the Correcting the Vulgar Correction of the Vulgar Latin and to accomplish the work diligently examined these ancient books these M S S the best Originals of Hebrew and Greek and commentaries also of the most ancient Fathers c. Speak therefore of humane industry we may boldly say our Vulgar Latin hath been reuiewed and corrected with greater care than euer version was set forth by Sectaries But if these men will still pretend to find any Material errour in the Vulgar I only ask by what more Authentick Copy can they so much as probably hope to amend it By the Hebrew and Greek Toyes Dispute the Question rigidly there is lesse assurance of these supposed Originals integrity then of the Vulgar Latin so industriously examined not only by the best Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant but also by other ancient M S S. and commentaries of the Fathers 8. I cannot therefore imagin what Mr Stillingfleet aimes at when he tell 's vs page 215. that Doctor Iames who had taken the pains to compare not only the Sixtine Clementine Bibles but the Clementine Edition with the Louain Annotations makes it appear there are 10000. differences in the Louain Annotations from the Vulgar Latin and that these differences arise from Comparing it that is sure the Vulgar Latin with the Hebrew Doctor Iames opposed Greek and Chaldee What would the man haue think yee Will he suppose first that Thomas Iames hitt's right in euery thing he saies The learned Iames Gretser whose authority is euery whit as good the whole world over as that of Mr. Iames. Tom. 1. Ad lib. 2. Bell pag. 1060. denies all this with à Mentitur tertiò Thomas Iames Decem millia verborum c. Read Gretser I cannot transcribe all he hath Again will he say that the Vulgar Latin is to be corrected by the Louain Annotations or these by the Vulgar if any thing were amiss in either Or 3. If these pretended differences arise from the comparing all with the Hebrew Greek or Chaldee can Thomas Iames be supposed to know the last energy and force of euery Hebrew Greek or Chaldee Rational exceptions against Mr. Iames. word when there is controuersy better then the Authors of the Louain and Correctors of the Vulgar Latin Here we may come to an endles wrangling about the Genuine signification of words but decide Nothing God help vs if the knowledge of true Scripture depend's on such petty Nicities and fruitles quarrelling 4. And this is to be noted Were these differences more then are made by Mr. Iames The question would then be whether they imply any Material alteration concerning Faith or Manners or introduce notable errour contrary to God's reuealed verities or finally bee meer verbal differences grounded on the obscure signification of Original words If Mr Stilling only pretend's this later let him remember his own expression of racings of the skin and know that there was neuer Translation in the world which may not be thus Cauilled at If any Material alteration be pleaded he both speaks à lowd vntruth and contradict's himself when he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Diuine Prouidence in preseruing the Authentick records of Scripture safe to our dayes 2. He is to name that Authentick Copy either Original or translation by the indisputable integrity wherof these supposed errours may bee cancelled and Gods pure reuealed verities put in their place But to do this after so immense labour and diligence vsed in the correction of the Vulgar will proue no lesse than à vain attempt or rather à desperate impossibility Vpon this ground 9. I say first Who euer denies the Vulgar Latin to be Authentick true Scripture hath Eo ipso lesse assurance of any other Edition now extant and consequently not so great certainty of Scripture as excludes à Possibility of all reasonable doubting I An Assertion proued proue the Assertion That man may rationally doubt of Scripture who reiects the strongest assurance imaginable and makes choise of à weaker But this is done if he doubts of or denies the Authenticalness of the Vulgar The reason is first because He hath no other Edition as is now said examined with more care or greater industry and this ground 's the highest humane assurance conceiuable 2. Because the Vulgar is approued by God's Holy Church which giues infallible certainty if therefore the integrity of the Hebrew and Greek be not vnquestionably authentick he wants that certainty which excludes à Possibility of doubting And Much less assurance hath the Sectary of his own later iarring Editions of Scripture which breed nothing but confusion to the very Authors and all who read them 10. I say 2. If the Sectary hold's the Vulgar Latin Authentick Scripture yet makes it guilty of some lesser faults and therefore endeauours to correct it by à more authentick What if lesser faults be pretended in the Vulgar Copy he cast's himself vpon meer vncertainties and labours in vain The reason is To doe thus much he must suppose that other Copy he would correct by to be more pure than the Vulgar and this cannot be proued vpon any receiued Principle Now if you obiect Authors Commonly deny not some obscurities or lesser verbal faults to haue been in the Vulgar I answer that 's nothing to the purpose were all true for it doth not therefore follow it can be corrected by any other Copy which is more Authentick Scripture A lesse authentick Bible may help herein when other lections are accuratly examined yet may be faulty in greater matters 11. I say 3. No Tradition no Testimony which is fallible and may be fals can giue so great assurance of Authentick Scripture as Diuine Faith requires or that assurance which excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting which is to say in other words The infallible Testimony of the Church is absolutely A Testimony in fallible is necessary to ascertain Scripture necessary to ascertain vs of Authentick Scripture The conclusion is directly against Mr Stilling who page 226. makes the certainty Christians haue of the books of Scripture so fallible that it may be false yet enhaunses the certainty of the Doctrin there contained to à note higher of infallibility We shall see the leuity of this distinction fully discouered hereafter and our Assertion proued in à more proper place All I will say at present is No man can be certainly assured of true Scripture vnles he first come to à certainty of à true Church independently of Scripture Find out therefore the true Church and we haue all we seek for I mean true Scripture with it vnles one tend's to à high degree of madnesse and Assert's that the true Church of Christ cheated into an erroneous Bible was depriued of pure and authentick Scripture 12. And here I will
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
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
Ponderation of my Replies is so far to iudge between vs. But here is not all I must Say more Though I am as fallible in excepting against His glosses as he is in making them yet my Faith depend's not vpon my Exceptions but vpon the Doctrin of my Church The express words of Scripture and Fathers These oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe But all that Mr Stilling hath for his Faith is only the vncertainty of his own No man builds faith vpon his own Glosses coniectures ancient Church he has none nor express Scripture nor one Clear sentence of any Ancient Father And will hee Dare to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his Glosses or the opinion he would mantain by them vpon no other Ground but his weak Coniectures I appeal to his own Conscience for an Answer Well Be it how you will thus much is euident and T' is the only thing I aime at in this whole Discourse if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Aduersaries of different Religions when no surer Principle is at hand to rely on but the fallible Glosses of the One and à contrary fallible combating with those Glosses in the Other they may both as the world goes now sit long at the sport before one Controuersy Other mean◠to end Controuersies then meer Glosses be ended Therefore God as I said aboue has Prouided vs of an easier way to end these weighty difficulties or we may All turn Scepticks Some may say The old mode of the World was to dispute by Scripture and Fathers dare we reiect this way of arguing as insufficient Answ No truely It is an excellent way amongst Christians though insignificant to Heathens when the Aduerse Parties can Clear the sense of Scripture and Fathers vpon certain Principles But if the very sense of Scripture and Fathers be called into Question As now à daies it is by Sectaries We must of necessity haue Recourse to an other more Clear easy and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vse among the Holy Fathers Whereof more afterward In the Interim the ensuing Chapter may giue you entertainment CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 1. THis Assertion not slightly proued in the other Treatise Disc 2. C. 4. I hold so certain That the wit of man shall not rationally contradict it And to giue yet more light to what is there said Be pleased to exclude or mentally only to cast aside All thought of an vnerring Church of her infallible Tradition al so of the Definitions of General Councils For all these which Sectaries hold fallible are Essential to an vnerring Church If any such thing be in the world whereof we shall Treat afterward Next look about you And consider well what remain's to end Controuersies withall or to regulate Diuine Faith You haue VVhat Principles Sectaries Can Pretend to distinct from an Infallible Church first Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à Iew partly reiects Yet with such Aliens from Christ à Christian can argue rationally yea and clearly conuince them as I shall proue in the second Discourse After Scripture you haue the sublime Mysteries of Faith the Fathers Doctrin laid forth in their Volumes and the History of the Church Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries besides their priuate Spirit which can be no more à sound Principle to them than the contrary Spirit is to Their Aduersaries 2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end any Controuersy by these Principles without an infallible Church And be pleased euer to attend to the Aduersary he Treat's with If he attempt's to do good on à Heathen by Scripture or bring 's in the Reasonableness of Christian Religion The Heathen and Iew also laugh at his Folly And wish him to proue his Book to be Diuine If he proues that by the Vniuersal Tradition of all Called Christians the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him as I may hereafter about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition but desires him to goe among the Chineses and lay his Bible down by That book which their supposed Prophet Confusius wrote full of excellent Moral Precepts Thus much done the Contest Begin's The Sectary saith his Bible is Authorized by à great Prophet called Christ A learned Bonzius Answer 's and his is also Authorized by à great Prophet called Confusius The Sectary saith all Christians own his book vpon à neuer interrupted The Protestants Contest with ◠Heathen Concerning the Bible Tradition to be indited by the Spirit of Truth The Bonzius replies All China of à mighty vast Extent age after age hath the like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible What followes but that These two Aduersaries peruse their Bibles The Bonzius read's ours and Reasonably ask's whether the Sectary can infallibly proue such strange Mysteries as are registred there for example à Trinity the Incarnation of the Diuine word to be Truths Reuealed by Almighty God The Sectary answers All the infallible certainty he hath of these particular Verities lastly Relies only vpon Scripture it selfe For what euer Principle can be imagined distinct from that written word whether Church or Tradition is Fallible and may deceiue If so saith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me Because you proue the Mysteries contained there by that which causes my doubt or is the matter in Question for you say all I read is of Diuine inspiration because your Bible relates them and therefore make that à proof of your Doctrin which is the Matter in question or causes my doubt O saith the Sectary read on with Humility and you will find that the very Maiesty of the style the Energy of the words will quit you of doubting And to ease you of too much pains know we Protestants hold That the Belief of à very few chief Articles or simple Truths as that Iesus is the Christ The Diuine Word is incarnated c is faith enough to gain Heauen Contra The Heathen except's against the Protestants plea. Replies the Heathen I see no other Maiesty in the Style of your Bible than in mine and other pious books The exteriour Syntax or ioyning of words together is common to all such Writings But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man knowes what splendor shining in the bare Letter when you say that shines not to Pagans but only to those who haue the Spirit of God and are the Elect amongst you Now to what you Add of à few chief Articles necessary to be belieued and no more I answer first Your Scripture saith no such Thing nor tell 's me or you which Articles are necessary which not and if it did so you are only where you were before in darkness
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
an Oracle of truth whilst all it teaches now is fallible and may be false 7. Hence I argue What Scripture saith is true Scripture here speaks of à Church founded by Christ of an Ancient Visible An Argument drawn from what is now said Society of Her perpetual Pastors without interruption of à Church conuerting Nations c. Therefore it speak's Truth and points at à sure Oracle marked with the notes we plead for who euer then admit's Scripture must ioyntly own these Marks and Signatures of the true Church But yee Sectaries admit Scripture and haue no such Marked Church with Antiquity continuance of Pastors c. Ergo you are not members of the true Church which must necessarily be found in some other Society of Christians 8. Here by the way we must preuent à triuial Obiection For some less knowing Aduersary may reply Wee destroy our own Ground and now proue the Marks of the Church by Scripture whereas we suppose the Scripture first proued to be of Diuine Inspiration because the Church manifested by her Marks and Motiues saith so 9. I Answer we proue the Marks of the Church and the Form of her essential Doctrin also by Scripture But how Vpon à Supposition that the Book be first proued Diuine by Church Authority Thus much done it is an excellent Principle But not Primum indemonstrabile it s own Self-Euidence Or first indemonstrable Principle This Truth is clear For no man goes about to conuert à Iew by alleging Passages out of the new Testament or to draw à Heathen to Christianity by any thing written either in the old or new Scripture As therefore that Scripture not the first in demonstrable Principle man would not be well in his wits who hopes to conuert à Protestant by meerly alleging the Definitions of the Council of Trent which he slights so he would be as sensles did he hope to conuert à Heathen by Scripture only as much vnderualued by him as the present Definitions of the Church are by Protestants Hence you see how Scripture is à Principle against Sectaries who admit it and reiect an infallible Church By Scripture we Argue and conuince them of errour might the words Thereof bear their proper sense without fancied Glosses Yet if we make à right Analysis it is not the first indemonstrable Principle but Per Modum suppositionis only that is it must be either supposed or proued Diuine 10. I say yet more Though both the Iew and Heathen owned Scripture as it truly is à Book indited by the Holy Ghost Though it were so there yet remains à difficulty not to bee solued yet they haue but made one step as it were towards Christianity For when such men look well about them and find Scripture differently sensed by so many iarring Heads as haue it in their hands by Arians Socinians Quakers Protestants c. Catholicks dissent from them all where can I beseech you these half Christians whether Iewes or Heathens securely rest With whom can they rationally vnite Themselues whose sense must they belieue and own as the vndoubted meaning of the Holy Ghost To doe any thing prudently in so weighty à Matter is impossible Vnless they first come to the knowledge of Christs true Church which as well Ascertain's them of the Scriptures sense in all Controuerted points of Faith as it doth of the Book 's Diuinity Now further It is not possible to know the true sense of Scripture but by the Church it is not possible to know the Church but by her Marks the essential Doctrin Thereof no more mark 's it self as true than Scripture Doctrin denotes its own Diuinity The Sectary therefore that rob's the Church of her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles Conuersions Perpetuity c. is guilty of three hainous crimes at once 11. First he makes the Conuersion of à Iew to Christianity Sectaries make the Conuersion of Iewes impossible most impossible I 'le show you how The Iew Admit's of the old Testament and drawes from euery passage which speak's of Christ and the Church à Sense quite different from that which Christians own The Protestant admit's both the Old and New Scripture And as we may Suppose is at à hot dispute with à Iew concerning Christian Religion First saith the Iew Lay Sir your New Testament aside which is no Principle with me Because it neither euidences it Self immediatly to be Gods word nor can you proue it Diuine vpon any sure ground extrinsecal to the Book Therefore we must Argue by à Principle common to vs both The old Testament only You read There I read also You know the Original language so do I You compare Text with Text I doe the like You Gloss and I Gloss against you Yet after all is done you draw one sense out of this very Scripture and would proue Christ to be the true Messias I draw from thence an other quite Contrary And say He is not My demand is whether Christ The Assertion proued whom you Adore hath prouided men of better means Than your Glosses and mine are whereby we may certainly know what the sense of this Scripture is If he haue done so it can be nothing but à Church manifested by Supernatural Signes and miracles for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthusiasms if the guidance of à Church be wanting we are all left in darkness And know not what Sense to make of Scripture and this ill beseems the Goodnes of à Sauiour who as you say came to enlighten the world and teach all truth which is not done For he leaues Reason in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church is It may well be the Protestant will except against his Aduersaries Glosses but He is soon silenced for Saith the Iew you good man when you treat with Papists interpret Scripture as you please and why may not I proceed so with you And vse the like liberty 12. The second crime committed by the Protestant who depriues the Church of Her external Signes is that he Eclipses that great light of the world which as Origen saith shines to all And make it as Obscure as some Protestants make their Church inuisible before Luther What I say is certain For no man can find the Church by reason when all rational Motiues are What Sectaries are guilty of taken from it And held impertinent to illustrate that great moral Body Hence you see the third sin of Sectaries relating to Scripture This Book also loseth all credit with Christians because it Euidenceth not its own Diuinity nor can any Signalised Church tell vs it is Diuine or certainly declare the true sense thereof to either learned or vnlearned 13. My last argument against the Protestant is no Topick nor bare Probability but à plain Demonstration The Title saith This reformed man has no Christian Doctrin made credible to The last conuincing Argument Reason whilst he belieues as Protestant To proue the Assertion Three
is in the hearts of such as are Assembled together in God's name and Assisted to define infallibly Diuine Faith T is true actually elicited euen after the permanent Habit infused requires à Supernatural Motion of Grace But hereof we speak not at present 5. A. 4. Principle When it is enquired Whether the Church Distusiue be infallible the Querie is not whether the Motiues inducing to distinguish that Oracle from others Demonstratiuely and with all Metaphysical certitude euidence likewise Gods Reuelation relating to the Mysteries Belieued For this might lead vs to enquire whether Faith be euident in Attestante That is so Vnexceptionably manifest that all may clearly Infer from the Reuelation clearly known That the Mysteries belieued are euidently true We now meddle not with that Difficulty though great Diuines patronize the Affirmatiue But only Ask Whether the Doctrin of Christ's Church be so infallibly Certain that it cannot be False or deceiue any Catholicks The Question Stated own à triple infallibility necessary to Faith The first proper to God's Reuelation no Protestant denies that The second belongs to the Church either Diffusiue or Representatiue in General Councils whereby we learn and that infallibly those Truths which God reueals The third infallible Assurance necessary to Faith all Orthodox Christians haue that belieue the A threefold Infallibility Mysteries reuealed vpon the Diuine Testimony Proposed by Christ's Church 6. A. 5. Principle If what is most vndoubted Diuine Faith essentially relies vpon Gods infallible Verity speaking by one or more men sent to Teach who proue their Mission and Demonstrate the Credibility of the Doctrin deliuered it necessarily followes That that first infallible Verity beget's in euery true Belieuer no less perfect Faith Than what is most certain and infallible Wherefore as it is the indispensable Duty of euery belieuing Christian to acquiese in and rest vpon God's infallible Mans Duty grounded on Christ's Promise Veracity So it is an indispensable Promise That we haue Christ present with à Church which teaches all Truth And therefore cannot but Propose the Obiect of Faith infallibly The firm Promise irreuokably issued from Power and Goodnes it selfe Matt. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes to the end of the world Iohn 14. 16. I will Ask the Father and he will giue you an other Comforter the Spirit of truth to remain with you for euer Hell gates cannot preuail against the Church Thus much premised 7. The Difficulty now agitated is Whether the Roman Catholick Church and Her approued General Councils be so secured from Errour That She cannot swerue from that first Support of Truth I mean God's infinit Veracity But must when She teaches Teach that exactly which God hath reuealed and will haue after à sufficient Proposal Vniuersally belieued Sectaries say She may Yea actually has swerued from God's Reuelation and in great Matters too though not perhaps in the What Protestants assert Primary Fundamentals as they are Called or in Fundamentals Simply necessary to Saluation And they were forced to this wicked Doctrin vpon three naughty Motiues 8. First to giue Scope or rather to inuite Libertins to hold or deny so much of Christian Religion as pleaseth their fancy And do we not see the liberty effectually laid hold on in England amongst Phanaticks and such giddy People All this giddines And why came first from the reformed or rather the deformed Nouelty of Protestancy They do it 2. to make Controuersies Endles For deny the Churches Infallibility Cauils go on Grant Her infallible Disputes are ended 3. This is done to quit themselues of an Infamy iustly laid vpon them of being both Schismaticks and Heretiques at once which shall neuer be claw'd of do what they can For these vnsound reasons or pestilent The Catholick Assertion Motiues rather The Church forsooth must needs be fallible Catholicks on the other side maintain the contrary And say there is à Church so Infallible that She cannot err in any thing She teaches as Faith And thus much God willing shall be euinced in the following Discourse But to do it exactly I am briefly to lay open to all that haue eyes The Abiect the Desperate and Desolate condition of à fallible Church You haue here my first Proposition 9. A fallible Church is essentially Constituted in à State of publick A fallible Church is in à State of rebellion Rebellion and Hostility with it Self Wages war against Infidels without hope of conuincing or conquering any And therefore cannot be Christ's Orthodox Church To declare further what I would say know first That Sectaries own à Catholick Church much larger than the Roman Catholick And make Themselues Part of it Conceiue now which though very hard is yet possible that the Representatiue of this great Moral Body meet 's in à General Council and discusses the Question now in hand Viz. Whether there be à Church of one Denomination Preserued infallible by Diuine Assistance Part of the Representatiue and these are Protestants Oppose the total Infallibility of euery Church Part Catholicks I mean Say one Church is infallible and that is the Roman The Difficulty proposed can be decided or not If not This great Representatiue meet 's to no purpose but only to make more No means to vnite it Strife in the world If it can be decided God has prouided means whereby the truth of so weighty à Matter may be known But there is no such means left vnless some one Church or other or all together be owned infallible Therefore an endles Hostility goes on in this supposed Representatiue 10. That all means fail may Sectaries Votes haue place is indisputably Euident You shall see it clearly The Catholick Party Appeales to Scripture alleges these and other like Passages Without some One Church be Infallible He who hear's you hears me and from thence infer's Who euer hear's the Church hear's Christ an Infallible Teacher The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith and hence concludes She is infallible The Spirit of Truth shall remain with the Church for euer Pastors and Doctors are appointed by Prouidence to preserue the faithful from wauering in Faith and all erroneous Circumuention Hell gates cannot preuail against the Chutch c. What can be more The Scripture Significant if plain words haue sense for the Infallibility of some One Church Yet all these and many other Testimonies so shrink to nothing may Sectaries Glosses stand in force That no man can say what God speak's in these Scriptures or know the Truth now debated Viz. Whether any Church be infallible or not This means failing of its End which ought to compose our Strife Hostility is as vigorous as when the Dispute began for yet we know nothing certainly 11. Passe from Scripture to Fathers We haue there most pregnant Expressions The Church cannot be adulterated Cypria◠And Fathers Speak significantly the Churches Infallibility de Vnit Eccle VVhat She once receiued from Christ
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
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
improbable Yea and destroies Protestancy It is And why improbable Because it cannot be Supposed that any priuate man or men haue vsed full Diligence to vnderstand the Scriptures Sense And that à Church of à thousand years standing hath neglected à Duty so necessary But these priuate men whether Arians Protestants or Socinians and the Church draw contradictory Senses from Scripture And all these iarring Sectaries with their different Senses defend not truth Therefore some of them let the fault yet light where you will haue not vsed Diligence nor righly vnderstood God's word The Question now is and some Oracle must decide it where or in whom this Misunderstanding lies Most willingly would I haue this one Difficulty folued and t' is worth the Labour whilft euery one See's it is no more certain that the Protestant hitt's on the Scriptures true Sense than it is certain that the whole Church after à thousand years Diligence mistakes it Can this think ye be euer cleared in behalf VVhy Should Sectaries his right on the Scriptures Sense of Protestants by any Proof so much as meanly Probable It is Impossible Wherefore I Conclude Their Grand Principle is rotten at the very root fail's all that Rely on it I will say it once more If the Protestant hath no greater Certainty of his Sense of Scripture than it is certain That he hitts right and the Church Err's in her Sense His Belief after all industry And the Church be deluded vsed stands vnprincipled rests on his own fancy and is not rectifiable while he iudges so Say the very vtmost it is no more but à meer hazard whether he belieues or no and this destroies Protestancy Thus much of Scripture 21. The next thing pleadable in behalf of Mr Stillingfleets Truth and Reason may perhaps be the Authority of Holy Fathers It is weightles if the Church be fallible or has Erred And first Protestants say all Fathers are liable to Errour I add more and Assert if that Church whereof They were Members taught or can teach false Doctrin it is à meer vanity to seek for certain Truth or any satisfactory Reason in the Fathers Writings What can Streams the Fathers were no other be Supposed pure and The Sectaries pretence to Fathers improbable the Head fountain Gods own Oracle Poysoned and infected Did they hit right vpon our Christian Verities when their only Guide Christ's sacred Spouse misled Posterity Could they Dedicate all their Labours to make an Oracle renowned that afterward whispered Errours into all mens ears These are Paradoxes I Say then it is à stronger and far more reasonable Principle to Assert That the Church neuer erred nor can erre Than first to Suppose Her erroneous And next to find truth in the Fathers who were no more but Schollers and suck't the milk of purest Doctrin from the Brests of this their Mother The Catholick Church If She therefore poysoned them with fals learning both She and They yet poyson vs And consequently neither the Church nor Fathers deserue credit nor can be prudently Belieued 22. And here by the way I cannot but reflect vpon à strange Procedure vsual with Sectaries in All their Polemicks First The procedure of Sectaries vnreasonable they Suppose the Church and Councils errable yea actually misled in Asserting Purgatory Transubstantiation c. And to Rectify what is thought Amiss Some few Gleaning of Fathers how little to the purpose is seen aboue are produced and these Forsooth must stand as it were in battail Array fight against à whole Church and ouerthrow Her Errours Is this think ye Reasonable Can it be imagined that God preserued his Reuealed truths in the Hearts thoughts and words of à few Fathers and suffered his Vniuersal Church with so many learned Councils conuened after the Four First to fall presently into so shameful à Dotage as Sectaries charge vpon Her Were the Fathers Then illuminated and was the Church afterward darkened and besotted There is none so blind But must needs se Himselfe out of Countenance by aduenturing to Defend à Tenet so highly Contrary to all Reason Wherefore I must earnestly petition the Reader once more to reflect vpon the greatest Folly which Methinks euer entred the Thoughts of men Thus it is The primitiue To say the Fathers taught truth and that che Church deserted Truth Fathers not many in number Who wrote in the First three or four Centuries in different Times and Places perused by few and vnderstood by Fewer are Supposed to Deliuer exactly the Catholick Verities What They sayd was True And an Ample Vniuersal Church together with Her Learned Councils known to All spread the whole world ouer for à Thousand yeares and vpward must be Supposed so Abominably sinful Is worse then a Paradox so Fearfully misled as to Desert the Ancient Faith of Those Fathers to Peruert God's Truths And Finally to Bring into the Vast Moral Body of Christians à Vniuersal Mischiefe à Deluge of Errour of Idolatry And no man knowes what If this be not pure Phrensy there was neuer any 23. The last Principle to ground Truth and Reason vpon or to bring Controuersies to an end is Vniuersal Tradition but this also Fail's to vphold Truth if the Church be fallible For who will or can with certainty trust the Tradition of à Church or so much as take the Book of Scripture from Her were she branded with this foul Note of hauing Publickly taught and wilfully imposed à hundred Doctrins vpon Christians contrary to Gods reuealed Reuealed Truths But more of this aboue C. 5. 6. 24. After all you se first Truth and Reason brought to Ruin Faith and Religion vnhinged if the Church and Councils be Fallible You se 2. These Inferences Setled vpon vndeniable Principles The Church is infallible Ergo Controuersies are without Perplexity ended Contrarywise The Church is Fallible Ergo Contentions Clear Inferences against Sectaries goe on without Redress endlesly Scripture as you haue heard because differently Sensed decides nothing No more do the Fathers Say Sectaries confessedly fallible Church and Councils are reiected as errable when and as often as Sectaries please Those that Dispute of Religion Yet more Fallible are not to be Iudges in their own Cause and without à Iudge Their best Arguments will be thought by all Prudent men no more but Vnconcluding Topicks And really they neither are nor can be better for want of Principles and some Oracle Infallible 25. Whoeuer desires to haue the Principle I Rely on further established by clear Inferences drawn from our Aduersaries needs only to read M. Stillingfleet from page 534. to the end of that 2. Chapter My Principle is There is no possibility of ending strife touching Religion if the Church and Councils be fallible yet Mr. Stillingfleet and his Lord Say they must haue some end or They 'l tear the Church à sunder My Task then is to show that these mens Doctrin Tears all in pieces and makes Controuersis
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
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
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
strange Mr Stillingfleet saw not the Distinction The Faith therefore of those other Samaritans that belieued in Christ vpon the wonans word Vltimately relyed vpon our Sauiours own Authority who had conuersed with her And hence the Gospel Sayes Now we Belieue not for thy Saying for we our Selues haue heard and know that this man in very deed is the Sauiour of the world T' is true had this woman whom the Fathers Suppose perfectly conuerted to Christ been made an Infallible Oracle in all she deliuered The Samaritan woman proposed what She had heard as the Apostles were in their Teaching or the Church now is Her Testimony might well haue supported Faith but because thus much only can be euinced by Scripture that She â—ealously Proposed what She had heard of our Sauiour Her testimony alone might serue well as à natural Proposition to raise Belief in others though insufficient to ground in them that Supernatural Assent And her words had vpon this Account greater weight because She confirmed them with à Sign aboue the force of Nature This man has told me all I haue done I know some Authors are of opinion that this Samaritan called Photina first reduced to the Faith of Christ her Sisters and Children which done She went into Affrica and there Propagated the Christian Doctrin with great Successe till at last both She and her Different Opinions Concerning her Children were crowned with à glorious Martyrdom The only difficulty is whether She be the fame with that S. Photina whereof à memory is kept in the Roman Martyriloge the. 20. day of March some Greek Authors stand for the Affirmatiue Be it so or other wise it imports little to our present Purpose Who desires more of this Subiect may read the erudite Godefridus Henshenius Tom. 3. de Santis Martij die 20. immediatly after the life of S. Ioachim 11. Conformable to this Doctrin we Answer to these other forceles Instances and might say with some good Diuines That Other Instances Shew'd forceles all Immediate Propounders or Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation in such particular Cases need not to be Infallible For Faith as These Diuines Teach requires no more But first that the Obiect be truly reuealed and Proposed to one vpon prudent Motiues Suitable to the firm Assent Hee must elicite 2. That In Doctrin Commonly receiued by the light of such Motiues Hee be induced to fix Belief vpon the Diuine Reuelation although that full Euidence of Credibility which the Church Manifesteth and the more learned attain to be not yet acquired by him These Conditions presupposed Diuine Grace is euer ready to make that mans Faith most firm and supernatural And consequently an Obligation lies on him to belieue But from this Doctrin which is Common no such thing followes as Mr Stillingf would infer Viz. That the Churches infallibility Seem's vnnecessary to vphold infallible Faith for may not young Beginners growing more mature chiefly if solicited to abandon Their first Faith iustly demand to haue more full Satisfaction in all their doubts and so much Assurance concerning that they once assented to as not to be remoued from it vpon any false Motiues or fallacious Arguments though neuer so Specious Such cases Say these fall out euery day 12. But in this present State none can clear these doubts none can Assure any that his Faith is certainly true none can bring the most learned to à perfect acquiescency in Belief but an Infallible Church Therefore vpon this very Account The Churches Infallibility absolutely necessary Her infallibility is proued not only conuenient but absolutely Necessary And hence it is That Gods sacred Prouidence neuer failed since Christianity began to haue in readines Some one or other infallible known Oracle wherevpon faith might rest most Securely The Apostles had for their Master the best liuing Oracle Christ our Lord. The Primitiue Christians learned of the Apostles After them the Church perfectly founded did succeed as the only Oracle wherevnto euery one may take recourse for further Satisfaction when difficulties arise Though in some particular Cases as is now Said Her Motiues and glorious Miracles be not at the first laid forth most fully to euery simple Belieuer Ceteram turbam saith S. Austin contra Epist Fund C. 4. non intelligendi viuacitas sed credendi simplicitas salâ—am facit That is Candid Simplicity makes these more How young Beginners are drawn safe than curiously to search into the vltimate grounds of Belieuing The Reason is because fewer Motiues if yet prudent and Conuincing may well serue to induce Beginners seldom molested with Difficulties against Faith than will conuince Others more learned who often struggle to Captiuate their Vnderstanding when the high Mysteries of Christianity are Proposed 13. Moreouer many great Doctors maintain that in the Two Solutions more particular cases now mentioned God by his special Illumination Supplies the want of the exteriour Proposition when that 's deficient or less conuincing See Suarez Disp 4. de Fide sect 5. and this way also we easily solue Mr Stillingfleets difficulties Lastly it is noted in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. n. 5. 6. And both receiued Doctrin That whoeuer is lawfully sent to teach the Christian doctrin and deliuers those Truths in the name of God and his Church if considered as à member conioyned with Christs infallible Oracle He may be Said to teach infallibly The Reasons you haue there giuen more largely 14. I am now to retort Mr Stillingfleets Instances vpon himself and show That though he walk's neuer so far abroad to view the seueral Plantations of Faith amongst either Brittans or Barbarians he must solue his own difficulties Thus I discourse We now Suppose All these Barbarians Conuerted to Christ These instances retorted to haue had true Faith and Consequently prudent Motiues to belieue before they firmly assented to the Diuine Reuelatlon We make Enquiry after these and Ask By what Inducements were such as yet knew not our Sauiour drawn to belieue in him Mr Stillingfleet return's the strangest Answer I euer heard What our Aduersary asserts For he seem's to make his Motiues inducing to Faith nothing but the rational Euidence of the truth of the Doctrin deliuered and Therefore grieuously complains P. 118. That we destroy the Obligation to Faith which ariseth from the rational Euidence of Christian Religion If this be not pure Fancy there was neuer any and my Reason is That Supposed rational Euidence is either the very same with the intrinsecal Verity of the Doctrin deleuered or à rational intellectual Light distinct from the Doctrin If it be the very same These truths simply Proposed Christ His rational Euidence of Christian Religion is God and man Adaem infected his posterity with Original Sin God is one Essence and three Persons are without more their own Self-euidences and consequently all the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought to settle these and the like Verities
Reicted firm in the Primitiue Belieuers were to as little Purpose as if one should raise the dead to perswade vs that the Sun shines or if we speak of Moral certainty that there haue been such men in the world as Pompey and Iulius Casar which is enormously vntrue 15. Contrariwise if he Saith This rational Euidence necessarily implies à preuious intellectual Discourse grounded on prudent Motiues distinct from the Verity of Christs Doctrin He first cashier's his own fancied Euidence And 2. must Andretorted Answer to the Instances proposed And. 3. Assent to this true vniuersal Proposition Viz. That neuer any belieued or can belieue if we abstract from priuate Reuelations without Motiues distinct from Christs Doctrin fit to induce Faith And an Infallible Testimony to ground Faith vpon Thus the Samaritan woman and those who heard her Relation being first induced by precedent signes to iudge that Christ was à Prophet I perceiue thou art à Prophet Saies the Text and perhaps his Goodnes added more interiour light to strengthen those Signes firmly belieued vpon his infallible word Iesus said to her I am â—e Prudent Motiues and an Infallible Oracle Necessary to all Faith the Messias that speaks with thee Neither can any Instance be giuen where true Faith is But you haue with that very Faith Prudent Motiues Proposed to reason as Inducements And besides an Infallible Oracle to ground it vpon O but euery immediate Propounder of the Diuine Testimony is not infallible Be it so at present What matters that If he leads me to one which giues me à clearer Euidence of Credibility and proues Himselfe by Motiues aboue the force of nature God's Oracle 16. Some thing of this nature we haue in the first Conuersion of Christs Disciples Iohn 1. 44. Philip Saith the A Proof taken from the Conuersions of Christ's Disciples Text meeting with Nathanaël told him We haue found Iesus the son of Ioseph of Nazareth whom Moses in the Law and the Prophâ—s 〈◊〉 of Nathanaël wondred What can there be any good from Nazareth Philip answered Veni vide Come and se Drawing neer He vnderstood that our Sauiour knew his Interiour where in there was no Guile and beheld him vnder the fig-tree before he was called Thus enlightened by Signs aboue the natural knowledge of man forthwith that true Profession of his Faith followed Rabbi thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel In like manner it may easily fall out if one not very learned treat with another wholly illiterate yet The Application morally honest that has heard little of Christ or his Church He who would instruct Sayes no more But Veni vide Come I will bring you to an Oracle right able to teach you we call it the Catholick Church She can show you who laid Her foundations firm She will conuince your vnderstanding by the efficacy of such Motiues Miracles Conuersions and Sanctity of life which far surpass the power of natural causes Now after you haue seen and heard what I Say to be most true Belieue not vpon my word for I only point at the Oracle but vpon the Churches own Testimony She is without Guile and cannot deceiue you 17. And here by the way you se how differently the Sectary How differently the Catholick Doctors and Sectaries proceed and Catholick proceed in the Conuersions of an Vnbelieuer whether Heathen or other The first only open's à Bible and without further Motiues but what are found there bidd's him read the Book This yet vnconuerted man Saies the sense is dark He vnderstand's it not The Catholick on the other side Proposes à Church euidenced by the very same Marks and Signes whereby our Sauiour and his Apostles were In the Conuersion of Vnbelieuers manifested to be Oracles sent from God This Church both proues that the Bible is of Diuine Inspiration And mereouer declares its Sense in all controuerted Passages Finally after Her Motiues laid foâ—th She remit's euery one to Christs own words He that hears you hears me and our Sauiour remit's vs to his Eternal Father for he Assures all Iohn 7. 16. That the Doctrin deliuered by him was not his but his Fathers that sent him And here is the last ground of all Diuine Faith which stand's fast vpon three strong Principles neuer yet at variance with one another The Church Christ our Lord and God the first Verity Consider I beseech you which of the two Teachers proceed's more rationally 18. You se moreouer those Instances of the Brittans and The Instances of Barbanians proued forceles Barbarians brought to nothing For suppose first which some Authors assert that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles Preached in Brittany or England Or that S. Paul Simon Cananaus surnamed the Zealous Aristobulus à Roman and S. Ioseph of Arimathia performed that Apostolical function there whether so or no I dispute not Suppose again And herein all agree that England receiued the Christian faith very early For it is as certain that King Lucius and his Subiects were conuerted by S. Damianus and his Associates sent to preach by that holy Pope and Martyr Elutherius about one hundred and eighty years after Christ As The reason here of it is indubitable that the English Saxons were afterward Conuerted by S. Augustin and his followers sent by S. Gregory the great in the six Century to do that most worthy and laudable Duty Vpon these Suppositions you see that the first Preachers were Apostolical men and priuiledged by our Sauiour to work Miracles Mark 16. 20. Those others in the two following Conuersions receiued their Commission from Popes held à strict Vnion with the Roman Catholick Church and finally made their Doctrin euidently Credible by great Sanctity and other Signal wonders as known History recounts 19. Some may reply All these Conuersions would haue been easily wrought had those Preachers only made our Sauiours Miracles known and done none Themselues I Answer first Done they were and preiudiced nothing but rather highly aduanced the Glory of our Sauiours wonders Yea and as experience A Reply Answered teaches yet notably facilitate the Conuersion of Infidels euery where when God is pleased to work them by his Seruants Therefore the Apostles were impowred not only to Testify that the Messias did Miracles but moreouer to do the like themselues And for this reason Almighty God has euer hitherto preserued and will hereafter preserue that singular Grace of working Miracles in the Church I Answer 2. None can haue infallible Assurance either of our Sauiours Miracles or of any other Verity recorded in Scripture independently of some actual liuing actual infallible and most clear euidenced Oracle by Signes aboue the Prudent Motiues induce to Faith and An Infallible Oracle support it force of Nature which in this present State is the Church And therefore I said à great Truth That Diuine Faith had in all Ages that necessary Expedient of rational Motiues
that another certainty which he call's Moral For if these two certainties be equally as strong it is Senless to establish the One and reiect the Other but the truth is in matters of beliefe moral certitude has no place as is largely proued aboue 15. Against this Discourse one may first Obiect God can An Obiection proposed oblige all either to belieue what is reuealed as infallible true to vs So that there can be no possible Deception in our Belief Or. 2. He may oblige vs to belieue His reuealed Verities meerly according to the efficacy of such Proofs as intimate to vs that God Speak's And why may not Mr Stillingf build his Faith vpon such Grounds or motiues as the nearest foundation though the vltimate Principle of belieuing be the Diuine Reuelation I haue partly Answered Either those Motiues conuince withall Of no force if the Motiues be infallible Metaphysical certitude that the Reuelation doth actually Exist and than the Difficulty ceaseth for the Assent yeilded to them is infallible Or contrarywise They are as Mr Stillingfleet supposes fallible And may stand with all their Lustre though the Reuelation really were not in Being Speak So It is most clear such Motiues cannot support Faith For all which right reason can draw from them if not absolutely infallible is thus much only That our Christian Verities according to Prudence If fallible they vphold not Faith are euidently credible But by virtue of that Iudgement we reach not as yet to the infallibility of the Diuine Testimony Therefore if God obliges all de facto to ground Faith vpon his infallible Testimony which cannot deceiue He iointly Obliges vs not to The reason hereof ground it vpon fallible Motiues which may deceiue and stand as Mr Stillingfleet will haue it although God had neuer reuealed any Christian Verity Again If we are obliged to free Christian Religion from all Possibility of falshood That is if God will haue vs to belieue it as absolutely infallible We cannot without wrong done to his infinite Verity Say he obliges vs to settle faith vpon Motiues only morally certain or absolutly fallible for thus He would oblige vs to belieue that as his own Truth which possibly may not be Truth but contrarywise à lie à falshood an Errour 16. 2. Obiect Now De facto in this present State there is no Difficulty For all iudge though the Motiues be fallible yet A second Obiection Solued God has reuealed our Christian verities Answ All do not iudge so But admit some do They iudge so by their infallible Assent of Faith terminated vpon the Verities as reuealed But antecedently to to beliefe none can iudge they are infallible reuealed truths whilst Motiues only fallible ground that Iudgement 17. A 3. Obiection Suppose Eternal truth had neuer reuealed A third proposed by no Sectary more difficult the sacred Trinity the like is of any other Mystery Suppose also that the whole System of Motiues had then stood in the same vigour and force as now they appear to vs Would not God and prudence haue obliged vs in that case to belieue as firmly the Trinity as we now belieue it I answer If the Supposition implies no Contradiction as I verily think it doth at least many hold so Prudence would then haue laid vpon vs an Obligation of firmly belieuing But what followes from hence Thus much only That poor Mortals not seing the depth of things would haue been invincibly deceiued But Deception is remote from God for his wisdom penetrat's all Truth and his Goodnes could not vpon the Supposition haue obliged any Solued The ground of the Solution to belieue à falshood or that to be which really is not Therefore he could not in the Case now supposed haue afforded Diuine Assistance to make Faith supernatural because the Obiect by errour apprehended belieuable really was not Thus much is true and God might haue obliged vs to judge That the Motiues would then haue made the Mysteries evidently credible though they were not yea and perhaps further to belieue Conditionally As is said aboue 18. A. 4 th Obiection This Proposition is true We belieue for the Motiues Or we proue that God Speak's because the Motiues apply and conuey the Diuine Testimony to vs. I distinguish the Proposition We belieue for the Motiues as Inducements to settle Faith vpon another Obiect Viz. God's Testimony I grant A fourth Obiestion solued it We belieue for the Motiues That is We ground our faith vpon them as either the nearest or more remote Obiect Why we belieue I Deny it Thus the will loues good because the vnderstanding apprehend's or conueyes good to it yet loues not the by à clear Instance knowledge which conueyes it Fire laid neer to fewel burn's the approximation burn's not but is only Conditio applicans à necessary condition applying heat which burn's So we say the Motiues auaile to make it most credible that God speak's But no more ground Faith than approximation burn's or the knowledge when we prosecute Good is the Obiect of loue 19. And here by the way you se Mr Stillingfleets constant Mr Stilling Constant Errour discouereds Errour who makes the Motiues inducing to Faith the foundation of it That is in other Terms He Confound's the Iudgement whereby we Assert the reuealed Mysteries are euidently Credible with the Assent of Faith it self And will needs haue the formal Obiect wherevpon Faith is built not only to be the Diuine Reuelation but the Motiues also though they can do no more but 〈…〉 ace the VVill guided by reason to settle belief vpon the infallibility of the first Reuealer CHAP. V. More quarrels Answered Mr Stillingfleets endeauor to catch Catholicks in à Circle demonstrated both vain and improbable His Obiections are forceless A word to an vnleaaned Cauil 1. FRom the Page last cited to P. 123. I find nothing in Mr Stillingfleet worth any larger Answer than is giuen already Here He tells vs That many things in Christian Religion are to be belieued before we can Imagin any such thing as an infallible Testimony of our Church It is hard to guess at his meaning for he names not one Article thus Assented to Perhaps he would His meaning obscure Say That the Verities reuealed in some books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper Signatures or Motiues as the Harmony Sanctity and Maiesty of the Style may be belieued without the Testimony of an Infallible Church If so I Answer first All this Harmony or Maiesty considered only as Obiects of Sense or as preuioussly known by their Natural Euidence thus far and not further they bear the name of Motiues auaile not to belieue any Verity in Scripture if the infallibility of the Church be reiected And therefore we said aboue this Sanctity and Harmony The Church reiected no Maiesty in Scripture can gain Beliefe are assented to by Faith only after the Church immediatly Euidenced by
Her Motiues Ascertain's vs that such Books are Diuine I Answer 2. Grant such Motiues may in some weak manner and particular Circumstances conduce to belieue the Scriptures Diuinity yet in this present State when we haue à Church most clearly manifested which both Ascertain's vs of Scripture and the Sense also it would be no less than an vndiscreet rashness to cast off her Authority being the most facile and plainest Rule and in Lieu of Her to rely on another forrain vnfit way of Belieuing by Motiues not half fo clear and far less conuincing 2. Thus some Diuines Teach though à Heathen after à due Consideration of the works in Nature may come to belieue that God will reward Good and punish Euil yet none do Assert That when our Christian Articles are clearly proposed to An Instance him by the Pastors and Teachers of the Church For example That Christ dyed for vs. The dead shall rise again God will reward the iust c. That then if he reiect Church Authority he can belieue the forenamed Articles with Diuine Faith This I Deny And the reason is because that way of belieuing when à It is imprudent to reiect we easiest was of Belieuing more ordinary and facile is proposed Seem's temerarious and imprudent And so it would be should any now when the Church giues vs full Assurance of the Scriptures Diuinity lay aside Her Authority and Say I will alsolutely belieue this or that Truth to be God's word because I Discouer apparent Signs of Diuinity in what I read 3. In the next place Mr Stillingfleet Quarrel 's with à word The Roman Catholick Church which in his opinion is iust as much as to Say The German vniuersal Emperour That is particular and vniuersal together for Roman restrain's or marks out one Church vniuersal includes all Answ It is à meer Quibble exploded by A meer quibble exploded by Fathers the Fathers particularly S. Hierome Apolog. 1. aduersus Ruffin not far from the beginning who call's the Roman Faith the Catholick Faith VVhat Saith he is Ruffinus his Faith It is that there with the Roman Church preuail's or another founded in Origens Writings Si Romanam responderit Ergo Catholici sumus If he Answer 's it is the Roman Faith This Inference is good we both profess the vniuersal Faith Therefore Roman and Vniuersal are here synomimal or words of one Signification which the Apostle clearly Insinuates Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world ouer Again Epist 16. ad Principiam Virg circa medium He showes that the most ancient Saints addressed themselues to to the Roman Church Quasi ad tutissimum communionis suâ— S. Hierom's express Testimonies portum as to à place of refuge or of mutual Communion which was General Publick and belonged to all Yet more When Epist 57. ad Damasum This great Doctor positiuely teaches That he was ioyned in Communion with no other Society of men then such as adhered to Damasus S. Peters Successor where vpon the Church was built And that those who eate the lambe out of this House were prophane Did he think ye speak of any one particular Roman Diocess and not of the vniuersal Catholick Church It is contrary to his Discourse and reason also 4. Se more of this subiect in the Epistle of S. Athanasius to two Popes Iulius and Marcus Read also S. Cyprians Epistle 52. n. 1. Other Fathers Speak with S. Hierome And S. Ambrose De obitu fratris about the middle and know withall The word Roman added to Catholick is not to limit the vniuersal Iurisdiction of that See But to distinguish Orthodox Belieuers from Hereticks who were professed Enemies of the Roman Faith If therefore we may rightly comprise vnder this word Roman all other Christian Societies past or present vnited in Why the Roman Church was called Vniuersal belief with this one Mother Church There is neither Bull nor Solaecism in speech to call the Roman euer One and the same in Faith the vniuersal Church of Christ 5. Page 127. To catch Carholicks in à Circle Mr Stillingfleet Ask's why we belieue Scriptures to be the Word of God If we Affirm vpon this Ground That the Church which is infallible Mr Stilling endeauour more then weak deliuers them so to vs He demand's again and bidd's vs Answer if we can whether t' is possible to belieue the Churches infallibility any other way than because infallible Scriptures Say She is infallible which implies à plain Circle Answ It is very possible For seing Scripture demonstrat's not ex terminis its own Diuinity nor can be made euidently credible by any light internal to catch Catholicks in à Circle to the Book some other infallible Oracle distinct from it must necessarily ascertain vs that the Book is Diuine And the Doctrin there preserued is yet pure as the Apostles wrote it But this Oracle can be no other but the Church which proues Her selfe by Signs and Miracles to speak in Gods name independently of Scripture therefore the first act of Faith whereby we belieue in à General way the Churches infallibility relies not as this Gentleman weakly supposes on Scripture But vpon the Church it Selfe as the most known manifested Oracle And thus the Circle is easily auoyded 6. You will se more clearly what I aime at by one Instance taken from the Primitiue Christians Ask what induced them to belieue the Apostles Infallibility when they Preached All No Circle in the Primitiue Christians Faith Answer They belieued so because those blessed men immediatly proued themselues commissioned Oracles sent from God and made their Doctrin euidently Credible by sensible Signs and Wonders which surpassed the force of Nature Very true Iâ— like manner we belieue the Churches infallibility hauing preuious Motiues as Stronge to belieue that Truth vpon her Authority as euer Christians had to belieue that S. Paul was infallible when he preached If then there was no Vicious Therefore none in our Resolution Circle in those first Christians Faith there can be none in Ours vhilst all of vs haue infallible Oracles manifested by Supernatural Signs to rely on And Those first now mentioned had them before Scripture was written You will say this Discourse seem's to proue we cannot belieue the Churches Infallibility vpon the Scriptures Testimony It has been Answered ouer and ouer supposing Scripture be one admitted as God's sacred Word â—e proue the Churches infallibility so strongly by it against all Aduersaries who own the Book as Diuine that none of them shall euer return à probable answer to our alleged Testimonies 7. But what Saith Mr Stillingfleet Is there no difference between the way of prouing à thing to an Aduersary and resoluing ones own Faith Answer yes But we both resolue and proâ—â— We Resolue the first Act of Faith concerning Scripture How we both resolue and proue the Churches Infallibility into the Churches infallible Authority and belieue that Book to be 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
of faith void For suppose I belieue Euery Resolution made null by this Obiection the Trinity because God hath reuealed the Mystery plainly in Holy Scripture I Ask whether God's Testimony supposed the Principle of belieuing be more infallible then the Trinity which is belieued vpon it here called the Conclusion Say The Diuine Testimony is more Infallible I 'll Affirm the very same of the Churches Proposition For what the Church speak's God speak's Answer No. And giue this reason Because we belieue the Testimony and the Mystery attested by one Indiuisible certain Act of Faith which tend's infallibly vpon both these Obiects at once without making Conclusions The difficulty ceases And hereby you se How the Churches Testimony is the Clearer Principle first How the Churches Testimony is à Principle to the thing belieued For euery one knowes that à Formal Obiect compared with its Materialâ— which lies in darkness is the greater Light and has the preheminence to be immediatly known For it Self and not for another Whereas the material Obiect would still remain in à State of obscurity and neuer be yeilded to but by the Energy of its formal Motiue In this sense therefore the vltima ratio assentiendi or formal Obiect may be well called the more certain Principle Though as I now said the Assent be indiuisibly terminated vpon both Obiects infallibly 18. You se 2. Where the mistake of our Aduersarie lies He Supposes faith generated by Discourse First that we belieue The Mistake discouerd the Trinity for example vpon one Principle Viz. The Churches Tradition or Testimony and then descend lower to belieue the same Mystery vpon God's Reuelation distinct from the Churches Testimony As if forsooth the Churches Testimony were an â—xtrinsecal condition preparing all to belieue vpon the Diuine Reuelation This must be intended or nothing is said to the Purpose now we vtterly deny the Supposition and Say when we belieue the Trinity or any other particular Mystery vpon the Churches Testimony or rather vpon this reuealed truth God speaks so by the Church We then elicite not two distinct Acts one depending on the other but with one One Indiuisible tendency in Faith indiuisible tendency of Faith belieue at once the Formal and Material Obiect together That is we belieue God speaks the truth by the Church which is to say we Assent to it because he speak's it by his own infallible Oracle 19. This one syllogâ—sm clear's all What the Church Saies is true The Church Saies God has reuealed the Trinity Ergo that 's true We resolue the Maior or first Proposition thus What the Church saies iâ— true That is What God speaking by the Church saith is true But God speaking by the Church Saies the Mystery of the Trinity is Ergo That 's true Where you see we only Discourse could Faith be so generated which some Diuines Assert from the Formal obiect or from Gods Reuelation to the Material belieued Now Mr Stillingfleet makes this Sense of the Maior Proposition and here lies his Errour that the Church Saies of Her self not including Gods Reuelation is The Errour more Clearly pointed at an act of Faith and true But the Church of her own sole Authority saith God reuealed the Trinity Ergo I must first belieue the Mystery by one act of Faith vpon the Churches Testimony as à Preparatiue to belieue it better vpon Gods pure Reuelation which is another distinct Formal Obiect from the Churches Testimony This Discourse is implicatory First because the Churches Testimony if separated from the Diuine Reuelation can ground no act of Faith 2. If which is true it only cooperates with or consummates the ancient Reuelation in order to the Belief of any Mystery it can help nothing to bring in à Conclusion wholly as obscure as it self is That word Conueyance beguiled Mr Stillingfleet for he thought if the Churches Testimony conueyes vnto vs the ancient Reuelation What beguiled thy Aduersary it must be excluded from being infallible and much more from being à ioynt Motiue with it Herein lies his Errour 20. It is difficult enough To Say what He would be at in his two next pages Some times he will haue no want of Euidence in faith as to the Reason inducing to belieue And if he means That what we Assent to by faith must be euidently Credible before we belieue it s à Truth but if he will haue the very act of Faith elicited to be euident the Apostle Heb. 11. 1. Faith implies Obscurity contradict's him For Faith is an Argument of things not appearing Sometimes again he saith the Assent is not requried to what is obscure and Vneuident And then to mollify the Proposition add's But what is euident to vs And theresore credible In à word Obscure Doctrin if he intend's thus much only That the euâ—dence of credibility precedes the inâ—â—dent act of Faith all is well But by one Instance we may guess where he err's The manner of the Hypostatical vnion Saith he is to vs ineuident wherevnto God requires not our Assent but to the truth of the thing it selfe Answer good Sr Is the truth of the Hypostatical vnion in it selfe or of the Trinity euident to vs Where lies that Euidence The truth of the Trinity euident to no Belieuer Or vpon what Principle is it grounded Hereticks are found that for the very difficulty of these ineuident Mysteries deny both And the best Orthodox Christians ingenuously Profess they so far Surpass all natural capacities That ther is no assenting to either but only by an humble submissiue Faith which essentially implies Obscurity If therefore what you say bo true We may lawfully suspend our Assent where God giues not euidence of the thing Assented to you may Consequently suspend your Assent and neither belieue the Trinity nor the Incarnation 21. Page 140. He demands why we belieue the Resurrection of the dead We Answer because God reueal's it An Obiection Proposed But Questioned again why we belieue that God hath reuealed it We Answer because the infallible Church saies God did speak it whereby it is plain that though our first Reply be from God's Authority yet the last Resolution of our faith is made into the infallibility of the Churches Testimony For though God had reuealed it yet if this Reuelation were not attested by the Church'es infallible Testimony we should not haue sufficient ground to belieue it Therefore the Churches infallibility must be more credible then the Resurrection of the dead 22. To giue à Satisfactory Answer please to hear what I demand also Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour is Answered by Scripture it selfe the true Messias because Christ spake the Truth with his own sacred mouth Iohn 4. 26. And if he belieues Scripture He Assents again to that truth vpon S. Iohns Testimony And so firmly belieues it that if the Euangelist or some other of like authority had not wrote it he could not haue
belieued S. Iohns Testimony or that our Sauiour Spake those words Here is our solution God long since said the dead shall rise but this Ancient Reuelation being remote from vs if solely considered cannot moue vs to belieue the truth vnless an Infallible Oracle Ascertain vs that God once spake it iust as S. Iohn assures all that Christ said I am the Messias Ask now â—hy Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour vttered those â—ords He will Answer God speaking by S. Iohn an Infallible An Application of the Instance clear in Scripture Oracle Affirms it So I say God speaking by the Church an Infallible Oracle affirm's the Resurrection of the dead O but independently of Church Authority we know the resurrection is reuealed in Scripture Contrariwise we know nothing of our Sauiours words but from S. Iohns Testimony Answ we know indeed the Resurrection is asserted in à Book called Scripture But that the Assertion is Diuine or vttered by Eternal Truth we haue no more Infallible certainty without the Churches Testimony Then if any vulgar Samaritan without Diuine Assistance had said Christ spake those words I am the Messias 23. By what is now briefly touched you se first That as our Sauiours own words and S. Iohns reflex Testimony vpon them concurr Indiuisibly to the Faith of these Aduersaries So the reuealed Verity of the Resurrection in Scripture And the The ancient Reuelation and the Churches reflex Testimony Churches reflex Testimony which infallibly Ascertains vs that it is reuealed may well indiuisibly concurr as one compleat Motiue to our faith whereof more hereafter I say indiuisibly And therefore this Faith vltimatly resolued relies not first vpon Scripture only as our Aduersary conceiues without any relation to the Church and then rest's vpon the Churches Concurr indiuisibly to Faith Testimony as vpon à distinct Formal Obiect but by one simple Tendency it pitches on both together 24. You se 2. It s hard to Say what Mr Stillingfleet would haue when he tells vs. This Principle The Church is infallible must be more credible then the Resurrection of the Dead If We clearly distinguisâ— what our Aduersary Confound's he mean's the Churches Testimony is to vs in this present State the more known and nearest Motiue wherevpon the Faith of that Article is grounded we easily Assent But if he think 's we must first Assent to Scripture which asserts the Resurrection and own that as Diuine or the only Motiue of Faith without all Church Authority attesting it to be Diuine He err's not knowing our Doctrin For we Say no Scripture can be infallible An improper Speech assented to as Diuine independently of the Churches Testimony Again those words More Credible are improper if applyed to the Formal Obiect of Faith For the Formal Obiect terminates Belief the Credibility whereof goes before and is grounded on the preuious Motiues inducing to belieue VVhether we Square Circles in our Resolution of Faith The other mentioned Points in the Title of the Chapter discussed Vpon what ground those Articles called the fundamentals of Faith are belieued in the Opinion of Sectaries 25. In many following Pages we haue little but that the Churches Infallible Testimony must be called the Formal Obiect of Faith whereof something is said aboue And you shall haue more hereafter 26. P. 149. He thinks we Argue like men squaring Circles when on the one side we make Scripture obscure yet on the other giue it light enough to proue the Churches infallibility And then he talk's of an Apocalyptical key hanging at the Churches Scripture Proued Diuine Conuinces the Churches Infallibility girdle able to vnlock all the Secrets in it To the first I haue Answered Thus much Supposed that Scripture is proued Diuine we haue so great light from the seueral Passages thereof to conuince the Churches Infallibility that no glosses of Sectaries shall euer obscure them To the Ieer of the Clauis Apocalyptica I Answer Some one or other must vnlock those high secrets when t' is euident innumerable Heretiques by à wrong key wrest Gods word to most pernicious Senses The Question is whether you Sr or the Church must rurn the key 27. Page 152. After thanks giuen for our Coleworts so often serued â—y Those mute Persons the good Motiues of credibility He is Brisque Ieâ—rs and empty words and in earnest resolute to solue our Argument Asking before hand Whether it be not enâ—ugh to be in à Circle our selues but must â—eed's bring the Apostles into it also Reflect I beseech you We said aboue that the Apostles induced by the Signal works and Miracles of our Sauiour Assented to his sacred Doctrin as most infallible In like manner The Primitiue Christians induced by the works and Miracles of the Apostles belieued them to be infallible The force of our Argument Oracles Therefore we also in this present State hauing Motiues and Miracles of the same weight and Euidence in the Roman Catholick Church Belieue with à firm Assent of Faith that She is God's Oracle and her Doctrin most infallible The short Answer to all this saith Mr Stillingfleet is That the ground why the Christians did Assent to the Apostles Doctrin as true was because God Wholly waued gaue sufficient Euidence that their Testimony was infallible in such things where such infallibility was requisite Pray Consider well whether this be not à gliding or rather à plain running away from the Difficulty We haue vrged all this while the Parity between the Churches Motiues and those of the Apostles We haue proued and yet plead That the Euidence is à like in both The Churches most manifest Signes are The blind se The lame walk The dead rise Diuels are dispossesed c. And these termed by you vnsauory Coleworts and mute good Things were the Apostles Signs also Are not you therefore obliged in all law of Disputation What all law of Disputing requireâ— either to proue and vpon sound Principles indeed That we falsly appropriate such Motiues and Miracles to the Church Or if you cannot disparage so illustrious an Euidence to shew à fault in this Inference The Church is known as well by her Signs to be an infallible Oracle 28. Now mark how we are put off with half an Answer God â—y you gaue sufficient Euidence that the Apostles Testimony was infallible None doubt's it But Say on what want do you find of the very like Euidence in the Church Her Miracles are as manifest Her Conuersions as Numerous and more Her fame as renowned Her name as Catholick finally might we vse your scornful language Her Motiues no mute Persons speak Nothing like an Answer giuen aloud and Her Colewarts are euery whit as good as those were the Apostles serued vp To this you Answer not à word but first tell vs with your Aduersary that the Apostles confirmed their Doctrin with Signs that followed by which Signes all their Heares were bound to aknowledge them for
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
Writings being owned as Containing in them the whole will of God so plainly reuealed that no sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for Saluation There can be c. First its false that the whole Will of God is plainly reuealed in Scripture And An Vntruth Supposed had we no more but Thus much only Viz. The vast multitudes of Christians who zealously defend that sense they Conceiue of Scripture yet contradict one another in Points most Though the Assertion were supposed true it helps not Protestants Essential Proues it false whereof enough is said in the seueral parts of this Treatise But let that Pass Suppose it à Truth The Propositions or Proofs must run thus No sober Enquirer can miss of knowing God's will or of what is necessary to Saluation Now add this Minor But the Protestant only is the sober Enquirer For No Arian No Pelagian No Quaker No Papist soberly enquires excepting the Protestant Thus much must be Assumed or to the General Proposition Vnapplyed help 's the Protestant no more then others that execrate his Doctrin For if these or any of them may be listed among the number of sober Enquirers The Reason hereof its ridiculous to exclude all and yet reiect Protestanism The general Proposition for ought appears yet may be applyed as well by euery one to his particular Religion as by the Protestants to Protestancy Therefore it signifies Iust Nothing before à right Application be made by distinct Proofs to the One only true Religion Some may reply euery Man is to enquire and Answer for Himselfe Pitiful That 's to Say we must alwaies be Scepticks euer learning and neuer well taught Weak reason and fancy are thus made Sectaries after their long Enquiry haue no Vnion in Faith our Doctors if this Principle be owned Se Disc 2. C. 17. Per totum In the Interim know this long inquiring after one whole Age brings no vnion in faith to Protestants who are as the world Sees at endless Iarrs amongst themselues 20. The 16th Principle Opposes such Men as pretend to infallible Assistance without giuing an equal degree of Euidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did by Miracles as great as publick and conuincing as these were Answ This This Principle is first against Protestants Principle is quite besides the matter First because Protestants own à Church infallible in Fundamentals without giuing an Euidence equal to that of Christ and his Apostles Why then may not such an Euidence as proues the Church Infallible in Fundamentals be further extended and induce All to belieue Her Infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches 2. The Principle Secondly false is falfe We haue Apostolical Euidence in the Church euer since those Primitiue times as is largely proued Disc 1. C. 14. 15. 16. And Disc 3. C. 3. Lastly it is no more Thirdly though Supposed true it help 's not Protestants but à Proofles Assertion against the Church which laies claim to Infallibility And cannot though it were true aduantage Protestancy one whit Please to obserue my Reason Suppose the Catholick Church and the Protestant party were like one another equally fallible vpon what Principle can the fallible Protestant Party plead better or Say more for his Cause then the Supposed fallible Roman Church in behalfe of Her Doctrin Both of them as is proued in the second Discourse would in this case be à Publick scorn to Iewes and Gentils whilst they The reason hereof Conuinces Out-braue one another with the Meer Nothing of fallible Principles And which is euer to be noted can stand on no surer Ground then what is fallible and may be falfe if no Church be owned Infallible 21. In the. 17th Principle we are told its absurd to pretend the necessity of an Infallible Assistance to assure vs of the truth of Scripture And at the same time to Proue the Assistance Nothing yet for Protestancy from those writings from which nothing can be certainly deduced Answ Here again is nothing for Protestancy For Suppose which is false we proue not an Infallible Assistance Are therefore Protestants in à better condition then Catholicks How The Churches Infallibility is first Proued But to speak truth the Doctor wholly Mistakes we proue the Churches Infallibility independently of Scripture Read Disc 3. C. 5. In the. 18. Principle we hear talk again of the best Means for vnderstanding the Scripture but whether we Catholicks Arians or Protestants happily light on 't is not so much as hinted at by the Doctor wherefore I Said aboue these Generalities proue nothing without à neerer Application made by Proofs yet more immediate 22. The. 19th Principle The Assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may giue them greater Assurance of the truth of what is contained in Scripture than it is possible for the greatest infallibility in any other persons to doe Supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility Answ All this were it true is to say Iust nothing concerning Protestants vnless they be supposed the only Men who sincerely desire to know Gods Will for if any other called Christians Sectaries gain nothing by this abstract Principle of à different Beliefe be as Sober Inquirers or desire as earnestly to know Gods vvill as Sectaries What gain they by this remote abstract Principle Now to Suppose all other Christians negligent in the Inquiry after God's will and Protestants only the zealous Seekers comes neerer to à bold Presumption than to any thing like the nature of à Principle In à word here you haue all The Application to the Protestant Faith is wanting But what will you The Doctor cannot Vnless they Suppose Themselues the only sober Inquirers Want of Sense be drawn to plead for his own cause Finally sense is wanting in that last clause Supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility Which is only to Say Supposing the Church be not Infallible Catholicks cannot belieue Her Infallibility 23. The 20th Principle No Mans Faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be Infallible Answ But if This Principle concern's not Sectaries the Proponent be both Said and Proued Infallible and this is amply proued Faith with the Assistance of God's Grace may well yea and must depend vpon it and be infallible Howeuer let all here Said pass There is yet nothing drawn from the Principle more concerning the Faith of Protestants then of the More then the Arians Arians Obserue well Both hold the Proponent of Faith which is the Church Fallible Make now the Inference Ergo the Protestants Faith seem's more sound then the Arians is à pure Non-sequitur not at all Deducible from this Principle alone nor indeed from any other 24. In the three folloing Paragraphs 21. 22. 23. You haue only gross Mistakes though if all were true Protestancy has None can infer if Taith be
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
the Moral Body of Christians and Consequently that Opposition was à thing as notoriously known as loudly noised some Centuries since as it is Notoriously known and noised that our Sectaries haue now espied those false Doctrins VVe vrge them to bring to light that publick known Opposition of their Imagined Church against the Roman Catholick Society fancied à Changling And what haue we Deep silence from some and from such as dare speak false Suppositions for Proofs vnworthy Calumnies for an Answer Please to se this Argument fully handled Disc 2. C. 6. Time was the world knowes well when our Aduersaries auouched they could prove their Protestancy and refute our Catholick Doctrin by plain and express-Scripture we come to the true Trial in this Treatise and in lieu of God's word find their Books full fraught with meer far-fetcht Glosses Not one Passage I boldly assert and put Sectaries to the Proof fauours this Protestancy as it is distinguished from Popery and the known Heresies of former Ages Now that nothing from Scripture can be alleged Contrary to our Catholick Doctrin is manifest vpon this one Principle which none shall overthrow VVhat Scripture faithfully interpreted teaches in these weighty matters of Religion some Orthodox Church delivered in foregoing Ages For example If Scripture deny Adoration to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament or Transubstantiation an Orthodox Church which cannot clash with the verities of God's word in some Age or other maintained these Protestant Tenets and published them to Christians But no Orthodox Church euer sided with Sectaries or taught such Doctrins Therefore their pretence to Scripture against our Catholick Tenets is friuolous and implies no more but à false supposition for à Proof And this strain of turning bare Suppositions into proofs which never go beyond the strength of their own vnproued Assertions so vniuersally trancends all their Polemicks that I stand astonished to se men who will be accounted learned wholly busied in doing Nothing Reflect I beseech you à little They haue been told and I remind them of it again in this Treatise that whoeuer makes the Roman Church Idolatrous or Erroneous must hold the supposed Idolatry and errour so remediles an Euil that none on earth can redress either because all the Proofs or Principles whereby the Reformation should be made will euidently appear less ponderous to Euince this Church guilty of errour then Her sole Authority is to perswade the Contrary viz. That she neuer erred VVherefore Sectaries Confessedly fallible men desperatly adventure to reform vs and cannot but spoile all they go about to mend whilst they Euidence not whilst they plead not by the Authority of an Antient Orthodox Church which taught that very Protestancy they teach now and decryed these Supposed Popish errours as loudly as they decry them But to do thus much is impossible as manifestly appears by their own writings For tell me I beseech you whoever yet heard Protestant in all those weak skirmishes made against Catholick Religion Say plainly and prove it Such à Church reputed Orthodox fiue or Six Ages since taught as we teach sensed Scriptures as we sense them Christians then vniuersally belieued no Real Presence No sacrifice of the Masse c. Has euer Protestant I say gon thus groundedly to work No Most euidently No. I shall highly extoll the man that will dare to proceed so ingenuously but find none engaged in this right way of Arguing It s true some who leap over the heads of all their more Immediate Ancestors between Luther and the three or four first Centuries tell vs those Primitiue Christians were good Protestants like them Ill luck Say I that Protestancy had not to be intailed vpon some Successors in following Ages for most certainly since those dayes the world neuer saw Protestant before Luther In à word the Assertion is à loud vntruth an vnworthy begging of Question and besides implies à fancied supposition for à Proof To show this we reduce these ranging Spirits to a lesser compass and oblige them to name but one Protestant neerer their shameful Reuolt from our Catholick Society Here they stand grauelled as mute as fishes and are highly angry because we touch them where they are most weak This want of à Church to ground Protestancy vpon makes their Polemicks to be as they appear rambling faint shallow and so dissatisfactory that great patience is requisite to peruse them VVonder nothing they can do no better Rebells they are against an antient Church and their handling Controuersies may well be compared with the proceeding of Rebells in à Common wealth who curiously mark and diligently attend to what euer may seem welcome to your ignorant seduced and disgusted Multitudes That be it what you will is fomented that 's laid forth and inculcated It is no newes to tell you that our Ministers in England now for à long time haue had à number of seduced People bread in their own rebellious bosomes and brought vp in à spirit of Schism who God knowes haue heard little but of the Idolatry of the Superstitions and wickednes of some Professed Catholicks O say these Incendiaries we will nourish this Popular humour with food suitable to its palate we will write Books of this Popish Idolatry we haue tongues and can poyson with delight we will lay forth in folio what we conceiue of the Roman Superstitiâ—ns and the wickednes of Popes VVe know well to Cauil and how to ensnare the vulgar on vvhom we depend when our Cauils are once out though neither reducible to Principles nor subiect to the Censure of any Iudge for we own none let them shift for themselves Our only care is to talk on though we prove nothing And chiefly to be vvary in one particular It is never to mention any thing of à Church which taught Protestancy before Luther meddle vvith that Mischiuous difficulty vve are vndon for really vve have no such Church This in à word and much vvorse is Protestancy as is amply declared in the following Treatise vvhere you also haue the distinctiue Cognisances of Christ's true Church the Rule of Faith and the Properties of à Rule explained vvithall an easy vvay vvhereby to put an end to these vnfortunate Controversies You haue moreover the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church asserted Faith resolued into its true Principles Mr Stillingfleets grosser Errours discouered The Reasonableness of Catholick Religion laid forth to euery rational man And to omit other Questions all cannot be hinted at in the narrow compasse of à Preface you haue this great Truth proved viz. That if the Roman Catholick Church hath taught but one false Article and obliged all Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation there neither is at this day nor was before Luther any true faith in the world VVherefore Sectaries who haue made it their chiefe busines to impeach our Church of Idolatry and Heresy and the louder they cryed the more they thought to destroy vs haue done their vtmost to ruin all the
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
Euidence of the Diuine Testimony CHAP. IX the vvhole Progress of â—aith Explained in order to its last Resolution Of that vvhich the Fathers Call the light of Faith It s vvholly different from Sectaries Priuate Spirit From vvhence Faith hath Infallible Certainty Obiections Solued 560 CHAP. X. The easiest way of resoluing Faith Laid forth in two Propositions The euidence of Credibility further declared Sectaries haue no Euidence of Credibility It is as euidently Credible that God now speak's by the Church as that He did anciently Speak by the Prophets 570 CHAP. XI Sectaries Obiections 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 580 CHAP. XII The last Obiection Proposed Whether the Churches Testimony may be called the Formal Obiect of Faith Other Notes and Chnsiderations Concerning The Resolution of Faith 588 CHAP. XIII Protestants haue no Faith to resolve And vpon that account are freed from à vicious Circle Some yet are in à Circle Two Sorts of Sectaries refuted 596 CHAP. XIV The Mistakes of some Sectaries in this Controuersy It s necessary to distinguish between true Reason and fallacious Reasoning Priuate Reason liable to Errour Principles presupposed to the Decision of this Question Reason easily finds out true Religion by à rational Euidence preuious to Faith 603 CHAP. XV. From whence the Euidence hitherto mentioned Proceed's That Religion only is reasonable which Heauen declares reasonable The Declaration is euidently made in behalfe of the Roman Catholick Religion VVho is the misled reasoning Man Other Particulars handled The readiest way to Conuince Sectaries 615 CHAP. XVI Obiections solued Sectaries pretending not to Se the Churches Euidence are either blind or wilfully shut their Eyes The Assertion clearly proued A Parallel of the Primitiue and the present Churches Euidence How far Reason may be sayd to Regulate Faith 625 CHAP. XVII A Digression Concerning Doctor Stillingfleets Discourse VVhere he treat's of the Protestants Faith reduced to Principles He is all à long quite besides the matter handled and Sayes no more for Protestancy than for Arianism or any other Heresy 639 CHAP. XVIII The Doctors Inferences proued no Inferences but vntrue Assertions Hauing answer'd his Principles and Inferences Satisfaction is required to some few Questions proposed 652 CHAP. XIX The supposed grounds of our Protestants Reformation manifestly ouerthrown Protestancy no Religion but an improbable Nouelty The conclusion of this whole Treatise 665 COVRTEOVS READER YOu will soon perceiue by the many literal faults in this Treatise that à stranger to our language printed it and that the Cortector vsed not diligence Such errata as these are haue for haue Sponse for Spouse Prosylite for Proselyte Suspence for Suspense symtons for Symptons Citty for Citie Christians for Christians Church for Church wich for which hansom for handsome Religion for Religion must for most with many more like them I leaue to your charitable Correction Some greater faults are here noted PAge 2. For ciuillized Read ciuiliz'd line 22. read an vniversal Page 3. l. 33. r. voluntarily P. 4. l. â—2 for nonne r. none p. 5. l. 14. r strictly p. 10. l 3. r. Crimes l. 11. r. then and l. 27. for whem r. when Synogogue for Synagogue Cod for God hypoericy for hypocrisy distinguiched for distinguished and the like Errata following I omit P. 12. in the Title By reasonable r. by reason P. 18. l. 31. r. it hath p. 20. l. 19 For Elisi r. Eisi and l. 13. r Alcoran p. 35. l. 5. dele the. p. 36. l. 5. r. Concern and l. 23. r. Churches care p. 58. l. 31. r. perfected p. 62. l. 23. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 72 l. 10. r. meaning p. 101. l. 21. r. haue it p. 104. l. 26. r. full p. 107. l 21 r. Innumerable p. 116. l. 2. r. saying l. 6. r. reply and l. 13. r. Fathers p. 122. l. 29. r. Mali. p. 129. l. 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 144. l. 6. r. is it p. 161. l. 15. r. Say I is it p. 164. l. 1. r. Romanos and. l. 2. r. whos 's Faith p. 167. l. 3. r. desperate p. 173. l 4 dele p. 174. l. 20. r. Speculation p. 179. l. 9. r. Apotheoses and l. 16. r. sense and. l. 26. dele à . p. 185 r. gleanings p. 187. l. 4. r. suspence p. 189. l. 20. r. decides p. 191. l. 23 r. obsolete p. 190. in Titulo r. ascertain p 199. l. 15. r. guesses p. 200. l. 1. r. standing and in the Title r. way p. 214. l. 7. r. Title and l. 36 r. discourse p. 224 l. 9. r. Solution p. 228. in marg 1. Concession p. 231. l. 3. r Mass in the Church and l. 4. dele the word Church p. 236. l 3. read for very the name p. 239. l 3. r. pen to paper p. 236. l. 23. r. hinted at p. 266. lin vlt. r. Euident p. 275. in Marg r. vnanswerable p. 276. in the Title of the Chapter r. world p. 335. l. 12. r. Christ's kingdom p. 341. l. 8. dele the. p. 343. l. 25. r. Apostasy Afterwards you haue Deuide for diuide Mossias for Messias Apostacy for Apostasy Fabrik for Fabrick Sensuallity for sensuality Exceptor for Acceptor Legardemain for leger peccadilio for peccadillo Cherubins for Cherubims Seraphins for Seraphims Numbertles for numberless Nauatiani for Nouatiani Commissoned for Commissioned Test's for rest's banding for bandying yets for yet rhus for thus Chimera for Chimaera p. 369. l. 5. r. blaspheme and Contemn Parall'd for parallell'd p. 390. l 21. dele which you haue moreover rancked for ranked Phisitians for Physitians phisick for physick bountiffully for bountifully aparition for apparition limitated for limited lewish for Iewish traitorously for traiterously Afterward for afterwards vpward for vpwards Acquiese for acquiesce All plain Errats and easily corrected p. 506. l. â—â— for belieue r. beliefe p. 610. l. 17. r. without so p. 612. l. 16. for there r. three p. 626. l. 4. dele comma There are yet many and very many faults in Orthography and interpunctions vncorrected courteous Reader as you goe along vouchsaâ—e to correct them with your pen. Disc 2. after p. 353. please to correct the Errour in the next Page and read p. 354. p. 341. l. â— dele the. p. 383. in the Titler Chap. 13. And p. 481. in the Title for 19. r. Chap. 1. p. 516. in the Title of the Chap. r. vnlearned p. 677. l. for thy r. this and in the Aduertisement p. 7. l. 24 r. Achieuement in the Preface P. 9. l. 17. r. transcend's THE FIRST DISCOVRSE Of true Religion TO attaine à clear knowledge of true Christian Religion is the chiefe Design of this whole Treatise VVe are therefore in the first place to discusse matters seriously with Christ's professed Enemies and to proue that the propagation of our Sauiours
been lost and peruerted by fraud negligence violence or all together You say 3. These ancient Christians were professed enemies to the corrupters of the Bible yet you hold them dear friends to the deprauers of Gods verities registred in the Bible You say 4. The interest of eternal Saluation made these Christians careful to preserue the Bible in its first integrity And yet you make them supinly careles in preseruing the verities contained in Scripture as highly necessary to saluation You say 5. The eternal concerns of all Christians so depended vpon the safe preseruation of these Sacred Records that if they were not true we are all most miserable And I reply The eternal concerns of all Christians as highly depend's on the pure Doctrin of Scripture as on the outward secured Records for what auails it to haue pure Records and draw poyson out of them You grant the whole world was miserably infatuated with false Doctrin for ten whole ages though it had the letter of Scripture pure and yet the purity of that book preuented not the misery of mischieuous errours You say 6. When once I see à whole Corporation content to burn the publick Charter and substitute à And further vrged against him new one in its place and this not to be suspected or discouered When I shall see à Magna Charta foisted and neither King nor People be sensible of such à cheat when all the world shall conspire to deceiue themselues and their Children I may then suspect such an imposture as to the Scripture but not before Answ Ex ore tuo te Iudico and retort the Argument in your own words When. I see not only à whole Corporation but à whole ample learned Church wast or depraue the old Legacy of Christ sacred Truths bequeathed to it and a new learning substituted in its place and this change not to be suspected and discouered when I shall see that Magnum Depositum of his Doctrin once committed to the Church escare to be foisted and neither King nor Prelate nor People found sensible of the cheat when all the world shall conspire to deceiue themselues and their children by teaching fals Doctrin in place of Christs verities Then I shall and must in prudence suspect an imposture à change an alteration in the very book of Scripture This later you shamfully grant to haue happened when vpon the pretence of hideous errours you abandoned all other Christian Societies in the world and vnfortunatly made à Schism with Luther from the true Roman Catholick Church therefore you may not only weakly suspect but must most iustly fear the first which is that you haue not true Scripture 4. Hence I say what euer Argument proues the book of Scripture hitherto preserued pure proues likewise the Doctrin of the present Church as faithfully transmitted and Conueyed pure from An inference from what is sayd age to age to our very dayes Contrariwise if there were any Principle as there is none whereby this Doctrin could be shew'd false or stained All might if reason haue place ioyntly acknowledge à non-assurance of the Scriptures purity For that Corrupters of Christs Doctrin may more Easily Corrupt the words of scripture Church which may lose true faith and Corrupt Christ's Doctrin may more easily lose or corrupt Christ's Scripture vnlesse you grant which is horridly impious that Gods special Prouidence had only care to keep à Bible incorrupt and at last like one careless permitted the Doctrin of that book wheron Saluation essentially depend's to be extorted out of the hearts of all Christians for à thousand yeares together Ponder these truths Mr Stilling and Confesse ingenuously if your Principles hold good you haue not so much as any probable certainty of your Bible 5. Perhaps one may say if the letter of Scripture be corrupted the very foundation of Faith is shaken but if supposed pure and vnaltered though all Christians Papists and Hereticks erred in the Doctrin therof yet they may be reclaimed from errour by the pure Euangelical preachers now swarming in England Pittiful what no help then for à besotted world before these late men appeared who here speak at random They first tell vs vpon à meer supposition without any semblance of proof that Scripture was euer preserued pure though all Christians abused its Doctrin wheras we contend vpon most grounded reasons that if all erred in the doctrin drawn from Scripture the letter cannot be supposed pure because à Church carelesly negligent in the preseruation of Christs Doctrin cannot be thought careful enough in preseruing the true Records of his Doctrin Now the Answer without proof is though all erred Doctrinally yet none of them maimed or marred the Bible which besides à Moral impossibility implies à pure begging of the Question See more of this particular in the other Treatise Disc 2. c. 2. n. 8. Again If these Euangelical men pretend to Conuince vs of our errours What sectaries are obliged to by à pure book of Scripture they are obliged to shew vs some one Copie at least wherof we may haue such certainty as excludes à Possibility of all doubting But this no Protestant can do who If God assisted the Transcribers of scripture much more he assist's the Church reiect's all editions now extant except perhaps his own The Vulgar latin which Mr Stillingfleet call's the great Diana of Rome of high credit in the Church for à thousand years pleaseth not The Clementine and Sixtine Bibles not different in any Material point touching Faith are vnderualued Set these aside I desire Mr Still or any Protestant to show me à Copy whose Authenticalness is so agreed on by the consent of all Christians as may exclude reasonable doubting of its purity It is vtterly impossible If these men answer we must haue recourse to the Autograph's or ancient Manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek I deny their supposition for these now extant are no first Originals in à word no more but Transcriptions What greater security therefore haue we of such copies then of the Vulgar latin vnlesse you say that the Transcriber who euer he was because he wrote Hebrew Caldee or Greek could not tell à lye or was determined to follow in euery Material point of Faith the Hagiographers Copy most faithfully Grant this and I Argue If God by special Prouidence so assisted the memory the will and hands of these Transcribers as to write nothing but what was exactly found in the first Original Scripture with much more reason will He euer assist his Church to admit or approue of no Scripture nor Doctrin but what is genuine pure and Orthodox 6. To reinforce this argument I licence Mr Stilling to chuse amongst so many lections of the new Testament as he saith are collected by Robert Stephen one or two he likes best and then I demand whether that lection agrees with the vulgar latin or differ's from it If 't agree there is no reason to quarrel with
the Vulgar if it be different in any material point we are cast vpon the greatest vncertainties immaginable for the dispute will then be whether that Copie which he followes ought to be preferred before the Vulgar Latin And here Sr. you and I must come to clear Principles Wee say first The Vulgar latin translated or at least Corrected at Pope Damasus Command by that learned and profound Doctor S. Hierom hath been read in the Church The vulgar latin of long vse in the Church without reproof for à thousand years and vpward None but one Rufinus and this only at the beginning whilst S. Hierom liued excepted against it S. Austin all know Lib. de ciuit 18. c. 4. 3. highly commend's S. Hieroms great labours and learning in the three tongues Not any in the ensuing ages found the work reprehensible innumerable worthy Authors haue approued it And now O strange time à few Nouellists whose whole industry is only to pull down to build nothing disdainfully call it Romes great Diana Be pleased Sr. to answer and giue me as strong à proof for the Authenticalness of that Copy you follow if any difference be as I giue you for our Latin Translation If you say the S. Hierom defended against Cauils Copy you follow is not the same which S. Hierom vsed it is more then you know He had as many lections and perhaps more than you haue seen and can you say which he followed and which he did not Well But suppose he made vse of an other Copy different from what pleaseth you the Question is whether that be of lesse credit then yours And this sole point cannot be decided in your fauour by any probable Principle If you say S. Hieroms Translation seem's contrary to the Authentick Greek Copies I answer first you do not only auouch more then you know but vtter an improbability for if there had been any Material difference between his Translation and the Greek he made vse of innumerable learned Doctors in the Catholick Church would haue espied the errour and discouered it before you were born Pray you remember your own discours P. 215. and. 216. where you say you may be sufficiently assured that no Material corruption is in the Books of Scripture without our Churches Testimony because Catholiks of old were alwayes as vigilant to preserue the Scriptures purity as Hereticks ready to depraue it For you say when Marcion began to clip the Text Irenaeus presently took notice and rebuked him and so did Tertullian and Epiphanius respectiuely to others who rescued Scripture from the violent hands of such as attempted to falsify it Lay then yours on your brest and once speak ingenuously can you perswade your self if any considerable errour had been in our Vulgar Edition either contrary Catholick authors would haue noted errours in the vulgar had there been any to Faith or Good manners that those many worthy learned Catholicks in the ages after S. Hierom would not haue noted it and released it from Corruption What For à thousand years was there no Irenaeus no Tertullian no Epiphanius no Ambrose c. that took notice of so important à matter whereon the saluation of souls depended Again And this Argument euer pinches was there no Irenaeus no Tertullian in all those ages when they saw the Doctrin of Scripture go to ruin by these supposed erring Papists that rescued the Doctrin from errour as they did the letter of scripture from corruption 7. You tell vs. 2. That among those multitudes of lections in the new Testament obserued by Robert Stephen which were perhaps occasioned in the general dispersion of Copies by the Multitudes of Transcriptions through the ignorance or carelesness of the Transcribers there are none which seem material or intrench vpon the integrity of Scripture as à rule of Faith and manners They are therefore say you but racings of the skin but no wounds of any vital part And is it possible Can you find more then such racings in the Vulgar Latin can you discouer à wound in any vital part therof I challenge you to speak to the cause in this particular but I know you cannot Why therefore may not the Vulgar bee admitted amongst the rest The reason of my assertion is You cannot find such à wound in the Vulgar vnless you produce à Copy of Scripture more genuine and pure without Dispute but this whether you haue recourse to the Greek or any Latin translation will be more doubted of by whole multitudes of learned men then the vulgar now read in the Church Therefore you cannot come to so much certainty of any Scripture as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting Which truth seem's so euident ad hominem that it needs no further proof but this only The Sectary saith our Vulgar translation is not pure we say and proue it his English Bibles different from the Greek in the new Testament are Corrupted see many of these errours noted before the Rhems Testament Therefore if the Protestant reiect's the now Authentick latin Edition he has no such certainty of any The vulgar Latin reiected Protestants haue not Certainty of any Translation Translation extant as excludes à possibility of all reasonable doubting vnless he makes his own parties opinion for what he saith vndubitable and our contrary assertion improbable which is foul play 8. Some sectary may reply He excepts not against the Vulgar Latin which is our Sixtine and Clementine Bible as guilty of any Material errour but of lesser faults only and with such charitable eyes hee look's on all other versions Thus much integrity I hope Sectaries must approue the Vulgar latin Bible Mr. Stilling allowes it p 216. where he takes notice of à peculiar hand of Diuine Prouidence in preseruing the Authentick Records of Scripture safe to our dayes By the way it 's pitty he omitted to note also the like prouidence in preseruing the Doctrin of Scripture pure so long But hereof we haue said enough already All therefore I note at present is 1. If God shewed à particular Prouidence in preseruing Scripture pure to our dayes the Vulgar Latin according to Mr Stilling Cannot be guilty of any material errour for were it guilty this peculiar Prouidence would haue failed in the great moral body of the Roman Catholick Church which hath read this Scripture and held it incorrupt for ten whole ages And Consequently Mr Stilling must acknowledge à want of special Prouidence in order to the preseruation of all authentick Records euery where Grant thus much and no Sectary can haue so great moral assurance of scripture as excludes all reasonable doubting for if God hath permitted à whole ample Church to be deluded with à Bible notably corrupted The Certainty of Scripture which excludes all reasonable doubting fail's the sectary who either must admit of an other latin Translation distinct from ours or haue recourse to the Greek Text but he approues of no latin Translation as
embraced Iudaism and therefore S. Hierome in 3. Habacuc call's these three now named Semi-Christianos half Christians followed à middle way between Aquila and Symmachus and translated Scripture with greater Simplicity more agreable to the 70. version 4. An other Edition ascribed to Origen not because he made Origens great industry à new version but with an immense labour to conserue the 70. Greek pure first composed his Tetrapla or à Bible branched into 4. Columns The first contained the 70. version the 2. Aquilas The 3. Symmachus his Translation The 4. that of Theodotion Afterward this great Doctor learning the Hebrew language made his Hexapla that is à bible with 6. Columns The first contained the Hebrew Text the 2. the Hebrew in Greek Characters the other 4. the Version of the 70. of Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion Now because there were two more Greek Versions called the fift and Sixt Editions Origen composed his Octopla or Bible distinguished into 8. Columns If you will haue more of the 5. Edition called by some Hierecuntina or of the Sixt named Nicopolitana as also of the Lucian and Hesychian Lections read Bib Max in Proleg Sect. 18. Cap 9. and Bonfrer in Prol c. 17. These two later were only corrections Doubts relating to these versions of the 70. no new Translations Concerning all these versions many doubts occurr as you may see in the Authors now cited and you will meet with no fewer concerning the Caldee Paraphras of the new Testament called Targum The Syriack version or interpretation of the new Testament extant in that noble laborious work of Arias Montanus called Biblia Regia is not without blemish Se Serrar c. 15. nor the Author of it well known and I belieue our Sectaries will not approue seueral Titles or inscriptions mentioning what was wont to be read on certain feast dayes as on the veneration of the Holy Cross and in certain fasts and the Commemoration of faithful souls departed this life c. 5. To speak here of the many latin Editions and seueral doubts concerning them would be too long work for my designe which is only to point at difficulties concerning both Originals and Translations That ancient one called by S. Austin Itala highly commended lib 2. de Doctr Christi and read in the Church before S. Hieroms time hath no known Author The The Itala version commended by S. Austin more late amongst Catholicks are Santis Pagninus his version of the old Testament out of the Hebrew first corrected by Arias Montanus though the Correction pleaseth not Bonfrerius and it was most pittifully corrupted by that Runnagate Printer Robert Stephen wherof see more in Bib. Max Sect. 20. Cap 2. and Bonfrer Cap. 18 Sect. 1. An other you haue of Isidore Clarius which neither Canus nor others approue A third of Francis Vatablus Doctor of Paris and à sound Catholick but the vngodly Robert Stephen corrupted that version as you may read in Bonfrer and Bib. Max. now cited I mention nothing in this place of the Armenian and Gothick Bibles Se Bib. Max. Sect. 20. cap. 3. And am as silent of the Tygurin version printed anno 1539. by Christopher Froschonerus à most corrupted Translation by Hereticks wherof you may see more in Bib. Max now cited cap. 3. Read also if you please Serrarius cap. 18. 9. 1. Of Sebastian Munsters of Bliblianders of Castalions and the Geneua Translations c. You will find none of them of any account but with Sectaries only 6 Thus much briefly premised for we haue not said half of what might be alleged concerning the doubts and vncertainty of various editions I here appeal to euery distinteressed iudgement Reflection made vpon these doubts and ask whether it be not mighty difficult or rather impossible to say absolutely by the force of our priuate fallible knowledge by witt or humane industry only This book This Edition is Gods true sincere word as it was writ by the Hagiographers And here I must mind Mr Stilling of his not well considered Doctrin who P. 196. seems to own so great certainty of Scripture as excludes the possibility of all reasonable doubting and pag 215. asserts We may be sufficiently assured that there are no Material Corruptions in the books of Scripture without your Churches Testimony Good Sr. leaue of these generalities and tell vs plainly of what Edition you speak What particular version haue you which must be supposed so authentick or so free from all errour as may exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting before you haue the Churches Testimony or toleration for it Name one and much A question proposed to Sectaries is done Will you follow the Hebrew and Greek Copies now extant You see most learned men whose knowledge and Authority is not inferiour to yours say both are corrupted and thus much alone weakens the certainty you pretend to Will you admit of the 70. Translation as pure and Authentick Be pleased to reconcile the Antilogies between that and the Hebrew Text or say that the Septuagint though euer of great veneration in the Church hath its errours Will you plead for what Aquila or Symmachus haue done These are euidently corrupted and in points most Material touching Christ our Lord. Will you say that all Copies none excepted all Translations whether Greek or Latin now extant are pure Scripture in the Materials of Faith and manners It is highly improbable and therefore hitherto we come to no Solid Principle to no certainty which excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting O saith Mr Stilling to proue that no Material Corruptions stained the Scripture now extant We that is Sectaries diligently compare the present Copies with the most ancient M S S. we obserue the citations of Of sectaries Comparing Scripture with the more ancient Copies those ancient Fathers who liued when some Autograph's were extant and then most likely we haue the pure word of God You compare Pray you answer were there not others in the Catholick Church before Sectaries troubled the world as industrious in comparing Copies and Manuscripts together as you haue lately been Was S. Hierom think you negligent in this particular Or did the Primitiue Church before S. Hierom when it read that ancient Edition called Itala and preferred it before all other Lections fail to examin which Copy was best Yet more If we come to later times and ponder well what diligence what vigilancy what industry attended the Correction of the Sixtin and Clementine Bibles Sectaries may blush at their Oscitancy and too sleight Cauils at our Vulgar latin Read the preface to Sixtus 5. Edition Antwerp print 1599. with other reflections made in Bib Max Sect 20. c. 4. and you will see so great à care and industry vsed in this correction that humanly speaking more could not be desired 7. Many Copies and old M S S. were at the Popes command sought for and brought to Rome Not only some chief and selected Cardinals in the time of Pope
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
shall add here à few notes to improue their knowledge and perhaps your's also 4. Learned men discouered lesser faults in the Vulgar Latin and that which was found 4. Regum c. 14. v. 17. seemed à chief one Vixit Amasias silius Ioas Rex Iuda postquam mortuus est Ioas filius Ioachaz Regis Israel 25 annis For thus the Louain Bibles Lesser faults discouered in the Vulgar Latin anno 1572. and other Copies vsually read 25 annis before the Correction of Sixtus Yet Abulensis vpon that place Quaest 15. noted the errour and said for that number 25. wee are to substitute 15 as appears 2. paralip c. 25. And so also the Hebrew text the Septuagint and Chaldee read yet Michael Paludan cited Proleg ad Bibl. Max Sect. 20. c. 4. seem's to reconcile both these lections saying Amasias liued 25. yeares after the death of Ioas but raigned only 15. which helps little to our present purpose To amend this and other slighter faults the Church as I said aboue and you may read in the preface to the Sixtine Bibles hath vsed the greatest industry imaginable Pope Pius the fourth caused not only the Original languages but other Copies to be carefully examined Pius the 5 th prosecuted that laborious work but brought it not to à period which Sixtus the 5 th did who commanded it to be put to the Press as appeares by his Bull which begins Aeternus ille celestium c. anno 1585 yet notwithstanding the Bull prefixed before Sixtus Edition then printed this very Pope as the preface made anno 1592. tell 's vs after diligent examination found no few faults slipt into his Bible by the negligence of the Printers and therefore Censuit atque decreuit How Corrected by Sixtus and Clement both iudged and decreed to haue the whole work examined and reprinted but his too sudden death preuented that second correction which Clement the 8 th after the short raign of other Popes happily finished answerably to his Predecessors desire and absolute intention Whence it is that the Vulgar now extant is called the Correction of Sixtus because this Vigilant Pope began it which was recognised and prefected by Clement the 8 th and therefore may be deseruedly called the Clementine Bible also Both are now read in the Church after Clement's Recognition as authentick true Scripture and make vp the Latin Vulgar Edition 5. Some obiect first If Pope Sixtus made à Brieue whereby he commanded his Edition so accuratly recognised to be receiued for indubitable authentick Scripture and therefore free from errours How could he afterward find such faults as caused him to intend à new impression of the whole work Answ It is not said He intended to do so vpon the account of greater faults which essentially vitiate Scripture either in Faith or manners for No substantial errour in the sixtine edition mention is only made in the Preface of lesser errata's Espied when the work was done with this restriction Preli vitio That is of Typographical faults and these almost vnavoidable cannot stain the purity of an authentick Copy But grant more that Sixtus who had Choice of various lections of Scripture followed perhaps lesse circumspectly some darker or more ambiguous Copy which Clement the 8 th after à diligent search into other Editions brought to greater Clarity and therfore read's à little differently Nothing is yet so much as probably alleged causal of any errour in Faith or Contrary to the essential verities of Scripture For as Tannerus well obserues Tom. 3. Disp 1. 9. 5. Dub. 2. n. 79. Where diuers lections vary locus esse possit disceptationi crisi There may be place for Criticks to debate which is the best or to be preferred And n. 83. Certe saith he in hoc genere transigendo etiam inter limites recti magna potest esse varietas latitudo Certainly in such kind of matters there may be well be variety and à latitude within the compass of what is right Variety of expressions with in the Compasse of truth and true And this Principle Sectaries must admit vnless they deny truth to their own Translations as they ought to doe For do not they vsually translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordinances we Traditions They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders we Priests They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Images we Idols And is it not euident that we follow the obuious and genuin signification of the Greek as well in these as in à number of other particulars Whilst therfore Sectaries differ from vs they either err or not if they err let them correct what 's amiss If contrary to conscience they deny the errour they are forced to grant that inter limites recti with in the limits of Truth there may be à latitude à variety or different expressions and you will not find so much between Sixtus Edition and that of Clement nor any Corruption destructiue of Faith or manners but slighter differences only which alter not the genuin sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost if wee exclude Typographical faults which hinder not the integrity of à Version 6. Vpon these grounds Mr. Stilling obiections pag. 214. Come to nothing where he first tell 's vs and truly of the infinite pains which Pope Sixtus took in his Correction and after So much adoe shall we saith he belieue that Sixtus neuer liued to see his Edition Compleat Answ You must belieue it vpon humane faith for it is certain God took him out of the world before he saw it perfect though his intention and aime Mr. stilling fleets obiections solued was to recall the whole work to the press again Now this Recognition His Successor Clement made answerable to his wish and design Mr. Stilling obiects 2. Sixtus his Bull now extant and therefore sufficiently proclaimed inioins that his Bible be read in all Churches without any the least Alteration Answ This Iniunction supposed the Interpreters and Printers to haue done exactly their duty euery way which was found wanting vpon à second reuiew of the whole work such commands therefore when new difficulties arise not thought of before are not like Definitions of Faith vnalterable but may and ought to be changed according to the Legislators prudence What I say here is indisputable for how could Sixtus after à sight of such faults as caused him to intend an other impression inioyn no alteration when He desired one and what he could not do his Successor Clement the 8 th did for him Now whether the Bull was sufficiently proclaimed matters not for had Sixtus liued longer He would as well haue changed the Bull in order to the particulars now in controuersy as amended his Bible 6. Mr Stilling obiects 3. All that Sixtus pretend's for the Authenticalnesse of that Edition is the agreement of it with the ancient and approued Copies both printed and M S S. than which there can be no more firm or certain Argument of the true and genuin
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
for many hold both these Editions may yet be corrected in some less and slighter errata's occasioned by the Librarians or Printers Nay perhaps it is not yet in euery particular most perfect Therefore Clements pains was to no purpose or amended little in the Sixtine Bible That these lesser errata's are found in both Copies and may if the Church please be yet corrected is granted by great Authors Read the Proleg ad Bib Max sect 19. C. 8. Gretser Tom. 1. lib. 2. Defens Cap. 11. Bell. Salmeron Vega. And others quoted in Bib. Max. Answ The Preface before the Sixtine Bible reuiewed by Clement and Sixtus his own Bull giue ground enough to solue this difficulty The preface declares the Edition of Sixtus and Clement to be corrected Quantâ fieri potuit diligentiâ with as great diligence as could be then vsed yet to say it is absolutely perfect euery way respecting humane weaknes is difficult Howeuer it is to be preferred before all other Latin Copies set forth to this day as the more pure and better amended Copy Again 't is said In hac peruulgatâ lectione sicut nounulla consultò mutata sunt c. In this Vulgar Lection a there are many things purposely changed so there are others which seemed to be changed left on set purpose without alteration And you may see four reasons hereof in the following words of the Preface Pope Sixtus his Bull speak's as clearly Neque enim ignoramus saith He c. We are not ignorant but that there are many who thought no few words and locutions of this latin Edition might haue been translated by the latin interpreter more properly more Elegantly more perspicuously or more Copiously measuring as it were words with words Verum de his minuta nimium angusta concertatio ridetur But to insist on these seems à strife too minute or worth little Neque enim taâ—ti sunt c. Neither are they of such consequence but that the Religion of the ancient Church and the Authority of most holy Fathers ought to be preferred before such Niceties it being vnmeet and vnworthy as S. Gregory faith Vt sub Do 〈…〉 regulis verba Caelestis oraculi restringantur That the words of à Heauenly Oracle be tyed to the lawes or rules of à Grammariâ—â— Thus and much more Pope Sixtus And hereby you see the The difficulty solued weaknes of the obiection proposed Sixtus corrected many faults in the old Vulgar Latin anciently vsed in the Church Sixtus neuer said He corrected all the lesser errata's Clement purged it of more and restored that ancient Copy so farr as diligence could do to à greater integrity Was not this work laudable and praise worthy in these two worthy Prelates Neither of them can be taxed of any errour introduced contrary to faith or the purity of Religion And we vrge Sectaries to speak à probable word against our Assertion 11. By this and the precedent discours you may learn first that Mr Stillingf speaks at random when he tell 's vs p. 213. of an abundance of Corruptions in the Vulgar Latin and yet cannot find so much as one Contrary to Faith and Religion You see 2. Not one Corruption in the Vulgar Contrary to Faith Hee amuses and abuseth an ignorant Reader whilst he asserts there are some thousand of places wherin Sixtus and Clement differ There is no difference at all in any one point that 's essential or material other differences which arise either from the Printers errours or diuersity of Lections as long as we read what 's true and the Church approues is neither lyable to Mr Stillingfleets Censure nor can be iustly blamed You see 3. That when Mr Still talk's of Thomas Iames his comparing the Sixtine Clementine Bibles with the Louain Annotations and then mentions ten thousand differences from the Vulgar Latin which differences arise from the comparing it with the Hebrew Greek and Chaldee He vnderstand's not Matters too well Because neither Sixtus nor Clement were obliged to regulate themselues by the Hebrew Greeck or Chaldee What these two Popes chiefly intended Their industry only being to correct the old Latin Italae Lection called by S. Gregory the ancient Translation most Authentick Scripture which howeuer was done both after à diligent search into the Hebrew and Greek and à careful inspection also into other Copies And here by the way you may perhaps discouer à piece of Mr Stillingfleets cheat about the ten thousand differences menâ—ioned aboue Be pleased only to peruse the first words of Geneâ—s where you will find à different sound of words The Vulgar read's In principio creauit Deus Caelum terram and so it is in the Chaldee and Samaritan Copies The Roman septuagint In principio fecit Deus Others ascribe this Lection to the 70. Deus creauit in principio Some out of the Hebrew read Creauit Iudices Aquila read's In Capitulo fecit Caelum The Syriack Creauit Deus esse Caeli esse terra An other Syriack In sapientia Creavit The Arabick Primum quod creauit Deus fecit Caelum c. Others Creauit Elohim Caelos Others Lections seeming different are not alwaies disferent for in Principio read cum Principio All which imply no more but meer triuial verbal differences and these perhaps with many like them through the whole Bible made Thomas Iames number swell vp to then thousand Most petty and pittiful doings whilst nothing appear's of greater consequence If any desire à litteral exposition and reconciliation of these and other lections through the whole Scripture He may peruse the Author of Bibl Max Comprehending ninteen great volumes You see 4. If the Church had true authentick Scripture before the corrections of Sixtus and Clement wherof no man euer doubted shee has it still after the Council of Trents approbation much more free from lesser faults than formerly You see 5. If the Sectary reiect's the Vulgar Latin now corrected he has no such assurance of any true Bible in the world as excludes à possibility of doubting the Scriptures integrity and consequently that Scripture serues him not to find out true Religion or build true Faith vpon with security You see 6. that all the exceptions sectaries make against the Correction of Sixtus and Clement vltimately examined empty themselues into no more but only into flight torpid and insipid Calumnies vnworthy men of iudgement and literature You see 7. the Sectaries Carping at euery thing is iust like him who said Quicquid Our sectaries Spirit dixeris impugnabitur Had the Church not at all corrected these lesser faults the sectary would haue blamed it as negligent and looking to nothing now it has done that good Seruice it is found fault with so it is Quicquid dixeris impugnabitur Help it who can I say God help them who find fault where there is none If any desire to haue à solution to some other Silly difficulties against the pretended solaecisms and Barbarisms of
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
make their sense good in the passages alleged when we now stand to Scripture only I answer 2. such dark inferences drawn from comparing Texts together not grounded on the very words euer imply à mixture of humane discourse which therefore is fallible and may be false Whence it followes that Sectaries can belieue none of these senses by Diuine Faith because the last Motiue or formal obiect of their Assent is à fallible reasoning only and this may erre And here you may learn how necessary an infallible Interpreter of Scripture is without which we are cast vpon meer vncertainties and vnauoidable improbabilities 6. The Sectary may yet answer To the comparing of Texts together He add's the sentiment of some Fathers for his sense I say of some for t' is euident He hath not all much lesse the Vniuersal consent or Tradition of the Church in euery age If this be the reply I may well oppose it in Mr Stilling own words pag. 216. Think not to fob vs off with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time c. But what will you say if he has not one clear Testimony of à Not on◠ancient Father Clear for protestancy The reason is giuen Father for him I boldly assert it and vrge him to produce but one The reason is What-euer Testimony of à Father is alleged for his sense will be at most if 't come thither so notably ambiguous that weighed with all circumstances it may well haue à Catholick meaning That sense therefore must stand good without contest when it answers to the iudgement of à whole learned Church and the Sectary hath nothing to draw it to his particular opinion neither vniuersal Church nor vniuersal Tradition but only à few ambiguous words capable of interpretation and his own fancy to boot Nay I say more He hath not so much as any little appearance of ambiguous words for his sense Pray you tell me and let Protestants shame me if they can where has he any hint of à Fathers doubtful words for his minc'd fitting assistance only allowed the Church Positiuely excluding infallible assistance For iustification by Faith only For two sacraments only For à signe only of Christs presence in the Eucharist yet these senses he vend's as the genuin meaning of the Holy Ghost without proof or probability therefore fancy only plaies here And thus you see the first part of my Assertion demonstratiuely proued viz. That Protestants haue not so much as à weak probable assurance of that which is the very life and essence of Scripture I mean of the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost Yet you know Tertullians iudgement Tertullian saith Lib. de Praescript cap. 17. Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum corruptus Stylus A fals sense depraues Scripture as much as if the words were corrupted Thus much premised and so fully proued that sectaries cannot return à probable answer I 'le add one consideration more to confirm what is said A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian 7. Imagin that à well disposed Gentil Philosopher half perswaded of the truth of Christian Religion addresses himself to the most knowing Protestant or Arian and not to dissemble the force of the Argument to some learned Catholick also He find's them strangely deuided about their Canon of Scripture about their Translations and which is to our purpose now at high difference concerning the meaning also The Arian tell 's him he hath the How men called Christians differ about scripture true sense so doth the Donatist the Protestant and Catholick likewise The wise man is not so foolish as to belieue any of them vpon their bare word although Stentor-like they cry this and no other is Diuine Doctrin Therefore he concludes if reason may haue place This way of finding what he would know without the help of some other Principle distinct from Scripture and the fallible Assertion of particular men opposite to one an other is so highly dissatisfactory and wholly insufficient that it cannot settle him in the truth of Christianity Nay he may wel argue further If I yet no Christian cannot so much as know these very books to bee Diuine because you say they are so when we Gentils and Iewes in part hold them only humane If I though I own them as Diuine can learn from none of you what they say for I find you all at high contradictions about the sense How will you induce me by this your Bible only to become Christian Or how can you when you dispute with one an other so much as propose à probable Argument out of Scripture in behalf of your different Tenets For The Heathens Discourse none of you yet know by Scripture only the true meening of it You first suppose à sense and then argue wheras you should clear the sense and proue it or your Argument fall's to nothing For example The Protestant find's in Scripture that the Holy Eucharist is called Bread supposing Bread to signify natural bread or at most bread deputed to à holy vse the Catholick denies this supposition and sense also Hee reads again in S. Iames c. 4. T 〈…〉 is one Law-giuer and iudge who can destroy and free Ergo saith the P 〈…〉 stant there is no other visible iudge in the Church to end Co 〈…〉 ersies As odd an inference as if one should conclude because it is said in Scripture Bee not yee called Masters for your Master is one Christ no other ought to be called Master and therefore this sense and supposition in also denied And thus it must needs fall out whilst the Sectary has not one express word of Scripture for his nouelties wheras saith the Gentil the Texts seem clear enough for Catholick Doctrin taken in an obuious sense yet not so clear but that à peeuish Glosser may peruert all by his wilful fancy 8. Yet the Gentil Argues You Christians say there is true Religon amongst you and that God the Author of it hath allowed The Heathens Argument Clearly proposed against sectaries means abundantly sufficient to knowit Means I say whereby not only Gentils Turks and Iewes but Arians and other Hereticks also may be reclaimed from their errours Thus much you must grant or say that Christ hath left an vnbelieuing world vnder an impossibility of being conuerted And if this be true that is if meanes be wanting to know the verities of Christian Religion The Gentil may blamlesly remain as he is and so may the Turk Iew and Heretick also Now saith our Heathen 'T is euident Scripture alone without further light is no meet means to reclaim any of them for the Gentil slights your whole Scripture and can that by it self draw him off his contempt Again The Bonzij in that vast Kindom of China pretend to an other Bible writ long since by their supposed great Prophet called Confusius and the book
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
in the new Nothing of à few iarring Protestants which all other Christians in the world decry as false and improbable Can you think that à foul-mouthed Fryar as euer liued and à Nunn sacrilegiously coupled together layd the first foundation of this excellent and reasonable Christian Religion Speak out and tell vs what you iudge or hereafter leaue of to vent such improbable Paradoxes I speak of à Religion now extant in the world or known 4. hundred years agone to preuent your wonted subterfuge of running vp to the Primitiue Church à most vnreasonable plea when you cannot say probably what that Church taught but only by the Tradition of the present which you most causlesly and vnworthily reiect But hereof wee haue said enough in the other Treatise Perhaps you 'l reply You defend that Church which hold's Doctrin agreable to Scripture I marry Sir but where shall we find it out Amongst you They own on vn known Church Protestants think yee when you know not probably the sense of scripture in one only controuerted Text much less so fully as excludes à possibility of doubting nor shall you euer know whilst you own à sense Contrary to the Roman Catholick Church as is already proued 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 1. THe Assertion may seem strange had we not an euident proof at hand and t' is thus The Iewes Turks and Pagans although all Christians now and euer agreed in some chief verities concerning Christian Religion as that Iesus is our Redeemer reiect the Doctrin as fals and foolish 1. Cor. 1. u. 23. We preach Christ Crucified à scandal to the Iewes and à foolery to the Gentils Whereby you may well learn how enormously Mr Stillingfleet erred aboue when he told vs that the meer excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion carries with it its own proof Our Assertion is contrary and grounded vpon this The proof of our Assertion opposite to Mr. stillingfleet Principle The Mysteries of Christian Doctrin considered in themselues transcend all humane Capacity and as the Apostle saith scandalize weak reason Therefore the Mysteries meerly laid forth to à Iew or Gentile are no conuiction because they are aboue the reason of the very best Belieuers Now if you say they ought first to be belieued by faith without any preuious inducement This is the worst of fooleries for none of the Primitiue Christians so much as belieued Christ or admitted Apostolical Doctrin without rendring first some satisfactory reason distinct from their faith why they reiected the ancient Sinagogue and assented to that then new preach't learning Some preuious light therefore distinct from these abstruse Mysteries which God laies before the eye of humane reason induceth all whether Iewes or Gentils to the true belief of Christianity and Consequently the meer supposed verity of the Doctrin only dark in it self is no absolute mark or first self euident Principle The rerity of Christ's Doctrin no selfe Euidence whereby we are immediatly moued to belieue such high secrets Pray you tell me should any one goe amongst some vnciuilised People who either haue heard nothing or very little of Christ and only relate the story of his sacred Birth in à poor stable of his obscure life from the 12 th year of his age till he began to preach c. Would such Barbarians think yee assent to these strange things either by the force of humane reason or Diuine Faith without further proof or motiue to make all good No certainly Yet all is true and very true yea and most reasonable but the verity alone is insufficient to perswade any that 't is true 2. From this short discourse whereof more in the second part these vndeniable inferences follow 1. That Sectaries assert they know not what when they make the true Preaching of the Gospel and right vse of Sacraments to be marks of the true Church For the true Church be it where you will hath euer its marks antecedently supposed to the true preaching of the word which marks first manifest that mystical body at least in à general way as I shall presently declare and thus known by à natural euidence she proposeth the Mysteries we belieue Here The Church is known by her marks before we belieue is the reason à priori of my Assertion That which is the first obiect of our Faith cannot be the first obiect of our knowledge the Mysteries of our belief layd forth by the preaching of Gods word are the first obiects of Faith for these we belieue and as belieued they are obscure therefore they cannot be the first obiects of knowledge if we speak strictly of knowledge or marks preuiously inducing reason to belieue Whence it is that reason hath its euidence or prudent inducements laid forth vpon other extrinsical Principles before we belieue Belief therefore whether you take it for the obiect assented to or the act wee assent by being as I said obscure can be no mark to it self or to the true Church we belieue in for à mark is euer more known than that obiect is whereof it is à mark or which is pointed at 3. Some perhaps will say The Church is vsually defined An Assembly of those who profess the true Doctrin of Christ therefore An Obiection true Doctrin most essential to the Church must necessarily be known before we know the total essence of the Church Ergo true Doctrin or the preaching of the word is à mark whereby we first find out the Church and consequently the Church marked with euident clear motiues is no inducement to belieue true Doctrin The Argument is an euident fallacy First because the Illiterate and simple Christians belieue in the Church and haue faith sufficient to saluation though they neuer arriue to an explicit Briefly solued belief of euery particular Doctrin taught by it 2. They either explicitly belieue all these particular Doctrins by Faith and this is impossible because all of them were neuer proposed explicitly or know them ex terminis to be Diuine Truths by humane reason when they are proposed and this is most vntrue For who can say that this truth Christ is God and consubstantial with his Father is à verity more known ex terminis by humane reason than the contrary errour of the Arians is You see therefore the obiection is forceles For as one who reades Aristotle or Plato knowes what is said or the substance of the Doctrin by the sense of their words yet remains ignorant whether it be true or fals without further reasoning and inspection so à Gentil that reads our Christian Doctrin in the bible may know much of its sense or what is said yet he must both discourse and reason well before
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
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
to the Receiuer Speak out Sir What is it that has relation to the Receiuer only The very body and blood of Christ vnder the Type of bread and wine which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee These substances of his body and blood as really present work their effect in à worthy Receiuer where you euidently see that the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred body and blood is presupposed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul Therefore to talk of à presence which hath relation to à Receiuer only without the true supposed real verity of Christ body and blood present is no more then à peruerse and an improbable Gloss if S. Cyril speak sense 18. Your next Gloss vpon these words It is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the Body of Christ is worse if worse can be For you only frigidly say Hereby is meant no alteration i◠the Substance of it but only that it is not That common Bread it was before Sir the contrary is now demonstratiuely proued against The change made in Chrism wholly different from that in the Eucharist you But you hope to help your self by an Instance which S. Cyril hath of Chrism in his 3. Mystag Pag. 525. where he Seem's to Parallel the change made in Chrism or holy oyntment with the Change of bread in the Eucharist By the way If Chrism be so sacred à thing it is à shame you haue no more vse of it in your Church but let that pass and mark the Parallel and your own mistake with it A change there is in both bread and common ointment but as different in Themselues as they are differently expressed by this Father The one change is Real and intrinsecal made in the Substance of bread and wine The change of common ointment is not so but Moral into à grace or Gift or Christ S Cyrills words take away all ambiguity See saith he That thou think not this ointment to be common or meer ointment For as the bread of the Eucharist after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread but the body of Christ here is the real change So this holy ointment is no longer naked or common ointment after it is consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyrill's words denote the difference but à grace or Gift of Christ and the Holy spirit which operates through the presence of the Diuinity Here is the other and à quite different change Bread is made the body of Christ Chrism his holy and sacred Gift The Parallel or parity therefore as I now said lies in this That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were and this is enough for Cyrills intent who only proues Chrism to be à holy thing but it fail's when he positiuely and expresly diuersifies the nature of these changes of bread into Christs body of Common ointment only into à grace or à gift of Christ And Hence Sr your Question whether we may not as well proue à Transubstantiation in the Chrism as we do in the Eucharist is both fond and friuolous We Answer No because the real change of bread into Christ's body fully expresseth Transubstantiation the Terminus à quo and ad quem being Real and Substantial The other Change of ointment into à Gift of Christ denotes à moral change quite different and nothing like the other which is most real S. Ambrose next cited no less abused then others 19. Your next and last Gloss abuses S. Amb. De ijs qui initiantur C. 9. who saith Bread is no longer that which Nature has framed it but that which the Benediction of Consecration has made it You Answer It is the body of Christ but not in our gross sense Pray Sr Inform vs à little of your more quaint meaning Say how bread is Christs body if it still remains as substantially bread after the Benediction as water in Baptism remain's substantially water Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed cease to be water because it is à Sacrament No certainly yet bread if S. Ambrose speak truth ceaseth to be that which nature framed it You endeauour to make These words forceles because S. Chrisost in Act Hom. 23. saith of Baptism I'ts virtue is so great that it suffer's not men to be men and then you wisely ask whether we will grant it Transubstantiat's them Friuolous The Saint only speaks of the virtue of Baptism which as he obserues makes vs sons of Adoption That is it Changes à soul from the miserable state of Sin into à happy state of grace and so permit's not men once infected with that leprosy to be men as they were before vnregenerate And therefore he adds in the ensaing words The great power of the Holy Ghost is that it Transform's our Manners and makes them composed What is here of any thing like Transubstantiation or of à ceasing of that which nature hath framed But enough and fully enough of Mr Stillingfleets most improbable glosses so I must and will term them vntil some surer Principle than fancy giues them more strength which shall neuer be 20. To end I 'le say à great Truth Had this Gentleman twenty Cyprians twenty Cyrills twenty Austins as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament as the Testimonies Had this Aduersary so much Authority for hy opinion as wee Produce in behalfe of Catholick Doctrin No man Could belieue any thing now cited are significant for Catholick Doctrin Had he à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his Opinion fiue or six ages since as the Catholick Church then held and yet hold's our Catholick Doctrin Finally had he Scripture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Christs body as it is euidently clear for the Real Presence I verily think no prudent man could or would belieue any thing of this great Mystery And consequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Christian Religion Because Fathers vpon the Supposition are directly contrary to Fathers Church stand's against Curch and Scripture against Scripture But now when he hath not one Clear Testimony of à Father much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church nor so much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick Position I must Conclude that his Glosses already laid on these Fathers are not only improbable but more than highly improbable 21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet may reply His glosses T' is true because they are the Sentiments of à fallible man are indeed lyable to errour but He bidds me look well to my Refutations and beware of setting to high à value on them whilst I oppose him For my Opposition because I may mistake amount's to no more but to à weake degree of Fallibility so that Hitherto He and I stand vpon equal Terms Answ If the contest be thus much only whether his Glosses are not clearly refuted the Iudicious Reader after à due
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
Answ what need of this when Protestants say there is no great difference between vs in Fundamentals But suppose this done which yet cannot be done whilst Sectaries remain in their wonted Labyrinth concerning Fundamentals what light haue we from these Fathers to try controuersies now in Agitation when they grant that Popery is made vp of the Fathers Errours The final sentence is past the iust Censure already giuen The Fathers were as we are now plain Papists I easily grant all 4. Shall I yet say more concerning the trial of Protestants Opinions or the supposed errours of Catholicks by Fathers and tell you Sectaries haue no Gusto to it at all And because it mainly import's first to discouer their want of Euidence and next their fallacious proceeding in this particular I will briefly do both and remit all here noted to the prudent Censure of euery Iudicious Reader Thus it is There is not one controuersy now Protestants neuer offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers disputed in which our Protestants do so much as offer to plead by à General Consent of Fathers and Mr Stillingf likes not to be fob'd off with Two or three Testimonies Read their writings of the Real presence of Prayers for the Dead Inuocation of Saints of à Sacrifice vpon the Altar of the infallibility of the Church and tell me after you haue perused all How many Fathers you find clear and express for Protestancy A sight of four or fiue would help much But hereof there is no danger for you haue not one clear and expres I say more not one so much as probable against the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Against praying for the Dead c. And therefore wonder not that Mr Stilling Part. 3. C. 6. P. 641. where he treat's of Purgatory talk's much of the Fathers Fancies and Imaginations And of an itching Curiosity some haue to know more concerning the future state of souls than God has reuealed But after all produceth not one Testimony either clear or probable against our Catholick Doctrin 5. Do you desire to see more of this want in behalf of Protestancy And how little there is to countenance the Nouelty Turn again to Mr Stillinf Part. 2. C. 1. P. 293. Where you find à Title threatning ruin to vs all The Roman Church not the Catholick Church Say I beseech you who would not haue expected after such à clap of Thunder à whole Torrent of Fathers to haue followed for his purpose But in lieu of these Imptij words giuen in lieue of â—athers what haue we Marry He tell 's vs First His Bishop makes à great deal of difference between The Church And A Church and some difference also between à True Church and à right Church next he fall's foul on his Aduersary for his not well considering what the Primate had said Lastly to pass by à few ieers he speak's much of the Vniuersal spreading of the Churches Doctrin and Vnity thereof which is due to the Roman Catholick Church only But after his long Discourse and the rapping Title with it you haue neither sentence nor syllable of any Father which so much as meanly insinuates That that ancient Moral body as it comprehend's all Christians vnited in one Belief is not the only True and Orthodox Church in the world Yet herâ— had been à most fit place to haue pleaded by plain express Authorities I mean such as directly proue the Roman not to be the Catholick Church Belieue it were there any such in the Fathers Volumes Mr Stilling to make his margents glorious would haue brought them to light with à witness But of this main point he is vtterly silent because he had nothing to say And therefore wisely Slip's aside to other By-Matters and leaues his Title to shift for it self 6. Hence you may well conclude that our Sectaries are driuen into strange Straits when we vrge them to proue their Protestancy Of the straites sectaries are Cast into We first call them to plain Scripture for à Final decision in this particular but wanting where with all they fit vs right with à return of Antiscriptural glosses We press them again to name any orthodox Church which fiue or Six ages since professed their Nouelties Not à word is Answered We make Inquiry after Councils held by Protestants before Luther for the Protestant Religion Silence deep Silence not one is found Mention only Oral Tradition they storm at you because they know Protestancy has none We appeal to the authority of the most ancient Fathers you see how we are serued with words and empty Titles Nothing is or can be alleged clear Nothing expres Nothing probable Finally to leaue them without all excuse We call them again to an account and Ask whether they will haue their cause tryed and iudged by their own Doctors Luther Caluin Zuinglius and the like No satisfaction is found here Luther condemn's Caluin more violently than the Prelatick Party in England doth the Quakers and Send 's the Associates Protestants irreconciably Contradict Protestants of Caluin to Hell for denying the Real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament And Caluin is as fierce against Luther in this particular And thus all Sectaries haue opposed one another from the very beginning of this woful Reformation Some plead for our Catholick Doctrin Others are contrary as you may read at large almost in euery Page of the Protestants Apology We therefore know not what these Nouellists would or can belieue whilst these endles differences about Belief thus turn their heads and make them to belieue iust nothing but what euery fancy pleaseth What à Religion haue we here View well it 's exteriour you haue only Horrour and confusion to look on Altars pulled down Cloisters demolished Bious places prophaned Stately Churches turned into sluttish barns by à barbarous Reformation Enter into the Interiour or cast à serious thought on that which should essentially constitute Religion you find this Protestancy à meer new Nothing as Scripture Neither Interiour nor exteriour valuable in protestancy lesse as Churchles without Tradition without the consent of Fathers or any Christian Principle to vphold it yea and this vtterly ruin's all without any Agreement in Doctrin amongst themselues May we not Therefore iustly deplore the sad condition of Thousands now within our once most Catholick England to see à Thing which stand's on no Principles but fancy most earnestly stood for by men of excellent natural parts and these English too whose Progenitors the world knowes it fully as wise as They were all Roman Catholicks But what will ye Good Reuenues A merry life à hansom wife and Self Interest will haue it so And thus much of the want of clear Authorities in behalf of Protestants 7. We are now to speak à word of their fallacious or rather open iniurious Proceeding with the Fathers And to make good what I am about to Say you may please to reflect vpon the
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
either Party to their cause by skirmishing in the dark with weak Probabilities only Matters of Religion which must stand vpon sure Principles or there is no such thing as Religion in the world would be iust like weak Opinions in schools Tenable or not tenable as different iudgements please to Opine might Topicks And probabilities only sway in so weighty à Cause 4. Vpon this ground you haue Euidence enough against these pretended Probabilities of Sectaries whereof more presently Be pleased to obserue it The Catholick saith The Roman Catholick Church is infallible No saith the Protestant She is fallible Here lies the contradiction If both these Aduersaries Assert so boldly each of them supposing that God hath reuealed the one or other part of the Contradiction must solidly proue what he Assert's in so weighty à Matter And can any man perswade himself that an Infinite wisdom hath laid That Truth whereon so much depend's and is now reuealed to Christians whether it be the Churches fallibility or the contrary in The obuious truths of Christianity not proued by Guesses such Obseurity or remoued it so far from prudent Reason That no man can find it out or proue it but by the dark glimpses of weak Guesses of vncertain Topicks and Probabilities which of their own nature easily throw men into errour Grant thus much We first do iniury to Gods Reuelation Next we are left in suspence And know not what to belieue And here I ask whether Mr Stillingfleet will oblige me vnder pain of damnation stedfastly to belieue the absolute fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church If he doth no weaker Principle then plain Scripture can be my Security And this I require of him If he recoyle and produce not plain Scripture He is more than imprudent to force on me à new Faith contrary to the iudgement of à whole Church vpon no stronger proofs than weak guesses are Lastly may Topicks auail here we lay an impossible obligation on our selues whilst all must say God will haue vs to belieue and with all certainty what he hath reuealed in this particular Yet when we come to examin the Grounds and Proofs of our certain belief All Proofs vanish away into Topicks Proofs of Christianity no weak Topicks and vncertain fancies Hence I conclude if the Protestant affirm's as he doth that our Church is fallible He must proue the Assertion by indubitable Principles And the like obligation lies on the Catholick who saith She is infallible And this by the grace of God shall be proued in the next Discourse 5. In the interim if you desire to see more of much iniury done to the ancient Fathers turn only to Mr Stilling 3. Part. C. 3. P. 58. Where he oppugn's our Catholick Doctrin of praying to Saints And you may well stand astonished at his Vnprincipled Glosses He saith first The Expressions of Fathers which seem most to countenance this Innocation are only Rhetorical flourishes Has the Assertion any probability think you Read only the Testimonies alleged by Cardinal Bellarmin de Sanct Beatitudine Cap. 19. Br Cardinal Pâ—rron large vpon this subiect And Cardinal Richel eâ— Traitte pour conuertir cenx qui se sont separez de L'Eglise Lib. 3. Chiefly Page 420. It is not now my intent to transcribe those many vnanswerable Authorities alleged in behalf of our Doctrin And if after the perusal you see not plainly that both Mr Stillingfleet and his Lord doe grosly abuse the Fathers deny me credit hereafter 6. To conuince the first of vniust proceeding I 'le only instance Mr Stilling again abuseth thâ— Fathers in one particular P. 589. Where he saith that S. Gregory Nyssen in his commendation of S. Theodorus the martyr made vse of Rhetorick in his Apostrophe to the Saint without any solemn Inuocation It is vtterly vntrue The words of S. Gregory are These Paris Print 1615. Page 1011. And 1017. when the Scythians threatned ruin to the Countery Pray for vs make intercession to him who is our Common Lord and King As you are à souldier fight for vs and defend vs And as you are à martyr speak freely for your fellow seruants A few lines after And if more Prayers be needful assemble together the whole Quire of your Brethren Martyrs and ioyntly intercede for vs. Put S. Peter in mind moue S. Paul and the beloued Disciple of our Lord that They be solicitous for the Churches where they once were chains passed dangers And finally dyed Iudge good Reader whether this recourse made to à Saint in time of danger be only à Rhetorical flourish when the very words imply à most solemn and serious Inuocation Pray for vs Make intercession Let all the Martyrs ioyntly become Petitioners in our behalf in these our necessities are no flourishes but holy and hearty Inuocations Yet more When all the Fathers in the Council of Calcedon Act. 11. Tom. 2. Concil Part. 1. P. 340. No less publickly in the Express for Inuocation presence of the whole Council than piously inuoked the Holy martyr Flauianus thus Flauianus post mortem viuit Martyr pro nobis oret Flauianus liues after Death let that Martyr Pray for vs. Can any one in Conscience think that this was only à Rhetorical flourish Or that the learned Theoderet acted only à Rhetoricians part when in his History of Saints He concludes euery life as Bellarmin obserues with an earnest Petition that by the holy intercession of these happy souls now in Bliss he might haue aide and diuine Assistance S. Austin was à good Rhetorician yet no man will say he made vse of flourishes in that plain and deuout prayer to our Blessed Lady Tom 9. lib. Doctrin at least Collected out of S. Austin Meditat C. 40. Holy and immaculate Virgin Mother of God Mother of our Lord Iesus Christ vouchsafe to pray for me to him Cuius meruisti effici templum for whom you haue deserued to be made à worthy Temple He mean's the Temple of her sacred body wherein her only Son our Sauiour pleased to inhabit nine months together A whole volume would be necessary to allege other Fathers in confirmation of our Catholick Doctrin But these few manifestly proue that Mr Stilling grosly erred when he said that the Expressions of Fathers which seem to Countenance the inuocation of Saints look only like Blossoms and pretty flourisheâ— in Rhetorick Withall that his second Assertion viz. The Church did not then admit of the Inuocation of Saints but only of the Commemoration of Martyrs is no more but à dream or à most improbable saying 7. It is not now my intent when I only touch à few to tax Mr Stilling of many other gross mistakes in this one controuersy whereof I verily think his own Conscience accuseth him butâ— leaue that to God Howeuer because contrary to his vsuâ—l manner he enters vpon à preculation which I am consident he vnderstand's not I will doe so much seruice as to vnbeguile both him and his
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
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
your Glosses To point at his Church and Councils which taught Protestancy to an Orthodox Church The world was neuer without one Say therefore in Gods name where or when was such an Orthodox Christian Society in Being that positiuely taught no Transubstantiation No sacrifice of the Mass No inuocation of Saints c Where or when were your Councils which positiuely defined these Doctrins c You may Answer and truely You haue indeed neither Church nor Councils Nor Tradition Express for these your Negatiues Very right Therefore I wrong you not in saying your whole Cause subsist's vpon Coniectures cauils And Glosses Because now you cast your selues into an Impossibility of pleading by any better Principles than meer guesses are Thus much supposed Say I beseech you What auail's it if when an Authority is plain for Popery that you can by à nimble gloss darken it Or if obscure You haue A Fiat lux at hand and can charm it into so much Clarity as may suffice to dazle the eyes of à vulgar Reader What Satisfaction haue I here or what gain you by this Proceeding when you know we haue more witnesses ready to attest yea to dye for our Catholick Verities than you haue hairs on your head or Glosses in your book What gain you to your cause could you missinterpret all the Fathers that euer wrote when you without the warrant of any Orthodox Society haue yet à whole learned Church Her Councils and Tradition against you And all the store of Ammunition left you to attaque this great Oracle of Truth is very small no more God knowes but à without them no satisfaction is giuen flash of lightning borrowed from the Ignis fatuus of your far-fetcht Glosses Gloss on Cauil on coniecture on to the worlds end As long as no known or Owned Principle distinct from Glosses and coniectures Support's them You only beat the aire or to vse à pretty late phrase amongst you lapwing-like Pew most when furthest from the nest I mean you are most fierce to end Controuersies when you are furthest off from Principles which only can end them 8. Thus then you should proceed had not God and Truth silenced you I E. S. B. D. declare to you honest Papists That in the Sixth or seauenth age after Christ His true Orthodox Church positiuely taught no Transubstantiation Such à Council either in former or later Ages expresly defined so Then and before also Church Tradition was vniuersally for my Doctrin And thus much I can make good to the learnedest Romanist among you Wonder not Therefore when you quote your Iustins your Cyprians your Chrisostoms seemingly contrary to my Church Doctrin That I interpret all I am forced to doe so or against conscience must desert my old Mother Church Her Councils How Sectaries ought to plead and Tradition likewise From which You haue too licentiously swerued to side with your Iustins and I know not who els Could the Sectary plead after this manner His Glosses would haue force But he neuer meddles with the First main Business That is neuer ground 's his Doctrin vpon any thing like à satisfactory Principle But as if He minded to tire Ones patience run's on headlong with Glosses When he has no Principled Doctrin to Gloss for Iust as if One should tell his neighbour Sir you lye And this I auerr to your face Though I want where withall to proue my Saying true In all these Controuersies Sectaries are so pertly vnciuil as to giue the Lie to à whole Church And what supports the Boldnes Haue they any other Church more Orthodox Councils more learned Tradition more vniuersal to proue we lye than our Church our Tradition And Councils are which say we speak truth Nothing at all like them We here challenge them to speak to the cause and controuersies are ended What then remain's to plead with Plain Scripture Not à word Fathers plain Not one O yes Tertullian is drawn in to help at à dead lift so is Theoderet And one or two more Very true But he is à glossed Tertullian à glossed Theoderet c. Separate then these Glosses from the Fathers genuin Doctrin giue them the Sectary to manage you see him in open field compleatly armed ready to encounter Church Councils Tradition And all the other Principles of the Catholick world Are not Glosses think Glosses strangely powerful with Sectaries ye strong and prodigiously powerful which haue not only force to plead against à whole Church But more ouer to implead her of palpable errour This Church is supposed to haue changed Her ancient Doctrin And Sectaries will reform it not by recurring to any other more Orthodox Society of Christians But by meer guesses and Glosses That is The Fallible Glosses and gueses of men confessedly fallible must reform à Church which hold's Her selfe infallible And proues it also 9. Thus it is Christian Reader I speak plainly And can defend my Assertion Besides meer begging the Question in all Disputes besides Cauils And weak coniectures The Sectary hath no more left him to oppose our Catholick Tenets but meer vnprincipled Glosses I neither word it nor wrong Protestants in saying thus much Peruse if you please their writings chiefly Mr Stillingfleets Account you will find when the Churches Infallibility or Transubstantiation c. Happen to be handled That Glosses laid on the Authorities vsually quoted for Catholick Doctrin euer take vp the most room And which is worse yea pitiful in à Rational Defender of Protestancy You shall neuer find through this whole Book waue Cauils coniectures and Glosses one sound Principle laid plainly forth nor so much as hinted at in behalf of any Protestant Article What think ye Shall Yet Most weak and feeble Christians who would fain haue à Church to liue in see the old House of God pulled down by vnhandy Glossers before They haue à better built vp And well setled on good Foundations Pulled down What say I Alas our Glossers haue not strengh to vntile it much less force to demolish that long slanding Fortress Yet Glosses chiefly And t' is à sad thought for the Sectary support his vndefensible Schism made in the desperate quarrel against that Church which gaue his Ancestors Baptism These only there is no more must plead in behalf of his inhuman and barbarous Reformation These finally must answer before an Impartial Iudge at that great day of Doom for all his merciless cruelty practised vpon the deceased and some yet liuing Catholicks Sad thoughts I say they are to goe to bed with to rise with to banquet with which like Ghosts will haunt him to his dying day And lay Torment at his restles hart in his greatest iollities And more in the houre of death 10. After all you see the Conclusion and an end put to Controuersies The Conclusion against Sectaries If no Orthodox Church vphold's this Protestancy or any article of it which is euident No Councils nor Tradition can support
it If no Councils nor Tradition support it It has no Principled Doctrin If no Principled Doctrin No Moral certainty If no Moral certainty for meer groundles Glosses cannot giue Any against all the Powerful Motiues of our Church there is no Probability in it If no Probability The whole Reformation must be reduced to fancy only There we found it And there leaue it 11. Now if any except against our casting off Protestancy from the meanest degree of Probability induced to Iudge otherwise vpon this ground That many learned men defend it I haue Answered aboue Meer Probability is insufficient to support Christian Truths Here I both answer and Ask. 2. where were the many learned Defenders of this new Faith when one Luther stood vp alone against the whole Christian world And first broached his Protestancy If at that time there was no Authority nor reason for the Nouelty Process of time hath gained it neither Look then into its Rise or First beginning you 'l find it vnsound at the bottom yea vtterly improbable vpon this certain Principle That the Singular Doctrin of one disgusted Rebel against à whole Church and Thousands more pious and learned then Himselfe can merit no Belief but deserues what it has to be Anathematized 12. We must yet insist à little vpon this Point And lay forth the Vanity of our Aduersaries pretence to Probability which done you shall see controuersies are ended Sectaries May say Protestancy improbable If their own Authority makes not Protestancy Morally certain it cannot but raise it to à high degree of Probability We deny this And shall presently Ask why their Authority more aduanceth this Religion to Probability than the meer Authority of Arians bring 's Arianism to Probability At present we do not only oppose the voice and vote of the Roman Catholick Church against this Plea But the Authority also of Graecians Abyssins and all other called Christians who with one vnanimous Consent decry Protestancy as improbable Compare therefore votes with votes Authority with Authority There is no Parallel For for one that defend's it you haue hundreds yea Thousands that Contradict the Nouelty Thus much is indisputably Euident if we precisely Consider Authority as it were in Abstracto or oppose the Votes of dissenting Parties against it But here is not all We must goe further And distinguish well between à bare Authority and a rational grounded Authority For this is an vndeniable Truth Reasonable Principles euer precede or are presupposed when Religion is pleaded for To the consequent Authority of those whether many or few that Teach or Profess it Hence all say If the first conuerted Iewes to Christianity Had not had most weighty Inducements proposed to reason before they deserted Iudaism and belieued in Christ The change had been most imprudent Nay all had been obliged as is proued in the 4. Chapter To hold on in that Profession still without Alteration So necessary it is to haue rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Religion before the Professors allow it either Moral certainty or so much as Probability Thus much premised 13. We draw Sectaries from all Self-Voting or further pleading by their own Authority And force them in this Contest if Sectaries drawn off their own Selfe voting Protestancy be defensible not to say but to proue by Principles distinct from their own bare votes These two Propositions 1. That God who is Truth it self And once laid his Truths the foundation of the Roman Catholick Church permitted that faithful Oracle to become Traiterous to teach Idolatry to tell the world loud Lies for à thousand yeares together And that all this happened when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to vnbeguile Those poor deluded Christians The second Proposition to be proued is That these Millions of souls learned and vnlearned who firmly belieued this Church And dyed happily in it were All mad All Idolaters All besotted and seduced What the Sectary is to Prou◠by Fooleries And which is à Paradox aboue Expression That à knot of late vnknown Nouellists pretending to Reformation dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themselues To make these supposed mad wise The Idolatrous Orthodox the besotted Reasonable The Seduced right in Faith again And that this was and is yet done vpon à meer proofles Supposition that we are mad and besotted which stand's on no Principles And for that reason is contradicted by the vast number of most knowing Catholicks And the whole Multitude of Christians Besides 14. When these two Propositions are made probable vpon good Principles Wee shall listen to our Sectaries Authority But if they fumble herein Only talk and proue nothing Wee reiect their vngrounded Authority And say The more votes they multiply without Proofs the less weight they haue You shall yet see how weightles Their Authority is might we here insist longer vpon one Matter of fact which ends all Controuersies In à word All know the great Controuersy between Protestants and Catholicks comes to this Whether they or we teach The difficulty proposed between Catholicks and Protestants Apostolical Doctrin Whether they or we lay forth the genuine sense of holy Scripture Neither Party saw or heard the Apostles Preach Neither pretend's now to Enthusiasms or priuate Reuelations concerning that Doctrin The whole cause therefore is to be tried and decided by Witnesses of foregoing Ages such Testimonies and Tradition must clear this Matter of fact A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Pastors without Doctors without Witnesses teaching that sense and Doctrin which the one or other Party stand's for is here both vseles and impertinent If then The Protestant makes his Doctrin Apostolical His sense of Scripture Orthodox The Catholick replies Be pleased to giue in your last Euidence produce your Witnesses your Pastors And Doctors Four Ages since That taught as you teach And sensed Scripture as you sense it My Church add's the Catholick euidently demonstrates à continued succession of Her Pastors that taught as I belieue as shall be proued hereafter And shewes as clearly à Succesion of the same Doctrin and Faith with these Pastors Her Antiquity is vndoubted and her pleading Possession in preseruing the true Sense of Scripture and Apostolical Doctrin is as great as any King on earth can shew for the Possession of the Crown he weares Now saith the Catholick Wee examin your pedegree of Pastors and Doctors And after some few Ascents by à The first plead by Principles the others not Retrogradation come at last to the year 1517. There we find and most euidently à Luther or Caluin To be the first men in the world that professed Protestanism that interpreted Scripture as you interpret or owned your Religion With these late Runagates you must stop No man on earth can aduance or bring your Genealogy further Therefore to speak in the words of the Ancient Optatus Meliuitan Lib. 2. Contra Parmen At that time you were sons
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
granted so much The Argument is clearly proposed Mr Stillingfleet return's no probable Answer A full discouery of his fallacies 1. SOme may think the particular Matter now hinted at too largely handled being scarce worth halfe the labour here spent vpon it And They iudge right Should I once so much as offer to proue as Mr Stillingfleet fondly Imagin's the Roman Catholick Church à safe way to saluation because Protestants Say so Far bee it from mee to entertain such à Thought For whether They side with vs or not Wee haue absolute Absolute Certainty of Faith without dependence of Sectaries Certainty of our Faith independently of Their suffrages or Voting vs in à Secure way to Heauen Wherefore Should Sectaries recoile And say wee are all damned as some haue done wee regard it not That would no more Lessen the Certainty wee now haue of sound Faith than Their Casual Granting vs Saluation in the way wee are in Heightens it 2. 'T is true were it doubtful or no more but Probable whether Catholicks Could bee saued in their Religion The agreeing of Sectaries with vs might serue for something But now when the Certainty of our Doctrin Stand's as wee here Suppose most secure vpon an Infallible Principle which is Church Authority The Proof taken from the Agreement of both Parties is an Impertinency And in real Truth De subiecto non supponente That is Not to bee supposed if which is euer to bee noted wee should goe about to strengthen our Catholick Doctrin because Heretiques Agree with vs. 3. Howeuer though the Agreement Considered in it selfe beâ— no more but à fallible Protestant Opinion yet laid by the other indubitable Doctrin of the Catholick Church 'T is à Truth as asserted by them And ties their tongues so fast that They shall Neuer hereafter speak à probable word against our Catholick Faith Again the Concession presses Sectaries Ad hominem who admit Scripture vpon the General Agreement of all Called Christians If therefore They argue well Both you Catholicks and wee Protestants hold these books Diuine Ergo They are so Wee Argue as strongly Both Parties also grant saluation to Catholicks An Argument against them vpon their Concession ergo They are so secure that it is impossible to plead against the Truth Though as I said now The Sectaries Concession heightens not one whit our Certainty whereof you may see more n. 20. In the Interim please to know The only reason why I discuss this Controuersy more at Large is first to discouer Mr Stillingfleets gross fallacies Next to Show that Protestants are forced at last to Put an End to Controuersies Seeing the most Learned that euer wrote ingenuously acknowledge the Roman Catholick Faith to bee à safe secure and abundantly sufficient Means to attain Saluation which is to say A true belieuing Catholick Cannot bee Damned vpon the Account of Wanting Faith if other Christian Duties bee Complyed with 4. Now if you Ask what forced Sectaries to grant thus much to Catholicks I answer it was no kindness God knowes But stark shame to touch here on no other Motiue which extorted the Concession from them For would not both Heauen and earth haue Clamour'd had They damned all their own Ancestors all the learned and ignorant of the Roman Catholick Church far and neer extended for want of Diuine Faith Yet this followes Because without Faith it is impossible to please God And thus they stand perplexed Allow sauing faith to the Roman Catholick Their Plea is ended Deny it They send millions and millions of Souls to Hell Thus much premised I Argue 5. That Faith which the Roman Catholick Church and Protestants The Ground of our Doctrin also iointly own as sufficient to bring à man to Heauen is intirely perfect And cannot be rationally opposed by either Party But the Faith of à true belieuing Catholick is such à Faith Therefore it is entirely perfect And cannot be more rationally Opposed Now further If it stand's thus firm vpon Church Authority That 's the certain Principle And the Concâ—ssion of Aduersaries As an ouer-measure though weightles it cannot be rationally excepted against by either both Parties owning it sufficient to Saluation Therefore All controuersies concerning Faith are clearly ended in behalf of Catholicks Vnless meer Cauils may pass for rational Arguments 6. It is truly Pitiful to see how vainly Mr Stillingfleet Part. 3. C. 4. Page 611. striues to Euert the force of this short Discourse Sometimes The difficulty is not so much as touched by him Sometimes Hee mistakes the Question And euer beggs it Now He run's away with half à Principle which lead's in à lame Conclusion Now false Suppositions pass for Proofs Now Protestant Opinions enter in as sound Doctrin Here he wrong's our Catholick Authors There He contradict's himselfe In à word you haue nothing through His whole fourth Chapter But I know not what strange Confusion Thus He Begins 7. Protestants confess there is à Pissibility for some to escape Damnation The Aduersaries discourse in the Communion of the Roman Church But it is as men may escape with their liues in Shipwrack But they Protestants vndertake to make it euident There can be no danger if they obserue the Principles of Protestant Religion Mark first How strait hearted The man is in granting as little as may be viz. A meer Possibility And of some only to be saued in the Roman Faith hoping Thereby to remoue his own Ancestors and Millions of Pious Christians as far from Heauen as à Possibility conceiued by Him is from an Actual Being I know other Protestants speak more roundly And say absolutely Saluation may be had in the Roman Catholick Church because it is à true Church in Fundamentals And that the differences betweem them And vs are about lesser Matters or meer Opinions c. See Mr. Thorndicke in his Book of Forbearance page 19. Therefore Mr. Stillingfleets lean bare and remote Possibility of Saluation is only his own particular Opinion Proved weak and vnconcluding Howeuer though he see 's not the Consequence Wee haue enough to conclude against him I 'le s'hew you how 8. There is Saith he A posibility of being Saved in the Romam Catholick Faith That is Catholick Religion has in it à Possibility of bringing men to Heauen if there be nothing wanting on Their parts Very Good This Possibility intrinsecal To the Religion is now as actually in Being as the Religion it Selfe But the Religion is actually in being Therefore this Possibility inseparable from it is also Actual And lies not in the Series of things yet producible as Creatures doe which God if he please may Create to morrow And thus you see Possibility stand's here not opposite to non-Existency but to an Actual impossibility Therefore when I say Catholick Religion now existing can possibly saue All I say with the same breath it cannot possibly damn Any Unless you 'l Grant it can saue All and damn some which is
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
Set once more pen paper and proue vs guilty of damnable Errour and you 'l damn so many that very few of your Protestants will be left in à state of Saluation I 'le make the Assertion good hereafter In the interim you Tell vs Wee palpably beg the Question whilst we suppose the whole Church is on our side and against you which is à notorious falshood Sr words are but wind I shall by the Grace of God Euidence this Truth so notoriously in the next Discourse that you if reason may haue place must confess Catholicks are the only Orthodox Church And Consequently grant that Controuersies are ended between vs. THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith HEre wee come to handle à main Matter in Controuersies And first Euidence the true Church by Her Marks and Glorious Miracles The Roman Catholick Church is proued the only Orthodox Society of Christians and Rule of Faith also VVee Euince Her absolute Infallibility and shew by Reason That if She hath taught but one false Doctrin and obliged Christians to belieue it there is now no true Faith in the world CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 1. THE first Principle God whose eternal designe is to bring man to true Faith in this short pilgrimage and after to endles Happines afford's means to acquire both And hath as Principles presupposed well laid open the means whereby true Faith may be attained As made our final End known 2. The second Principle Those want the means leading to the last happy End who are Aliens from the true Church of Christ or Separated from that Catholick Society The Assertion is so plainly deliuered not only by most Ancient Fathers But by the more learned Sectaries also That it is needless to produce many Testimonies S. Cyprian Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae Saith Quisquis ab Ecclesia separatus est c. Who euer is separated from the Church is ioyned to an Adulteress And diuorced from all the Promisses of the Church He comes not to the reward which Christ has promised who leaues the Church of Christ He is an Alien Prophane an Enemy and cannot haue God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother S. Austin lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13. Speaks fully this sense Citing those last words of Cyprian And Lib. 4. de Baptis C. 17. Saith Out of the Church there is no Saluation Yet more Epist 152. Whoeuer is or shall be separated from The Fathers Testimonies preduced this Catholick Church although he thinks himself to liue most laudably For this one wickednes alone that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ shall haue no life Sed ira Dei manet super eum But the wrath of God remains vpon him S. Fulgentius Lib. de fide ad Petrum C. 39. Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it That an Heretick or Schismatick baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and Holy Ghost if he be not in Vnion with the Catholick Church Although he giues neuer so great Alms And shed his blood for Christ yet he cannot be saued I waue other excellent Authorities known to euery one versed in the Fathers And need not to take more pains when Protestants themselues own the Doctrin The Ark was à type of the Church saith Perkins in Symb. Colum with me 785. extra quam omnes interibant out of which Ark All dyed and all are damned who are out of the Church Again In Caput 9. ad Sectaries Consent Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church are not members of the Catholick Church Humfred Ad Ration 3. Campiani We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible Church of God Finally Caluin the Master of Sectaries Lib. 4. Institu C. 1. 4. makes it absolutly necessary to be in vnion with Christs visible Church 3. The ground of this Truth is so solidly laid down in Scripture that none can contradict it For here the Church is called the Kingdom the Body the Inheritance of Christ purchased at à dear The Ground of our Catholick Truth rare the effusion of his sacred blood A Citty built vpon à Mountain The House the Temple of God the Hierusalem the Pillar and firmament of Faith c. Whereby it appears That whoeuer is out of this Kingdom out of this Citty out of this house and Temple of God whoeuer is not à member of this Mystical body or shares not in this purchased Inheritance or in à word out of the true Church be it where you will I yet define nothing is in à damnable condition A sad thought for all Sectaries because it is certain that Christ has not composed his Church of such Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the true Church and of such as oppose it Vnity and Diuision in Vnity and Diuision in Faith haue no place in the true Church points of Faith ase inconsistent in the same Orthodox Church and destroy the essential forme of it which is one Faith Now if our Aduersaries talk of à vnity in Fundamentals they are not only euidently conuinced of Errour in the other Treatise But vpon this very Account become Separaters from the Church and without Principles Assert that which neither Church nor Scripture teaches Who euer hold's not the Catholick faith entire shall Perish eternally saith S. Athanasius in his Creed but an entire Belief excludes all distinction between fundamentals and others as is manifest I little value some Protestants Glosses made vpon this Text for Glosses with me are weightles when they stand vnprincipled 4. The 3. Principle What the true Church of Christ teaches concerning the sense of Scripture That 's the sense intended by the Holy Ghost and Consequently most true The reason is Truth cannot be contrary to truth The Church and Scripture neuer Clash But alwaies speak one and the same verity This Sectaries must grant who define the Church to be an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God Therefore it cannot deceiue or teach an Errour contrary to that pure word Or if it doth so it ceaseth eo ipso to be God's Oracle And the true Church of Christ 5. If these men still go on trifling with their wonted distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals And allow à Perfect vnity of Doctrin between the Church and Scripture in The Distinction between Fundamentals and others friuolous things absolutly necessary to Saluation but not in others This is to define and not to define to build and destroy to teach and cheat in one breath For à definition which makes known the nature of à Thing must stand in its open sense without restraint and exactly agree to the thing defined Mark now Christs true Church is the Thing defined and the Definition charged with endless restrictiue Terms is drawn to Non-sense fot it tells vs the Church
is an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God But how far In à few simple Truths called fundamentals in others it may err and profess as much falshood as you please against the Verities of Scripture So that the true Church not defined at all is made by these à fair and foul Spouse at once fair in à few vnalterable necessary Truths but foul vgly and deformed because erroneous in à hundred other matters Mark the Paradox and call it à flat Heresy which separat's him who assert's it from the Catholick body Thus it is Christs Church is true and falfe pure and vnpure right and wrong louely and hateful together The Inhabitants of this Citty of God of this Temple and safe dwelling place are in it by belieuing à few simple Truths And at the same time out of it by belieuing more Falsities This is Mr Stillingfleets strange Doctrin who think 's there is no Church now in the world of one Denomination free from Errour To what desperate improbabilities doth Heresy driue men 6. The 4. Principle The receiued Doctrin of Christs Church chiefly in all points of Controuersy is euer as clear and often more clear by what She teaches than it is in any express words of Scripture The Assertion is vndubitable For Church Doctrin clear in the Churches Definitions who see 's not but that the whole Catholick Doctrin of the sacred Trinity of one God and three distinct Persons of the Father improduced the eternal Son begotten and of the Holy Ghost proceeding from both is more plainly deliuered in Church Doctrin than in any sentence or sentences of Holy Writ The like I say of the high Godhead in Christ which the Arians deny Of Original sin reiected by the Pelagians and other Articles of our Christian faith And thus much is euident against Secctaries for do not they make their own Doctrin of their Caen◠Not alwaies so inscripture as Sectaries grant or Sacrament when they call it à Sign à Figure c. more plain than any words are for it in Holy writ And will they not also grant T' is an Argument ad hominem that our Catholick Tenet of this sacred Mystery laid forth in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. is more express and plain Popery than lies couched in Christs own words This is my body Though the Popery is there clear enough to euery Reader Yes most assuredly For if our Doctrin stand as plain in Christs words as in the Churches Definition drawn from thence Sectaries cannot as they do admit of the one and scornfully reiect the other Therefore they must suppose Scripture more dark and obscure than either their own or our Churches Doctrin is And hence it followes that the very Arians were not so much Hereticks vpon the account that they opposed any most clear and express sentence in Holy writ for really it 's hard to find one manifestly express against them as for contradicting plain Church Doctrin or the true sense of Scripture deliuered by this Oracle of truth Their Heresy then proceeded first from some words in Scripture seemingly clear in their behalf as My Father is greater than 1. 2. From no Text so manifest but that still place was left them to Why the Arians were accounted Heretiques Glosse as they haue done and in their Iudgements with some appearrance of truth yet Hereticks they were and so deseruedly accounted of for contradicting the Church's clear Doctrin Be it how you will thus much I am sure of They neuer mangled or misused any passage in holy Writ when contrary to their Heresy more shamfully than our Protestants now mangle and abuse our Sauiours Proposition This is my body 7. By all you see this Principle well grounded Whateuer Clarity Scripture hath chiefly in Matters of controuersy and clarity helps much in the Rule of Faith Gods true Church which cannot but speak the Scriptures sense in euery particular deliuers it most clearly Wherefore S. Austin told Manicheus Tom 6. contra Epist Fundam C. 14. That if hee was to belieue the obscure Mysteries of Christianity Hee would assent to them vpon the weighty Authority of People and Nations celebrated and spread abroad By the consent of all learned and vnlearned which consent implies the vniuersal Agreement of the Catholick Church And to establish this Doctrin more firmly He assures vs. Tract 18. in Ioan That all Heresy which intangles souls and cast's them into Hell S. Austins Iudgement concerning Scripture proceed's from this one misery that Good Scripture is not rightly vnderstood by them Hence also Hee told vs aboue Lib. 1. contra Crescon C. 32. That if any doubt arise concerning the obscurity of Scripture we are to haue recourse to Christs holy Church and receiue from Her satisfaction To which purpose S. Cyprian speaks most piously Lib. de Vnit Ecclesiae illius lacté nutrimur Spiritu eius animamur adulterari non potest sponsa Christi We are nourished by the milk we are animated by the Spirit of this faithful Spouse of Christ which cannot play the Harlot or become an Adulteress 8. The last Principle The Rule of Faith is plain or its own Self-euidence apt of its own nature to conuince the most obstinate Aduersary whether Iew Gentil or Heretick And for this reason must be immediatly credible by it Self and for it self otherwise it must suppose an other distinct Rule yet more plain more euident more conuincing and more immediatly credible And that Rule à third à fourth And so in infinitum which is impossible Again the Obiectiue Rule we Shall now speak of Answer 's to the thing regulated by it which is true certain and Diuine Faith This Rule then must not only be true and certain in it self but also certainly applyed to Belieuers For à certain What the Rule of Faith implies Rule in it self dubiously applyed to an vnderstanding auail's only to leaue all in Suspence and lead's none to any further Acquiescency but to à wauering and vncertain Opinion And this is neither suitable to firm Belief nor to the Rule it self which ought to establish vs in Gods reuealed truths without doubt and hesitancy Grant this Notion of à Rule to be exact and none shall iustly except against it All we haue said aboue of the Scriptures Insufficiency to regulate Faith or to decide controuersies is no less than à Demonstration against Sectaries Whereof see more in the other Treatise Disc 2. per totum Scripture Certainly is not plain in all things necessary to be belieued for were the true sense of it which indeed is only Scripture as plain and indisputably clear for the Arians or Protestants in euery particular controuersy as their Doctrin is plainly deliuered by them Or contrariwise were the sense of it as plain and indisputably clear for the Catholick Doctrin in Matters of debate as the very Doctrin is taught by the Church All Contention would soon cease because either They vpon the Supposition
must become Papists or wee turn Arians and Protestants Or finally be forced to deny plain Scripture A most conuincing Argument 9. The difficulty therefore is not and Sectaries seldom touchit whether Scripture be true were the sense known or out of Controuersy but what that true sense is which lies in obscurity and cannot be known without à certain Interpreter Here is the only Question debated between vs and Sectaries One may The only difficulty concerning Scripture Reply It is no good obiection to say learned men differ about the sense of Scripture Ergo it is not sufficiently plain because à great wit may wrest the plainest words God euer spake to à sinister sense Contra. 1. But who knowes when two learned Parties contest in this Matter which of them is the sinister Wrester Contra 2. When à whole Society of men as the Arians were and Protestants are now Tamper with à Text which touches an essential point of Faith And dissent from others as learned as Themselues about the meaning The sense cannot be supposed more clear for the one than the other without an other Rule certain and Definitiue Pray you say Is the sense of those words My Father is greater than I indisputably clear for the Arian Or the sense of Christs words This is my Body without controuersy clear for the Protestants Doctrin concerning the Sacrament when à whole learned Church opposeth both Euidently No. Therefore Sectaries must acknowledge an Obscurity in Scripture our Nouellists must grant that Scripture is not only obscure in these two places But more That à Iudge is necessary to ascertain all of its true meaning as well in these as in à hundred other Passages Again if Scripture want this clarity it cannot be its own Self-euidence much less conuince an obdurate Aduersary Nay I say though it were clear and the sense thereof agreed on by all called Christians yet both Iewes and Gentils scorn the Diuinity of the book And say if 't be of Diuine inspiration That must be proued by à certain Rule extrinsecal to Scripture Therefore it is not immediatly credible by it self or for it self Lastly were Scripture plain in it self yet And this vtterly ruin's Sectaries The certain Doctrin of it can neuer be applyed indubitably to any vnderstanding For our Nouellists say because all Teachers of Christian Doctrin are fallible none can make an infallible Application of it to any or teaeh that Doctrin infallibly which is in it self infallible See more hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. and C. 4. N. S. 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 1. THe true Church of Christ in this present State manifestly demonstrable by signal Marks and Motiues is the only plain certain Self-euident Rule of Faith apt to conuince the most obdurate Vnbelieuer It is immediatly credible and the Doctrin of it certainly applyed to à Seeker after truth These Assertions stand firm vpon 3. Principles 2. 1. Christ Iesus has prouided Christians of à clear and easy Rule otherwise All are left in darknes and know not what or how to belieue 3. 2. Nothing assigned by Sectaries Bee it Scripture solely or what els Imaginable Carries so much as à weak probability of being à Rule so plain easy and satisfactory as the true Church is 4. 3. All the properties of à Rule exactly agree to the Church of Christ and to Her only 1. The Rule of Faith is plain Christs Church is the Rule of Faith so is Church Doctrin and much more plain than Scripture I mean we easily vnderstand what the Church teaches though the Doctrin in it self be difficult 2. A Rule is its own Self-euidence so the Church is taken with the Marks and Motiues whereby She is demonstrated 3. A Rule is apt to conuince the most obstinate Aduersaries Christs Church has euidently don so witness the innumerable Conuersions wrought by Her vpon Iewes Gentils and most obdurate Hereticks 4. A Rule must be certain and certainly applyed to Belieuers what Christs true Church teaches is so for She is Gods own Oracle as shall be proued hereafter and teaches her Children infallibly The Truth of these particulars will be more fully laid forth in the sequele of this Discourse In the mean while two things are to be cleared The first what we vnderstand by the Church of Christ 2. How and by what means She may be known Thus much done we shall easily find out those Christians who are Members of this happy Society or essentially constitute that visible moral Body called the Holy Catholick Church What is meant by the Church 5. Concerning the first We speak plainly and vnderstand by the Church à visible Society of true Belieuers vnited in one profession of Christian Faith and the communication of Sacraments vnder the Conduct and Gouerment of Christ's lawful Commissioned Pastors I say no more yet hoping no Sectary can iustly quarrel with the Notion of à Church expressed in such general Terms And therefore waue at present that other worn-out controuersy agitated by Protestants viz. Whether the Predestinate only make vp the true Church or great Sinners also may be included That is not at all to our purpose now when we only seek after à Society of Christians vnited in the true Faith of Jesus Christ who owne à due submission to lawful Commissioned Pastors whether those who teach or are taught be Saints or sinners concerns them t' is true but not our present Question Of such Belieuers there cannot be two or more Churches but one only And to auoid all confusion or the mingling of different Questions together we here moue no doubt concerning the Head The meaning of the question proposed or chief Authority of this Church but immediattly Ask whether there is now and has euer been since Christs time à visible diffused Society of Christians who haue faithfully belieued the Orthodox Doctrin of Christ and vpon that Account well merit to be called the Professors of the true Catholick Church Of this Vniuersal spread Society our Sauiour spake most clearly or of none Hell gates Can not preuail against it The Spirit of Truth abides with it to the end of the world c. I think no Sectary will deny such à Church 6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and large diffused Body of Christians vnited in one true Faith and the sincere Worship of God And nothing is more consonant to reason more express in Holy Writ or more clearly asserted by the ancient Fathers than that the true Church laies forth Her own euidence or clear Discernibility whereby She is distinguished from all Heretical Sects That is She lies manifestly open to all eyes and Cannot but bee most easily known She is à Ciâ—â—y built vpon à mountain The light of the world A
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
Principles are here Supposed First that the Markes of the Protestant Church or of its Doctrin lie as these men will haue it in the Purity of Scripture only 2. That their Church Doctrin is either contained in the 39. Articles or implies so much as all called Christians Belieue and no more Though plain Hereticks in many particular Tenets 3. That this Protestant Community as it Teaches is either the whole Church of Christ excluding other Societies or only à Part of the vniuersal Church These Principles Supposed you haue my Demonstration 14. Scripture Marks the true Doctrin of Christs Church but it neither mentioneth nor marks out the Doctrin contained in the 39 Articles for our newer men call these inferiour Truths only And hold them not Registred in God's word Neither doth it Assert so much as darkly that à Mixture of Truth and Falshood such as all Hereticks haue owned and do own is the Doctrin of the true Catholick Church Least of all That à Doctrin common to Arians Protestants and Catholicks is sufficient Scripture disowns Protestancy to Saluation Lastly it saith no where that the Protestant Church containing that reformed Doctrin is by it Self the whole true Church of Christ excluding all other Societies nor so much as à Part of it And this I proue 15 If as reformed it be à Part of the true Catholick Church the Professors of it haue now and had before Luther some Partners who ioyn'd with them in the belief of their reformed Doctrin But before Luther they had not one sole man in the world that belieued as they belieue and so wanted fellowship because neither they nor their Partners were at all in Being Now at this instant they haue no Society of men called à Church run ouer all the world which side 's with them or hold's either the. 39. Articles or à Doctrin common to all Christians to be the true Doctrin of Christ or of his vniuersal Church All this I say is euident And. 16. Hence you see in what plight these men are who pretend to à Church marked and made euident by Scripture and A clear inference against Sectaries when they haue that sacred Book in their hands it is impossible to find so much as one Sentence or syllable in behalfe of Protestancy Those other exteriour Signes of Conuersions Miracles Antiquity c. are of no Account with them And were they otherwise most euidently they belong not to the reformed Doctrin of the English Church Here is à piece of sad newes for Sectaries who haue à Church neither Spoken of in Scripture nor manifested to Reason by one Supernatural wonder So vneuidenced à Thing it is And Consequently vpon à double Account no Church at all 17. The Sectary may reply When he Asserts Scripture Marks the true Church or Her Doctrin the meaning is not that it speak's expresly the Tenets of Protestants but only Saies it is à sufficient Repository of all things necessary to Saluation and deliuers so much plainly What euer therefore is not plainly taught in scripture ceaseth to be necessary Contra. 1. Protestants A Reply Answered granting thus much may seek long before they find Their particular Tenets because Scripture deliuers none of them either expresly or by any clear Deduction Contra. 2. The Iew and Heathen regard not the plainest Truths in Holy Writ before the book be proued Diuine The most plain Verities auaile nothing with them Yet God hath afforded means to draw them to Christianity But it seem's our Sectaries in all their talk of the Scriptures clarity neuer reflect on these Strangers from Christ nor point at the means whereby their Conuersion may bee wrought Contra. 3. The Arian and the Orthodox as highly differ about the sense of plain Scripture as the Protestant and Catholick about the sense of Christs own words This is my body And these differences either touch on fundamental Matters or there are none such in the whole Bible Contra. 4. The Protestant only tells vs what he saith of all things necessary contained in Scripture and speak's his own Sentiment boldly without either proof or Principle 18. Some obiect first God can endite à Book in as plain An Obiection solued words as any man can speak and t' is not supposed that he affected obscurity in his own Scripture already written Contra. 1. If Scripture be not obscure How is it That Christ told the Saduces they mistook the true meaning of it How is it that these Protestant Pillars Luther and Caluin so grosly contradict one an other in their Commentaries made vpon holy Scripture And this in points most material How is it that innumerable others called Christians Professe to reuerence to Read to spend the greatest labour vpon Scripture and when all is done draw out of it plain Contradictions in points as is nâ—w said most Fundamental Contra. 2. We question not what God can do but say he hath not endited Scripture plain de facto S. Peter Epist 2. 3. 16. Speaking of S. Pauls Epistles is my warrant In which saith he Certain things are hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue as also the rest of Scripture to their own perdition And the words relate not only to the Mysterious Matters whereof the Apostle wrote but to his Phrase and forme of writing also Therefore the Greeck Copies haue both in which things and in which Epistles And all Expositors hitherto euen S. Austin haue acknowledged an obscure way of speaking in S. Pauls Epistles chiefly in that to the Romans Yet we are not to say that Truth expressed without harshness God affects Obscurity the word is vnmeet but speak thus His prouidence purposely would haue Scripture deliuered in such à dark manner that all might haue recourse to à liuing Oracle His true Church which speaks more plainly and cannot swerue from any verity in Scripture No offence is giuen to pious ears In à word you haue à Verity expressed with out harshness See S. Austin lib. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 6. And S. Ambrose Epist 44. Again vote Scripture most plain what gain Sectaries by the Clarity when they neither haue plain nor obscure Text through the whole Bible for their Protestancy 19. Hence we Answer to an other petty obiection Scripture say some relates many Things not necessary to Saluation Therefore it cannot be supposed to omit things necessary Contra 1. Ergo it speak's some things of pure Protesstancy or nothing in that Religion as reformed is necessary to Saluation I would willingly haue an express Text for this reformed Nouelty and these few difficulties solued Contra. 2. Though the whole Bible were without dispute most plain or told vs all things necessary yet this neither moues Iew nor Gentil nor drawes any to Christianity without further light as is already proued We haue shown aboue how Scripture contain's all things necessary in the Reflex Part thereof It is now our Task and intent to Mark out the true
Church of Christ the only Rule of Faith which decides all Controuersies Concerning Religion CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ was is and shall euer be the Holy Apostolical and Catbolick Roman Church Her Antiquity and Constant Perseuerance in the Ancient primitiue Doctrin without Alteration proues The Assertion 1. IT is hard to illustrate à manifest Truth because what euer reasons are brought to light for it surpass not much the Euidence of the thing you would make clear Who euer goes about to proue by Arguments that the Sun is the most luminous Body in the Heauens will haue much to do because that 's euidents to our senses and so is the true Church of Christ saith S. Austin digito demonstrari potest She can be pointed at with your finger Origen adds Hom. 33. in Matth. She is like à sun casting her beams from one part of the world to the other Howeuer because we now treat with men who either see not or pretend not to see I will giue them all the Euidence gathered from demonstratiue Signes which à heart can wish for 2. I say first before we come to more conuincing Arguments Antiquity is à certain Note of Christ Church The reason is As God was before the Diuel and Truth before falshood So the Orthodox Church whether you take it from Adam or Antiquity denotes the true Church from the first preaching of Christian Doctrin was before all Sects and Heresies The Roman Catholick Church only which Christ founded and is so much extolled by the Apostle has this Precedency It was when the Arians were not we know their first Rise it was when the Pelagians were not we know their Beginning it was when rhe Donatists were not their Origen is as well known as that of Protestants which first peeped out with one unfortunate Luther something aboue an age since Might not then the Roman Catholick Church more ancient than all these Sectaries haue most justly questioned each of them at their first appearance as the learned Tertullian Lib de Prescrip did those of His time Qui estis vos who are you new men Vnde quando venistis From whence came you Vbi tam diu latuistis Where haue ye been hid so long No body yet saw you or heard of you I waue the Testimonies of other Fathers chiefly of S. Austin and S. Hierome though none presses this Argument drawn from Antiquity with greater efficacy than Optatus Meliuitan Lib 2. contra Parmeâ—an They are known to euery one But this Mark must not goe alone 3. I say 2. Antiquity and à neuer interrupted Continuance The Church once true neuer Changed her Doctrin of the same Visible Society Age after Age and the same Doctrin vpheld without change or Alteration clearly euidences Christs Church This Scripture strongly Asserts Osee 2. where the Church is said to be espoused to Christ in Sempiternum for euer Math 16. Hell gates shall neuer preuail against it Math. 28. Christ will be with it to the end of the world vpon which Passage S. Hierome speaks most clearly Qui vsque ad consummationeâ— sae 〈…〉 c. He who promised to be with his own Disciples to the end â—f Authority â—nd the world both showes that these blessed men shall euer liue in their successors And that he will not depart from the true Belieuers Videtur sicut luna c. They are words of S. Ambrose lib 4. Hexam The Church may be seen like the moon eclipsed but neuer perisheâ— She may be clouded and ouer cast with darknes but cannot fail The reason is If Christs Church could fail not only all memory Reason proue the Assertion of his sacred Passion with the other Mysteries of our Faith but the whole Scripture also would for that time of her supposed Deficiency haue been no obiects of Belief None could then haue said with truth I belieue the Holy Catholick Church or haue had Access to it because it was not then in Being Now further As the Church cannot fail so She cannot Alter from her self or change Christs Doctrin For if She did so She were no more Orthodox Christ could not own Her for his Spouse Ponder S. Austins Discourse on this subiect in Psal 101. Existâ—â—t qui dicunt c. There are some who say This is not the Church of all nations which once was No. That 's gone and thus they Speak saith the Saint because they are not of the true Church O impudentem S. Austins Iudgement vocem illa non est quia tu in illa non es O impudent speech it is not the same Church it was because thou art not in it Vide ne tu ideo non Sis. look to thy self least thou be not for the Church will be although thou were not in the world Then he decries this Doctrin of the Churches failure as most abominable detestable and pernicious And in Psalm 60. positiuely Asserts the permanency of it to the end of the world 4. Hence I argue But the Roman Catholick Church only hath euer continued in being without interruption and neuer The probation vrged changed or Altered the Doctrin which She first learned of Christ Protestancy which began one only Age since most euidently wants this continuance and euery year put 's on à new countenance Therefore the Roman Catholick Church and not that of Protestants is the Spouse of Christ That the Roman Catholick Church stood permanently in being euer since Christ is as demonstrable as that Protestants were not before Luther The Visible perpetual Succession of our Popes of our Bishops of our Pastors and of our Catholick People in all ages is an irrefragable Proof Neither do Sectaries much cauil at this Personal Succession or the exteriour Permanency of our Church for What Sectaries obiect that 's euident But here is their Plea This Church say they once Orthodox changed from her selfe forged new Articles of faith Contrary to the primitiue Doctrin Herein lies the great Charge Now if I demonstrate that the Roman Catholick Church once confessedly Orthodox hath euer since been Visible in the world and neuer swerued from the pure Primitiue Doctrin in after Ages She is certainly the Church of Christ still without Alteration You will Ask how can this be euinced 5. Some may think 't is best done by Paralleling our present known Church Doctrin with that of the Primitiue Times Very good But by what means shall we come to à right Parallel One may Say Make A diligent Inspection into the Records and Writings of those worthy Fathers who liued in the first Ages And all is done I Answer This Rule precisely considered help 's nothing For what if those Fathers neuer medled with most of the Controuersies now agitated between vs and Sectaries And t' is no wonder at all if they did not For may not à new Sort of Hereticks rise vp to morrow whose Errours neuer entred into the thoughts either of the
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.
neuer censured Church be Supposed guilty after the whole world held her blamless and has iudged well of Her condemnations pas't vpon Hereticks Compare I say the Authority of the Church time out of mind proued Innocent with the Authority of Hereticks known most guilty There can be no Parallel may we precisely respect Authority Wherefore if the Opposition of Hereticks hath any force Their charge against the Church must stand vpon Strong proofs and sound Principles distinct from Their own voting Her Delinquent These Principles we seek for in all our Disputes with Protestants yet hitherto neuer heard of Any and belieue it Wee hold their own Authority of no greater weight than that of Arians or of any other condemned Hereticks 8. Others quite driuen off all ground of rational Arguing will needs fasten Errours vpon our Church because forsooth in such an Age the 9 th For example after Christ or There about some Popes were less good and People much debauched An other simple Plea Then most likely was the Nick of time Say these to bring in Transubstantiation the Popes Supremacy and what other Errour you will Answ A most pitiful Plea not worth the paper it blot's I shall not so much refute it for it merit 's not the labour As Shew how it destroyes the Belief of all Christian Religion 9. Pray you consider Christianity in the greatest Latitude Imaginable Call Arians Donatists Protestants And Catholicks also Christians Grant which is true that there haue been very wicked men amongst these different Professors I say if this Argument haue weight Some few Popes and many People were not good for one Age chiefly Ergo debauchery in manners more then probably brought in false Doctrins vnder the Notion of Christian Truths A Iew or Gentil may Argue as well and infer that Viciousness of life hath destroyed all Truth among Christians if euer They had any For why should lewdness haue less force to Subuert all Truth taught by the Church of Rome than some only It hath say Sectaries brought in much Errour Therefore saith the Iew it may as well haue corrupted all Christ Doctrin 10. To reinforce this Argument I told you aboue if the Church of Rome had but once proposed one Article to be belieued by Diuine Faith which is false She is not to be reiected and proued unreasonable credited in any thing If you Reply it is euident That though false in many Tenets She yet taught some Articles true As that Christ is our Redeemer The Iew Answers and so do I too She Taught and teaches so still but that This is Truth if debauchery of life bee ineuitably connexed with false Doctrin shall neuer be made Probable For this Church is either entierly sound in Doctrin or Entirely deluded One may Say Scripture is euidently plain for some Primary Articles of Christian belief Answ The Iew scorn's the Reply and maintain's this Truth as I also do If it be once proued that the Church of Rome imposed on the Christian world Falshood in place of Truth Transubstantiation The Sacrifice on the Altar c. She may as easily haue corrupted the whole Bible and made that Book false in à hundred important Passages whereof enough is said in the other Treatise No true Church Therefore no Probability of true Scripture 11. Let vs now proceed to others called Christians the most known Arch-hereticks you will haue the same Conclusion Arius for example à stubborn proud Fellow had many Associates like Himself yea and certainly taught some Doctrins false Therefore Saith the Iew All He deliuered was false also The Diuel learned Luther to broach His new Gospel and the mans enormous Viciousness is known to the world by as credible Authors as Platina or Nico de Clemangijs who make Popes and People so impious Therefore all that Luther taught cannot but bee vpon the Argument proposed most iustly excepted against An other Simple Argument reiected as pernicious Doctrin For gross Errours like à Torrent follow Deprauation in manners Caluins Pride Deceipt and Cousenage to say nothing of that hidious Sin for which he was branded are vpon Record And all know what Rebellion what tragical Doings ensued vpon the wicked mans Apostasy Who then can harbour so much as à good thought of any Doctrin He taught euen that Christ dyed for vs Hence saith the Iew if Wickednes of life and Errours in Doctrin be such inseparable Companions And all Sects or Religions nameable haue had Professors wicked Farewel Christianity yea and Christ Himself also For if the Impiety of some lead's Erroneous Doctrins into à whole Moral Body that one crying Sin of Iudas might more easily haue corrupted the First Apostolical Colledge smal in Number Than the incomparable lesse defects of Popes depraue the great Moral Body of the Church O but Christ secured the other Apostles from Errour Answ So he doth his Church And the Iew will as soon belieue the one as the other who Argues thus 12. Christianity was neuer without Sin Ergo neuer without Errour if the Argumâ—nt haue force When Therefore these new men Say Wickedness of life Compared with the losse of Faith Gods Prouidence seem's equally concerned to preserue the Church from things equally Pernicious But viciousnes of life is as pernicious to Christianity and as destructâ—ue to the End of it as Errours in Doctrin They know not what they Say The Argument is euery way defectiue 13. First it s vtterly False that Wickednes is so pernicious as Errours against Christian Doctrin For Errours destroies Faith the ground of Saluation and immedeatly opposeth Gods Infinite Veracity Wickednes in Manners destroies Grace and other Supernatural virtues yet leaues the Foundation vnshaken Again By what law do these men Suppose that God preserued not his Church Holy in those dayes Doth it follow because some were wicked that She lost all Sanctity Will they Say if the English Church had euer Sanctity in it All vanished into Smoak in the late dissentions and deplorable Tumults There were neuer such Doings at Rome in the worst of daies as England then Shewed to the world O but there were then many Holy and Godly men that suffered Be it so at present I loue not to recriminate For one of yours Holy we had Thousands in that Particular Abuse can not unhallow the Church Age you except against the whole world ouer in England Germany Spain France Denmark c. most humble pious virtuous and profoundly learned What do you think that à few Abuses in Italy not half so bad as you make them can Vnhallow an ample Church Yet here lies the Strength of your weak Argument The iniquity of some chiefly of Popes and Prelates ruins not sanctity only But moreouer induceth Errour into the whole Moral Body of Christ You iust proceed as if One should atattempt to proue that à goodly Building which yet visibly stands fair to the Eye and firm on Sure foundations is all shattered and pulled down
because you can lead à man to the By-places of it and show him in it some Nastiness The Instance is most Pertinent You find filth Here and there in the fair House of God and though there be more of it before your own doores yet your Church must be supposed Holy and Orthodox And ours contrarywise false and impious 14. But I wonder nothing at this lame way of Arguing Lewdness of life in some not in all sorts of men as is vainly Supposed Vnsanctifies the Church and bring 's in Errour c. For iust so Hereticks of old Argued against Catholicks Read S. Austin Sectaries argue like Heretickes of old Tom. 7 ad liter Petiliani lib. 2. Through his seueral Chapters chiefly Chap. 39. Petilianus obiected as these men do And I will Answer as S. Austin did There is no bitternes in hony nor dross with pure gold Saith Petilianus We Donatists are the purified gold you Catholicks full of bitternes and dross c. S. Austin Answer 's This is to Vapour like à mad man And to proue nothing Attendis zizama Thou attends't to the Cockle only and not to the wheat As who should say though some be yet all are not wicked Thou considers't the Seed of the Enemy sowen in the world and regards't not the seed of Abraham in whom all Nations shall be blessed Quasi vero vos iam sâ—is massa purgata Thou talks't as if ye forsooth were only the purged Mass of men the sweet hony the pure gold the refined oyle and none but you It is not so There is much naughtines among you And the saint showes wherein it was 15. In like manner one might easily lay forth the lewdnes the Hypocrisy of no few Sectaries were it not that S. Austin teaches vs to vse better Arguments and therefore C. 32. Saith How S. Austin argues against the Donatists Paciscamur ergo c. Let vs agree on this That thou neither Obiect to me our wicked men nor I thine to Thee This bargain once made thou will haue nothing to Say against that seed of Abraham now diffused ouer all Nations But Petilianus I shall press thee with an insoluable Argument and Ask Why yee Donatists haue impiously Separated your Selues from the seed of Abraham or that Catholick Church wherein all Nations are blessed And thus we vrge Protestants 16. Again Chap. 51. Petilianus obiected Ye Catholicks lay Claim to S. Peters Chaire the See of Rome I call that saith he in the words of the Prophet Cathedram Pestilentiae The See of pestilence And do not Protestants speak thus irreuerently of the Roman Chaire and Church also Both Argue alike S Austin Answers Haec non vides Dos't not thou see that all thou alleges't here is à meer lying Calumny For though thou may reproach some yet all are not guilty of the Crimes imputed to them I will auouch more Adds the Saint Si omnes per totum orbem tales essent quales vanissimè Criminaris c. If all the Bishops the whole world ouer were as bad as thou fanciest what wrong hath the Chair of S. Peter or the Church either done thee If thou perswade thy Self that those who deliuer the law do not exactly comply with it know that our Lord Iesus speaking of the Pharisies lonâ— since silenced thee Dicunt non faiunt They say but do not If then thou woulds't diffame either Church or See because men in works are not answerable to their words thou knowes't not what to say but only to reproach without Reason Thus and much more Blessed S. Austin and He ouerthrowes our Aduersaries whole Plea by it Though I verily hold them no such strangers to common reason but that they saw well the Argument The Sectary Cannot but see his Argument void of force already proposed enormously impertinent to proue either the See of Rome or that Church impious or erroneous in Doctrin 17. The true Reason of foysting in such simple stuff is an itching to Cauil because they can not closely dispute against Catholick Doctrin vpon rational Principles hauing none to vrge against vs. What remains but to scratch it is à late strain got in among them and to rub vpon old soares the personal defects of others abroad whilst God knowes they haue more festered wounds to look on and launce in their own Brethren at home Thus I say they must nip and taunt or write no more Controuersies Though it is done to their own Confusion For suppose all were true which is said of lewd and wicked men in the Church as in real Truth the half is not yet the impiety of these men Why sectaries bring to light such simple Stuffe neuer came to that height as to make vpon such Cauils the pure Spouse of Christ à Harlot on Frontlesly to impeach Her of Errour or quite to desert Her as our Nouellists haue done most shamefully No Though wicked they know well that Cockle growes vp in the same field with good Corn and that the Sin of some may stand with the Sanctity of many in the Mystical body of Christ The Haruest as the Gospel and S. Austin teach is to Winnow all and to Make the Separation But enough and more then enough of this slight and forceless Obiection 18. I haue yet one word to say of errours wrongfully Charged on vs. Were this Supposition true that the Roman Catholick Church had Apostated so shamefully in any Age as Sectaries Imagin Had She been made of à beautiful Spouse à harlot Had She fallen from the primitiue Truths into false Doctrin And consequenâ—ly Cheated Christians into Falsities for à thousand years together Christ Iesus our Lord had been obliged by virtue of A Reflection for Sectaries his promise already made in Scripture to haue appeared Again To haue sent an Angel from Heauen Or to haue vsed some other extraordinary means to establish his Church à new to raise vp the walles of his now Supposed ruined Hierusalem which he built so slightly that it all fell down in the short Compass of three or four Ages I say All For if the Church be false in one Article I can trust it in nothing The Promises in Scripture of Hell gates not preuailing against the Church of Christ's being with Her to the end of the world are manifest Yet now vpon the Supposition Hell and Heresy haue destroied the whole Building and He Blessed Lord look'd on saw his own work defaced yet after all his Engagements of preseruing it in Being repaired nothing These are harsh Heretical Paradoxes vnfit for Christians to hear yet the Sectary will he nill he must own them to his Confusion 19. To establish more this great Truth That the Doctrin of our Church is at this day the same with the Primitiue I might well Argue from the Confession of our Aduersaries Luther Chiefly and Caluin who grant so much in many particulars As that of Merit of Free will Limbus Patrum c. But withall
all This as S Austin anciently obserued vpon à like occasion is the greatest Wonder of all That he conuerted innumerable Heathens to our Christian Faith without Miracles CHAP. VIII Miracles euident in the Roman Catholick Church No less induce All now to belieue Her Doctrin Than Apostolical Miracles Anciently Perswaded to belieue that Primitiue Doctrin The Denial of Miracles Impossibiliâ—at's The Conuersion of Iewes and Infidels 1. I I say first Clear and Vnquestionable Miracles of the like Quality with those which Christ and his Apostles wrought haue been euer since most gloriously manifest in the Roman Catholick Church And in no other Society of Christians I hope none for Proof of my Assertion can expect that I write Volumes or bring to light again in this short Treatise so much as the hundred Part of those prodigious wonders which are vpon Record in the liues of Saints in the death of Martyrs and Ecclesiastical History Baronius large Tomes giue you innumerable in euery Century And Bellar Lib 4. de not is Eccle C. 14. Hint's at à few from the first Age to the 15. I must waue this longer work and briefly Argue thus 2. Christ Spake Truth in the Text now cited Iohn 14. 12. Prophesying of future glorious Miracles to be wrought by those vvho belieued Indubitable Miracles euince Christs Prophesy fulfilled in him But the indubitable Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church only through euery age proue that Prophesy exactly fulfilled or effectually Euidence the Verity of it Therefore none can doubt of Miracles done in the Roman Catholick Church if Christs Prediction be true and this Proposition be also proued viz. That This Church only hath effectually manifested the truth of that Prophesy or shewn such Wonders as haue proportion with Christs own glorious works and the Apostles 3. Now to clear the Truth Here is my Principle When I read à Prophesy in Scripture I submit to it by Faith but when I See it actually Accomplished or made manifest by real visible Effects And both Sense and vndoubted History discouer so much euidently Reason grounded on Sense and History Can not but prudently assent to the Verity What I would say is clear in all the Ancient Prophesies of Christ and his Church Take this one instance The Prophets Daniel chiefly and Esay Foretold of the large Extent of Christs glorious Kingdom here on earth of The Principle whereon our Asserâ—ion is grounded whole Nations flocking to his Church of Her teaching those Truths which were belieued from the Beginning But when all saw with their eyes innumerable Heathens gained to our Christian Faith and heard of other Conuersions conueyed to them vpon certain Relation for few or none of vs saw the latter Conuersions wrought in China Iapan and the like remote places when I say Authority neuer Questioned giues vs certainty hereof Then all bless God And conclude That what the Prophets fortold of great Conuersions hath been visibly fulfilled And that Christs Church is dayly more and more enlarged Answerable to those Predictions 4. Hence I discourse further and Assert that the glorious Miracles which stand vpon indubitable Record and haue been done in the Roman Church only most notoriously Euidence without Dispute the actual Accomplisment of our Sauiours own words The works which I do he shall do also and greater than these shall he do If you Ask how I proue the Assertion I appeal to Sense and certain History Sense first saw these Miracles done and certain History which Supplies the want of Sense conueyes them to vs though innumerable are liuing at this Hour who haue been eye Witnesses of Miracles Now here we might enter vpon à long work and Recount what the Fathers and Historians both ancient and latter haue of this Subiect Read if you please these few 5. Irenaeus Bishop and Martyr who liued about the year 180. lib 2. Cap. 57. And saies The number of these Diuine works which God hath manifested in his Church the whole Fathers produced witnesses of Miracles world ouer are numberles A little before He mentions these particulars Some cast out Diuels other Prophesy others lay their hands on the sick and cure them yea and raise vp the dead who lined with vs for many years Tertullian of the second Age Lib. ad Scapul And Euseb lib. 5. giue you à large Catologue of most glorious Miracles The like doth S. Bafil Lib. de Spir S. Speaking of that worthy Bishop of Neocaesarea S. Gregory deseruedly called Thaâ—maturgus for the wonders he wrought S. Athanasius and S. Hierom relate the Miracles of S. Hilarion S. Martin And the same 's Hierome Lib. aduersus Vigelantium c. 4. Saith that the Signes and wonders manifested in the Temples of Martyrs proue mightily beneficial both to Belieuers and the Incredulous Responde they S. Hieromes words are his words Quomodo in Vilissimo pulucre c. Answer Vigilantius how it is that we see such Signes and virtue present in à little vnualuable dust and dead mens ashes S. Ambrose an Eye-witness of Miracles wrought by the Reliques of S. Geruasius and S. Ambrose an lye witness Protafius Epâ—st 85. for proof of them Appeal's to sense and the Iudgement of others You haue known saith He Nay you haue seen many dispossesed of Diuels many when they touched the garments of Saints free'd from their Infirmities c. S. Austin Lib. 22. de Ciuit C. 8. 9. Is large in relating the Miracles wrought by the glorious S. Austins Euidence Martyr S. Stephen And Lib. Contra. Epist. Fundam C. 4 5. Saith That the true Church of Christ is proued and demonstrated by Miracles Our Venerable Bede à great Scholler à worthy vertuous man And highly esteemed the whole Christian world ouer certainly deserues credit when Lib. 4. Histor He recount's the Miracles of the glorious S. Cuthbert Bishop of Lindesfern and of others within our England Are any such seen now à dayes wrought by Protestant Bishops No God knowes Their new Faith is à great stranger to all old Miracles 6. Fall if you please lower and read S. Bernard in the life of S. Malachy à worthy Bishop of Ireland what wonders haue we there The ancient Miracles of the Church Saith S. Bernard were apparently manifest in S. Malachy He had the gift of Prophesy S. Bernard in the Life of S. Malachy Cured the Sick changed the minds of men to the better and raised vp the dead Now if you will hear of S. Bernards own Miracles Read Godfridus who liued with him Lib. 4. C. 4. and wrote His life you haue innumerable T' is hard saith Bellarmin to Recount all And as numberles are the known Miracles of those two admirable Saints Blessed S. Dominick and the Seraphical S. Francis Founders of two most glorious Religious Orders S. Francis To omit his other certain wonders was Himself à Miracle of Austerity and Pennance The like was S. Dominick who as we read in his life raised three dead men
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
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
they so Confidently gaue out That hee should lose his life at Iapan and dye à Martyr Reflect I The Calumny reiected The Miracle proued true beseech you Had it not been in the highest measure imprudent nay more than à foolish Presumption of those Fathers to haue filled all mens eares with that Prophetical Speech vpon meer future vncertainties The performance whereof all know well was liable to à thousand Disasters and Casualities in that immense voyage from Europe to the furthest parts of the world Speak impartially How easily Might Marcellus none of the strongest Constitutions haue dyed in the way What if Pirates had seized on the Ship and cast him ouer board What if the Vessel had perished by Tempest with the virtuous Man and other Passengers How much scorned would the Fathers haue been who certainly were neuer so strangely besotted as to expose themselues and the reputation of their Order to à publick contempt vpon meer Contingencies and weak Coniectures Hence I infer They had by virtue of S. Xauerius Prophesy à high Moral Assurance of the euent The Prophesy spoken some years before Marcellus his Martyrdom was true And the real Effect of his death proued it true neither Diuel nor Mortal man could certainly foretel Things so remote and yet God wrought the Miracle to come God therefore was the Author of that Prediction And Consequently His Diuine power by the means of the Saint wrought the Miracle 30. It s high time novv to reassume vvhat I began vvith and said above When Iewes and Gentils read our scriptures which with them may well deserue as much credit as Humane faith giues to Caesars Commentaries or any other History When they find in that Sacred book how strangely Christianity was first established and introduced by the virtue of our Sauiours glorious Wonders When they fall lower and see though still vpon Humane Faith an euident Continuance of the very like Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church through euery Age. The Conuiction is by good law so strong the The Proofs hinted at aboue vrged Proofs for vndeniable Miracles so manifest to the dullest Gentile that He may as well deny as Lipsius Saith the Sun to shine as doubt of those most glorious visible wonders vnquestionable in this one Society of Christians And this hold's true Although no more but Humane faith resting on most Certain Authority inform's vs of these Miracles For such à Faith as great Diuines Obserue often comes to so clear à degree of The weight of humane Faith Certitude that you may well call it an vndubitable kind of Euiden◠How certainly do we hold it is S. Austins Instance lib. 6. Confess C. 3. that we are born of such and such Parents How certainly do we belieue and vpon humane Authority Saith Snares Tom. 1. de Incarn Disp 31. Sect. 2. That Titus and Vespasianus destroyed Hierusalem And can any Cordial man Question if He lay preiudice aside but that true and most glorious Miracles haue been as certainly wrought in the Church as that those two Emperours destroyed Hierusalem or that such are our Parents I appeal to euery ones Conscience for Answer 31. By all now said vve see first that vvhat euer can be proposed against our Churches Miracles hath like force against Christ's ovvn glorious works And I challenge Protestants to hint but at one Argument which doth not equally strike at Sectaries iustly reprehensible And why both We see 2. How Hideous à Sin Sectaries commit who Scornfully slight all those known and most euident Miracles wrought among Christians since the Apostles times By this their vnworthy Procedure they rob Christ's Spouse of Her greatest Glory falsify His own sacred words Prophesying of greater wonders than he did And finally make the Conuersion of Ievves and Heathens to Christianity impossible For giue me à naked Church vvithout Signes without Marks vvithout Motiues inducing to truth and the most conuincing Signe of all is the Glory of Miracles Nothing remain's proposable to à poor Infidel that 's meet to conuince his Reason But the bare letter of Scripture or the essential Doctrin of the Church vvhich solely considered more affrights weak Reason naturally auerse from high Mysteries than brings it to any Submission or Acquiescency I say therefore the sin of Sectaries is grieuous Whilst Miracles are slighted by doing so they slight the Church yea Christ himself and hasten apace to Atheism CHAP. IX A word to à few Obiections as also to Mr stillingfleets vnworthy Exceptions against that euident Miracle wrought at Zaragosa in Spain 1. THe obiections are as few as fallacious and cannot be otherwise when as t' is said All of them proue as much that 's iust nothing against our Sauiours own Miracles as against those of the Roman Catholick Church To see this truth manifested and difficulties vanish into nothing be pleased to afford à little Attention 2. The Sectary may Obiect first None of vs all know One obiection what strange effects nature can produce in certain circumstances nor what Povver the Diuel has to work Miracles when therefore Scripture forwarn's vs. 2. Thess 2. Of Antichrists great Prodigies as also of False-Christs and false-Prophets appearing with Signes and wonders Matt. 24. We may iustly suspect if nature alone cannot doe such works that the Diuel had à hand in most of our Church Miracles Contra. 1. And You see Found weak and friuolous first the Argument Equally oppugn's Christs own Miracles licenceth both Iewes and Gentils to slight him as à false-Prophet and his glorious vvonders also Contra. 2. Not one of these False-Prophets once raised the dead to life nor after their own death did any thing like à Miracle as the departed Saints of Gods Church haue done most frequently by à touch of their Reliques only which Truth of mighty vveight deserues Reflexion and refutes what euer Donatist or Coniurer can say in behalf of counterfeit Miracles Contra. 3. And obserue well the Obiection None knowes what nature or the Diuel can doe c. What then I beseech you May one inferr from our not knowing the Diuels power that this euil Spirit hath actually wrought all the Miracles recorded in Scripture and Ecclesiastical History To Assert this we must not only know how farr his power reaches but more haue Assurance also Of his actually doing such Wonders And thus much manifestly improbable neither is nor can be ascertained vpon the weakest Principle within the compass of nature or grace We vsually say the Diuel appear's with à Clouen foot That is you may easily discern his Villainy And we know he neuer cast's out euil Spirits like Himself from possessed Persons which yet hath been done and frequently in God's Church Miracles aboue the power of Diuels Church He can it is true if we belieue History take vp the Deuided Parts of à dead man and act with them for à while But there is no such Motion no such Operations in the dead
assumed Corps as haue been seen in many Miraculously restored to life Be it how you will We are sure God can doe yea and hath done great Miracles when therefore all imaginable Circumstances forceably induce vs to belieue that they are his own glorious works it is I hope more wisdom to Ascribe them to an Omnipotent Power than to Father them vpon Diuels 3. Some who plainly see it s à degree of madness to doubt of so much humane faith as Testifies of Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholick Church grant many haue been done But then Obiect 2. God did them to manifest that Christ is the true Messias or to work à Belief in vs of so much Doctrin only as is Common to all Christians but not to confirm our Popish Errours of Praying to Saints Purgatory c. Contra. This Argument also impugn's our Sauiours great Miracles which were not wrought one may say to confirm all the Doctrin he taught but à Part or parcel of it only Contra. 2. If Miracles Mark out à Doctrin common to all or confirm so much truth And no more It seem's strange that Arians Pelagians and Protestants work not Miracles as frequently as the Church doth For these men own à Doctrin common to all Christians yet show none of these wonders Contra. 3. There is not one Miracles truly alleged for euery Doctrin the Church teaches Doctrin taught by our Church and held erroneous by Sectaries which is not Sealed Signed and Attested by euident Miracles We haue innumerable for Christs Real and substantial Presence in the Eucharist As many for the Inuocation of Saints as also for the Honour due to holy Reliques Innumerable proue that third place of Purgatory c. All these may good Authors deserue Credit are vpon vndoubted Record And what iust Exception haue Sectaries against so great Authority I 'le tell you Their own incredulous Humour Here is all Whereas could they speak to the cause they should giue vs weight for weight and Oppose what we Allege in behalf of Miracles vpon grounded Principles That is they Should euince positiuely that our Authors are meer Cheats and fain Stories when we read of Miracles wrought in confirmation of praying to Saints the Real Presence And this in all law of Disputation they are obliged to do vpon solid Proofs indeed distinct from their own Incredulity or à meer Saying Such Records are false But do what ye will Sectaries can neuer be driuen to dispute vpon Principles 4. A third Obiection S. Austin Lib. de Vnit Ecclesiae Saith We therefore say not we belieue because so many wonders are done all the world ouer in holy places for what euer we find in this kind Ideo sunt approbanda quia in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ fiunt are to be approued S. Austin alleged against Miracles Speak's nothing for Sectaries because they are wrought in the Catholick Church Hitherto the obiection is of no force For the Saint only Saies No new Miracles ought to gain certain credit But such only as are wrought in the Church or such as confirm Her Doctrin or finally haue the Churches Approbation Now because he disputes against the Donatists and supposeth the Church known vpon other grounds expressed in Scripture Her Vnity Chiefly and vniuersal extent ouer the world before these latter Miracles were heard of Let us Saith S. Austin waue this Plea of Miracles you Donatists allege yours and I mine and Argue by Scripture only and see what Church Scripture commend's antecedently known before these latter Miracles came to our knowledge Which is to say though the after Particular Miracles added to others formerly done may much strengthen our Faith yet absolutly How the Saint pleaded against the Donatists Speaking Faith depend's not of them Because the Church we belieue in is sufficiently manifested by Her Vnity Perpâ—tuity and Vniuersallity expressed in Scripture Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta hac firmamenta Here in sies all we haue to Say Whilst we contest with you Donatists that own Scripture with vs yet Cauil at our Miracles Who euer read's this one Chapter exactly And drawes any other sense from the whole Context than what is now briefly hinted at will much oblige me may he please to discouer it 5. One yet may Obiect S. Austin Saith more and it seem's much against vs. Non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt The Catholick Church is not vpon that Account manifested to you Donatists because these Miracles are wrought in it I Answer 1. The words vnderstood as Sectaries interpret Euert as wholly the Miracles of our Sauiour who said If you will not belieue me belieue my Works 2. The Sectaries sense impugn's also the express Doctrin of S. Austin de Vtilit Credendi C. â—7 Where He Asserts that Hereticks are condemned by the Maiesty of Miracles Besides Their sense is nothing to the purpose because in this very Passage He speak's of latter Miracles known to S. Ambrose at Millan And Saith Hee will no more insist on These than permit the Donatists to talk of their False-visions For the Church is sufficiently manifested without them vpon à Surer Principle the Holy Scripture which the Donatists admitted and therefore Why Heâ— waued the proof of Miracles with the Donatists whilst They pretended to Miracles as well as S. Austin did Hee prudently waued that Discours and Argued by Scripture only leauing Miracles to their own worth and weight I Say to their ovvn vveight which is gathered from this great Doctors Discourse 6. Our Lord Iesus saith he arose from the dead and manifested Himself to his Disciples and offered his sacred body to be touched by their hands yet least that might be thought à fallacy he iudged it meet to confirm his Resurrection more Principally by the Testimony of the law the Prophets and Psalms showing All things were now accomplished â—n him Whence I inferr as the touching his Sacred body was Proof enough though not the chiefest of his Resurrection when Scripture was at hand to make that most manifest So Miracles also The true Reason giuen wrought in the Church manifest that Oracle but not Principally to the Donatists who ought to haue belieued more firmly the Churches Doctrin vpon that one potent Proof of the Apostle 1. Tim 3. 15. The Pillar and ground of Truth than for all the latter wonders done in the Church Yet these haue à mighty force and are stronge Inducements so far as Motiues can reach but not the chief and Principal cause of any mans Belief or Assent Read then S. Austin's words thus The Church is not made manifest by her latter Miracles to à Donatist who Cauils at such wonders but Principally by Scripture which he admit's and will like Protestants be tryed by You haue the Saints full Sense and à great Truth with it whereof there can be no doubt at all when Lib. Contra Epist Fundamentâ— C. 4. 5. He Demonstrat's the Church by Her Miracles
7. To end this point between S. Austin and the Donatist as also between Catholicks and Protestants I say all Controuersies are fully tried and happily ended by Scripture only But how Not because any can pretend to find euery Tenet of Faith clearly set down in so many express Terms of holy Writ For the Protestant How Scripture decides all Controuersies pretend's not to so much in behalf of his Doctrin But thus the Orthodox discourses with S. Austin Scripture euidently points at the Church of IESVS Christ known by Her Marks and manifest Signes by Her Antiquity Her large Spread ouer the whole world by the Succession of Her Pastors and Doctors Miracles and the like Signal Motiues Thus much once clearly laid forth in the written Word that Holy Book remit's him to the Church Clearly marked commend's Her faith S. Austin and command's him to hear and learn what euer She teaches 8. Whence it is that our profound Doctor Disputing the Case whether the Baptized by Hereticks were to be rebaptized laboured not to decide the Question by any express words in holy Scripture wholly silent in this particular But contrarywise teaches that the Church which is diffused all ouer and no Party of Donatists shut vp in à corner of Afrique was to giue Sentence herein For She is that great Oracle which Scripture commend's Read Lib. 2. de Bapt. C. 4. And de Vnit Eccles. C. 22. Thus briefly you see the true difference between the Protestant and Catholick The first has not à word of Scripture for his Tenets much less any Orthodox euidenced Church The Catholick relies on à Church spread the whole world ouer known by The Catholicks stronge hold Miracles Conuersions c. And Scripture command's him firmly to belieue what euer She Proposes as Faith Qui vos audit me audit Whoeuer hears the Church hears Christ And in this Sense Scripture manifesting Gods own Oracle which cannot but propose truth end 's all Controuersies 9. A 4 th Obiection Iulian the Apostata as S. Gregory Nazian Orat. 1. in Iulian And Theoder Lib 3. Histo C. 3. attest droue away Diuels with the Sign of the Cross Therefore wicked men can doe Miracles And why may not Almighty God A fourth Obiection solued for Reasons best known to his infinite wisdom do strange wonders and permit an Arian to Say All are wrought to Confirm his false Doctrin Contra. Both Parts of the Obiection equally impugn the Primitiue Miracles of Christ and the Apostles To the first I answer An Heretick may work à Miracle to proue Catholick Doctrin but neuer to make his own False Opinion probable The Reason is God who is Truth and Goodnes it self can no more deceiue by his ovvn VVorks than by his ovvn VVords Sicut humana consuetudo saith S. Austin Epist 49. verbis Diuina potentia etiam factis loquitur As man speak's by words so God speak's by his works But the Works or Wonders now Spoken of because supernatural proceed from God And as is God can no more deceiue by his ovvn Works then by by Words supposed deceiue Therefore it ill beseem's an Infinit Truth and Goodnes to do them Vpon this Ground I say likewise Diuine Prouidence will neuer permit his own glorious Works Seals and Signes of Truth to be abused by wicked men But of this particular I intend to speak more largely hereafter 10. Wee now Come to Mr. Stillingfleets Cauils you haue some of them Part. 1. C. 5. p. 134. And 135. Where he doth not Mr Stillingfleets Cauils answered so much impugne Miracles as would haue them done by such Persons as he likes well of Popes for example that pretend to infallibility And if which is easy we produce many wrought by Holy Popes His next Querie perhaps may be Why all all of them are not Miraculous men alike In à word I like not to search into the depth of Gods secret Counsel And therefore briefly discourse of persons fauoured with such Graces as S. Austin doth of different Places Tom. 2. Epist 137 to his Clergy and people at Hippo where he proposeth this Question Quare in alijs locus haec miracula fiant non in alijs Why are Miracles done in some places and not in others VVe haue known some wrought at Millan â—n Africa though full of Saints Bodies not so He return's this wise Answer grounded on the Apostles wotds 1. Cor. 12. Non omnes Sancti c. All saints haue not the Gift of curing diseases all discern not spirits ita nec in omnibus memorijs Sanctorum c. So God And first why God works Miracles by some and not by others who divides his Graces according to his own best will doth not these wonders at the Memory of euery Saint And who dare enter into his secret Counsel or ask why he doth so Why raised he three dead men by S. Dominick and not one we know of by S. Austin Dividit propria unicuique prout vult He is Lord and distributes his own fauours as he pleaseth And thus we Answer Mr. Stillingfleet who next Saith some thing of Miracles done in Corners What can the man mean Are all the wonders wrought at Loreto Compostella Sichem and other places seen to innumerable and All vpon certain record to be callid Corner Miracles Be pleased to hear worse yet 11. Page 135. Think not saith Mr. Stillingfleet VVe are of such easy faith that the pretended growing out of à leg in Spain or any of your famous Miracles wrought by your Priests in Italie will persvvade vs Mr Stillingfleets vnjust exceptions against the Miracle wrought at Zaragosa to believe your Church infallible Again after his Talk of Diuels doing no feats when Opposers are by He utters this scornful language It is an easâ— thing for à Stump to grow à leg in its passage from Spain hither For fama crescit eundo And in despite of Truth cast's out too much bitter venom to obscure à Glorious work of God wrought by the Intercession of our Blessed Lady vpon à young man at Caesar Augusta or Zaragosa in Spain where you haue her miraculous Statua Set on à Marble Pillar And for that reason is called Neustra Sennora del Pilari It is one of the most euident and clearest Miracles vvhich I belieue hath been done in the memory of any man now liuing I haue the whole Printed Relation by me both Latin and Dutch vvritten by Peter Neurat Doctor of Phisick and dedicated to his Excellence Don Francisco Marquis of Caretto and Grana Embassador Extraordinary from the Emperour to His Catholick Maiesty The Substance whereof is thus 12. Ego ab Caesaraugusta Venio c. I come from Zaragosa and bring tydings of à Miracle not heard of in any age A young man had his leg cut of and buried which was Miraculously restored again by the Intercession of the most Sacred virgin My Lord I here present you with à Gift it is not mine but our
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
and the ground opening swallowed vp his carkasse Nestorius wicked worm-eaten tongue brought the wretch to à miserable end And Iohn Caluin consumed with vermine Seuerly Punished dispairing dyed like an other Herode or Antiochus I need not Here relate any thing of Luthers sudden death after his merry supper Read Bellarmin Lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae C. 17. where you haue these and other more fearful Examples of Gods Seuerity 11. Finally must we say that our Lord Iesus is proued no Impostor vpon these reasons That no false Prophet since the Creation purchased the like vniuersal Fame None euer had so vniuersal an Applause or the like Tribute of praise paid Him It it true That euer since Christianity began the powerful hand of Prouidence hath not only rescued our Holy Iesus from all Reproach iustly merited but moreouer by signal Effects of indignation made his Enemies contemptible The renown of the Roman Catholick Church Nothing can be more manifest You may then boldly Conclude in like manner The Roman Catholick Church is as demonstratiuely proued no Cheat but an Oracle of truth vpon the same grounds Her vniuersal visible Extent the continued Succession of Her Pastors the Conuersions and Miracles wrought by Her inuite all with à loud Venite Adoremus incite all not only to behold and Praise this magnificent Building but also to Adore the Founder of it For if it be true as was said aboue that the visible works in nature point at God the only Author of them Caeli enarrant glorâ—am ejus The Heauens declare his Glory It is also clear that these visible Effects of grace Miracles Conuersions obuious to euery Eye set forth the glory of the Roman Catholick Church Now how deseruedly she hath gained this Renown let the world judge 12. Wisdom saith Salomon built Herself à house Prouerb 9. where Pillars stand firm à Table is plentifully furnished Victims are immolated c. The whole Passage S. Cyprian Lib. 2. Epist 3. Applyes to the great Sacrifice of the Altar offered vp vnder the Forms of bread and wine I waue the Application and vrge only an How gained euident truth And T is that Our Church built vpon Christ the Corner-Stone vpon those stronge Pillars the Apostles hath stood firm sixteen Ages and here is Her Glory For if Glory witness S. Ambrose be nothing els but Clara cum laude notitia A clear knowledge with Fame and Renown The long Continuance and ample extent of this Church could we say no more hath justly purchased Her à large Renown the whole world ouer Now mark where the contempt lies which is à base Esteem of à thing vnworthy value All know the Arians built Heretiques despicable the Pelagians built the Donatists and other Hereticks built but their vnsteedy disordered Houses soon fell down and came to nothing What saies Reason when Ruins are compared with this long standing Edifice 13. Next cast à serious thought vpon the Inhabitants of this house of God You will find all vnited in one Faith adoring one Iesus Christ louing one Mother his spouse looking on one last End Their hope and Happines And if through frailty differences doe arise abating charity our Aduantage is far aboue all other Societies in the world Wee haue à supreme Pastor God be euer blessed that can command and like à Other aduantages in the Church Father exhort to peace in Abrams language Ne sint quâ—so jâ—rgiâ— c. Iarrs must not be in the house of God Fratres enim s 〈…〉 For we are all Children of one louing Mother Here is the Churches Glory Wheras on the Contrary side nothing but Discord and that remediless the known euil of Lucifers pride And in the highest points of Faith inseparably hant's the rambling Fancy of such as haue wilfully diuorced themselues from this one vnited Society And Here is matter enough of Contempt and Compassion also 14. In the last place consider well the vast multitudes who are and haue been Domesticks in this house of God In the very Entrance we meet those Candidati aternitatis as Tertullian speaks Nouices of Eternity the newly admitted by the Sacrament of Baptism and no Society of Christians can show the like number Here we haue Cherubins admirable in Knowledge The Inhabitants of the house of God numbertles Doctors I mean profoundly learned Seraphins inflamed with Diuine loue that rest in the height of Contemplation Here we find Penitent Souls bewailing their sins innumerable Martyrs shedding their blood for Christ numberless laborious Missioners trauelling far and neer to propagate His sacred Gospel Here finally we haue for t is long to recount all Abrahams glorious multiplyed Starrs Gen. 15. 5. Kings and Queens whole kingdoms and Nations professing the Faith of this one Church The Gentils walk by Her light and Princes in the brightnes of Her rising Lift vp thy eyes and see saith holy Isaias All these assembled together And if you Ask what the duty was and yet is of so many conuened Multitudes The Royal Prophet that long since forsaw in Spirit à continual Oblation offered vp Answers Psal 9. 1. In templo ejus omnes dicent gloriam All in this Temple and sacred House shall incessantly render praise and glory to God the Author of So noble à Structure Therfore Psalm 86. 2. He rightly Concludes Gloriosa dicta sunt de te O Civitas Dei. Glorious things are spoken of thee O Citty of God Thou begans't In Hierusalem wa' st afterward extended to all Nations becams't permanent and because permanent Glorious Thus that whole Psalme speaking mystically of Christs Holy Church These are Truth 's not only proued as you se by Scripture but also euident and this I vrge to our eyes and senses Now next consider those scattered dissipated and iarring Multitudes of Heathens Iewes and Hereticks And let reason if à spark of it liue in any iudge whether this be not euident without Dispute Viz. That as no Prophet euer came neer to Christ our Lord in glory and A Parallâ—l of Christ and His Church renown So no Society of men since the world stood was or is comparable to our glorious Roman Catholick Church All other besides this happy vnited moral Body appear as they are abiect and contemptible 15. And thus we Euidence Christ our Lord and his Church to à prudent Heathen not first by making the intrinsick Reasonableness of the essential Doctrin the main Proof of its verity as Mr. Stilling simply Argues aboue Disc 1. C. 9. For it is truely ridiculous to draw the Pagan to belieue à Doctrin as reasonable and Diuine whilst yet he knowes not vpon any rational Inducement whether it be from God or no But this way takes effectually When you lead him on by à clear light extrinsecal to the Doctrin when you set before his Eyes such Marks Signes and wonders as cannot but proceed from God Miracles Conuersions c. When you Shew him How strangely the Doctrin of Christ
and his Church though sublime and difficult was miraculously Spread the whole world ouer when you Demonstrate how manifestly Diuine prouidence hath Age after Age Honoured Christ and his Church and seuerely Chastised the professed Enemies of both When finally you make it manifest that there is no Vnion no Form no fashion of Religion in any Society now on earth but in How the Heathen is Conuinced the Roman Catholick Church only Then the Heathen if reasonable and desirous to learn Truth must confess that God speaks Truth by this one Catholick Oracle only Or there is no such thing as à reuealed Verity taught in the world 16. Out of what is said already I infer first If that Maxim of Philosophy he vndoubted Frustra sit per plura c. It is needles to multiply many proofs in behalf of à Verity when one most clearly conuinceth it This Argument alone drawn from the glorious Marks of our Catholick Church which cannot but proceed from God proues Her his own faithful Oracle With these Signes we haue the thing signified These in à General way settle in euery reasonable vnderstanding this fundamental Truth God speak's to the world by his euidenced Church I say in à General way For as the visible works in nature proue this General Truth Ipse fecit nos c. A mighty power made vs we made The efficacy of Church Motiues not our Selues though as yet none comes thereby to an explicit knowledge of many Perfections in God So the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church conuince this General Truth also That the same Power which made Nature giues being to these the same Power which preserues nature preserues these glorious Signes for our instruction And Consequently it followes That as the visible world is proued Gods own work so this visible glorious marked Church is proued his own Oracle Though yet neither the Heathen nor any knowes euery particular Doctrin which God teaches by the Church In like manner great Diuines assert that Christs own Disciples owned first our blessed Lord as the true Messias and à great Prophet Ioan. 1. 41. Inuenimus Messiam We haue found the Messias before they learned the other high Mysteries of his being the natural Son of God the second Person of the Blessed Trinity the Redeemer of Israel c. see Suares 3. Part. Tom. 2. Dispu 31. Sest 4. 17. A second Inference The General Truth now spoken of well established God teaches the world by à Church Signed with Supernatural wonders All further disputes cease concerning the particular Doctrins She teaches though sublime and aboue the reach of our weak Capacities For none whether Heathen Iew or Heretick can boggle at à Doctrin which God reueal's How reason discourses vpon these Euident Motiues But God saith prudent Reason reueal's such and such Truths The Incarnation of the Diuine word the Trinity Original sin c. by à Church which most pressing Motiues euince to be His own Oracle Therefore it is my duty to Submit and belieue euery Doctrin She proposes 18. The Ground hereof seem's clear For as there can be no endles Progress or going on in Infinitum in the intrinsecal formal Obiect of Faith because Faith at last rest's vpon one sure Principle An infinite Verity So we can haue no endles Process in the extrinsick Lights and Motiues whereby we are induced to fix à firm Belief vpon that one sure Principle Therefore in what euer Society of men Reason finds these Motiues it rest's without further Enquiry after stronger which cannot be found But most euidently reason finds them in one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church as is now proued and prudently resteth there as vpon lights which immediatly manifest the Church Scripture not so immediatly Credible as the Church and make Her Doctrin euidently credible Scripture t' is true is the obiect of Faith but not so immediatly credible as the Church for independently of Scripture I can belieue the Church as the first Christians did before the Book was written but men generally in this present State cannot belieue Scripture without the Churches Testimony As is already and shall hereafter be proued more at large 19. A third Inference Who euer pretend's to à Doctrin reuealed in Scripture and hold's it of Faith has either à Church which teaches it euidenced by the Marks of our Lord Iesus Christ or He publisheth à falshood Which is to say in other Terms If the euidenced Church of Christ positiuely own 's not or reiects such à Doctrin that Doctrin Eo ipso is spurious forged and not de Fide Hence it is that when our Blessed Lord Commissoned the Disciples to Preach his sacred Verities Math. 28. 19. Goe and teach all Nations Hee sent them abroad with the Characters Marks and Ensigns of his own Preaching Mark 16. 2. Our Lord working with all and confirming the word with Signs that followed And here by the way I can neuer sufficiently admire the open folly of Sectaries that wholly Churchless A lawful Mission required to teach our Christian truths will yet needs perswade vs into new opinions vpon their own bare word That they teach truth It is impossible Nay I say more Although which is false they should speak Truth they ought not Churchless as they are to be listned vnto For suppose one should present himself as an Embassadour from à Prince to à forreign State but without Credentials or Authentick letters iustifying his Embassage no State can or will admit him though he speaks truth He must not only do so but show his Authentick Commission that he speaks truth deliuered by the Princes own order or he is sent back vnreceiued in the quality of an Embassadour In like manner I say No more can any one essentially vncommissioned pretend to teach Christs Doctrin whilst he is not sent to teach by Christs own euidenced Oracle than this vncommissioned An Instance Legate to speak in his Princes name Many à man knowes the law well and is fit enough to pronounce à iust Sentence yet sitt's not on the Bench nor giues it because he is not Authorised to do so And thus we discours of all Hereticks no members of the euidenced Church though as I said they deliuer truth by chance they yet deserue not the hearing wanting power and Authority to teach it 20. S. Cyprian Epist. 2. Speak's very pertinently to our present purpose Quod vero ad Nauatiani personam pertinent c. For as much as concerns Nouatians Person I would dear Brother haue you know in the first place we are not to be curious concerning what he saies when he teaches out of the Church S. Cyprian Confirm's the Doctrin Quisquis ille est qualiscunque est Christianus non est qui in Christi Ecclesiâ non est Whoeuer or of what condition soeuer he be is no Christian that is not in the Church of Christ And hence S. Austin in his frequent Disputes with the Donatists
presseth this point most efficaciously Lib. de vnit Eccles. Cap. 2. Quaestiâ— inter nos versatur vbi sit Ecclesiá vtrum apud nos aut illos Here lies the main Business where the Church is whether with vs or them Again Epist 163. Quaritur vtrum vestra an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei We demand whether yours or ours be the Church of God which must be known saith Optat. Mileuit Lib. 2. By Her Marks and Characters And therefore we said aboue though S. Austin made vse of Scripture against the Donatists it was not done to decide euery particular Controuersy by the bare and obscure words of that holy Book No. The profound How Scripture manifests the Church Doctor aymed not at such impossibilities his whole drift being to teach the Donatists à great Verity which we all subscribe to viz. That Scripture once admitted as Gods word without Dispute clearly demonstrat's the Church by Her visible sensible Marks Antiquity Miracles Conuersions Digito demonstrari potest We can point at Her with our finger Saith S. Austin The Church therefore thus manifested we haue enough and rely on Her as à faithful Oracle in euery Doctrin She professeth Se Cardinal de Richelieu Traitte pour conuertâ—r ceux c. Lib. 2. C. 7. § Cest encore Where he exactly renders S. Anstins meaning conformable to what we deliuered Disc 1. C. 14. n. 10. 21. The last Inference If all are bound to embrace true Religion All haue also with the obligation means to know where it is taught But the means to know this lies not in the essential Verity thereof for that is no Self-euidence or manifestly true ex Terminis The means to know it is not found in the high Mysteries of Faith for these far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding remain yet in darkness without More light Scripture alone makes not its own Diuinity known and though it did so And the Heathen owned it as most Diuine yet when he euidently discouer's that dissenting Christians Sense the book quite contrary waies he has not the means to learn what true Religion is or where it is taught Thus then He must Discours or belieue nothing 22. God that 's Truth reueal's the Verities of true Religion If so some vnited Society of men teaches what euer God reueal's for Angels are not our Doctors I find Saith the Rational man great Signes of truth amongst the Christians and after The Heathens prudent Disâ—ourse many à serious thought Cast vpon à Matter of highest Concern I sind also that all those Signes as Antiquity Vniuersallity à visible Succession of Pastors euident Miracles which cannot but proceed from God belong to one only Christian Society the Roman Catholick Church I se moreouer à strange benign Prouidence held forth in preseruing Her from innumerable attempts of Aduersaries No Iew no Heathen no Heretick can show the like Signal Marks and Proofs of Gods loue as this one Catholick Oracle demonstrat's Therefore all other Societies are false Sects misled by erring Prophets according to Christs own Prediction Math. 24. For there shall rise false Christs though they clamour neuer so loud Ecce hic est and Conclusâ—on Christus Loe we preach Christ and his truths Thus Reason test's satisfied yet because the Heathen see 's who le Armies banding against the Church and rationally hold's their Arguments like theer cause very weak He is desirous to haue the Fallacy of some chiefe Aduersaries laid forth to his reason For your Satisfaction be pleased to read the following chapter CHAP. XII The Aduersaries of the Roman Catholick Church plead vnreasonably A Discouery of their fallacies The cause of all Errour concerning Religion The only means to remedy Errour 1. THe enemies of the Roman Catholick Church are chiefly reduced to these four Classes to Atheists Heathens Iewes and Hereticks A word briefly of their fallacies in order Some Atheists there haue been and perhaps Lucian was one that to cast off all thought of Religion more expresly denyed Diuine Prouidence than they did the Existency of à God And à chief The Atheistâ— Plea Argument to omit others of less weight is much to this sense A Numen Infinitly wise and powerful shewes his careful Prouidence in gouerning the world But an euident Principle opposes this careful Prouidence and no contrary Principle of equal strength Seem's to establish it Therefore reason well denies Prouidence Now here is the euident Principle The Oppression of iust men manifest to our eyes the preuailing of the wicked against the iust of Turks against Christians to say nothing of other much visible Confusion and Discorder proue à neglect of Prouidence and no contrary Principle half so strong or euident conninces it none counterpoises the weight of this clear proof now hinted at ergo Reason reasonably denies Prouidence Thus the Atheist The Pagan Argues That Religion is false which holds Mysteries ridiculous and impossible but Christians How the Heathens and Iewes Argue teach that God is one Essence and three Persons Both seem impossible The Iewes vapour against à crucified Sauiour and lay its vnworthy God to become man and to dye ignominiously vpon à Cross Lastly our modern Sectaries that own Christ come limping after the rest and except much against the Roman Catholick Church She Say they has changed the ancient Articles of the Primitiue Faith and introduced Nouelties in lieu of them She maintains errours contrary to sense in Her Doctrin of Transubstantiation And much more seem's amiss 2. I say first All these and the like Arguments are meer vnsound Paralogisms and proue iust nothing against Prouidence against Christ or the Romam Catholick Church Before I discouer the fallacies be pleased to note 1. That God whose existence we haue proued Disc 1. C. 2. is à Being incomprehensible and far transcend's the reach of our narrow Capacities The very Gentile Philosophers owned the truth agreeing in this Principle That humane reason is as weak to know what God and diuine Mysteries are as an owle is to behold the Sun at noon-day Note 2. Reason in man often too bold enters into Diuine Mysteries though conscious it walks in à Labyrinth not so much as Principles prâ—mised to solue these Obiections half-sighted in the search it makes and this less than Half-insight into Diuine truths is the cause of Atheism of all Heresy and the most gross errours now raigning in the world The Apostle 2. Tim. 3. 7. Point's at the misled Semper discentes They are alwaies learning but neuer come to the knowledge of truth Note 3. Reason in the inuestigation of Religion and Diuine verities may tend two different waies Directly and Reflexly Direct reason as is now said fall's vpon some great Mystery in faith finds it harsh yea most difficult to be vnderstood and What follows The faint man with his feeble reason either reiect's the Mystery or remain's so perplexed in the search that he can resolue nothing His procedure is iust like
à little how we proceed 2. I proue my Catholick Doctrin by the Publick Authority of an euidenced Church That 's my Principle And our Aduersaries to Oppose me come armed with two or three maim'd The Sectaries opposition against the Church is null And why dark Sentences of the Holy Fathers and think this enough to cast Popery out of the world No such Matter my good Countrymen There is yet much more to do before you speak probably You explode Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saints We Ask whether you euer had à Church as Euidenced as Ancient as vniuersal as Commissioned to teach as ours which publickly maintained your Tenets and censured The Roman Catholick Doctrin Show vs such à Church vpon solid Principles the work is done you giue weight For weight Euidence for Euidence and may Speak boldly Nay I say more you may well triumph For vpon the Supposition we are vanquished But Fail to do this and fail you must you are silenced yea impossibilitated to write more Controuersies Se more of this Subiect aboue Disc 1. C. 19. 3. A second inference The Atheist and Protestant plead alike That is As the one Argues against God iust so the other doth against Christ's Church All know the more ancient Atheists offer'd not positiuely to Demonstrate the Non-existence of God for there is no Principle to ground that Sensless Assertion vpon But chiefly excepted against the Proofs The Atheists way of arguing parall'd with that of Sectaries drawn from the visible works in Nature and thought these so weak to Euince à Deity that there might well be none Thus our Sectaries proceed For stark shame they dare not deny à Church of Christ Yet their whole labour is so to obscure Her Euidence that no man can possibly find out the Oracle by Signes Miracles Conuersions and Antiquity Therefore as the Atheist in effect denies God or at least stand's doubtfull of his Being So the Sectary to parallel him because He denies the Churches glorious Euidence cannot but remaine doubtful whether there be any such Oracle or no. Again as the Atheist bewrayes his folly in giuing the Lie to the vniuersal Iudgement of mankind when he Saies the works of Nature proue not à Deity So the Sectary run's the same Carreer betrayes his folly and giues the Lie to the whole Christian world when he saies the Manifest works of Grace visible in the Catholick Church conuince Her not to be God's Oracle 4. A third inference The sole Euidence of the Roman Catholick Church visible by Her Marks so clearly conuinces and carries on the whole Catholick Cause without exception A Church clearly euidenced cannot be excepted against So utterly vanquishes the Protestants Plea of Errours entring into this great moral Body that it is highly improbable yea à flat Calumny to impeach Her of any Here is my reason Meer doubts or crasy Topicks can not reuerse Euidence But the Churches Antiquity Her vast extent Her Progress Her Miracles Her Conuersions and the other like Signes are â—x sensatis sensibly and vndeniably euident Therefore all impleading Her of Errour is more than improbable vnless She has erred in shewing such Marks as haue made the world Christian Now further If this Euidence stand's firm Her Doctrin is made euidently Credible by it that is so worthy of Acceptance by diuine Faith That Reason after so much Light seen is obliged vnder pain of damnation to yeild Assent to the Doctrin For as none can prudently belieue before this Euidence be attained Qui cito credit levis est corde Eccles 19. 44. One too quick in belieuing is not wise So none after t' is had can without damnable sin Disbelieue 5. Hence I Argue The Doctrin of the Primitiue Church was made euidently credible to reason That is worthy of all Acceptation in the three or four first Centuries or was not The Primitiue euidence of Credibility If not none could then belieue with diuine Faith For the Euidence of credibility necessarily preceed's Faith And as Faith in it self is strong most certain and victorious ouer Incredulity Iohn 1. 5. 4. This is the victory which ouercom's the world our Faith So this preuious Euidence answerably brings Reason to so firm à State of belieuing certainly that nothing Proposable can Eclipse that clear and manifest light 6. Contrarywise if those Primitiue Christians had the Euidence we speak of and were thereby obliged to belieue We Catholicks Is yet manifest in the Roman Catholick Church are Most secure for the very same Euidence still continues to this Age in the Roman Catholick Church Miracles go on Conuersions of Nations go on the Succession of Pastors goes on The fulfilling of Prophesies goes on Sanctity of life in Thousands and Thousands is manifest to our eyes and senses Euery day the Church growes older and which is enough to conuince the most obdurate Heretick the louely vnion the vnanimous Consent of so many Nations though different in tongues in manners in Education conspiring and openly Professing one and the same faith hath not only gained our Church à publick Reputation the whole world ouer but moreouer proues this great Truth That she and none but she is Gods Sacred Oracle 7. If then and here lies the force of my Inference it had been à flat calumny and more than vastly improbable to haue taxed the Apostolical Primitiue Church of Ertour after so great The force of the Inference Euidence laid forth to Reason in Her Marks and Signs it is no less sinful in the Protestant now no less vngodly at this day to accuse the present Church of corrupted Dectrin whilst She frees her self from the Calumny by giuing in the very same Euidence of Credibility For here is my irrefragable Principle The like full euidence of motiues lead's reason to draw Thence à most firm and certain Faith Destroy this Euidence in any that proues Himself to be Gods Oracle you must deny it to Christ our Lord when he preached To the Primitiue Church also and finally to the Modern Catholick Church Do so All Faith perishes Grant it to both the Ancient Church and this now in being All pleading against our Catholick Doctrin is meer Vanity 8. The Sectary may reply Though the Euidence we insist on hath some weight Yet it followes not that all the Doctrin An Obiection Proposed our Church teaches is made euidently Credible For he can iustly except against the Doctrin relying vpon other solid Grounds and most approued Principles Scripture for example the Authority of holy Fathers the Records of Antiquity the Form of the Primitiue Church are his Principle and by these he hopes to proue our Churches Doctrin False which done the Euidence we build vpon signifies nothing 9. I am very willing to solue this Obiection the Answer I hope will show vpon what vnsteedy foundations Protestancy stand's To proceed with all clarity This is Questionable whether we or Protestants teach the Doctrin of Iesus Christ
And because it is here impossible to descend to all particular controuersies we will fall vpon one only much debated one serues for all Viz whether Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation be Orthodox Doctrin The truth yet lies in darkness there is no Self-Euidence either in the Affirmatiue or Negatiue T' is yet no more but doubtful or à meer Perhaps whether the Protestants or we Speak Truth Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is Where the difficulty lies yet obscure to vs both and as little euidenceth it Self as the Verity we enquire after By what means then can we raise our selues aboue this state of Doubting to so great à degree of certainty as to Say without fear Transubstantiation is Orthodox Doctrin And the contrary is not so 10. The Catholick to waue in this place other proofs recur's to his Church And saith this Publick euidenced Oracle as well raises him to à State of certainty for his Tenet as the euidenced Primitiue Church rais'd the first belieuing Christians from their doubts to Security For the like full euidence alwayes lead's to How the Catholick Peoceed's a like certainty of Belief The Protestant hauing reiected our present euidenced Church hopes well and will needs find flawes and falsity too in Her Doctrin not by confronting Her Euidence or denoting an other Church As ample as ancient as miraculous as She is which held his Doctrin for this though it should be pleaded if we come to à clear Decision is vnpleadable because the Protestant has no such Oracle What 's done therefore I 'll tell you and you may iustly wonder He shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's though there is no such matter to launch into the vast Ocean of Scripture Councils volumes of Fathers ancient Records and thinks The Sectary takes à Contrary way to carry on his cause this way Here He pick 's vp one dark Sentence of à Father and triumph's with that There on another Here vpon the least hint giuen he Snarles at one piece of Popery there at another Here he guesses and there he misses In à word the man is busily idle doth much and iust nothing run's on but is out of his way utterly lost without the guidance of God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the Labyrinth And if you Ask why he is out I Answer his Errour lies here that both in this and all other Controuersies he makes his false Suppositions to pass for proofs against euidence 11. You shall see what I here Assert Made Good To proue no Transubstantiation the Se ary read's Scripture Fathers Antiquity or what els you will Be it so He read's but not alone For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's also Mark now The One after his reading glosses so doth the other The One compares Passage with Passage so doth the other The One discourses So doth the other But when all is done and here lies the mischief the Protestant imposes one sense vpon the perused Testimonies and the Catholick another Which leaues him in State of doubting quite contrary This dayly Experience teaches viz. That we differ not so much about the words we read as about the sense of Scripture and Fathers Therefore this also is Euident That the Protestant aduances not his Doctrin if yet he get so high aboue the degree of guessing only whilst he pleads by his glossed Scripture and Fathers For as long as the Catholick wholly as learned and conscientious as He is and an ample Church besides opposes his far-fetch'd Sense out of the Fathers He cannot without Impudency and making à false Supposition to pass for his Proof cry it vp as certain Now further As the sense he drawes from Scripture and the Fathers is no more but at most doubtful I say improbable so his Assertion concerning no Transubstantiation or what euer els he holds contrary to the Roman Catholick faith is wholly as much wauering or purely doubtful But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak What euer is doubtful grounds not Faith either to ground any Christian Tenet vpon or to Contrast with the Roman Catholick Church whose Doctrin is indisputably made euidently credible Therefore unless à weake Vncertainty can reuerse Euident Credibility the Sectaries Plea against the Church is not only improbable but highly improbable 12. To conclude this Point Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma It is possible to Denote and point at another Church which without dispute taught Protestant Doctrin and opposed ours as Ancient as large and euery way as Euidenced to sense and reason as the Roman Catholick Church is Or it is not possible If possible controuersies are strangely ended for proue A Dilemma me once such à Church I say plainly There is no such thing as true Faith in the world worthy defense Why Because if the Supposition hold's two different Churches euidenced à like equally as ancient as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Miracles clash with one another Say and Vnsay approue and condemn The one condemn's Protestancy The other Popery One will haue Transubstantiation belieued The other not which is as wholly destructiue of Christian Faith as if Scripture it self should plainly Speak Contradictions 13. On the other side If the Sectary can neither name nor point at à Chutch euery way as euidenced as the Roman Catholick No euidenced Protestant Church no pleading for Protestancy which expresly propugned Protestancy and opposed Popery He shall neuer utter probable word against any one Article of our Catholick Faith For throw an euidenced Protestant Church out of the world All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin or against vs will either End in à slight discharge of à few scattered vnweighed Sentences of holy Fathers no sooner read than Answered or as we dayly Experience in gross Mistakes and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrin And can these think ye extinguish the visible Lustre of our Chureh can these lessen the euident Credibility of Her Doctrin or bring so known and owned an Oracle into open disgrace or publick Disreputation It is impossible The most vigorous Abbettors of Protestancy may not only blush to Assert it but will be bafled did we once liue to see the happy day when our iust cause might be proposed and heard in à Publick Dispute before Learned and impartial Iudges A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick and hold him much more wise Learned and moderate then some late voluminous Writers haue been yet because Truth will out I must not dissemble but Speak truth And therefore Say in à word His whole attempt against the Roman Catholick Church is weake And the feebleness of it Cannot but appear to euery Reader that penetrat's the force of the Principles already established My wish indeed was to haue Vnderstood his meaning better in some particular passages For
done which will neuer be I am confident His Extract or what is required of Mr Thorndick Draught would appear so imperfect and mishapen à Business in the iudgement of Catholicks and Protestants also That as the one Party cannot but look on it with disdain so the other would reiect it as vnworthy Acceptance 22. Besides would it not seem à new wonder to Strangers abroad Yea and as ridiculous as wonderful were rhey told that after so much labour spent about reforming Religion in England we haue yet at present à thoughtful Gentleman there that 's very busy in Setting forth the last and best Edition of Protestancy Reformed which perhaps may proue worse than any other gon before Naught it must needs be for this Reason That the means he would reform by has no Proportion with the designed End For by A New◠Reformer of Religion in these old dayes of the world the light of à few dead Manuscripts written 14. or 15. Ages Since He offer 's now to amend all the Churches in the world though the very sense of these Writings which must be the Rule of his Reformation is neither well known to Himselfe nor yet agreed on by those dissenting Churches he would reform What think ye Were this sense yet to be learned the want whereof causes endles Errours among Sectaries would not common Prudence rather take it from à liuing Oracle which has taught the world time out of mind than from à late Nouellist that Professes himself fallible and Therefore may most easily Misinterpret would appear ridiculous to all the best Records This liuing Oracle at least promises infallibility Which Shall be proued presently And therefore is à Surer Principle to rely on Then The Fathers Sentences long Since Written whilst Sectaries make Their sense and true meaning à Matter of Contest 23. Yet one word more and I end Mr Thorndick will Reform the present Roman Church Corrupted by the Primitiue supposed pure for the first 4. or 5. Ages I must needs demand first whether that Primitiue Church the Rule of his Reformation Questions proposed to our Aduersary was infallible and pure in those pretended fundamentals only necessary to Saluation though not in other Doctrins of lesser Moment Or. 2. Whether She because fallible as much needed Reformation in smaller Matters not called fundamental as this present Church is supposed to need Or. 3. Whether She was so entirely pure in euery doctrin little and great that She could not be brought to more Purity or be better Reformed Grant the first viz. That the Primitiue Church was vnerrable and pure in fundamentals only not in others The present Roman Church is as good as She was For our Aduersary own 's Her à true Church wherein Saluation may be had and thus far She needs no reforming Grant 2. that both these Churches because fallible might erre and perhaps haue erred in lesser Matters not named fundamental The Primitiue can be no Rule of Reformation to the present Church because that Primitiue is alike err 〈…〉 alike reformable And for ought men know as much out of the way of truth in Non-fundamentals as the present Church is Therefore I said aboue if the blind cannot lead the blind à Church wanting Reformation cannot reform another sick of the same malady 24. If finally it be Said the Primitiue Church was so infallible so pure euery way both in great and little Matters that She could not be more reformed in the first 5. Centuries for example We haue à Church once entirely pure And then vrge our Herein Satisfaction is most required Aduersary not barely to say it But to proue vpon indubitable Principles Scriptures Fathers or the General Consent of Christians that She continued not wholly as pure in the sixt seuenth or eight Age and so downward to our dayes as She was before To shew à Deficiency in this Church once confessedly true in after Ages will be more than an Herculian labour when it is demonstratiuely euidenced aboue That nothing but à Church equally as Ancient as Vniuersal and glorious in Miracles as the Roman is can probably impeach Her of the least Corruption Mr Thorndicks Mistake is that he makes as Sectaries vsually do à false Supposition his Proof He supposes A supposition made à Proof our Church corrupted in Doctrin and then will amend it according to his fancy by the Primitiue whereas he knowes or ought to know that we Catholicks deny His Supposition and say both are vnerrable and withall Assert that no Authority on earth can better inform vs of the Primitiue Doctrin than the present Roman Church which hath successiuely handed it to vs Age after Age. Howeuer to take away all ambiguity and further Dispute in this Matter you haue next three following Chapters which I hope will giue Satisfaction to the rational Reader More shall be added hereafter CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith 1. AS the Answer to the Question aym's at à clear and easy way of ending Controuersies Concerning Religion So the following Discourse tend's to settle one great truth in the minds of euery one viz. That both the Ancient and present Roman Catholick Church is not only infallible But that the what we intend to proue Aduersaries of Her infallibility destroy the very Essence of Christian Religion And deseruedly merit vpon that Account The name of Schismaticks and Heretiques also 2. To make good what 's now Asserted à few Postulata or Principles must be premised One is That Church which Promises and proues Herselfe infallible in Doctrin doth not only Vpon these following Principles facilitate but giues also absolute Security to Faith For such à Church Participat's most and comes neerest to that first Diuine Apostolical Spirit which confessedly was infallible 3. A. ◠Principle Whereas nothing hath or ought to haue à stronger Influence ouer the minds of men than Religion So nothing can discountenance it more than à stedfast Perswasion of its Fallibility and Consequently of it 's easily being False This Perswasion Cut's of all Christian Assurance and driues men to so cold an Indifference of embracing this or that Religion That it much import's not which to take to any or none 4. A. 3. Principle The means or influence whereby Christ preserues his Church infallible needs not to be explicated by any Supernatural quality personally inhering in the Teaching Representatiue or intrinsecally eleuating the conuened Prelates to à State of Infallibility for t' is enough that the safe Conduct of Almighty God who is alwaies vigilant and Assists by his exteriour Protection so secures the Church from errour that She neither What the Churches Infallibility requires can be misled when She teaches nor mislead others Yet I deny not but that an interiour Motion of Grace may be yea and often
She euer holdâ— Idem Epist. ad Corne. She is à pure Virgin in Faith and cannot be deceiued or seduced nor ouercome with any Violence being vpheld by Her Virginal integrity Fulgent Epist ad Probum Cap. 5. Her Faâ—â— is inuincible euen to the Powers of Hell Euseb Caesar Praepar E 〈…〉 g. â—ib 1. C. 3. If any fear to be deceiued by the obscurity of à Question let him Consult that Church concerning it which the Scripture Demonstrat's without any ambiguity S. Austin lib. Contra Crescon C. 33. What think ye Is not the Churches Immunity from Errour clearly established No say Sectaries For though we cannot confront these Passages of Scripture and Fathers with others as significant for our Plea of Fallibility Yet we do and must deny Their plain Sense We do and must say The Roman Church has been adulterated otherwise we are Schismatic'ks We must Sectaries deny all or must own themselues Schismatiks say that though once pure She lost what she had receiued And therefore is now no Virgin but à Harlot VVe must Say Her Faith is Vincible That it is not safe to consult Her in dubious Matters for She can return no better Answer than what is fallible and may be false Thus Sectaries 12. Hence it followes first That our great supposed Representatiue made vp of Protestants Catholicks and all other called Christians stand 's without redress in an open Rebellion in à publick Hostility with it Self And consequently taken in its whole Latitude is not Christ's Church Because the Church of Christ is essentially founded in Vnity This supposed Representatiue torn as you see in pieces with intestine Diuisions is not one And therefore most desolate For Omne regnum diuisum in se desolabitur And here by the way I take leaue to tell Sectaries T' is but Folly to talk as They doe of à Catholick Church wider than the Roman Or of à lawful Representatiue possibly to be conuened in Vnity out of the Body of all named Christians For as such à Church considered Two Mistakes of Sestaries in the largest Extent which stands diuided in Faith is not Orthodox So such an assembled Council made vp of so many iarring Belieuers considered vnder that notion of Hostility and Rebellion can be no legitimate Council The reason is Christ neuer owned à Church professing more Faiths than one nor lawful Councils consisting of other Members than Orthodox Christians You will then say Hereticks are not to What Hereticks haue to doe in Councils â—e admitted into Councils lawfully called I Answer they are admitted but how Freely to dispute not to Teach to propose difficulties but not to Regulate Faith to acquiese in the Churches Definitions but not to define remaining Hereticks 13. You see 2. That à Church fallible in Her Definitions concerning Faith vainly attempt's to reclaim Infidels and Hereticks from their Errours Wherefore the Nicene Fathers Condemnation of Arius might haue been iustly excepted against and pleaded reuersable vpon this ground That what they defined because fallible might be as far from Truth as the very Errours they Censured and defined against Nay I say more If that Council was then fallible it lies yet at the mercy not only of Arians but of all Christians at this day to admit or reiect the Nicene Censure or rather if Prudence haue place to suspend Strange sequels if the Church be fallible their Iudgements and say no man knowes what to belieue Into such darkness vpon such Hazard and indifferency Christians are cast if God's Church or that Council could err One instance may giue you some light 14. Imagin à Heathen at that time when Arianism seemed prosperous and carried much vogue in the East well inclined to embrace Christian Religion VVithall Suppose the man firmly setled in this Iudgement That Catholick Religion much resembling Arianism was so fallible that both the one and other might be false Say I beseech you How indifferent would this Iudgement haue made the Heathen to either Religion Nay would it not had interest swayed neuer so little haue drawn him more to Arianism Yes most assuredly For thus he might haue discoursed and prudently VVhat they call Catholick Religion How the Heathâ—n discourses and Arianism are much alike both fallible both may be false My Interest now when Arianism flourishes carries me thither T' is true I meet there with fallible Doctrin which may be false God knowes how things are but the mischief is I can find no better amongst Catholicks nor in any other Society of Christians Now if all I can learn be no better but fallible and perhaps false Doctrin too I may as well learn that from the Arians as from Catholicks or rather ought to suspect all Christian Religion of Errour because none of that Profession And Concludes against à fallible Religion can assure me infallibly what God has Said But such Doctors saith the Heathen who may as easily teach me to iniure an Infinit Verity and ascribe that to God he neuer reuealed as lead me to acquiesce in his reuealed truths were any such truths in being deserue no Credit Therefore I neither can nor will belieue any thing 15. Before we make à further Step to one or two Propositions which decide this Controuersy à few difficulties are to be cleared against the precedent Discourse One is Hostility ceases in the ample Council now mentioned would all which is easy Agree in one Truth That Christs Church is infallible in Fundamentals only or fundamentals simply necessary to Saluation Answ This is to say If that were done which neuer was nor can be done à Reunion followes Alas it is not yet agreed on by all nor euer will be vnless some quit their Errours One obiection answered which and where Christs true Church is It is not yet nor can be agreed on How many or few these fundamentals are For though Catholicks and Protestants Vnite in à belief of the Trinity and call that à Fundamental Article The Arians stand out and Hostility ceases not but encreases by the Sectaries Means oppose both The means then here thought of is so far from establishing Vnion that it increases Diuision And so it will euer fall out whilst à Church of one Denomination is not acknowledged infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches and obliges Christians to belieue vnder pain of Damnation Se more hereof aboue Chap. 5. n. 5. 16. A. 2. Obiection Dissentions in Councils witness those at Basil and Florence or the Access of Hereticks cannot lessen their Power or Anull their Definitions Therefore our Plea taken from the Hostility in à most ample Council Euinces nothing Answ I grant the Antecedent and say Though Heretiques and dissenting Christians meet together yea Though some too busily aduance opinions dissonant to truth and Orthodox Doctrin Yet God's gracious and watchful Prouidence which drawes good out of Euil And often conuert's War into Peace will with all Assurance effect that such Ã
Scripture I Could wish to see à clear Deduction yet fear it Howeuer Suppose that done new Doubts arise concerning the certainty of the Deduction which can be no more but morally certain most insufficient to ground Diuine Faith The true Answer therefore must be or none The Nicene Council The both pas't and Present Church faithfully interpreting Scripture Definitiuely deliuered the Doctrin and vpon this ground we belieue the Mystery 8. Now here we come to the main Business and Ask again whether God speaking by this Church as his own Oracle Proposes that Doctrin and obliges all to belieue it Or Contrarywise whether the Church diuorced as it were from Diuine Assistance teaches vpon Her own humane fallible Authority And The Churches Infallibility further euinced obliges all to belieue the Mystery Grant the first The Definitions of the Church are infallible because an Eternal Verity speaks infallibly by Her Say secondly That the Church wholly Vnassisted teaches and Defines vpon Her own fallible humane Authority the Doctrin we learn from Her of the Incarnation of the highest Godhead in Christ of his being Consubstantial of the Blessed Trinity of Original Sin beget's no Faith Because if the Supposition hold's that Assent relies not at all vpon an Infallible Verity speaking by the Church Assisted but vpon à weak and fallible Human Authority which cannot support any certain Beliefe For it is most preposterous to Say that men meerly fallible as all are left to Themselues can Assure vs what that Doctrin is which God Reueal's Infallibly Now we Come to this Moral Certainty 9. And one Perhaps will say Such men though fallible may at least giue Moral Assurance of the truth of the Doctrin and that 's enough Contra. 1. Moral assurance which euer implies some weak Degree of fear of the contrary may in rigour be false But the Church which obliges all to belieue Her Doctrin vnder pain of Damnation speak's without fear and Saith boldly God reueal's as I teach Therefore her Doctrin if false is the Diuels Doctrin But none can say That the Nicene Definition against Arius was the Doctrin of Diuels But Contrarywise à Truth reuealed by God and Belieuable Fide Diuina Ergo it was infallible and more than Morally certain Contra. 2. God The Churches Definitions More then Morally Certain Speaking by the Church giues greater Certainty than Moral And if he do not speak at all by Her the Definition now remoued from Infallible Assistance Vphold's not Faith as we shall se presently nor can it be prudently iudged morally certain 10. Though much be said in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 4. 6. against this Pretence to Moral certainty Sectaries casually light on it because forsooth they brook not the word Infallibility yet here we must wholly weaken that Plea I say Therefore could the Church as She cannot Define or teach without Gods special Assistance Christians would either not attain to so great certainty of Her Doctrin as is Moral Or if no greater could be had That certainty would not be Diuine Faith Euery one knowes Moral certainty to be à kind of knowledge whereby men iudge such things are or are not without great Hesitancy or any reasonable cause of Doubting It is vsually grounded vpon some vulgar Perswasion or common half owned Euidence which the most of men trust to prudently When no surer can be had Thus we say All People in Common Conuersation speak not alwayes contrary to their thoughts Some mean well in their Priceeding The Nature of Moral certainly briefly hinted at Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in being These and the like Assertions may in rigour be false Yet our Iudicatiue faculty without Violence readily yeild's to all induced thereunto by à Perswasion vulgarly receiued whereby we say That as such things are Commonly reported So they also are vsually belieued and Commonly true In à word the greatest part of Moral certainty may be rightly stiled à kind of half Supposed Euidence current in the world which may Deceiue yet easily deceiues not 11. Now be pleased to reflect The sublime Mysteries of A reflection Faith remote from all vulgar Apprehensions and half owned Euidences are neither visible like Constantinople seen by innumerable Eye-wittnesses Nor assured vpon any either Fallible or deceiuable Authority nor finally belieued vpon à meer humane prudential Discourse only No. They lie in à higher Region aboue our natural knowledge in the Abyss of Gods inscrutable Wisdom and the more remote they are from Sense Or any Half-euidences the more they stand in need of an infallible Proponent No Power deceiuable can ground Faith Whereby All rest Ascertained of their being Eternal Truths Hence I Argue None but God aboue who Reueal's and an infallible Church which Proposes the Mysteries can giue Assurance of their being Diuine Truths or say absolut'ly They ought to be belieued answerably to their Dignity as Diuine Now further But if God reueal's them as his own Truths for this End that all belieue them infallibly the Church cannot but Speak in the name of God and independently of this Vulgar The insufficiency of Moral Certainty humane knowledge Propose them also infallibly as Diuine Or if She could turn vs off with no more but à Moral Perswasion of their seeming Gods truths yet may not be so The Strength of Faith vanishes into à dissatisfactory Topick into à meer Perhaps thus It may be we Belieue Truth it may be not In à word we belieue not as the Apostles did infallibly 12. Hence none I think shall euer comprehend how this Whimsy of Moral Certainty got into our Protestants thoughts For had Christians agreed in that Certainty or had they said Because the Mysteries of faith are proposed so weakly We can belieue with no Stronger assurance but Moral They must haue receiued and learn'd that Doctrin not from their own fancy but from some Superiour Power some known Oracle that taught so which either reuealed or proposed the Mysteries as only Morally certain and no more But to point at any such Oracle is impossible And here is the reason All know that God Faith only Morally certain reiected by all that taught Christianity an infallible Verity cannot Reueal any Truth only Morally Certain Christ our Lord taught his own Verities infallibly so also did the Apostles who were Strangers to this low and half lame Assurance No ancient Christians nameable professed à less certainty of Faith than infallible in the Church which taught them The Roman Catholick Church you see for conuincing Reasons laies claim to diuine Assistance when She Teaches and disclaims this petty kind of Certainty which may be false From whence then came the Perswasion of that certainty into mens Heads when neither God nor Christ nor Apostles nor Ancient Christians nor any Orthodox Church euer fauoured it 13. The true Answer is Inimcus homo hoc fecit An old Enemy to decry the Infallibility of Gods own Oracle conueyed the fancy into Ã
few Sectaries Though when they haue it it becomes The Author of Moral certainly wholly vseles to end Controuersies Obserue my reason If these men Dispute with à Iew will they say that Christian Religion taken in what latitude you please is not absolutely infallible but only à little More morally certain than Iudaism Or if they Argue against vs can they be so shameless as to allow Moral certainty to Protestancy and deny it to Catholick Religion They must do so and here is the reason Moral certainty is neuer appliable to two Parts of à Contradiction The One must It is vseles to Sectaries in all Disputes of necessity be made morally Improbable so if all iudge in this Instant that Constantinople is à Citty in being the Contrary iâ— Morally improbable if therefore Sectaries hold Protestancy Morally certain and the Roman Catholick Doctrin not This becomes in their Opinion Morally improbable Dare they say so much with any Countenance If they doe our Dispute begins à fresh we come to the Trial of their Assertion and will show when it pleases them to hear that their high challenge to Moral certainty is far from being probable At least this is Evident That whilst we most rationally except against it it s only an vnproued Supposition and ends no Controuersies 14. To discouer yet more the Vnweightines of this weak An Instance certitude in Matters of Faith Imagin if you please First it is in this present State an impossible Supposition yet giues light to what I would say that the Church had not Proposed at all the abstâ—use Mystery of the Sacred Trinity As it is already significantly Defined Suppose again that twenty learned men but fallible after à perusal of Scripture had endeauored to bring Themselues and others to belieue it viz. The Father of himself Prouing Moral Certainty insufficient Eternal and vnbegotten the Son Coequal and Eternal begotten The holy â—hâ—st Eternal also and proceeding from Father and Son All three Consubstantial one in Essence in Power in Wisdom in Omnipotency only distinguished by their Relatiue Oppositions I say notwithstanding This their Assent would only haue been à weak Opinion not morally certain and though hundreds more had Sided with these Twenty vpon the like Ground none could haue belieued the Trinity with Diuine Faith The reason is Because whilst men meerly fallible and as fallible Propose an incomprehensible Mystery far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding The Proposal relying vpon à deceiuable Or an vnassisted Power cannot bring Faith to it's own Obiect Gods infallible veracity The Resolution of this supposed Faith clear's all For Ask why They belieue the Trinity It is Answered they verily think and perswade Themselues that the Mystery lies couched in Holy Writ But Ask again whether that Thought or Perswasion be not fallible they Answer affirmitiuely Ergo Say I their Faith which cannot goe beyond the strength of that weak Proposition is also fallible and consequently not Diuine 15. Here you see first the absolute Necessity of an infallible Proponent in Points of Faith which Sectaries haue not And therefore can belieue nothing Diuinely And truly Catholicks would be in as bad à Condition yea really no Catholicks An Infallible proponent necessary could the Church only guess at these high Mysteries could She propose them vpon à humane errable Authority only Or in à word Define Fallibly You see 2. Vpon what ground the â—aith of à Catholick is infallible For being demanded why He belieues this or any other Mystery his Answer is God reueal's them Questioned again who giues him so much Assurance A satisfactory Reply is at hand He belieues so because an Assisted Church which cannot Err Proposes all Her Mysteries infallibly Take away Diuine Assistance She is errable and may deceiue euery one She teaches 16. One may here demand whether the Protestants Belief of the Trinity or of any other high Mystery growes vp to so much Certainty with them as is Moral Answ 1. It import's little whether it do or no So long as their Faith is meerly fallible I Answer 2. If we Speak rigorously Their Belief is not Sectaries haue no faith morally certain morally certain Here is my reason Their own Diuining in so abstruse à Matter cannot raise the Assent so high And if they would borrow as it were Certainty from the Catholick Church and Apply that to Themselues They know well this Oracle Ownes no other Certainty in the Belief of reuealed Truths but what is infallible and cannot be False 17. By what is said already we easily Solue à common Obiection Moral certainty seems often equiualent yea wholly as Satisfactory An Obiection to reason as that is we call Physical For one that neuer saw Constantinople can no more Question the Being of such à Citty than doubt of the sun's shining at Noon day Answ All is most true but nothing to the purpose For that certainty Therefore equalizes physical because Originally grounded vpon à sensible visible Euidence it is taken from innumerable Witnesses Moral Certainty grounded on Sensible Euidence giues not Faith any Assurance who haue seen the place This makes the common Report indubitable and conueyes vnto vs à certainty as firm as if we saw Constantinople with our Eyes But the Mysteries of Faith lie as is now noted in à higher Region and are neither proposed nor conueyed to vs by the help of any visible or sensible Euidence And were they in some low degree morally certain vpon humane Reports that would neither match nor be so strong as natural Euidence is Wherefore God interposes his own Assistance and raises the Proposition of these Mysteries and our Belief of them to à yet higher Degree of certitude far aboue either Moral or Physical For whether we consider them as Truths reuealed by an infinit Verity or proposed by the Church Diuinely Assisâ—ed They stand firm vpon infallible Principles And thus we haue their Truth indubitably conueyed And the Conueyance you se admits of nothing but Infallibility I say the Truth For without doubt there is à strong visible and sensible Euidence in the Marks and Motiues which Denote Christs Church and make Her Doctrin in the highest manner indubitably Credible But hereof you shall hear more partly in the Obiections But most amply in the third Discourse 18. To end this point concerning Moral Certainty I Ask Moral Certainty in Faith à most frigid Plea And why and for Answer appeal to the Iudgement of euery rational man what cold comfort would it haue been to the Primitiue Christians had the Nicene Fathers after à resolute Definition issued forth whereby the Consubstantiallity of the Diuine Word was Asserred and à Peremptory Anathema Pronounced against all that belieued it not Declared themselues and Sense in this frigid manner It is so indeed Defined But we only mean thus much That the Doctrin is morally certain and may be false Would not Arius think ye haue slighted
the Definition And might he not haue Argued to the purpose Thus If no man can hold himself happy for being actually in Errour He cannot Certainly think himself out of the danger of an vnhappy State if he be exposed to the danger of Errour But the Moral certainty you defend thrust's you vpon the danger of being in Errour Therefore your Condition is none of the surest Nay it is as bad as mine For the worst that can befall my Doctrin which I pretend Scripture for is That it may one day proue false and so may yours too Good Fathers if in the least degree fallible 19. Hence You se first That the Definitions of Christs euidenced Church must either be owned infallible And then meer Moral certainty hath no place Or Hereticks may endlesly cauil at Her Doctrin and boldly say nothing is taught nothing can be belieued infallibly If you Reply Many cauil and except To except against the Churches Infallibility destroyes Faith against the Churches Infallibility I answer This is to say Exception is made against à Truth which either must stand vnshaken or Faith made no more but à tottering Opinion is destroyed And Mark in what à Distress poor Christians are who Ask. Domine quo ibimus Lord whither shall we goe to learn Eternal truth Protestants will needs draw vs from à Church hitherto held infallible And to afford à better prouision of Truth remit vs to Themselues who confessedly are fallible in all they Teach A Paradox beyond Expression The Church is supposed fallible The Sectaries Paradox and Protestants are really fallible Where then is our Security From whom shall we learn Truth From no body But more of this hereafter 20. You se 2. There is not one receiued Christian Principle so much as seemingly fauourable to Moral certainty only which may be fals or which forces That vpon the Churches Infâ—rences Definitions Whereas on the contrary Scripture Councils and Fathers Positiuely Averr Church Doctrin to be infallible You se 3. To pretend to true Faith or to true Religion diuorced from Infallibility Destroyes Both For although euery Truth be not infallible yet Truth and Infallibility inseparably meet in Faith Wherefore this Inference inuiolably hold's good My Catholick Faith is true Ergo it is infallible For Faith relies vpon And is vltimatly Resolued into God's infallible Veracity which with the Concurrenee of other Principles requisite Transfuses into it à Supereminent infallibility aboue all natural Certitude What euer makes Faith true makes it Infallible That Therefore which makes Faith true makes it also Infallible Now further to our present Purpose God as we here Suppose reuealed the Consubstantiallity of his Son Infallibly But the Mystery lies dark in Scripture The Church impowred to Propose exactly eternal reuealed Truths Answerable to Her Trust and the weightines of the matter speak's not like one faint hearted Forsooth Morally speaking Christ is the highest God The word is Consubstantial But Asserts it without all Peraduentures And strik's Arianism dead with one only Definition And thus Faith stand's firm vpon à double infallibility the One infinite and Essential to God's Verity The Other the infallible Proposition of an Assisted Church For as She Proposes the obscure Mysteries of Faith so we belieue Whereof more presently Other Obiections proposed by Sectaries Solued More of Moral certainty 21. One though enough broken already must appear again in our New mens Terms or nothing is done Thus they Discourse If Christian Doctrin be in so high à Degree Morally Certain As it is Certain that Caesar Pompey and Cicero were men once in Being None can reasonably doubt of the Doctrin And why may not Such an Assurance Content vs without our pretended Infallibility I read this in Mr Stillingfleet more then once And had I not seen it with my own Eyes I Should neuer Sectaries Mistaks concerning Moral certainty haue thought That One Professing Knowledge in Diuinity could haue erred so enormously To lay open the foule Mistake 22. All know the Certainty we haue of Caesars once being in the world was first grounded vpon à Visible clear Euidence for Innumerable saw the man heard him Speak whilst He liued on earth The Verity euer since conueyd down from Age to Age Continues still to our dayes And here is all the Moral Certainty men can haue of Caesar of Pompey or of any other so remote from vs. Please now to obserue As Caesar and Cicero were seen by many Eye-witnesses So Christ our Lord was both heard and seen by Innumerable when he Preached and suffered on the Cross The Euidence to those Spectators was Sensible and Physical To Iewes and Gentils now its Moral who vpon à Vniuersal report Say without boggling There was once à man in the world called Christ as they say There was once One Called Caesar But and here we Come to discouer Mr Stillingfleets Errour Do These Iewes and Gentils therefore To say Christ was vpon Moral certainly belieue in Christ or Assent to his Sacred Doctrin by Faith because they Iudge vpon Moral Certainty He was once on earth Is this Truth I say As it is grounded vpon à Common Report or Morally Certain the Obiect of Faith It is more then ridiculous is not to belieue in Christ For grant That All the Iewes in Europe at this Day may be well thought to Belieue in Christ because they haue Moral Certainty of his once Being in the world 23. To Belieue in Christ Therefore is not to Say such à man once had his Being he Preach'd and suffered for this lay open to Sense But implyes Much more viz. To Assert indubitably vpon Diuine Reuelation That the Man called Christ Iesus was truely the Highest God The only Messias The Redeemer of Mankind Consubstantial to his Eternal Father and finally to Assent to Euery Doctrin he taught These and the What is to belieue in Christ like Truths neither visible nor sensible like Caesar are Obiects of Diuine Faith far enough remoued from Physical and Moral Certainty And we firmly Assent to All not because they are seen with our Eyes or Scientifically known Or finally Conueyed vnto vs vpon the weak Support of Moral certainty But because God an Infinite Verity has reuealed them Here is our Ground Now This Reuelation being not euidently known by virtue of any Principle in Nature must be Belieued together with the Obscure Mysteries Attested by an Act of Diuine Faith 24. And Hence it followes That as no Obiect as seen or Faith is more then morally Certain Euidently known Can terminate Supernatural Faith So no Moral Certainty can be essential to it Or vphold it The vltimate Reason hereof is most Conuincing and Briefly thus What euer God reueal's as it is reuealed is Certain and Infallible Doctrin Wherefore He or those that take from this infallible reuealed Doctrin it s own intrinsecal Certainty And make it no More but Morally Certain wrong God the first Verity and iniure all
of that weak Declaration it appear's no other to me but As things are proposed so they are to all that belieue weak and fallible And none on earth can vnbeguile me or Propose it with greater certainty Because all are now Supposed fallible in their Teaching 8. One Instance may yet clear my meaning The Protestant reads Christs Sacred words Matt. 26. This is my Body And Proposes what he conceiues to be belieuable by Faith But An Instance doth it fallibly Imagin that the Roman Catholick Church also could Say no more for Her Doctrin or the Sense of those Words But as the Protestant doth so fallibly that all might be False it is clear That none whether Catholick or Protestant can haue Certainty of the Doctrin which Christ our Lord deliuered in that one short Sentence Why Both declare their fallible Sentiments only and Fallibly concerning the Sacrament So far their teaching reaches and not farther Therefore the Faith which should be had of the Mystery dwindles into nothing but into à fallible Opinion by virtue of that imperfect Teaching 9. Hence we learn that à Doctrin though infallible in Gods word without more Help makes no man though he be à Prodigy of wit an Infallible Teacher The reason is Infallibility Scripture alone makes no man infallible And why Proceed's not from Scripture easily misinterpreted but immediatly from Gods special Assistance And this Assistance which fixes an Assumed Oracle vpon Truth vnerrably no malice can wrest to falshood Now that the Book of Scripture as dayly Experience teaches is horridly peruerted to à Sinister sense needs no proof For all know what ruin Hereticks haue to the vttermost of their Power endeuoured to make of the chief Articles of our Christian Faith though they aknowledged Scripture to be God's Diuine Word There is scarce One which remain's Vnperuerted Some Deny the Necessity of Diuine Grace Others that great Mystery of the Incarnation Others an Equality in the Diuine Persons Others our Sauiours two Wills Diuine and Humane Thus the Pelagians the Antitrinitarians the Apollinarians and Monothelits taught and deceiued The world And when Scripture is Alleged in behalf of euery Orthodox Truth All you haue from them is à return of ouerthwart Glosses Grace must signify what the Pelagians please The VVord made Flesh How abused what the Antitrinitarians fancy and so of the rest Whence it is Euident that Scripture Alone without more light clears not sufficiently its own Truths For here you Se the most Primary Atticles disowned and Consequently Scripture abused by Priuate Spirits which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's reuealed Doctrin 10. We Catholicks require à further Help One faithful Oracle to teach which in this contest about the Sense of Gods What Catholicks require besides the bare Letter of Scripture Word end 's all Strife and Saies both plainly and infallibly Thus and thus an Infinite Verity speaks in Scripture Yet Sectaries are offended with vs because we can assert without hesitancy VVe belieue infallibly what Truth it Selfe Reueal's infallibly Nay more They are angry with God for hauing done them the greatest fauour Imaginable For to put à Period to these endles A signal Mercy of God makes sectaries offended debates raised among Christians To teach all Infallibly by his own vnerring Oracle what may and ought to be belieued Infallibly is à signal Mercy for which due Thanks can neuer be rendred Disowne the Mercy we liue and shall liue in à Spirit of Contention to the worlds end 11. Now if you Ask why the Church after She has proposed the Sense and verity of Scripture more easily beget's infallible Faith in Her Children Than the bare letter of Gods word can doe without Her I Answer The facility Diuine assistance Supposed arises from the Clarity of Her teaching known to all Vniuersally whether Orthodox or others Whence it is that few of our Aduersaries scarce moue any doubt concerning the Sense of the Churches vniuersal receiued Doctrin for that 's plain but chiefly Question the Truth of it Whereas all is contrary in our contest with the forenamed Hereticks For there is no Dispute whether Scripture be true What is chiefly debated with Sectaries The debate only being what it Saith or what the Sense of Gods sacred word is Here we fight in darkness before the Church Speak's and Declares Her Sense And if She be diuinely Assisted to teach truth as is already and shall be more amply proued in the sequele Discourse that doubt also ceases and vanishes into nothing 12. In the mean while Some may Object 1. The greatest part of Christian Doctrin is now agreed on and Supposed by Catholicks and Protestanss both true and infallible what necessity then haue we of any other Oracle besides Scripture to teach infallibly Answ The Agreement is Null and the Supposition destroies it self if all that taught Christian Doctrin since the Apostles time teach it fallibly For How could any An Obiection Answered agree in this That such and such à Doctrin is both true and infallible when He or They yea all that teach may because fallible erre in their very teaching and call that infallible Doctrin without Assurance giuen of its Infallibility Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible not infallible ex Terminis We must ioyntly own with that an Oracle which Proposes these Verities infallibly or can belieue nothing And by this you Se the Supposition destroies it Selfe For The Sectaries Supposition destroyes it selfe to Suppose à Doctrin infallible when none can Propose it answerably to its Merit as infallible or infallibly is as implicatory as to Suppose without Proof the Starrs in Heauen equal in number and from thence to Inferr they are to be iudged equal The Parity holds exactly 13. Obiect 2. Whoeuer though fallible Deliuers by chance Infallible Christian Doctrin Teaches the very sence that Christ taught Answ Very true But he giues no Assurance Aunother Errour of Sectaries That he doth so For à fallible Deliuery of à Truth as yet only Supposed not Proued infallible raises it no higher but to such à State of Vncertainty that one may iustly doubt whether it be Christ's infallible Doctrin or no. 14. Obiect 3. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity may well conuey vnto à Hearer that which God has Reuealed For why may not an infallible Verity as Reuealed though fallibly Proposed haue influence vpon Faith and work in Belieuers à most firm Assent Answ It is vtterly vmpossible For à fallible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Proposed as infallible by any neither Supposes the Truth Certain vpon other principles and this is euer to be noted nor makes it infallible It Supposes no Truth taught infalliby for Protestants Say None now can teach so All Doctors being fallible And most euidently Sectaries clearly conuinced it makes not that Verity infallible For the Verity as reuealed was antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching
Endles 26. The Determination of à Council erring say our Aduersaries is to stand in force and to haue external Obedience at least yeilded to The Sectaries Doctrin breed's Confusion it till euidence of Scripture or à Demonstation to the Contrary make the Errour appear and vntil therevpon another Council of equal Authority reuerse the Errour Here is their Position which breed's nothing but Confusion among Christians and licenseth euery vnquiet Spirit interiourly at least to Censure Church Doctrin as abominable if He iudges it Erroneous or Contrary to Christ's Verities I say Interiourly And T' is hard to Silence and oblige men to external Obedience if this full Perswasion remain's And necessarily brings in Diuision stedfast in their minds Gods truths are Ouerthrown by an Erring Church or à misled Council There is no law humane or Diuine wich can bind to Hypocrisy But to iudge one thing Euidently fals and to Profess it as true is pain Hypocrisy To auoide therefore this Sin all are in points of faith not to Speak Contrary to Truth or hostility will of Necessity follow Between the Profession of priuate men and their interiour Iudgements which cannot but foment Rebellion in the Church whilst People generally liue in such à Perswasion that God's Truths are wronged 27. But here is not my greatest Exception Please to mark those other words Till Euidence of Scripture or à Demonstration makes the Errour appear Or another Council reuerses the Errour of the Former And say I beseech you to whom must this Euidence of Scripture appear To whom must the Councils Errour be Demonstrable What to Priuate men and these It can not be said to whom the supposed Errours of Fallible If so the Contest will be whether these Priuate Erring men or the Supposed Erring Council has the greater Euidence of Scripture Or on which Side the Demonstration against the Errour lies I say if the Church and Councils be fallible There neither is nor can be any thing like Euidence or à Demonstration in either of the Contenders Therefore an Councils must appear endles Dispute vpon meer Vncertainties must ensue vnless Mr. Stillingfleet laies the Errour vpon whom he pleases and makes Himself Vmpire in the cause You will say he supposes the Councils Errours euidently known Pitiful To whom I bescech you must they be known It s impossible to return an Answer Again if Suppositions may once pass for Proofs I 'll goe the Contrary way and either Suppose all Councils infallible or maintain this Truth Errours cannot be euidently known And why should not my Supposition be as good as his What then remain's but that we bring these Suppositions to the Test and Examin which is better And here the Dispute begins again in behalf of what is Supposed which can neuer be ended without an infallible Iudge 28. It may be replyed These Aduersaries proue not Councils fallible vpon any bare Supposition but only Say thus much If they were Fallible the Peace of the Church may yet be Preserued Contra 1. Peace is infinitly better vpheld were Councils as they truly are owned Infallible For so euery one would Acquiese in their Decrees as the Christian world has done hitherto Contra 2. The Churches Peace is torn in pieces Sedition Sedition reign 's if Councils be fallible necessarily reign 's Debates are endles if Councils be fallible To proue this 29. Call once more to mind the Assertion Viz. The Determination of an erring Council is to stand in force vntil there vpon an other Council of equal Authority Reuerse the Errour Obserue I beseech you Both these Councils are Supposed fallible and of equal Authority The Second therefore cannot reuerse the One Proof of the Assertion Errour of the First being as weak as fallible and of no more Authority than That first was Or if thus by Turns one may Annull the Decrees of the other A third may be conuened which recall's the Decrees of both and à Fourth which Cashieres all the precedent Definitions And so in Infinitum without Stop or Stint Hence arise endles Quarrels not only between Council and Council For euery one will Stand for its own Right But also among Christians Who seing the Discord are thrown into à remediles Perplexity and can neuer know what to Belieue or whom to Obey You will see clearly what I would expres by one or two Instances The Nicene Council Defined Further declared by an Instance the Consubstantiality of the Son to his Eternal Father So much is vndoubted Imagin now that an other like Assembly as fallible as the Nicene for that with Sectaries was fallible and of equal Authority had Defined the quite Contrary Doctrin And let this be also supposed for in Protestant Principles iâ— is Supposable that this Second corrected the Errour of the First What tumults think ye what an endles Rebellion would haue ensued there vpon in Christendom had the One Council thus clashed with the other No man in Prudence could haue Belieued or Obeyed either because both are Supposed fallible and of equal Authority 30. There is yet one Instance more Suitable to à Sectarian Humour Imagin only another Council Conuened as Learned Another Instance Shewing as General and as fallible as Protestants Suppose the Council of Trent to haue been And that this reuerses all the Doctrin contained in the Tridentine Offenfiue to our Nouellists Would not this destroy the Vnity of the present Church Would Ths horrid Inconuenience of Iarring Councils not some Side with the first some with the second or rather would not All vpon the Supposition scorn and contemn the Authority of both Church and Councils The like Inconuenience followes were the Catholick Church as large as some Sectaries make it or embraced all called Christians If in that case Two Councils representing the whole Moral Body should meet and the later Tear in pieces the Decrees of the former Would not Dissentions Grow as high and as odious vpon these Voting and Vnuoting Councils as they are now in England whilst Prelatiks Preach One kind of Doctrin and Fanaticks another quite contrary And is it Possible Do all Eyes se the Horrour of this contrary Preaching in One Island and are they shut vpon à greater more Terrible were it true That two of the highest Tribunals in the Church could stand in open Hostility and the One band against the other Thus much of Dissentions and Tumults necessary Appendants to iarring Representatiues 31. But all is not yet Satisfyed Our Aduersaries Say There can be no cause of Tumults in the Church if an Errour be euidently Discouered For euery One ought to thank God not to grumble when they se themselues freed from so great Sectaries â—â— destroy their own Principles à Mischief On the other side if the Errour be not Euident All are to submit to the Councils vntil à Publick Declaration makes the contrary truth manifest And thus the Peace of Christendom seem's well secured Answ And
we will first begin with these last words If the Errour be not Euident or intolerable all are obliged to submit to the Council vntil some publick declaration c. Hence I Argue But there neither is nor euer was any Euidence of Errour produced against one of our Catholick Councils the Lateran Florentine or Tridentine for example there neither is nor euer was any Legal Declaration more against these than against the First most ancient and purest Councils in Gods Church Therefore Sectaries by their own Principle are obliged to Submit to the Lateran Florentine and Tridentine as well as to others That there has not been any Publick Legal Declaration made against them is manifest And here is my proof 32. The clamours and Calumnies of Arians Cast vpon the The Assertion proued Nicene Council were no Legal Declaration against That but most Vncanonical Ergo the clamours and calumnies of Protestants cast vpon the now named Representatiues are fully as Illegal and Vncanonical yea and more forceles if more can be to Declare Clamours no Proofs them Inualid And besides clamours we neuer yet had nor shall haue hereafter any Thing from Sectaries The true Reason is Go groundedly to work There is not one Imaginable Principle whereby the Nicene can be proued à more lawful Council then the great Council of Lateran was so much decryed by Nouellists And if 't were Possible as it is not to Ouerthrow the One by any solid proof the Other Eo ipso loses all Credit and Authority 33. Hence These and the like calumnies vented by Sectaries The Arians and Protestants Clamour and Calumniate alike iâ— Corners The Lateran and Tridentine were vnlawful Councils 〈…〉 ed by the Pope they had not freedom Their Votes ought to be 〈…〉 ted Surreptitious The Conuened were not men of vnquestionable Integrity Some few by fair Pretences brought ouer the greater number wanting Iudgement to side with their Designs c. Such corner-Calumnies I say and I read them in our Aduersaries As easily â—â—attered out by Arians against the Nicene Fathers can neuer pass for legal Declarations against Catholick Councils whilst euery Proposition want's proof and euery word its due Weight That iâ— what euer can be said to this Sense stand's Vnprincipled Therefore vnless all must be iust so as Sectaries will haue it Vnless fals Suppositions become conuincing Arguments and à pure begging the Question proue it Or be able to decide our Differences We haue Right to cry as loud They. Audiatur altera Pars. A Iudge is to decide all and not Clamours Let Catholicks be heard also And when they are heard and return their Answers before à lawful Iudge to euery particular these Calumnies will vanish or rather appear like Themselues Forged and far-fetch't Improbabilities Exclude à Iudge and à iust Sentence Sectaries are where they would be in the old Labyrinth of Quarrelling without Principles or giuing any hope of ending One Question in Controuersy 34. Now to implead our Councils of Errours and to pretend Sectaries neuer legally assembled Euidence for it is more than à desperate Attempt vnless as I say the Corner-votes of à few iarring dispersed Sectaries neuer legally Assembled haue Power to create à new kind of Euidence vnknown to the world Please to reflect à little It must Forsooth be Euident That the Doctrin of Transubstantiation or Praying to Saints are Errours whilst à whole vnited learned Church Opposes these vain Pretences and Defend's the Articles as Catholick Create à new Kind of Euidence Verities It was neuer yet heard that Sectaries Scattered here an there had Authority to impose such foule disgraceful Names of Euident Errours or Errours morally Certain vpon Doctrins so vniuersally receiued when as I say The most learned Body of Christians that euer was Vnuotes all they blow into the eares of others as meer Impertinences Euidence Good Reader and Moral certainty lose force and neuer yet stood in the Sight or presence of so strong an Opposition I will yet say more Though we abstract from Church Authority we Catholicks are able to maintain our Doctrin against Sectaries vpon Tradition the Authority of Fathers ancient Records c. But still we require A last Iudge to giue Sentence whether they or we abuse the Principles we plead by For certainly the one or other Party doth so But this Nouellists euer Decline and Sectaries decline both Iudge and final Sentence will haue vs to Dispute without either Iudge or indubitable Principles and so make as is now said all Controuersies endles which indeed is the only Thing they ayme at and I haue vndertaken to proue against them 35. Mr Stillingfleet P. 539. speak's so fully to my purpose that more cannot be desired from an Aduersary He Demands how it can be known when Errours in Councils or the Church are manifest or intolerable and when not And Answers thus We appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Concurrent Sense of the primitiue Church the common reason of mankind the consent of wise and learned men Supposing Scripture to be the Rule of Faith And à little after Our Aduersaries Doctrin If you Ask further Who shall be Iudge what à necessary Reason or Demonstration is His Lordship tell 's you plainly enough from Hooker It is such as being Proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it Here you haue the Gentlemans last Principles And euery one when applyed to our present Matter is as much Controuerted between Catholicks and Protestants as the very Question now in Dispute Obserue well 36. The Question is whether the Lateran Florentine and Tridentiue Councils haue erred in their Definitions the like may be moued of all others Protestants say they haue erred Catholicks Lead's still â—n to dispute but to make no end of Controuersies Deny it Both Parties Appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Sense of the Primitiue Church So far as that Oracle learns vs. And if any Passage be found there seemingly fauorable to Sectaries Catholicks after the Contest of one whole Age haue been more ready to clear all Doubts To take of any thing like Imagined Errours Than Protestants were euer yet able to lay such foul Aspertions vpon either Church or Councils What then is to be done Must we eternally Dispute concerning that Sense and end nothing Must we Commence new Quarrels Sectaries who began the quarrel about Matters so often debated Must the old Actum agere come ouer and ouer again Sectaries like that Sport well but no Progress is made this way As yet we only skirmish in the dark Wherefore recourse at last is to be had to à lawful Iulge to some known Oracle or other in whose final Sentence all are to acquiese If any lawful Iudge or owned Oracle Primitiue or latter Condemn our Councils of Errour and we licence Sectaries Like well â—â— hear themselues talk without Principles to name either Prouided they make not
least When difficulties arise Exception I say therefore to proue what I sayd aboue If Church and Councils can err notoriously There is no means left on earth either to discouer the Errours or to amend them 7. The Assertion will be proued by sifting this one Point to the Bottom And Much light will be had if we leaue Generalities One Point Examined wherin Sectaries alwaies lurk and descend to particulars Or lay forth the nature of some imaginable Errours Call then These if any be horrid and intolerable 8. To teach there is no God no Christ no Redeemer no Saluation I Ask whether the Councils in Gods Church can err thus grosly The Nature of horrid Errours or are so secured by Diuine Assistance as not to Define such vast Absurdities If it be Answered They are so far at least preserued infallible I clearly Infer No man can exclude à total infallibility from Councils If it be Answered Possibly they may err in this Damnable manner I infer Again Ergo Possibly Councils Church and all Christians may vtterly desert Christ become Atheists Turks Iewes Diuels or what els you will that naught is Can this also be granted 9. One may reply it is indeed possible yet will neuer be Câ—ntra Who hinders the Mischief I beseech you if the Supposition may stand The Roman Catholick Church Say Sectaries is already Idolatrous and long since was Antichristian when some English Protestants made the Pope Antichrist The Church accused of intolerable Errours Why then may not Atheism Iudaism and Turcism infect likewise the Whole Moral Body of Christians and Destroy both Church and Councils Grant this Possible there can be no more talk of after-Councils correcting the former erroneous For the Church is now Destroyed Christ our Lord must please to appear again or send some great Prophet to establish à new Church more firm than the other was now ruined or we are lest desolate vtterly Churchles 10. I am verily perswaded our Aduersaries will think twice on 't before they once grant these horrid Consequences and therefore must needs make the Supposed Euident intolerable errours not altogether so abominable but less or of à lower rank yet euident and intolerable Remember that And what may these A question proposed to Sectaries be think ye I would fain know whether any such foul Doctrins have been euer taught de facto or because Councils are Supposed fallible whether they yet remain in à State of possibility and only may be Taught If it be Said they are not actual but only possible Or may be intolerable hereafter And Sectaries vpon that Account abandon the Roman Catholick Church Their Sin is now actual and more horrid than such Concerning these Supposed Errours Actual or Possible Errours are Because They desert à Church vpon supposed faults which only may be yet neuer were hitherto Now if for à meer Possibility of falsities neuer yet actually Discouered nor known The Roman Church is to be quitted Protestants ought to forsake Their own Religion For they are all liable to Errour Yea And may well hang vp the most Innocent man in the world vpon this score That he may be à thiefe Though as yet he neuer Stole any thing 11. The Errours therefore if we Discourse rationally hitherto pretended against vs are not in à meer State of Possibility None Condemned for Errours which Possibly may be But Actual Euident and intolerable We inquire after them And still proceed vpon this wretched Supposition that both Church and Council are fallible or haue erred When Enuy has done its Vtmost you only can get à List of these or the like Supposed Falshoods Praying to Saints The Real Presence Worshiping of Images Transubstantiation or some thing of this nature which Catholicks maintain Now truely it is more than extrauagant and I know not with what Conscience Sectaries do it to Decry these as Euident and intolerable Errours whilst à whole learned Church defends them as Truths 12. What Saith Mr Hooker Is the mind so forced that after à full Proposal it cannot chuse but inwardly Assent to All as euident Errours Toyes Trifles Millions as we now Sectaries in consequencies sayd own them as Apostolical Verities 2. If Euident and intolerable they strike at such Verities as Sectaries call the fundamentals of Faith And consequently the Roman Church which maintains them has been Vnorthodox in fundamentals for à thousand years and more Will this be granted Grant or deny here is an vnanswerable Dilemma They are fundamental Errours in our Sectaries sense destructive of Diuine Faith or not If not but only smaller matters Protestants Oblige themselues to forbear and to expect the Churches Good pleasure vntil some other Council meet 's and Reuerses what 's Amiss Their Clamours therefore against the Churches Doctrin now are vnauthorised and most illegal by their own Principles Nor haue they Power as is confessed to Reform themselues in lesser matters but only in things of à higher Concern Euident and intolerable 13. Now if they be of this nature and consequently fundamental A clear Inference against Sectaries Absurdities against Faith It followes that there was no Church right in fundamentals the whole world ouer for ten Ages before Luther Not the Roman if the Supposition hold's Nor any other Society of Christians for all those name whom you will were more deeply plunged into fundamental Errours 3. And T' is the chiefest thing I aime at If Church and Councils be owned fallible can err or haue erred Our Aduersaries Supposition of Errours Euident and intolerable is purely chimerical And therefore I said iust now None can know them as such and consequently no Power on earth can amend them I proue the Assertion 14. First they cannot be known as euident or manifest Intolerable Errours cannot be proued against the Church without Principles as clear as the Errours are Supposed to be which therefore must be so indisputable That the mind inwardly Assent's to them as Mr Hooker Saith A weaker light as Probability or à miscalled Moral Certainty beget's Euidence in none Now here we Vrge our Aduersaries to bring to Light but one or more clear Principles whereby it may manifestly appear that Transubstantiation or any other Catholick Doctrin is so manifest à Falshood That the mind conquered By any thing like à Principle and conuicted with the Euidence cannot chuse but decry it as intolerable Whither will these men run for Principles To Scripture it 's euidently abused by the one or other Party but who is in fault You will say That 's yet disputable therefore fâ—r of from Euidence Church and Councils supposed errable and erroneous cannot tell you nor giue in euidence against him or them that abuse Scripture Whither next To the Fathers All are fallible and their Sense â—n controuerted matters is made so intricate when you hear Them glossed by the Protestant and vnglossed by the Catholick that you would Swear they speak
Contradictions And can any thing like euidence or certainty grow from these contrary Glosses which as Experience teaches breed endles Quarrels 15 Other Principles we haue not any except Mr Stillingfleets Common Reason of Mankind the worst of all for doe we not Scripture Church Fathers and all Principle fail Sectaries se that Hereticks euery where make Themselues and their own Sects most reasonable Where we haue nothing like common Reason but so many different and diuided Sentiments of iarring men dispersed vp and down the world If therefore Scripture Fathers and this Common Reason fail to be Principles our Sectaries Supposition of manifest or Euident falsities in the Church goes beyond all Moderation and implies an Ouerlashing more than intolerable 16. Their vngrounded Mistake lies here That Principles are Supposed at hand or ready at à call to Decide in this case of à Councils Supposed Errour Whereas if both Church and Councils can or do Err There are no such things in being as Principles Topicks Vncertain Topicks no Principles at most or an endles iarring vpon meer Vncettainties lead none to an Euident Discouery of Errours Therefore I sayd right they cannot be known as Euident for want of Principles and if not known as such no Power on earth can amend them Yet good Principles reach thus far at least as to Demonstrate that Protestants grosly Mistake in their Clamours against our Churches errours De facto And here you haue my Principles already hinted at 17. Either these supposed Errours are those vnchristian Tenents mentioned N. 8. And certainly Councils neuer transgressed so enormously as to Define such diuellish Doctrins Or. A Strong Argument against Sectaries 2. They are only Possible false Doctrins which may be Defined if Councils can err but yet are not taught If So All must Say that as it is horrid to condemn à man for à crime he may commit though he neuer did it So it is the highest Iniustice to condemn à whole Church for Falshood's She may teach if fallible though She neuer taught them Nothing then remains but to plead against our Church Doctrin de facto as euidently and intolerably Erroneous and herein we will not spare Sectaries one whit but Vrge them as we doe to speak home in the cause Their Accusation is euident we Press them Again and again to iustify it by Proofs and Principles as euident What must these errours be decryed as Euident and intolerable and can none but Sectaries get so much as à glimpse of the Euidence Away with such fooleries No man can hear them with Patience 18. By what is said already you se that The Doctrin of Protestants Shewes it Selfe as it is not only false but most Inconsequent Sectaries Doctrin in consequent Mark I beseech you the Inconsequence These Nouellists Define the Church to be an Assembly of men who Belieâ—â— and Profess the pure VVord of God But such men find them where you can as belieue and profess the pure Word which is iâ— it Self Infallible are certainly infallible if they Belieue it as God's infallible VVord Therefore they must acknowledge an infallible Moral Body of Christians that Constitutes an infallible Church 19. In Lieu of Doing this They Tear all in Pieces and First Decry the Roman Catholick Church as Errable Yea actually erring Next and this Marr's their own Cause they withall Profess themselues fallible Whereas had any thing like consequent Doctrin entred their Thoughts They should at least haue made â—rotestants infallible being as They Say new commissioned By their own Principles they should hold some Society of men Infallible Doctors sent from God to amend the Churches Errours And belieue it their own Infallibility had they casually laid claim to it would as soon haue been perswaded That 's neuer as now without Probability or any thing like à Principle They endeauour to proue the Roman Catholick Church Fallible But let this pass Thus much I Assert To tell vs on the One side There is an Assembly of men who Belieue the infallible Word of God And on the Other To make all that Teach and Belieue it Fallible liable to False Doctrin is not only to proceed The contrary Doctrin ruins Faith inconsequently but moreouer to Expose Christian Religion to the Scorn of Iewes and Gentils yea quite to ruin Diuine Faith And finally to make vs all Scepticks certain of nothing 20. If it be replyed The Councils and Sectarles with them are at least preserued infallible in things Called the Fundamentals of Faith plainly reuealed in Scripture I vrge them first to giue in their Proofs for this half or partial Infallibility which will be more than ridiculous if once they Appear in paper Again if we are all infallible and secure in à few Fundamentals plainly registred in Scripture to what Purpose do Sectaries keep à coyle about smaller Matters called Vnfundamentals Which are neither intolerable or Considerable because Small Much less can they be Euident Errours so long as à whole Their pretended Euidence of Errours is euidently à Fourb Church defends them as Truths For this Euidence cannot but faile Sectaries or come to nothing whilst the Church and They stand in Contest about it Be it how you will Here without à Iudge we are got into the old Labyrinth again of an endles Dispute which can neuer Produce any thing like Euidence in behalf of Sectaries CHAP. XVIII Two Aduersaries mainly Opposit to True Religion The last and most vrgent Proof of the Churches Infallibility taken from the Necessity the Notion and Nature of true Religion Mr Stillingfleets Obiections found weak and weightles Most of them already Proposed and Dissolued by others A short Reflection made vpon some few â— THere is à Knot of half-witted People who Say though Religion Seem's indeed necessary to Preserue humane Society in peace And to Ouer-awe vnruly Spirits yet the Two Paradoxes maintainâ—e by these half mad men best were any Good is no more but à meer Fiction à forged â—ale in fine an Errour These men make nature Monstruous and must Consequently maintain two vast Paradoxes The one That humane Societies euery were That is All Kingdoms and Common-wealths stand in need of Fiction and Errour to make them happy The Proposition is euident For if peace Tranquility Fiction and foolery can make no man happy and the subduing of vnquiet Spirits be à true necessary Happines to all And these cannot subsist without à fained Religion It is manifest that Fiction Foolery and Errour make theâ— happy which is as much as to Say à Constant Sicknes keep 's the body in health weaknes giues it strength Pain and 〈◊〉 â—ase and refreshment Certainly no less is errour dissoâ—â—â—t to à rational Nature than Sicknes repugnant to health 〈◊〉 to fire or heat to water 2. The second Paradox wholly as bad and clear keeps Parallel with this other It is now supposed that Religion which is nothing els but Fiction necessarily conduceth to the
Peace of Kingdoms and Common-wealths wherevpon their Happines â—est's more secure And is better preserued than if this fiction 〈◊〉 not Hence it followes euidently To know and Profess Truth to quit our Selues of Errour and fiction robb's vs of Happines and makes humane nature miserable The Inference is vndeniable For if we be happy vpon this score that we liue in à Dâ—tage we are miserable in case we get free of it or become Wise which is against the light of Reason For if God has endued Nature is not miserable by being freed from dotage all with à desire of true Wisdom and the knowledge of truth whereof none can doubt Man cannot be miserable if he Possesses that Good which the Author of nature would haue him to enioy Hence it in also Inserred that the vniuersal Perswasion of true Religion is no Dotage no Deception but à Truth and that most notorious 3. Now if you Obiect some liue without Religion and â—â— few embrace à false one you plead by cases meerly Accidental As if one should Say Nature has made man Sociable and giuen him à tongue to Conuerse with others But some Cases meerly Accidental made vse of to no purpose are dumb others abuse their faculty of speaking Therefore man is no sociable creature This is our case Those who liue without all Religion if any such be are the dumbe and blind Those that Profess à falss Religion like lying tongues abuse Gods Gifts the Abuse is Theirs not God's who would haue all to be vâ—ius labij of one Tongue and one heart in à matter of so high Concern And thus much of these first Aduersaries Opposite to true Religion 4. In the next place I may well name our modern Sectaries no less than Arch-aduersaries of Religion who make the Church and all that teach Church Doctrin fallible My reason is A Fained and Fallible Religion are neer Cous 〈…〉 Sectaries parallel'd with the other Aduersaries Germans The one is à Fiction The other at least may be so And for ought any man can know is no better For there is no Principle whereby it may appear so much as probably that all the Christians who liued since the Apostles time or yet are aliue haue not been deluded with fictions concerningâ— Gods truths but rather are plunged into à deep Deluge of gross Errours if the Church and Councils can Teach or belieue false Doctrin And here be pleased to reflect à little Hoâ— neer these two Aduersaries come to one another 5. The first mentioned account it Happines to remain in Errour and Sectaries like well not only the Possibility but more à prefent manifest danger of erring in this matter of highest The Parallel laâ—id forth and proued Consequence Actual errour pleases the one and à great hazard of it contents the other Humane nature say the first would be miserable were men so wise as to learn this Truth that Religion is à Foppery though it be so And we are all vndone Say Sectaries could we acquire so much Wisdom in this present state as to be infallibly Ascertained that Religion is no Foppery which perhaps may be one Wherefore to weaken all certitude They tell vs That none can learn infallibly those truths which God has reuealed because all Churches all Councile all Pastors and Doctors whose Duty is to giue Assurance of trutâ— are so fallible And that the very best may erre and oblige men â—â— belieue Errour Here is all the comfort we haue from Sectaries Thus much premised 6. We come to the fundamental Ground which proues our Catholick Religion and the Church that teaches it to be infallible I Said in the first Disc C. 1. n. 9. speaking against Atheists If we receiue the first lights of nature called general The fundamental ground of the Churches Infallibility 〈◊〉 from any Power inferiour to God They are all fallible and may deceiue vs. This granted which I think no Christian can deny It is most consequent to Assert That if we receiue the Supernatural lights or truths of Grace reuealed in Scripture vastly aboue all humane Comprehension from à less Power than God the wisest of men may liue in errour and cannot but be deceiued And thus both Nature and Grace necessarily depend on God 7. This great Truth iâ— the Apostles Doctrin Iacob C. 1. 17. Omne Donum perfectum de sursum est Euery perfect Gift Deduced from the Apostles Doctrin comes from aboue descending from that Father of lights God therefore rightly stiled the Father of light or as Diuines Speak Prima veritas the first vnerring Verity Pleased to make known some few of his Diuine truths in that Book of Holy Scripture Few I call them compared with innumerable others not at all reuealed which yet his infinite Wisdom comprehend's Howeuer these few often darkly expressed in that mysterious Book or in Terms less perspicuous Dazle the eyes of weak sighted Mortals and wonder nothing The Apostle giues the Reason â— Tim. 6. 16. because all proceed from him Qui lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem That dwell's in an vnaccessible light none can attain vnto Yet truths they are the first vnerring Verity Treasures Communicated Asserts it and therefore ought to be estemed treasures If treasures Prouidence will haue them conueyed vnto vs by secure hands And if eternal truths concerning Saluation God cannot but will and his Will is à law That all be Proposed and Taught as Diuine and infallible Verities depending vpon none How to be Valued if we vltimately bring them to their last Center but vpon the first Truth only who neither will nor can deceiue any 8. Now here is the Difficulty Seing it hath pleased Almighty God for reasons best known to Himselfe to leaue most of the high Mysteries registred in Scripture in no little Obscurity The main Difficulgy Proposed Some express his own Perfections of being one essence and three distinct Persons Others relate to the admirable works of Grace effected by his Infinite Power Of this nature are the Incarnation and the whole Series of mans Redemption The Difficulty I say is to find out à trusty Interpreter some faithful Oracle which can when doubts occurr concerning the darker Mysteries clear all lay open the Book and absolutely Assert An infinite verity speaks thus This sense and no other is what the Holy Ghost intended And this is necessary because Almighty God teaches no more immediatly by himself nor will haue Enthusianisms to be our Doctors 9. Moreouer the necessity of such à sure Oracle if Diuine The necessity of an Infallible Oracle truth must be learn'd is proued vpon this ground chiefly That these mysteries as is now said haue both their Difficulty and Darkness Natural reason left to it self boggles at them Iewes Gentils and Hereticks reiect the highest It is Say they mighty hard to believe á Trinity the Diuine word made flesh God and man to dye vpon à Cross c. What can
Reason yeild so far or submit to these as eternal Verities when their last and only Proof is taken from à Book which we se euidently sensed different wayes and so interpreted that One in rigour may own the Quineced because the Mysteries are difficult Scriptures Diuinity as the Arians do and yet so farr fauour Reason as not to force vpon it the Belief of such sublime secrets which offer violence to our intellectual Faculties Thus the Arians discourse 10. Now here I iustly appeal to the common Iudgement of Mankind and Ask whether our God of truth who on the one side perfectly comprehend's the depth of his own reuealed Mysteries and on the other penetrat's no less our shallow capacities puzled as we se in the search of the most Obuious things in nature could make choise of men meerly fallible and diuorced from Diuine Assistance to interpret Scripture whilst all of them none excepted because errable may grosly mistake and change the purest Verities which were euer yet reuealed into Errours What think ye could God who from Eternity foresaw and yet sees his written Truths depraued abused yea Heresies drawn from his most sacred words Could this Al-seing wisdom I say put his own Sacred book into such Sacrilegious hanâ—s or like well that à few scattered and diuided Sectaries should be the only best Interpreters of it 11. I say yet more All the men in the world considered meerly as nature has fram'd them fallible would commit the Presumption in this matter easily Committed Sin of Presumption and wrong both God and his verities did they venture so far as to interpret Scripture by no other Rule or law but by their own weak Reason and there vpon resolutely define that God is one pure Essence and three real distinct Persons Original Sin is such an euil as the Orthodox Church teaches Children are to be Baptized c. To deduce thus much from the bare letter of Scripture and to define euery particular resolutely is aboue the force of all natural knowledge Those then who Interpret the Truths of the first Alseing Verity that inhabits light not seen by our natural eyes must be specially Priuiledged and either receiue Diuine Assistance necessary illumination from the Father of Light or thankfully take infallible Assistance from the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth which is both promised and readily giuen to the Catholick Church 12. Hence I deduce the Churches infallibility and Argue thus Either there is such à Society of men preserued by Prouidence infallible in all they Define and interpret or not If you Affirm The Roman Catholick Church alone has the Priuiledge for all others disclaim Infallibility If you Deny The A further Proof highest Mysteries of Christian Religion are things only sought for but not found talked of but neuer learned In à word Religion is à meer Scepticism the best that learn it seem iust like those Schollers the Apostle mentioneth 2. Tim 3. 6. Semper discentes c. Alwaies learning but neuer throughly instructed If I euidence not what is here said so manifestly That no Sectary shall rationally contradict it censure me at your pleasure 13. A few Questions will clear all And first I must Demand From whence has that we call Religion its truth All Answer from God the first vnerring Verity Very right But we Ask again Where is the Master teaching Oracle which plainly deliuer's these reuealed truths or clearly Proposes the Mysteries now named Sectaries vsually tell vs Their Oracle is holy Scripture Herevpon followes à third Querie more difficult than all the rest Viz. Who Ascertains you Arians you Donatists you Pelagians you Protestants you Quakers All fallible that you The Sectaries pretence to their reading Scripture examined rightly vnderstand what you read and grosly depraue not Gods Word for without controuersy innumerable called Christians do depraue it Protestants à perfect Representatiue of all the other shall Answer for all O say they VVe read Scripture attentiuely we pray for light we peruse the Originals we compare Passage with passage and after much pains taken we both belieue the highest Mysteries and moreouer perswade our Selues that the new Model of Protestancy is conformable or at least not Dissonant to Gods word Here you haue their last and very best Principle For they will not hear of an Infallible Church 14. Reflect Gentle Reader à little Do Protestants only read pray peruse and compare No Certainly The Arians long since haue done So yet boldly oppose Protestants and deny the highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith If then the Arians Praying perusing and comparing proue no conuiction to Protestants Arians also read and Oppose Protestants Why should the Protestants praying or perusing Conuince the Arians of Errour Again Haue not Catholicks think ye of à longer continuance and far more numerous than Sectaries prayed and perused Scripture None can doubt it And yet they hold the whole Model of pure Protestancy à Nouelty and openly declare it Heretical Therefore vnless Sectaries haue So do Catholicks à singular talent in praying and perusing aboue all other Christians Vnless they can produce better Proofs for the Mysteries of Faith against the Arians and stronger Arguments against Catholicks in behalf of Protestancy than the bare letter of Scripture Sectaries Pretence to reading Scripture And their own weak conferring Texts together or praying vpon them They do not only make Protestancy ridiculous but moreouer euery new whimsy defensible For was there euer yet Fanatique in the world that could not Say thus much He certainly both professes and teaches truth because he has à Bible read's that peruses it and prayes earnestly And will not any Aduersary retort the Argument vpon him and defend whateuer foolery he fancies contrary 15. Belieue it if this way of Arguing haue force the meanest Quaquer in England will make his cause good against the makes Protestancy ridiculous stoutest Protestant and the Protestant if he say I read I Ponder I pray proues his Religion euery whit as strongly against the Quaquer That is neither proues any thing Nay more the worst of Hereticks may vpon this ground maintain his Errours against the Orthodox Church be that yet where you will and could the Church only say She reads Scripture ponders it and prayes Her case would be the same with the worst of Hereticks But besides reading and praying There are other Proofs whereby One Church only is euinced God's Faithful Oracle 16. From what is now said I Argue first A Principle which makes false Religion true yea all Religions though most erroneous as credible as true Religion is more than intolerable The Sectaries Principle makes false Religions true But this Principle of Protestants we read Scripture we ponder and pray makes false Religions true and all Sects though most erroneous as credible as true Religion is Ergo it is more than intolerable The Minor as is now said proues it self For euery Heretick pretend's to
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
that Euery one may perceiue the Aduersary I treat with clearly refuted THE FIRST CHAPTER Some chiefe Contents in this Discourse briefly declared Mr Stillingfleets weak attempts against the Churches infallibility and the Resolution of Faith The Catholick way of resoluing Faith the very same with that of the Primitiue Christians Of the mistakes which run through Mr Stillingfleets whole Discourse 1. IN the following Chapters we first remoue such difficulties as may seem to obstruct the Clearest Resolution What this third Disceurse Contain's And all along discouer Mr Stillingfleets Errorus viz. Chiefly those most apparent in his 5. Chapter 2. We examin what Influence the Motiues of Credibility haue ouer Faith 3. Necessary Principles are premised much auailing to Conceiue the true Analysis 4. We Shew wherein the Main Difficulty lies in this Resolution Omitted by Mr Stillingfleet and solue it 5. The whole Progress of Faith is Explained in order to its last Resolution 6. The true Analysis is giuen in two Propositions Here we also treat of the Euidence of Credibility and solue the Sectaries Obiections 7. This question is proposed VVhether the Churches Testimony may be Called the Formal Obiect of Faith 8. We Ask what is meant by this word Reason And enquire how far true Reason Conduces to end Controuersies 9. Protestancy is proued à most vnreasonable Religion 2. Mr Stillingfleet Part 1. C. 5. P. 109. offer 's at much it is to discouer strange ill Consequences yea grand Absurdities Our Aduersaries bold aduenture if Faith be resolued by the Churches Infallibility and seem's some what ouer-heated in carrying on the cause against his Adversary Let any man saith he iudge whether this be not the most compendious way to ouerthrow the belief of Christianity There is hardly any thing more really destructiue to Christianity or that has à greater tendency to Atheism than the Modern pretence to Infallibility The vnreasonablenes of it is so great that I know not whether I may abstain from calling it ridiculous And much more to this Sense 3. It seems by what I read in Mr Stillingfleet T. C. whose Book I had not then seen said that Catholicks in this present What his Aduersary asserted State resolue their Faith after the very same manner as the Israëlits anciently and the Primitiue Christians resolued Theirs If he said that he Spake à Truth not only defensible but so Sound and Irrefragable that Mr Stillingfleet to vse his own pretty Phrase like one vnder an Ephialtes Shall tumble groan tosse this way and that and yet not rid himself of the vexation 4. The Doctrin I find plainly deliuered and the Instances of the ancient Israelits and the Primitiue Christians so well made vse of for the Catholick Resolution by our learned Countryman Thomas Baâ—on Southwell Analysis Fidei Disp 4. and 5. That here I must needs insert some Part of it because it much auailes to Conceiue the easiest way of resoluing Faith And well penetrated so vtterly defeates what Mr Stillingfleet has that Is Sound Doctrin much more is not requisite to make void his forceles Obiections 5. F. Southwel therefore Analysis Fidei now cited c 〈…〉 n. 18. Speak's much to this sense Had one asked à 〈◊〉 Belieuer in Moses his time after the 〈…〉 uch was written Why belieue you that God is iust wiâ—e faithful in his Promises Or if you will haue one particular why Adam sinned How the Israelits questioned about faith in Paradise He would haue answered Scripture Saith sâ— But if again demanded How know you that Scripture is God's Diuine word Would he think ye haue Answered I se that by the very light and Sparkling of the Letter It is impossible as shall be proued afterward Thus therefore He would haue replyed Moses our great Prophet Affirm's it or rather God speaking by the mouth of Moses laies that Verity open to vs And vpon that ground I belieue it So we read Deuteâ— 1. 3. Moses spake to the Children of Israel all which God had commanded him to say to them Now if thirdly Questioned How Wâ—uld â—aue answered Proue you that Moyses was à true Prophet or God's Oracle He could not haue satisfied by alledging Scripture without à Vicious Circle but would haue Said This truth is immediatly and most euidently Credible by it Selfe for the Wisdom Sanctity and Power of working Miracles manifest to all eyes proue to Reason that Moses is à great Prophet 5. In like manner Catholicks proceed in their Resolution of Faith Demanded why we belieue the Mystery of the Incarnation it is Answered Scripture Assert's it Ask again why we belieue the Diuinity of that Book called Scripture It is replyed The Church ascertain's of That But how do we know that the Church herein deliuer's Truth It is Answered if we Speak of knowledge preuious to Faith Those admirable Signes of Diuinity mentioned aboue and manifest in this one Oracle Viz. The Sanctity of life the Contempt of the world Catholicks in this present State return the very same Answer the c 〈…〉 ed Austerity of Pennance the height of Contemplation apparent in thousands and thousands And aboue all the glorious Miracles most illustrious in this one Society of Christians proue it an Oracle so euidently credible That we cannot if prudent and manifest Reason guides vs but as firmly belieue what euer this Oracle teaches as the Israelits belieued Moses and the Prophets One only Differenâ—â— aduantagious for vs. Here is only the difference And the Aduantage is ours that in Lieu of Moses we haue an ample Church Inumerable multitudes in place of one Seruant of God The incomparable greater light I mean the Pillar and Ground of truth the Catholick Church diffused the whole world ouer 6. Answerable to this Doctrin the primitiue Christians resolued their Faith after the Canon of Scripture was written Ask therefore why these first conuerted People whether Iewes or Gentils belieued Christ to be the true Messias the Son of God and Sauiour of the world They might haue Answered We read this and much more in Holy Scripture But how know you that these Scriptures are not suppositious or fained as some Gospels haue been We belieue this Say They The Primitiue Christians way of resoluing Faith vpon the vndoubted Testimony of those blessed men the Apostles who both taught vs and wrote that holy Book Yet more How know you that those Apostles were not Cheats for there haue been false Prophets and Apostles but men Authorized by Almighty God to teach and write his holy Verities Had they replyed We proue this by Scripture it self the Circle would haue been ineuitable For to Say Scripture is Gods word because the Apostles Assert it and to Say the Apostles were infallible Oracles of Truth because Scripture affirm's that is to Proue Idem per Idem And implies à most vicious Circulation 7. Their Answer then must haue been for there is no other The manifest Miracles wrought by the Apostles Their
Fifteen and I le tell you which it is the Churches glorious Miracles hath so silenced Sectaries that none of them all has hitherto attempted to return any better answer than this Bellarmine thou lies't He Saies 2. The only certain Note of the true Church is its agreement with the Primary foundation of it in the Doctrin whâ—ch was infallible and attested by miracles vndoubtedly Diuine This is à strange Note or Mark which cannot be distinguished from the thing Marked as the Motiues of Credibility manifestly sensible are distinguished from the Doctrin belieued 10. Answer therefore Good Sr is this Agreement with the Primitiue Doctrin it s owns Self Euidence as à Mark should be Or do all dissenting Parties accord thus far That anciently such That 's made à clear Mark â—as the Primitiue Doctrin but now is changed from it selfe into another new Learning Most euidently no. For the whole contest between the Church and Her Aduersaries may these be â—eard is whether of vs Professe the Primitiue Doctrin laid in the first foundation of Christianity This point then being yet disputable for so Sectaries will haue it it is meer folly to make it à Mark whereby to distinguish truth from falshood And there is which Sectaries must Say is yet disputable and obscure no clearing it from Improbability vnless you say Sectaries more â—iâ—e then the rest of the world can exactly tell vs who those Christians are that now agree with the Primitiue Doctrin and who dissent from it But others as wise as they want faith to belieue such bare Assertions without Proofs and Principles In à word there is no knowing what the Primitiue Doctrin was nor can any now haue infallible certainty of the Apostles Miracles without à Church actually in Being and Infallible 11. He saith 3. If our Doctrin be repugnant to what was Originally 〈…〉 ered by the Founder of the Christian Church our Society is not the Conditional Propositions here Proofless Christian Church Answ No more Sr is Yours if it be repugnant But To what purpose are these Iss and conditional Propositions when Proofs are expected from Accusers Proue you if you can but doe it vpon sound Principles that our Doctrin is repugnant to that which was Originally deliuered you are Conqueâ—our and we no more Catholicks but Sr à hundred more of your Volumes will neuer Euince this 12. He demands 4. whether we cannot conceiue à Church should A fallible Church cannot be Consonant to Christ's Doctrin be Consonant to the Doctrin of Christ without being infallible Answ No truly T' is impossible and here is the Reason because in à lesse space then one Age there would be as many Religions in such à Church as there are Townes or villages in it And perhaps more And is not this manifest in England where almost euery year we haue à new Religion coyned Therefore to Imagin à Society of men vnited rogether in the belief of Christ's infallible Doctrin without an infallible Oracle to teach is à meer Chimera O but euery Man in this fallible Society is bound to take care of his soul and to belieue the infallible Doctrin of Christ I Answer If to take care of his Soul necessarily implies the Belief of Christ's infallible Doctrin it is impossible to take that care because he can haue no infallible Assurance of Christs Doctrin without à Church which teaches it infallibly Hereof enough is said aboue 13. Page 134. He desires to haue such Miracles wrought as may conuince Infidels as to the point of the Churches infallibility Answ He has all he can desire The Blind se A Parallel of Miracles The Dumb speak the Deaf hear The Dead rise vp to life again were our Sauiours own Miracles and conuinced Infidels but these are our Churches likewise as is largely proued Disc 2. C. 8. What would the man haue more 14. Page 135. To his no little disgrace without any Proof at all he scornfully slights that euident and most known Miracle An Euident Miracle slighted wrought at Zaragosa in Spain But enough of this aboue Disc 2. C. 9. Here I can add hauing it from à right Honourable Person yet liuing who heard His Maiesty Charles the first Say in the presence of many others The cure of that young Man at Zaragosa was certain Some herevpon Proposing à further Question whether it could be thought à Miracle His Maiesty Answered be it as you will the thing was done The leg cut off and buried was certainly restored again 15. In the same Page he Questions whether the Motiues we produce belong only to our Church But grant Saith he they do belong its hard to find the connexion between them and Infallibility We haue Answered to the first No Society of men can shew the like Motiues and therefore vrge Mr Stillingfleet to produce his Euidence That is To proue they The Conneâ—ion between Miracles and Infallibility euinced belong to any other Society But to the Roman Catholick Church only The other point concerning the Connexion Nicodemus à Prince of the Iewes Iohn 3. V. 2. long since cleared Rabbi we know thou art come à Master or Teacher from God for no man can do these Signs which thou dos't vnless God be with him Was then our Sauiour proued by the works and the Miracles he did à Master sent from God to teach And did these Signs conuince reason that God was with him when he taught None can deny it Therefore none can doubt ' but that He was also proued infallible by Virtue of His wonders And consequently the connexion between them and infallibility hold's good But The true Inference the Church and here is our Inference Euidences the very like Signes aboue the force of nature therefore reason concludes that She also is proued Infallible Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is either obliged to find à flaw in the consequence or to giue à Disparity between our Church-Motiues and those other Primitiue which he neuer goes about to do 16. I meet with nothing in His. 136. Page but loud vntruths Another Parergon to diuert the Reader concerning our Doctrin of Pennance as if we indulged sin here and yet gaue men hope of Heauen hereafter It is à Calumny euery one knowes we teach no such Doctrin and â—n this place à meer Parergon besides I therefore slight it and take notice of another straying out of the way P. 137. where he Speak's thus The Principles of any Conclusion must be â—f more credit then the Conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles â—f Faith The Trinity and Resurrection be the Conclusions And the Principles by which they are proued be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it â—ust needs follow That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible then the Articles of faith if the Faith we haue of those Articles should be finally resolued into the veracity of the Churches Testimony 17. This Difficulty not well digested either Proues nothing or makes euery Resolution
Infallible then those first Masters of Christianity were Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is constrained whether he will or no if he giues in any thing like Euidence to make vse of these good mute things the Motiues of Credibility which he scornfully call's Coleworts too often serued vp or shall neuer proue that God once said The Diuine word is made flesh Which is to Say He must first euidence à Church before he Proues those words Diuine 40. It may be replyed His Euidence for the whole Book of Scripture and euery particular sentence in it is taken from the fallible Tradition of all called Christians and others also no Christians I Say fallible For he owns none Diuine or Infallible Tallible Tradition no sufficient Euidence Contra. 1. The Scripture was acknowledged Diuine before men agreed so vniuersally that it was Diuine Tradition therefore which is rather an Effect of our Christian Beliefe concerning Scripture then à proof of it presupposes some other more clear foregoing Euidence whereby the Book was anciently owned as Diuine This we enquire after and very reasonably because the Chineses haue à vniuersal Tradition for their Bible and the Turks for their Alcoran one also general yet such à humane fallible and weak Tradition proues not those Books to be Diuine Contra. 2. And here is an An Argument ad hominem Argument ad Hominem If Mr Stillingfleet belieues the Testimonies of Scripture Infallible vpon fallible Tradition which may be false he makes his Conclusion concerning the belief of euery Passage in Holy Writ far more sure then the Premises are which lead in the Conclusion And this Doctrin he reiect's aboue as improbable Contra. 3. He has neither vniuersal Sectaries haue no vniuersal fallible tradition for their Seripture Tradition for the Protestants Canon of Scripture disowned by more then half of the Christian world much lesse for its true Sense wherein dissenting Christians so much vary that none of them all can Say vpon humane or fallible Tradition what the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is and consequently this very Tradition as also Mr Stillingfleets double Resolution of Faith into the Books of Scripture and into the Doctrin or Sense come iust to nothing 41. Page 158. He Argues the whole Church consist's of men subiect to errour That is All the Parts are liable to mistake Ergo the whole Church cannot possibly be infallible A faslacious Obiection Solued in and of it selfe Answ Lay open these couered Terms In and Of it selfe The Argument loses force I Say therefore Men meerly considered as nature has made them fallible in order to belieue Supernaturally haue In and Of themselues no immunity from errour yet taken vnder another Notion as they constitute à Church they are infallible That is There was is and will euer be à Church Teaching and à Church Taught Infallible So that all shall neuer err in Faith You may easily reioyn This or that man these or those Multitudes may wilfully abandon Christ's Doctrin Too true God knows And if so They are no more members of the Church but Heretiques or Infidels Again If you run Some may err All the Church cannot ouer the rest of Christians remaining Orthodox whether Pastors or People and Say these may also fall from Faith I Answer Some may All cannot because God has promised euer to preserue à Church in Being I mean faithful Teachers and faithful Belieuers to the end of the world And must not Sectaries acknowledge thus much who hold à Church infallible in Fundamentals which vpon that account cannot wholly err 42. Mr Stillingfleet Answer 's Though the Authority of the whole Church be not Diuine yet she cannot err in Fundamentals because she is tyed to the vse of means Say Good Sir who tyes Her to this infa 〈…〉 ble vse of Mean's if the whole Moral Body and euery Member of it be fallible Grant that God by his special Assistance ties Her fast She is for that reason infallible and must Vse the means Take from Her diuine Assistance and Say She is only guided by the erring Conceptions of fallible men She may easily swerue from the Means and reuolt from Christ And thus the fallacy is cleared You The fallacy discouerid Sr Suppose the Infallibility must be taken from the right vse of means whercas the contrary is true Viz. Therefore Sâ—e rightly vses the means because She is antecedently preserued infallible by Diuine Assistance You suppose again that all the Parts of this They rightly vse the Means because antecedently made Infallible Assisted Church are fallible And we Say no For as long as they continue members of it So long as the Pastors lawfully commissioned teach in Christ's name and the faithful belieue their infallible Doctrin There will be euer such à Church on earth So long they are all infallible If any fall from Faith whether few or many These eo ipso cease to be Members of this Mystical Body yet the Church fail's not for the failing of some infer's not à possible Failure in all The want of this Distinction caused your errour 43. And thus hauing remoued such weak difficulties out of the way thought great ones in that 5th chapter which to an Difficulties remoued we proceed to the Resolution an vnwary Reader may seem to Obstruct the Catholick Resolution of Faith We will in the following Discourse first Premise some Principles much auailing to conceiue the easiest Resolution and next declare where the chiefest difficulty lies which Mr Stillingf has not done and finally endeauour to solue it without the least danger of any vicious Circle Afterward we shall proue that Protestants haue no Faith at all to resolue CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 1. THe first Principle God who is an Infinite verity and speak's not to stones can by à Diuine Language proper to himselfe so make his interiour mind and sincere God's proper language meaning known to rational creatures that all vpon hearing His voyce may without hesitation indubitably Say Thus God Iudges this be Speak's which granted All are obliged both readily and firmly to yeild assent to so great à Maiesty for his own Authority Known to all The reason hereof is clear If God can speak to Mortals and for this end that he be vnderstood there arises an obligation in euery one to belieue him without fear or doubt Or in case it be impossible after all humane industry vsed to learn what he speak's none can absolutely belieue him 2. A. 2. Principle Then and not otherwise this external Language is certainly known to come from God when it is spoken in his name and so fairely appear's by its own Signatures Lustre and Wonders to proceed from him That all must confess
an infinite Goodnes cannot permit either Diuel or false Prophet to vse the like way of Speaking I mean by Signs peculiar How this Diuine Language is known to proceed from God to God and withal to vtter à falshood in his name For were this possible we infringe the greatest Euidence which Christianity has and must Say though Christ our Lord and his Apostles Significantly spake to all in God's name by their wonders and Miracles Yet neither Iewes nor Gentils could be obliged after à clear discouery of them to belieue that they were sent from God To teach the world 3. Now because this external Language is twofold First Priuate and Immediate 2. Publick and Mediate both for our better Satisfaction are to be declared Concerning the first Imagin By one Example Gâ—ds immediate way of speaking that one like another Mofes were in à Desert and saw à Bush burn yet not consumed Drawing neer he hear's one Speak out of the flame and Asking who it is it is Answered I am God that speak's and command thee to belieue and deliuer to all what I Say And to Euidence that I am God I fore-tel thee now things which shall happen in thy dayes Besides thou shall see these is declared wonderful Signes to confirm this Truth that I Speak Put thy hand into thy bosome it shall become leperous and presently The language known to proceed from God And why pure again Cast thy rod vpon the ground I 'll make it à Serpent and without delay turn it into what it was before And if these Signs moue thee not look into the next Thicket there is one lies dead barbarously slain by his Enemies this man I will raise vp to life and thy own eyes shall see the Miracle For these wonders therefore thou must belieue I am God who speak's and know it belongs to my Prouidence not to permit such à signalized Language to passe from me vnless it were mine Thus we haue Gods priuate and immediate way of speaking 4. Herevpon this retired man leaues his Solitude goes abroad and publisheth to all what he has heard and seen but yet gain's no credit He then tells his incredulous Auditors God has sent him as à Messenger to speak in his name and proues his Commission The way of Speaking by another by working strange Wonders He cures the sick dispossesses Diuels raises the Dead which done the most obdurate hearts Assent to what he teaches and belieue he is no Impostor but à Messenger indeed sent from God For none as that Prince amongst the Iewes argued aboue Iohn 3. 1. can say he comes from God and work such wonders vnless God be with him And this is God's publick way of speaking by another 5. A. 3. Principle Whoeuer grant's that God can speak what we are obliged to if God â—peak's not immediatly to man by an Oracle distinct from himselfe must also if so great à Maiesty pleases not to impart his truths immediatly hold it Obligatory to hear the Mediate Language of that Oracle whereby God speak's 6. Imagin now you had an earnest Seeker after Truth à meer Stranger to Christ yet thoughtful of à long Eternity that look's about him and is resolued to find out what God has spoken by the best Oracles He read's Aristotle Plato and the like ancient Philosophers And ponders all most diligently What How à Zealous Inquirer after â—tuth proceed's followes Some few Sparks of light he finds there but so mix'd with darkness and errour that the ill Lustre of it leaues him quite dissatisfied Perhaps he may hope to learn more from Mahomet's Alcoran Worse Success here For no sooner has he the Book in his hands but the impudent lies the horrid Impostures the filth and contradictions discouered there so disquiet He meet 's first with prophane learning his troubled soul that be curses the Book And rightly Conclud's so foul à language could neuer come from God Inquiring moreouer who this Mahomet was He learn's he was à Counterfeit an Ignorant an vnpure and most cruel man onely praysâ—ble in this that he owned One God Though he neuer adored him in Spirit and truth 7. Thus much done our Zealous Seeker hears of à Book Fall's next on the Holy Scripture called the Holy Scripture highly reuerenced by Christians He reads and reioyces for now he meets with à language beseeming God graue Simâ—le familiar yet withall serious The Doctrin and Preceps of the book appear also most sacred But one doubts occurr ' doubt occurr's Concerning the strange Miracles and wonders in the old and new Testament So doth another in no few Passages which there Seem so obscure that He vnderstand's them not Howeâ—er by what is discouered most happy Man were He could any Ascertain him of the truth of all now perused And indubitably proue it to be God's own infallible word 8. In this restles condition He proposes the Doubts to one He seek's Satisfaction or more of Caluins followers and Ask's how they proue the Scriptures Diuinity They tell him the Question is as impertinent as if he should demand how light my be known to be light and not darkness white to be white and not black Much dissatisfied with the Answer wholly as bad as that other Proof is taken from the priuate Spirit The inquisitiue Person hauing And repaires to Catholicks heard of à known Christian Society called Catholicks addresses himselfe to some of the learned among them who pretend to Speak in the name of Christ and the Church And assure him that God is the Author of Scripture This yet reaches not home and though it were further answered the Church positiuely teaches so yet he may iustly demand How we proue the truth of the Churches Testimony 9. Here whilst Sectaries are silent We proceed as the solitary Man did and euidence God's own Language spoken by one only Oracle That is We lay forth the Motiues mentioned aboue which illustrate the Church and most prudently conuince that God speak's by this Oracle The Motiues are her vndeniable Miracles the eminent Holiness of life in thousands the Sanctity He listens to God's own language Spoken by the Church and Vnity of her Doctrin witnessed by the consent of so many different Nations who all agree and will agree in one and the same Faith to the end of Ages We Add hereunto the Constancy and fortitude of Martyrs those admirable Conuersions the Church has wrought Her amplitude extended the whole world ouer and yet to giue more light We Ask whether euer since the first Creation of things such multitudes of Professors so well vnited in one Faith so wise so learned so pious and virtuous can be found in any other Religion not Catholick Who more exactly complied with the Law they liued vnder or yeilded à readier Obedience to it then those doe and haue done that make Profession of the Roman Catholick Faith The Ingenuous man saith No and
One only Society Proposeth Faith which is rational which is rational and consequently obliges all to belieue her Doctrin 12. Hence you see that euery one in the Choise of Religion is to ponder in the first place those weightly Arguments which make an Election prudent And then it is prudent not otherwise when Signes from Heauen Gods own Marks heighten What makes an Election Prudent the Religions Credibility so far aboue all other false and forged Sects That these at the first full Sight appear as they are horrid gastly and contemptible 13. If you will Discouer more clearly what I would haue reflected on in this Particular Be pleased to compare Heathenism Iudaism Turcism and finally Aeresy with one glorious Roman Catholick Church Speak plainly Can you find in these any thing like the Miracles the Conuersions the large Extent the Vnity and Sanctity of this one most Euidenced Oracle I need not proue the Negatiue You cannot for its Demonstrable to sense Heathenism and Heresy are now things of Scorn the whole world ouer Iudaism t' is true once had its No Society Comparable to the Roman Catholick Church in this rational Euidence Signes and Miracles wherein it far surpassed Heresy which neuer had nor will haue any like it Howeuer Christ's Illustrious Kingdom his Church Militant vastly surmount's that Ancient and now decayed Lustre of Iudaism And thus much briefly of the Euidence of Credibility which once had Faith most firm easily followes and without it none can belieue 14. A second Proposition Faith in this present State is resolued into the Authority of God the first Verity speaking by the Church This way of resoluing Faith is both plain and easy The Plainest resolution of Faith and very suitable to the common Apprehension of euery one learned and vnlearned who if Questioned why they belieue any Diuine Mystery readily Answer Sic docet Sancta mater Ecclesia So our Holy Mother the Catholick Church teaches And they Answer well For the First Instrumental Principle where into Faith is resolued must be so clear and Conspicuous à Rule that all may easily learn the Doctrin deliuered by it 15. The Assertion is plainly laid forth Deut. 30. V. 11. The Assertion Proued by Scripture The Commandment I command this day is not aboue thee nor farr off nor situated in Heauen that thou mays't Say Who of vs is able to ascend into Heauen to bring it to vs That is To know where true Faith is taught we need not to weary our selues with much Speculation or expect that God in Heauen lay open the sense of Scripture by Enthusianisms or any Priuate Reuelation Nor placed beyond the Sâ—a that thou may'st pretend which of vs can passe ouer the sea and bring it to vs. And hereby That endless Labour that euerlasting Inquisition Sectaries endles Labour made after Truth proper to Sectaries seem's reiected Originals must be examined Passages of Scripture compared History sought into Libraries turned ouer Languages learned Yea and the very particular Mysteries of Diuine Faith must be weighed by humane Reason and thus they descend into the Abyss of God's secrets before they come to Satisfaction in Religion All is toylsome all dissatisfactory all endless A more short and easy way is at hand For saith the Scripture Iuxta est sermâ— valde in ore tuo The word is very neere thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart to doe it And the Apostle Rom. 10. 8. Applyes this very Passage to the Word of our Christian Faith Hence I argue 16. But the Church is that first Instrumental Principle The Church is the first Instrumental Principle and most easy Rule which teaches our Christian Verities Scripture teaches them not so plainly Therefore Faith may well bee resolued into the first Verity speaking by the Church and whoeuer resolues it without all dependance of this liuing Oracle put 's the Conclusion before the Premises as we shall see afterward 17. I proue the first part of my Assertion 1. It is as euidently credible that God speak's to all by the Church as that he anciently spake by the Prophets and Apostles For we haue the same supernatural Signes manifested in all these Oracles à The Churches Euident Credibility parallel with that of the Apostles like as is largely shown aboue and Consequently haue with them the same Grounds of an Euident Credibility But Euident Credibility induced the Faithful to belieue those manifested Prophets and Apostles Ergo the Churches Euident Credibility euery way Parallel induces all in this present State to belieue this Oracle 2. God is equally infallible Yea one and the A second reason same Verity whether He speak's by one single Person or many and must be heard with all profound Submission Prouided that the Oracle He speak's by bee made immediatly Credible A third and by the lustre of Supernatural wonders as most euidently the Church is 3. The Church Answerable to the Prophets and Apostles is à Liuing Oracle and vpon that Account able to Solue all doubts which may occurr in controuerted Matters but the Clarity of à liuing euidenced Oracle ready to decide all such difficulties makes the Rule of Faith easy and much auail's to à clear Resolution 4. Our Analysis into God's Veracity Speaking fourth reason by the Church Stand's firm vpon that first Principal and infallible Motiue the Diuine Tâ—stimony it Selfe I call it Principal because the Church is only Instrumental as we now said whereby God speak's And this Resolution is made without any danger of à Process in Infinitum or the least Shadow of à vicious Circle as Shall presently appear by giuing the last Analysis 18. In the Interim know thus much To proue the second The other part of the Assertion it manifest part of our Assertion viz. That Scripture is not à Rule so perspicuous and clear in deliuering the very Chiefe Articles of Faith as the Church is in controuerted Matters were to proue à plain Euidence For what can be more manifes't then that wee and all Hereticks pas't and present are at endless debates concerning the true Sense and meaning of those very words we read in Scripture Yet the Ruel of Faith Sectaries confess it ought to bee clear open and manifest to all I waue all further discourse vpon this Subiect and here adioyn our last Analysis 19. One demand's why I belieue that great Mystery of the Incarnation I may well Answer first God's own sacred The last Resolution giuen Word which we call Scripture Asserts it The next Question will be Why I belieue this to be Scripture I answer The same God speaking by his own Oracle the Church affirm's it A third Question followes Why doe I belieue that God speak's thus by the Church I Answer the Ground of my Faith in All Demands answered this particular is God's own speaking and the very same with that hee spake by the Apostles As therefore his Own word vttered by
Credibility of Scripture is not grounded vpon any vniuersal fallible Consent but stand's firm vpon other stronger antecedent Motiues Nay it cannot Originally depend therevpon Seing that Consent is an Effect of those other preuious Motiues as S. Austin often cited fully and most amply declares Be it how will 4. The greatest Difficulty yet remain's for if we enquire of The Sectarles Plea taken from any vniuersal fallible Consent is groundless Sectaries where we may find this common Consent we haue but à very slippery Foundation to stand vpon Because not only Heretiques of old denied the greatest part of Scripture But to come to chese neerer times the Machiauellians and Socinians also called Christians hold many things in that Sacred Book so far aboue all humane reach that they Say it is vnworthy God to require from any à firm beliefe of them Add herevnto the multitudes of Heathens Iewes and Turks who imcomparably whole Multitudes against Sectaries surpass Christians in number All these you know Vnanimously reiect our Scriptures How then can the far lesser number of Witnesses agreeing in one consent Plead so much as probably against such multitudes of Opponents If no other motiue be alleged in behalfe of the Scriptures Credibility but only the Consent of few against many 5. But to silence all Sectaries hereafter Who insist so much vpon this vniuersal Consent we will here gratis suppose the Argument drawn from thence to be most conuincing Yet withall Assert it so little aduantages the pretences of Protestants That Sectaries plainly Conuinced it vtterly ruin's their vndefensible Cause For where haue these men any vniuersal Agreement of Christians for their Canon of Scripture Where haue they it in behalf of their iarring Opinions Where for their Negatiue Articles Where for their particular Sense of Scripture which not only the Roman Catholick Church but others also reiect as false vngrounded and Heretical If therefore this Common consent for the Bible Obserue the Proofs were more Vniuersal then it is it help 's not Sectaries whils't their singular Opinions their Canon and Sense And in à word their whole Religion as Protestancy is so particular to Them selues That the rest of Christians ashamed to own it will be no Partners with them 6. And thus you see where the Weaknes of this whole Plea lies They will haue à vniuersal Consent for the bare letter of Scripture Let that be so It s nothing to the purpose if afterward without any thing like à Vniuersal agreement they misinterpret the Book and make it speak what God neuer meant But this is done and I proue it vpon an vndeniable ground thus The Book of Scripture misinterpreted Proues nothing Whilst these men cannot name or Design à Church reputed Orthodox fiue or six Ages since which as vniuersally maintained their new Doctrin as She then owned the old letter of the Bible They misinterpret the Book And gain no more But Sectaries do So and t is proued by vrging that vniuersal Consent for the meer letter then the Arians â—r worst of Heretiques gain But to name such à Church for their Nouelties is imposible and consequently no less impossible to resolue one Article of Protestancy into God's Diuine Testimony expressed in Scripture 7. A 2. Obiection Christians faith seem's not resoluable into the Diuine Testimony speaking by the Church because How the Chutch is both the Truth belieaed And the Motiue also why we belieue the Church is Res credita ot the Material Obiect belieued Witness that Article of our Creed I belieue the Holy Catholick Church Therefore it cannot be Ratio Credendi or the Formal Obiect which moues to belieue I Answer first Sectaries must solue this Difficulty For is not the very Doctrin contained in Scripture according to them the Res Credita or the Material Obiect belieued The Incarnation I hope whereof we read in Scripture the like may be said of euery other Mystery is the Truth belieued with such à faith as they haue And the Sectaries must solue this difficulty very same Word of God wherein thefe Truths are contained is also the Ratio Credendi or Formal Obiect mouing to belieue For demand why they Assent to the Incarnation T' is Answered because God has reuealed it in Scripture No other Motiue can be pretended Therefore the same Scripture differently considered is both the Material Obiect or Verity belieued and likewise the Formal which moues to belieue And thus we Say The Churches Proposition Or rather God speaking by the Church may well be the Truth belieued and à Motiue also why we belieue wherein there is no Difficulty at all Take here one Instance in known Philosophy which teaches that light both terminates our Vision and so considered is the Material Obiect seen withall it moues By two Instances we ciear what is asserted the Power to see it and vpon that Account is rightly called the Formal Obiect In Acts of Faith you haue the like Instance For example When the Iewes Assented to the ancient Prophets vttering these words Haec dicit Dominus c. Our Lord speak's thus They belieued that God spake by the mouth of those Prophets it was one of the Materal obiects Assented to by Faith and they belieued also for those Prophets words as God's own Voice and had respect to them as to à Formal obiect Why they belieued 8. A 3. Obiection If the Church be the Primum Credibile or the first Belieuable Oracle whereby God speak's to all How and in what Order we belieue the truths Proposed by the Church in this present State We are to declare how and in what order those Truths are deliuered by it which all are obliged to belieue And this cannot be done without Confusion and perhaps danger of à Circle also We haue partly Answered aboue where it is said That as the Apostles after the Knowledge had of our Sauiours Miracles belieued first in à General way He was the true Messias So we in this present State induced by all the Motiues of Credibility already laid forth belieue first in General That this Manifested Oracle is Christs own Spouse This general Assent first precedes which infallibly teaches the right way to Saluation And this truth we Assent to immediatly vpon the Churches Proposition or rather vpon God's Testimony speaking by the Church without depending on Scripture Iust as the Apostles belieued Christ our Lord to be the true Messias vpon his own Testimony proued Credible by Miracles and other Signal Wonders Thus far there is no Confusion at all nor any danger of à vicious Circle Now further This General truth admitted we proceed to the Beliefe of other particular Verities proposed and herein also follow the Apostles Steps and practise who assented to euery single Article which our Sauiour deliuered afterward vpon his own Word Why therefore may not we also Afterward we descend to other particulars belieue euery particular
as the Apostolical Church was made glorious withall Therefore Reason cannot but acknowledge that this Oracle euer since these first blessed Men preached is the only Marked and Manifested Church in the world Deny the Euidence we Propugn it s own Sensibility and Visibility Obuious to all that haue Eyes to see or Eares to hear is our Proof And because it stand's vpon clear Principles both Sensible and Visible we do here Challenge all the Heathens all the Iewes and all the Sectaries in the world to bring to light any thing The Euidence because Sensible iâ— vndeniable like it in behalf of that they call Religion But there is no fear hereof For such an Attempt would be desperate yea vtterly impossible 6. Now if on the other side the Euidence here pleaded be granted the Church Wee haue our Intent For this Principle If granted we haue our Intent stand's firm Where God preserues the same Euidence of Credibility VVhere He set's before all the legible Characters the Publick Signatures of his own Power and wisdom There Reason cannot but acquiesce By such lights and no other it must be guided and take direction to find out Truth Vpon these Grounds 7. I Say lastly True Religion is easily discouered by Obuious By what Reason true Religion is found reason And in this sense Reason Regulat's Faith but. know withall That that Mans Reason only is reasonable in this weighty matter which has for its Obiect the Signal Marks of an Infinite Power and Wisdom now hinted at and Argues by them Whoeuer therefore makes choise of Religion and is not induced to belieue by these publick Indications which Heauen True and misled Reason distinguished manifest's err's grosly is seduced and Iudges falsly And thus we distinguish between false and true Reason The misled discoursing Man makes his own formal Act Reason whilst he pitches on à Doctrin and auouches that reasonable before he knowes by any rational Motiue whether God be Author of it or no. So Sectaries proceed in euery thing they belieue as Protestants Contrarywise One that 's guided by right and prudent Reason See's before He belieues Scio cui credidi that weighty Obiectiue Euidence whereby Millions haue been gained to Christ Hence I Say As that Man only belieues with Diuine Faith who Assent's vnto what God has Reuealed So He only followes Whâ—t bose are that follow reason in points of Faith true reason who is induced to belieue vpon God's own Euidence laid forth to Reason For I hold this Principle indubitable The Author of Religion giues it also à rational Euidence of Credibility Whoeuer followes not that Light run's astray and cannot belieue 8. By all hitherto noted wee may yet more clearly Discouer what is meant by this word Reason in our present Controuersy Briefly it imports as is already said an Intellectual light grounded By all sayd we better vnderstand what is meant by Reason vpon the Euidence of Supernatural Motiues which God from the beginning of Christianity hath manifested to euery rational Vnderstanding and by it induced the wisest of the world to become Orthodox Christians 9. A second Inference By this easy obuious Rule of Reason grounded vpon rational Motiues All Controuersies relating to Religion are clearly ended For find me out the forementioned Euidence of Credibility Those signal Marks I mean of an Infinite Power and Wisdom We haue with them the manifested Oracle whereby God Speaks to the world Now whoeuer refuses to hear God's own Language spoken by such an Controuâ—rsies ended by reason Oracle is of necessity thrown into à State of perplexity For thus if reason regulates he must Discourse Shall I deny this Euidence of Miracles of Conuersions of Vniuersallity to the Roman Catholick Church I deny that which the whole world How Reason discourses in this matter of Religion owns and is visible to Sense Shall I grant all and Say its forceless or infufficient to induce to belieue that Oracle I Destroy the rational Euidence of Christianity yea of the Apostles Themselues And cannot belieue either Prophet or Apostle were such Messengers sent now from Heauen to teach me For no particular Prophet no Apostle euer shewed the like full Euidence of Credibility as this one Oracle has manifested to the world for fixteen Ages 10. A. 3. Inference Sectaries neuer yet took nor can Sectaries follow no probable way of ending Controuersies take the easy right and Reasonable way of writing much less of Ending Controuersies This one Principle proues the Assertion As the Truth of Christian Doctrin stand's firm when an Euidenced Church teaches it So by the Nullity of an Euidenced Church you may in this present State easily gather the vncertainty and falshood of any Doctrin taught Contrary to that Oracle But most euidently Sectaries haue no Euidenced Church which euer taught their Doctrin or opposed ours Therefore they are impossibilitated to write much more to The Reason why they cannot follow any short easy or rational way of ending Controuersies by an Euidenced Oracle which yet as St Austin cited aboue against the Donatists saith is in the first place to be found out This found by her Marks and Signatures And Digito demonstrari potest Adds the Holy Doctor its pointed out with your Finger all further Contest ceases or might we speak in Cardinal de Riclelieu's own words lately quoted Seems little profitable because The true Church cannot but Ascertain all of true Doctrin 11. Hence you haue à 4th Inference Sectaries who in all their quarrelling Polemicks Still insist vpon particular Controuersies The Real presence Transubstantiation The worshiping of Images c. And dare not so much as offer to haue their Protestancy Sectaries make known the weaknes of their own cause tryed by the Iudgement of any Euidenced Orthodox Church Publish to the world the weaknes of their vndefensible Cause and plainly giue ouer to plead by Reason 12. I 'll tell you à Story for the substance very true concerning à Discourse between à Pert Nouellist and à Catholick The first would needs debate the Controuersy of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Catholick though Sectaries manting an Euidenced Church not very learned yet of à good Iudgement willing to see some effect of the Conference prudently demanded vpon what Grounds the Dispute was to be held on and finally ended The other replied vpon Scripture But said the Catholick what shall be done If you and I agree not about the Sense of Scripture Nouellist We are if things be so to Appeal to the Fathers Catho But what if we vary as much about the Sense of Fathers as about Scripture Nouellist Wee are then to recurr to the Primitiue Church and examin what Doctrin are driuen off all grounds of Arguing She deliuered relating to our Question in those purer times Catho O Sr Wee are yet in Darkness farr off from the last sound Principle For how shall you and I
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
was The same Christian Church as before the Reformation Hauing lost nothing that made it so And if you Obiect The Church in How our Aduersaries Shuffle England before Luther was certainly Popish now its Protestant Ergo it is not the same Church They Answer and vow it to be the very same though it ceased to hold Popery 20. Much might be said against these meer Empty words I 'll here only entertain you with two Reflections vpon the whole Paralogism First it makes the worst of Heresies defensible For might not Arius haue pleaded in like manner My Church They make the worst of Heresies defensible is where it was besore The very same Christian Society though changed into Arianism as the ancient Religion in England now is into Protestanism So also the Pelagians The Macedonians and all other Heretiques could haue Argued excepting perhaps à few Donatists who confined the whole Church to their little Part in Affrick Again As the Thing is reformed it passes with Protestants for à Part of the Catholick Church Therefore as reformed it s supposed à Piece of Reasonable Religion Sectaries And their Reformation vnreasonable pretend not to an vnreasonable Reformation And i' ft be So before the Professors of it talk of the Truth of this Reformation They are obliged to make it Credible by such Miracles Signes and wonders as an Infinite Power and VVisdom and no other Proposes to Reason But all is contrary They begin Becauss strip't of all rational Motiues and bring in à Reformation so naked and strip't of rational Motiues that none can Say God himselfe declares it reasonable by any Signature which may bee esteemed an effect of his Power and Wisdom Or in à word Supernatural 21. And here in passing You haue the true Reason why Sectaries in their Polemicks keep close to the Procedure of all condemned Hereticks The Arians for Example neuer Sectaries follow the strain of Condemned Hereticks went about to giue Reason the least Satisfaction in behalfe of their Rupture made with the Church but leauing that Rational way pleaded by Scripture So do Protestants Before they had Shown any thing like à rational Euidence of Credibility to countenance that shameful Diuorce They voted it Iust So do Protestants Wauing the Ancient Sense of Scripture receiued by the Church they glossed it after their fashion So do Protestants Tradition that strong Tenure whereby the Church hold's Her best Inheritance or Deriues Christ's Doctrin down from Age No Motiues Proposed to Reason to Age The Arians slighted And so do Protestants But All this while though we earnestly wish to hear of Motiues proposed to Reason whereby this Reformation may be made Credible we are turnd off with meer Talk And neuer yet heard or shall hear os more Euidence for That than the worst of Arians can allege for Arianism Wherefore I conclude Protestancy is an vnreasonable Nouelty and consequently no Religion for meerly to Say à Religion is true and from God before it be made Credible by Supernatural Signes Vphold's Arianism Donatism Quakerism and the greatest fooleries in the world CHAP. XVI Obiections solued Sectaries pretending not to Se the Churches Euidence are either blind or wilfully shut their Eyes The Assertion clearly proued A Parallel of the Primitiue and the present Churches Euidence How far Reason may be sayd to Regulate Faith 1. AGainst our pleading Euidence of Credibility for Catholick Religion manifested by the Lustre of supernatural Motiues One may first Obiect Euery Mans priuate Why the Euidence of Credibility is most Conuincing Reason is to Iudge whether this Euidence Conuinces or no And consequently the last Iudgement belong's to the Tribunal of priuate Reason I haue Answered The Euidence vpon two rational Principles is so great that it cannot but conuince First because the Author of it is no other but God who certainly was no Impostor when he set before Reason the light of most glorious Supernatural Signes And by virtue of Two Reasons them hath induced both Iewes and Gentils to belieue in Christ 2. Because That which the most Wise and Learned of the Christian world haue Iudged Euidently reasonable May vpon so great Authority be supposed Reasonable But All those Vast Multitudes Conuerted to true Christian Religion haue Iudged the Euidence of Credibility manifest in the Church both rational and conuincing Therefore it is so 2. Hence it followes 1. That the true Iudgement concerning The Iudgement long Since giuen now is not reuersable this Euidence was long since giuen antecedently to the weak Censure of this or that particular man who now would Cauil at it 2. That all Exceptions made against it are euidently vnreasonable vpon this ground That those Thousands and Thousands most Wise and Learned who owned the Euidence And haue been induced by it to belieue must if Misled be No other Inducements excogitable accounted not only temerarious but also Mad besotted and grosly Seduced by Fooleries This cannot be Granted Perhaps you 'le Say Those Wise and Learned belieued vpon other Inducements Distinct from our Churches Motiues Answ Not one can be Assigned distinct from these if wee speak of Motiues Proposed to Reason as is proued already 3. A. 2. Obiection Sectaries for all this Pretend not to se the Churches Euidence I Answer it is not for want of Light but for want of Ey-sight That is bebause they will be blind Thousands As is now Said as Wise and Learned as they haue Sectaries want not light but Eye-sight seen the Light and followed it Why then do They stumble in Darkness when the same Euidence is Set before their Eyes I haue no other Answer but what Truth it Selfe Deliuers Ioan. 1. The Son of God The Light of the world came amongst vs Et mundus eunt non cognouit The world would not know him Both Iewes and Gentils wilfully shut their Eyes to the Signal Marks of his sacred Preaching And so do Sectaries at this day to the Churches Euidence 4. Some may Reply What we now Say is only to Preach and not to Proue For how can wee Euince that Sectaries Shut their Eyes to any Light of Euidence Answ They wilfully Shut their Eyes Enough is proued Already Howeuer to come closer to the Matter and to leaue them without all excuse I 'll Add one word more which shall be Conuincing 5. Pray you Imagin That some of our Sectaries had liued in those happy Dayes when the Holy Euangelists set forth the Life of our blessed Sauiour And the Apostles preached his Sacred Doctrin to the first Conuerted Christians Would not An Argument drawn from the primitiue Euidence They think ye haue as readily belieued what euer Doctrin those Blessed men then wrote and Preach't As the other vast Multitudes who came flocking in belieued Yes Certainly Their Obstinacy though great would not haue surpassed that of Iewes and Gentils These yeilded after they heard such Oracles speak And so I think Sectaries
it No more can these men if you set aside A selfe-wilful Perswasion satisfy Reason why they belieue as they doe then the worst of Arians tell you why they belieue Arianism 20. It would bee ridiculous in this contest to bring in Scripture as à Rule of their Faith For first we here enquire not after the Obiect of their Belief But call for rational Motiues whereby they are induced to belieue Protestancy 2. We Say Though Scripture were in à General way owned Scripture here not pleadable The most immediate Rule and the Sense of it could bee known by the priuate Reason of some men in the world yet The Sectary gain's nothing vpon the Concession because He knowes not nor shall euer know vpon any sure Principle That his The Reason Reason hath the singular Priuiledge to hit right on the Scriptures true Sense whilst all His Aduersaries and they are very many openly oppose it as improbable 21. One may yet reply For as much as The Sectary Belieues which is not much For it lies in à few Fundamentals If the protestant abstract's from what Doctrin he likes not He has the same Euidence of Credibility as we Catholicks haue And so far ioyn's with vs in Beliefe In other Matters of Contest He neither Belieues nor Disbelieues but Abstract's from all Contra. 1. Thus the Arians and all Heretiques proceed who first chuse and lay claim to so many Tenets of Christian Doctrin as pleases Fancy and then tell vs They haue Reason to chuse to Diuide and separate from the rest We why may not the Arian do the like demand and here is the main Point what rational Euidence haue they to do so Who made Beggars For all they haue they took from the Church such bold Chusers Again if they prescind or abstract They are obliged to Design an No Church fauours this Doctrin euidenced Orthodox Church which abstracted like them and positiuely taught so much Doctrin is precisely necessary to Saluation And no more This is impossible O yes The Primitiue Church seem's to haue abstracted from many Doctrins now taught by the Roman Catholick Contra. Who tell 's you so Your lame Negatiue way of Arguing Wee read not of Purgatory nor of Transubstantiation c. Pitiful The euidenced Roman Catholick Church by Her Constant Tradition speak's of both and also positiuely auouches that all now taught was then Anciently deliuered Here is our Principle and wee Sectaries vrged to name the Orthodox Church which abstracted as they do now vrge Sectaries to oppose it by producing the Authority of another more ancient Church which Spake then as they speak now Or which abstracted from such Particular Doctrins as they would abstract from But this is Impossible Out of all I Conclude Sectaries haue no Euidence of Credibility for any Doctrin belieued by them and Consequently no true Faith at all but Opinions only and those false too Now we must solue two or three difficulties of another Nature 22. A. 6. Obiection Reason Assures the Catholick that God speak's by the Oracle of the Church Ergo his Another Obiection Faith is vltimatly resolued into Reason I Deny the Consequence For if wee make à right Analysis The Act of Faith is not yet in Being in that Sign or Priority of Nature when Prudence tell 's Him God speak's by the Church The nature of that Iudgement serues only to induce the vnderstanding to Faith or to fix it vpon an vnuariable state of Belieuing And Consequently must be resolued into its own clear Principles Preuiously penetrated before the Catholick belieues Faith followes and relies immediatly vpon its own Obiect which is God's Reuelation proposed by the Church or by Scripture infallibly interpreted Now 23. If you Obiect 7. It is my priuate Reason which The equiuccation discouered makes me to belieue the Church I Answer The Proposition is equiuocal For it may either signify what I call Reason independently of all known Obiectiue Euidence makes mee to belieue the Church And that Sense is very false Nay its impossible One sense false to hold euery internal Act not resoluable into Obiectiue Euidence in à matter of such Consequence Reasonable This as I said aboue Patronises the worst of Heresies and Atheism also 24. Or Contrarywise the Sense may be The Church The other true when the Iudgement is grounded on rational Euidence glorioussly marked by clear and Conuincing Motiues known and applyed by my formal Act of Reason makes it Reasonable and that 's most true Wherefore euery rational Iudgement in the â—resent matter must be fixed vpon rational prudent Motiues distinct from the Act we iudge by The Iudgement is no more but Conditio applicans à Condition whereby the Obiectiue â—uidence is laid hold on and set before an Vnderstanding The Ground hereof is clear For we know not by Obiects extrinsick to our Knowledge but by vital Acts which interuene between the Intellectual Power and Obiects Now if any Ask why may not this Iudgement mistake and erre I Answer first by Proposing the like Question Why might not the Iudgement of the Primitiue Christians when they saw or heard of the Apostles great Wonders haue also been à Mistake or Errour Solue Why this Iudgement cannot be erroneous the one you solue the other I Answer 2. The Iudgement cannot if it pitch vpon what really is the Obiectiue Euidence be Erroneous For no fundation of Errour as wee now Suppose Lies there Therefore none can be deriued from thence into any vnderstanding A pure fountain yeilds no pudled water 25. A. 8. Obiection Faith is an Act of à reasonable power and consequently Conformable to Reason Therefore Faith Considered two wayes Reason regulates Faith or is its immediate Rule Answ The Act of Faith may be Considered two wayes First as it is à prudent reasonable Submission to Gods Reuelation 2. As it s terminated vpon the Reuelation proposed by the Church or As prudent how it is resolued any other infallible euidenced Oracle Consider it vnder the First Notion of à prudent Submission it euer Implies or rather presupposeth the rational prudent Iudgement now mentioned And this Iudgement preuiously set fast vpon such Motiues The resolution otherwise if considered as it relies vpon the Diuine Testimony as conuerted the world may well be Said to denominate the Act of elicite Faith à rational Obsequiousness Yea and its extrinsecal Rule also as will appear to euery one that makes à right Analysis or brings Faith to its last Principles But consider again the very Act it Selfe or precisely as it tend's vpon the Diuine Reuelation proposed by an Infallible Oracle it reason 's not at all nor more proues or Scientifically knowes its Obiect as Faith Than Science as Science belieues This Proues that submissiuely Belieues Not can Faith which euer presupposes its Obiect and Rule proued to Reason Scientifically proue either without lossing what is Essential to it I mean Obscurity
Se more hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 5. n. 12. 13. 26. By all hitherto Said you se How the Priuate Reason Particular Controuersies examined by this and that particular Authority not easily ended of this or that Man may more easily swerue or lose the right way of Arguing when à Dispute is held vpon particular Controuersies then when it s brought to the Censure and easy Tryal of an euidenced Church This Oracle Speak's clearly Whereas if the debate be of particular Points examined by Scripture or Authority We find by experience that two Aduersaries seldom or neuer agree vpon the Sense of those very Authorities they would haue Matters decided by 27. You se 2. The Summ of all handled in this Chapter The summ of all hitherto handled to be as followes The Catholick hold's his Faith infallible which essentially relies vpon à Reuelation Diuine and Infallible Now because God proposes not by Himselfe or immediatly His own sacred Doctrin to Euery faithful Belieuer in particular He hath established à Church and made Her an Oracle briefly hinted at to speak in His name She comes as it were between God and Belieuers And conueyes vnto vs the true Diuine Doctrin of the first reuealing Verity Now because She is an Oracle immediatly Credible by supernatural Signs which an Infinite Power and Wisdom Demonstrates We Iustly call Her the Infallible Rule Though Scripture faithfully interpreted be our Rule also but not so immediatly Credible The Church once discouered by the Euidence of an Assent grounded on conuincing Motiues Regulates Faith plain Reason preuiously resting vpon those Motiues tell 's vs God speak's by Her Here we rest by this Rule we are guided 28. Hence you se 3. Whoeuer depriues the Church of her Lustre and Signal Wonders manifest to Reason makes her Doctrin and the very Scriptures also not worthy Beliefe Ill ' Consequences follow the Denial of Church Motiues dead 's Faith Eclipses Gods reuealed Truths and doth the vtmost to bring in Atheism In à word He makes Christian Religion vnreasonable which is vtterly to Destroy it what I say seem's manifest For Suppose we had had no Miracles since the Apostles times no Succession of Commissioned Pastors no further Conuersions of Nations No more eminent Sanctity in this great Moral Body after that first Age No Martyrdoms no Generous contempt of the world Who I beseech you would or Could haue certainly belieued either the Sacred Trinity or the great Mystery of the Word Incarnate vpon the bare report of à few fallible vncommissioned Men or woemen that might Perhaps haue Spoken and Perhaps not of these and other sublime Mysteries but without The world not with standing most glorious Motiues Shewn is much incredulous rational Motiues Appeal now boldly to the Tribunal of Reason and Ask whether such à Doctrin appears not to all Prudent men more than improbable Whilst experience teaches that à great Part of the world both now and in former Ages also though the Church euer shewed Her Selfe the only glorious euidenced Oracle remain's notwithstanding in à State of Incredulity What then would so many Nations haue done without them would haue not belieued any thing How cold would Their Faith haue been Who would haue belieued had all the After-Motiues of Faith perished and nothing been heard of but high Mysteries mentioned without supernatural Signs Confirming the Doctrin In à word without all Euidence of Credibility Hence 29. You Se. 4. The hideous sin of Sectaries who do not only rob the Church of her Glorious Marks manifed to Reason and so make Her Doctrin and whateuer Scripture teaches The sin of Sectaries incredible But to ruin all They will haue the Mysteries of our Faith talk't of but not one Taught Infallibly And thereby destroy Faith it Selfe Thus Reason and Religion go to wrack at once 30. You Se. 5. It is impossible without subuerting Christianity to Seperate the euidence of Credibility grounded on Conuincing Motiues from true Christian Religion Wherefore Euidence of Credibility not Separable from true Religion I conclude That as God has euer hitherto assisted the Orthodox Church to Teach Truth So also he has and will preserue in Her the euidence of Credibility whereby all Rational men may find truth And indubitably Assert This and no other is the only Society of Christians which teaches God's reuealed Verities and can best inform vs of euery Doctrin the Church taught in foregoing Ages CHAP. XVII A Digression Concerning Doctor Stillingfleets Discourse VVhere he treat's of the Protestants Faith reduced to Principles He is all à long quite besides the matter handled and Sayes no more for Protestancy than for Arianism or any other Heresy 1. KNow Courteous Reader that when this Treatise The Occasion of writing this Chapter was vnder the Press and towards an end there came now very lately to my hands A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome A stale worn-out Cauil by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Doctor as I interpret of Diuinity though in his Account he was only B. D. and therefore hitherto named by me plain Mr Stillingfleet The fault if any is easily amended He shall haue his due hereafter and be called Doctor In this Discourse which very candidly I haue not read nor I belieue euer shall For the matter appear's very triuial and look's like à Rapsodie I find towards The Doctors quick Dispatch the end of it à Flurt and no more at à Book Intituled Protestants without Principles I know Saith he no other Answer Like one Loath to engage necessary not only to this present demand but to à Book called Protestants without Principles the falsity of which will appear by what followes 2. You may well imagin I hasten'd to this What Followes And saw in the next Page Six Principles agreed on by â—oth Sides 1. That there is à God from whom Man and all other Creatures had their Being 2. That the Notion of God doth imply that he is à Being absolutely perfect 3. That man receiuing his Six Principles remote from Protestancy Being from God is thereby bound to obey his will and so on to the Sixt which Methought seem'd as remote from Principling the Protestants Faith as if he had told vs. Adam was tempted by Eue. 3. The next Leaf turned ouer I found this Title Contrary to Protestancy without Principles The Faith of Protestants reduced to Principles with this Addition These things viz. The six Principles being agreed on both Sides we are now to inquire into the particular wayes which God has made choise of for reuealing his will to Mankind He should also haue said And Coâ—cerning the Faith of Protestants here lies the main Business if mankind be concerned in it but this is waued 4. Nay more is waued whereon all depend's Obserue I A promising Title But the main matter is waued beseech you We haue here à fair Title The Protestants faith reduced
infallible no aduantage by them The Substance of all is thus If Diuine Faith cannot be without an Infallible Assent all other Infallibility He means in the Proponent is rendred vseles Answ Why so I beseech you The Apostles Faith was certainly Infallible That therefore an Infallible Proponent of Faith is vnnecessary did that render our Sauiours Infallible Doctrin Infallibly proposed vseles In like manner the Church teaches Infallibly The Faithful Man elicites Infallible Faith grounded vpon Her Doctrin Doth this make Her Teaching Vseles When the internal faith of euery Belieuer so necessarily depend's vpon an Infallible Oracle that none euer belieued without some one or other absolutely Infallible 25. But now Ad rem Make hauocke of Faith as much as may be Destroy Christian Religion Say boldly and falsly Were all Proponents of Faith faâ—lible the Roman Catholick Church both is and euer was fallible Say also Protestants Arians Pelagians and all the rest are fallible Speak once to the Purpose and tell me For here is the only doubt Why should the Protestant with his fallible Faith be in à The Protestant yet would not be in à better Condition then the Arion better and à more Secure condition than the fallible Papist or the fallible Arian with that faith they lay claim to This the Doctor neuer meddles with nor can the difficulty be solued by him 26. And Hence To rid my Selfe of the rest which followes for really I am more weary of this Sport then the Dr euer was at killing flies you shall Se with what Candor I Proceed I freely permit the Doctor to make vse of all his following Principles yea of the whole Thirty in Number And say notwithstanding this ample Concession He shall neuer Proue or infer from any of them So much as One true Tenet Though all were granted which the Doctor can rationally desire peculiar to Protestants which can be owned by these very men that pretend to belieue Protestancy an Article of Faith necessary for saluation Here is my Reason The General owned Truths as that à rational creature may antecedently to any External Reuelation certainly know the Being of God c no more belong to Protestants than to others The Doctors false Principles as Nothing yet proued his 16. and 17. are though Supposed true euince nothing for Protestancy as is already Proued No more do his other Controuerted Principles denyed by innumerable Christians proue any thing His obscure Ones and his 27 and 29. appear to The reason hereof briefly giuen me of the darker sort must be further explained For truly I vnderstand not what is meant by those obscure words Which reiection is no making Negatiue Articles of Faith with the rest that followes Be it how you will thus much I defend that whether the fore mentioned Principles be True False Controuerted or Obscure no Verity peculiar to Protestants can be deduced from them absolutely necessary to Saluation 27. I Say deduced either by lawful Consequences or by the Addition of any receiued Principle And I Speak thus because Perhaps the Doctor may Answer He intended no more at present but only to set down some general Grounds wherevpon Protestancy by the ayde of further Proofs adioynable though not as yet not made vse of Can be established If this be his Reply I Answer First He has gone most lamely to work The Doctors whole work hitherto most imperfect leauing the whole Matter vndertaken halfe done halfe vndone in à word incompleat I Answer 2. There are neither Proofs nor Principles to goe forward withall I mean whereby to Euince the truth of one Pure Protestant Tenet held by Sectaries themselues necessary to Saluation And I coniure the Doctor who must hold his abstract Principles hitherto laid forth very imperfect He cannot goe on and Compleat it to aduance further That is to euince by some other more immediate Proofs the absolute necessity of Belieuing one Protestant Article This cannot be done 28. The Reason why I Speak thus boldly is the Verity hinted The vltimate ground of my Assertion at in the beginning and proued aboue Protestancy as Protestancy has no truth in it No Essence of Religion No One Article Conducing to Saluation And Hence it is that the Doctor keep 's off at distance Or rather run's on as you se partly by assuming false Principles against the Catholick Church Partly with Generalities which relate no more to Protestancy then to Arianism 29. Now here in passing you may well obserue The different Procedure of Catholicks from Sectaries The first tell you plainly what their Faith is Besides the common Doctrin admitted by all Called Christians They giue you in particular à list of theer Credends The Real Presence Transubstantiation Purgatory Inuocation of Saints and in the first place of the Infallibility of their Church peculiar to Catholicks only They moreouer How differently the Catholick and Sectaries Proceed Assert without the Beliefe of these Articles after à due Proposal made none can be saued And here to omit other Probations taken from Scripture Councils and Fathers They ground their Beliefe vpon the Authority of God's own vniuersal euidenced Oracle which hath taught the world from the Apostles Age. 30. The Sectary on the other side neither dares nor Can name one Article Singular to Protestants Mark my words Or Preach this Doctrin to any of his Hearers Such and such particular Articles you are as Protestants Obliged to belieue as most essential Tenents of our Religion or will be damned if you reiect them The Sectary cannot name one Protestant Article iudged by him necessary to Saluation He cannot build one peculiar Protestant Article vpon plain Scripture vpon ancient Tradition or any other receiued Principle much lesse Proue its Truth by the Authority of à Church which euer Shewed the Marks and Signatures of God's Infinite Power and Wisdom It may be Some Sectary will here Cauil at our Articles and Say indeed we plainly deliuer them but needlesly multiply too many If this be Obiected I Answer first The Assertion is no Principle but à meer vnproued Supposition I Answer 2. in this place it is an Impertinency where we only vrge the Sectary to name but one A possible Cauil answered Article Iudged by him Essential to Protestancy and necessary for Saluation As we plainly giue in our Seueral necessary Articles Thus much Comply'd with We are as ready to Proue the Truth of our Catholick Positions as to Euince vpon sound Principles the Sectaries false and Improbable CHAP. XVIII The Doctors Inferences proued no Inferences but vntrue Assertions Hauing answer'd his Principles and Inferences Satisfaction is required to some few Questions hereafter proposed 1. IT followes Saith the Dr 1. There is no necessity at all of an Infallible Society of men to assure men of the truth The first Inference is à meer Tautology of those things which they may be certain without c. Answ Here you
Reformation Vpon what they would build their Reformation vpon one Principle Chiefly we will here in the first place Shew you what they pretend and vtterly destroy it 2. In à word The main ground of our Protestants late The Protestants pretence laid forth Reformation or the Chiefest cause why they deserted the Roman Catholick Church is best declared in their own language The Roman Catholick Church Say they though once sound and Orthodox yet in after Ages turned from God betrayed his truths brought in Idolatry and damnable Heresies Hence it is we boldly accuse her hence it is we write against her notorious Errours and out of loue to our Souls leaue Her Nos iussu diuino Babylone Egressi Saith Riuet in Sum. Trac 2. q. 2. n. 3. We by God's command are gone out of Babylon he mean's the Roman Catholick Church not so much for her vnpurities as for Her What Sectaries Assert Idols and Heresy More he hath in the following words often accusing this Church of Idolatry and Heresy Consonant to what Mr Stillingfleet teaches in the seueral passages of his Account 3. To overthrow this whole Plea I Argue thus Whoever The ground of their Doctrin ouerthrown euidently impeaches an ample Church of Idolatry or Heresy once vniuersally acknowledged Orthodox and proues not euidently the truth of his Accusation by clear and vnquestioned Principles but desert's that Society without Euidence alleged against her Doctrin by this one Syllogism Acts most vniustly Err's notoriously and Sin 's damnably Bâ—t Protestants do So. That is They euidently impeach à whole ample Church once vniuersally reputed Orthodox of Idolatry and Heresy and haue also most euidently deserted Her without Euidence alleged against her Doctrin which can be grounded vpon vnquestionable Principles Ergo They act most vniustly Err notoriously and Sin damnably 4. The Maior Proposition stand's firm vpon à Principle hinted at aboue Viz. That an euident Accusation in so weighty à Matter vtterly loses force vnless euident Proofs support it The Maior Proposition proued and confirmed This may be further Confirmed by one Ratiocinations in the like Form of Arguing Whoeuer should euidently impute to Holy Scripture once vniuersally receiued as God's Sacred word Idolatry and Heresy or so much as impeach it of flight and incredible Doctrin as the Machiauellians and Socinians do without What if one discoursed of Scripture as â—â—ctaries do of the Church clear and euident Proofs would be à most desperate Plaintife and Sin damnably because he endeauours to bring into publick disreputation God's own truths which the wisest of the world euer reuerenced as Sacred and Diuine And though he should plead as Sectaries Discourse of the Church or Assert that the Book indeed was once pure and Orthodox but afterwards falling into wicked hands notorious Corruptions false Doctrins when or how no body knowes clancularly got in and spoild its purity Though I say He Should plead after this manner without à clear demonstration or Euidence of Proofs He would yet be à most vniust Accuser and Sin damnably Ergo He or they that tax à whole Church once owned for God's Spouse and most certainly Orthodox of notorious corrupted Doctrin with an addition of Idolatry are guilty of the very same open Iniustice and Sin damnably The Parity holds exactly 5. The Minor Proposition viz. But Sectaries impeach c. Sayes two things First that they euidently accuse à whole Church The minor Proued and haue euidently derserted Her which is manifest Ad oculum Secondly that they haue done so without Euidence of Proofs against her Doctrin grounded on vnquestionable Principles And this we shall most easily demonstrate if our Adversaries will please to own with vs these following Principles or any of them as most vnquestionable 6. First the plain and express words of Holy Scripture without Mixture Indubitable Principles supposed where vpon proofs must stand of their particular Glosses or ours also 2. The vnanimous Consent of ancient Fathers but still without Glosses 3. The clear Iudgement of any Orthodox Church wherevnto we add the express Definitions of ancient approued Councils and vniuersal Tradition receiued by all 4. Manifest Reason No Principles can be better or equalize these in worth Proofs if solid must stand vpon One or more of them 7 Speak therefore its high time Let vs not eternally word Sectaries are vrged to follow closely the main point it but go closely to Work We are here in à main Matter Concerning Saluation can you Dr Stillingfleet or any Protestant in England as Euiduntly proue that such and such an Article of Catholick Religion is Contrary to all or any one of these mentioned Principles as euery Grammarian can euidently tell you that this or that Solaecism is euidently against the Rules of Grammer I here boldly challenge you vouchsafe to Answer without tergiuersation if you can reioyn you are worthy Doctors if not be pleased to surcease from writing Controuersies hereafter Yet one word more 8. You say Euidently we are Idolaters because we Adore Christ By Proofs drawn from ihe Principles already mentioned in the Blessed Sacrament Hold on I beseech you and proue your Euident Assertion Euidently by plain Scripture by the vnanimous consent of ancient Fathers by the known Iudgement of any Orthodox Church c. When you pretend to haue done thus much But begin you first I 'll boldly Confront you and demonstrate that the Scripture you allege is no Scripture your supposed Fathers are false Oracles your supposed Councils your Tradition and Sectaries Prooss meer Phaâ—sies lastly what you call Reason merit not so much as the very Names you giue them All this is to Say in other terms You grosly abuse these Oracles you either Corrupt their very words as is most vsual or violently force from them à new peruerse Sense which God neuer intended to speak by them And Consequently the Euidence you pretend to is nothing But à strong Illusion or an vngrounded Phansy not resolvable into the Clarity or Truth of any one of the forenamed Principles Thus much premised 9. I prove the Minor positiuely If it be à manifest Truth The minor Proposition proued that Christ our Lord had an Orthodox Church on earth for the last ten Centuries If it be also manifest that the Professors of this Church be it yet where you will were either Idolaters or damnable Hereticks it is most demonstrable that Sectaries cannot Euidently Euince the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry 10. The ground of my Assertion is Whoeuer euidently Whoeuer proues the Roman Church Idolatrous ruins Christ's true Church proues the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry euinces eo ipso That Christ had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thoufand years To make this manifest Please to diuide the whole Moral Body of men called Christians into three Classes into Orthodox Belieuers if yet there were any into Idolaters and known Heretiques This Diuision made
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
and both as you see stand opposite to Mr Stilling weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason 6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome In. 1. Cor hom 24. Other Authorities Chrisostom Pachasius Damascan who saith The kingly body in heauen is set before vs on earth We touch it and do not only touch it but eate it This body the barbarous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling Thou add's the Saint See'st him not now in the manger but on the Altar not held in à womans arms but by à Priest present c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg he explain's himself further Truly this table supplies the place of the manger for here also is our Lords body laid Paschasius à latin author who liued about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence à nd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. Sanguine Dm'i that the Centurist's Cent. 9. C. 4. Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen Pag 288. and other Sectaries charge him with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christs body No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. whose discours on this subiect though long is most significant As bread saith he naturally meat and wine and water by drink are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drink 's So this bread proposed the wine and water also by the inuocation and comming of the Holy Ghost are in à miraculous manner conuerted into Christs body and blood neither are they two but one and the same Our Lord himself hath said This is not à sign of my body but my body This is not à sign of my blood but my blood Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. reiects the Doctrin and call's this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. Iohn Damascen slight and fabulous sodo other Sectaries with him also 7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr clear noted First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who liued with our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn seem's to me vnanswerable Epist ad Smirnen not far from the beginning They saith he that is certain Sacramentarians admit not Eucharists and oblations because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins and his Father graciously raised from the dead So Theoderet 12. ages since Tom. 4. Dialogo 3. reads And Iaac Vossius who followes the Florentine Copy differs little or rather nothing at all None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear 8. The second authority as pregnant is taken out of S. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for Christians vsually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant Apology Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour by the word of God was made flesh and haed for our saluation flesh and blood so also after the same manner we are taught that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with thanksgiuing of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ which was Incarnate And for proof hereof he allegeth Christs own words This is my body This is my blood Thus S. Iustin speak's who liued not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin I know some Sectaries Cauil at the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by transmutation The sectaries Cauil answered and think Iustin held the Eucharist to be food for the body but his sense is clear for he saith only That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation is made after consecration the very body of Christ and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus Pag 368. translates Iustins S. Iustin's true sense words out of the Greek thus Sumimus autem hunc panem hunc potum non vt Communem sed eo modo quo edocti sumus Iesum Christum seruatorem nostrum habuisse pro salute nostra carnem sanguinem sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro sanguis aluntur post benedictionem ipsius esse carnem sanguinem Domini That is in plain English The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incarnate Sauiour Conformable hereunto Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenaeus aduersus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. Iustins words Sic per verbum precationis gratiarum actionis sacratam ab ipso alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes sanguinem Illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse didicimus The Interpreter also I follow significantly renders the same sense Alimoniam vnde c. The food from whence from which or where with we are nourished this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate Iesus Well but admit that Iustine call's the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies How some Fathers call the Eucharist Nourishment to the body he makes it not therefore Corporal food but Spiritual which nourishes them to à ioyful resurrection or to immortality and thus the other Fathers chiefly S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus finem speakes Quomodo saith he rursus dicunt c How do these Hereticks plead again that our flesh shall come to corruption and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord where with it is nourished Again Sic corpora nostra c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are not corruptible hauing hope of à ioyful resurrection But enough of these authorities Whoeuer desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his 2. book of the Holy Eucharist Out of what is said already I argue 9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also haue most impiously betrayed Christs cause in deliuering false Doctrin contrary to sense and reason or worthily defended à Christian verity Grant this second we haue our intent But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief and impiously erred in their expressions Ponder first what à frontles impudence accompanies the reply Next make this true inference It is impossible that such à supposed vniuersal errour should euer be rased out of A Conuincing Argument the minds of men by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à receiued Principle For what proofs or vndoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture our Tradition the sentiment of the Church and the iudgement
of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer now alleged Therefore if we be in errour the wit of man cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles And here I vrge Mr Silling to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and significant that is Scripture as clear Fathers as clear Tradition as clear the Iudgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted for the opinion he hold's as we now allege in the defense of our Catholick verity Belieue it if he suppose as he certainly doth the Church to haue erred so grosly for à thousand years The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subiect when they meant no such thing He ought to fasten vpon sound Principles indeed before we yeild and must not think to ouerthrow What sectaries are obliged to our Doctrin or foile vs with à few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff which comes no neerer to Principles than improbability to Euidence Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities If à man saith he P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be false which sense iudges to be true he means which weak reason vpon the discouery of sense iudges true for our outward senses make no iudgement What assurance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrin A word to our Aduersaries strange demand Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christs resurrection if their sight might be deceiued about its proper obiect c I am astonished to read this and answer briefly Christ's Resurrection the like I say of Miracles was most vndoubted vpon the discouery which sense and reason made in the presence of such obiects because no contrary Principle so much as weakly stood against that euidence and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was obiected to sense then I now doubt of writing these lines But all is contrary in the present Mystery For here the vnanswerable words of Scripture the Authority of my Church the Clear Testimonies of Fathers the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to belieue the Diuine Reuelation which is either certainly known vpon these grounds or we boldly say no Christian verity was euer yet known vpon any sure Principle What if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling may roundly grant that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real presence for many ages and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been besotted them selues but moreouer haue basely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of belieuing that to be Christs body which really is not Howeuer he will honour the Fathers so far as to afford them the fauour of his glosses Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrin Mr Stilling is obliged to name some Churh reputed Orthodox 3. or 4. hundred years past for then there was à true Church in the world which held his opinion or as expresly denyed the real Presence as our Church both then and now mantains it and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy for I am sure there was neuer any such Church on earth Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery Fathers He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin and make all belieue that we Catholicks hold not yet the real presence Obserue the same language in all That wich in seen is not bread though it seem's so to the tast But the body of Christ Our sense may be deceiued Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed â— made the flesh of Christ and the wine his blood c. Thus the Fathers deliuer their sense and it is the Churches language also If therefore Mr Stilling can so gloss these words of the Fathers as to make them speak Protestancy or not to deliuer our Catholick Doctrin I should not wonder if in the next book set forth he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence If he did so I am sure his attempt would proue as vnsuccesful in the one case â— in the other 11. Well But permit him to interpret the Fathers and to fall foule as he is wont to do vpon our supposed Church errours what is the vtmost that followes Thus much only Meer talk without Principles For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know that his glosses which striue to dead the very obuious sense of the Fathers plain words implie not altogether as little satisfaction as little assurance as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it If so and so it is most euidently as his Doctrin before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians so his interpretations goe no higher but are euery whit as improbable 12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling that vnless his explanation Sectaries glosses vnprincipled worth Nothing of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distiâ—ct from and extrinsick to his glosses they are worth nothing For what auail's it me to read his glosses when no receiued Principle vp hold's them but fancy Reflect à little I read in Scripture This is my body My Church tell 's me the literal sense is true The Fathers as you haue heard and the Tradition of two Churcheâ— confirm this sense Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiect's my Churches authority then begins to strain the Fathers Testimonies with his glosses Stay Sr say I. I except against your glosses and iustly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coynâ— If true they stand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at Proue this and I 'le reuerence your glosses but if you fail and fail you must your Doctrin and glosses are both alike Counterfeit and thoughts of fancy only 13. Hee may reply When Protestants cite the Fathers against the Real presence For example That of S. Austin or Theoderet mentioned aboue we Catholicks explicate them and now which seem's foul play we except against his Glosses For If we interpret An Obiection why may not Hee doe so also A word only in passing conformable to what is noted aboue If to decide this one Controuersy of Christ's Real Presence recourse be had to the Fathers and the two aduerse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations the Dispute will neuer be ended Because priuate glosses leaue the two Dissenters as much at iarrs as they were before God therefore as I haue often said affords an easier means to know his reuealed Truths Now my Answer to the obiection is The Catholick then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation when it sham fully out-faces the
bread This is our Doctrin concerning your miscalled Eucharist we allow you no more and Therefore vtterly dissent from you 26. You add presently à great vntruth And I wonder you could speak it without blushing The greatest men of our Perswasion as Suarez and Bellarmin say you assert the belief of Transubstantiation not to be simply necessary to Saluation Ignorance or Malice or both had certainly à hand here For they say no such thing I Ascribe much to the first moued thereunto by your following words And that the Manner of it is secret and ineffable Dear Sr were Christ really present without Transubstantiation as Luther held The manner of his existing with bread might yet be secret and ineffable But would this inferr à denial of his ineffable Presence All that Catholick Authors say is That the modus existâ—ndi or Our Aduersaries Mistake Manner of his existing in the Sacrament is secret and ineffable euen with Transubstantiation do they Therefore hold the verity not simply necessary to Saluation or boggle at the Doctrin of Transubstantiation You belieue à Trinity of Persons in one Diuine Essence it 's hard for you to express the Manner how God is one and three distinct Persons yet you belieue the Mystery And hold that belief necessary to Saluation Diuines eudeauour to explicate the Manner of Christs ineffable Presence in the Eucharist but when all is done you haue no more from Then but Opinions And so it fall's out in the other Mystery of the Trinity where Schoolmen vary in their explicating Quomodo How God can be one in Essence And three distinct Persons Yet they hold the belief of the Mystery after à due Proposal absolutly necessary to Saluation And thus they discourse of Christs ineffable Presence in the Eucharist The Quomodo or Manner of his being there is difficult And cannot be clearly laid forth to weak Reason yet that perplexeth not our Faith whereby wee submissively yeild to what God speakes without further curiosity 27. Your other instances Page 620. are quite besides the business Christ you say instituted the Sacrament in both kinds The Primitiue Christians receiued in both What then Ergo Other instances refuted Christ commanded both to laicks is no Consequence nor agreed on by Catholicks 2. Both Churches say you Agree that the Eucharist is à Sacrifice of duty of Praise of Commemoration c. You know we absolutly deny your Supposition and say you haue no true Sacrifice consequently neither praise God nor Commemorate Christs Passion but grievously offend him in your taking à bare piece of bread Here is no Agreement And thus we speak of your Mass or Liturgy For there was neuer Mass in the without à true Sacrifice you haue no Sacrifice Ergo no Mass Church The grossest errour therefore is that you haue rased out the Sacrifice most essential to à Liturgy 28. Page 621. You say His Lordship Answers truly that the Agreement of differing parties is no Metaphysical Principle The Contingent proposition but à bare contingent Proposition which may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applyed Answ A contingent Proposition What 's this Sr If you mean that the Protestant party vented it by chance I 'le not quarrel with you But out it is in print And applied to the Possibility of Saluation which you allow Catholicks Let this concession stand it cannot but be true vnless you say Both parties err in the Assertion And then we are not only out of the Question but highly blame you vpon this account That all your pains in discussing sc largely the matter hitherto has been to no purpose For one line might haue ended All had you plainly Said We Protestants fouly erred when we granted Saluation to Catholicks in their own Religion Be it how you will I say this Proposition Saluation may be had in Catholick Religion is So true that it cannot be false because the greatest Authority on earth the vniuersal Church of Christ own 's it as an vndoubted verity and could this possibly be à falshood neither we nor Protestants can belieue any thing which the Church teaches as is amply proued in the second Discourse c. For to what purpose should I belieue the Trinity the Incarnation the Creed or any thing els when Is so true that is cannot be false that Church which proclaims these as Truths may after all damn me The very uglines of such à thought carries horrour with it And stark shame decries it as Abominable Your Lord and you say next The consent of disagreeing parties is neither Rule nor proof of truth No man can resolue his Faith into it but Truth rather is or should be the Rule to frame if not to force Agreement Answ All this is very right Therefore we neuer make your consent either Rule or proof of any Catholick Verity much less do wee resolue our Faith into your Agreement Church Doctrin Stands firm without you it was true before you were in being And the euidence of it forced you to consent with vs. Now à word to your other two or three instances And. 29. In real truth Sr I much wonder you saw not their Lameness before you thrust them into your Page 621. And that you would fain allow them Strength to weaken this Truth Wâ—e Other Instances proved weight less and Protestants Agree thus far that Catholick Religion can saue vs c. I say Contrary The instances are so remote from your design That they proue just nothing One is The Orthodox Christians agreed with the Arians that Christ was of like nature with his Father But added Hee was of the same nature Ergo Say you it is safest to hold with the Arians To hold what I beseech you You Answer that Christ was of the like nature Very good That Likeness either excluded the same nature or included it Grant the first you make the Fathers Hereticks which is impossible For they held the same nature common and Consubstantial to the Father and Son If their concession which is true included the same nature The Orthodox party and Arians agreed not in the same hypothesis consequently your instance is to no purpose at all In à word this euer and vnexceptionably holds good The Doctrin which Hereticks Iewes and Turks agree in with Catholicks is most true so you and we agree about saluation now discussed but it doth not follow that so much only or that no more is true Your want of reflecting vpon this Only or no More makes That 's truth wherein Catholicks and Hereticks agree all your instances impertinent And your inferences Ergo It is safest holding with the Arians most vnconcluding For though the Doctrin be true when the Arian side with the Church yet it deriues no absolute safety from that consent of Hereticks 30. Vpon these grounds all the rest which followes fall's to nothing Some dissenting parties Say you agree that there ought to be à Resurrection from Sin