how useles a Book These impious Glosses are laid forth only to show Sectaries how Scripture may be abused sole Scripture is with These men to end their Differences yea and what monsters are produced out of it by those that pretend most to Gods written Word And what is the reason think ye That these Sole-Scripturists These Arians These Protestants These Anabaptists c. are so various so opposite in their Tenents begot as they think out of the true written Word From whence the abuse proceeds of God Is it for want of wit learning or languages They thus Differ No. Is it for the want of Study and conferring one place of Scripture Clear as they think with others Obscure No Both Arians and Protestants have done this long ago Is it that all these Sectaries go against their Conscience or wilfully draw Gods Word to a pervers sense He never spake let the Innocent cast the first stone at the Guilty Truly I suspect it in Some yet cannot judge that All are Conscious of so hideous an Impiety 6. The true Reason therfore is These Sectaries The true reason is given after the Rejecting of Gods infallible Church the Oracle of Truth will by no more then half an Ey of Human Reason dive into the deep Secrets of Gods Eternal Wisdom Obscurely revealed in Scripture and herein they neither shew Judgement nor Learning With this pur-blind Eye of weak Reason They go to work They steer on their cours they judge They Determin They Define They Pronounce their fallible Sentiments on these High Mysteries which never the lesse Reason alone is uncapable to comprehend or Master Hence Why Sectaries vary as they do They vary as they do Hence it is they weary themselves out with opposite frivolous Interpretations of Gods Word which is but one whilst they are so divided in their Tenents Hence it is That almost every year we have a new Religion broach'd in England Such a jumbling we must expect such endles Dissentions amongst them And t is a just Judgement of God for their Pride who truely are no more but poor Schollers yet Disdain to learn of a good Master that 's willing to teach them all Truth 7. I call it a Iumbling for from Scripture by Reason of its les clear speaking arise these Dissentions and though it be quoted a Thousand times says no Endles Confusion about the sense of Scripture more now Then it did sixteen hundred years agon And therfore cannot end them They next fall upon a doubtful conferring one Passage of the Bible with another Several Versions and Languages are examined much Adoe they make And all is to know what God speaks in such Texts but without fruit For their Differences are as High as ever And neither Party gaines or looses the Victory Since Scripture alone nor the Comparing of Texts together is able to draw either side from their Preconceived Opinion After the Conferring of places They are hard at it with Fallible Explications when behold express Scripture is cast away by these two Combatants And now either the One must learn of the Other what God speaks in Scripture by a human fallible Explication which is no Scripture or nothing is concluded Arians and Protestants equally uncertain Who is then to be held the Master Interpreter the Arian or Protestant Neither And they have both Reason for it For neither ought to yeild in their own Principles The quarrel Therfore goes on and is endles If after Their fallible Explications of Scripture they proceed to Inferences This followes That followes c. All is plain Sophistry for Vpon what unsteedy Foundations Haresy stands Scripture Vitiated with a fals Explication can never Support a true Illation And upon such unsteedy Foundations all Haeresy stand's Scripture not understood is the Ground doubtful Collations of places fallible Explications fals Illations are the Superstructure They have no more And thus you se how useles a Book Why Scripture is useles in the hands of an Haeretick A question propose and answered of Scripture is in the hands of an Haeretick who neither can tell me so much as Truely much les Infallibly what God speak's in These High controverted Points of our Christian Faith 8. But you 'l ask how then happens it that Mr. Poole and Protestants hit right in yeilding an Assent to some Catholick Verities for Example to a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence and Contrary to Arianism Protestants acknowledge a Trinity by Oversight Profess the Son to be consubstantial with his Eternal Father in one Divine Nature I answer They light upon these Verities by an Oversight or as I may say meerly by Chance By Oversight For believe it had Luter thought well On 't He might with more ease have denyed These High Mysteries of our Faith then the Real change of bread in the Holy Eucharist By Chance For as by chance They Stole Or by Chance a Bible from the old Catholick Church so casually They took from her Here and There as it pleased Fancy somewhat of her Ancient Tradition also And upon This ground of Tradition or the infallible Doctrin of the Catholick Church They Believe as Vnawares engaged in a Belief They labour in vain to find Scripture for it well as they can These Sublime mysteries Being thus unawares engaged in a Belief They weary their Heads and wear out their Bible to find expres Scripture for it which cannot be found Becaus forsooth they will Believe nothing upon Tradition or the Churches infallible Doctrin I say Expres Scripture cannot be found that Assert's Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence or the Word to be Consubstantial with his Eternal Father Therfore if they Believe these Verities They must Ground their Faith not upon sole Scripture But on Scripture explicated by that never erring Oracle of Truth the Catholick Church Or on the Word of God not written which we call Tradition You se Sectaries must own the Churches Interpretation or become Arians therfore how our Protestants though in Actu signato they seemingly Reject Tradition and the Churches Interpretation upon Scripture yet in Actu exercito They own both and must necessarily do so or become plain Arians Yet here they are pinch'd again For if they Believe these Mysteries upon Tradition or on Scripture interpreted by the Church They are neither Papists In doing so They are neither Papists nor Protestants nor Protestants No Papists for Papists hold Tradition and the Churches Interpretation infallible No Protestants For They profess to Believe no more then God hath expressed in his written Word Though now they must leave that Hold and believe upon the Catholick Motive or renounce the Faith of these Articles 9. If Mr. Poole pretend expres Scripture for these High Verities of Christian Faith The surest way will be to produce it without Remitting me to other Authors or Adding his fallible Glosses to Gods Word For every Arian knows
I answer Admit of this most fals Supposition These Doctrins were not Taught Sectaries found Faith on a Negative No Faith at all can be founded on this Negative Before which will never be They Prove their contrary Doctrin Positively Revealed by Almighty God in Scripture For this Principle stands irrefragably Sure No Revelation No Faith Although the Object Assented to be True All the pains Therfore These men take to reduce Their Reformed Gospel to the Model of the Primitive Church is upon several Respects meer labor lost But upon this Account Chiefly it They cannot shew one of Their Negatives Revealed to any Ancient Orthodox Church faulters most That They cannot show one Negative believed by them to be a Revealed Truth to any Christian Society in the world It is pittiful to hear how they fumble in this Discours We Ask how they prove that the Primitive Church held no Unbloody Sacrifice put this for one example it serves for all Some Answer They find no such thing as a Sacrifice registred in those Ancient Writings Mark the Proof They find it not Ergo it is not to be found Catholicks as The Inferences of Sectaries unconcluding clear Sighted as others find that Doctrin expresly Asserted But becaus Protestants are pleased to Deny all They must and upon their Own word be Thought the Men of more Credit Well But Suppose the Doctrin was not Registred in those Ancient Records Is this Consequence good It was not writ Ergo it was not Taught No certainly Vnles They show all Taught Doctrin was then Writ or Registred But let us falsly Suppose that the Doctrin was neither Writ nor Taught Doth it follow that the Contrary of no Sacrifice now believed by Protestants was a Truth Revealed to that Church or taught by it No. Therfore they are here driven again upon the old Negative And thus it is That Church said nothing of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Which is Hideously Vntrue Ergo Protestants can now Believe no Sacrifice which is Hideously fals and as unlucky a Sequele as This That Church said not whether the Moon be a watery Body full of Rocks Ergo Protestants can Believe the contrary with Divine Faith You will Say we Trifle now For that Church was Perfect in Faith and either held a Sacrific 〈…〉 Denyed it I answer in Real Truth it Plainly and undeniably Held a Sacrifice yet must withal Affirm Though we Falsly suppose And this fals Supposition must be vigilantly regarded that it only Negatively abstracted from such Doctrin yet Protestants are far of from Proving it held Positively the Contrary That is no Sacrifice which yet is Necessary to be Proved if They believe no Sacrifice with Divine Faith 11. They may yet Reply They are Able at least to Produce some Ancient Fathers Clearly Enough Asserting no Unbloody Sacrifice Therfore they prove this Negative and so they can do Others I utterly Deny that clearly Enough and say They have not one Ancient Fathe 〈…〉 nor Council nor any Approved Authority No Ancient Father against an Vnbloody Sacrifice that positively Denyes a Sacrifice All unanimously Taught the contrary as Luther himself confesseth Much less have They Any that makes this their Doctrin a Truth Revealed by Almighty God or ever taught by any Vniversal Church Were therfore these supposed Authorities of Sectaries which are none and Reasons also for no Sacrifice more Numerous and Strong then what the World hath Heard of hitherto They cannot in Conscience suppose them Proofs weighty enough to Beat down the contrary Asserted And Vndeniable Doctrin not only of Fathers But of a Whole Church They cannot Suppose Them powerful enough to Build up such a new Negative of Protestant Religion especially whilst They see before their eyes the Torrent of Antiquity against them and our Answers returned to every Trivial Objection they make O But they can Solve all we Object And we must Take their Word Becaus They say so We also tell them We Solve what they Object and yet are not Believed Do you not se here most pittiful Doings and Controversies made Endles by this Proceeding when each Party saith what it pleaseth and Gain 's no Credit from the Other A Judge my good Friends and an Infallible Judge is here Necessary to Decide Matters between us But thus far evident Reason judgeth And Tell 's you Though you could Solve all we say for the Affirmative of a Sacrifice you are to Seek for a Positive Proof of your Vnproved yet Believed Negative There is no Sacrifice And the like I say of your other Negatives CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to Interpret Scripture Truely One Passage More of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers is Quoted 1. WE come now to Solve more fully the Objection Proposed Chap. 7. n. 2. It was to this Sense A Protestant Delivers what he Conceives to be the Meaning of Scripture So the Catholick doth also and can do no more Both of Them therfore are Glossers The difficulty proposed again Concerning the Interpretation of Scripture the only Difficulty is to know who Glosses better Here is the state of the Question 2. To go on Groundedly We may with our Adversaries leave Suppose That God hath not put a Bible into the Hands of Christians to cause Eternal Debates concerning the Doctrin delivered in it And if this be a Truth We may secondly Suppose God desirous of Vnity in Faith gave us not Scripture to cause eternal Debates That his Wise Providence so earnestly desirous of Unity in Faith amongst Christians hath Afforded some Means wherby we may rightly Attain to the True Sense of his Sacred Word For no man can imagin that Gods Intention is That we only Read without Arriving to the Sense of what we Read or which is wors that we fall into Error by our Reading Providence hath afforded means wherby we may understand Scripture This therfore Providence hath Prevented by one Means or other if carelesly we do not reject it We may thirdly Suppose That God regularly speaking Reveal's to no Private man the deep Sense of Scripture when He Reads and perhaps understands it not By private Illustrations new Enthusiasm's or the Ministery of Angels Therfore Private Illustrations no usual means some other way is Appointed by Providence to come to the True Sense of what He Reads The Reason is True Religion requires a True Interpreter of the Book which founds Religion Otherwise God would have only carelesly as it were Thrown Scripture amongst Christians And bid them Guess as well as they can at the Sense of it They having no other means to know his Meaning These Things Premised 3. I say first The Holy Book of Scripture neither doth Scripture cannot interpret its self nor can so Interpret it self as to bring Men Dissgnting in Faith to an Accord or Acquiescency in High Points of Controversy The Assertion is Evident For could the Book clearly interpret its own Meaning Catholicks Arians Protestants
Christ But held that he was Man only The Monothelits Believed That which all Christians agree in though true is not enough for saving Faith in Christ But denyed his two Natures his two Wills Humane and Divine The Apollinarians Believed in Christ and held that the Word assumed True Flesh But without a Created Soul Tell me now can you Abstract a Belief from these Erring Christians Common to all other That is safe sufficient and enough to constitute Saving and Catholich Faith Is it enough to say I do Believe in Christ without descending with my Faith to an explicit Belief of his Divinity also Hath one that saith I believe in Christ But I will abstract from a Belief of his two Natures from his having a Rational Soul from His Being God and Man And Becaus others have positively Disbelieved these Articles I will only Prescind from the Verity of them to prescind is les then expresly to deny them hath such an one I say Saving Faith enough to make him a Plain Haresy followâ— from these Sectaries Doctrin Member of the Holy Catholick Church No. For if so He needs not to believe at all the Divinity of Christ or his two Natures after Scripture is Red and Proposed unto him which obligeth him if He own it for Gods Word not to Abstract from the Belief of these Articles But positively to yeild an Assent to them with True Faith as most Fundamental Verities of Christian Religion You se Therfore how Impossible it is to draw one true Vniform Vniversal Doctrin From all erring Christians And to hold that on the one side sufficient for Catholick Faith And on the other to comply with that strict Obligation which express Scripture clearly proposed forceth us to Believe 4. This Point I insist on Becaus I know Protestants cannot so much as probably Name any Thing like a Holy united Catholick Church before Luther unles They first Answer as some of them seem to do by the Abstract Doctrin of all Christians now evidenced no Faith And say That particular Errors did Vncatholick none Or Secondly run to an invisible Church not at all Designable Or thirdly as They Protestants ought to acknowledg the Roman Catholick Church as True c. ought to do Acknowledge that the Roman Catholick Church was then and now is not only a Church But the Sole Holy and Catholick Church of Christ through the whole World With this Catholick Society I could show were it not amply don by others How all who Age after Age merited the Name of Catholicks have ioyned in Faith And all who parted from it Have been Branded with the ignominious Note of Or can find none Haereticks If I speak not Truth Name any Society of Christians before Luther That ever gained the None ever had the Name of Catholick but those of the Roman Faith Repute of Catholick But such only as were United in Faith with the Roman Church Name any one Society That Divorced it Self from this Church which Forthwith lost not that Ancient Title of Catholick Or was not upon That Separation Stiled Haeretical Schismatical or Both. If you say first the Roman Church wronged them I Ask. Quis te constituit judicem Who made you judge in this Case Name the injured Parties Were the Arians Pelagians Nestorians Donatists wronged when they left Communion with this Church The Gracians Waldenses c. No more wronged then Arians No. But the Waldenses the Albigenses the Hussits And most of all The later Graecians had Injury Don them And why so more Then Pelagians Is your bare Assertion Proof enough to Declare Those Guilty and These Innocent When you your selves as much condemn them as Catholicks Do For You utterly Disavow Their Doctrin Was ever General Council Convened That did more Patronize the Errour of these Waldenses Then those other of the Arians or That blamed the Roman Church for casting them out of Her Communion No. Why therfore do you Plead â—o much for a Bad cause when you have no more â—o Defend it Then your own Proofles Talk which Had you spent in an Apology For any Old Condemned Haeretick would have Help't as much That 's nothing at all as now you Advantage These later Men And Observe I Beseech you How weakly you Go to work You say the Hussits Waldenses Sectaries plead for condemned Hereticks without any Principle but their own Talk and Others were good Catholicks We deny it And Demonstrate their Vncatholick Doctrin To what Tribunal shall we Appeal for a just Sentence to your Saying I or to our No. To None And Thus you Proceed with us in all your Controversies We must either take your Word for your Assertion or Dispute without end upon nothing that hath the Appearance And make Controversies Endles of a received Principle 5. You Say Again The Later Graecians were Catholicks Before they Recanted their Errours in the Council of Florence How Prove you That By a glorious Empty Title A Defence of the Greek Church By Far fetch'd Vncertain Conjectures And meer Negative Arguments which are so slight That if all were put together in a Iust Ballance They would not weigh one Straw much â—es Out-weigh the Definition of a most Learned General Council against the Greeks Yet such Talk and Talk only lengthen's these new Books And makes them so Voluminous as They are And They Defend Doctrin denyed by the English Church by the way Note here a Pretty Humour The Greeks must be Defended in that Point of the Holy Ghosts Procession from the Father Only whilst the Church of England Anathematizeth the Doctrin Is not this Right think ye And well done by a Protestant 6. Well You shall se my plain Dealing with Graecians Hussits and Waldenses could not make the Catholick Church you I Licence you to take These Graecians Those Hussits Those Waldenses c. to make up a Church before Luther yet must Tell you They Do not the deed without more Company which cannot be found That These we have named make not the Church Catholick is Evident For first they were never Vniversal either in Time or Place Their late Beginnings and little Extent are known and upon Record 2. They were never United in one Doctrin But more at variance with One another Then you and Catholicks are This they only Agreed in to Oppose the Catholick Faith And if so much made them Protestants or good Catholicks You may call in Turks and Iewes to bear them Company 3. They were most contrary to Protestant Religion and not in Trifles only Why therfore have you recours to a People so Blasted Scattered and almost now Forgotten Alas Protestants Every way Churchles The Reason is clear Becaus without them you have nothing to make a Church of And yet with them you are Churchles I say therfore No Roman Catholick Church no Church No Roman Catholick Church no Church at all at all If no Church at all There was then
with so poor a Belief which if it be Resolved Proves No Faith at all And therfore it is Impossible Becaus when I say by a General Proposition I am bound to Believe firmly All that God Speak's I cannot but Believe also every Particular comprised under that General at least implicitly as is Already both Declared and Proved 10. My second Proposition is Although contrary to Sectaries though we Admit of the Distinction between Fundamentals and others cannot make their Doctrin Good Truth we gratis Permit Protestants to Distinguish between Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental yet They are so unprovided of all means to make good the Distinction or to Sever the Fundamentals from the Other That They shall never Speak so much as one Word probably on this Subject 11. Some fraudulently shuffling all of with Generalities Think They say much when nothing is touched on to the Purpose and Define First What ever Appear's to me upon sufficient Enquiry to be Revealed by God Mr. Stilling fleets shuffling I am bound to Believe it by Virtue of Gods Veracity First Why am I bound to Believe twenty Verities in Scripture when the Belief of them hath as you Say no Reference to Eternal Saluation Why should God oblige me to Believe that now which will do me no good Hereafter Yet farther You Talk of Enquiry Tell He send 's us to enquire and sayes not of whom me of whom must we Enquire of our own Fancies These lead us as we se in the Quakers to a Thousand Fooleries Of an Vnerring Church You own none to Enquire of Of Scripture This Occasion 's Errour upon Errour And as Appear's by the Endles Dissentions of Haereticks may as well lead us to Deny Fundamentals as rightly to acknowledge them They define Pope-like Secondly All things not equally appearing to all Persons to be revealed by God the same measure of necessity cannot be extended to all Persons The All have not alike the same Explicit Faith Assertion only show's what is Evident That all Persons cannot have alike the same Explicit Faith But 't is far of from Proving That all Gods Verities when propounded have not Relation to Belief and Saluation Also Yet this is the true State of the Question concerning Fundamentals as Appears by These men who put a Difference between some Revealed Points and Others True Faith believes all Implicitly Those upon the General Account of Divine Revelation are Necessary These of lesser Reckoning stand at a great distance from absolute Necessity We say all are Necessary when Proposed yea and all are Implicitly Believed in every True Act of Supernatural Faith 3. They say An universal Assent to the Will of God and Vniversal Obedience to it are absolutely and indispensably Necessary to all Persons Perfect Obedience is resolved into particular Compliances with Gods will to whom Gods Word is Revealed The Assertion though most true run's on in Terms too Vniversal And must if it speak of an Efficacious Obedience be Resolved into particular Compliances with Gods Will Otherwise it Destroyes it self For no Man can say I now Purpose to yeild Obedience to Gods Will And in Sensu Composito of this Volition Resist his Will in any particular Otherwise it destroyes it self Therfore if it be his Will as most certain it is That I Hear Him and Obey Him in every Particular He Speak's my Purpose also of Compliance with his Will cannot but joyntly Embrace and Extend it self to those Particulars either Implicitly which is don in every due Submission to God Or more Explicitly when I Hear his Will Propounded in such and such particular Matters 12. I have already given the Reason hereof Becaus No Generality in Objects The Object therfore of Faith includes so many Particulars there is no Generality in Objects The total Object Therfore of my Faith as condistinguished from my Act of Believing includes à parte rei nothing els But so many Particulars as God hath Revealed In like manner the Object of my Obedience implies a Submission to so many Particular Commands He Therfore who saith by a General Act I Believe all that God And a datiful Obedience extend's to so many Commands Speak's I Obey him in all He Command's Fasten's upon nothing à parte rei But on Particular Revealed Verities and Particular Intimated Commands nor can He by a General Act more Believe All and exclude Some then exclude All and believe Some For want of well Pondering this Truth our Protestants whilst they own an Vniversal Belief of Scripture necessary to He that Believe's Scripture in General Believe's every Particular Saluation shall fumble as long as they live in Their Specifying Particular Fundamentals Becaus the Vniversal owning of Scripture owns likewise all Particulars in it Exclude Particulars And you make Null the Vniversal Proposition 13. Others Lay this charge on us to Believe All that God Reveal's in Scripture and there we shall surely meet with the Fundamentals of Faith Answ Though we Gratis admit That all Necessary Points are contained in Scripture yet it is too great a Task Yea and impossible also for every Simple Man to read the Book over But Suppose this be don He may not only fall into twenty Errours concerning Scripture But also most easily judge that to be Fundamental which is not and that not to be Fundamental which is And if He do so He hath neither Doctor nor Prompter at hand to Vnbeguile him CHAP. V. An Answer to one Reply More of this Subject 1. HEre briefly I Answer to a trivial Objection of our Adversaries who esteem us Catholicks Though we own an Infallible Church as far of from An Objection grounded on a mistake knowing the Fundamentals of it or giving in a Distinct Catalogue of them as They are after their Reading Scripture The Objection grounded on a Mistake is Forceles For with one Unanimous and equal Submission We Believe all That the Church The Church can Declare it self farther when doubts occurr Scripture cannot Proposeth which when Doubts occurr is Ready Able and Sufficient to Declare it self Scripture can not do so As is Manifest by the endles Dissentions of Protestants in this very Question of Fundamentals Now He That believes All that the Church Propofeth as Points of Faith Admits likewise of every Particular and with the same Certitude Though Perhaps He clearly Distinguishes not between Matters of Faith and Others But this Distinguishing when exactly don only Perfect's Explicit Faith And therfore as it Gives no Addition of more Faith absolutely Necessary to Salvation so the Want of it Deprives us not of any thing necessary to that End of Happines The Reason hereof is clear out of the Precedent Discours For He who by an Universal Assent Admits of all that the Church Teaches as Faith cannot but Implicitly Believe This Particular if it he of Faith One may doubt whether the Church proposeth such a matter as Faith and yet believe it
impudent he must say No. All therfore he can reply is That the Ministers of his Church after a perusal of Scripture find these Verities contained there and Propose all to him as things Certainly revealed Therfore he believes them Here we come to the trial of Protestants Faith and mark well How unavoydably They are forced to grant That when a pretended Revelation Sectaries must own an Infallible Proponent is not manifest for them But lyes if at all very darkly in Scripture it must be brought to light and made more clear by some Teacher Some one or other if it have influence into Faith must Apply it and Propose it to a Hearer as Gods certain Word Without this Application made by a certain Teacher no Christian can but most temerariously admit of the Revelation as Divine and Certain 10. Demand therfore in the last place Whether all the Ministers in England are able to propound certainly and infallibly the above mentioned Doctrins darkly at least and indeed not all contained in Scripture as Gods revealed Truths to any The answer must be Negative They cannot for if they propose them infallibly Ministers are infallible Ergo say I none can Believe these Doctrins for Gods certain Revelation Because the Proposal of them absolutely necessary to apply the Revelation is defective weak dubious and uncertain The Faith therfore which followes upon so unsteedy a Teaching cannot but be answerably rowling That is in one word no Faith at all And Protestants have no better 11. Some perhaps may say Though Protestants have no great Certainty of the Doctrins above specified because they are neither expresly in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher yet their Faith in Fundamentals universally held by all Christians stand's sure enough and is infallible Such Truths shall never fail and so far the Pastors of the Church may it is likely be held infallible 12. Hereafter we shall treat more largely of Fundamental points and Therfore at present will wave what is not pertinent to answer this Reply And pertinent Why Doctrine of Protesta as Protestants is uncertain it is to say first That not one Doctrin peculiar to Protestants as Protestants because neither expresly found in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher can certainly be believed upon Divine Revelation That these Sectaries teach not their own Protestant Tenents infallibly is granted That Scripture doth not in express Terms without intolerable glossing deliver one of them shall be made after a few pages most evident And thus if this last Reply be to any purpose it brings Ruin to that part of Doctrin which is called Protestancy I say secondly There is scarce one Article of Christs Sacred Doctrin so clearly expressed in Scripture which may not would men take the liberty as Sectaries do by wilful Glosses to alienate it from the Churches sense be perverted Arians have taught them this mode of Glossing and they exactly follow it Separate therfore the words Doubful words of Scripture separated from the sense of an Infallible Interpreter ground not Faith of Scripture from the Sense of an infallible Interpreter we can Believe nothing we have no more but a body without a Soul guesses without certainty And upon such uncertainties the whole Faith of Protestants doth and must rely which is deplorable And here ask them when They appeal as They ever doe to Scripture What they mean by Scripture which needs Interpretation even in Points most Fundamental Must we admit of their Interpretation Why so more then of others as learned as They Why not as well on the present Churches Interpretation This is as good to say no more as their fallible Guesses are But of this Subject hereafter I say thirdly Never The Church in all her Doctrine equally infallible any Catholick Church hitherto held it self infallible in a few Fundamental Doctrins and not in others Therfore Protestants are more insolently bold whilst they attempt to make this Distinction then ever any Church yet was What That meer fallible Men shall be my Doctors and ex tripode define So far the Church holds infallible Doctrin But no further T' would be well nigh eight Degrees of madnes in me to believe them Admit once of this A new Haeretick may step out and defend as stoutly yea and upon as solid grounds that Scripture it self it not infallible but only in a few Fundamental Matters yet unknown to the world If you say this sounds too harshly and cannot be granted Parallel I beseech you your own wild Assertion with it The Church is Christ's Schole and se whether that runs much smoother Thus it is Christ hath erected a School which is his Church where Christians are to learn his Sacred Doctrin But when they come to it They find more then the half of its Doctrin doubtful fallible unsound uncertain Alas Aristotle's or Plato's School can cfford us Topicks and uncertainties enough I hope Christs School can learn us better Fourthly Were the Church falsly supposed Fallible in the delivery of some Doctrin lesse Fundamental it would be much safer to believe it then Protestants who may err in all they say And then most when being void of proofs They stand trifling with a Distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Herein as in all other things they are most fallible and must I think ye credit men that can say nothing certainly 13. Fifthly and I end Admit once of a Church with this half infallibility in fundamentals our Sectaries who so furiously oppugn that whole infallibility which we ascribe to the Roman Church must Answer their own Arguments against us For here we question them as they do us Where or in what Rational Queries made to Protestants Subject is that partial infallibility lodged What Pastors designable are endewed with it How shall we make our Addresses to them in doubts and difficulties if none know where or who they are What kind of infallibility is this By whose assured Testimony can we learn what is de fide funaamentali what not What if these Pastors be devided amongst themselves in their Decisions of fundameetals whose judgement is finally to be stood too c. These and the like Questions most easily answer'd by Catholicks when They give an account of their Belief as I shall shew in the Resolution of Faith press so strongly upon Protestants that not one of them shall ever have a satisfactory Answer Perhaps to Protestants pretence to a private Spirit solve them some will recurre to the private Spirit and say This tell 's them all Truth in these doubts Contra. Ask only here Whether this Spirit makes them or their Pastors infallible or can direct others to find out such infallible Pastors If they reply Those are such as Teach Gods Word purely the Answer is impertinent for we ask whether it Assists any to Teach Gods pure Word infallibly And who they are It may be others will say that Christ never had since the Apostles
openly Significant and Expressive for the Real Presence then for a Trinity Doth the Difficulty of the Sacrament rationally retard their Belief The Trinity is yet a more difficil Mystery to Reason O but the Trinity was ever Believed by the True Church So say I was The other Mystery also But speak Reason now And say what Church was it which ever believed the Trinity The Roman Catholick Church surely For Arius and others impugned that Mystery Now Protestants say this Roman Catholick Church erred in believing Christs Real Presence and if so They are most unreasonable in relying on it for the Belief of a Trinity For if it erred in the Belief of one Mystery it may as well have erred in the other They may say the best and most Ancient Fathers held a Trinity Very true And as evidently They believed Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist But what will you say if I infringe the Authority of these learned Father in this matter I can do it though not in Real Truth most easily being assisted by the Principles of Protestants who tell us that the whole Roman Church That is All the Fathers and Doctors of it erred for a thousand years together in believing the Catholick If the Church had erred the Fathers may more likely have erred Doctrin of the Blessed Sacrament Wherupon I inferre Those Ancient Fathers who both learnedly defended and piously believed a Mysterious Trinity may more likely have erred in doing so then that a whole Church for so vast a Time hath patronised erroneous Doctrin and falsly believed the Real Presence Most undoubtedly The wisdom and Authority of this long standingh Catholick Church is in true Prudence of greater sway and value then the sole Authority of those far fewer Ancient Fathers can be though most Venerable and worthy all Respect that writ of the Sectaries who slight a whole learned Church may more rationally slight the Ancient Fathers Sacred Trinity Those men therfore who have the Boldnes to slight so great a Church cannot wtih so much as a colour of Reason Reverence more highly those Ancient Fathers But enough of this Subject Let us now go on to a further consideration of these prudent Motives and se more particularly what Religion gives us the best Evidence of Them CHAP. VIII A few Reflections made upon these Motives of credibility No Religion hath Motives founding moral certainty but One only which is the Roman Catholick Religion 1. NOte first If God as we now suppose guides All Christians prrfesse not Christs true Doctrin us by his Providence and hath established true Religion in the world it is as certain that all who profes Christianity for example Arians and Pelagians believe not intierly Christs true Doctrin as that some blessed by so singular a Favour both rightly believe and profes it It is again most certain That How God lead's us to the knowledge of true Religion if this wise Providence draws us not to the knouwledge of true Religion by Euthusias'ms private Illustration or the ministery of Angels it leads us on by extrinsecal Motives suitable to Reason by rational Inducements or discernable Evidence And these we call known Signs Cognisances of Truth evident Marks clear Characters or plain speaking Language which plead as it were in Gods behalf and as clearly shew us where true Religion is as These visible Creatures manifest a Deity or as that Star which brought the Sages to Bethlem pointed out the Saviour of the world None can Deny These plain Inducements of Faith But such as deny those first and most clear Manifestations of Truth which Christ our Lord and his Blessed Apostles evidenced when by Their admirable Miracles strange Conversions Sanctity of life c. They withdrew beguiled Soules from Error and wrought Faith in Them Before one Word of Scripture was registred 2. Note 2. And it is the Reflection of a learned Author As no man enters on a Dispute with others God as it were Disputes against Falshood with rational Arguments but be hopes to get the better so God when he proposeth true Religion to Christians engageth as it were in a Dispute with the Devil and all those Sectaries who oppose it And therfore cannot hope But is sure to conquer and convince his Adversaries otherwise it were folly to begin a Dispute which would not end to his Honor. Now if he convince he doth it And silences all Opponents of Truth by the Force and Efficacy of such powerful Arguments laid out to Reason as are able to silence all Opponents For strong rational Inducements perswasively work on Reason And clear mans Intellectual power from all Mistrust and Doubt 3. Note 3. It is impossible after the Establishment of true Faith amongst Christians That God either will or can permit a false Religion to be more Speciously evident to Reason by Force of rational Motives then his true Religion is For were this possible He would oblige Reason A false Religion cannot be more Speciously evident to reason then Gods true Religion is by rational Inducements to embrace a fals Religion which is highly repugnant to his Goodnes And upon this ground I say more It is impossible That a false Religion equalize the true One in the Evidence of rational Motives For if the evidences for Falshood be equal with those other of Truth God would stand guilty of arguing less efficaciously in behalf of his own Verities We Nor can equalize it in the Evidence of Credibility must then conclude That Gods true Religion ever most eminently surpasseth falshood in the grace and lustre of those Motives which evidence it to Reason And from hence it followes That no man can in Iustice appropriate those rational Inducements which draw reason to Rational Motives belong not to all called Christians find out true Religion to all who go under the name of Christians For amongst these whether Arians or others you have false Religions but the Marks Motives and Cognisances of Truth cannot belong to a false Religion unles God propose error as Speciously evident to Reason as his own Revealed Truth which is now proved impossible 4. These few Reflections premised Let us look about Two Religions in Competition us and cast a serious Thoughr on two Religions only which as it seem's stand justling with one another yea and will needs come into Competition for Truth The one is the Ancient and long Continued Roman Catholick Religion The other is that late Novelty of Protestanism Let reason I say go here impartially to work let it make a diligent enquiry after the Rational Motives which as it were plead in behalf of these two different Religions Both are not Both cannot be True both have not the like Evidence true and Therfore both cannot be evidenced by the like Marks ande Cognisances of Truth the One must yeild to the Other What do I say yeild The first appears like a glorious Sun Procedens crescens
well to Distinguish between express Scripture and the superadditions of Mens Glosses fallible Explications Interpretations c. Now if When Sectaries interpret Scripture truely They borrow light from Church Doctrin in this particular Mystery of the Trinity Mr. Poole Interpret's Scripture truely it is not God knows His skill that doth it No. The Reason is Becaus be borrows the Truth from the Churches Interpretation of Scripture and so fights against an Arian with anothers Weapon Where by the way observe a strange proceeding of Protestants who when They dispute A strange proceeding of Protestants out of Scripture against an Arian They 'l have the Churches Interpretation good against him and His naught against them And when they Dispute by Scripture against Catholicks They will have the Churches Interpretation forceles against themselves and Their own wretched Glosses powerfully strong against the Church Were there ever such Doings in the world before these dayes 10. But we have not yet said all concerning Scripture Interpretations of Scripture Inferences out of Scripture c. Wherfore Becaus we are gone so far Pardon a further trouble of giving you a few more Notes on this Subject They will shew you if I mistake not upon what rottering Principles the Grand Cheat of Protestant Religion stand's for want of Infallible Teachers CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 1. WE have almost seen enough how Sectaries either through Malice Ignorance or both make Holy Scripture a Book that proves all Religions Like Wittingtons bells It ring 's out what Fancy will For in Scripture is Arianism if we believe the Arians Here is Protestanism if we believe Protestants Here is Quakerism if we believe Quakers Here is what you will and All Haereticks lay alike claim to Scripture and the sense of it what you will not And it must be so whilst These men have a Bible in their hands and Construe all as they pleas Gloss as they pleas Interpret as they pleas without Limit or Restraint It had been much better Methinks if such Sole-Scripturists had never read Scripture in these debated Points of Religion then after their reading to se it made a Book that only begets Dissentions so grosly wronged and abused it is Yet no Body is in fault Pure Scripture cryes the Arian pure Scripture saith the Protestant nothing but Scripture saith the Puritan And there is no Redress for these Evils All run on in their wilful misunderstanding Scripture not one of them will yeild to another nor which is worst of all and plain Perversnes Seek after a means which is yet offered them to come to a right understanding of it 2. Truely I have often wondred at our Protestants men as they say of a more Sober Temper then your Quakers and Puritans are How it is possible Protestants Plea for Sole Scripture after they know right well with innumerable Holy Fathers this Plea or pleading sole Scripture to be nothing els but an old Trick of all condemned Haereticks That they can lessen themselves so much had they no other motive to retard them as to tread the Footsteps of such unworthy Sectaries and patronize a Doctrin which cannot but breed Dissentions to the Worlds end This it is Sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith Sole Scripture speaks plainly in all things necessary to Their false Doctrin Saluation On these two Hinges chiefly Protestant Religion turns about and will do so until God at his good pleasure judge it time to turn it out of the World Two Cheats they are and great Ones as I shall Demonstrate 3. Mr. Poole to mend the matter having supposed Mr. Pool's three Positions that sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith withall That there is enough said in Scripture to end all Controversies were men humble and Studious c. Seem's in the 7. Chap. of his Nullity page 226. to ground Protestant Religion on these three Positions The first is That the Books of Scripture are and may be proved to be the Word of God 2. That in the Substantials of Faith those Books are uncorrupted 3. That the Sense of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary Points There is no Arian but will most easily admit of these three Propositions How then were they all True can they more establish Protestant Religion then Arianism For a Principle common to two Advers parties cannot considered meerly as a Principle agreed on by both more Advantage the cause of One then the Other If therfore an Arian Assent to these Propositions they ground no more Protestant Religion then they do Arianism Mr. Poole wants a fourth Proposition The Truth is Mr. Poole is highly wanting in a fourth Proposition which if proved would have done him more service then the other Three And it should have been to this Sense Seing Scripture speak's plainly all Doctrin necessary to Saluation Certainly it ought to teach Protestancy plainly I mean the particular Tenents of Protestants as these stand in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin For if these be necessary to Saluation Scripture hath delivered them plainly or if it have not done so We must Conclude They are not necessary to Saluation Thus much premised we will shew you in the ensuing Discours how slippery and fallacious Protestant Doctrin is as it Relates to Scripture and Interpretation of Scripture 4. The first proposition No infallible Church no No Infallible Church no certainty of true Scripture Assurance of True and uncorrupt Scripture To makes my Assertion good against Protestants I will only propose this plain Question From what men of Credit and Integrity had the first Protestants Their Bible It From whom had Protestants their Bible was not drop't down from Heaven into their Pulpits with Assurance of its Purity or Certainty that no Change was made in it contrary to Truth since the Apostles Times Were they Iewes Infidels Turks Arians or Graecian Haeretiks that gave them Scripture Too perfidious to be trusted in a matter of such Consequence Too unfaithsul either to preserve true Scripture by them till Luther quit his Cell or then to put into his hands a Bible Vncorrupt in every Point Were they Catholicks Let our Adversaries shame the Devil and speak Truth 'T was from them They had their Bible together with the Originals But these Papists These very Catholicks if we may credit Catholicks in Protestants Principles cannot be relyed on for Scripture Protestants had not only Corrupted the Writings of the Ancient Fathers But also through Malice or Ignorance Had grosly erred a thousand years together and Changed the Ancient Doctrin of the Primitive Church They had Secretly wrought into mens harts a fals Belief of the Chutches Infallibility of an unbloody Sacrifice of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and such like errors Admit of this Supposition who is there amongst Protestants that shall dare to look on his Bible with good Assurance of its If
not clearly Whence it is that St. Austin Tom. 10. Serm. 70. de Tempore stiles Haereticks Infelices Unhappy Who only look on the Sound of words in Scripture which is saith he like a Body without a Soul But it is as clear That the bare Letter of Scripture without a sure Interpreter beget's Errors And therfore an Arian Becaus He Regulates his Belief by the meer Sound of that Text Iohn 14. My Father is greater then I Err's damnably And the like All other condemned Haereticks have done in their respective Errors drawn as they thought from Scripture Ergo it is evident that the Letter of Scripture speak's not Clearly in this one most High Mystery And therfore cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter Now further If this Interpreter A fallible Interpreter as useles as no Interpreter in points of Faith be fallible He is as Vseles to Christians for the Regulating of Faith as if he were no Interpreter For He may Deceive them And if we be deceived it much imports not whether the Error proceed from Obscure Scripture misunderstood or misinterpreted by an other An infallible Interpreter therfore is necessary in this Weighty matter that Assures us of what God hath spoken of such and such Particular Mysteries And here we Rest securely and have a most certain Rule which Sectaries want 2. Again I argue If Sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith it can Regulate without Glosses yea and without a Preacher too Why therfore do our Protestants charge that one Text above cited This is my body the like we may say of many others with so unnecessary a burden of their Interpretations Are Are Sectaries affraid that Christ spoke too plainly They affraid that Christ spoke too Plainly and therfore Add their Glosses to Obscure his Words None will own such an Impiety Then I say They are Added to Clear an Obscure Passage consequently They They gloss to make Scripture clear must acknowledge an Obscurity in this Scripture before their tampering with the Text and glossing it Well But when They have glossed all they can I ask what is it that Regulates their Faith in this particular Their glosses regulate their Faith not the words of Christ Do Christs Words as he spoke them or as They interpret Regulate here Not the first For 't is most evident that Christs own Words without the Protestant Glosses can never beget in any Understanding that determinate Belief which these men have of the Blessed Sacrament For the words of Christ say plainly This is my Body that is given for you Which pondered to the day of Judgement can never yeild this forced repugnant and far-fetch't Sense This is a Sign or a Figure of my Body Yet such is the Belief of Protestants drawn from this Sentence by their Interpretations Wherfore we must conclude that They Believe not for Christs Sole Words But for their Additional Glosses which is to say in plain English Their Overplus of Glosses Regulates Faith not Gods Express and most significant Word Some will say this Passage now cited must be interpreted as They will have it Becaus Scripture in other places seem's to favor their Interpretation I answer candidly Let them They cannot cite one Text out of Scripture in favour of their Glosses but produce so much as one plain Text out of the whole Bible for the Alienating of this Sentence from its proper Sense without Glosses which are no Scripture and I 'll proclaim them Conquerours Here is plain dealing but Remember well I call for Scripture only 3. I told you just now That as these Glosses are useles if sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith so are Preachers also yea and all the large Commentaries which Luther and Calvin have writ on Scripture Why Gods Word speak's clearly without a Preacher If Scripture be Clear ther 's no need of Teachers Away therfore with Preaching and Commentaries 'T is enough to thrust a Bible into mens Hands And bid them read it For there is True Doctrin and plain Doctrin but more is not required to Regulate Faith then The Reason Truth and Clarity Ergo Ministers may hereafter well spare their labor of Preaching and 't is better they did so Then to be in danger of perverting Gods true Word by their fallible Talking 4. To conclude this matter we have already amply proved That it is not the Bare Letter of Scripture which Regulates Faith Buth the exact and true Sense of it Ne putemus saith St. Hierom in cap. 1. ad Galat. v. 11. Let us not think that the Gospel lyes in the Words of Scripture but in their sense Non in superficie sed in medullâ not in the Out-side but in the inward Pith and Marrow of it non in sermonum foliis c. But no Protestant with so much as any colour of Reason can lay a more just claim to the true Sense of Scripture when He and the Church stand at Variance Protestants as uncertain of the true Sense of Scripture as Arians are Then an Arian a Pelagian or a Donatist can do when They draw Scripture to Their Sense All of them are alike guided by meer Guesses and first Read next Think then Iudge and lastly Believe Believe what What Their Private Iudgement Tell 's them and here is the last Rule of their Faith All of them guided by guesses Three parts of Protestant Religion wherof more in the next Chapter In the interim you may Resolve a Protestants Belief into these three broken Shreds or Fragments The first part is that wherin They hold with Catholicks And here they have the true Sense of Scripture interpreted yet no True Faith for want of Submission in other Points The other part is that wherin They agree with Ancient condemned Haereticks And herein They have neither the True sense of Scripture nor true Faith The last part is proper to Themselves as Protestant And here they have not so much as the Letter or a Word of Scripture for them much les any true Sense or Faith grounded on Scripture And 5. Upon this occasion I come to mind Mr. Poole The want of Mr. Pooles fourth Proposition of the Want of his fourth Proposition viz. That Scripture speak's plainly the particular Tenents of Protestant Religion as Protestanism And must Tell him He shall never find in the whole Bible so much as one Article of Protestant Religion as it stands in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin grounded on Scripture And Becaus The man may not perhaps like of too great a burden I 'll only urge him to Prove these three Protestant Assertions 1. That there are two Sacraments Three Protestant Assertions for Mr. Poole to Prove and no more But let him not think to turn me of as he doth the Captain with meer empty and insignificant Words Appendix page 34. Scripture is plain enough in describing the nature of two Sacraments He should have added And 't is plain in
describing the number also and given good Scripture for both which cannot be don 2. That Faith only Iustifies 3. That after he hath better pondered the Text of St. Peter 2. 3. 16. He prove by Scripture the Plainess of it in all necessary Points to Salvation A fourth proof concerning the Canon and Certainty of Scripture would choak Mr. Poole But I 'll not give him so undigestible a pill may He pleas to satisfy the three former Demands by Scripture only without Glosses and ungrounded Inferences drawn from what he thinks to be Gods Word But is not 6. Some perhaps may ask why all this time whilst we have Discoursed of Scripture of its Certainty of its Sense and Regulating Faith c. None of Mr. Pooles Arguments against us are taken notice of Hath he none or do I Dissemble them I answer The man hath nothing like an Objection To prove Scripture to be the Word of God He Relyes on the Confession and Testimony of Catholicks This Mr. Poole hath nothing like Arguments we have Refuted above To prove it uncorrupt in the Essentials of Faith He Tell 's us that by looking into the Nature and quality of those Various Lections which are pleaded as Evidences of Corruption we shall quickly find them to be in Matters of les Moment It seem's They are little Becaus Mr. Poole without Proof will have them so I could shew him great ones in the Protestant Bible But let them pas And be pleased to note how poorly he shifts of the Difficulty That Presses The Difficulty is concerning the best Originals which Protestants have hitherto met with none of them I believe ever yet saw the Autograph or Hand-writing of either an Euangelist or Apostle These Originals I say cannot be proved Uncorrupt if that Church which had them in Custody for a thousand years brought in a Deluge of Errors into the Christian World Finally to prove that a Protestant hath a Sufficient Assurance of Understanding the Sense of Scripture in things Necessary to Saluation He allegeth Gods Promise Iohn 7. If any man will do his will he shall know of the Doctrin whether it be of God But Protestants do Gods will thus much must be added or the Proof stands on one Leg and Papist Do not Gods will Ergo Those have Assurance of the true Sense of Scripture and These have not Here is the doughty Argument and that which follows is as weightles Protestants saith He have the Assurance of Reason Papists have no more and if that will not do They have the Assurance of the Spirit which God promiseth Luk 11. Here is work enough for another Chapter Yet in passing I cannot but reflect on a mistaken quotation Mr. Poole misquotes Sixtus Senensis in Mr. Poole page 230. where he cites Sixtus Senensis And both err's in the Annotation and Doctrin of Sixtus concerning the Clarity of Scripture Sixtus Therfore libre 6. Annotat. 152. not 151. as Mr. Poole Quotes § Quod autem Answering an Objection of St. Chrysostom plainly Afferts that when Scripture is said to be clear 't is not to be referred to the Whole Bible but to a Part of it only wherfore saith He St. Chrysostom divides Scripture into two Classes The One contains the hidden and abstruse Mysteries of Gods deep Wisdom And this part is not clear at all thus much Mr. Poole conceil's Altera sectio The other Section or Part of it compriseth the First and chiefest Principles of all things to be Believed and Chief Precepts of living And so much is clear Observe well The first and Chiefest Principles of things to be Believed infer no Clarity in every Particular revealed Mystery For He that believes this one Principle of Faith That the Church is Holy and the Pillar of Truth Hath a First great Principle and may learn by it all Truth If you please to se how Mr. Poole abuseth Sixtus read him in the page now cited It were most easy to Take him tripping in other Citations But that is not my task at present This only came in by Chance CHAP. V. The Reason of private men and their private Spirit cannot interpret Scripture 1. MR. Poole told us above That Protestants have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture Happy They if they were the only Reasonable men in the World But why are not Papists as Reasonable Why should the Pelagians the Arians or Honest Quakers be left out of the list of Rational men Or if These would Monopolize the Assurance of Reason to Themselves for their Sence of Scripture Why are They not to be Credited upon their Parole as well as Protestants For their proof is to say They have it crede quod habes habes and so will an Arian or Quaker say too Admit Were Reason allowed of to sentence the Sense of Scripture we must know whose reason hitt's right therfore which is fals that Reason be allowed of as Judge or an Iustrument to sentence the Sense of Scripture where it speaks obscurely We are nothing Advanced nor one whit the Wiser unles we know whose Reason it is that hitt's right on the Sense Now all of them most evidently do not so unles we impiously say that God hath revealed Contradictions in Scripture Becaus these mens Reason draws contradictory Senses out of Scripture and in All do not Interpret Scripture truely High Points of Faith also Say then good Mr. Poole whose Reason must yeild and to whom Must an Arians submit to yours or yours to an Arian Whose Reason must yeild and to whom whilst we vary about the sense Must mine bend to yours or yours to Mine Or may we all hold on to the day of Doom as Devided in Faith as we are in Iudgements concerning the Sense of Scripture Allow once of these Endles and Eternal jarrs in Religion here on Earth which this one Principle of Following private Reason establisheth and you may seek for another Heaven then Christ hath promised to the Children of Peace Hereafter That is for none at all God forgive these late Tumultuous Spirits the True cause of our wofull Dissentions But let us go on And 2. Pray you tell me when Protestants say They have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture in controverted Points of Faith E. G. The Trinity what signifies this word Reason with them Doth it import a Formal Discours much of that nature as Schoolmen use when they establish their Tenents in Divinity Sectaries are to say what this word Reason signifies If so the Principle of this Discours must be admitted of and own'd by the two Advers parties when by Reason only They plead for the True sense of Scripture And the Conclusion of the Discours must If a formal Discours two Advers parties must agree on a Principle be drawn from Premises founded on This received Principle Thus much supposed I might here ask first Upon what known and admitted Principle Do our Protestants ground
and all Sectaries would as well Agree in one harmony of Doctrin By force of that clear Interpretation none of Them Denies The clear Sense of Scripture interpreted by Scripture it Self If all agreed in the Sense of Scripture There would be no dissenting as they now agree in owning Scripture to be Divine They accord not in the first therfore Scripture is not its own Interpreter Or if any yet without Proof strongly Assert so much Most Evidently in order to these Dissenting men it is as useles an Interpreter as if it were none at all For it Composeth no Differences Take here one Instance Sectaries to prove Scripture conspicuous and clear without an Interpreter quote these and the like Places Thy word is a Lantern to my feet A Lante◠shining in a dark place c. We answer Scriptures are truely a Light when that outward cover of Ambiguous Words wherin the Sense often lyes Enclosed is broken open by a Faithful Interpreter And withall we add 'T is vainly frivolous to make Them such shining Lamps as to silence all Preaching and Interpretation yet this follows if Sectaries Gloss right For it is ridiculous to interpret or teach that a Lantern shines which I se bright before my Eyes Observe well The Protestant makes Scripture clear without a Teacher The Catholick Interpretation absolutly necessary to Scripture saith Interpretation is Absolutely Necessary Scripture it self Delivers not in Formal Words either the One or Other Gloss Therfore it doth not ever Interpret it self Home or declare its own Meaning Nay it cannot do so For all Interpretation Properly taken is a New More Clear and Distinct Light Superadded to the Formal Words of Scripture But no Hagiographer says This Sacred Book makes any such new Addition of Glosses Therfore it cannot Interpret it self And this is what the Apostle 2. Petri 1. 20. Seem's to teach Scripture is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of its own Explication 4. I say 2. No Private man whether Catholick Arian Protestant or Other can upon his own Discours or Iudgement only so Interpret a Difficil Scripture with Certainty as to Assure any that God Speaks as He Interpret's The Reason is Every Private Judgement is Fallible and lyable to Error which Truth that of the Apostle Romans 3. Omnis homo mendax Teaches But a Iudgement A Iudgement lyable to Errour cannot give certainty of the Scriptures sense Fallible and lyable to errour can with no Certainty give me that Sense wich God Reveals in a Difficil Place of Scripture Therfore I cannot Trust to it nor assuredly Ground my Faith on such an Interpretation And thus much Protestants Acknowledge for They say Neither Church nor Ancient Fathers are to be Relyed on as Infallible in their Interpretation of Scripture Therfore much less can a Minister or Lay Man Assume to Himself the Infallible Spirit of Interpreting or Resolve what a whole Vniversal Church is to Believe Alas such a man want's Certitude in what He saith he want's a Perfect knowledge of both Scripture and Antiquity never perhaps exactly perused He want's a Constant Stability for what He Judgeth this Hour He may upon after Thoughts change the next For as He is Fallible so is he also Changeable in his Iudgement 5. Yet More What Private Man Dare when he See's the Learned of contrary Religion at debate Concerning the Sense of Scripture step in amongst Them and say My Masters you are to Believe me and Acquiesce to what I judge of the Sense c. 'T is I And not You That know Gods Meaning Would not such a Thing be cast out of all Company Yet This is our very Case when a new Vpstart Puft up with his own Sentiments Tell 's either Catholick or Protestant what the Sense of Scripture is in Controverted Points of Faith And Hence I say The Catholick cannot Assure a Protestant without a better Proof then His own Opinion That the Sectary Err's in his Interpretation nor can the Protestant upon his own Assertion Remove the Catholick from the Judgement He makes of the Scriptures Sense Both As private men Catholicks and Protestants are both Fallible of them are alike Fallible if no other Certain Principle be laid hold on Here then is the Difference The Catholick for his Interpretation of such Places prudently Relyes on a firmer Ground then his variable Judgement The Protestant hath nothing to uphold the Sense He Defends But his own wavering and unsteedy Thoughts which are as changeable as Were moral certainty sufficient why is it to be more granted the Sectary then the Catholick the Man is fallible Here is the best Support for his interpretation and Faith also If he tell you he hath moral assurance or Interpret's as the Primitive Church did I answered above He only thinks so But Proves nothing Let him show that the Primitive Church ever Interpred those words The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth as he now Interprets them If he say He Believes as his own Judgement Interpret's I grant this is too Pittifully True But what am I the better on that Account Can we Rely on a Protestants easy fallible and erroneous Judgement in so Weighty a matter At last surely he will hit On 't And say he Interprets as the Holy Ghost Suggesteth Happy man did He so But we shall find it otherwise Presently However becaus the Word is of comfort let him hear it on Gods name For it is the Resolution of our whole Question The Holy Ghost only interprets Scripture Certainly 6. I say therfore 3. No other But the Spirit of Truth the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture certainly Iohn 16. 23. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will Teach all Truth But one and a most necessary Truth is to have Scripture faithfully Interpreted Therfore this the holy Ghost Teaches if he Teach all Truth Again Iohn 14. 16. He is called a Paraclete or Comforter abyding with us for ever But he is not a permanent Comforter unles he Solace as well by his Spirit of Truth mentioned Iohn 17. 19. as with other Interiour Consolation To allege more Texts obvious to all is needles The Assertion delivered in These general Terms is undoubtedly True and Protestaents I think who endlesly talk of their Interiour Spirit will not Deny it The difficulty by whom the Spirit interpret's 7. The only Difficulty which will trouble Them is Seing this Al-teaching Spirit usually Interpret's not by Private Illustrations nor Assumes every Private man to be the Oracle wherby he speak's and interpret's Seing also He leaves Scripture still as Speechles in order to its own further Explication as it was 16. hundred years agon The Difficulty I say is to find out that Oracle And a Christian Society it must be for Angels are not Interpreters wherin He Presides as Master and by it interpret's Scripture Find this Speaking Oracle out and we have enough Hear it and we hear Truth To our purpose then 8. Doth this Spirit
no Truth in that Article of Our Creed I Believe the Holy Catholick Church To Evidence further what I now Asserâ— Do no more But Forget as it were or cast out of your mind all Thought of Roman Catholicks from Luther upward to the fourth Age. Then Look About you And Consider Exclude the Roman Catholick Church Haereticks only remain well the Remainder of other Christians For that Vast Interval of Time You will find none but Professed Haereticks Schismaticks or Both as Arians Nestorians Pelagians and such a like Rabble of men Again Forget these as much as if They had never Been And only Think of the Roman Catholick Church Diffused the whole World over continued Age after Age Will you not have a Holy and Vniversal Church Presented Exclude Haereticks you yet have a glorious Church to your Thoughts Yea most assuredly And a Glorious Church too It is therfore Evident That the Roman Catholick Society was not only Necessary to make Vp the Church But was Moreover the Sole and only Essential Church of Christ as I have already Proved CHAP. III. The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is Vnreasonable if Faith in Christ Only Suffice for Saluation A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary 1. I Must Needs have a Word more with our Adversaries upon this Subject and Note That if a General Belief in Christs Sacred Person Office and Dignity be Saving Faith enough for a Christian which some endeavour to Prove by that Text of St. Iohn 20. 31. And these Things are written That ye might Believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God And that believing ye might have life in his Name If such a General Faith I say makes us all as well Catholicks as Christians without more Our Protestants need not to storm at us as They do for want of True Faith For we Catholicks Agree and Believe in Christ God and Man as firmly as They do And in this one Article only may we credit them All Necessary Essentials of Christian Faith are included It is true Catholicks say a more Explicit Faith is required as I shall presently Declare But Protestants who do not May rest Protestants slight work about things not Essentials contented And withall confess That the great Coyle They have kept in Reforming Catholick Doctrin comes to no more But to a slight Pidling about Non-Essentials which for ought is yet known Hath done more hurt then good And made Things wors then They May have don more hurt then Good were Before 2. To Drive the Difficulty home I Ask seriously Whether any one Article Peculiar to this Religion as If Protestants hold their particular Doctrin necessary to Salvation other Hareticks will pretend the like Protestancy That is beside the General Belief in Christ and owning Scripture c. Be necessary to Saluation If yes Then will Arians Pelagians Donatists and other Sectaries say also what they hold Particular is also Necessary And Therfore Doctrin Above or Beyond the Belief in Christ or not Vniversal is of like Necessity If Protestants answer No or Assert that nothing Particularly held by them because not Vniversal Catholick Doctrin implyes this And if not two strange Sâ—quâ—ls undeniably follow Necessity But a Belief in Christ only Two rhings follow The One is as I have now Noted That without Fruit at all They have made a shamfull stir with their Schism in Blustering all this while about non-Essentials and petty Differences which may be Believed or Not without Danger of loosing Saluation 2. It follows That as Protestants here Acknowledge a Church so Vniversal wherin all may be Saved that Believe in Christ in like manner Any one and upon as good Reason May make it Wider and allow Saluation A large Church must be allowed of by Protestants to all whether Iews or Turks that Believe in God only without Explicit Faith in Christ Vnus Deus Vna Fides Therfore in Place of Christs Church we may have a Gods Church more large and ample erected in the world 3. You will say Scripture is most Evident for a Belief in Christ Might a Defender of the now large Imagined Church which affords Salvation to all that Believe in God Answer He would tell you That the Explicit Belief in God implyes some kind of Implicite Belief in Christ And that is enough which He is ready to Make good when you have proved your Abstract Faith in Christs Sacred Person to be Sufficient to Salvation A better Answer is Scripture most Certainly Obligeth us to Believe in Christ Explicitly But doth it leave of there and not joyntly oblige us to More necessary to Salvation then Belief in Christ only Believe other Articles also Explicitly when they are plain in Scripture And sufficiently proposed Such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist c. Can we therfore after we Own these Truths Delivered in Gods Word hope for Salvation without an explicit Belief of them If so St. Iohn c. 6. 53. saith not True Vnles ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you Surely we cannot do this like Christians Unles we believe it The Belief of Sacraments necessary If no The Belief of these Sacraments constitute the Essentials of Saving Faith and so doth also the Belief of much Moral Doctrin set down in Scripture Read what St. Paul Writes Cor. 1. 6. 9. concerning the Vnrighteous Idolaters and Fornicators c. And tell me if you Own Gods Word whether the Apostle doth And of other Moral Doctrin not Disinherit all Vnbelievers of his Doctrin Therfore something more is Necessary for Christians united in one Faith to Assent to Then only to Believe in Christ 4. The true Fundamental Ground of my Assertion is This. What ever God Speaks in Scripture who never spake Idle word whether the Matter may seem to our weak Capacities little or great is after a Sufficient Proposal of the same Weight and Authority To Believe rherfore in Christs is a Fundamental Article and in one Sence Known to every One most Fundamental But to Reject or Abstract from His other Verities Revealed in Scripture or to make les Reckoning of them Becaus they Appear little to us is to Affront God And Tell him That we will Believe him so far as we pleas But no farther Wheras on the contrary side he Assures us That his Word is equally engaged in all He Saith And All Truths in Scripture are of equal Authority that his Eternal Truths whether little or great are not to be Valued of by what is spoken But by the certain Authority of him that Speak's them Hence Divins Assert and most Truely That no man can Believe so much as one Article of Christian Faith upon the Motive of Gods Revealed Testimony unles He readily Embrace All other alike as equally Proposed upon the same Authority For where we have the Same Motive we must yeild the Same
nor can say That the Belief of such and such Articles are to be excluded as Vnnecessary to Saluation 7. Nay I Affirm more It is Impossible for Them by their own Principles to Exclude any To prove my Assertion Observe First They can no more say by a true general Proposition This whole Bible I have now Sectaries cannot by their Principles distinguish between Fundamentals and others in my Hands is Gods own Word and exclude the least Verity in it from being Gods true Word Then They can say by a true general Proposition All men are by nature Mortal and exclude any particular Man from being Mortal For as the Mortality of every particular man makes so far forth This Proposition True That if One be by nature Immortal it is Fals so the Truth of every particular Article in Scripture Verifies so far the other Proposition To believe Scripture in a general way that implyes the Covenant of Grace is necessary to Saluation That if one Article be not Gods true Word the General Proposition is Fals also Now I Assume But Protestants say to Believe Scripture to be the true Word of God at least in a General way which implyes the Covenant of Grace and Faith in Christ is Indispensably necessary to Saluation Therfore They must also Say To believe every particular Article contained in Scripture as being truely Gods Word is in like manner Indispensably Necessary to Salvation Becaus this General Belief carries as well in The Reason it an Owning of every particular Truth in Scripture as the General Assertion of All mortal Ascrib's Mortality to every particular man The Reason is clear For as Scripture is not made up of Generalities But Essentially Scripture Cansist's of particular Verities is constituted of the particular Verities contained Therin so if my Faith truely and intierly Own Scripture for Gods Word it is Extended to no Generality in the Object For there is none But to particular Verities Though the Mode or Tendency of the Act be Faith must be of Particulars nos always perfectly Explicit 8. If you Say The Argument Here proposed seem's Fallacious Becaus it Proves at most That every little Matter in Scripture may be an Object of Faith But no way Inferr's the Belief of them Necessary to Saluation For 't is very different To Affirm Such a Thing I may Believe And another to own the Belief of The Belief of Every particular in Scripture relates to Eternal Happines it Necessary to Saluation if this I say be the Reply my Answer is That as well the Belief of every particular Verity in Scripture hath the same Relation to mans Eternal Happines as the general Belief of owning Scripture for Gods Word hath not only Becaus the Particular is included in the General But chiefly on this other Account That being a Supernatural Elicit Act of Faith it can aym at no other End But mans Supernatural Happines For under this Notion of Supernaturality it Leaves as it were the Limits of Nature and raiseth a Soul to Eternal Bliss Where you se That Both the Means and End Vnivocally Agree in being Supernatural and are alike suitable To one another Permit me to Evidence this Truth further and Ask Whether the Denial or Disbelief of the least Truth The Disbelief of the least matter in Scripture makes one an Haeretick That God Speaks in Scripture once Owned for his Word and Sufficiently Propounded makes not a Man an Haeretick Yes most assuredly For by Denying That to be True which He knows God Saith is True He pertinaciously Opposeth himself to an Infinit Veracity Ergo The True Act of Faith contrary That which makes one a Faithful Believer hath reference to Saluation to this Infidelity of Necessity makes him a Faithful Believer But that which necessarily makes him a Faithful Believer hath not only Reference to his last End But is also necessary to Saluation for as Infidelity looseth Heaven so True Faith is Necessary to gain it Therfore the Belief of every little Article is not of little But in this Sense of as main Consequence as the Greatest The Belief of Every little matter in the sense now explicated is not Little And here by The way you may well Reflect upon the Desperate Talk of some Later Men who Tell us That All things contained in Scripture are not so Necessary in order to our End some being at so great a Remove from this End That the only Reason of Believing them is Becaus they are Contained in Scripture A most unworthy saying Mr. Stilling fleet 's Doctrin refuted which makes God to have Spoken a Thousand idle Words in Scripture For there They stand uselesly in the Book without Benefit without Subserviency or Relation to any further good But only to be looked on You may Read them and pass by them as Things wholy Vnnecessary to our Final End A strange Conceipt They frame of Scripture that make it up as Ill Apothecaries do sometimes Physick of Vnnecessary Ingredients 9. You may Reply Some Catholicks seem to The sense of Divines Concerning Matters Necessary per se and secundarily Necessary Divide the Object of Faith into that which is Per se By it Self Necessary And By Accident or Secondarily Necessary Ergo They Acknowledge Fundamental and not Fundamental Doctrins in the Sense of the Question now Proposed I Deny the Consequence For They only hold some Verities to be so Principally Necessary to the Essence of Christian Faith That if They had not been Revealed at All or Now were unknown Christian Religion would absolutly Perish But it is not so in Others For example Had God never Revealed any thing Touching Christ our Lord the Sacred Mystery of the Incarnation or a Trinity c. The very Essence Why called Primacy Objects of Faith of our Religion would not have been And therfore These are called Primary Objects Ratione materiae Becaus if we have no knowledge or Faith in Christ we have no Christian Religion Contrarywise Had the Holy Ghost not at all Inspired the Hagiographers to write much of the Historical part in Scripture which is writ or never Told us that Abraham had two Sons yet we might have Known Christ and perfectly Believed in Him Such Something 's in regard of the Matter are not necessary Though being writ become Necessary Verities then Becaus of the Matter are not Per se so Necessary However Being now writ They are True Objects of Faith Becaus God Speak's Them It is Therfore one thing to say These lesser matters if not writ at all had not been necessary to constitute Religion And another thing to say Now when They are writ and spoken by Almighty God They do not integrate the total Object of Faith But They least matter in Scripture is an Object of Faith may be looked on as Parergons or as Things void of all Reference to our Eternal Happines It is I say Impossible to own them
Peace among you without Reference to your Faith your Church is Essentially Hypocritical which may Believe The English Church is essentially Hypocritical one Thing And must Profess an Other I now say no more having Told you enough to this Sense in another place Though all the Protestants in England do not only Dissent in Iudgement from the owning of These Protestants may curse These Negative Articles and yet besound in Faith Negatives Though they are plain Papists in Hart yea and Interiourly curse and Anathematize all your new Articles if the exteriour Demeanour be fairly good All is Fine They may be still looked on as Blessed Children of your new Negative Church The sequel is undeniable For They may Believe all that Scripture saith And this is Faith enough to Saluation And yet Anathematize your Negatives not at all contained in Scripture And wholy unnecessary to Saluation 11. Yet farther You Protestants Endlesly Talk A hard Question proposed to Sectaries of Reforming us Papists by Scripture Speak once plainly and Tell us How can you go about such a work as to reclaim us by Scripture To a Belief of your Negatives when you have not one Syllable of Gods Word for Them For if you have Scripture They are Superiour Truths Revealed by God and consequently Articles of Faith If you have no Scripture why Preach you fals Doctrin why Teach you that you can draw Vs from our old Faith to your New Negative Religion by plain Scripture No Protestant shall Answer to It cannot be Answered this short Demand 4. You cheat the World when you Offer to Resolve Protestants Faith which is no more Resolvable into Divine Revelation then Arianism Protestants resolving Faith a meer Cheat. is Because you must now confess that God never spake Word of Protestancy as Protestancy in the whole Bible Let therfore the world Iudge whether it be not a pure Cheat to give a Title of the Protestants way of Resolving Faith and then leave that which the Title Promises To talk of Resolving a Faith in Communi which stand's in no need of your Resolution 12. To see this more Evidenced And to end with these meer Nothings of Sectaries Our now Author Tell 's us That the English Church makes no Articles of Faith But such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages yes And are Acknowledged by Rome Protestant Church no more a Church then an Arian c. it self If this be so it is no more an English then a Church of Arians of Pelagians And of all condemned Haereticks For this man would say That a Faith common to All called Christians without Believing more is the English Faith and Sufficient to acquire Heaven Mark the Proposition And ask first what is now become of the The Arian and English Faith agree in Doctrin common to all Christians Protestants way of Resolving Protestants Faith Next and most justly call it a meer Fancy A new coyned Haeresy contrary to the whole Christian World For neither Scripture nor Councils nor Fathers nor any particular Orthodox or Haeretical Church much less the consent of the whole Christian World Owned the Belief of that Abstract Doctrin wherin all Haereticks Agree to be sufficient to Salvation A new coyned Haeresy contrary to All. The whole Christian World never yet said to Believe in Christ Abstracting from His Godhead and Two Natures is Sufficient Catholicks hold the Belief of a Sacrifice and Transubstantiation c. Necessary to Salvation And all condemned Haereticks as Arians Monothelits No Haereticks much less Catholicks Ever yet defended what our Sectaries here vent upon Fancy only and Others as firmly Adhere to their Particular Haeresies as to the Abstract Doctrin of all Christians Otherwise they had been wors then mad to have Abandoned an Ancient Church for a few supposed Inferiour Truths which neither can Vncatholick any if the common Doctrin of all Christians be enough nor make Them in Reaelity wors or better Christians And here by the way you se the Hideous sin of Sectaries who meerly for a Company of Inferiour Truths if yet They were Truths have shamefully Deserted The true Mother Church that made Their Progenitours The sin of Sectaries who have troubled â— the world for a company of supposed Inferiour Truths to be Christians I say If They were Truths For I utterly Deny the Fals Supposition And therfore press our Adversaries to speak to the Cause That is to come to Proofs and Principles wherby it may Appear That These Negative Doctrins No Sacrifice no Praying for the Dead c. Merit so much as the very name of Inferiour Truths These Negatives cannot be proved even by Their wonted weak way of Arguing Negatively We Read not of a Sacrifice or praying for the Dead For there is no man that Reads Antiquity But he Find's these Doctrins positively Asserted 13. From what is now said These Sequels undeniably follow First that Protestants cannot Resolve Protestants Faith but Fancy The Reason their Faith But into Fancy only For if they make the common Doctrin of all Christians only to be Their sufficient Faith for Saluation and Resolve that into its Principles both Fancy and Haeresy lye at the very Bottom of the Resolution And if they Go about to Resolve Their Negative Articles The whole Analysis the Regress the Reduction of Them will come at last to no other Principle But to the sole Fancy of Sectaries who call them Articles of Faith or Inferiour Truths It followes 2. If the English Church makes The English Church contradicts the whole Christian World no Articles of Faith But such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages Excluding others It doth not only Contradict the whole Christian World whose particular Communities owned the Belief of more Doctrin necessary But hath neither And Therfore hath no Faith at all Faith of those Abstract Articles now Believed nor any Faith at all Sufficient to Saluation as is largely proved in the 2. Chap. If Finally to Assoil These Difficulties Sectaries will Restrain that Ample Term of the whole Christian World to their imagined Catholick Church in the Ayr They are to specify the Particular Societies of this vast Church And when that 's Don They will find no Abstract Doctrin common to There never had been Haeresy in the world might Faith common to all be sufficient to Saluation all Christians Admitted of By any Sufficient to gain Heaven For were this true There had never been Haereticks or Schismaticks in the World whilst Christ only Though his Divinity be denyed is owned in a general Way Wherof more in the 3. Chap. 14. Here I 'll only propose one Question to our Adversaries When they positively Teach That that which our Saviour gave his Apostles in his last Supper and Priests now consecrate Dayly was and is no more But a Sign a Figure only of Christs Body My Question
proves it in every place Of their Faith Spread abroad c. What Think ye was this not yet written Word of our Lord or the true Analogy of the Thessalonians Faith As well Dilated as Approved of What Finally was that Form of Doctrin commended in the Romans cap. 6. 17 Why Did the Apostle blame the unsetled Galatians for Being so soon Transferred into another Gospel and Denounce Anathema cap. 1. 6. if they believed an Angel Preaching contrary to his former Doctrin All these and many other Passages of Holy Writ manifestly Declare Before the writing of Scripture there was a plat-form of Christian Religion That there was Divine Doctrin Taught by the very Founders of Christianity before the Writing of Scripture There was a Plat-form of Christian Religion made by the very Apostles before they Separated Themselves and began their Preaching to several Nations And to comply with this Rule or Form of Faith Blessed St. Paul Though full of the Holy Ghost went to confer with St. Peter and the rest Gal. 2. 2. Act. 15. 36. Upon it The Apostles Held Councils yea Councils held upon that platform and Scripture writ and as some Grave and Learned Doctors Affirm by the Measure therof the Holy Scriptures were written Se the notes on the Rhems Testament Rom. cap. 12. v. 6. 3. Be it how Sectaries will There was Faith in the World before written Scripture The Apostles who taught it Had their Rule of Doctrin prescribed by a The Apostles had their Rule of Doctrin from a certain Master good Master the Holy Ghost for they Taught not Christian Doctrin upon their own frail Iudgements considered as Men. No they had ever the Guidance and Direction of this Blessed Spirit with them and as His Instruments Delivered so much as this Master according to Christs Promise gave Assistance to and neither more nor less Now those Pious Christians The first pious Christians had their Rule from the Apostles who heard this Apostolical Learning made it most certainly Their Rule Their Measure of Faith Their Analogy and Form of Doctrin Whence I argue This Form or Rule of Oral Doctrin First laid up in the Brests of the Apostles and afterward Delivered to different Nations was neither All set down in Holy Scripture for Volumes would not contain it nor All intierly lost 'T is pitty such a rich Depositum should Perish Therfore it yet Remains somewhere in safe Custody That Doctrin is yet preserved in the Church But no Place is fitter for it then that which the Fathers call Thesaurarium dives the Rich Treasury of the Church where 'T is still Preserved and Those Timothies I mean those Evangelists Those Pastors Those Doctors mentioned Ephes 4. 11. Appointed by Providence to Edify the Mystical Body of Christ The Chief Preservers of this Legacy and Noble Depositum are as Necessity Requires to impart it and make it known to the World by their Definitions Least like Children we be carried away with every Wind of fals Doctrin And The Ground of Tradition herein lyes the very Ground of all Apostolical Tradition This is not mine but the Great Vincentius Lirinensis own Doctrin now cited Where pondering that of the Apostle O Timothy Keep thy Depositum He Asks Quis Est bodie Timotheus nisi vel universa Ecclesia vel specialiter totum corpus Praepositorum c. Who is now or at this The whole Church or Rulers of it preserve this Depositum Day our Timothy But either the Vniversal Church or more specially the Whole Body of those Guides and Rulers set over it that are Themselves to have the intire knowledge of Divine Worship or to infuse it into others c Afterward Quid est hoc Depositum What is this Deposited Doctrin He Answers Id quod tibi creditum est 'T is that which is committed to Thee not that Thou Invent's that which thou hast Received not what Thou hath Fancied of thy own Head It is a thing not of Wit but of Doctrin Non usurpationis propriae not of thy Private Vse Fashion or Practise Sed The Church no Author but Keeper of Divine Doctrin publicae Traditionis But of publick and known Tradition brought to Thee handed to Thee wherof thou art not to be Author sed Custos But a Keeper and Preserver Then he goes on Depositum Custodi Catholicae Fidei Talentum c. 4. And thus you Se we have a Church a Catholik Principles wheron the Church proceed's Talent of Faith committed to it A Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin laid up in its Treasury We have a Moral body of Timothies of Teachers united with one Supream Head and Pastor That Assures us more Explicitly by its Definitions what the Ancient Deposited Doctrin is And Reclaim's us if we swerve from it We have Express Scripture that both A Mystical body of Teachers Gods written and unwritten word Sectaries want all Proves and Approves the Churches Proceeding in Doing so And this Sacred written Word faithfully Interpreted And the unwritten Deposited Word also most Infallibly Proposed is our Form our Rule and perfect Analogy of Faith O Had Sectaries but Half as much For what They boldly Assert contrary to us And because every Man is a Chutch with them They Define more then our Church Defines The Consecrated Host is Bread only a Figure of Christs Body only There are two Sacraments only Works Iustify not but Faith only c. Had I say These men but half Protestants have no Authority for their Definitions so much Authority for their Definitions How would they warble out the Notes of their Novelties But God hath Silenced them For they have neither Church nor Scripture nor Ancient Depositum nor Tradition nor Analogy nor Rule of Faith nor Motives to Make Talk only of a Nullity and an unproved Negative Religion what They Define probable nor Any other Thing to talk of But of a meer Nothing I mean the Nullity of Their unproved Negative Religion 5. What hitherto is said of Catholick Definitions made by Pope and Councils Chiefly Relates to such Matters as have been Anciently without Dispute Revealed yea And believed also Though not perhaps in order One way of Defining to all so Explicitly And this way of Defining some Divines call Propositionem That is a Reproposing of Mysteries formerly Believed whether clearly Deduced Gods unwritten word of equall Authority with his written word out of Gods Word or drawn from undoubted Tradition 'T is the very same For as the Oral Taught Doctrin of the Apostles was and is certain as Doctrin Registred in Scripture so all that really is Gods Vnwritten Word when proposed to us by the Church as such is in Substance of equal Authority and Credit with the Written For it is not the setting down of Truths in Velume or Partchment that Add's more Weight to them or makes them higher Verities And here by the way I cannot but Reflect on the
Passage more of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers is quoted 203 CHAP. X. Objections are Answered 217 THE THIRD DISCOVRS Of Sectaries Vnreasonable Proceeding CHAP. I. Protestants are Vnreasonable whilst They seemingly hold a Catholick Church Distinct from the Roman neither known nor Designable by any 231 CHAP. II. Of a late Writers Doctrin 236 CHAP. III. The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is unreasonable if Faith in Christ Only suffice for Saluation A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary 244 CHAP. IV. The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants concerning Fundamentals in Faith are Proved unreasonable 250 CHAP. V. An Answer to one Reply More of this subject 262 CHAP. VI. Some Few Propositions of a late Writer are briefly Examined His Discours of Fundamentals Destroy's Protestant Religion 271 CHAP. VII More of this subject Objections are Ansvvered 291 CHAP. VIII Protestants are unreasonable in the Defense of Their late Manifest and undoubted Schism 315 CHAP. IX Protestants cannot make Good Their Charge Against the Roman Catholick Church concerning causal Schism 323 CHAP. X. The Roman Catholick Church whilst Evidence comes not Against it stands Firm upon its Ancient Possessed Right This long Possession Proves the Church Orthodox 333 CHAP. XI Of a late Writers Exceptions Against our Pleading Possession 339 CHAP. XII Another Objection And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism 357 CHAP. XIII A second Argument Against this Schism Of Sectaries Cavils concerning Errours Entring the Church insensibly 362 CHAP. XIV A Word to a Few supposed and unproved Assertions Wherby some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism 379 CHAP. XV. More of These Authors confused Doctrin is Refuted 387 THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS Of the Churches Evident Credibility Of the Improbability of Protestancy CHAP. I. Christs Church is Proved to be no Other But the Roman Catholick Sectaries are convinced of errour 405 CHAP. II. Protestancy is an unevidenced And a most improbable Religion or rather no Religion but a meer Fancied Opinion 420 CHAP. III. A Word more of Sectaries new Mode of Arguing laid forth by Touching on one Controversy concerning the Doctrin of Purgatory 434 CHAP. IV. A Parallel of Proofs for and Against tâ—e Doctrin of Purgatory A solution to a late Adversaries Objections 452 CHAP. V. An objection proposed and solved in a Discours of another Controversy Which is the Real Presence 477 CHAP. VI. Sectaries without either Proof or Principles wrest Christs Words to an improper sense and vent an Heresy upon meer Fancy 489 CHAP. VII How differently We and Sectaries proceed in this Controversy VVhat they are to Prove 506 CHAP. VIII The Conclusion The Churches Evidence 517 SOME FEW OF THE MORE CHIEF CONTENTS OF THIS TREATISE THE FIRST DISCOVRS Of Infallible Teachers and the Motives of Credibility CHrists Church hath infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion Christs infallible Doctrin requires infallible Teachers A Doctrin that is fallible may be fals Christ sent none to teach any other Doctrin but that which may be resolved into Gods certain Revelation but such a Doctrin can neither be fals nor fallible Sectaries preach no other Doctrin but what is fallible and may be fals The Objective infallibility of Gods Word in Scripture is not ex terminis Evident and no Church as They say Ever yet told them or can tell them infallibly that it is infallible If all Pastors and Doctors may err in their delivery of Christian Doctrin God would as indifferently oblige us to believe a lye as his certain verities If God deprive all Pastors of infallible Assistance Christian Religion now stands on no more firm ground then mans weak mutable and erring opinion Gods infallible Revelation avails nothing in order to Faith unles Christians lay hold on the certainty therof by Faith which cannot be don unles that Oracle which proposeth the Revelation to all be infallible If the Proponent of a Revelation only say doubtfully I think God speaks as I preach but am not certain the Assent given to his Preaching is also doubtful and no Faith Faith surpasseth in its strength and Tendency all moral and Metaphysical certainty Though Moral certainty were sufficient for Faith yet Sectaries have not so much for Protestancy as it is reformed How Sectaries err in their search made after Religion and both weakly and improbably oppugn the Doctrin of the Catholick Roman Church Reflections upon the motives of credibility It is impossible after the establishment of true Faith in the world that God permit a fals Religion to be more clearly evidenced to reason by force of rational Motives then true Religion is manifested A fals Religion cannot equalize Gods true Religion in the evidence of prudent motives inducing to Faith No Religion hath motives founding moral certainty prerequired to Faith but the Roman Catholick Religion only Protestants have nothing like rational motives wherby Protestancy as Protestancy is proved to be so much as probable Where Mr. Stillingfleet Treats of resolving Protestants Faith He waves the Question wholy and speak's no more in behalf of Protestancy then Arianism or another Heresy Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of the Churches motives Sectaries cannot for want of prudent motives inducing to Faith convert an infidel to Christian Religion Their Religion Dishonors Christ and makes way to any new coyned Heresy THE SECOND DISCOVRS Of Scripture SCripture is a useles book in the hands of Sectaries if none as they confess Declare infallibly the sense of it in high points of Controversies Arians interpret Scripture as probably as Protestants when they oppose the sense received by the Church Sectaries make Scripture a book that proves all Religions and more significant for Arianism then Protestancy The fallacy of Protestants concerning the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered Grant no infallible Church we have no Assurance of true and interrupted Scripture Scripture might be more easily corrupted then a whole Church cheated into fals Doctrin No man can prudently suppose that God had more care to preserve Scripture uncorrupt then a Church free from errour All Substantials of Faith are not in Scripture A Learned Philosopher by his own reading Scripture cannot judge what it meanes in a hundred Passages without an Interpreter Sectaries now are in the very same case without an infallible Interpreter Sectaries in their Glosses on Scripture do nothing but add and substract from Gods Word When They Oppose the Churches sense of Scripture Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have not one word of Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy The Reason of private men or of a private spirit cannot interpret Scripture The new mode of Protestants misinterpreting Scripture is amply refuted All our Sectaries endeavour is to turn Scripture off from the Catholick sense by their own fancies and then think the work don It is one thing to say and only to say it that Scriptures alleged by us prove not what we intend and another positively to prove the Doctrin contrary
clearnes Greatnes Majesty and Coherency of those Truths revealed in Scripture that they must certainly come from none but God Answ What will not men say at last who dare Propose such evident improbabilities Why the whole world agrees in this that the light comes from the sun for it is evident to our senses but do all unanimously agree about the very Canon of Scripture or the clearnes of those books all admit of which are evidently obscure in a hundred passages and so seemingly incoherent in many other places that it is mighty Difficile to reconcile them Again What more Greatnes or exteriour Majesty can any Discover in Salomons Proverbs then in the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus or in those two pious Hymns Te Deum and Gloria in Excelsis such arguments therfore are not only slight but improbable 20. They Object 2. The works of Creation Evidence Gods Wisdom Power and Greatnes Ergo God can give as great evidence of a Revelation Answ I grant He can do so But What then Doth it follow that He hath don it de facto by the words internal to Scripture which is here only to the purpose without the light of orher Motives as Miracles Conversions and the like which as I now said immediately manifest the Church and not the book of Scripture 21. They object 3. No other way is conceivable that it should be evident that a Doctrin comes from God and consequently is infallible but that it contains things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of human reason things only tending to Advance Holines and Goodnes in the world And this Doctrin to be Delivered by persons who wrought Vnparrallel'd Miracles And They ask whether all these be not in the most evident manner Imaginable contained in the Doctrin of Christianity and in the books of Scripture I Answer first The Opponent is far from Conceiving any thing like a probability in this Objection For if it be evident that a Doctrin comes from God and therfore is infallible because it contains Things suitable to the Devine Nature the very Gentils without other Motives should as well see this Evidence as we se the light of the Sun Now if you say its an Evidence but not perceptible by all you runn into Darknes Destroy the Nature of Evidence and make it now evident now unevident when and to whom you please If again you say its an Evidence sufficient to breed Faith you beg the Question and speak improbably for nothing can beget Faith but what is owned for Gods infallible Word upon prudent Motives and the Testimony of some Infallible Oracle To confirm what is here said I Ask whether if Christ and his Apostles had appeared in the World and only preached the high Mysteries of our Faith as a Trinity the Incarnation Original sin with other Doctrins now registred in Scripture that advance Holines of life c. But all this without doing one Miracle Converting one Nation or shewing any the least wonder that they were sent from God to teach as they did My Question I say is whether upon this supposition either Jewes or Gentils would then have believed them or could have discovered an Infallibility in a Doctrin thus Orally Delivered or writ in patchment meerly by the force of the words If Sectaries say Yes They do not only speak a Paradox which no Christian ever uttered and make our Saviours Argument Against the Jewes Si opera c. If I had not don works amongst them which no other did they would not have sin null and inefficacious but moreover are convinced by this clear proof Suppose And it implies no impossibility that God who hath yet within the vast reach of His Omnisciency a Thousand other Verities unknown to the world and not at all revealed in Scripture or Delivered by the Church for certainly He hath not revealed all He knowes should now both inspire and Assist twelve poore Fishermen to preach infallibly these Truth never heard of before yet so that they Teach only but do no Miracles work no Conversions shew no wonders and give no other Testimony of their being sent from God but by their own bare word Would any men in the world think ye prudently believe them meerly for their preaching or would Sectaries as well Discover the Infallibility of these Verities taught by their preaching as they now Discern the Scriptures infallibility No the whole world would prudently set light by such Doctrin though in it self both Divine and Infallible for want of prudent Motives to make it evidently Credible and so all would have don had the Apostles only preached the Divine Truths already registred in Scripture without further Motives Therfore more is required to prove that a Doctrin comes from God then thus much only that it contains in it self things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of humane reason and conduceing to piety I say in it self for if we goe to a strict Analysis of the Scriptures Verities we are not to suppose as the Opponent doth but to prove that all these Verities are suitable to the Divine nature which both Jewes and Gentils Do Deny And therfore must be further proved 22. Now if on the other side They grant and most truely that none would have Discovered any Infallibility in Apostolical Doctrin without further evidence of Miracles of signs and wonders we have our Intent For it followes inevitably that Scripture cannot be Discovered to be Divine by it self nor Infallble by vertue of any light contained in the words or Sintax therof It followes 2. that Mr. Stillingfleet is more then a little out in his seventh Interrogatory part 1. Chap. 7. p. 230. fine where He Ask's whether it be not the highest Disparagement of this Divine Doctrin to make it stand in need of an Infallible Testimony of any that call themselves the Catholick Church Good Sir reflect These Motives of Credibility manifested by Christ and his Apostles their Miracles Conversions Sanctity c. taken purely as Motives previous to the Faith of those who believed were either fallible or Infallible take whether side you will If Infallible you evidently see that most certain Doctrin stood without Disparagement so far in need of those Inducements that it would never have been believed without them as is already proved though most infallible in it self If you hold those previous Inducements to be only Fallible you must yet Grant that the belief of that Apostolical Doctrin stood still in need of them without any Disparagement Therfore much less doth the Testimony of an Infallible Church Evidenced by the like Motives Disparage it I say the Testimony of the Church Evidenced by clear Motives For as the learned Snares Observes 3. Par. Tom. 2. Disp 31. Sect. 2. n. Dicoâ—primo The very Miracles of Christ precisely and solely considered or separated from all other certain Principles would not have proved Him to be the eternal Son of God because
God might have wrought Miracles by one that was purely Man and not Omnipotent and He did so de facto by his Disciples as He for told them Iohn 14. 12. Majora horum facient that they should do greater wonders Therfore other Principles and none could be more strong then Christs own Testimony besides His Miracles were necessary to beget certain Faith of his Godhead in Believers And so we say The Testimony of the Church Evidenced by signes and wonders is also necessary to beget a full Assurance of the Scriptures Infallibility without it we have no Divine certainty of Gods Word 23. Now I return a second Answer to the Objection and say A person that is not infallible can speak of things suitable to the Divine Nature and above the reach of humane reason of vertue and Godlines c. For not only the book of Herman or Hermes Called the Pastor highly valued of by some Ancient Fathers but other writings also though untruely ascribed to the Apostles often speak Divinely yet never were admitted by the Church as Canonical or Gods Infallible word Nay more Some parts of the Gospel and the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude also were not for a time received as Canonical by the Ancient Church though they spak then as Divinely and were as Insallibly Gods word as they are now the Ancient Church that had eyes as good as Sectaries red them yet Discovered no Infallibility or Divinity in them upon this account that they spak of things suitable to the Divine nature And who sees not but that the books of Wisdom and Eclesiasticus contain as high Doctrin as Divine Precepts as are in Salomons Proverbs or Eclesiastes yet the later are Divine with Sectaries and the former not And here I would willingly learn whether the first Protestants that admitted of the later and rejected the Other as Apocryphal did so because they smel't as it were a Divinity in those they received by the very reading and not in the former I am sure the more learned Protestants give other Reasons For these grounds therfore I say the Argument above is so unreasonable that I wonder men of judgement Ventured to propose it Now if they believe the Scripture to be Infallible because of the Miracles and other wonders internal to the book wrought in confirmation of its Doctrin Make a right Analysis and Ask why they believe these Miracles to be Infallible Scripture and follow them closely till they come to a Propositio Quiescens or an undoubted Principle And you 'l find the very Reason returned you to be the thing in Question Although we granted which is not true that Scripture it self said all things contained in the book are infallibly Gods Word For it would be demanded a new How They know that very Assertion to be Scripture 24. For these Reasons some Sectaries will say The Scriptures infallibility is to be proved by Discours not grounded on the meer light or Majesty therof but by probable Principles extrinsick to it And here is one Argument We know by humane Authority Morally certain that Scripture was writ by holy men Prophets Euangelists and Apostles I answer we know not so much of all the books in Scripture without the Churches Testimony For it is doubtful who writ the books of Iosue and Iudges and it is still in Controversy whether Salomon writ the Proverbs and therfore some not only Catholicks but Sectaries also are of opinion that if we rely on humane and historical Authority only we have greater and more particular Assurance that S. Thomas for example writ his summ of Divinity then we have Assurance of the particular Authors of no few books in Holy Scripture Again though we had this certainty grounded on History yet no man among Sectaries who say all Churches erred before Luther can tell us upon moral certainty whether the first Authentick Originals were afterward Corrupted or no by Ancient Hereticks and the supposed erring Church of Rome Se more of this subiect Disc 2. C. 2. n. 7. 8. Others again may Argue from the Miracles wrought by Scripture immediatly And one was as Baronius recounts that this sacred book in Diocletians time being cast into the fire the flames were forthwith extinguished I Answer first both this and other Miracles were only wrought in the true Church and at most prove which is to be noted that the book is true pious and holy but is far from Convincing that we now only inquire after which is its infallibility For God might have don the like Miracle for a true Christian Catechisme Had Diocletian who desired to rase out all memory of Christianity cast that into the Fire also Others argue from the Accomplishment of Prophesies which proves little without the Testimony of the Church First because the very Prophesies and the fulfilling of them must be proved to be Divine Scripture and this cannot be don abstracting from Church Authority 2. These two things are to be distinguished A power to Prophesy and to write as Hagiographers Did Canonical books One may prophesy who only heares from a Prophet what was told him upon the Prophets own Authority but none can write infallibly Canonical books of Scripture but such as have immediately the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct him In a word here is the last and most true Resolution of all these Difficulties Unles Sectaries rely on our Churches Testimony for the Infallibility of Scripture they are evidently beaten out of all likelihood of other Principles wherby to prove it is infallible Yet this very Principle of the Church in order to them doth little or nothing for reasons clearly alleged Disc 2. C. 2. n. 6. 7. It is needles to repeat them in this place 25. And it is as needles to prove my second Assertion above n. 12. Which is Though Sectaries had Probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility in general yet that doth them no service because it is a useles book in their hands This Proposition is so Copiously proved in the second Discours C. 1. and 2. Where much is said of Sectaries endles dissentions concerning the sense of Scripture though admitted of as Divine that no Unorthodox man shall acquit Himself of the Difficulties there proposed All I 'll do now Though it hath not been my Custome to tire the Reader with long Authorities of Ancient Fathers is to mind him of one only Tertullians Testimony in his book de Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos cap. 19. His words are Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est Rigaltius read's par incertae aut parum certa Nam etsi non evaderet collatio Scripturarum ut utramque partem sisteret ordo rerum desiderabat illud prius proponi quod nunc solum disputandum est quibus competat fides ipsa cujus sint Scripturae à quo per quos quando quibus sit
Disciplina quâ fiunt Christiani Vbi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianorum The sense of this whole sentence is this We are not therfore to appeal to Scriptures nor are our debates to be determined here wherin there is no victory or a very uncertain one For although there were no Collation or comparing of places together that might stay the two Advers parts yet the order of things requires this to be first proposed which is now only to be disputed viz. To whom the Faith appertains wherof the Scriptures are From whom and by whom when and by what Persons that Discipline is wherby they were made Christians For where there appeares the Truth of Discipline that is as Macereus and Pamelius interpret the Rule and of Christian Faith there you shall have the Truth of Scriptures the Interpretation of it likewise and of all Christian Tradition Observe well The whole context of these words saith first that debates can never be ended by Scripture only 2. That before we Dispute by Scripture we ought to know and by other Reasons who those are to whom Scripture belong's 3. That where the Discipline or Rule of Christian Faith is previously known by other grounds distinct from Scripture there you have the True Interpretation of Scripture and all Christian Tradition After a full ponderation of these words I leave any man to Judge that loves Truth whether that Doctrin be not here most remarkably expressed which is taught and mantained by the Roman Catholick Church 26. Mr. Poole from his 12. page to his 37. hath no work for me for his whole strain is to run on in cavils and finding fault with such Arguments of Catholicks as He forsooth judges inefficacious to prove the Churches Infallibility whereas God knows Had He had where withall to do it He should have gon a contrary way and proved positively by Scripture Fathers and Tradition the Churches Fallibility but Herein He is silent because in real Truth He hath nothing to say The ground of the Churches Infallibility which Mr. Poole never toucheth on is briefly hinted at above n. 15. and further laid forth Disc 1. c. 1. and 2. and I desire an express Answer to it Now and then He hath something against the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who with him are fallible because they speak of the Churches Infallibility and the good man never reflect's that he and his little book are far more fallible I wave such trifles 27. Page 37. He begins with his Distinctions of the Judge and rule of Faith and saith first The supream and truely Infallible Judge of all Controversies is God and Christ. Very Good but nothing is yet Done unles you fallible man can say in all the Differences between us what God and Christ speak what is judged for you and against us which is so far from being a Truth proved that in Every Controversy it is the very thing in Question and meerly supposed by you without either Proof or Principle You say again The External and political Judges to wit the Governours of the Church are subordinate to the supream Judge Answ Very true But what then Marry this followes that if they really contradict the supreme Judges sentence They must give their subjects leave to argue whether it be right in the sight of God Hold Sir a little If you rationally contradict them you must first prove your self wiser then these subordinate Judges are and Evidence their Errours by undoubted Principles which is impossible For either these Judges are Infallible or fallible if you grant the first you cannot rationally contradict them And if they be fallible How dare you a private fallible man speak contrary when your very Contradiction is no better then their opposite Assertion is I mean purely and poorly Fallible In a word without any certain Principle to rely on which you shall never have you too boldly take leave to oppose your Judges and make your self a Rebel by it You say 3. There is in Every particular Person a secret Judge which is called Reason or Conscience I must Ask once more what then Have not Arians Pelagians Quaquers and all other Sectaries reason as well as you What therfore this Instrument of reason can apprehend judge and work in you after your fashion it doth the like in these other after Their fashion Do you not therfore se how little you advance your cause by talking of your Reason which unles it be Evidenced by sure Principles to be better then that of your Adversaries proves just nothing And add what private Spirit you pleas to help your Reason out They will talk as much of their contrary Spirit to help theirs These two points are so largely declared and proved Disc 2. c. 5. that I believe your Answer to them will prove unreasonable 28. Page 40. You goe first very warily to work for no man knowes what you would say Then you are manly resolute in your Decisions We willingly acknowledge say you and reverently esteem the true and rightful Governors of the Church orderly assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whose decisions are to be highly valued c. Here is no man knowes what Pray you speak out and name more clearly the Church you reverently esteem of Tell us who these true and rightful Governors of it are and do not put us of with an old piece of a long since rejected Doctrin They are those who hold closely to the Truths of Scripture for we must know who these are Finally say when Councels are regularly assembled not according to your Fancy but which will be a long work for you let us have lawes prescribed wherby we may know by sure Principles more particularly without this general talk when Councels are orderly assembled or unorderly A word now to your resolute Definitions You say first this Judge of the Church is not infallible but subject to errour Answer And so are you Sir also fallible when you oppose your self to the Judgement of a Church whether it be your own English Church or the Roman Catholick If therfore the Judgement of both Churches were supposed fallible as the one is not your singular Judgement is no more but fallible also and what gain you by that Thus much only You Contradict the Church fallibly and the Church again Contradicts you fallibly and thus you may remain Contradicting one another to the Worlds End without the Decision of one Controversy unles you make it Evident by undoubted Principles that you are to judge the Church when you please and the Church is not to medle with you or your Iudgement You say 2. this judge of the Church being subject to higher Authority and tyed to a higher rule if its Decisions be Manifestly repugnant to that Superiour Rule they are not to be obeyed Answ You purely suppose what should be proved Viz. That the Decisions of the
true Catholick Church which is ever assisted by the Holy Ghost can be tepugnant to any Superiour Rule and therfore touch not Catholicks in the least manner But if you speak of the Decisions of your English Church which because fallible may be repugnant you license your self by your own Principles to disobey it And look you to that You say 3. The judge is Constituted by God in the Church not for the Command of mens Consciences but for the regulation of their Actions and Preservation of peace in the Church which is not Violated by mens inward and unknown Sentiments but by their External demeanour and sensible Effects of them Answ Most pittiful Doctrin What is all the preaching of Sectaries Come to no more but only to teach how the Exteriour Actions of men are to be regulated and peace may be preserved This Truely more be longs to the Iustiâ—ies of Peace in their Several Districts then to Ministers if therfore they goe no deeper into Consciences by their Doctrin they certainly preach not the Word of God for I read Heb. 4. 12. the Word of God is lively and forcible and more persing then any two Edged Sword and reaching unto the Division of the soule and Spirit of the ioynts also and the Marrows c. And these men go no further then only to give instructions concerning the Exteriour Regulation of Actions or preserving of Peace If therfore their Hearers were very Hypocrits Iewes or Arians in hart and only demeaned themselves fairly in the Exteriour like Protestants Ministers are not to medle with them but leave them to their own Consciences without Check or reproof wherof se more Disc 3. C. 7. â— 17. 18. Now if Mr. Poole will find some Mystery in the words he useth Command of mens Consciences let him read S. Paul to Titus 2. 15. Haec loquere Speak these things and rebuke Cum omni Imperio with all Command and Authority And so Pastors should Speak to Consciences Cum Imperio in Gods cause and people should obey them The Apostle gives the reason Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates your Guides or Commanders for they watch as being to render an account for your Souls And if they must render an account of Souls they may certainly speak like Prelates to their very interiour Consciences 29. Page 41. you say the Scriptures of the old and now Testament are the Infallible rule and ground of Faith Answ They are so Faithfully interpreted Se Disc 2. C. 4. where you have your Errours Discovered and the Objection fully Answered You say again Vniversal Tradition rightly understood is of great use and like a channel wherby Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us Answ the Parenthesis which alone is refuted in the Discours now cited the rest of your Assertion hath no hurt in it But you add a Mysterious piece of Divinity where you distinguish between Rem Tradiâ—am the thing Delivered Traditionem and the Tradition or Delivery of it and say Papists by Tradition understand the first that is res tradita Answ either I understand not you or you which is more likely misconceive the Doctrin of Catholicks For they distinguish between Tradition and the thing Delivered For example The Baptizing of Infants the keeping of Sunday in place of the Sabbath are Objectively Doctrins delivered and the Testimony Consent and Acknowledgment of the whole Universal Church witnessing these Verities are rightly called the formal Tradition therfore you mistake our Doctrin It is true as this word Faith sometimes signifies the matter revealed by Almighty God And most properly the internal Assent we yeild to the Revelation so this word Tradition may also signify either the Doctrin delivered or the formal Delivery of it but this makes not to your purpose You say again Tradition taken for the vehicle or conveyance of the books of Scripture is in some sort necessary to bring the Rule to you yet is no more a part of the Rule then a Basquet is Nourishment wherin bread is brought to feed on Here is your learned instance Believe it Sir if you take the Basket and find Nothing but a stone in it you will have a poore dinner And if you make Tradition minutely like the Basket in some sort necessary you may well have a stone for bread that is no Scripture given you for Scripture Tradition therfore whether part of the Rule or no is absolutely a necessary conveyance and must be Infallible 30. Page 44. you tell us Scripture is the Object only rule and standard of Faith by which all Controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged Answer The Proposition is only your own bare word Scripture alone can be no rule without an Infallible Interpreter as is proved Disc 2. c. 4. And had we no more to say but thus much that Scripture proves nor it self to be Infallible it were enough But grant which you yet Convince not that it is infallibly Gods Word an insuperable difficulty remains to be decided And it is whether you Sectaries know so exactly the sense of Scripture in all controverted matters that your fallible Glosses are to be stood to contrary to the judgement of a learned Ancient Church Hence I say you talk at random when page 48. you tell us There is enough delivered in Scripture by which all Controversies might be ended would men be humble studious and Self denying Lay your hand on your hart and speak your conscience can you judge this to be true Or can you perswade your self that none are to be found within the limits of this Ancient Church as humble as learned and studious as a few Ministers are in England Why vent you such Paradoxes without proof or so much as a probability You say again page 48. after some parergons of conditional and absolute power That if the Church be sufficient to end all Controversies because all must submit to its decrees and Doctrin the Scripture in like manner may be said to be sufficient because all are obliged to submit to the Decrees and Doctrin therof I Answer all are to do so when they know by an infallible Interpreter what the Scriptures Teaches but this in controverted matters is ever the difficulty You say it speak's one thing and we say the contrary therfore Scripture alone which is as silent now as it was Sixteene ages since is a less meet Meanes to end these Contentions Contrariwise the Church proposeth all shee teaches with the greatest clarity and if any doubt occurr is ready able and sufficient to declare it self further Scripture that hitherto never ended any difference between us cannot do so For a further satisfaction read the 5. Ch. of the 3. Discours 31. We return now to your 44. page where you tell us First Tradition is the Vehicle to conveigh the rule of Scripture to us 2. Reason is the instrument or Eye wherby you apprehend and se the Rule 3. The Spirit of God is the Eye-salve that annoints
ergo I must relinquish Christianity if an Angel preach against it The reason is The lesser light yeilds to the greater probability submits to certainty and my fallible though highly probable Assent cannot but yeild to the infallible Assertion of an Angel if he speak contrary to it These few considerations premised we must insist more largely on this subject and demonstrate that there are living and infallible Teachers of Religion in some one Society of Christians or other which is directly opposite to Mr. Poole who holds That no men are so highly priviledged by Almighty God as to have subjective infallibility or to teach infallibly though perhaps they may deliver truth as it were by chance but not infallibly as Teachers I say as Teachers for by what I can learn by Mr. Poole and other Protestants They think all done when they tell us That the objective Doctrin delivered in Scripture is infallible which yet they cannot know without an infallible Teacher and therfore in saying this they speak only fallibly but admit they know so much they are never the better for it unles they joyntly own some Oracle some certain Master who by Divine assistance interpret's Scripture without errour and as exactly convey's into our harts Gods written revealed Verities when any doubt ariseth as if the Apostles taught us These Teachers are they can we find them out that circumscribe our ranging Fancies and put a limit to our swerving Thoughts while we often read and seldom understand those great secrets which God hath layd up in the book of Sctipture without them as we see by too sad experience our weak reason and strong Fancies pervert all and produce monsters of haeresies out of Scripture it self wherof more hereafter THE FIRST DISCOVRS OF INFALLIBLE TEACHERS AND THE MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY THE FIRST CHAPTER There Are infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion 1. BEfore I prove the Assertion I would gladly learn of our Adversaries who make all men fallible whether for these thousand years the world ever had in it any Christians who heard the infallible Doctrin of Christ truly taught and infallibly believed it If they disown such infallible Believers they must joyntly deny all infallible Faith and consequently say That though God hath revealed in Scripture innumerable Verities yes and for this end to beget infallible Faith in our harts yet no man can lay hold on them nor yeild to them by any other assent but what is fallible and may be false Methinks therfore Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible assent of Faith an infallible Verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us For to say God speak's infallibly to me and that I either will not or cannot infallibly believe him is in a word to tell him that his certain Truths may ly close where they are in the book of Scripture they may rest there without being layd up or lodged in my hart as infallible owned and believed Truths Most contrary are those golden words of the Apostle 1. Thess 2. v. 12. to this wild Doctrin Therfore we thank God without intermission because when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us ye received it not as the word of men but as it truly is the word of God who effectually works in you that believe Observe well He who receives the delivered Word of God as it is truly Gods Word and not mans He that hath in his hart the infallible Word of God and by the cooperation of Grace yeilds an assent to it as to the infallible word of God cannot but believe what God speak's and as he speak's but God speak's infallibly Therfore he believes infallibly or if he reach not so high but faulters with an assent that is fallible he Believes not God nor his Word as it truly is Gods Word who never did nor can speak any thing fallibly Now if on the other side our Adversaries grant that Christians heard the infallible Doctrin of Christ and believed it infallibly They also must admit of a Subjective infallibility at least in such Believers And this truth Scripture clearly points at in these and the like undeniable places obvious to all I know who I believe and am certain Let the house of Israël certainly know Although we or Angel from heaven c. Faith is a conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a strong argument of Belief that is infallible supposeth infallible Teachers what appears not c. But these I wave because known to every one Let us now proceed to the Teachers of Christian Religion and prove our Assertion 2. To go on clearly I would know whether there have not alwayes been now are and ever will be among These true and infallible Believers some Pastors Doctors or Teachers who Authorised by Christ are by Duty both to instruct Christians in case they swerve from Truth and also to reduce Aliens from Christ to a true Belief of his sacred Doctrin Certainly Mr. Poole will own such Pastors in the world if not what are Ministers for in England Or why doth He assume to himself this Office of teaching whilst He endeavours to reclaim a seduced Captain from his Apostacy as he call's it And is it possible What After such an The harsh Doctrin of Sectaries acknowledgement shall we hear this unheard harsh and most Haeretical Assertion That all these Pastors who are to unbeguile soules may be beguiled Themselves or teach false Doctrin And that not so much as one amongst them all is so Highly priviledged as to instruct with certainty If all are fallible and none Teaches certainly the Blind lead's the blind the Scholler is as good as his Master at least none can in prudence learn of any if this perswasion live in him He that Teaches me may as well erre as I who am to Learn If an unskilful Traveller enquire the way to an unknown place of one knowing it no better then he that asks He travel's on with no security and This is our very case Amongst so many By-ways so many mazes of Sects and Schisms as now swarm in the world and like cobwebs intricate thousands of souls in their journey we are posting on as fast as Time can drive us to a place yet unknown a long Eternity The directing thread that safely drawes us out of these Labirinths is Sure Firm and infallible Faith we ask to learn this of our new Doctors and not one can certainly say Such is the way This infallibly is the Faith that winds us out of errour and most assuredly lead s to Heaven or if any say so much he speaks only Fallibly 3. And here is the summary of Protestants comfortles Protestants doctrine comfortles Doctrin They have Pastors that talk but Teach nothing certainly They have Infallible Verities lock'd up in Scripture but none can open that Book or convey them with Assurance into mens harts They hear God speak but none
of them certainly knows what he sayes They have Christs Promises of a Spirit of Truth ' abyding with some Christian Teachers find them where they can for ever to the end of the world but now They must say because all Pastors are fallible That Christ keep 's not his word if all may deceive and Teach both fallible and false Doctrin Finally they must own such Believers as S. Paul mentioneth Who receive the word of God as it Truly is the word of God but have not one Pastor or Doctor that dare show his face and say he Teaches this word infallibly Yet infallible Believers and infallible Teachers seem neer Correlatives the one if Faith come by Hearing staggers without the other and Infallible Hearers of Gods word suppose Infallible Teachers methinks when the Apostle saith Rom. 10. 14. None can hear without a Preacher he supposeth as well the Preacher instructing infallible as the Hearer infallibly instructed CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrin of Christ necessarily requires infallible Teachers 1. THe proof of my Assertion is more fully declared Chap. 4. n. 6. and relyes on this Principle Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly under that notion of fallibly taught Doctrin is not the Doctrin of Christ We are of God saith Scripture Iohn Epist 1. cap. 4. v. 6. He that knowes God hear's us he that is not of God heareth us not Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of errour Which is to say in other Terms He that hear's an infallible Teacher hath the Spirit of Truth and he that hear's not an infallible Teacher wants this Spirit of Truth Again Epist 2. v. 9. Every one that recedes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ hath not God c. But every one that Hears only a fallible Teacher easily recedes and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ Therfore he hath not God nor the Spirit of Truth in him 2. Upon these grounds I Argue further Christ Doctrin infallible in it self is either now taught infallibly by some Pastors lawfully sent or fallibly If the first we must own infallible Teachers of this infallible Doctrin If the second That is if Christs infallible Doctrin be taught only Fallibly ex parte Docentis it followes evidently first That though God speaks infallibly yet no man hath certainty of what he saith It followes secondly That such a fallible Teaching of Christs Doctrin may be cavilled at and disputed against For Doctrin taught Fallibly may be cavilled at and disputed against all Doctrin taught fallibly and which by force of its Proposal or merit of the Doctrin may deceive and be false is lyable to cavil and dispute Therfore this Doctrin may be also cavilled at and disputed against It followes thirdly That really Christs Doctrin perchance perverted by a fallible and false Delivery may not be Taught at all The reason is No other Doctrin is or can be taught but what is fallible and may be false but Christs Doctrin is nor fallible nor can be false Therfore that Doctrin which is only Taught fallibly as it is so delivered is none of Christs infallible Doctrin Consequently if any man would now utterly abjure all the taught Doctrin of the Christian world he might do it without being an Haeretick I prove it He who only abjures and Denies Fallible Doctrin which may be false neither abjures nor denies Christs Doctrin nor any Christian Verity which cannot be false But all Christian Doctrin that can be Taught Sectaries say is Fallible and may be False Therfore he who Denies such a fallible taught Doctrin denies not Christs Doctrin and cannot be upon that account an Haeretick You will say He who Denies all Christian taught Doctrin certainly Denies some of those Objective Verities which are revealed in Gods Word and therfore is an Haeretick Very true if he be sure That his Teacher delivers those Verities infallibly But our Protestants say Because all Teachers Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly implyes no Denial of Christs infallible Verities are fallible none can have that Assurance from them or any Therfore their Doctrin as it is taught fallibly may be cavilled at yes and denied also without the guilt of Haeresy The reason is Whoever only Denies the fallible Teaching of infallible Doctrin yet not known for such Denies not the Objective infallible Doctrin in it self but the Formal fallible Delivery of it and this he may boldly say is none of Christs Doctrin 3. The substance of what I would here expresse may No assurance can be had from men that Teach Christs Doctrin fallibly perhaps more plainly be reduced to Form thus A society of men who can do no more but only Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false can assure none that they Teach Christs infallible Doctrin which cannot be false But all societies of Christians can do no more but Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false for all Churches all Councils all Fathers all Papists all Protestants and Mr. Poole with them are as they say Fallible in their Feaching Therfore not one amongst them can assure any that he Teaches or Delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ I say That he Teaches for if we meet with a Simplician That tel's us He builds his Faith and Religion not upon any Preachers talk but on the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture I answer Unles Objective revealed Verities no sufficient ground of infallible Faith he first learn of some Infallible Oracle what Scripture exactly speak's in a hundred controverted places he shall never by his own poreing on a Bible either arrive to the depth of God true meaning or derive infallible Faith from those Objective revealed Verities The reply supposeth That all Truth couched in Scripture is as easily understood with the unclasping of a Bible as the sun is seen at noon-day If so Ministers hereafter may for the most of men shut their books stop their mouths and preach no more 4. Some yet perhaps will say One may preach the infallible Doctrin of Christ though himself be fallible in the Delivery of it which feem's manifest for every Catechist or Preacher though he delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ yet delivers it not infallibly why therfore may not Ministers in England teach as those do infallible Doctrin though ex parte subjecti docentis they Teach it fallibly I answer first Ministers in England have no Infallible Church to recurre to in case They erre for their whole Community is fallible The Catholick Preacher hath a sure Oracle to rely on an Infallible Church that unbeguil's him if he swerve from Truth which is a mighty Advantage and a great The Advantage of an infallible Church Disparity in the present question Now if you say Sectaries may as well rely on infallible Scripture for their Direction as we do on an Infallible Church I deny the Supposition and shall shew hereafter That not so much as one Article of Protestancy
misse in his teaching as hit right on the Infallible Doctrin of Christ The Minor is granted by Mr. Poole For all Churches whether Roman or English Arian or Grecian are lyable to errour want special Assistance in their Teaching and ought positively to renounce all Societies of infallible Christian Teachers Therfore the conclusion undeniably followes which is That none can with certainty Teach the Infallible Doctrin of Christ And from hence also followes an utter ruin of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too as I shall hereafter Demonstrate For if all Pastors all Doctors all Teachers of Christian Religion may erre in the Delivery of their Doctrin all Learners of it may likewise erre in Hearing it and if so we have no certainty That God is now Adored in Spirit and Truth by either Teacher or Hearer 9. The ultimate reason why a Total ruin of Christian The utter ruin of Christian Religion followes the fallible Teaching of it in a whole Church What all Euangelical Preachers lakoured for Religion accompanieth the fallible Teaching of it is thus proved None can teach Christian Faith that doth not Propose or make Almighty God to be the Author of it And therfore our Saviour Iohn 7. 16. told the Iewes That his Doctrin was not his but his Fathers that sent him Yea The Prophets also and all other Evangelical Preachers chiefly laboured in this to perswade their Hearers that God was the Author of that Doctrin they taught Now say I None can Propose or make God the Author of Christian Faith that doth not own it as a Doctrin asserted by his Eternal Veracity infallibly revealing Truth for this is the Formal Object of Christian Faith But He that only Teaches fallible Doctrin which may be false deserts this Formal Object and can neither own God for the Author of it nor his infallible revealing Verity Ergo he must own a fallible Authority to uphold this Doctrin which is utterly Destructive of Christian Faith The reason will be yet more evidenced if you propose it after this manner A Doctrine which by force of all the Principles it hath is meerly fallible and The last ground of this Doctrin no more may be salse But Christian Doctrin as it is Taught by all Pastors and Ministers of the Word c. is thus fallible Ergo it may be false But God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to Teach a Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to Teach a Doctrin or Religion that is fallible I prove it He sent none to Teach any other Doctrin but that which is founded and intrinsecally relies on his Eternal infallible Verity revealing Truth But such a Doctrin can neither be false nor fallible Therfore this taught Doctrin is certain and infallible For to grant that God sent Pastors to teach a Doctrin which relies on his infallible Revelation is to say He assist's them to teach it infallibly CHAP. III. Other proofs for Teachers and a Church Infallible 1. I Argue again thus Supposing the promises of Christ made in Scripture Gods Goodnes cannot oblige the whole moral Body of Christians to believe a falsity or to contradict his certain revealed Verities But if all Pastors and Doctors may erre in their Instruction whilst they teach Christian Doctrin God would God cannot oblige us to believe a falsity as indifferently oblige us to believe a falsity and contradict his certain Verities as to hear truth when by chance it is taught which is contrary to his Goodnes The first Proposition is evident and confessedly true For our Adversaries say it is repugnant to all conceptions of Gods Goodnes to require of men under pain of Damnation to Believe something as infallibly true which is really false The other also is as clear For if all Pastors all Doctors who have the charge of souls may because fallible as well Teach false Doctrin as true as easily erre as Deliver Christs pure Verities Christians are by virtue of Gods Command already intimated bound both to hear and obey them Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church that is as S. Chrysostome expounds the Prelates and chief Pastors of it let him be to thee as a Heathen c. Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Guides your Leaders and Commanders and be subject to them For they watch as being to render account of your souls Again vers 7. The Apostle command's us to imitate the Faith of these Pastors and Teachers From these and other innumerable places of Scripture known to all I argue What is possible may be reduced to Act but it is possible That all Pastors and Teachers may erre and Deliver false Doctrin to the Christian world and in case they do so I am upon these plain expres Ordinances of God obliged to Believe them Therfore I must Believe them although they Teach false Doctrin And if so God obligeth me to Believe a Falsity or which is a real Verity I am forced to grant this undeniable Truth that his All-seeing providence doth now and ever will Preserve a Church whose Pastors and Teachers are infallible in the Delivery of Christian Doctrin Without this certain established Infallibility in some one or other Society of Believers Christianity is no more but a meer tottering reeling and uncertain Religion yet I must listen to it whether Those who teach it stand or fall that is whether they erre or not teach an imposture or Truth 2. To confirm this proof I ask whether God after he had delivered his own certain Verities infallibly and made also by his Divine Assistance Those first Masters of the Gospel his Blessed Apostles infallible in their Delivery of these Verities whether then I say in the ensuing ages he divorced himself from his A question proposed to Sectaries Church and withdrew all Special Assistance from it or yet continued that gracious favour to some Pastors and Doctors of a Christian society If he continued that care and providence for the Direction of some Pastors in Truth Those because so guided are still infallible in their Teaching Contrary wise if he abandoned that charge and deprived all Pastors for the Future of infallible Assistance This woful consequence followes That Christian Religion once strongly supported by Gods unerring Spirit ever since the Apostles Preaching hath lost that Hold and now stands tottering on no more steedy ground then what the weak mutable and erring Sentiments of men can afford it Now how unmeet these are for so great a charge Salomon Sap. 9. 15. sayes enough Cogitationes mortalium timidae incertae providentiae nostrae The cogitations of mortal men are fearful and our Providence vncertain yet so it is and here mark the hideous crime of Protestants who first Divorce Christ from his Church and violently pull Religion How Sectaries transgresse from its center which is Gods infallible directing Spirit and then make all the taught Doctrin of
say 'T is the Church ought to be certain and infallible It seems enough say some that this Faith be taught upon a rational Evidence which Evidence finally resolved comes to no more but to a Moral certainty These as I am informed ground themselves on this Principle That all the Assurance we can have of Christian Religion hath for its whole Foundation moral Certainty only and it seems a prop firm enough to support it More it cannot have 6. The Objection contains two parts To the first I answer If Divine Faith be in the world Reason Divine Faith must have an infallibie Teacher convinceth that the object of it be propounded by a Certain and infallible Teacher and then most when Points fundamental lye under Dispute and are in controversy Faith therfore requires two things essentially to omit other Necessaries an Object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object made by some Teacher to Christians which Doctrin the Apostle ratifies Rom. 10. 15. How shall they hear without a Preacher By virtue of this Proposition whether we call it Cause or an Essential Condition the Elicite Act of Faith followes in a Believer and intellectually layes as it were hold both on Gods Revelation and the Thing revealed Observe now well Gods Revelation none doubts it is certain and infallible Divine Faith which resteth on this Motive and proceeds from Grace is also certain and infallible The only Difficulty remaining concerns this Proponent of Faiths Object and it is whether He that Directs me and endeavours rightly to settle my Faith upon Gods infallible Revelation do his work with assurance fallibly or infallibly 7. I say first Gods infallible Revelation avail's nothing in order to Faith unles Christians by their Faith lay hold on the Certainty therof or own it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent The reason is Because God speaks infallibly to Christians for this End That his infallible Word may have influence into Faith and support in with Certainty If therefore this revealed Word be not Certainly Proposed as it is infallible if it be not duely applyed to a Believers understanding under its The object of Faith must be infallibly applyed own Notion of certainty that strength of infallibility lyes as it were dead without Operation and profits Belief no more then Food doth a Body into which it cannot enter The similitude is fit For as Food though apt to strengthen a Body is just as if it were not unles it be duely Applyed so Gods Certain Revelation though most Proportionate to strengthen a Soul in Faith yet in order to this Effect it looseth all Efficacy while a due Application of its infallibility is wanting 8. To illustrate more this necessary Truth I say secondly When a Revelation lyes darkly in Scripture as it often doth in High points of Controversy according to the measure or degrees of Certitude which the Proponent of Faith gives to the Revelation and saith God speaks thus An Assent answerably followes with like Certitude in the Hearer and not a stronger If therfore the Proponent only say Doubtfully I think God speak's as I preach but am not Certain Gods Revelation is received according as 't is propounded Doubtful also is the Assent given to this Preaching If he say What I teach is Probable The Assent can be no more but Probable If finally He truely say I teach Infallibly what is revealed the Assent Answers and is Infallible The reason is clear For as no Eye can see Colours in darknes before light makes them visible yea and according to the measure of light it see 's them so no Intellectual Eye can discover a dark Revelation before he borrow light from his Teacher and as The light is lesse or more so He see 's that object lesse or more perfectly A dubious and uncertain Proposal therfore made of a certain Revelation when it doth not Clearly manifest it self is like a glimmering light And neither doth nor can apply the Objective infallibility Therof with Assurance to mans intellectual Faculty which yet seek's after Certainty in matters of Belief This needs no proof For he who proposeth only Doubfully a Revelation which is Certain in it self both in actu signato and exercito saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare A timide proposal of Divine Revelation begets no more but a doubtfull Faith what God speak's and perhaps I do not For my Declaration only Doubfully guesses at the Certainty of the Revelation And it is against the nature of all Doubt to convey Certainty into any understanding As long therfote as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me For want of an undoubted Application made by an infallible Proponent it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith then fire at a great distance warm That is no more Then if it were not Certain in it self or not at all in Being Whence I conclude That a certain Revelation if obscure in Scripture requires a Certain Proposition Because It little avail's me to know this truth That if God speak's he speak's infallibly unles hîc nunc in these circumstance when he speak's to me for my Saluation I yeild my certain Assent to the infallibility of his Word which cannot be done unles I have Assurance from my Teacher that he speak's as I ought to believe infallibly Upon these undeniable Principles I say thirdly Our Sectaries can have no Divine Faith Sectaries can do no more but doubtfully guesse at what they Believe and consequently as Protestants never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith I prove the Assertion All Faith which hath no other Certitude then what is derived from Those who propound the object of it id est Gods Revelation uncertainly and doubtfully is no more but wavering Opinative and doubtful But the Faith of Protestants is evidently such Because no man or Society of men amongst them can without doubt and fear infallibly say God speak's as I preach and I infallibly preach as God speaks For if he averr thus much with Truth he Propound's the object of his Faith infallibly and therfore is so farre infallible If he do They cannot propose Faith infallibly not his preaching must be finally resolved into his own timid weak and wavering Opinion which weighed comes to no more but this Levity I hope well and think I preach what God hath infallibly Revealed yet am not certain because all I say for ought I know is fallible 9. If you will se this Truth farther Evidenced do no more but ask of any Protestant Why for example He believes that all the Churches on earth are fallible That Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist That Faith only justifies That there are two Sacraments and no more c. His first refuge perhaps will be to Scripture But demand again Whether Scripture in plain and Express Terms Delivers these supposed Doctrins If he be not more then
knowes not the Object wheron it Relyes and therfore cannot be Certain Answer It is a Catechresis or an Abuse in Speech to say That either Faith or any other intellectual operation knowes its Object The understanding informed by these vital Acts knowes if we speak properly Yet if we go on in that vulgar Language significant enough Faith can no more Scientifically prove or know its Object then Science as Science can believe its Object I say Faith as Faith no more Scientifically knowes or proves its Object then Science as Science Believes what it knowes This proves That certainly Believes whilst it Resteth immediatly upon Gods Revelation which is most amply proved by the Preambulatory Motives now touched on Neither can Faith Scientifically know or prove its Object without loosing an Essential Predicate which is Obscurity All therfore who destroy not the very Nature of Faith must allow it the greatest Certainty under heaven Faith both obscure and certain and withall grant as the Apostle doth that it is Argumentum non apparentium of a dark and obscure Tendency 14. You will reply again The Mode then and Tendency of Faith unto its Object is here supposed Obscure and that Previous judgement of Credibility after all possible weighing of those Motives which do manifest the Credibility of this Truth God speaks by the Church is no more but Morally certain Ergo the Belief of that Truth stands still wavering upon Vncertainties I answer If these Motives have an infallible Connexion with Divine Revelation That is If they clearly convince that God cannot but de facto speak to Christians after so many Signs and wonders The Iudgement Previous to Faith is Metaphysically certain However give it a lesser Certainty we must yet say with the Prophet Testimonia tua credibilia The Motives bring Reason to an invariable State of Believing facta sunt nimis These motives well considered bring Reason to an invariable State of Believing in so much That none can Disbelieve without Sin and Madnes Again we must say That Judgement which throughly penetrat's them Evacuat's both Doubt and Fear to the Contrary and far exceed's all Degrees of Probability which gives Reason the Freedom to Alter an Opinion when Stronger Proofs come against it But no Real Proof whatever is capable to Overthrow No real proof can weaken this Iudgement the Certainty of this Judgement though Fallacies may puzzle it Call it then as you please Moral or Metaphysical Evidence it hath proved its own Strength for never Any without it since Christianity began either rightly believed in Christ or Church 15. This Judgement therfore which like an Interiour voyce supposing the Exteriour Proposition of the Church summon's us to hear or like a Light that discover's Gods own Language delivered by Revelation makes the Language once dark clear enough to us Now being thus manifested we lay hold on it and yeild Assent to the Revelation for it self and not for the antecedent Motives And because this Revelation is without Dispute more infallible then any Truth in Nature it cannot but Answerably as I said above impart and contribute a Stronger Certainty to Faith then the most evident Principles do to any Science Vpon this strong Fortresse then Christian Religion stands firm which undoubtedly implyes a greater Certainty then only Moral And I think our Adversaries will say so too Sectaries own a Faith more then morally certain who though They take the Canon of Scripture upon Moral Certainty yet they Believe the particular Revealed Mysteries contained in that Book with a far surer Assent then what is only moral Moral Certainty therfore necessarily help 's to Faith though Faith Instances how moral certainty help 's to Faith ultimately Relyes not on it Thus you know the will loves Good either Real or Apparent yet need 's not to love the cognition which represents goodnes For that is only conditio applicans a condition applying the Object to the Power but no Cause of Love I may also adhere to a Doctrin in St. Austin for St. Austins Authority upon the Moral certain Word of one who tells me This great Doctor saith so Why therfore may I not induced by far Stronger Motives to believe this Truth God speaks by his Church Adhere only to his Revelation without touching on the Motives which serve well as Conditions to Apply that Object to the Power yet want the Strength of a formal Object to support Faith But more of this Subject in another Treatise where we shall show that the Certainty of Faith at least unevident in respect of the material Object is not so much a Speculative as a Prudent submissive and Practical Certainty CHAP. VI. Faith only morally certain is no Faith Protestants have no Moral certainty of Protestant Religion 1. LEt us here suppose contrary to Truth that all Religion brought to a just Trial comes to no more but to a High Moral certainty which Though it implyes no absolute Impossibility of being False yet is so strong That none considering the great Evidence we have for Christianity can without madnes Practically doubt or hold it otherwise then it is most Morally certain Put the case then That we arrive to this Degree of Certitude only you will ask why is not such a Faith stedfast enough and very sufficient to Saluation Thus far if I mistake not some Neoteriks make Faith certain and strip it of all further infallibility I answer A Faith only Morally certain is no Faith and prove my Assertion That wheron all Moral Certainty imaginable Essentially depend's is fallible and may Deceive us That That wheron Faith relyes is infallible That wheron Moral Certainty depend's is fallible wheron true Faith Essentially depends which is Divine Revelation is infallible and cannot Deceive Ergo what ever ground 's a Moral certainty only which may deceive is as unproportionate to uphold true Faith as Revelation owned as Divine is unfit to ground a fallible Opinion As long therfore as the Object of pure Moral Certainty becomes not Gods Revelation which can never be so long Faith cannot rely on it Or if it do rest here it Mistakes its Object and call's tbat Revelation which is none The ultimate Reason of this Discours stands Two sure Principles firm upon these two Principles 1. All moral Certainty may be False 2. Gods Revelation Because it is Infallible as God Essentially excludes that weaker Degree of Certitude and cannot be false which is to say in plainer Terms God neither doth nor can speak any thing only morally certain 2. That all Moral certainty may be false is evident For invent the strongest imaginable as This is distinguished from Physical or Metaphysical Certainty and say what you will within that compas Viz. Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in Being Or That when one in a large Citty sitt's imprisoned at noon-day and hears no body yet saith Most surely all the Inhabitants of this place are neither dead nor asleep
Opposed by the greatest part of Christians as False and Paradoxal cannot be Morally certain If this Principle hold good it if followes That much and very much too of the Roman Catholick Doctrin want's also moral Certainty Because a very great number of Christians oppugne it as fals Some deny the Popes Supremacy Others the Real Presence Others Purgatory Others Praging for the Dead c. And Protestants after their long study deny all These at once Therfore such Doctrins cannot be Morally certain 7. I answer first This Objection without doubt Proves too much and impugn's a Certain Truth of Christianity For tell me when the whole world as St. Hierom saith growning under Arianism saw that Haeresy far and neer diffused Did that Opposition weaken the Moral certainty which Orthodox Christians had then of a Trinity of Persons in one Essence And we only speak now of Moral Evidence Antecedent Ancient Motives never loose their Force to Faith If so the Motives morally evident for the Belief of that Mystery ceased or at least lost their Ancient Vigor which is fals And one great Realon is Because that true Doctrin of a Trinity had no first Rise nor appeared like a new Paradox in Catholick Doctrin had no first Rise like Protestancy the world as Protestancy did peeping out like an unknown Stranger when Luther and Calvin first broach'd it No That Catholick Doctrin was universally believed by all faithful Christians before Arians were born The Motives therfore which made it evidently Credible before Arius continued firm notwithstanding His Opposition and still induced Christians to Believe as They had done formerly Which Reason also holds good to our present purpose And doth not only give an immense Disparity between the Moral evident Certainty of Catholick Religion And what ever Certainty Haeresy can Pretend to But also Demonstratively makes both Protestancy and all Haeresy improbable And this Truth I shall evidence having first cleared the Fallacy which intricates the Reply now in hand CHAP. VII How Sectaries err in the search made after Religion Of their weak and Improbable Opposition The Objection is more fully answered 1. OVr Sectaries and all Haereticks err grosly in a main Principle which breed's nothing but Confusion to themselves and Others Thus it is Haereticks errour in their search of True Religion Some for Scripture only In their search after True Religion They run on But how Extra viam in a wrong and mistaken way Some will find it out by the Book of Holy Scripture which few exactly read and none can understand by his private judgement These err not knowing Scripture And may as St. Austin notes Epist 40. ad Deo gratias end their Lives before they end Difficulties this Others fly to the primitive Church Doctrin way Others fly to the Doctrin of the Primitive Church and loose Themselves For what private man can now by his meer reading Morally ascertain me or any of the indubitable universal Sense of that Doctrin Wheras all which the Church held then was not writ Of what was writ part is lost and much of what remains is as experience Teacheth Others are for Reason only lyable to Cavils and Misinterpretations Others and it is a Socinian jogg Decide all by weak Humane Reason as if forsooth Wit alone were able to Fathom Gods Incomprehensible Secrets Others finally without Ohers stay on the difficil Mysteries of Faith further Inspection stand poering on the material Objects or Mysteries of Faith and after many a mispent Houre ask at last of a very unskilful Master their own weak Reason what it Judgeth of these Mysteries All labour loft If Reason as it often fall's out find's them difficil It Cast's them away as meer Improbabilities Thus the Arian reject's a Trinity The Pelagian Original Sin The Protestant Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist Because they run into Dark matters whick only puzzle Reason and wave those further Considerations which clear all And make Faith if not evidently certain in Attestante at least evidently credible 2. I say therfore The most easy way to find out true Religion or the first unquestionable Evidence The way to find out True Religion is easy and evident which points it out lyes open and is obvious to All Before we either examin particular Mysteries of Faith or enter upon Proofs Drawn from Scripture Councils or Fathers It is true from these Grounds we have irrefragable Arguments against all Sectaries But can They think that the wise Providence of God hath put as it were Religion so far out of sight or set it at so great a Distance from us That none can come to the knowledge of it Before Scripture Fathers and those large Volumes of Councils are exactly examined whic few read and fewer understand No certainly True Religion evidenceth it self and is True Religion evidenceth it self most Discernable from errour by an other clear and conspicuous Light which none can but se unles he wilfully shut his eyes Antecedently to the Perusal of Scripture Fathers c. This Light or Evidence we may rightly call Gods own perswasive Language wherby he Speaks to Reason before we Elicit Faith and rationally convinceth all of this general Truth One Society of Christians There is wherin my Eternal Truths are Taught this I make manifest by evident Signes by the Light of clear and undeniable Motives wherof none can but most unreasonably doubt So it is saith Origen Hom. 30. in Matth. Ecclesia plena est fulgore ab Oriente usque ad Occidentem The Church like a Resplendent Sun casteth out Lustre from East to West and They are blind who see not so clear a Brightnes Thus much premised 3. I Answer to the Objection above and say Sectaries groundles impugning Catholick Doctrin Though thousands more then Sectaries impugne part of the Roman Catholick Doctrin yet as long as God demonstratively Evidenceth the absolute Credibility of that Church which teaches it By such rational prudent and pressing Motives as have gained Millions of Soules to Believe our Adversaries in banding against Church Doctrin only bewray Malice Ignorance or Both And do no more but cast dirt at a Sun which providence maugre Their weak Attempts will have to Shine whilst Christianity lasteth So Urgent therfore so Illustrious are these Motives as I shal presently declare for the total Belief of what the Roman Catholick Church teaches That they do not only suppresse and silence such weak Opponents But also make Protestancy and all other Sects improbable and incredible The reason hereof most amply laid forth in the three next following Chapters stand's sure on these two undeniable Principles First That Church which Christ Iesus founded and Christ manifest to All and so is his Church his Blessed Intention was to gain the whole World to it is so Eminently Glorious so Clearly Marked with unboubted Signs and most Legible Characters of Truth That the Simplest Man if he follow Reason may find
Doctrin as Protestancy As They ought to have done in the first place after so glorious a Title 2. To prove what is said have patience to hear some few parergons There are say They in the question of resolving Faith these three questions to be resolved First Why I believe those things to be true which are contained in the Book called Scripture 2. Why I believe the Doctrin contained in that Book to be Divine 3. Why I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine Revelation Mark here a Shufling and remember once more the Title The Protestants way of resolving Faith Is it so Is it the Protestants way Yes Surely then the Questions here proposed and the Answers returned are most Pertinent to help on Protestants in their resolving Faith That is to make Protestancy These Authors wave what they should Explicate evidently credible by clear and rational Motives You will say They are so And I say They are no more to that purpose of Protestants resolving Faith or giving of prudent Motives for Protestancy then if such a Religion had never been in the world I prove my Assertion The Arian will say I believe Arians believe Scripture as much as Protestants those Things to be True which are contained in Scripture I believe the Doctrin in that Book to be Divine I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine Revelation and this I do upon as good Grounds as you Protestants if not on better For if you admit of these Verities upon the greatest Evidence which things of that Nature are capable of So do I too But say I beseech you what more Advantage have you upon this Concession for your particular Religion then I have for mine For let these Books be True let them contain Divine Doctrin let us believe the Revelation in them to be Sacred yet both you and I are to seek which of us hath the better Religion and this cannot be decided by owing three Truths wherof no Christian ever doubted Why therfore do you when it is your particular Task to resolve Protestants Faith never meddle with the Question But wast time in proving that which when it is proved help 's you no more then all other Christians who are contrary to you in Belief Will you se this clearly 3. I freely grant that those things in Scripture are True They are Divine the Books themselves are of Divine Revelation But next ask What is this to Protestant Religion Or how is the Resolution of Protestants Faith advanced upon the owning These Verities Nothing at all And the Reason is for rhough all Christians acknowledge in general Scripture to be most Divine yet they are at endles Disputes concerning the Doctrin of it Now no Man I hope To have Scripture in our hands gives no Assurance of true Faith will say Because he hath this Book in his hands or owns it as Gods Word that therfore He rightly Believes the particular necessary Doctrin in it For were this true known Haeretiks would be as sound in Faith as any To conclude then The Roman Catholick enquires not here after any general Proof of Scripture He proved that before Protestants were born But he urges for Motives What Catholicks require of Protestants and rational Inducements wherby Protestancy as Protestancy is evidenced to have any ressemblance with the Primitive Doctrin of Christ and his blessed Apostles Known Marks and Cognisances of Truth must manifest this particular Doctrin And not a general talk of the Divinity of Scripture which every Arian and Haeretick would own were there no such thing as a Protestant in Being 4. They hold on in this proofles strain and tell us how Moral certainty is Assurance enough that Christian Religion is infallibly true Be it so it is nothing to the purpose For we enquire not in this place after the moral Evidence of Christian Religion in General which as it professed by condemned Haereticks Protestancy unevidenced hath none But we ask for the moral Certainty wherby Protestancy is evidenced This is not so much as spoken of though the Title of resolving Protestants Faith requires a direct Answer to this Difficulty They say again There can be no greater then moral Certainty for the main Foundations of all Religion and the chiefest is the Existency and Being of God The Assertion is falss as I could demonstrate were it now pertinent to handle that question But Let it pass Give us I beseech you as much Moral certainty of Protestant Religion as All acknowledge for the Existency of a Deity and we are satisfied But of this we hear not a word We have Talk enough of the Moral certainty of Christian They Answer not to the difficulty Religion which Answers not to the Title of resolving Protestants Faith 5. They say thirdly Suppose God gives the must infallible Evidence of any Religion some who are bound to believe that Religion can have no more then Moral certainty of it Transeat totum at present What makes it for Protestancy We here ask Why Protestants believe as they do Why They adhere to their new Faith and preferr that Before all other Religions Rational Motives Can be produced or not We hitherto hear of none And therfore suspect yea know very well there are none for it 6. They say fourthly Moral certainty yeilds us sufficient Protestants altogether in Generalls Assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true What Religion is infallibly true upon moral certainty Is it Arianism or Pelagianism No. Is it the Roman Catholick Religion No. Is it Protestancy Yes Then produce Rational Motives which may ground a moral certainty more of this Religion then of any other Sect and we acquiesce But this you cannot do 7. They say fifthly Where there is evident credibility in And prove nothing for their Religion the matter propounded there doth arise upon Men an obligation to believe Very good To believe what Give us this evident Credibility of Protestancy and something is said to the purpose Hereof yet we have no news nor are like to have and consequently Protestants cannot be obliged to Believe as they do After some other Parergons 8. They say sixthly The last Resolution of Faith is not into the infallibility of the instrument of conveyance but into the infallibility of that Doctrin which is therby conveyed to us Shall we eternally have these Empty words and no Substance You talk here of an infallibility of Doctrin and we would have the Riddle expounded Is it the Roman Catholick Doctrin Or yours Or Arianism What for Gods sake avail's it to hear a noise of infallible Doctrin and not to know who rightly professeth it Your Doctrin therfore of Protestancy is to be Evidenced this is all we look for 9. They say seventhly If the Doctrin of Christ be true and Divine then all the promises made were accomplished Now that was one of the greatest that his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all Truth Very
true But what is this for Protestant Doctrin We ask still by what Signs and Marks of Truth do these new Men prove their particular Faith to be Apostolical Here only lyes the Difficulty never touched on by them Admit therfore at present that they have in their hands the infallible Records of Gods Word they are far of yet from proving their particular Doctrin of Protestancy to be Scripture or the infallible Word of God This is the sole controverted Question between us 10. They finally end Thus much may suffise in general concerning the Protestant way of resolving Faith Very little it seems serves their turn who hitherto never Loct labour to talk of Christian Religion in General medled with that Resolution But have lost their labour by a talking in General of Christian Religion which no more concern's Protestancy then it doth the worst of Haereticks And after this manner They hold on in another Chapter entituled The sense of Fathers in this Controversy Where Iustin Martyr Irenaeus and Clemens Fathers cited to no purpose of Alexandria are cited but to what purpose God only knows Are they quoted to evidence any thing like Protestancy No. The whole-Discours of these Learned Fathers look's another way and never medles with this Novelty Read them as they are either in These Authors with all the Advantages of their Glosses on them or rather in the Originals as I have don exactly you will find them so great Strangers to this new Haeresy That they never thought of it To transcribe again their whole Discours would prove tedious read Iustins words in these Authors Part. 1. Chap. 9. page 264. and add to them the reflection made page 265. What part say they is there now of our Resolution of Faith which is not here in that is in Iustins Testimony asserted I answer Nothing at all as will appear by your own Questions and Answers wholy irrelative to Protestancy Thus then you go on If you ask why you believe there were such men in the Iustin makes nothing for Protestants world as these Prophets wherof Iustin speaks Answer The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it Be is so what is this to Protestancy Can any one probably inferr Because He believes there were such men in the world as Prophet Apostles or Euangelists Therfore he hath the true Doctrin of Weak inferences these Prophets No. For both Arians and Pelagians yeild Assent to that general Truth and so do Catholicks also are all These right in Faith upon that Account precisely Toyes No more then are Protestants 3. If you ask say you why you Believe them to be true Prophets Answ The excellency of their Doctrin joyned with the fulfilling of Prophecies and working Miracles abundantly prove it Prove what for Gods sake No more but this that those Prophets taught excellent Doctrin and wrought Miracles Doth it therfore follow that Protestants Arians and other Haereticks teach such Doctrin or work Miracles No. Herein lyes the Difficulty not so much as glanced at or touched on And thus Nor Clemens Alex. they run on to no purpose for many pages with Testimonies drawn out of Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus which no more relate to Protestancy then those first Words of Genesis do In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth Nay more Clemens cited But Confutes them by these Authors page 273. expresly confutes our Sectaries whilst he requires two things necessary to attain to the true knowledge of true Faith in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Enquiry and Discovery of it The Enquiry is an impulse of the mind say these men for finding Truth out by Signs which are proper to it Discovery is the End and Rest of this Enquiry which lyes in the comprehension of the things which is properly knowledge A most true and admirable Expression Clemens according to these Authors proceds thus Now the Signs by which Truth is Discovered are either Precedent Concomitant or Subsequent The precedent Signs wherby we discover Christ to be the Son of God are the Prophecies declaring his coming The Concomitant were the Testimonies concerning his Birth The subsequent Signs are those Miracles which were published and manifestly shewed to the World after his Ascension c. Most true and Divine Doctrin which is entirely for the Roman Catholick Religion and against Protestants Why We enquire after the precedent Signs wherby their new Religion is discovered We ask for subsequent Signs which were publickly known to the world soon after the broaching of their new Faith and yet cannot hear of any shewed by these new men in confirmation of their Faith Finally we urge for Miracles and other Prudential Motives Evidencing Protestant Religion in the ensuing Chapter but find none Read it and give an impartial judgement CHAP. X. Protestants have no rational Motives wherby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as probable 1. TO prove the Assertion we here friendly demand Whether when Scripture Fathers and the best Authority of former ages Assert That the Marks and Cognisances of Gods revealed Truth are as follow Antiquity A Lawful mission Vnity Efficacy of Doctrin Vniversality Miracles Succession of Bishops Sanctity yes and the very name of Catholik c. My demand I say is whether our new Men will own these old Signs as lawful and approved Manifestations of Truth or disown them If this later They are Compelled to shew them unfit or forceles Arguments for the evidencing of Truth and consequently are obliged to produce others more clear and perswasive for their supposed true Religion which is impossible On the other side if they shall please to own them as lawful Cognisances of Truth My Task is to prove That they have neither the complexum of all these Motives together nor so much as one of them in particular for Protestancy 2. Antiquity granted to Popery for at least a Protestants want Antiquity thousand years and upward Protestants have not Those two Brethren of Iniquity Luther and Calvin first brought this Religion forth as is evident by all known History Before their dayes no man can shew me so much as one Town Village or Houshold of Protestants 3. Lawful Mission most justly and without dispute A lawful Mission is wanting challeng'd by Catholick Doctors These two wretched men had not no more have their followers Enquire after it you will find them all unsent Preachers contrary to the Apostles Doctrin Rom. 10 How shall They preach unles they be sent They never had licence to talk as they did But by their own Will and unknown Spirit which as well authorized Iames Nayler to be Christ as them to be lawful and Apostolical Preachers Say I beseech you when the blessed Apostles first taught the Doctrin of Christ Iesus and by their preaching turn'd Idolatry out of the World Did They only word it Christ and his Apostles were sent and shewed their Mission
my Name and Catholick my Surname that indeed names me but this declares what I am And in both these we Catholicks Glory CHAP. XI Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of These declared Motives 1. WE have seen already both the Weaknes and Two Churches very different Strength the Obscurity and Glory of two different Churches Protestant and Catholick The first pittifully Naked The other richly Adorned with such Noble Marks of Truth as force Reason to give a final Sentence and say If Religion be in the world it must be found amongst those Christians who demonstrate it Credible with most urgent and convincing Motives But this Catholick Religion only doe's and not Protestancy For Protestants I Assert it boldly have not so much as one Rational Motive much les the complexum of all now related that works upon Prudence and Antecedently to their new Faith makes them Believe as they do If They have any such my earnest petition is to hear of Them or se them clearly layd forth to the Reason of other men or if They fail in this as of necessity they must let them Speak the plain Truth Viz. That all They Write and Preach is lost labor whilst they go about to draw Rational men to a Religion for which there is no Reason And 2. Here I answer to the trivial Talk of Protestants pretending to follow Reason in all they Believe and once more Assert They have nothing like a shadow Protestants have no shadow of Reason for their new Religion of Reason previous to their Faith either for their new Religion in General or any particular Tenent in it To prove my Assertion We must distinguish between the prudent Inducements that draw one to Believe and the Elicit Act of Faith it self These Inducement Precede Faith and are properly the Object of Discours Faith solely relyes on Gods Revealed Testimony without the mixture of Reason for its Motive The Previous motives well pondered bring with them an Obligation of Believing and not Faith it self For no man saith I am obliged to believe Because I believe But therfore I believe Because antecedently to my Faith I find my self obliged upon Prudent Reasons to believe as I do Thus much supposed 3. Make a search into all the Motives imaginable that may Prudently induce a Seeker after Truth to embrace Protestant Religion you shall find nothing proposed to Reason That hath the Appearance of Reason in it For example Ask first in General upon what Motive Extrinsecal to their Faith do these men own Protestancy as the only true and pure Religion Why dare they so boldly prefer it before the Faith of the long standing Catholick Church yea or before that of their homebred Sectaries of Quakers and Independents Silence will prove the best Answer They can Shew no Motive at all Perhaps we may hear them say They reject the Ancient Church because of its Errors and Novelties If so They first lamentably beg the question and Suppose that which is yet to be Proved 2. They answer not to the Difficulty For grant which is utterly false that the Church hath erred we ask not here for Arguments to Refute those Errors But inquire after Rational and perswasive Motives wherby Truth is proved to stand on the Protestant side A poor A poor Comfort to learn that my Religion is not good unles Sectaries prove theirs to be better Comfort God know's it is for me To hear from a Protestant that my Religion is not Right unles upon weighty Reasons He convince me that his is better For say I If the old Religion be naught This new one may be worse and more erroneous Sectaries are therfore oblig'd to bring in palpable Evidences wherby their Religion is positively demonstrated Credible and only the best which shall never be done 4. If yet to answer the Difficulty They take post Recourse to Scripture clear's not the difficulty to Scripture for Proof of their Religion They are out of the way and at the Conclusion before they put the Premises For in this place we make no inquiry after their formal act of Faith nor the immediate Object therof we know well their Answer But only Protestants have no Motives to believe contrary to the Church Or contrary to the Quakers Ask for the Rational Motive perceptible by all that preced's Faith and Prudently obligeth them to believe contrary both to the Ancient Church and their own honest Quakers And this if the Reply be pertinent must be evidenced Before they talk of a new Faith grounded on Scripture Had the Primitive Christians when they left of Judaism and Beleived Christ been Ask't Why they received Christs Doctrin and preferred that before their old Religion They would have answered The blind se the lame walk the dead arise c. We behold strange Wonders with our eyes which powerfully work upon Reason and cannot but proceed from God When therfore our Protestants deserted the Ancient Church and taught a new Faith contrary to it certainly some visible Apparent wonder A new Religion must have Signs of Truih and weighty Inducements some perswasive Sign of Truth should have ushered it in and sounded the Trumpet before these new Preachers All convinced by Reason should have cry'd out Here is Antiquity here is Vnity in Doctrin here we se the Pedigree of our Ancient Church Shew'd forth Now and not before our Eyes behold most glorious and undoubted Miracles God certainly speak's by these new men c. But when we look about us and find nothing to countenance this unknown Faith which like a Stranger came amongst us when we hear a Novelty preached without either Sign Motive or Inducement to make it Credible When we se a new Religion brought Words only given in by uncommissioned men upon their bare parole and unproved Fancies only what can we think But that both Arians and Pelagians yea and all condemned Haereticks have evidenced as strongly their old Errors by a verbal venting of them as Protestants do now their new Gospel For beside Words you have nothing to warrant it 5. Perhaps they will say They are a part of Christianity Old Motives no more for Protestants then for Arians and Therfore the old Motives belong to them I answer No more then to Arians or Pelagians who went as well under the name of Christians as Protestants do O But their Religion now professed is the Faith of the Primitive Church I dare swear it the Arians and our modern Quakers will yet A claim to the Primitive Faith no received Principle say as boldly They believe exactly the very Doctrin which pure Scripture Teaches But there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vast distance between saying and proving what is said by a Rational satisfactory and received Principle I say therfore their bare Assertion of holding the Primitive Faith which we utterly deny is so far from being either a probable or convincing Principle for
this Religion That it must be either further proved by Rational grounds or it is wholy Forceles and fall's to Nothing 6. They say again They have three evident Principles 3. Principles of Protestants answered to ground their new Faith on First What God speak's is true 2. Gods pure and uncorrupted Word is in their hands 3. They know what God speak's in this Word I answer the first Principle is certain The second more then doubtful The third on which all Relies and toucheth more upon their Faith then on any Rational Antecedent Motive evidencing it is demonstratively improbable For upon no Proof upon no received Principle By the light of no Rational Motive can these men so much as meanly show That They are better at knowing what God speak's in Scripture then a whole ample learned Church or then Their own Ancestors both knew of old and believed for a thousand years together These men long since deceased held and upon Scripture well understood as firmly the Real Presence of Christs Sacred Body in the Eucharist as a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence The first Protestants now Reject the Protestants Reject and Admit at pleasure other they Admit And why Upon what Conviction upon what Rational Motive do they take and leave assert and deny as they list Press this and other like particulars home instead of Reason or rational Proofs you shall have Their own reeling sentiments Sectaries self-seeming no proof given in for Answer And thus forsooth it is They read Scripture and verily it seem's to them It ought to be interpreted as they will have it I Ask a Reason for this new Seeming against the old received Sense And that very seeming which is in question you have prooflesly returned for an answer Observe well that I say here and you will find Protestancy reduced to Fancy only CHAP. XII Protestants for want of rational Motives cannot convert an Infidel to Christian Faith 1. IT hath often occurred to me If by a supposed They have no way to Convince a Heathen impossibility Schoolmen sometimes Argue so and profitably Popish Religion were utterly extinguished or the Proofs thereof quite rased out of all mens Memory yet that Protestants with all they can in justice lay claim to touching Religion should still stand in the world as now They do This Thought I say hath more then once seized on me Viz. How mean how poor how destitute and naked a Thing Protestancy would appear to be in the Eyes of either Iew or learned Heathen Philosopher For all it hath if yet it have so much is a borrowed Bible from others But no Miracles no undobted Marks of Truth no certain Tradition no Succession of Ancient Bishops no Pastors no Doctors In fine no Rational Motives if this Supposition stand can inable these new Owners of the Bible to say with Assurance This Book is Gods own Word and in This or this Sense God speaks by it 2. To clear the matter further Imagin That a learned Philosopher no Christian curious to learn A short Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Protestant what Christian Religion is as we now Suppose it only among Protestants and other Sectaries should for better satisfaction Address himself to so wise a man as Mr. Poole who I suppose will tell the Heathen That God is to be Adored in a certain Religion The Philosopher will Answer I doe so For my Religion is to follow Principles of nature to live a moral Life to submit to the Government I am under to do as I would be done by And here is All. O saith Mr. Poole Sr you have yet greater matters to look after you must believe in Christ if you will be saved Who was this Christ Demand's the Philosopher Poole He is God and Man born of a Virgin and one that manifested himself by a most Holy Life wrought many Miracles Dyed for us all Arose from Death to Life and afterward Ascended to Heaven Phil. A strange Story indeed But can you make the Story credible to my Reason Poole O Sr it is undoubted For this and much more is writ in a Holy Book we call Scripture And you are bound to believe it Phil. In a Book called Scripture Here is no Reason for I ask upon what Motive can you make All that is writ in this Book credible to me And here because I shall instantly press the point farther my Demand only is From Whom you received Scripture and how long since it came to your hands We had it saith Mr. Poole about a hundred When and from whom Sectaries had their Bible years agon partly from men that now are suppos'd forgot I think they were called Papists partly from other Haereticks as Arians Graecians of no great Credit for they are contrary to us Phil. And is it possible Dare you admit of this strange and Mysterious Bible upon no stronger proof then the Authority of Haereticks and such beguiled men Answ We do so For we have no better Testimony Phil. What Professors of Christianity had you in the world before your time That taught truely and purely the Doctrin of your Bible Poole For a thousand years at least we know not of any The best I can mention are the later Graecians and yet They highly dissent from us in points very fundamental as I read in Leo Alatius against Hottinger Arcudius and other Authors Phil. Tell me once more Had you no Professors No Pastors no Protestant Bishops of your Protestancy before these last hundred years no Protestant Bishops no Pastors no Doctors that handed unto you this Bible Poole None at all Phil. That is pittiful and makes me suspect your Religion However since these last hundred years have you made any known and notable Conversions upon Infidels by Preaching the Doctrin of your Bible or have you wrought undoubted Miracles in Confirmation of its Truth Answ We must Confess the want of great Conversions and of known Miracles also Phil. Satisfy me yet further in one doubt When you are at variance amongst your selves concerning the difficil passages of this Book which are many No cert Iudge to reconcile differences for I have read it who have you to Reconcile those differences in whose certain judgement do you finally Acquiesce Answ We acknowledge no infallible Teacher no certain Judge on Earth every man gives his private sentiment concerning those difficulties though not infallibly And 't is not in our power to do more Phil. Here can be no unity in Doctrin But No Commission to teach uncertain Doctrin say on I beseech you Tell me who sent you to teach these uncertain Sentiments of your Bible from whom had you Commission to preach such unsetled Doctrin You know that in Civil affaires if one uncommissioned assume to himself the Title of Legate or any Dignity in a Commonwealth he is either Traitor Tyrant or both You call your selves Legates sent from God you assume the Dignity
of Priesthood give me warrant for either show your letters Missive For if you cannot I may as prudently believe Arius old Haeresy as your new learning Truely Sr replyes Mr. Poole my Answer is The Lord I hope senr us I cannot say more 3. Here the Philosopher busies his thoughts and question 's Reason whether he may in prudence ground The Philosophers reflection his Belief in Christ upon a Mysterious and yet unevidenced Book which above thousand years together was never own'd by any true Professors of Christs Doctrin Whether he may do so upon the bare Word of these late men who without Mission began their Preaching only a hundred years agon Who have no unity want Miracles have made no Conversions nor are able to tell him what the Book saith in those difficil places that puzzle his understanding It is impossible saith he to Acquiesce without further Proofs drawn from Reason Tell me therfore good Mr. Poole seeing Scripture as you say contains strange Mysteries above my Reach and no few seeming Contradictions which standing in reason rather affright then invite me to accept of it can you give me Assurance by good Motives or Arguments Protestants cannot prove the Holy Scripture Not from Papists extrinsecal to the Book That it is Divine or writ by the holy Ghost and not by Chance of Ignorance or Illusion Answ I can First the Papists once owned this Book as Gods own hand Writing Phil. O never mention these men They are now as we suppose forgotten Surely you are able to evidence your Book which is the sole Ground of your Faith without Ayde or Arguments borrowed from Papists I 'll do it therfore saith Mr. Poole The Spirit of God bears witnes with my Spirit that this book is Divine and Gods Sacred Word I am yet an Infidel answer's the Philosopher Nor from the Spirit and know little of Gods Spirit much les of yours my search is only after Prudent Motives to which Reason ought to yeild and accept of this Book as Sacred and Divine Which Sr. you are oblig'd to produce and not wink and fight it out with me by an unknown Spirit which in Real Truth warrant 's as well a Jew to make good his Talmud or a Turk his Alcoran as you your Bible There is yet one Argument more saith Mr. Poole to prove the Divinity Nor from the Majesty of Stile of Scripture independent of Popish Tradition viz. The Majesty of the Stile the Sublimity of the Doctrin the Purity of the Matter c. These and the great Reverence all bear to Scripture seem powerful Inducements to admit of it as Gods Word Philosop They are strong Fancies of your own head and how void of all Reason I will evidently demonstrate Scripture not like the first Principles in Nature First no man can Assert that Scripture is the Primam Cognitum or per se Notum a Thing known Immediately by its own light as the first Principles of Nature are which yet this Majesty proves or nothing for if so I should se it yea and All without dispute would admit of one and the same Canon of Scripture 2. As much Majesty appear's in the Book of Wisdom or Ecclesiasticus which you Reject as in the Song of Salomon or Ecclesiastes Admitted by you 3. If contrary to our Supposition we might once call to mind that now forgotten Church of Popery There was no want you know it well either of exteriour Lustre Glory Majesty Conversions Miracles or of Preaching sublime Doctrin to set it forth Yet this Glory and Majesty you scornfully cast of as an Insufficient Proof for that Church and here without either Conscience or Reason you Adore a far lesser Exteriour Majesty and by it will Out-brave me with a Book the Truths wherof are yet as unmanifested to me by Arguments drawn from Reason as those very Writings are which you call Apocryphal 4. And here by the way observe your great Nor by the Purity of it which is the thing to be proved Simplicity in arguing You prove the Divinity of Scripture by the Purity and Majesty of it The first is in question For I who have perused Scripture and find no few seeming Contradictions in it must have my doubts cleared and that Purity evidenced by Proofs extrinsecal to Scripture before I believe it Pure Concerning the Majesty of the Stile Learn your Error Two things are to be distinguished in The Exteriour Connexion of words not the Divinity of Scripture Scripture The Exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words we read which solely considered is common to other pious Books writ by Holy men without Special Assistance of the Holy Ghost And here is all the visible Majesty that Scripture presents either to our eyes or Reason which therfore convinceth nothing What makes Scripture Divine The other is and herein consists the Vertue and Majesty of Scripture That God by his firm Decree and gracious Ordinance hath pleased to seal as it were This Book and own it as his Sacred Word Now this signature because External to the Letter or Syntax of Scripture is no Object of Sense nor your reason For you do not evidence it by Antecedent None proves the Bible by his Faith but his Faith by the Bible antecedently owned Sacred The Reverence shewed to Scripture no proof rational motives You may well say it is the Object of your Faith or Fancy But I hope you will not prove the Divinity of your Bible by your Faith but Evidence your Faith by your Bible Antecedently proved Divine to Reason by good Inducements Hence I Answer to that weak Argument drawn from the Respect and Reverence which all give to Scripture And say it carrieth not one grain of Weight with it For even Christians much more Infidels must first know upon Prudent Inducements That the Bible is Sacred before they Reverence it and not prove it Sacred Because they Reverence it For none proves this man to be a Prince or Prelate because he doth him Homage But therfore He complyes with that duty because he is Antecedently known or owned for a Person of such quality Here saith the Philosopher are a few Exceptions against your Religion and my Difficulties proposed To solve them 5. Believe it old Papists hitherto forgot must Catholicks prove their Religion shew themselves and be remembred again They and only they though we Imagin no Scripture written are able by an Oral and never interrupted Tradition to Assure a Heathen of Christ our Lord of the Miracles he wrought of the Apostles he called to Found a Church of the great Conversions they made They And the Scripture and they alone can warrant Authentick written Scripture and show who writ it and how it was handed down by continued Professers of their Faith Age after Age to this present day They and only they do still preserve Vnity in Doctrin Reclaim Infidels Shew their Credentials Produce their Credentials for what
they Preach and teach They only can shew to all the World their Popes their Bishops their Pastors their Doctors who successively have taught and governed Christs Flock since the Beginning of Christianity They and only And glorious Marks of a long standing Church they shew you a Church marked and made glorious by innumerable known and undoubted Miracles a Faith seal'd with the Blood of innumerable Blessed Martyrs Beautified with such eminent Sanctity and Holynes of life in thousands as hath caused Admiration to very Infidels and drawn in no few to follow the like Austerity Such are the Inducements which plead strongly for the Roman Catholick Religion and no other They fully convince Reason and prove That if God as I noted above can conquer Infidelity and Haeresy by the force of prudential Motives here they are seen If ever he spoke by As God spake anciently by his Prophets and Apostles he speak's now by the Church the mouth of his Prophets or Apostles he speak's now by the mouth of this one and only Society of Christians yea and he yet useth as I may say the same powerful Language For if the miracles of our Blessed Lord and of his Apostles if their efficacious Doctrin their Sanctity of life their Blood shedding were Conviction enough to Infidels in those days They are now as forceable in the Church and as manifest to our Senses Which caused that Blessed man Richard de S. Victore lib. 1. de Trin. c. 2. to exclaim Si error est quem credidimus à te decepti sumus If it be error we Believe it is you who have deceived us Iis enim signis c. For with such Signs this Doctrin is confirmed which can proceed from none but you only If we speak of unquestioned Miracles as are the Resuscitation of dead men More since the times of the Apostles have been raised from death to life then in the Primitive Age. To deny these miracles is is to deny all History which supplyes the want of senses in Those who saw them not To owm them to disown Protestancy and profess plain Popery Our new men Therfore speak at random when they talk of I know not what Abstracted Evidences for Christian Religion and Tell us that the Motives for Scripture are agreed on by all I answered above No Evidence for Christian Religion in general nor for Scripture but by the Church There neither are nor can be Motives for Christian Religion in general if the word Christian compriseth all professed Haereticks For were it so God would deceive us and make Falshood as credible as Truth No Motives can evidence Scripture unles they first evidence a Church that indubitably gives us certain Scripture Which is to say in other Terms All Motives as well for the verity of Christian Faith as Scripture are only to be found in the Roman Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians If Protestants can prove their Faith or Scripture by so much as a likelyhood of either These now Named Sectaries are obliged in Conscience to make their Motives known or any better Inducements They are obliged in Conscience to make them known that men at last may se that clear Light of the Gospel wherof they endlesly talk in their Pulpits True Candor and Sincerity cannot but speak plainly to this Point without intricate Tergiversation if so much as a spark of zeal lives in their Harts and Rational Motives do not fail them We expect a candid answer CHAP. XIII Protestancy for want of Rational Motives dishonor's Christ and makes way for any new coyned Haeresy 1. I prove the Assertion That Religion highly Protestancy dishonor's Christ dishonors Christ which must of Necessity confess That a False erroneous Church is more eminently glorious and better marked with all evident Signs of Truth then that pure Orthodox Religion is which Christ hath now established in the world But Protestants must confess thus much And to prove my Minor ad hominem I need no more But two Proved by their owne Principles certain Principles of their own One is The Roman Catholick Religion hath been at least for a thousand years Erroneous yea some say Anti-Christian it still contradict's the Primitive Doctrin Holds an Unbloody Sacrifice Transubstantiation Purgatory c. contrary to Scripture Such Doctrins gave Sectaries just cause as they say to leave this Church and Lash us so severly as they have done to pull down our Monasteries to Bannish the Ancient Clergy to Ruin those who professed our Religion They were not meer Trifles nor petty mistakes which made our kind harted Countrymen to use us so unkindly Here is my first Principle granted by Protestants The second is as clear viz. That their new Religion of Protestancy as it stands now Reformed is the pure true and most Orthodox Christian Religion For set this and the Primitive Church aside of three or four hundred years continuance You never yet had say they any Society of men that taught purely Christs Doctrin No God wot a Deluge of Popish Errors overran Christianity for a thousand years together until these later men brought unto us the Joyful Tydings of their Refined Gospel 2. Upon these two undeniable Suppositions you shall plainly se what an Eternal Disgrace what Affronts Protestants will needs put upon our Dearest Saviour do what we can to hinder them He Blessed Lord founded a Church it cost him dear the Effusion of his Sacred Blood and promised us an Indeficient glorious Church to be raised out of all Nations yet after all these ample Promises he hath A glorious Church promised and an obscure one shewed us of Protestancy given us a pittiful one indeed no better a Thing then Protestancy which is utrerly disgraced obscur'd dishonor'd and quite put down by the Majesty the Miracles the Antiquity the Vnity the Sanctity of that Church which must now forsooth be stiled False Erroneous and Antichristian If this pass for current Doctrin you have with it sport enough for the How Christ is dishonored Devil and Protestants only make it Who upon their warrant may most justly reproach both Christ and his Church and thus powerfully plead at the bar of Reason Saviour of the world My false Popish Anti-Christian Church hath stood a thousand years in Error How the Devil may plead and most rationally if Protestants speak Truth yours of Protestancy only a hundred in Truth Mine both is and hath been Universally spread the whole World over yours yet see 's little out of some few corners in Europe My Church hath had most learned General Councils yours never any Mine produceth a long continued Succession of Popes of Bishops of Pastors yours not a man before Luther Mine is glorious with those very Notes and Marks of Truth which you manifested in your own Sacred Person and induced Infidels to Believe you Your late Congregation shewes nothing like them My false Church Fasteth Prayeth Contemplat's Converts more then
yours it hath more Unity in Faith Yours is Rent and torn apieces with Divisions And Loe great God Here is that Glorious Edifice which you after all your perfect Idea's of a Church have erected For this you dyed and never shed your Blood to Establish my false erroneous Synagogue of Popery Permit Reason to judge in this case and say whether the Devil be an ill Advocate if Protestants avouch Truth And stand to their professed Doctrin That the Church of Rome drowned in a Deluge of Errors abandoned the first Verities of Christian Religion for a thousand years together And that their Church as it is now in Being is the most choise goodly and only refined Religion in the world 3. My last Argument hinted at in the Title is Foundations laid of new Haeresies thus A new coyned Haeresy without Motives of Credibility may be as well or better defended by plain speaking Scripture then Protestancy It is believe me the easiest thing in the world to draw Haeresy out of the Words of Scripture To make good my Assertion Read first St. Hierom in his Dialogue S. Hieroms Reflection Adversus Luciferianos Paris Print anno 1509. at the very end of the Dialogue This great Doctor then to reduce some beguiled by the Luciferians who held that a Bishop or Priest once Deserting their Faith could never again be admitted into the Church which they endeavored to prove by that text of St. Matthew cap. 5. v. 13. You are the Salt of the earth but if the salt hath lost its savor wherwith shall it be salted Ad nihilum valet ultra it is good for nothing hereafter c. St. Hierom I say to refute these hath an excellent Reflection Nec sibi blandiantur si de Scripturae Capitulis videntur sibi assumere c. Let them not flatter themselves if they seem to assume out of Scripture Of Errors drawn from Scripture what they say For the Devil hath spoken things out of Scripture Scripture God know's doth not consist in what we read but in the sense of it Otherwise saith the Saint Possumus nos c. I am able to coin a new Opinion out of Scripture and say That none are to be received into the Church that wear shoos or have two coats For that is Scripture 4. It were most easy to go on with this true Reflection of St. Hierom and draw new Haeresies every Particulars hour from Scripture One will say The Sabbath-day is to be kept Sacred in place of Sunday and bring Scripture for it Exod. 20. 8. Another That we are as well to abstain from Eating of Blood or things Strangled as from Fornication it is a Decree of the Apostolical Council and Scripture Actor 15. 29. A third That Infants aae not to be Baptized There is ground for it Matth. 28. A fourth That we are not to Contend in Law but quit our Coat if any man will take it and Cloak also Matt. 5. A fifth That no Euangelical Preacher is to carry Gold or Silver with him or have two Coats Matt. 10. 7. 5. Suppose that a new Sect of men should rise up A new Sect of men rising up this year in whole Multitudes and rigidly adhere to the exact letter of Scripture in these Particulars is it possible to convince them by Scripture It is impossible And have they not think ye more plain Text's of Gods Word for these Tenents then Protestants have for pure Protestancy Yea most evidently For they produce nothing but express Scripture without Glosses And do they not believe in Christ and admit of every jota in Scripture Yea and therfore are sound in Fundamentals Moreover Do they not acknowledge both Christ and Scripture upon the same Tradition or other Evidences as Protestants do Yea and are ready perhaps to joyn in Belief with them when they se Scripture as plain for any Protestant Doctrin They only add a Superstructure Have as good a Church as Luther had of these Articles And have They not as good a Church as Luther and Calvin had a year after their new Preaching Yes They swarm with multitudes of Followers and multitudes make a Church Why then is not the Belief of these men all grounded in Scripture as good as that of Protestants I think it is of two Evils the Better if more Words of Scripture can more advance the Worth of either Religion But I tell you and truly That neither of them is good because unreasonable and they are therfore unreasonable Because no mans Reason can in this present state of Christianity whilst God Govern's us by the Light of Prudence fall upon a Religion or Believe a Church which evidently Appears A Religion without prudent Motives is no Religion naked and destitute of all Rational motives inductive to True Belief Now Scripture alone without the Interpretation of a Church evidenced by forcible Motives is what you please to make of it And a Church not at all manifested by rational motives is no Church and Therfore cannot interpret Scripture If you ask why we say That Protestancy is so bare of Motives and consequently no Church I have answered above Because this Religion never had nor shall have any such perswasive Inducements or the like Signs of Truth for it as Christ Iesus and his Blessed Apostles manifested when they first taught the World and by virtue of those Motives gained innumerable Souls to Christianity Look then about you and find me out a Society of Christians that is evidenced by such Signs as hold a strict Analogy with those of Christ and his Apostles and you have the True Church But this is the Roman Catholick Church What proved Christianity anciently proves now the Roman Catholick Church only and no other as I have largely proved Dare you therfore own the true Christ and his Blessed Apostles who wrought Miracles lived Holily preached Efficaciously upon such Motives You must also own this true Church upon the like grounded Proofs Were Miracles Sanctity Efficacious Doctrin c. Rational inducements to Believe in Christ They are now both powerful and perswasive to Believe this Church To Deny as I said above all Miracles to this Church even the greatest as is the Raysing of dead men to life is to Deny Sense Reason History The forceable Motives of Faith cannot be taken from our Church and all Authority And to appropriate These and other Motives to Protestants is only an attempted Plagiary which cannot be done It is true These men glory in a stolen Bible and 't is all they can pretend to besides the bare name of a fruitles and unevidenced Church but the marks and Characters of a true Church They shall never have nor take from us And thus much of infallible Teachers and the Motives of true Faith THE SECOND DISCOVRS OF SCRIPTVRE THE FIRST CHAPTER Scripture is useles if none declare infallibly the sense of it 1. WHen on the one side I consider
Papists erred in Doctrin They might more easily have erred in corrupting Scripture Purity or say it is the Word of God and not corrupted by These erring Papists For These men who erred in Doctrin might as well have insinuated errors into the Book of Scripture They had time enough to do it These men who changed the Ancient Primitive Faith of Christianity might as perfidioufly have Altered the Bible They wrought secretly a fals Belief into mens harts concerning an unbloody Sacrifice Transubstantiation c. And why might they not as cunningly have foisted into Scripture Words and Sentences suitable to such supposed errors Believe It is easier to corrupt â— dead book then to pervart innumerable living men it it is much easier to corrupt a dead Book then to pervert so many living Christians and bring them to a Belief of so palpable hideous and erroneous Novelties 5. Here then is my Dilemma Either the Catholick A Dilemma Church had erred when Luther and Protestants took the Book of Scripture from it or was pure in Doctrin If pure Most wicked were They for deserting it If the Church had then erred or was corrupted in Doctrin Neither Luther nor any Protestant can have Affurance that they read yet True Scripture For all the Certainty They can have of this Book is miserably uncertain and at last Comes to this doubtful Iudgement It may be we have true Scripture It may be and more likely not God only An unanswerable Argument knows All depend's on an Erroneous Church that gave us Scripture which might as well in the vast compass of a thousand years have guilfully changed this our Book from its Ancient Truth as cheated Christianity into a fals Belief 6. Some may yet say All now Agree as well Catholicks as Protestants upon the Verity and Integrity of Scripture Therfore its needles for many Books at least to Question this point farther I answer Protestants destroy the very Ground of Certainty Catholicks agree well Becaus they take this Book upon the Warrant of Christs never erring Church which cannot Deceive them But Protestants who Ruin this Ground of Infallibility destroy with it all Certainty of scripture in order to themselves Their Agreement therfore is no more but Verbal whilst the Principle which supports a Real one is shaken a pieces by them Hence you se How Mr. Poole speaks at Catholicks Confession no Proof of the Truth of Scripture to Mr. Poole random when he Tell 's us He knows Scripture to be the Word of God Becaus Catholicks confess and acknowledge so much I answer first Their Testimony with him is worth nothing For They had before he was born lost all Credit by introducing fals Doctrin into the Christian World and why not say I as well a fals Bible Such Doctrins He dares not admit of upon the Testimony of Catholicks yet With no colour of reason do Protestants Admit of a Bible upon the Churches Testimony and reject her Testimony in other matters He will Kiss their Hands and Take from them such a Bible as They are pleased to give him 2. The Testimony of Catholicks in this particular is with him Fallible and may be Fals But a Testimony that may be fals can never give any Assurance of True Scripture which of necessity must be had or none can ground Faith upon it 3. Mr. Poole is pittifully out in all he saith For he neither Doth nor can Admit of Scripture upon the Confession or Testimony of Catholicks Why Catholicks hold Scripture to be The Church holds her own Testimony Infallible Mr. Poole rejects this therfore he makes null the Churches Testimony to himself the Word of God Becaus the Infallible Church of Christ Assures them it is Gods Word This infallible Testimony of the Church Mr. Poole utterly Disown's and Therfore he must of necessity by his own Principles Reject the Catholick Testimony 7. Other perhaps will say That God by Special Providence ever preserved Scripture pure in all Essentials Though He permitted the Church to deceive Souls and lead them into Error What an Antiscriptural Assertion have we Here How is God Affronted What a lame and half Providence is granted him Sectaries affront God by allowing him no more Then a half Providence What no more but only to have care of a Book to secure That from falshood and in the interim to Permit his own immaculate Spouse his Church which Scripture should instruct to play the Harlot to Deceive the World and err Damnably O but what er'e becom's of the Church we must say our Protestants have True and incorrupt Scripture or no man can know what he is to Believe I answer And we must either have a True and incorrupt Church or none can be Assured of True and incorrupt Scripture It avail's little to have Verities shut up in a Bible if the Church erred in delivering them to Christians Say I beseech you what doth it avail Christianity to have the Pure letter of Scripture clos'd up in a Bible and preserved from Error if Christians Universally had been as it were Deserted by Almighty God and permitted before Protestants appeared in the World to Err in the very Substantials of Faith delivered in Scripture Yet it was so For confessedly not only those Antient condemned Haereticks as Arians Protestants say all Christians erred for a thousand years Pelagians Donatists and the Later Graecians but also that great moral body of Catholicks if our Protestants say true Erred in the very Fundamentals of Faith Since they Taught as they do still their Church to be Infallible an unbloody Sacrifice c. Gross errors therfore Reign'd amongst them whether we suppose the Scripture Pure or corrupted Imagin then which is utterly Fals Though Haereticks cannot prove it fals That our Scripture had been corrupted They had then Erred becaus the Book was falsified Suppose again which is True that Scripture is not corrupted you have still the same Effect which is Error in Doctrin drawn out of the very Words of pure Scripture The Reason surely is Becaus the Church did not rightly understand Scripture if so you se how Scripture not understood as easily begett's Errors as Error equally prejudicial whether it be caused by a false Church or falsified Scripture if it were corrupted What then matters it in Reference to poor beguiled Souls whether these great supposed Errors arise from Scripture misunderstood or Scripture corrupted Error is Error and alike Prejudicial in both cases I say therfore It is as great an Evil to have a Church that should teach Truth to deceive the world in bringing in a Deluge of Errors to the Ruin of the Ancient Primitive Faith as to have a Bible corrupted For 't is Error and fals Doctrin wrought in mens Harts That undoes them Now whether That be caused by a fals Church or falsified What Sectaries ought to fear Scripture it imports little Our Protestants Affirm the first and may
justly Fear the second God say they permitted the Church to Err and he may say I as well have permitted it to Vitiat Scripture They say Errors Insensibly grew up in the Church And I say they might as Insensibly have crept into Scripture Be it how you will from this Old erring Church Our New men suppose They received pure sincere and uncorrupted Scripture just as the Holy Ghost writ it A meer Impossibility For never greater Chimaera was fancied then to couple a Fals Church and True Scripture together â—â— True Scripture and a Vniversal fals erring Church 8. Some perhaps may say The Arians Donatists and other Haereticks had and have still True Scripture though they erred in Doctrin I answer No God a mercy to them For if They have True Scripture They may thank an unerring Church that preserved it uncorrupt before Heresy began and after But grant me No assurance of true Scripture if all Erred universally once as our Protestants do that both Haereticks and Catholicks likewise universally erred in Doctrin most Fundamental no man can now have Assurance of True Scripture O but the Unanimous Voice of all Christians Affirming Scripture to be the Word of God and pure without corruption is a Weighty moral Proof for its Integrity I answer none at all For if no Society of Christians unerrable and sound in Doctrin had that book in Custody The old Papists might for ought Protestants know have either by Chance or Fraud changed words in Scripture For example Those words Matt. 26. This is my body from what they once were This is a sign of my body and the Cheat was to maintain their Doctrin of the Real Presence But you will ask how could this be done I have told you By Malice or Inadvertency But when could it be done I answer in that Could Sectaries say when Papists first became Idolaters They might be informed concerning these Corruptions very Age Year or Month when these Papists first began to be Idolaters and worship a piece of Bread for God Then it might well be don Name that age Exactly and you have all Our new men Answer This Idolatry was brought in amongst us But they knew not When it began with such Secrecy and Silence This Text of Scripture therfore I say might have been corrupted with like Secrecy Though no man knows when And here by the way observe a strange Paradox of our Protestants So notorious a known A Strange Paradox of Protestants Novelty as this supposed Idolatry is which might most justly have Struck Terror into all mens Harts Visibly entred a Church diffused the whole World over yet none neither Friend nor Foe saw it cryed out against it or Has left it upon Record And one single Particle of Scripture cannot be changed but all must know it How can these two Consist together You will say The Primitive Church was Pure and so preserved true Scripture How do our Protestants know so much if it was Fallible Thus much of an Argument ad hominem which I desire Mr. Poole to Answer not to mistake As he may do if he think my endeavor is to prove Scripture corrupted in any Substantial Point no! 'T were Blasphemy to say it The Argument therfore proceeds from the Protestants fals Supposition yet true with them that the Church is fallible and has erred Then I say None of them can have Assurance of their Bible or of True incorrupt Scripture CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher 1. HEre is my second Proposition And nothing can be more evident might he Evidence of a known Truth prevail with Wilful men Arians we see are against Protestants in the Essentials of Faith Protestants against Catholicks and They against Both. All of them Acknowledge Scripture to be Gods Word Sectaries deny the Plainess of Scripture yet every one in practise Denies the Perspecuity and Plainess of it For if plain Why stand they at Variance with one another about this Plainess Protestants Doctrin is plainly delivered in the 39. Articles The Arians Doctrin is plainly in Their Writings The Catholick Doctrin most plainly in every Catechism No Advers party Impugn's these Doctrins for want of a plain Expression but for want of Truth It is quite contrary in Scripture for He were a Devil that should mention the want of Truth in Gods Word yet you see most Learned men vary about this Clearnes seek for it and cannot find it Though I have partly given the Reason Hereof yet Becaus the matter requires it I shall now add a word more for a further Explication 2. All know that the Objective Verities writ in Holy Objective Verities and the belief of them different Scripture and the Belief of those Verities in a Christians Hart are to be distinguished By the first God speak's to us By the second we yeild Belief to his Word All know likewise That if my Belief be true Faith it must say Exactly and expres that in mente which God speak's in Scripture neither more nor les And this is Saving Faith not the Objective Verities not saving Faith Objective Verity as it lyes in Scripture For if that could save us it would be enough to put a Bible in ones Pocket And say here is the Faith that saves me Though I know not what is in it or Believe Amiss Thus much is clear without Dispute in an Orthodox and an Arian whilst they turn to that passage of Scripture and Read I and my Father are one Both of them have the same Objective Verity before their eyes But the One only hath the True Belief of it in his Hart. Observe now How darkly Scripture speak's in this one great Fundamental Article And how easily we may swerve from One Instance of Scriptures Obscurity this Revealed Truth without an Infallible Interpreter For the words precisely considered may either signify unity in Affection as appears Iohn 17. v. 21. 22. or a Consubstantial unity and in this Indifferency to several Sectaries gloss The Church Interpret's senses lyes their Obscurity To Clear all and make them speak a Full sense the Arian superadds his Gloss and draws out of the Text as also from that other Iohn 1. 5. 7. no more but a Vnity in Affection only which is Haeresy The Catholick Interpretation teacheth a Consubstantial Vnity or One-nes in Essence and 'T is true Faith yet is no more formal expres Scripture then that of the Arian For Consubstantiality is no where Formally read in Scripture However it is believed and ground 's our Faith whilst the Arians Gloss is rejected And why hath it this Preference think ye Why is it better then the Arians No other Reason can be rendred but a most True one Viz. That the Church doth not only fully Express the Objective Verity darkly couch'd in Scripture But also Delivers this Full and clearer sense Infallibly For I say If the Churches Interpretation
If the Churches Interpretation were as fallible as the Arians Christians might follow either as they please were as fallible as the Arians Christians might indifferently Adhere to Either yea and changeably now take one then the other as they please A greater Probability can ballance nothing in this or the like particulars as I shall largely prove hereafter In the mean while by what is now said we may learn first Though Scripture in this and other Mysteries hath its Darknes yet by the good Providence of Almighty God we are provided of a Sure Interpreter which is absolutely Necessary For if Every one interpret according to fancy Haeresy is easily Drawn out of Gods Word And if none interpret Faithfully the Scripture still lyes hid in Obscurity which makes it for that part a Useles Book to Christians The necssity of an infallible Interpreter Learn farther That None can ever know exactly by Human Industry or his Sole pondering the Bible let him be another Salomon for Wisdom what God hath Revealed in these difficil Mysteries of our Faith without an Infallible Interpreter To prove my Assertion I 'll give you one Instance 3. Suppose that two or three most learned Heathen Philosopher well versed in Languages and all Human Literature had this Book of Scripture put into their Hands and were perswaded by the extrinsecal An instance of Philosoohers reading the Bible Authority of all Christians that God here speak's his Eternal Verities Withall That if they read the Book and by their Sole reading without Recours to any Interpreter possess the True sense of it They have True Saving Faith Well They read it and with as much Humility as any Protestant can do yet If They ask of none but Their own Iudgement errour followes Ask of none But their own judgement what it means in the more difficil Passages Tell me I beseech you And here I appeal to the moderate Iudgement of every Christian whether Catholick Arian or Protestant What Faith or Religion would these Philosophers produce out of Sole Scripture Solely Read and pondered by them My Thought is 'T is no more but a Thought That the Result of their Reading would end in Coyning a Religion different from all Others now in Christendom I am very confident They would never pitch upon Protestancy no nor Their doubts would be Endles upon any Sect now extant Alas they would Doubt and Stagger at every hard passage in Scripture yea and by the very Instinct of Nature if they own'd Scripture for Gods Book would humbly Supplicate Those who gave them the Book to lay open the Mysteries therin and Assure them of its meaning in a hundred Places yet none can do this good office for them But One only Society of Christians that layes claim to Infallibility and proves it Demonstratively if Faith be in the World 4. Be it how you will thus much I conclude Our Protestants are in the very same Case without an infallible Interpreter as the Philosophers are with Sectaries are in the very same case without an Infallible Interpreter no Interpreter These make Scripture speak what They think it speaks right or wrong And Protestants do the like whilst They give their sentiment on Mysteries above their Reach without an Infallible Teacher Pray you Reflect Had Christ Iesus and his Apostles never Taught any thing by Word of Mouth But only thrown the Book of Scripture amongst Christians Strange Confusions Had Christ and his Apostles given to Christians a Bible without an Interpreter when They left the World and commanded them to make that use of it which every Private Iudgement thought best what a Religion think ye should we have had at this day in Christianity any or none or a thousand different ones as good as none God only knows I do not Yet will say This is out very present Condition if an infallible Interpreter of Scripture be Rejected We may wrangle to the Dissentions would have followed without hope of union Worlds end but agree in nothing Dispute but conclude nothing we may raise Difficulties one against another But allay none And thus the contest must run on without Redres or Remedy All Appellation here to Antiquity to Councils Fathers Appellation to Antiquity remedies nothing being fallible with Protestants and Tradition help 's nothing Becaus they are Fallible And were they otherwise we vary as highly about the Sentiments of Fathers in every debated point of Controversy as we do about Scripture it self 5. We se thirdly How utterly impossible it is for a Protestant to draw from the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture the True Sense and meaning of Gods Word in any controverted point of Religion The Reason is Scripture never speak's plainly and expresly the Protestants Sense in these debated Controversies observe it in All and you 'll find it so What do they therfore to help themselves They first Reject an Infallible Interpreter and next as the Arians do superadd their own Fallible glosses to make Sectaries make Scripture to speak what They would have it say not what God speak's Scripture speak not what it Truly says But what They would have it say And thus they think Scripture cleared and Their Work don Take here one Instance for many Catholicks and Protestants have been at Variance a hundred years and more about these Sacred Words Matt. 26. This is my Body The different Senses drawn from them are Contradictory And therfore cannot be True This is my Body Really saith the Catholick and here is my internal Faith No saith the Protestant This is my Body figuratively or a Sign of my Body And this is my Belief Arians and Protestants vitiate Scripture after the same manner Mark I beseech Just as the Arian saith I and my Father are one and superadds his Gloss of one in Affection so the Protestant here vitiates the Text by his Gloss and adds to Scripture what God never spoke a Trope a Figure a Sign and I know not what And after This Injury don to the Words He Believes not for Gods Express Word But for his own far-fetcht and dear bought Interpretations which are no more Scripture then if he should tell me That An Example That text of St. Matthew cap. 3. verse 17. This is my beloved Son were to be forcibly stript of its Verity and misinterpreted Thus This is only a Sign or Figure of my Beloved Son No more doth Scripture through the whole Gospel warrant in the least an Improperty of speech in the one Text now cited then in the other I little Regard The Protestant dscourses and glosses contrary to this Mystery of Faith let us have plain Scripture much les their Inferences which are all Human and Fallible O but to say that Christ Body is Really Present under the Species of Bread yea and in a thousand places at Once is an Vnintelligible Mystery Why more Unintelligible then a Trinity of Persons in one Essence
or the unchangeable Divine Word seemingly Changed when he took Flesh upon him and became an Infant These are Higher Mysteries and greater Difficulties If Human Reason might be judge and give a final Sentence But I 'll tell you once for all That man shall never be a Proficient in Christs School that will undertake to conquer High Mysteries no to be pried into by our weak discourses as I may say the great Difficulties of Faith by Examining the High Mysteries of it If he goe so to work he is cast into a Labyrinth and can find no Exit All therfore he is to do is to Learn and Examin whether God the Infallible Truth hath Revealed and taught us these Mysteries by any unerring Oracle Next How we are to submit in matters of Faith He is to Captivate his understanding And humbly Submit to him without further search who neither can be Deceived nor will Deceive us But enough of this Digression 6. We se thirdly Though Protestants Anathematize The whole Religion of Protestants is nothing els but addition to Scripture or subtraction from it all that Add to Gods Word or Take from it yet I 'll tell you Their whole Religion as Protestancy is either made up of no Scripture at all or is nothing els but a meer Addition of their own Glosses to Scripture or finally a wilful Subtraction from it To the Words now cited they add a sign a figure and God knows what more Is this Scripture When St. Iames 2. cap. 24. Dogmatically teaches that a man is Justified by Works and not by Faith only our New men tell us the Apostle speak's not of Justification before God but before Men. Is this Scripture When St. Paul Rom. 2. 6. plainly Affirm's That God will render to every one according to his Works Calvin and Beza Assure us He will do so indeed if there were any such But the Mischief is None can do a Good Work before God Is this Scripture No. These and such like Interpretations Our Adversaries do not own for Scripture yet They must own them as Tenents Essential to their Religion Ergo I say Meer Fallible Glosses which are no Scripture make up Protestant Religion as Protestancy And hence Doctrin of the 39 Articles as Protestancy not Scripture it is that their Doctrin delivered in the 39. Articles stand's there with all Clearnes that is you know what they say But when 't is Brought to the Test and is examined by Scripture you may seek long before ye find a word like it as 't is Protestancy 7. You see lastly That the Interpretations which Protestants give to those Texts of Scripture cited by How Sectaries abuse Scripture cited for Catholick Doctrin Catholicks for their Doctrin are meer Human Extra-scriptural and Anti-scriptural Glosses of their own Fancy We cite the Apostle 2. Thess 2. 15. For Tradition beside the Written Word For the Real Presence This is my Body Matt. 26. For Iustification by Good Works that of St. Iames 2. 14. For a Sacrifice to be continued to the Worlds End Malac. 1. 11. For Extream-Vnction Iames the 5. 14. For the Verity and Infallibility of the Church that of St. Paul 1. Timot. 3. 15. And what for Gods sake have we from our New Men to these plain Passages speaking Popery But a Return of meer Mock-fool Glosses Hatch't in their own Heads which have so little Shadow of Scripture in them That with force they drive the very life and sense out of Gods Word And They proceed so unluckily Sectaries make Scripture clear where 't is obscure and obscure where 't is clear That where Scripture is clear They make it obscure and where it is obscure They will seem to make it Clear by superaded glosses What can be more clear for our Catholick Doctrin of the Real Presence then those words of St. Luke 22. v. 19. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur This is my body which is given for you Yet with their Glosses they so Torture the Text That every Particle in it suffers Violence In so much that Iacobus Scripture tortured by Sectaries Gordonus observes in his first Tome of Controversies printed anno 1612. Controversia prima de Verbo Dei cap. 26. n. 11. pag. 121. No fewer then two hundred different Glosses have been added by Protestants to Obscure the plain sense of Christs own Words Some as this Author notes abuse and misinterpret the Pronoun Hoc Others the Verbe Est Others Corpus Others meum Others the Relative quod Others the Proposition pro Others the Pronoune Vobis Others finally the Verb Datur Yet after all this perverting and woful mangling of Gods Word we must Believe that our Protestants speak forsooth Scripture and nothing but clear Scripture On the contrary side we have seen more then enough in the Beginning of this Chapter how Vainly They cry up the Clarity of Scripture in Mysteries most difficil not fully expressed in Gods Word What man in his Wits can say That any Scripture through the whole Testament Speak's half so clearly of the Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son with his Eternal Father as the Text now quoted is for the Real Presence Yet those Scriptures must be Clear for that Christian Verity and this Obscure for the Real Presence 8. To conclude this point Methinks it highly imports when we deal with our Adversaries concerning How to proceed with Sectaries when They Explicate Scripture Their Explications of Scripture That we do not so much at least in the first place make it our Work Positively to Disprove them by other Texts and Authorities which our Writers usually do and laudably as to put them to the Proof of their wild Glosses which seem's most Reasonable For Asserenti incumbit probatio When therfore They go about to Obscure Scripture where it is plain with new Interpretations the world never heard of bid them not only Interpret but Prove Their Interpretations For example That the words of our Saviour now cited must be alienated from their genuin Sense and tortured as they are by Protestants Proceed thus with them put them to the Proof and you 'l soon see them at a Nonplus CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 1. MY first proposition Draw's Proof enough from the precedent Chapter For if Scripture be Obscure and speak not clearly all Verities revealed in the book it cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter But 't is more then evident that it speaks not clearly many Verities Concerning the Highest Mysteries of Religion Therfore it cannot Regulate Faith relating to These Mysteries without an Interpreter I prove the Minor Scripture which solely considered according to the Exterior Letter both may The bare letter of Scripture may and doth easily beget error and Doth as easily beget Error as Truth in the Intellectual Power of man Speak's
a lawful Syllogism wherby They prove That Their Reason hath ever the good luck the singular Priviledge to fall right on the True sense whilst No Princiciple to prove that Protestants reason hitt's right Others as learned as They swerve from it If here They talk of the Vnction teaching Truth of the Spirit c. They will be urged again for a Principle to prove That these Favors singularly belong to Them and not to Others who Dissent from them But we will wave this Argument And only note how in all those Disputes which our Protestants hold either with Catholicks or Sectaries take for an Instance the Arians the True sense of Scripture is so far of from being a The sense of Scripture when Two Sectaries dispute is Ever the thing in Question received Principle by both these Litigious Parties That it is ever the Thing in Question and must be proved by another own'd and admitted Principle if the Discours stand upon solid ground 3. One example will give you more Light Mr. Poole Assaults an Arian a far weaker Adversary then a 'T is proved by an Instance Catholick with a Scriptural Proof for that High Mystery of our Faith the Sacred Trinity and argues thus Scripture saith Iohn 1. c. 5. 7. There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father Word and Holy Ghost and these three are one But the Sense of this Scripture saith Mr. Poole is That God is one in Essenceâ— and Three Distinct Persons The Father Vnproduced the Son Produced and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Both. Ergo we must admit a Trinity Observe well The Arian Admit's the first Proposition or the Words of Scripture And here is the only Principle agreed on by these two Disputants But utterly denyes the second Viz. The Sense drawn out of these Words And tell 's The Arian admit's of the words of Scripture but denies Mr. Pooles sense his Adversary that this Sense is the very Thing in question but no received Principle And therfore must be proved not supposed against him Proved I say and by Sole Scripture which yet cannot be done Though we turn to all the Texts in the Bible Most justly therfore may the Arian tell Mr. Poole If his Faith fall upon such a Determinate Sense now given He Believes it either Becaus His private Judgement molds Scripture to that Meaning or Becaus He takes it upon the Authority of a Church which he professedly Disowns and will not Believe 4. In reference to what is here said note first That as the True sense of Scripture is supposed and not proved against an Arian by force of Scripture in this particular Mystery so much more it is ever supposed and not proved when Protestants dispute against Catholicks The reason is Their private Judgement Protestants first frame to themselves a Sense of Scripture and then triumph first makes what sense they please which is no received Principle and afterward They vapor like Conquerours as if sole Scripture did the deed and defeated us Upon the great Assurance I have of This my Assertion I chalenge Mr. Poole or any Protestant They have not one Text of Scripture against the Roman Catholick Faith without the mixture of Their private Iudgements to produce one Text against the Roman Catholick Faith which without the Mixture of Their private Judgements or unadmitted Glosses speak's so much as Probably against it The more plausible place they insist on is That of St. Iohn cap. 6. Vnles you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. For communion under both kinds which nevertheles must have twenty Glosses and as many self Iudgements upon it before it can put on a likelyhood of a proof against us 5. Note 2. That whilst the Sense of Scripture lyes under dispute and is not agreed on by the two Parties Why Protestants loose labour when They argue by Scripture at Difference For example a Catholick and Protestant It is but Labour lost in the Protestant to Assault his Adversary with Texts of Scripture For the Catholick Answers Olim possideo prior possideo I have ever believed the sense of Gods Word to be such as you know we Catholicks own And can you my Antagonist What the Catholick answer's perswade your self to drive me out of the Possession of my Ancient Belief by your Sole private Judgement or Those new Glosses you father on Scripture If so A worthy Gentleman who by right of his Ancestors for a thousand years and upward now quietly possesseth his lands May be turn'd out of House and Harbor upon the private Judgement of some New upstart Fellow That Tell 's him He verily thinks the Ancient Writings for his Lands are not wel Understood Therfore he will first do him the favor to explicate them according to his private Opinion though contrary to the Sense hitherto received which done he will drive him out a doors and make him a Beggar This is our very Case 6. Contrarywise when the Sense of Scripture is How we may argue from Scripture agreed on we may Argue as Schoolmen do and draw from it Theological Conclusions which though often Various amongst Divines yet the Principle admitted I mean the Sense of Scripture remain's unquestioned and is maintain'd without Contradiction Without Such an agreed on sense which either Scripture as it often doth Deliver's plainly enough or The common consent of Learned men makes Highly probable or The Church of Christ declares certain 'T is to no more purpose to Dispute out of Scripture then to speak Arabick to an Illiterate Peasant Yet the loose Behavior of our Protestants is such that it lead's them without the guidance of these Lights first to Fancy The Fancy of Sectaries a Sense of their own and then draw strange Conclusions from it So Mr. Poole After he had by his own Interpretation perverted that Text of St. Paul The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth might wel say The Church is not proved Infallible Thus much is noted if the word Reason signify a formal Discours 7. Perhaps Protestants may reply For in Truth it Another Acception of the word Reason refuted is the hardest thing in the world where to have them in their Answers That Reason here imports not any Discours at all But an immediate clear Light Transfused into their Mind when they read Scripture like a Beam shot from the Sun wherby their Eyes as perspicuously discern the most Abstruse Sense in it as men do the Sun by its Light or the first known Principles of nature by Their own Indisputable Evidences Is this Reply think you rational that draws not so much as a Dram of Reason after it For if their new Faith hath set new Eyes in their head It hath not surely pluck't out their Neighbours Eyes who yet I hope may see what is discernable by All. None then ever questioned the Suns-shining at Noon-day or Writ Commentaries on the first
you fallible Teachers say but what God hath said in Scripture concerning the fallibility of a whole Christian Church This we wish to hear of before we credit your Talk or Believe for your saying It hath erred de facto CHAP. VIII The new Mode of Sectaries misinterpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion 1. HEre we give you a fourth Reflection consequent to the former Discours which follows upon our Sectaries misinterpretation of Scripture 'T is worth the Readers knowledge and if I mistake not totally Ruin's Protestant Religion Thus it is The whole Machin of Protestancy as Protestancy stands Protestancy stands topling on negatives topling upon supposed Objective Negatives built up by Fancy only without so much as one positive proof of Scripture to support it If I evidence not this Truth and consequently do not convince That our Sectaries have no Faith Deny me credit Hereafter 2. Observe well No sooner do these Sectaries perswade Themselves That they can Abate the force of our Scripture-proofs for Catholick Doctrin But They How They proceed farther an Negatives presently lay hold on the quite contrary Doctrin And make that an Article of their new Faith They say we prove not a Church infallible Therfore the contrary Position The Church is fallible is with them a certain Truth They say we prove not a third place of Purgatory Therfore the Belief of no Mark Thâ—se Inferences Purgatory is an Article of Protestants Faith We prove not Christs Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist Therfore the Belief of his Not-presence constitutes part of Protestants Doctrin We prove not the Popes Supremacy Ergo They Believe the Contrary c. To show their Nullity of Faith shall we here condescend to what They say And contrary both to Conscience and manifest Truth suppose with them the Proofs for our Doctrins to be proofles Be it so supposed at present Pray you say next What are They able to infer upon such a fals Concession Marry thus much If we prove no Purgatory There is surely no such Place If we prove not the Church Infallible it is certainly Fallible and so of the rest I answer This These Sequels are deeply Nonsense Sequele is Non-sense and a pure Non sequitur We prove not Ergo The contrary Doctrin is true For how many Things are there both Actual and Possible which men prove not and yet are so A young student in Mathematicks cannot perhaps prove that the Sun is greater then a Sieve Is it therfore consequent That that luminous body is not Greater The Proof is naught And here is all that follows One thing then it is in our present Case To say our Proofs Proofs may fall short and yet not fall upon falsities for Catholick Doctrin fall short or are forceles And a quite Other to say they fall upon falsities Ergo no absolute Denial of these Catholick Verities is deducible from our not proving them Yet upon this fals supposed negative foundation We prove not All Protestant Religion stands tottering as it doth 3. Be pleased to hear more of this Stuff Let us also falsly suppose as our Sectaries will have it that These may be objective Truths and Verities No Church is infallible There is no Purgatory c. Doth it follow think ye That they can believe These Negatives Every Truth is not a material Object of Faith with Divine and stedfast Faith upon the Concession That they are now supposed Truths No. It is a lame Consequence and a wors Non sequitur Then the other Observe my Reason No Objective Verity Although supposed True in it self can be believed by A lame Consequence Divine Faith Vnles God hath positively Revealed it or is at least clearly Deducible from Scripture So Sectaries Assert and upon this ground That Divine Faith besides Truths revealed by God are Objects of Faith a Material Object Believable requires also and this essentially the weight of a Formal Object which is Gods Veracity to reveal that which is believed by Faith Seclude this Veracity from the Motive and Formal object of our Assent Though we yeild to a thousand Verities not one of them can be believed by Faith 4. Now I Assume But the fallibility of Christs whole Church The not being of Purgatory The not Existency That there is no Purgatory no Real Presence c. is no where Reveal'd by God of Christ Body in the Sacred Eucharist and so of the rest Are no where positively revealed by God no nor clearly deduced from any Text in Scripture Ergo Although these were Truths in themselves yet they are not revealed Truths or Truths spoken by Almighty God Therfore they are insufficient to found Divine Faith The Major is granted by Protestants The Minor viz That these supposed Truths were Ergo Cannot be Articles of Protestant Faith never spoken by Almighty God in Scripture is so undeniably evident That here I am forced to chalenge Sectaries to produce so much as one Text wherin God hath Positively said There is no Purgatory No real Presence c. This they cannot do by so much as by a probable Deduction from Scripture much les by plain Scripture it self The Conclusion An Evident Conclusion against Sectaries therfore follows evidently They Believe not what God hath Revealed and consequently want Faith in the Articles they Assent to as Protestants Nay I say more They cannot Assent to These Articles as evident Truths For no received Principle either in Nature or Grace can evidence so much as the supposed objective Verity of These Doctrins Shall I yet add a word and say That no Proof grounded upon weighty moral Reason can evidence these negative Assertions to be Truths morally known Therfore though hitherto we have supposed them to pass for Verities yet in real earnest They are unproved and no other But the weak Thoughts of our Adversaries strong Fancy Now here If I mistake not You se Ruin enough of Protestant Religion And the Ruin of Protestant Religion as Protestancy which stand's upon a Fancied Opinion only and not upon what God hath Revealed in his Sacred Word No nor can probably be made known by any received Principle 5. To conclude this point I Argue thus These Negative Articles No purgatory No Church infallible c. Are either essential Pieces of Protestant Religion or not If not There is no such thing as Protestant Religion in the world For the Reformed part of it is wholy An unanswerable Dilemma made up of such Negatives No Purgatory No Transubstantiation No unbloody Sacrifice No Praying to Saints No Church infallible c. Cast then these and the like away Protestancy dwingles to nothing Now if on the other side They hold these as Articles of Protestancy And say They ought to be believed by Divine Faith They are obliged to shew which is utterly impossible that God hath Positively revealed them in Scripture Therfore I say Though we Admit of such Negatives as Objective
Truths in Themselves yet so long as they are not proved to be positive revealed Truths or Spoken by Almighty God Protestancy stands like a Starveling void and empty of all revealed Truths Protestancy as so hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by God And consequently as it is this New Religion hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by him who upholds all Christian Verities I mean Gods certain Revelation 6. To se this Assertion more clearly Evidenced Hear a little what our Sectaries Answer Some tell us They know right well there is no Purgatory Becaus God hath not revealed it in Scripture There is no real Presence for the same Reason and so they Argue for the rest of their Negatives To this and whatever els can be proposed we have answered Though These Suppositions are very Fals yet Admit of them as True Viz. Thaâ— a Purgatory or Real Presence are not mentioned in Scripture All that follows from hence is That God hath been as it were Silent and omitted to speak of such Objects That Protestants inferences Still proved improbable is as we now falsly suppose He hath neither said there is a Purgatory nor Denyed it Now this Negative God hath said nothing of such a matter as it cannot Ground a positive Belief of a Purgatory so it cannot Ground a positive Belief of the Contrary or No Purgatory Whilst What both Catholicks and Protestants are obliged to prove therfore the Catholick Believes a Purgatory He is obliged to show that God hath Positively Revealed it And if the Protestant Believe no Purgatory He is also Obliged to show that God hath spoken Positively this Objective Truth There is no such place To say then God hath made no mention at all of a Purgatory in Sçripture and to infer from Thence a Belief of no Purgatory is in plain Language to Say I may Actually Believe that by Divine Faith which God never Spake The most therfore That can be Deduced from this Negative were it True God hath Omitted to Reveal a Purgatory is That no man yet knows nor can know upon Revelation whether there be such a Place or no. But to draw from it an Absolute Faith of no Purgatory is and I can term it no better then the last of Nonsense For how many Things are there known to God Which He hath omitted to Reveal Can I Therfore upon that Non-Revelation Rush on them with my Faith and Believe them for his not Speaking at all Yet thus Sectaries Proceed They have Protestants Believe Negatives becaus God hath not Reveal'd them good store of Negatives But not revealed Negatives And They will Believe them Becaus God hath not Revealed them Here briefly is my Discours if it Faulter or seem Faulty to our Adversaries my humble Petition is That they will Vouchsafe to unbeguil ' me and Friendly shew me where the Fallacy lyes If this Discourse be faulty my wish is to hear of the fallacy 7. Some perhaps will say We have Fought all this while with Shadows And supposed These Negatives No Purgatory No Transubstantiation c. To be Objects of Protestants Faith But we err not knowing Their Doctrin For They are only Held Inferiour Truths One Reply refuted Approved by the English Church to mantain Vnion amongst Protestants And not owned as Articles of Faith Thus Two later Men whom you may se largely Refuted Discours 3. c. 6. n. 7. All I 'll say at present is Because Sectaries seldom Agree in Doctrin it is impossible to Confute them all at Once To my Sectaries agree not in Doctrin purpose then There have been Certainly And are yet Protestants I think These the more Numerous That Hold the now named Negatives Articles of Protestants Some own these Negatives Articles of Faith Faith And Against such our Proofs have Force Others that Deny the Doctrin And exclude them from being Articles are in a worse Condition Because upon the Supposition They are Forced to grant That Protestancy hath no Articles of Faith Protestancy as Protestancy contain's not so much as One Article of Divine Faith in it For the whole Reformed part of it is made up of pure Negatives Consequently if Any should utterly Abjure that Religion He would not Abjure one Truth Revealed by Almighty God Se more of this subject in the place now cited And Both are Confuted know That our Adversaries will have Much to do To come of Hansomly whether They Grant These Negatives To be Articles of their Faith or Disown them as Articles This is fairly spoken without Clamours And Mr. Stillingfleet in his Preface to the Reader Believe it Some who tell us They have not Leisure Enough to kill flyes may sweat at it take whether part They please before the Difficulty be solved 8. They may Reply secondly And Endeavor to A second Reply of Sectaries worth Nothing Prove at least one of their Negatives Thus. There is no Purgatory Becaus God hath Revealed in Scripture two Places only Heaven and Hell which seem's Exclusive of a third Place I answer That word Only is neither Scripture nor Revelation Cast therfore that Particle away and Propose the Argument as we ought to do And it falls to nothing Thus it is God hath Revealed two Places and these Eternal it is most True Ergo he hath Revealed the not Being of a Purgatory is Fals and a meer Non-sequitur 9. They may Reply thirdly Catholicks Believe A Third at bad many things upon as pure Negatives for Example A Trinity of Three Distinct Persons in one Divine Essence and no Quaternity or no more Persons then Three yet this Negative is not Revealed in Scripture To Help on this worthles Argument I Grant more That not so much as a Trinity of Distinct Persons is plainly Revealed in Scripture Doth it Therfore Catholicks believe not upon Negative grounds follow that Catholicks Believe that Mystery and Deny a Quaternity upon Negative Grounds No such matter They Believe a Trinity and no Quaternity upon the solid Positive Grounds of their Church Interpreting Scripture upon a Universal Perpetuated Tradition And the Infallible Word of God not Written Protestants are destitute of such Proofs in the Articles they Hold. For They neither have an Infallible Church nor Tradition Nor Written nor Vnwritten Word to Rely on Therfore They Believe upon Fancy oâ—â—y 10. To End This Matter I will here Briefly Becaus An Objection answered conceiâ—â—ing Novelties introduced i 〈…〉 the Church it is Consequent Answer to an old Trivial Objection made by Sectaries against our Present Roman Church which They Accuse of Novelties introduced since the First Primitive Ages And weakly as They are wont Argue after this manner Your Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Praying to Saints of an Vnbloody Sacrifice c. Were not Taught for Three or Four Ages after Christ Therfore say They We may now well hold the Contrary And Believe no Transubstantiation no Sacrifice c.
recurr to an Invisible Society of such men now as well exploded by later Protestants as Catholicks 7. A fifth Objection flow's from the pen of a Late Mr. Stillingfleet Writer after this manner Cannot you conceive that there should be a Number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility If not saith he I 'll help your Vnderstanding a little Suppose And it 's only a Supposition That all the members of the Roman Church should be destroyed in one Age do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches sound at least in the Belief of Fundamentals without Infallibility I have answered already No. And given my Reason Becaus a Church A Church separated from Divine Assistance cannot persist stable divorced from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost is pulled from the Center of Truth which supports it and consequently the Doctrin of it must needs reel and totter now as is supposed to rely on no firmer a Hold then on mans unsteedy fallible Reason or on a Testimony meerly Humane and therfore Uncertain Neither have we without this Assistance more Security Without Infallible Assistance no security of fundamentals of true Belief in Matters called Fundamental then others As is clear in condemned Arians who no sooner left the Church directed by this Spirit of Truth But Errours followed them in points most Fundamental And yet like black Ghosts do and will haunt them without Repentance to the Worlds End 8. Before we end this matter I have one Question to propose It is Whether If all the Ancient Fathers A Question proposed to Sectaries that ever lived Had plainly interpreted Scriptures as the Roman Catholick Church now interpret's them contrary to Protestants They would then Disavow Their own Glosses And submit to the undeniable Authority of so many worthy Fathers Might Reason or Religion set one unlucky Adversary aside called Prejudice make the Answer Sectaries would say Yes And do so were The unanimous consent of Fathers against them Grant thus much And say boldly The Authority of The whole Antecedent The Authority of a whole Church more weighty then that of Fathers and this present Roman Catholick Church is in true prudence of greater Force to withdraw Sectaries from their new invented Glosses contrary to it Then if all the Fathers Together Had plainly interpreted Scripture as the Church interpret's Why Nothing on earth can Parallel this Churches Authority much les make it Inferiour to The Fathers only part of the Church the universal consent of Fathers The Reason is These Fathers were only a part of it particular men and Singly considered Fallible But a whole Church Embraceth a greater number and cannot be misled into Errour Nay I say Though we Impiously suppose Were the Church supposed Fallible the Authority of it is as great as the Fathers That this whole Church might swerve from Truth yet the Testimony of it is as great as that of the Fathers who as Protestants say may all err and swerve more easily This Reason is Reinforced if we reflect on one undeniable Truth which is In all controversies now between us Sectaries can pretend no more But thus much only That the sense of some few Fathers only They never pretended all whilst they interpret Scripture is though often obscure more against the Churches interpretation then for it Here is the most they can say with any Conscience Though we grant not so much when the whole Doctrin of a Father is well examined However Gratis Admit of the Supposition at present And se what follows A clear Testimony Though Fallible hath more weight then another that 's Obscure and Fallible Thus much only The Sense of such and such Fathers is doubtful and Sectaries say Fallible The Churches Sense is clear That is you know what it Teaches and Though falsly supposed fallible is yet far more firm then the other Testimony That 's confessedly both obscure and Fallible 9. This Discours convinceth that Sectaries cannot If Sectaries say the more clear Church Doctrin is the more manifest is its Errour They speak without Principles and suppose what is to be proved impugn the Churches sense given of Scripture by any thing that hath the look of a probable Principle For the Church Defend's it self upon two undeniable Grounds The first Positive And 'T is The Churches own Authority nothing can be greater The other Negative Viz. Never any of known credit neither Fathers generally nor Oecumenical Councils much less Scripture Probably clearly contradicted that sense which the Roman Catholick Church Gives of Scripture And here by the way You may se to what an Exigency our new None of undoubted credit Ever clearly contradicted the Churches sense of Scripture men are Driven for want of Principles They say The Roman Catholick Church is Fallible The Fathers are fallible All condemned Haereticks are fallible They themselves are fallible Thus much supposed Tell me I beseech you by what probable Principle can They so much as seemingly show That either They interpret Scripture better then we or That Any of us all ever yet arrived to the True sense of it in controverted If all are Fallible by what Principle can Sectaries prove their Interpretation to be the best matters Which yet is absolutely necessary For we can have no true Faith without the true sense of Scripture You know if the blind lead the blind There is no safe conduct And if the Fallible man Guides the Fallible both may mistake Their way and err grosly You will have no Answer returned to this Difficulty But Sectaries Fancy and Fancy only Or shew that Any had the true sense of Scripture 10. Some may Reply Protestants have the words of Scripture as clear as the Holy Ghost was pleased to Write them in Fundamentals As also the consent of Fathers at least for those Fundamentals They wave other By-Passages of Scripture and care not much A Reply of Sectaries whether their Interpretations be right or wrong I Answer first To say nothing of many Others They They cannot wave all Difficulties cannot wave one Difficulty concerning the Real presence of Christ in the Sacred Eucharist which is either a Fundamental Doctrin or none is Both Scripture and Fathers are in this particular most expresly against them as is proved Hereafter 11. But let this pass I Answer 2. We have as good Scripture as Sectaries can lay claim to in every Point which they call Fundamental And with it the In Fundamentals we are at least equal and in controverted matter far superiour consent of Fathers also In other controverted matters we own the same Scripture they own And moreover have the sense of it Declared by this long standing Church wherin we infinitly surpass them Speak therfore of matters out of controversy or wherin all Agree we are at least equal with them And for others in controversy
Church which Verified the Belief of that Article can be plainly and without fumbling Designed Say then on Gods name what Christians had we who constituted the Holy Catholick Church Nor Papists according to Protestants nor the later Graecians in Those Dayes Papists you say were all in a Deluge of Errour which made Luther to leave them Our later Graecians held and hold still a True Mass Sacrifice the Real Presence Praying to Saints Prayers for the Dead c. They therfore contrary to our Sectaries were neither the Holy nor Vniversal Church None say Sectaries but gross erring men were in the world before Luther Much les were Arians Abyssins Pelagians Monotbelits or all of them together Now besides such erring men There were no other in the World If Therfore the Vniversal Church be Essentially made up of Particular Churches as truely it is For there is no Vniversale à parte rei And all Particular Churches Nameable in those dayes grosly Erred it follows evidently That then no Holy Catholick Church could be Believed Since Those times Our Protestants came in Protestants only are not the Holy Vniversal Church And will They if That Article of our Creed was Fals in the last Age verify it now and stile Themselves the only Vniversal Church I am Confident They will not Donatize so far or dare to do so The Question Therfore Proposed deserves an exact Answer Viz. Where or amongst what Christians shall we find the The Question proposed deserves a clear Answer Holy Vniversal Church Then free from notable Errour 2. Can our Novellists Rationally say That All those who rightly Believed in Christ constituted the Holy Vniversal Church If so The Reply is too general An abstract belief in Christ insufficient to constitute true Catholick Faith and we ask again Who Those were and urge to have the Particular Communities Specified That Catholickly Believed in Christ We demand moreover what they mean by that Belief in Christ Was it enough to Confes Him to be the True Messus Our Redeemer our Master or to acknowledge his Death his Resurrection without Believing more of his Doctrin Surely More is required and necessary to Saluation no. For first God never spake those other Excellent Verities registred in Scripture whether Dogmatical or relating to manners in vain But to good Purpose And with Intention That They should besides that abstracted Faith in Christ both be harken'd to and Believed after a Sufficient Proposal Again Were the later Graecians who firmly Believed in Christ and held never the les Almost all the Tenents of the Roman Catholick Church Catholick Believers also If so Papists can in no Iustice be excluded from that Communion Perhaps you will say you do not exclude them No. Why then have you hanged them upon Gibbets meerly for being Papists If you Answer you do so upon the Account of their Particular Errors then hang up a number of your own Ministers who confessedly have more Errors among them Or if petty Differences in Points of Faith may be pardoned in the One why are they so severely punished in the Other But ad rem 3. Say plainly And Answer Categorically without Arians and Pelagians believed in Christ Shuffling Were Arians Pelagians Nestorians Monothelits Parts and Members of the Holy Catholick Church For they believed in Christ and owned him for their Redeemer Master and Doctor yea and admitted of Scripture also If you Affirm it Then there never were nor can be Haeresies in the Christian Yet were cast out of the Church as Hareticks world whilst Christ is acknowledged in this General Way and consequently the Ancient Councils Dealt most unjustly with these men in casting them out of the Churches Communion And proclaiming them Haereticks Beside observe I pray you what a pretty Church is here made up of men irreconciliable in their Disputes Is this think ye that Holy Vniversal A Church compounded of hideous dissenting Members is not Christs Church and Vnited Society of Christians which Christ Iesus cimented together in one Faith who do nothing but clash one with another And will he own this for his Spouse when he comes to Iudge the World Yet farther No Doctrin proper to Particular Sectaries as Arianism is to Arians Pelagianism to Pelagians Protestanism to Protestants can Becaus bound up within the narrow compass of these Communities deserve No Doctrine peculiar to Sectaries can be Catholick the Name or Notion of either Holy Vniversal or Catholick Doctrin Prescind therfore from these particular Doctrins or lay them aside which as Protestants must say did not Vnchurch them my Demand is and it shall never be Answered wherin Consists the Protestants cannot answer the Question Remainder of that Doctrin which implyes the pure Essentials of Christian Religion joyns men together in one Faith and makes them true members of the Holy and Vniversal Church 4. Will You hear as I think the best Answer of some newer Protestants They may say Who ever Believes in Christ and Scripture and ioyns in that Belief which was Vniversally owned by the whole Christian World before Luther is right in Faith and a Member of the Holy Vniversal Church Though perhaps He Believes with his tainted Church some Errours A most wretched The first Answer refuted and unproved Assertion For who ever yet maintain'd That a Society of Christians owning some Doctrin True as all have don and more perhaps Fals is a part of the True Holy Catholick Church We say Bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu A Faith Therfore Truely good is Intierly good Any Falsity Spoil's it And then most when 'T is vitiated with notable Errours Tell me if Scripture A Church vitiated with gross errours is no more a Church Then the Bible notably corrupted is Gods word were Corrupted in some Points of Consequence would you own the whole Bible for Gods Word No certainly How then can we own That for Christs True Church which is corrupted with Fals Doctrin You will say We must take the Good without the Bad And Believe as much as is necessary to the Essential Being of a Church And that makes us Catholicks Though we ioyntly Believe some errors with it Answer This is wors then before And more confused stuff Who are those WE that can chuse thus None can separate Truth from falshood if I live in an Erring Church Or Tell me if I live in an Erring Church where Fals Doctrin is Secretly mingled with Truth what I am to chuse or what is Good or Bad If a poor simple man Deceived by his Pastor fall into an Errour There are others ready to unbeguile him But Because He who endeavours to unbeguile me may then most err himself here are none to do this Service Becaus none can certainly Iudge of the right or wrong Will you say That Scripture is to decide in such Doubts Pray you Tell me if by a supposed Impossibility Scripture
Assent and with like The Center of Faith Reverence Upon this Motive of Gods Revealing Word True Christian Faith Relies Mille Clypei pendent ex eâ omnis armatura fortium Here they meet together Concentred as it were in This One Vndeceived and Vndeceiving Verity Do I therfore Believe Christ to be We Believe all â—like upon Gods Word the True Messias Becaus God saith it I must also Believe Baptism the Eucharist and other Revealed Truths when after a sufficient Proposal I know That the same God Speak's Them For if his Word Prevail with me to Credit him in the one It is as Powerful and pressing to force as I may say Faith from me in the Other A further Reason is Because a Another Reason right Act of Faith setled on this Motive is a Virtual and Implicit Belief not of one Article But of all other which the Motive Own 's or Vphold's You se therfore none can truly Believe in Christ who Denies the least Verity Sufficiently proposed that God Reveals For as the True Belief of one Article implyes a Belief of All so Believe all â—â— none at â—â—ll the Denial of One implyes a Denial of all Other And thus Christian Faith consists in INDIVISIBILI And is either Wholy had or Wholy lost which is the True Cause why Protestants have no Faith And must Iumble as They do Why Protestants have no Faith and stagger in their Doctrin concerning fundamental's in Their Doctrin concerning the Essentials of it And finally have never yet discover'd nor shall hereafter if we seclude the Roman Any Thing like a Catholick Church before Luther 5. For These Reasons now alleged Perhaps Some will say That After a Belief in Christ and a General owning of Scripture we must Descend to more Particulars A Reply to little purpose And explicitely Assent to all that Express Scripture plainly Delivers And we will Adhere to the very Words without Dispute If we do so We Admit of all That God clearly Reveal's and Take it upon his Authority without Interpretation Answer Here is a fair Promise of Nothing For Who can tell when Scripture speaks plainly who can Assure us without Dispute when Scripture speak s plainly Both Catholicks and Protestants Dissent in this very Principle Those say it Speak's plainly for the Real Presence of Christs Sacred Body in the Eucharist For Remission of Sins by a Priest The matter still in Dispute For Iustification by Good Works For Extream-Vnction For the Infallibility of the Church c. These Deny all And do what we can to hinder them will upon their own Fancies Force into Gods Word certain violent Glosses which God never Spake You se Therfore That when we Descend to the Particular Expressions of Scripture Concerning the Particular Doctrins of it we are at a stand and cannot go forward For Sectaries will have no Judge on Earth to Appeal to in These Doubts If they say the Ancient A Iudge necessary to determine c. Church shall Judge We are as I told you as Far from Home as Before And as much Differ about the Sentiments of that Church as we do about the Sense of Scripture And thus it ever fall's out Otherwise Controversies are Endles Either we must Drive Controversies Between us to Endles Quarrels or yeild to what our Protestants say or Finally Commiserate their sad Condition Becaus they will not Acquiesce in a Judge upon Earth that as well Ascertain's us of the Meaning as it doth of the very Books of Scripture Without this Judge we may contract to the Worlds End and never be Wiser 6. You se this plainly in that Instance Proposed above out of St. Hierom. For according to plain Scripture if one strike us on the right cheek we must Turn to him the other also We are to Abstain from eating of Blood and Things strangled We are not to have two Coats nor carry Money with us c. None can Deny But that God Speaks These Verities Although they seem light to us Buthow to understand them is to be learned from some Infallible Interpreter of Scripture which Scripture obscure when Seemingly Clear in Words Protestants Reject when all know that very often where Scripture seem's Clear in Words There it is more deep in Sense and most Obscure CHAP. IV. The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants concerning Fundamentals in Faith are Proved Vnreasonable 1. WE need not here to Discuss too largely This Point of Fundamentals most Learnedly examined by Catholick Writers For if we Reflect well on what is Proved in the precedent Chapter There is enough said to Silence All Adversaries and to satisfy every Rational Mans doubts in This Question 2. We Catholicks Speak plainly and Assert Although an Explicit Belief in God as a Rewarder of Good and a Punisher of Evil yea as some Divines hold of The Catholick Doctrin Christ also After the Promulgation of the Gospel Be Primary Fundamental Points of Faith Becaus Necessitate medij Every one is obliged to Believe Them Explicitly Yet withall we say That the Least Article Revealed by Almighty God when it is Sufficiently Proposed grows to be so far Fundamental That none can Deny or Doubt of it without Damnable Sin And in this Sense there is no Distinction between Points Fundamental and not Fundamental The reason hereof Already given Relies upon this Certain Principle What ever God Reveal's is equally to be believ'd What God Speak's whether the Material Object be little or great After the Charge laid on us to Believe is to be Admitted of with equal Certitude and Reverence For it is not The less or more Weight of Things Revealed That distinguishes Submission to Gods Veracity gives true value to Faith our Faith or makes it less or more Valuable But that which set's the true Price upon it is the Submission we yeild by it to Gods Veracity Now because this Veracity is one and equally the same in what ever is Revealed By consequence we Say That Faith upon the Account of that Submission is equally Good Solid and Valuable This I Note in Opposition to Sectaries Faith not to be measured by the Diversity of Things revealed Who For ought I can yet learn Measure their Faith not so much By the Excellency of the FORMAL OBJECT as by the different Nature of Things Revealed Which Becaus considered in themselves They often vary in worth Protestants Think that the Degrees of their Faith may answerably be less or more various according as the Object requires It is an Errour The Reason For as it is certain That when God Speak's to us The Highest Truth imaginable Speak's so it is as certain That He is to be Heard by us with Highest Respect and Reverence whether the Matter be great or Small 3. What is here said supposeth a Sufficient Proposition of Revealed Verities which without doubt are not equally Clear to all Capacities if we Descend to the Explicit
Belief of particular Mysteries But this is no hindrance to Catholick Faith in the most How the unlearned believe all that is revealed unlearned man in the World For such an one Believes Explicitely as much as he knows is Proposed And is not only in Praeparatione animi ready to embrace more when more is Proposed But even now in every Act of Faith He Elicit's as I noted above Implicitly and Virtually Submits to All That God hath explicitly Revealed That Distinction therfore which some of our New men here Introduce Viz. A Distinction of Sectaries unnecessary Of Things Necessary to Salvation respectively to such as are of weaker Capacities and of Things Necessary to be owned in order to Salvation by Christian Societies as Bonds of Ecclesiastical Communion is to no Purpose unles we Speak of a less or more Explicit Belief which may be Various according to a Dark or Clearer Proposition The Reason is Becaus All that God Reveals and neither more nor less is One and the same Respectively to All to the Learned to the Unlearned to weak and Strong Capacities Yea And to the whole Church also and this All Acknowedge in every Act of Faith They have Though perhaps it be less extended to particular Articles But know as is The worth of Faith not in the Extension but in Submission now noted That the true Worth of Faith Consists not so much in the Extensive Reach of it to more Material Objects As in an Intensive and Equal Submission to Gods Veracity in the things He Speaks which now I yeild to by the explicit Faith I have And am ready to do more when a Clearer Proposition and Gods Command Require it Whence you se Though a How far the Faith of the unlearned is extended Rustick hath less of the Explicit Belief Then a Learned Clerk Yet He want's not therfore One Grain of Supernatural Faith that Saves all Christians For His Faith is Virtually as far Extended as any Doctors And his Infused Habit Every whit as Good If any one cavil at the Distinction of Explicit and Implicit Faith He may Correct his Errour by this one Example Give me One that hath read over Holy Scripture and Descend's by Explicit Faith to every Verity in it He Believes well Another far from That Extensive knowledge knows some Verities Revealed There and Believes them nevertheless He Owns All and every Iota in the Book for Gods Sacred Word Tell Saving Faith as well found in an implicit as in an Explicit Belief me I Beseech you Hath not this more Ignorant Man with his less Explicit Assent As true Saving Faith as the Other Yes most Assuredly And in the Sense now Declared as Far Extended This is our very Case Could we Therfore once Agree about the Proponent of Faith most Difficulties were ended These few Considerations Premised 4. My first Assertion is The Distinction usually made Protestants Distinction of Points more or less Fundamental is fals by Protestants of Points more or less Fundamental in order to Christians is not only Vnreasonable but also very Fals if we consider the Articles of Faith subsisting as it were or Essentially Depending upon Gods Eternal Revealing Verity For as They are Here All stand firm alike And equally sure upon this Verity If therfore I Answer All Faith stand's firm upon Divine Revelation with my Faith to what this Motive firmly requires And as undoubtedly Believe as God Speak's I must Assent to all with equal Assurance nor can I Believe some and Disbelieve others when all are Proposed alike No nor make Less or more Degrees of Certitude in my Faith From whence I Infer That no man by any Means or Search whatever can find out what Articles are Fundamental what not Because There is no Means possible to find that which There is Nothing of the less or more certitude when God Speak's is not to be Found But Fundamentals and not Fundamentals are not to be found And I prove the Minor Every Revealed Article is Asserted by an Infinit Verity But an Infinit Verity Deliver's all it Speak's with one and the same Infinit Certainty where no Degrees of more or less Certitude can have Place Ergo All Articles All revealed Truths therfore are equally certain of Faith have one and the same like Infinit Assurance as They are Spoken by an Infinit Verity Consequently one is as Ponderous as another And Equally Fundamental if We which is only to be Regarded do Respect the Motive Again If some Articles be Fundamental and others not it is either Becaus the Fundamentals Rely on a Greater Verity and the Non Fundamentals on a Less which is utterly Fals for the same Infinit Truth Speak's them all Or Becaus though He delivers all yet His Pleasure is That we Esteem of some more Fundamental Then others And this is Impossible Viz. That an Infinit Verity takes as it were the pains to Speak to us and for our Eternal Saluation And yet doth not Oblige us to Believe Him in what He saith with the whole It dishonours God not to Believe All He speaks equally forces of our Soul It is as I have shewed Highly against the Dignity of God To engage his Eternal Truth in Speaking to us And yet have Those He speak's to Talk as if it Matter'd not whether He be Heard or no. 5. You may Reply Some Things Revealed to us seem light in regard of the Material Object For who can Own it as Fundamental an Article of Faith to Believe that St. Paul left his cloak at Troas as to Believe the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son also I Answer God as we We cannot believe the greater Matter and Disbelieve the lesser without Forfeiture of Faith now Suppose Speak's both these Verities Therfore both are Equally True And if equally True I cannot Believe the one upon the Motive of Gods Veracity and Disbelieve The other when Propounded without a Forfeiture of all Faith The Disparity therfore which Ariseth here From the Matter Revealed Imports nothing to the present Question 6. You may say Again The Necessity of Things which ly in Gods great Design and are Absolutely to be Believed must be taken from the Reference They have to our last End which is Eternal Saluation Answ I say so too But General Talk This is only general Talk and comes not Home to the Question For the Question rightly stated Drives at Particulars and Ask's how many of those Precisely have Reference to this last End or are Necessary to Salvation Respectively to All after a Sufficient Proposition No Article Revealed can be Disbelieved Catholicks Say the Belief of all is so far Necessary That not one of All those revealed Articles can be Disbelieved Protestants make their Exceptions Yet hitherto Sectaries cannot say what Articles are to be excluded as unnecessary to Salvation never Dared to give in a Catalogue of what They except
implicitly if it be of Faith Though He yet know's not so much yea and may sometimes rationally Doubt whether the Church Proposeth it or no as a Matter of Faith So Schoolmen of different Judgements often Dispute whether such and such Points are de Fide And becaus They are contrary in their Positions either These or Those Contendents light where it will err Materially yet I say The Erring Party who Admits of All that the Church Proposes as Faith to be de Fide Believes Implicitly upon his Universal Assent to All The very A man may believe Implicitly what by Error he denyes Explicitly Matter which He by Error Explicitly Denyes yea and hath as True Faith as the Other That Hitt's on Truth Neither is there so much as a seeming Contradiction between These two Judgements of True Implicit Faith and an Untrue Material Explicit Error For the one is No Contradiction between true implicit Faith and untrue material Explicit Error so far from Opposing the other That the Erroneous Judgement in Actu exercito yeilds to Truth and resolved into all the strength it Hath saith no more but This by a Conditional Tendency If what I Affirm be not contrary to the Churches Doctrin And hence it is that Catholicks God be ever Blessed do not only easily lay down their material Errors when the The Reason Church Declares against them But most usually also in Their learned Volumes submit All They write to Learned Catholicks submit to the Churches Censure Sectaries submit to nothing but Fancy the Judgement of the Church which Implyes a tacite Retractation or an unsaying of whatever shall be Censured or Sentenced to be Amiss O would our Protestants Acknowledge such a Living Judge of Controversies They might make excellent good Vse of Their Bible But to snatch that Pure Book from Catholicks as they have Don And afterward to Debase it to Prostitute it to every Wild Fancy That shall pleas to meddle with it is plainly to Abjure and Renounce all Possibility of either knowing what Fundamentals are Or of ever Arriving to better Settlement in Faith then now we se which indeed is none at all Therfore though they Protest a Thousand times That they Believe every Thing in Scripture with the like Implicit Faith as we do the Church it Avail's nothing whilst every Private man makes that Book to speak what he would have it That is what his Fancy Pleases 2. Others finally have Recours to the Apostles Creed and say All things there as They Relate to The Belief of the Apostles Creed not Sufficient for Salvation Scripture and no more are Fundamental Points of Faith First Admit of the Assertion without any likelyhood of Proof Protestants have little to glory in For There is not so much as One Article of their Religion as Protestancy Observe it well contained in the Apostles Nothing of Protestancy in the Apostles Creed Creed Therfore nothing of their Religian as Protestancy can be Accounted Fundamentally Necessary to Salvation 2. One may Admit of All those Express Words in the Creed I Believe in Iesus Christ His only Son and be an Haeretick For the Arians grant this and yet are Haereticks Becaus They Deny the High Godhead of Christ and Consubstantiality likewise with his Father which are not evidently deduced out of those Words And Here I would gladly know of Protestants when either Arian Let it please Sectaries to answer this Question plainly or any Sectary That doth not only Abstract from Christs supream Divinity But Positively also Abjures it yet in some manner frigidly own 's Christ for the only Son of his Father whether I fay such an One may be Reckoned of as a True Believer in Fundamentals 3. Though the Creed Compriseth much in that One Article I believe the Holy Catholick Church And therfore some Ancient Fathers most Deservedly Magnify the Protestants cannot plainly point at the Church which the Creed Call's Catholick compleatnes of it as an Excellent Summary of Christian Faith yet Protestants for their lives cannot say what or where this Catholick Church is And it is very hard to oblige me to the Belief of a Church which is neither known nor can be Pointed out Now were it known a great Difficulty yet remain's to be Examined Viz. Whether God will ever Preserve this Church Infallible in the Delivery of Fundamental Doctrin or supposing His present Decree Whether He can so leave it to a Possibility of Erring in Fundamentals That Christians may absolutely loos all Faith both of Christ and Creed If This Second be Sectaries are pressed whether They grant or Deny a Church infallible in Fundamentals Granted We have no Assurance after all Christs Promises to the contrary But that Christianity may totally Perish before the Worlds End If they Say God will ever Preserve a Church Infallible in Fundamentals They must joyntly Acknowledge a Continued Vnextinguished Society of Christians wherof some are Pastors and Teach Infallibly these Fundamentals and some Sectaries must solve their own Difficulties Hear them also Infallibly I would have these plainly Marked out And withall have Sectaries know That All their Difficulties Proposed against an Infallible Church must be solved by them if they grant such Infallible Teachers of Fundamentals as is largely Baptism and the Eucharist not in the Creed Proved Above 4. To Omit that the Creed Delivers no Explicit Doctrin concerning Baptism and the Eucharist Though the Belief of these are also Necessary to Salvation Thus much I observe That Catholicks Catholicks Admit of the Creed without Glosses without Glosses and Interpretations own the candid and plain Obvious Expressions of the Creed in All and Every particular Article of it Therfore They are at least if not more as good Believers of the Creeds Fundamentals as Sectaries And if which we Deny They Err by Ignorance in lesser Matters as Protestants May and Do Err in Greater They must yet grant that the Belief of Fundamentals is Faith enough to save both Parties This Supposed 3. I must Needs have a word with my long forgotten Friend Mr. Poole and Ask why He Deem's it such A word with Mr. Poole a Strict piece of Justice to chafe as He Doth at a converted Captain upon the Account of his changing Religion as if he were a Lost and Perished Soul An Instrument forsooth He will Prove Append. p. 2. if not of Gods Mercy to reduce him to the Truth from which he is revolted At least of Gods Iustice And a Witnes on Gods Behalf to leave him without Excuse What needed I say so much Ado about Nothing For both the Captain and all Catholicks whilst they Believe the Creed Relating to Scripture are very secure and Confessedly right in Fundamentals Which being Supposed It is more then Impertinent in the Protestant to Keep such a Coyl about lesser Matters Protestants keep a Coyl to no Purpose about matters not Essential or to Reduce the main
to Observe these Three Things 1. If we Consider the Motive of Faith which is Gods Veracity what ever He Speaks little or great is with one and the same Respect and Profound Reverence to be Assented to And here is no Difference between Fundamentals and Others 2. If we speak of the Proposition One concerns the formal Object of Faith of Faith Herein also There is no Difference For no man can Believe a Fundamental Doctrin Sooner Then Not Fundamental unles the one as well as the Other be Sufficiently Proposed 3. If we The other relates to its proposal Speak of the Matter Revealed I have shewed Above That some Points in Themselves or Per se More Essentially Constitute Yea And more Conduce to Piety Then others But This makes no Distinction between The Third to the matter believed Fundamentals and not Fundamentals in the true sense of our Question Because the lesser as well as the greater Are upon Gods Testimony Equally Believed in every true Vniversal Act of Supernatural Faith wherby we say All is to be Assented to That God Reveal's CHAP. VI. Some Few Propositions of A late VVriter are Briefly Examined His Discours of Fundamentals Destroy's Protestant Religion 1. I Say Briefly For I leave much to be Answered Mr. Stillingfleets Propositions refuted by more Learned Adversaries One Proposition is The very Being of a Church doth suppose the Necessity of what is required to be Believed in order to Saluation Very good but what then Marry This followes If 't was a Church it Believed all Things Necessary before it Defined How comes it Therfore to make more Things Necessary by its Definition First A word ad Hominem Protestants Add to what They conceive Essential to a Church a company of new unproved Negative Articles They proceed not consequently to their Principles Protestants Have now a Church Essentially Constituted or Have not If not Protestancy is no Christian Religion If They have such a Church why do They Add to that which They Conceive to be the Essentials of it A Cluster of new Articles never owned by any Orthodox Society For example No Sacrifice no Purgatory no Transubstantiation c. Could they proceed Consequently to their Principles they should neither Deny a Sacrifice a Purgatory c. nor Assert them But hold them meer Parergons Because They have a Church Essentially founded without them Why therfore Do They either Deny or Affirm Why medle They at all with these Articles Why load They Protestancy with the Vnnecessary Burden of so many unproved Negatives when their Church hath its whole Being before these Negatives can be thought of 2. In Catholick Principles both the Proposition and Question are most Simple For we own more Essentials In Catholick Principles The Proposition and Question are more then simple then Sectaries Do and Therfore say As there was a Church in Being before any Word of Scripture was writ and consequently the Writing of Scripture Added no new Being to it Though it declared Things more Explicitly so in like manner The present Definitions of the Church Alter nothing of the Ancient Foundations of Faith But only declare more As Scripture when first writ altered not the Antecedent Churches Doctrin So the Church now Alters nothing of the Ancient Faith explicitly Christs Verities contained in Scripture and Tradition And this Power the Church ever Had in all Ages Mark well what is said here For it Clear's All the following Fallacies of our Adversaries Discours 3. A Second Proposition What ever Church own 's those things which are Antecedently Necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church And here They say we must Distinguish those Things in the Catholick Church which give it Being from those Things which are the Proper Acts of it as the Catholick Church Very true But the only Question They wave the Difficulty is How much precise Doctrin That is which gives Being to the Catholick Church This our Adversaries Content with a general Word of a Churches Being wave whilst Catholicks Catholicks say All that God Reveal's is Necessary to the Being of the Church say plainly All that God Reveal's and is taught by the Church as Revealed is so Essentially necessary to the very Being of it That not one Article can be rejected after a Sufficient Proposal Dare Protestants say thus much of Their Negative Articles No Purgatory no Real Presence no Sacrifice c. Or own these as Essentials of Their Church of Protestancy To that Distinction of the proper Acts of the Church And One is the due Administration of Sacraments from the Faith connaturally precedes the use of Sacraments Being of it I answer the Faith of Sacraments which Connaturally Preced's the use or exercise of them is most Essential to the Being of a Church and This Belief every true Christian Hath 4. A third Proposition The Vnion of the Catholick Vnity of the Church and the Agreement are the same Church depend's upon the Agreement of it in making the Foundations of its Being to be the Grounds of its Communion For the Vnity being intended to preserve the Being there can be no reason given why the bonds of union should extend beyond the Foundation of its BEING which is the owning the Things necessary to Saluation It is not worth the while to catch at these improper Expressions The Vnion of the Church Depend's upon the Agreement of it For Nothing certainly Depend's on it Self now the Vnion of the Church whether we speak of the Objective Doctrin or of Faith tending into that Doctrin is Essentially its Agreement Therfore Properly it Depend's not on Agreement But really is Agreement As truely as Vnum Verum and Bonum Are Ens à Parte rei Whence I Say Vnity is not intended to Preserve the Being of the Church as a Cause preserves its Effect For Vnity essential to the Being is The very Thing Preserved Vnity essential to the Being of a Church is the Thing preserved by Almighty God by Almighty God And therfore cannot Preserve an Antecedent conceived Being without Vnity But let this pass Consider what follows They say The Bonds of Vnion should not extend beyond the Foundation of the Churches Being c. Very good What is next This it is Whatsoever Church imposeth the Belief of other Things necessary to Saluation which were not so Antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Meer Talk without proof Church Break 's the Vnity of it and those Churches who desire to Preserve Vnity are bound therby not to have Communion with it so long as it doth so Here is little said less explicated and least of all Proved First they say not How much Doctrin precisely makes up the Catholicks extend not the unity of the Church beyond its Foundations for They Believe so much as God hath revealed and no more Churches Being nor shall ever tell us by their Principles 2.
They name not the guilty Persons that Extend the Vnion of the Church beyond its Foundations Are they Catholicks who Believe all that God Reveal's and is declared by the Church to be Revealed Or Sectaries That have neither Church nor Scripture for any Article of their Protestancy 3. If they Hold themselves to be the Preservers of the Churches Vnity They must prove it by strong Principles And first shew Positively by Scripture That they have just so much as is Necessary and sufficient to Saluation Before Sectaries who have neither Church nor Scripture for one word of Protestancy Most unreasonably pretend to be the Preservers of the Churches Vnity they make us Guilty of any Breach of the Churches Vnity This will be a hard Task For if they say We Break the Churches Vnity in believing a Sacrifice a Purgatory c. They are obliged to prove and by plain Scripture That either their contrary Negatives are to be Believed or That neither our Positives nor their Negatives merit an Act of Faith which is Impossible For What Scripture saith we are neither to Believe a Sacrifice nor the Contrary 5. In the next place they come to Solve the Enigma to explicate the main Subject of the present Dispute And 't is to Tell us what those Things are Their own saying is the only Proof which ought to be Owned by all Christian Societies as Necessary to Saluation on which the Being of the Catholick Church Depend's Happy were they could they Unridle the Mystery Protestants cannot Shew what things are Necessary And say what Things are thus Necessary But our Author still run's on in Generals and Determin's nothing Be pleased to hear his Resolution 6. Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Saluation by Christian Societies But such things which by the Iudgement of all those Societies are Antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church No man I think knows to what that word Antecedently relates nor can this Author make sense of it One may Guess what he would be at He will Perhaps Say When all Christian They fall upon impossibilities Societies stand firmly united in one Iudgement concerning the Being and the Essentials of a Church then we are right in These Essentials Answ But this was never yet seen nor will be seen as is more largely declared Chap. 2. n. 1. whither I remit the Reader for further Satisfaction He Adds two Things more One is There cannot be any Reason given why any Thing els should be judged Necessary to the Churches Communion He means Who is to Iudge him that sayes He Dissents not in Necessary Articles of Faith But what all those Churches who do not manifestly Dissent from the Catholick Church of the first Ages are agreed in as Necessary to be Believed by all My God! What Confusion Have we here Where is the Protestant that can Assure us without Protestants cannot shew what the Primitive Church believed Dispute what the Catholick Church of the first Ages positively Believed and positively Rejected Could this one Point be clear'd without Endles Debate A better Vnion might be Hoped for But herein both We and Sectaries Dissent as is Proved above Therfore by No Appealing to the primitive Church without the Tradition of the present Church their Appealing to the Ancient Church whilst They Abstract from the Tradition of a present Catholick Church They go about to Prove Ignotum per ignotius And convince nothing 7. They Add a second Consideration which may be reflected on Ad perpetuam rei memoriam And 't is to Memorable Doctrin this Sense After Their Telling us That in Case of great Divisions in the Christian World any National Church may Reform it self as is Supposed England Men uncertain in all They say take on to Teach wherin Faith is abused Hath don and Declare its Sense of those Abuses in Articles of Religion yea and Require of Men a Subscription against those Abuses c. They go on We are to consider that there is a great Difference between the Owning some Propositions in order to Peace and the Believing of them as Necessary to Salvation Now Mark what Followes No Orthodox Church Ever excepted against our Church Doctrin The Church of Rome Imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed A most unproved Assertion which Articles are excepted against by other Churches name the Orthodox Church that ever excepted against them it cannot be don But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith Mark the Doctrin But such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self and in other things she requires Subscription to Protestant Religion reduc'd to Inferiour Truths them Not as ARTICLES of Faith but as inferiour Truths which she expects Submission to in order to Her peace and tranquillity And thus much the late Primate of Ireland expresseth to be the Sense of the Church of England as to her thirtynine Articles 8. Be it known to all men by These Presents That the Church of England so far as it maintains these The English Church consisting of Negatives is no Church Negatiue Protestant Articles of No Sacrifice No Real Presence No Purgatory is here confessedly owned to have no Articles of Faith Revealed by Almighty God And therfore so far 'T is neither any Christian or Catholick Church Because these Negatives the very marrow of Protestancy are now Degraded And Thrown down from their Ancient Height of Articles to the low Rank of a few Humble and inferiour Truths 9. But let us go on Who Assures you Sir of Inferiour Truths are none of Gods Truths Their being Truths at all God you say that Reveal's nothing but most Supream Truths Own 's none of Them No Orthodox Church no Ancient Council no Vnanimous Consent of Fathers no nor your own Synods in England Though without Proof They Suppose them to be Truths ever yet Defined them as you Two yong Popes do Doctor Bramhal and your Self to be Truths of an Inferiour Rank and Order Be it how you will I am sure the Declaration before these Articles says they are Articles of Religion These Authors clash with the 39. Articles and contain the true Doctrin of the Church of England Agreable to Gods Word If so Gods Word is Agreable to these Articles and Proves them Again Some of your own Coat and perhaps as Learned as you Call them Articles of Faith Certainly they These Negatives of the 39. Articles are neither Articles of Faith nor Inferiour Truths are none of our Faith Ergo they are yours or no Bodies Vpon whom then shall we Rely for the last Definition I 'll tell you Both the Assertions of their being either Articles of Faith or Inferiour Truths stand tottering without Proof or Principle upon the sole Fancy of those who say so 10. 3. If these Dull Negatives be only Voted for
I say is Whether Their Positive owning of a Sign or Figure only Be an Article of their Faith or no more But One of their Inferiour supposed Truths If this later They never Had nor can have any determinate A Dilemma that cannot be answered Faith of this Sacred Mystery which yet God hath most certainly Revealed unto us in Holy Scripture And consequently They believe nothing of the Blessed Sacrament by Divine Faith For Inferiour Truths are no Articles Inferiour Truths are not Articles of Faith of Belief with Them Contrarywise if They say the Belief of a Sign or Figure only is one of their Articles of Faith And the Thing Believed an Object of Faith They must certainly eat their own Words and confess That the English Church makes new Articles of Faith And such as never Had the Approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it Self For the whole Christian World of all Ages never Believed so Some perhaps will Answer They Believe in General Christs own Words Some Sectaries believe they know not what to be true Though They know not well what he meant when he said This is my Body Answer If they know not what he spoke why do They charge Idolatry on us By the force of their Inferiour supposed Their inconsequences Truths for Adoring Christ in the Sacrament I am sure Arius of old was an Haeretick For Denying the High Godhead of our Saviour upon the Vncertainty of his supposed Superiour Truths And Sectaries are now in a wors They are in a wors Condition Then Arians Case whilst they contradict all Orthodox Churches in the Belief of this Sacrament And make us Idolaters Meerly upon the Vncertainty of their imagined Inferiour Truths 15. Another Proposition is Thus. Nothing ought to be imposed as a necessarij Article of Faith to be believed by all but what may be evidently propounded to all Persons as a Thing which God did require the explicite belief of Observe the Vnexplicated words Evidently Propounded to all Persons Who must propound these Articles of Faith Must God Angels or mens private Fancies Do it No. The Oracle of Truth Christs own Christ Church Can only propose Faith unto us Church find it where you can is both to Propose Faith to us and to Decide all Difficulties when they Arise among us as is Already Proved Submit to This and all Controversies are Ended Here is also another loos Proposition Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of Another Proposition too General and insignificant all Ages Sr say you plainly where this Catholick Church was in all Ages and tell us exactly How many Articles it Held Necessary and sufficient to Salvation And we shall Drive you out of your Generalities which Prove just nothing To a more open and Plain They run on in General 's Doctrin wherof you are as much afraid as the Divel of Holy water We know not what you mean by the Catholick Church 16. Well But the next Assertion will clear all It is sufficient Evidence that was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith which was not admitted into the Ancient Creeds Pray you prove This sufficient Evidence by a clear Principle Vpon what Ground doth the The Belief of the Creed not Sufficient c. Assertion stand Distinct from your own Fancy The Baptizing of Infants The Admitting of so many Books for the exact Canon of Scripture The Belief all ought to have of the Holy Eucharist Are not Explicitly set down in Necessary Particulars not Expresses in the Creed the Ancient Creeds Therfore we must have Recours to the Catholick Church both for the Faith of these And many other Articles But we have said enough of this Subject 17. You go on Nothing ought to be judged a necessary Article of Faith but what was universally believed by the Catholick Church to be delivered as such by Christ and his Apostles Sr Before this Proposition be cleared you These Authors say not what is meant by These dark Terms Believed by the Catholick Church are to Declare what you Mean by those Terms Believed by the Catholick Church For if Rightly Suppose There was never any True Church But the Roman Catholick only continued Age after Age And upon This Supposition Reply which is easy to your Assertion and the Ten following Points You 'l say I mistake your Meaning concerning the very Notion of that Church which your Fancy makes Catholick And if I licence you to Enlarge The Catholick Church as far as you Pleas or To comprise in it All who have had the Name of Christians Though otherwise known Haereticks your Proposition to us is de Subjecto non supponente of a Subject not Supposable And the annexed Points are highly Impertinent They are to specify what and where This Catholick Church is Name Therfore Exactly The Catholick Church upon grounded Principles and all is don 18. After the ending these Negatives They inquire what we ought Positively to Believe as Necessary to Saluation And remit us without any further Proof but their own saying to the Articles of the Ancient A question proposed Creeds This is largely refuted already Next they propose a question Whether any thing which was not Necessary to Saluation may by any Means whatsoever afterwards become Necessary so that the not Believing it Whether The Church Can Define any Thing anew necessary to Salvation so that the not believing of it becomes Damnable becomes Damnable The Question If I mistake not Drives at This To shew that the Church can make no new Definitions of Faith Necessary to Saluation Because all Faith Necessary is Antecedently supposed as it were laid in The very Churches Foundation before it Defines Which Foundations were both Fully and Solidly laid when Christ and his Apostles Taught the World For the Earth was full of his Knowledge He taught his Disciples all things he had heard of his Father The Messias when he came would tell them all things c. Therfore a Church solidly Founded and before it Defines The reason of the Doubt full of Truth can make nothing so Necessary to Saluation by a new superadded Definition that the not Believing of it Becomes Damnable The grounds of Sectaries shewed Null though the Church made new Definitions 19. Before we Answer the Question it will be good to shew you the Nullity of our Adversaries Grounds and the Inconsequences of them Herein lyes the chief strength of all That 's said A Church must be a Church before it can Define and Consequently There must be a Vnion in Belief by which The Church is Constituted in Being Antecedently to its new Definitions Very Good All this in True but makes The Reason Nothing Against the Church though it Define anew I 'll prove it and Explicate my self by one Instance In a Kingdom
or Commonwealth There is always an Agreement or Settlement in some great Matters before it Proceed to make new Laws yet 'T is not Common-wealths though antecedently setled may make new Laws consequent to say That the Agreement ought to be so Explicit in all Things in all Points in all particular Matters that nothing afterward can be Decreed anew It is Therfore sufficient That these new Laws Arise from some first solid Principles of that Common-wealth Antecedently setled in Being And if this be so They oblige as Much as the former Conventions Did when it was first setled Though they were not at all mentioned at the first Founding of the Common-wealth 20. Answerably Hereunto One may say Christ founded a Church Assisted as is here Supposed by a Spirit of Truth the Holy Ghost and first setled it upon some fewer Principles from which All other after-Definitions might Proceed or be Derived The The Church assisted by the Holy Ghost Derives new Definitions from its first Setlement Church thus Assisted Defines anew upon the former Setlement just as the Commonwealth makes new Laws upon its first Agreement Such Definitions Therfore because they Proceed from an Infallible Oracle call them yet new or old as you pleas Are as certain and of as great necessity to be Believed As those new Laws are Obligatory and of necessity to be Obeyed Here is one Disparity which is not to the Purpose Viz. That the Commonwealths Laws proceed from Human Authority The Churches Definitions from Divine Assistance Those oblige under a temporal The parity holds exactly Punishment These under Eternal But the Parity exactly Hold's thus far Those Laws were implicitly and virtually contained in the first grounded setlement of the Commonwealth These of the Church in the first setlement of Christianity Those may be called New These may be also called so Those become Necessary to be Obeyed These become Necessary New Laws are to be obeyed and new Definitions if any were are to be believed to be Believed Now further As no man Doubt's But That the Church may make new Laws in order to Obedience so none can but most Vnreasonably Doubt of its Power in Setting forth new Definitions It is very True Here may be much of a Quaestio de Nomine Whether They are to be called Old or New Because of their different Respects Relating to the first setled Vpon different respects these Definitions may be called either new or old Foundations of Christian Doctrin from whence They Proceed They may take a Denomination and be called Old Because Radicated in Those old certain Principles But if we consider them as more Ample Express and significant Declarations of Gods Eternal Truths They may without Offence or Clashing in the least with Church-Doctrin be called New Definitions Thus much is Briefly said to show how groundles our Adversaries Grounds are 21. But we will not leave the Difficulty Thus. To Answer therfore with more satisfaction Be pleased to note It is one Thing to own a Church perfectly Founded Two things to be noted and fully Instructed in all things Necessary to Salvation And an Other to suppose that all know explicitly what That Perfect founded Doctrin is which God will have to be believed as Necessary to Salvation This later Requires a clear Proposition made by some Oracle of Truth of the necessary Doctrin As is evident in Scripture it self For though I own all that Scripture saith to be True in the Sense intended by the Holy Ghost yet I must learn by a sure Teacher what it saith in a hundred difficil Passages 22. Now to Question Whether any thing which was not Necssary to Saluation may Afterwards become so Necessary that the not Believing it is Damnable c. I Answer The Question answered Nothing is now Necessary to Saluation After the Churches Definition which was not Necessary Before yea and Believed by the Apostles Themselves The ground of my Assertion is Because the Apostles immediatly Illuminated The Apostles the first and best knowing Masters of Divine Mysteries by Christ our Lord were made Partakers of His Divine Mysteries They had Primitias Spiritus the First Fruits of the Spirit Believed as we believe Taught as we Teach and never Delivered Doctrin contrary to the Church in After-Ages Hence Divines commonly Hold That the Church properly speaking The Church makes no new Articles of Faith but only declares more explicitly what was Anciently of Faith makes no new Articles of Faith But only Declares more Significantly and Expresly what Those well Instructed Masters of the Church Christs own Disciples Both Believed and upon several Occasions Taught others And here one Grand Cheat is to be taken Notice of Sectaries Think that All those Christian Truths which the Apostles Believed Explicitly are now Explicitly enough upon Record in Holy Writ It is an Errour Our Saviour as St. Iohn Testifies All that the Apostles believ'd is not explicitly in Scripture Cap. 21. v. 25. Did many Things which if writen in particular the whole World would not contain Might not then the Apostles also Believe many Things As a Sacrifice of Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory c. yea and Teach those Verities Though they were not so plainly Delivered in Holy Writ yet expresly enough But that Haereticks might Cavil at them 23. Here then is my Resolution which is most Catholick The Resolution Doctrin Christ our Lord Established a Church that is to Tell us Truth to the end of Ages This Oracle which Relies not on Gods written Word only But on the Vnwritten also undoubted Tradition answerable to Necessary Ocsions of new Haereticks rising up Or of Schism made in Christian Societies c. Often Proposeth more The Church useth clearer Terms in her Definitions Explicitly what the Primive Faith was And the Apostles Believed Not that it makes new Articles if we speak rigourously But proposeth the old ones again in more Clear and Significant Terms And how can Sectaries blame this Procedure when They without the Warrant of Gods Word written or unwritten Propose and Declare as They think the Ancient Sense of Scripture it self to their Hearers in a Hundred Passages Sectaries without Gods Word written or unwritten make new Definitions For example Christ said This is my Body They by A new Proposition Define This is a Sign of my Body Will they licence Themselves to Propose what they please out of Gods Word Already writ and Storm at a whole Church if it do so or Further Declare what was not Writ yet ever Believed Though perhaps not by all so explicitly as 'T is after the Churches clearer Definition The Church in this Proceeds upon a certain Principle indubitable Tradition Sectaries Have neither Tradition nor Scripture For what they Propose anew You se therfore whoever Pertinaciously Whoever Denies the Churches Definitions Denies the old believed Articles Denies the Definitions of the Church Denies not only the new Declared But the
old Believed Articles And consequently is lyable to Damnation 24. You se moreover It is not only suitable to Reason But necessary also for the very Preservation of Christian Religion That the Church to whom the Mysteries Necessary For Christian Religion of our Faith were committed Though it makes no new Articles nor Supposeth any other Foundation then what was laid by Christ and his Apostles May yet as That the Church declare more explicitly Necessity requires Declare more Explicitly the Primitive Doctrin of Christianity For by what better Means can we possibly arrive to the Knowledge of Primitive Doctrine those Necessary Truths which the Apostles either Believed or Taught Then by their Heirs and Successors The Successors of the Apostles Teach in the place of Those deceased Masters I mean The vigilant Watchmen who were and Still are substituted in the Place of those First Infallible Deceased Masters They Blessed Men ran up and down the World from Country to Country from House to House Testifying the Faith of our Lord Iesus Christ yet neither committed all the Truths Delivered by them to Holy Writ nor supposed The Apostles writ not all They taught the Ignorant and Vulearned fit Instruments to Teach as They had Taught The Legacies Therfore of our Christian Truths were left in surer Hands I mean Chiefly in the Custody of the Successors of those first great Masters Whence it is That the Deposited Doctrin commended to Timothy Apostle commend's to Timothy more then once the Keeping of a Depositum of mighty Value which the Fathers and none more expresly then Vincentius Lirinensis call the Common Catholick Doctrin Or to speak Talentum Catholicum saith Vinc. Lir. in this worthy Authors words upon the Text 1. Tim. 6. 20. lib. contr prof Hae. Novit Biblioth Patrum Tom. 4. cap. 27. Talentum Catholicum Fidei The Catholick Talent of our Faith Aurum accepistis Add's Vincentius aurum redde Thou O Bishop Pastor and Doctor hast received Gold render as pure Gold again c. What things thou hath learned so Teach Adorn and Illustrate and mark Here a further Declaration of the Deposited A further Declaration of Deposited Doctrin allowed of Doctrin Allowed of ut cum dicas Novè non dicas Nova That when Thou proposest Things anew Thou Teach not new Things but the old Doctrin And hence it also is That the Church of Christ is stiled by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives a Rich Treasury The Church called by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is Kept And not only once Kept and then lost But as a Depositum ought to be it s Handed down from Age to Age from Church to Church Successively continued to the Worlds End If therfore you look for the Apostolical Depositum Leap not I Beseech you over the Heads of all those Christians who have been betwixt Us and the first 3. or The Apostolical Depositum is in the Churches hands 4. Ages As if it were to be found There and no where els But Demand of this present Church now in Being 'T is She that Knows better And Inform's us more exactly of Apostolical Doctrin Then all the lost Writings of the The present Church best inform's us of Apostolical Doctrin Ancient Church could have done or those that are hitherto preserv'd can do Because they are all lyable to endles Disputes and Consequently can absolutely Decide no controversy Now if any one Boggles at this Assertion as if we could not have sufficient Certitude of The most Ancient writings are lyable to Dispute what the Ancient Church Delivered by the Testimony or Tradition of the Present Church But further Requir's Express Records to be Produced of all that was ever Taught Let him correct his Errour and know That what is Carved in Brass or Writ in Velume cannot be more securely Kept then Apostolical Doctrin Deposited in the Hands and writ in the Apostolical Doctrin better preserved in the hands of Christs Pastors thenif't had been carved in Brass Harts of Christs faithful Pastors is now Preserved For what 's in Brass or Partchment Time may wear out and blemish But that which God hath committed to his Church and Chief Pastors therof who are to Teach Christians Age after Age shall never Perish never Pass or be put out of Remembrance And this Doctrin the Church Deliver's more Explicitly in her Definitions chiefly when she Declares Truth against Haereticks CHAP. VII More of this Subject Objections are Answered 1. TO go on with our Discours I would willingly Know when the Apostle Exhort's the Galatians cap. 1. vers 8. 9. Not to Believe an Angel Preaching contrary to what He had Preached and They had formerly Received As also the Thessalonians 2. c. 2. 14. to Hold the Traditions learned by Word or Epistle Whether All that the Apostles Orally taught was neither writ nor can be supposed lost we can Imagin that all the Apostles Orally Delivered was Either Expresly Registred in Scripture or the whole Substance of that Divine Doctrin of equal Certitude with Gods written Word is now Totally lost Neither is Probable The Essentials therfore of that Doctrin laid up sure in the rich Treasury of the The Essentials of it remain in the Churches Treasury Church still Remain with Christs own Faithfull Pastors And this is the Depositum mentioned in Scripture wherby the Church Assisted by the Holy Ghost Regulates Her self when She Defines Therfore great Divines Assert That the Church never Teaches or will Teach any new Verity that was unknown to the Apostles The Doctrin of Divines Se Greg. de Valentia De Fide Disp 1. Quaest 1. Puncto 6. § Illud vero And § Hinc quoque Suarez Disp 2. De Fide Sect. 6. n. 18. Tanner Disp 1. de Fide Quaest 1. Dub. 7. n. 211. 2. St. Paul Methinks confirm's this Doctrin Roman 12. 6. According to the Rule of Faith Wherupon our What is meant by the Analogy of Faith Sectaries Because the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Endlesly talk of the Analogy of Faith Let us bring Words to Sense and Sense to Principles What is This Analogy This Measure or Proportion of Faith Is that which every Mans private Fancy fall's upon to be Faith the Measure and Analogy of it God forbid If so Faith would be as Various as Fancy is Changeable in Haereticks We must therfore find out a better Analogy And if you say it is Scripture I Answer Before the writing of Scripture A perfect Rule of Faith before Scripture was writ There was a true and perfect Rule of Faith Otherwise These words of St. Paul Presupposing the Rule He mentions before he writ This Epistle are insignificant Again When He Tell 's the Thessalonians Epist 1. c. 1. of Their being a Pattern to all that Believed in Macedonia and Achaia Of the Word of our Lord sounded out by them Scripture
11. One word now to a Tedious Harange of Ieers 'T is a mile long at least and Wearies one out before He run's it half Over After our Adversary had Answer to our Adversaries Ieers of Milstones Talked of Milstones hung about our Necks of the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation c. He Tell 's us When the Apostles were sent to Preach all that Christ Commanded This must be Vnderstood that the Church had Power to Teach more if She pleased Alas the Apostles were only Tutors to the Church in its Minority But the great Divine Mysteries of the Seven Sacraments Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass were not fit to be Declared till the Church was at Age VVhat not one VVord of Necessary Points all this while Nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christs Vicar on Earth c Thus our young Tully Tattles To Retort his Argument I might here load him with the lesser Milstones of his Inferiour Negative Truths For these hang about his Submissive Neck if He be a Child of the Church of England And are as numerous as our contrary Positives But he will say they weigh little Because They are light Negatives Be it so Were the Apostles Think Ye so Tongue-tyed so Sparing of their Words as not once to Hint at one of these Inferiour Truths What not a Syllable The Apostles strangely sparing of Protestants Doctrin Through the whole Bible of two Sacraments only of no Purgatory of no Sacrifice Nor of a Sort of New Men that were to Peep out sixteen Ages after and Reform the World O were They alive Again how would Sectaries storm at their Silence And utter Forgetfulnes of These New Nothings which yet are the very best Essentials of Protestancy or it hath no Essence Thus men might Talk But Ad Rem 12. This whole wordy Argument is just like Protestant Religion purely Negative And brought to its best Sense Draws apace towards Non-sense Thus Christ and his Apostles Declared not to the VVorld These Doctrins of the Popes Supremacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass of Purgatory c. Therfore they are no Foundations of Faith I first Deny the Antecedent How will Scripture Speak's more expresly of the Popes Supremacy then of a Trinity you prove it Marry Thus. Scripture saith nothing of them I Deny that also It speaks more Expresly of the Popes Supremacy And of a Sacrifice Then of a Trinity of Persons in One Divine Essence or of Infant Baptism But let us Gratis suppose it do not so Here lyes the Strength of your Objection which is Improbably Negative Scripture saith not that the Apostles The Objection Improbably Negative Believed and Taught a Sacrifice the Popes Supremacy c. Ergo They neither Believed nor Taught them Observe well your Negative From the not Registring of all in Scripture that the Apostles knew Believed and Taught you infer They knew no More or at least Believed and Taught no More Which is as Vnlucky a Sequel as this You Sir have not Writ Down in your Rational Account of Protestancy All that your Learned Head hath in it All you Believe and Teach Others Therfore you Know Nothing Believe Nothing Teach Nothing But what is Expressed in that Book In a Word I have Answered The Successors of the Apostles Teach what is Apostolical Doctrin above n. 22. The Church of Christ that is The Heirs and Successors of the Apostles with whom the Mysteries of Faith were Deposited Teach us what Apostolical Doctrin is and This Positive Approved by Scripture And all Antiquity hath more Weight in it Then twenty of your weak Negative Discourses 13. But we must not Part thus I said just now Your Objection Against us is an Improbable Negative And I Appeal to your own Conscience whether it be not so For can You or any Prudent Man Imagin that all the exact Words or Express Doctrin Delivered by It is improbable to say all that the Apostles taught is registred in Scripture the Apostles in their laborious Sermons when They Preached to Iewes and Gentils are Recorded in Holy Scripture No. I may well say in St. Iohns Sense speaking of our Saviours Works the whole World or whole Volumes would not contain them Therfore All They taught cannot be Supposed to be either lost or Shut up in Scripture Take here your own Instance of St. Paul it Vndoes you He Blessed Man Act. 20. 20. 21. Kept nothing back that was profitable to them But shewed them and taught them publickly from House to House Testifying to the Iewes and Gentils Penance towards God and Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ You upon this Testimony too simply Demand What not one Word all this while of the Necessary Points nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christ Vicar on Earth I might Ask you Nothing all this whole of Infant Baptism of the Eternal Consubstantiality of the Son with God His Father Good Sir Reflect whilst the Apostle spak of Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ He might well have Declared both these now named and many other Particular Christian Verities I do not say He did so at that Present But This I 'll Defend Against you Because Scripture only relates in a General Way what St. Paul Preached A weak Inference of This Adversary You can neither Probably nor Positively Infer That he omitted to speak of These and other Necessary Doctrins I say in a General Way For Do you think that St. Luke Recounts in Particular all the Doctrinal Points that the Apostle Delivered when he went Preaching From House to House Or can You Perswade your Self that All the Hagiographers put together have Recounted all the Doctrinal Matters not one omitted That Christ our Lord ever Spoke and the Apostles Taught upon several Occasions Pray you ask your Conscience whether you can Iudge this Probable If It does not follow that what Scripture relates not is not to be Believed not The Argument Scripture Relates not those particular Doctrins wherat you Cavil which is yet untrue Ergo They were neither Believed nor Taught is not only a Negative But an improbable Negative 14. To conclude Let me Friendly ask you whether this your Positive Assertion The Apostles never Believed nor taught a Sacrifice or the Popes Supremacy Be an Article of your new Faith or only one of your Inferiour Truths If you Affirm the first You are Obliged to produce Positive Scripture for it And then it will be a A Dilemma that cannot be Answered Superiour Truth Revealed by God Though perhaps in your Principles not Necessary to Saluation Grant thus much And you too Clearly own Revealed Articles over and above Those which the whole Christian World and Rome it Self Believes Now if it be only an Inferiour Truth And not in Gods written Word With what Sectaries offer to reclaim us by Scripture and have not one Text to that purpose Conscience or Countenance can you Protestants who Always Pretend to Reclaim us from our
Harts And Tell us They have Done what is possible to Convert us to Drive us from Superstition Sectaries cannot say to what they would convert us And Draw us to the Purity of Their New Gospel They only give Words without Substance For to What would they Convert us Will They have us Believe the General Received Doctrin of all Christians We were Converted to this before Protestants Appeared in the World Do they desire to Convert us to a Belief of their New Negatives These are at most uncertain Inferiour Truths no way Essential to Christian Religion Put Our positive Doctrin weighed with Sectaries Negatives the case by a supposed Impossibility that our Contrary Positives were only Inferiour Truths like Protestants Negatives They might notwithstanding most justly hang in the Ballance with Them and would certainly outweigh Them Because a more Ample and Vniversal Church own 's Them All therfore They can Drive at when They Pretend to convert us is That We carry They only careser the exteriour form of Protestancy about Vs The Exteriour form of Protestancy in our Demeanour Though we still remain Catholicks in Hart They care not That is as I said now They would Convert us to be plain Hypocrits 19. From this and the precedent Discours it follows A Fallible Religion cannot defend it self That whosoever Embraceth a Fallible Religion which may be Fals can neither Defend his own nor impugn another upon any grounded Principle much less can He Persecute his Adversary to Death or Imprisonment Though He Nor the Professors of it persecute others mantain's a contrary Religion in like manner Fallible The Reason hereof is Clear Because The Defense of a Religion That 's Fallible And the opposition made against another Answerably weak and Fallible cannot go beyond the Strength The Reason is Evident of that last Ground wheron the Defense or Impugnation ultimatly resolved have their Footing But if the Religion be Fallible and uncertain The last Ground wheron the whole Machin either of Proof or Opposition stand's must needs be A Distastful opinative Conjecture Which without Certitude or Satisfaction is as A Defender of a Fallible Religion cannot preserve himself from Scorn unfit and forceles to Convince another of a contrary Belief as to preserve it self from the Scorn and Contempt of him though he profess no more but a Faith that 's Fallible Put the Case That a Pelagian and a Protestant are hard at a hot Dispute The Question proposed is Whether of these two Religions we suppose them both Fallible is the better With what Proof or Principle can this Fallible Protestant Assault his Fallible Adversary when He knows he cannot go one Step further then to what is purely Fallible If he interpret Scripture that 's Fallible if he Quote Fathers both They and He are Fallible if He cite Councils the Definitions with him are Fallible if He cry up his own Religion as having the Vpperhand in Probability He only throws his single vote into the Vrâ— which when 't is examined comes to no more But his Own Sic videtur or Self Fallible He can neither convince his Adversary nor persecute him but most unjustly Conceipt And Hence it follows That as He cannot Prove his Religion against his Adversary so He cannot but must unjustly Persecute him if he Refuse to Embrace that which cannot be Proved But most certainly his Proofs go not beyond the Bounds of Vncertainty and Therfore cannot oblige his Adversary to Believe him And Thus these two Combatants may wink and fight to the day of Iudgement without ending one Controversy or falling on any Thing like a certain Principle 20. I 'll say here a strange Word And think it very True Would A Learned Atheist write a large Volume An Atheist might say as much against God as against the Existency of God or A Learned Iew against Iesus Christ They might prove as much by a Roving fallible Talk Grounded on no Principles against These great Verities of Christian Faith as ever Protestant hath yet Proved against the Roman Catholick Church Protestants can say against the Roman Catholick Church For Their new Mode of writing is a long loos wearisom Discours without Reducing either Proof for their own Religion or Opposition made against Catholick Doctrin to Any Thing like a received Principle Mark this in all particular Controversies you will find meer uncertain Conjectures to be the last ground wheron either Their Proofs or Arguments Against us stand most unsetled Yet it should be Otherwise For whoever will venture to impugn a Religion That 's Held by the greatest part of Christians Infallible must strike Home and Reach to sound Principles Before He Touch it much less break it a Pieces Sectaries may say They are able at least to Defend Christian Religion in General owned Their Defense of Christian Religion in in general is to no purpose by all the World For the rest of Protestancy it may go whether you will Nec seritur nec metitur They are not solicitous My God are we come to this Pass now What must all the Disturbance of Sectaries their Schism and Rebellion made Against a Church their Glosses on Scripture And the whole Machin of Protestancy End thus in a Non Probatur it cannot be proved Is that only now asserted Defensible to wit the common Doctrin of all Christians That precisely taken is no mans Religion And Needs no Defense 21. Some other Objections yet remain But are all Solved upon the Principles now established One is If every Doctrin Defined by the Church be Fundamental the Church layes its own Foundations Contra There was Fundamental Faith in the Church before Scripture was writ Did Scripture Therfore lay New Foundations of Scripture Declared anew the Antecedent believed Doctrin of the Church Faith Because it Declared anew that Antecedent owned Doctrin Thus we Say the Church Declares the Ancient objective Faith of foregoing Christians ever implicitly at least Believed And not otherwise A second Objection less to the Purpose The Teaching Church either Believes in that Instant Sht Defines a thing Necessary to Saluation or doth not If She doth It was Necessary before the Definition newly made If not She Defines something Necessary to Saluation which was not before Necessary To answer the Objection I might ask whether St. Iohn when he writ this Proposition The Word is made Flesh Believed that Article of Christian Faith before he writ it or no If yes it was of Necessity to be Believed before If not He delivered something Necessary to Saluation which was not so before In one short Word Here is the solution to No Real Difficulty The Church at least Implicitly Believed before what The Church Believ's Implicitly before She Defines but more Explicitly after for her own Definition it Defines yet may and doth more Explicitly Believe the same Mystery in that very Instant She Defines Because God Speak's that Truth more clearly
Succession of Their Church of Their Bishops of Their Pastors by virtue of any Immemorial Tradition Let Sectaries must solve Their own Argument them also Vouchsafe to give in that Title wherby They lay claim to a Possession of Truth What ever is Allegeable for the One or Other whether it be Tradition Scripture or Fathers will suffer more Contradiction from innumerable Called Christians then the least Article if any were little of our Catholick Faith Therfore they must Solve their own Argument The Reason is If they plead Traditioin for a continued Succession of a Protestant Church ever since Christ the whole Christian World yea even Protestants themselves Oppose the Paradox If Their Plea for Pure Protestancy be Scripture They 'l meet with as many Adversaries Having not one Syllable for it in Gods Word If finally They make a Belief Common to all Christians to be Their Essential Faith None likes the Doctrin Both Friends and Enemies Catholicks and Haereticks stand against them Therfore I say once more They must solve Their own Objection The Argument is solved 6. Now you shall have my Answer And I say An Argument That Drawes all the Force it has from the Opposition of Enemies And They were all known Opposition of Hereticks no proof against it Haereticks that Opposed our Catholick Tradition Destroys not only Evident Truths but also Impugn's Christ and Christian Religion Atheists make Objections Against God Jewes Against Christ yea And the very Instance now allowed of supposeth some wilful Zelots contrary to the common received Tradition of so many Monarchs undoubted Succession You Christian Truths meet with Adversaries He that will side with such Opponents shall at last desert Christianity se Therfore How weak this way of Arguing is Believe it There is no one Christian Verity but hath its Adversaries Therfore the Man that will Side with such Opponents and Cavil also Because a Company of Dismembred and jarring Sectaries Do so must look how He striks lest he cut to deep and Wound those He would not hurt For at last He shall be forced to shake of the very name an Notion of a Christian I 'll say in a word what is more amply laid forth Disc 1. Chap. 7. n. 4. 5. We have an Ancient Church against these Scattered Companies of Novellists A Church united in Doctrin Against their Iarrs and Endles Dissentions A Glorious Church manifested by such Marks and Motives as made the world Christian And these plead against Their Vnevidenced Opinions Finally we have most certain Tradition against their uncertain Guesses Vpon such Proofs which cannot be shaken we stand Therfore unles our Adversaries beside the Multitude of Opponents bring rational Proofs against our Possession which Rest at last upon undeniable Principles We are safe and cannot be Danted Alas The meer Number of known Enemies without Evidence Clamours of known Enemies without a rational Trial. Proofles to warrant what is Pretended Seem's much like unjust Clamours in a Disordered Common-wealth Loud 'T is true but as Sensles as Loud when Reason ought to have place and plead the Cause by Proofs and Principles Therfore we Appeal to Principles may They bear Sway we are content if not We told you Above Though as many Hereticks rise up against us As there are Atheists opposite to God And Iewes to Christ We Regard them not if they come Vnarmed and only Fight by the Votes of their own Scattered and Devided Companies But enough is said of this Subject in the Discours now Cited 7. Here I 'll only Add one Consideration more And it is to Assure our Adversaries Though They run to pass't Ages that is the whole world Over and Gather all the Votes of Enemies either against the Possession or the Ancient Tradition of our Church They only give us a Number of jarring Suffrages which bound up together cannot Amount to a weak Probability A weak probability though granted cannot clear Sectaries from Schism However Let Truth suffer Suppose them weakly Probable is this enough think you to warrant Sectaries Foule Schism Is here Ground enough to Iustify an Evident Divorce made from an Ancient Church wherin Their Ancestours Lived peaceably time out of mind Age after Age without Trouble and Disturbance No. All is improbable For what ever is less then Evidence Grounded on sure Principles will shew it self to be as it is a Proofles Cavil Against so long prescription and immemorial Possession of our Ancient Faith 8. Some may yet Reply All that 's Said hitherto An Objection Shows only a Personal Succession of Popes Prelates Pastors and People in foregoing Ages But is far from Proving the main point in Controversy They mean a full and quiet Possession of Truth which we make so Hereditary to These Popes and Bishops Descending from St. Peter That it was never lost This They say is to be Proved I Answer We are yet obliged to prove nothing For the very Testimony the Vnanimous When the Church gives in Her Evidence Sectaries are to Disprove it Consent the Constant Tradition of our united and learned Church without more are most pregnant Arguments as well for the Possession of Apostolical Truth laid claim to as For the Personal Succession of our Catholick Pastors Therfore unles Sectaries can weaken this Plea by a Contrary Evidence more strong then our Churches Tradition is and then the Proving is incumbent on them we stand firm upon our Olim Possideo which cannot be shaken I say by a contrary Evidence Stronger then our Churches Testimony and Tradition Speak now it 's your time of Proving What have you to Alledge against This sole Want of Principles makes Sectaries Cavils improbable Consent and Tradition Is it Scripture Produce it And we are silenced if not Vouchsafe to Hold your Peace Hereafter Have you the Consent of Fathers or Ancient Councils to make your cause Good against our Pleading Tradition and the Ancient Possession of Truth with it No. Examen These learned Volums you 'l not find one clear sentence favoring your unjust Process Against a Church That made your Progenitors Christians What then Remains Sectaries own Votes as weightles as the Arians to Scare us with But your own-self Simple Votes and if these Cast as it were in A ballance Against our Ancient Possession can out weigh it and so Deprive us of our Right The Arians long since had Destroyed us all for Their Votes were as weighty as united as yours Yes and more numerous 9. Well Though we are not Obliged to prove A Few Proofs briefly hinted at though we are not obliged to prove what both Tradition and our Ancient Possession Convince I 'll yet Hint most briefly at a few Proofs in Behalf of our just Possession First it is an undeniable Verity that Christ founded a Catholick Church And 'T is as Evident Sectaries Confess it that He invested the Roman Catholick Church in an Ancient Possession of Truth 2. It is an undoubted Verity
that Christ Christ Abandoned not the Church He Founded never abandoned the Church He founded For He told us Hell gates should not Prevail against it He gave Assurance of his being with us to the end of the world The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. If therfore Christ stood to his Word and once established the Roman Catholick Church in Truth it is Orthodox still and Preserved in Truth by His special Assistance 3. It is an Evident Verity that God whose Providence never Failed his Church could not permit this Ample and Ancient Moral Body of Catholicks to Cheat the world by its pleading a Possession of Truth if 't had none for a thousand years together when which is deeply to be Pondered there was not any A Truth well to be Pondered other sound Church on Earth for so vast a time to Teach Christians the Orthodox Faith of Iesus Christ 4. We have our quiet Possession Acknowledged by innumerable Votes of most learned Fathers 5. And 'T is a Greater Proof For nothing Scripture excepted can Parallel it The Testimony and warrant of this Ample Catholick Society carries with it our Evidence no less for an actual Prescription Then for the Right and Title of our long pleaded and enioyed Possession And who can suppose that all those Innumerable Professors of this learned Church by whom this Evidence was conveyed Age after Age were all besotted or deluded with Errour 6. And 'T is an Evident Demonstration No Ancient or modern Church reputed Orthodox by the Christian World ever so much as Quarrelled with the Roman Catholick Church or once No Orthodox Church Ever censured us for the want of a just Possession Questioned the Right of Her Possessing Ancient Truths delivered by Christ and his Apostles none Censured it none Condemned it upon any supposed want of a most just Possession but only Known and Professed Hereticks And to these our English Schismaticks Adhere An Inference grounded on these Proofs with these And no other They side If therfore The Foundations of our Church were once laid firm by Christ If He stand to his Promise Expressed in Scripture If his Assistance Fail not the Church Once Established by him If God could not 〈◊〉 this great Moral Body to Deceive Christians by Pleading a Possession of Truth when it had none And when there was no other Orthodox Church to deliver Christian Verities to the world If Finally The Authority of our Church And the Testimonies of most Ancient Fathers may speak in our Cause And this Convincing Proof also have place None Ever Gainsaid our Ancient Possession But know and condemned Hereticks We may well Hope to silence our Adversaries at present or if these Perswasive Reasons with many other Insisted on Hereafter Become insignificant to Their Obdurate Harts when They can not speak a Reasonable word Against our Evidences what shall we Do But Commiserate Their Condition You se How roundly I deal with Sectaries cannot Answer our Proofs Them And say They cannot speak a probable Word Against These Positive Proofs Though whilst we plead Possession it is their Task to Prove who are the Accusers And Charge Heresy on us 10. Observe therfore If they say our Saviour What They are to Prove once setled not the Roman Catholick Church in Truth They are to Prove it If they say He violated His Promise And preserved not the Church He founded in Perpetual Truth They are to prove it If They say We misunderstand the Scriptures now cited They are to Prove If They say our Catholick Church cheated the world for ten whole Ages together by pretending Possession of Apostolical Verities when it had none They are to Prove If they say our Church was once Sound in Faith but failed Afterward They are to Prove And withal Distinctly to point at some other Orthodox Christian Society that Succeeded in the place of the Roman Church now falsly Supposed Fallen into Errour And This will give Sectaries work enough Again If They Slight The Authority and Testimony of our Church Evidenced by most glorious Miracles And other Illustrious Marks of Truth They are to give in Lieu of that a more Valid Testimony a stronger Authority For Their Pretenses which is impossible If Finally They Talk of any Orthodox Church That plainly Censured or Condemned the Roman of Errour and Heresy And Herein we Vrge Them to speak to the Cause the Proof lies still on their side or if they Prove not Believe it our OLIM POSSIDEO is impregnable The Presciption and clear Evidence of a long quiet Possession are our wall of Defence not to be battered or Beaten down by Calumnies 11. Thus much premised You shall se in Brief How The Objections of our Adversary shewed forceles all comes to Nothing Wherwith This late Writer too weakly Oppugn's our Ancient Possession who After His Telling us Part 3. c. 5. Page 627. That the Proof lyes upon us He gives this Reason And let it be His first Objection 12. They who Challenge full and quiet Possession by vertue of immemorial Tradition and succession from Their Ancestours ought to produce the CONVEYANCE of that Tradition from him who alone could invest them in that Possession Mark these Mysterious Words Ought to produce the Conveyance of that Tradition from him c. What signifies This Had He said They ought to Produce a Conveyance warranting the Possession of Truth to be in their Church we would have sent Him back to the Proofs Already Alledged And Here only Insisted on our Tradition But to Demand for a Conveyance of our very The Efficacy and force of Tradition Tradition which is either by it self it s own most manifest and clear Conveyance or must be proved by another clearer Tradition And so in Infinitum Tend's Methinks a little towards Non-sense Truely I know not what the man would be at Would He Have us Think ye to Produce a Letter written by Christ Iesus for Conueyance Here must Signify Charta or No Charter or writ stronger then Tradition Instrumentum wherby it may Appear that the Tradition of our Church is Sound and Orthodox This would signify just Nothing Becaus Sectaries might more justly Cavil at such a writing And say it is Forged Then they can now Except against the greatest Testimony Imaginable of a whole Learned Church that must Give Credit to this Writing if 't have Any Therfore He who can Doubt of this Attestation of a The Reason far Extended Church May more Rationally Doubt of the Writing it self Though it were now actually laid before our Eyes to Read Se more of This Subject Above Chap. 7. n. 7. 8. Perhaps our Adversary will say we are to produce Scripture if not for The Conveyance of our Tradition at least for the Possession of Truth we pretend to I Answer This is now Don Our Proofs are Already given n. 9. 10. where I Tell you that Christ founded the Roman Catholick
the Plea of Possession and be tryed by the Law I Answer It 's a strange Piece of an Argument The Question ought not to be removed from the Plea of Possession And say it must not be removed Vnles you can Show by your Logick That when A Man hath two Good Proofs for a Verity He ought not to make use of both but is to Content Himself with the one only Thus it is We prove the Churches Infallibility by significant Scripture as a Possessor Bonae Fidei proves the Right to His Lands by his Ancient Writings And An Instance as He Add's to His Writings a just Possession So we plead Also Possession in our Case Why therfore should we throw Away this second proof taken from Possession unles An Evident Law Come Against it which we expect from you but Fear it not Sir you Possess a Benefice And can if need be show How you came by it whether it be a Writing or some Thing equivalent it Imports not You have beside the Possession of it Suppose now Any One would Endeavour to Disturbe you or Doubt of your supposed Right You would Plead both These Titles Would you not Answer This and your Objection is solved 17. A Fifth Objection page 628. Lyes I know not How wrap't up in twenty Obscurities It is much to This sense We must prove that there is no other way to Interpret the Law of Christ but by our Church Withall That the Church cannot come into a Possession of Any Thing but what was Originally Given Her by the Legislator Mark upon what Duties we are Sectaries put us on Duties which they cannot Comply with Put. We must prove And by the â—aw For Here is the last Trial with These men that our Church Interpret's faithfully whilst They sit Down speechles as it were in their own Cause And must not prove That their Church Interpret's better Moreover Note also by the way How the whole Question is The Question is removed from the Law to Interpretations now removed from the Law and comes to This Issue whether Our Interpretation or Theirs be more Conformable to Gods Word Most certainly Their Interpretation is worth little becaus confessedly fallible And Therfore Proceed's not from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost As is Amply Declared The proof lies on our Adversaries Disc 2. c. 9. n. 7. 8. 9. where we propose the Difficulty And Prove That One Only Oracle Christs own Spouse which is Assisted by the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture Infallibily Now if our Adversary Except's Against our Scriptures And Reasons there Alleged The Task of Proving will ly on Him For He must either Prove That our Proofs are Proofles or That His Far surpass them in worth And a clearer Evidence And He will find an Insuperable Difficulty in Both. All I say now is Though the Interpretation of our Church were Fallible it is as good as yours And if we respect its Age which gives some Preheminence it may be Accounted much better We have largely Answered to the other part of the Objection in the whole first Discours And Proved that the Church cannot Come into the Possession of Any Doctrin but what is Allowed of by the Legislator It 's otherwise A fallible Church may boldly Err. I am sure with your Church which becaus Fallible may Alter when and as often As Sectaries Pleas. To end Our Adversary Should have known that the Matter now Debated Depend's not Immediatly on the Churches Infallibility for Here is our Immediate Plea The Church was Once true And ever since its first Foundation Pleaded Constantly this quiet Possession of Truth Ergo unles that first ground be shaken And this Pleading Possession be Evidently Disproved it ought to be supposed true still And thus You se how the obligation of Proving lyes irremovably on our Adversaries 19. There yet Remain some other wordy Objections but I wave them becaus They are solved And in real Truth are meer Suppositions and no Proofs Sometimes They will Have Tradition to be Proved which is its Own manifest Proof Sometimes They tell us that a bare Possession in matters of Religion is a sensles Plea They suppose we have no more Somtimes that we are plainly the Imposers And They Not Aggressors And both are supposed I pass these and now hasten to one Objection more solved in a Third Proposition CHAP. XII An other Objection And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism 1. SOme may Argue further And say we have A simple Objection hitherto Supposed a Wrong Principle Viz. That our Errours are to be shewed us Evidently which is not so For it is Enough to make them known by strong Moral Proofs These sufficiently Convince us as Guiltly And Clear Them of the crime of Schism Neither can we have stronger Arguments Then moral in this Matter Becaus Principles of Faith are not Evident in Themselves All Discours Therfore built on Them must Fall short of Metaphysical Evidence Observe in Passing If our Protestants As They think Bring strong moral Arguments Against our Supposed Errours We give Them As Good as They Bring And clear our Cause by as strong good moral Solutions to those Arguments They say the one and we the other Who must be Believed Or Who must Judge here And if Again They hold themselves by Force of such moral Proofs Acquit of Schism which all Sectaries Pretend to we Charge it again on them By far more valid Arguments Who Iudges now Who is to be Believed Neither of us yet For Hitherto we only Talk without Principles Yet the Catholick hath his Principle in Readines A LONG ANCIENT POSSESSION now insisted on The Catholick Answer founded on a certain Principle which is eleven Points of the Law But By what good Law do our Protestants take this Right from him or Turn him out of Possession By what strong moral Proof grounded on an undubitable moral Principle can They convince us of Errours and clear Themselves of Schism I 'll Tell you and 't is a Truth They have neither We would Gladly Hear of Protestants Proofs against us reduced to sound Principles Proof nor Principle to rely on But their own Proofles word If I wrong them They can Right Themselselves and convince me by good Arguments in Form To what is Added of the Vnevidence of Faith I Answer Though the Principles Therof For example the Words of Scripture or the Definitions of Councils want Metaphysical Evidence in themselves Becaus only revealed Principles of Faith once admitted of may ground a certain Conclusion Truths Yet They are certain And once Admitted of as Certain can Ground a Discours which if well Deduced need 's no more to Faulter or Deviate from good Form then if we Argued out of Euclid's Principles Thus much per transennam Now to answer the Argumen Home Here is 2. My Third Proposition Protestants Cannot so much as Probably Acquit Themselves of Schism nor Probably impeach
so much as Probably shew That They have mended the Matter or set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations as it once stood pure It is therfore a most Discomfortable Reformation which only Tell 's us of our being Out of the high Rode of Truth Vnles the Reformers lead us and this with Assurance into the unerring way from whence we Strayed If This be not Don it follows upon the Supposition That both They and Their pretended Reformation most discomfortable We are yet pittifully Out and Therfore both of us must look after some third Guide to Reduce us 16. Now that Protestants are utterly unable to perswade any Rational man That they have exactly brought Christian Faith to its Ancient Purity is more then Evident Sectaries have nothing like a Principle wherby their Reformation is proved Probable It is one thing to say we have Erred and an Other to prove that they are Right For beside Their own bare Word which is worth little They have nothing like a Principle neither Scripture Councils nor Fathers to Ground a probable Discours Pertinent to that Purpose For None of These ever Knew what a Protestant was It is True They Pretend Though God knows to little Purpose That Scripture Councils and Fathers are against our Errours But it is one Thing slightly to tell us we have Erred and an Other solidly to Prove that They are Right and have broughr Christian Faith hitherto much Tainted to its Ancient Purity This last is the only Difficulty And I Conjure Them as They will give an Account of their Religion to Almighty God without Tergiversation or Far-fetch't Discourses Directly and Clearly to Solve it The Proposition to be Proved and Positively What They are obliged to prove is Thus. Protestants Becaus they will be Reformers are every way Right in Their Faith from which Faith Catholicks have Swerved Observe it You shall never have They can give no direct Answer to the Difficulty a direct Answer to chis Difficulty They may tell you Catholicks have Erred They follow Scripture Their Rule of Faith is what was Delivered in the first Primitive Ages and They know that better then Papists Do. They Hope all is well with Them c. And thus They I put you of with Empty Words But to Prove Solidly that Proposition is impossible Believe it Those Bonzies of Iapan had more Plausible Proofs to defend their Pagods and Impugn Christianity Then our Adversaries have to Evidence Protestancy to be the Primitive Faith and impugn the Now-standing Catholick Roman Religion CHAP. XIV A VVord to a Few Supposed and Vnproved Assertions VVherby Some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism 1. THeir first Proposition There is no Society of Mr. Stillingfleet Christians of any one Communion but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to The Assertion is Fals in Protestants Principles unles it be granted that their ample Catholick Church can destroy Christianity the general Foundations of Christian Society I Answer If the Assertion fall on That Imagined Vniversal Catholick Church more Ample then the Roman which must be a Society of Christians of one Communion it is Fals in Protestant Principles Vnles they say That this great Catholick Church can Impose Things to be Belieued or repugnant to the general Foundations of Christianity Again if it Relate to the Roman Catholick Church it is a meer unproved Fancy of their own For This Church as is largely shewed Defends its Infallibility by Proofs as Certain as the Common Grounds of Christianity are Be it how you will You have here our Adversaries Acknowledgement That their particular Church of Protestants may impose Things Contrary to the Grounds of Christianity Protestancy becaus Fallible may Impose Things repugnant to the Grounds of Christianity And this I easily Believe without further Proof 2. The 2. Proposition There being a Possibillity acknowledged that particular Churches may require Vnreasonable conditions of communion the Obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable But only so far as nothing is required Destructive to the ends of Christian Society The The Author of the proposition sure enough supposeth himself fit to judge what is Destructive No Protestant can avouch so much as probably wherin the Church hath imposed Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants Profess them selves Fallible in all They Teach Assertion if I mistake not Supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to be only a particular Church Deficient and lyable to Errours which is not yet so much as probably Proved and Therfore I say the Obligation to Communicate with it is Absolute and Indispensable But let us wave this at Present and contrary to Truth Imagin That this Church hath imposed Vnreasonable conditions Destructive of Christian communion c. We Ask Again and very seriously who are They that can Mend the matter in case it hath Don so Or who dare Avouch by the Force of any received Principle that Such and Such particular Conditions imposed on Christians are Vnreasonable Where are the Equitable and infallible Iudges appointed by Almighty God to Decide in so weighty a Matter Are they Protestants No. It is impossible Hear my Reason If the Church hath Erred by imposing such Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants who Profess themselves Fallible in All They say may Err More Yea And spoil all whilst They go about to set Things Straight However if They dare Venture on so difficile a Work And therfore may more likely spoil Then mend what they Conceive Amiss They are First obliged to Prove And this not by Talk But by undeniable Principles That just so Far our Church Err's so Far it requires Vnreasonable Conditions of Communion And next That They the Illuminated men of the World have don no more But exactly Cancelled the Errours of our Church leaving all untouched that is not Destructive to the ends of Christian Society For we must believe They are the skilful Masters that always hit Right Though confessedly Fallible You shall sooner draw pure Gold out of meer dross Then get any Thing like a Tolerable Proof from these men to countenance One of these Desperate Assertions Alas They only Word it without Proof As Arians and Nestorians Do. And here is All you Have from Them 3. The 3. Proposition Nothing can be more unreasonable The proposition supposeth what is to be proved then that the Society imposing such conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. I Answer And nothing can be more Vnreasonable then to make a Receding Party from an Rebell 's are not to be Iudges in Their own Cause Ancient Church a few Rebellious People against it Iudges in their own Cause The Arians judged thus for Themselves and so do Protestants All rebellion in Kingdoms and Commonwealths is Patronized if those who Revolt may Clear Themselves from Guilt upon their own Votes and saying Such conditions imposed
unproved and fals Fals Doctrin I call it confused Becaus when They Tell us There can be no Separation from the vvhole Church But in such Things wherin the Vnity of the whole Church lyes They should Declare Expresly and Particularly Wherin that Vnity of the whole Church Consists But to leave us in Darknes Concerning no man knows They speak confusedly of unknown Ligaments and of as unknown Vnity what Ligaments and Pretended Vnity of a Strange Imagined Catholick Church without Saying How far these Ligaments reach or Wherin Precisely This exact Vnity lyes is only to Turn us of with Talk and Teach just nothing If They Answer The Vnity of this Doctrin is found in the Fundamentals of Faith we are yet as No man can Imagin what They will make Fundamental far to seek as Before For who Knows what these new Protestants will make Fundamental and Vnfundamental Doctrin They may say one thing to day is Fundamental and change it to morrow However Admit that They Declare Themselves and Tell us Punctually so much and no More is the Fundamental And if we could it would only be their own unproved Fancy and Necessary Doctrin of the Catholick Church it will be only their Own Supposed and Vnproved Assertion and Occasion anew as hot a Dispute as Any other Controversy between us Vnfortunate are These Men in every Thing they Say and it cannot be otherwise for wanting Ground to Build on and a Church to regulate Their Faith Whatever They Vent against our Catholick Doctrin must of Necessity be as Much Their own Supposed and Vnproved Fancy As if an Arian Disputed Against us 4. Observe Yet How They Still run on with these unproved Suppositions When men Say They separate Themselves from the Errours of all Particular Churches They do not Separate from the whole c. Blessed are such Protestants Separated and Poorly suppose that they run away with Truth only and left all the Errours behind Them Men But who are They for Gods sake Protestants Yes And I must take their Word for it we have no other proof Pray you Tell me When that first Protestant Gyant Martin Luther stood up and Separated from all the Societies of Christians Throughout the whole World from Catholicks from Arians Abyssins Graecians c. Who Assured him â—nd here we urge for a Satisfactory Principle or VVho can yet Assure our Protestants That both He and Who Assur's them so much or that they are not more deeply in Errour by their own wilful Separation They are not More Plunged into Gross Errours by this wilful Divorce Then if They had remained as once They were Honest Catholicks Can in Reason Suppose That All and every One of these Societies that Quitted Rome were Corrupted in Doctrin And without so much as a seeming Probability Hold Luther and his Followers the only Pure and Vntainted Christians of the World These are Paradoxes and vast improbabilities For if All These Erred when They left the Roman Catholick Church As evidently They did what God or Angel was it That Directed Protestants to hit right every way and to Avoid all Errour These Hereticks when They Separated were Fallible men and actually Erred our Protestants are as Fallible and may have don wors These Protestants Separation parallelled with that of other Hereticks Protestants proof is their own word and nothing Els. Whether Protestants dare assert that Their reformed Protestancy is so Right that it can not be made better If They Affirm we urge for Principles to prove it All that formerly deserted the Roman Catholick Church erred upon what proof are Protestants Exempted from the like Errour followed their own self Judgement in making that Divorce Yet Missed of Truth Protestants can only Say so much And therfore very likely may have Missed more How then shall we know and by a satisfactory Proof That this rare Reformation which Opposed all Religions is Vntainted and Orthodox I 'll tell you Protestants after an Infamy cast on all the Churches in the world Say so And what They say Though whole Armies of Christians more learned and numerous Stand against them must be thought True Is not this a Jolly Proof In a word Here is my Dilemma Either They must Assert that Their whole Protestant Doctrin now Established is without Blemish Pure and Orthodox or yet Hath its Errours if this last it needs another Reformation If they make it so Pure that it cannot be made better They only say without proof what All the Condemned Hereticks in Christendom Assert for Themselves and Moreover will have Christians Believe The greatest Paradox ever Heard of viz. That They Only had the good Luck to hit Right whilst All Foregoing Sectaries who Abandoned the Roman Church Were and yet Are tainted with gross Corruptions The Reason why both They and All other Hereticks that left the Mother-Church are in Errour is drawn from the Impossibility of doing the Work They have gon about For it is not in mans power to change or Reform Religion No. Only one High Priest God and man Once made a change who was Holy Innocent Vndefiled Separated from sinners and made Higher then the Heavens Men Therfore wicked as Luther was Guilty One Only High Priest had Power to Reform Religion of high Crimes Born and Brought up in sin and now buried in Contempt Are unfit Instruments for such a work They may marr Religion but to mend it is Impossible 5. Again That Distinction made Above between the Common Ligaments of a Church and particular Errours in all Churches Which yet do not Vnchurch Them is Frivolous Vnproved and most Fals. For first there neither are nor can be any Common Tyes or Grounds of Vnion amongst all Christians now in Being which considered by an Abstract Notion sufficiently Conslitute the Necessary Doctrin of the True Catholick Church My Reason is No Doctrin Common Doctrin Common to all Christians is not Sufficient to Saluation to Arians Nestorians Catholicks and Protestants or Vniversally held by all Christians can be more Proved to be saving Faith enough for Christians Then if we Gratis Assert That a belief in one God only common to Turks Iewes and Christians is full Faith enough for us all Scripture as I have largely proved in a foregoing Chapter Requires yet more Explicit Faith of many Particulars 2. It is utterly Fals That the True Catholick The True Catholick Church is not found amongst Christians That Err in Faith Church may be found amongst all Particular Erring Churches The Primitive Christians were a Body apart and as Distinct from the Arians in those Days as We are now from Protestants And therfore no Doctrin Common to that Church and Arians was ever Thought sufficient Catholick Doctrin Otherwise Arius might have Told the Nicene Otherwise Arius would not have Erred in matters of Faith Fathers yes And These should have Assented to him You unjustly Condemn me For Admit That I have my Particular Errours you
may have Yours Also We are all yet of One Church and Need not to break of any Catholick Unity Becaus though both you and I err We may yet retain the Essence of a Catholick Churck Hereticks hitherto Never Pleaded thus for their Cause But as Pertinaciously Defended Hereticks as strongly defend their particular Errours as the Common Doctrin of Christianity their Private Opinions as They did the Common Doctrin of all Christians Only our Protestants now Pressed with Vnanswerable Arguments concerning the plain Naming of a Catholick Church before Luther like men living by shifting Seek out a woful Subterfuge and make all Erring Churches partly good and Catholick in the Common Ligaments of Christianity And partly Naught and Heretical in Their particular Errours Wheras the Spouse of Christ is but One Immaculate moral Body and can be no More Tainted with Errour then the pure Primitive Church was No nor more Corrupted then the whole Bible The entire purity of the Church Necessary now is and yet remain Purely Gods Word 3. Grant which is the greatest Chimaera Imaginable That the Common Ligaments and Grounds of Catholick Faith are to be found amongst all the erring Societies of Christians Protestants have yet an endles Task in hand Which is to Perswade All men Opposit to them That They by their Discerning Spirit Have just Protestants cannot prove that they have taken so much Doctrin to themselves as is purely Catholick hit the nail on the Head And taken so much to Themselves as is Purely Catholick Doctrin without Mixture of Errour with it Believe me it will be hard to prove so much done And if They Prove it not by Vndeniable Principles Farwell Protestants say I For They may be more in Errour by Their late Reformation Then all those Erring Churches together Which They have gon about to Reform 6. In another Chapter Intituled the Reformation of the Church of England justified These very men after they had made the Catholick Church like a Common field layd open to all those Inhabitants who own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith Tell us That the Roman Church stand's Guilty of the violation of Publick Right and Add's Neither Proof nor Inference Good many Particular Doctrins many Superstitious Practises which have no Foundation in Scripture or Consent of the Primitive Church Therfore this Roman Church is Separated from the Communion of the Catholick Church And so is become Schismatical But their Church of England hath hit Right and is only so far Separated from Rome as Rome hath Devided Her self from the Belief of the Vniversal Church What have we here A Cluster of meer superfluous Words I am Astonished to Se men run on with such proofles Generalities However We will have Patience and friendly Ask How far is that large field of the Catholick Church to be extended Point out the Limits of it Name those Christians and Them only Not one of These particulars can be proved by certain Principles who Inhabite that large field What are those Fundamentals of Faith How many are there of Them ninty nine or a Hundred Specify with a Proof at the end of it but Proofs are now out of fashion with Protestants Those particular Fals Doctrins of the Roman Church so contrary to Scripture Say once Plainly what that Catholick Church is From which Rome Separated and something is Don But above all make good your wild Assertion That just so far you are Devided from Rome not one Inch more or less as Rome is Separated from the Vniversal Catholick Church To do this justice Requir's an exact Proof of these three Things First That you particularly Shew us Three Propositions to be proved What or how much the Precise Doctrin of that imagined Catholick Church is which dwell's in your Fancy 2. Wherin the Roman Church hath Swerved from that true Doctrin 3. And this will cost you some pains make good upon any Received Christian Principle That you are right in your Faith And have just Divided your selves so far from the Roman Church as this is from Another Church more Vniversal and Catholick Could these men live to Mathusalem's Age They would never come neer to the likelyhood of a rational Proof for any one of these Particulars I say of a Proof For I would have Them know That to talk at random and vent their own fancies as They do here will weigh but little when Reason comes to Ballance all with a close Arguing in good Form 7. When again They are Told in the same Chapter That the Separation of Protestants was not only from the Church of Rome But as Calvin Confesseth from the whole Christian World which necessarily Implyes a Separation from the True Catholick Church They Answer We have not separated from the whole Christian World in any thing wherin the whole Christian VVorld is Agreed Is this so great No Heretick Separated from the Vniversal Doctrin believed by all Christians a matter to be Praised for Not to Separate from what men cannot Separate if they Own Christ and Deserve the name of Christians Mark well I beseech you Neither the Arians nor Nestorians nor Donatists Nor any other condemned Hereticks Separated from any Thing wherin the whole Christian World Agreed in For They Believed in Christ a Saviour and Redeemer and Thus much all Christians Hold But is This Faith enough to save us without Believing more Pray you Answer Again These Hereticks Added something what got Them the Name of Separatists or Hereticks to that General owned Belief of All And this got them the name of Separatists or Hereticks not Becaus they Deserted the Common Doctrin of the whole Christian World But becaus They Abandoned that Ancient Church wherin they were Baptized Protestants have Don the like in leaving the same Ancient Church And have Added That to Their Specifical Religion which was neither the Common Doctrin of All Christians no nor Held by any Christian Society in the World Vpon this Account Therfore They as justly Deserve the Name of Hereticks and Separatists as either Arian or Nestorian And thus much I Prove by their own Concession Protestants proved Schismatichs by Their own Doctrin For They grant that the Donatists were Separatists and Schismaticks Becaus they confined the Catholick Church within their own Bounds of Africa Yet by Their good leave These very Donatists Dissented in nothing that was held all over Common Christian Doctrin For they Acknowledged the same Christ as we Do yet were Hereticks Vpon the Account of their particular The Donatists no Schismaticks in Protestants Principles Doctrin Though They clashed with nothing held Vniversally You will say But They did Clash For without all Proof They Confined the Church to one place Only Contra. And you my good Friends without all Likelyhood of Proof make the Church a mighty wide One You give it Arms which embrace all called Christians Though Hereticks in their particular Tenents Did therfore the particular
to have been preserved by God Proves also the Roman Christian Religion Graciously preserved The Reason Prove True Christian Religion taken under that General Notion to have been Preserved in so many Storms of Persecution by Gods special Assistance If Sectaries Answer Yes The very same Arguments applyed to the Roman Catholick Church Prove that also Graciously upheld by Providence The Reason is Becaus as I have largely Proved True Christian Religion Though never so Generally taken And the Roman Catholick Religion are Synonima's and the very Same There is no Difference between Them Now if Sectaries say That as well the Christian as the Roman Catholick Religion have subsisted so long vvithout special Assistance by Mans meer Industry and Humane Policy They do not only Enervate Old Gamaliels Argument But more Vent a Paradox which can If Sectaries Say Religion hath been so long preserved by Humane Policy They vent an unproved Paradox never be Proved Or Brought to any known Principle But to Fancy only 26. And thus much briefly of some Few Arguments for the Roman Catholick Religion which if reduced to Form And 't is easy to do it are Vnanswerable You have more in the Treatise Let us now se in the next place what Sectaries can Say for their Novelties or upon what Proofs Antecedent to their Faith They are able so far to Evidence the Credibility of Protestancy As to make it in a Poor Measure Probable CHAP. II. Protestancy is an Vnevidenced And a most Improbable Religion Or rather no Religion but a meer Fancied Opinion 1. IT is Vnevidenced For the Professors of it can by no Rational Arguments Previous to Belief more Prove That Their Owned Novelties ought to be Admitted of as prudently Credible Then the worst Protestancy as much Vnevidenced as Arianism of Heresies Take for an Instance Arianism Hear my reason The very Grounds wheron Rational Proofs ought to stand Fail them They have no Antiquity no Vniversality no Succession of Protestant Bishops and Pastors They want lawful Mission Miracles and all other prudential Signs of Truth as is largely Declared in the first Discours c. 9. Yet from These and the like Motives Previous rational Proofs manifesting the Credibility of Religion must be Drawn Or The Religion which is Asserted Rational Motives must Evidente the Credibility of Religion or 'T is upheld by his bare word that sayes it is True to be True or Credible will Appear Naked and Vnevidenced having nothing to Vphold it But the bare Word of Him who Sayes it is True And Therfore is no Religion I need not to Vrge this Point further Becaus Sectaries tacitly Suppose the Credibility of their Religion to be Vndemonstrable by outward Signs and Marks of Truth For Inquire of Them Why They rather Embrace Protestancy then Popery or any other Doctrin of Hereticks You never Hear a word of the long Continuance Sectaries seem to make no Account of these Antecedent Motives of Their Church of their lawful Mission of the Succession of Their Protestant Bishops from Christs time Nor of Vndoubted Miracles c. No. But they presently run to Scripture and Tell you That both their Faith and the Motives of it internal to the Book Stand there sufficiently Evidenced Shall we se a little the Vanity of this Assertion 2. Methinks I enter into a Study where a learned Protestant Sit's with a Bible before Him And much Dissatisfied with his Novelties I Assure him The The Bible Alone proves Nothing for Protestancy very want of rational Proofs Grounded on Objective Motives Drawes me from His Religion which is neither evidently nor So much as Probably made Credible to Any The man Points at his Bible And saith This Book both Proves Protestant Religion and Gives you Motives for it Make Sir say I this your Assertion Good Viz. The Bible Delivers Protestant Religion He Argues The Bible Teaches that Iesus is the Christ the Eternal Son of God the Redeemer of the World And thus much Protestancy Teaches also Ergo Scripture Proves Protestancy To prove Doctrin by Scripture Common to all Christians is not to prove Protestancy I Answer The Argument à Genere ad speciem Proves just nothing For these Doctrins Common both to Catholicks and other Sectaries are no specifical Articles of Protestancy as it is Reformed Now These Sir you must Show Contained in Scripture For Example As a Protestant you Believe no Sacrifice Offered upon the Altar No Purgatory No Transubstantiation c. Pray you Warrant these Negative believed Articles by Scripture-proof He Replyes After his long Reading Scripture He Find's no Mention made at all of a Sacrifice of Transubstantiation And the like I Answer Others as learned as He find Them And Prove all by Scripture Here Therfore is no Owned Principle to Ground his Denial on But let this Pass 3. I Argue against my Doctor Though you find not a Sacrifice or Purgatory in Scripture nay more Though we falsly Suppose both to be unrevealed Sectaries Negative way of Arguing Demonstrated Proofles Mysteries Yet you cannot Positively say by an Act of faith A Sacrifice is not Purgatory is not I prove it Nothing can be Believed by Divine Faith But what God Positively Reveal's But God hath not said any where Positively There is no Purgatory no Sacrifice no Transubstantiation Ergo These Negatives cannot be Believed by Divine Faith Sectaries Grant the Major The Minor is as Evident For They shall as soon Prove That God now Positively Reveal's who shall be the last man alive in the World as Prove that Scripture Positively Teaches Purgatory is not a Sacrifice is not c. Whence I Inferr If Protestants Believe no Purgatory For Example It is not enough to say We Read of no such Place in Scripture For were this True It is Only a bare Negative And at most Showes That God What Protestants are to prove if The believe any of Their Negatives hath Omitted to Speak at all of Purgatory Which silence can Ground no Act of Faith Vnles this Consequence be good Becaus an infinite Verity neither Affirm's nor Denyes That Third Place Therfore I will Believe no Purgatory To Believe then no Purgatory or No Sacrifice It is Necessary not only to Say God saith nothing in Scripture of these Mysteries But more is required Viz. to Prove That His infallible Revelation Positively Denies Them For Before Sectaries positively Deny Catholick Doctrin They are to prove that God hath positively Denied it in his Word Before I Positively Deny a Purgatory by my Faith I must prove it Positively Denyed by an Infinite Verity Which is utterly Impossible Se this Point more amply Declared Disc 2. c. 8. n. 4. 5. 4. Perhaps the Doctor will Tell me These Negatives of No Sacrifice No Purgatory c. Are no Essentials of Protestant Religion But certain By-articles which may as well be Rejected as maintained whilst the Common and All-over Owned Doctrin of Christianity is firmly Believed If He
Doctrin Disc 2. c. 6. n. 7. 8. 14. 8. Though contrary to both Truth and Conscience it were Supposed That We Prove not our Catholick They Improbably found Their Doctrin upon Fals supposed Negatives Being fallible and therfore not Assisted by the Holy Ghost They pretend Improbably to Teach Christs Doctrin with Certainty Verities Yet no Absolute Denial of these Verities follovvs from our not Proving Them But Protestants upon this Fals Supposed Negative We Prove Not vvithout the least Appearance of any infallible Revelation for them Ground their Faith Which is a most Desperate Improbability Disc 2. c. 8. n. 2. 3. 15. 9. It is Improbable to Say That Protestants whilst they Teach their Novelties or Interpret Scripture Do either the One or Other as Faithful Oracles or Instruments Assisted by the Holy Ghost For These men whether They Teach or Interpret Profess Themselves Fallible in All They Say Therfore are not assisted Instruments of this Blessed Spirit who Teaches by none The Necessary Doctrin of a Vniversal Church Interpret's by None but such as do it Infallibly Disc 2. c. 9. n. 8. 16. 10. To say That that Article of our Creed I Believe the Holy Catholick Church was not True in all Ages before Luther is more Then Improbable Protestants who They make Improbably an Article of our Creed Fals. can name no other Catholick Church but the Roman which They Hold Erroneous must both Vow and Vote the Creed Fals for so vast a time Disc 3. c. 1. n. 1. To Teach that a Doctrin common to Hereticks is enough for Saluation is Improbable A Religion essentially Hypocritical Improbable 17. 11. It is highly improbable to Say That either the true Church of Christ can be corrupted in Doctrin or that a Doctrin common to All Hereticks is enough for Saving Faith Protestants Affirm both Disc 3. c. 2. 18. 12. A Church Essentially Hypocritical That may Believe One thing And must Profess an other is unworthy of Credit and cannot be judged to Hold probable Doctrin Protestants own such a Church Disc 3. c. 6. n. 10. 19. 13. A Church or Religion that hath not one Article of Faith Grounded on Scripture as it is Reformed yet So is a Church without a word of Scripture for it Another Improbability of Sectaries Pretend's to Draw all to it By Force of Scripture Delivers most improbable Doctrin Protestancy is such a Religion Ibidem n. 11. 20. 14. Protestants that Pretend to submit to the Authority of one two or three of the Ancient Fathers And Scornfully Reject the Authority of the Roman Church Proceed Improbably Disc 3. c. 7. n. 9. And thus much Briefly of a few Doctrinal Improbabilities Taught by Protestants The Treatise afford's you more Touching the Liberty The Vnconstancy The Endles Dissentions of Sectaries with other sad Effects that follow This new Gospel These I wave in this place And 21. Say 2. The proofs of Sectaries for Their new Religion Sectaries Proofs of their own Religion are Improbable The Reason are Improbable The Assertion is consequential and Stand's Firm Vpon what is said already For a Doctrin Proved Improbable by undoubted Principles cannot be made Evidently Credible by any rational Arguments Vnles Truth be contrary to Truth But The Doctrin of Protestancy is Demonstrated Improbable Therfore no Rational Proofs can make it Evidently credible nor so much as weakly Probable To confirm this Do no More but Demand of any Sectary the Question hath been often Proposed Vpon what Rational Proof A Protestant cannot say upon a rational Principle why He judges his Religion true or the best of all other or received Principle Antecedent to his Faith He Believes Protestancy I do not say Christian Religion taken in what General way you will To be the Best and Purest Religion now Professed He cannot Pretend that this Novelty is ex Terminis Evidently True or Credible for no Religion is so Much less That He Believes without Reason or Becaus He will Believe Therfore after he hath Declared what He Believes He must also Satisfy the Doubt And Tell us Why He Believes And Ground his Answer upon a Rational Principle But it is as impossible to Satisfy This one Demand as to Remove the Pyraenean Mountains from the place they Stand in The Reason is It is It is highly Against Reason to Embrace a Religion without Prudent Motives Protestancy hath no Prudent Motives If they have any in store They can be laid forth to Reason Highly Against all Reason to Embrace any Religion whether new or old without Rational Proofs Grounded on sure Motives Which Plead as it were in Gods behalf and make Religion Evidently Credible Before vve Yeild Assent to it But Protestants have no rational Motives Antecedent to their Belief of Protestancy which Hold a strict Analogy with Those of Christ and his Apostles as is Amply Proved Disc 1. c. 9. 10. 11. 12. therfore their Religion as Protestancy is without Proof Vnevidenced If they can Gainsay my Assertion let them Speak And Bring their Motives to Light We would gladly hear what can be Answered plainly to this one plain Demand 22. After a General View Taken of Protestancy We may Descend to Particulars and enquire in the next Place Why the Professors of it Believe so much as one Article of this Novelty For example Two Sacraments only no Sacrifice no Church Infallible Why They Believe And 'T is the Worst of all Yea and a Paradox Astrange Paradon of Protestants beyond Expression That Christ Abandoned the very Church he Founded in the greatest Need and Danger that can concern a Church Which was and is to Defend it from Heresy Here we may justly stand astonished and Ask How it came to Pass that ouâ— Careful Lord Iesus like one Drowsy or Forgetful of his Charge Withdrew his Providence From that Church He Founded What Hath He been asleep so long 'T is True when He Entred a little Boat Matt. 8. It was a Type of the Church a great Tempest arising He seemed regardles of his Disciples feares And Slept a while But to Say He hath now Slept on For a Thousand Christ founded the Roman Catholich Church yet Protestants say he suffered it to perish Years and like one Retchles Suffered that Arke He Built not only to be Tossed with the worst of Tempests But to be overturned with a Deluge of Errours and Fals Doctrin is a Novelty fitter for Protestants to Broach then Any Christian in the World to Hear or Think of Ask therfore what Scripture what Vnanimous Consent of Fathers or Councils have They for this long Supposed Negligence of our Vigilant Lord I 'll tell you They can Allege just so much proof for this Vnheard of Paradox as They Do For Their other Novelties which is purely Nothing Protestancy therfore whether we consider Protestancy Every way unproved it in a General Way or Descend to the particular Tenents Therof is meerly Fancy An Vnproved and
None and see where the greatest weight lyes 6. The fourth Principle is the Express Doctrin of The fourth Principle Fathers Themselves as well Greek as Latin whether it be grounded on Scripture on Tradition or both matters not at present Here we only Appeal to the Their Positive Doctrin To transcribe all they have said on this subject would be a long work Bellarmin novv cited cap. 10. hath many Leo Alatius adds other Greek Authors favour the Church Doctrin Greek Authors as well Orthodox as of Schismatical from his 57. page There you have Gennadius the Patriarch St. Epiphanius express to our purpose S. Chrysostom Hom. 69. ad populum and S. Damascen both approving and praysing S. Chrysostoms Doctrin Eustratiâ—s Priest of Constantinople Michaël Glycas a Schismatick Eugenicus Nomophilax adversus Synodum Florentinam Meletius Alexandrinus Epistolâ ad Chios who saith Expresly it is an Apostolical Tradition and grounded also in Scripture To Hold that the Dead have great Assistance by the good works of the Living But let us return to the more known Authority of Fathers S. Denis or some other Grave Author Eccles Hierarch cap 7. parte 3. saith that Dionysius S. Cyril of Hiâ—r S. Chrysostom the venerable Prelate prayes over the Dead to the End that all his sinn's committed through humain frailty may be forgiven him Say I beseech you what signifies this remission of sin's obtainable by the Prayers of the Prelate S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 5. We make Prayers and offer up the dreadful Sacrifice on the Altar for the Dead believing it to be a mighty Help for their souls What can be more plain Popery S. Chrysostom Hom. 21. in Acta Alatius quotes the words in his own language which begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. God saith He hath layd open to us many wayes to salvation Oblations Oblations and Prayers for the Dead Prayers and Alms for the Dead are not things vainly don in their behalf No They were instituted by the Holy Ghost who will 's that we endeavour to help one an other Be most assured the Dead have much profit by our Orizons The Saint hath more to this purpose in his 41. Hom. upon the first of the Corr. Theodoret cited by Alatius page 71. lib. 5. Histor cap. 36. Tell 's us that Theodosius the younger lay prostrate at the Reliques of S. Chrysostom praing for the Souls of his deceased Parents Arcadius and Eudoxiâ— that God would grant them pardon for their Offenses c. Alatius besides These cites Theophylact S. Cyril of Alexandria Metaphrastes and other Greek Authors You have the Latin Fathers Largely quoted by Bellarmin supra cap. 10. And their words are so plain for our Doctrin The Latin Fathers accord also Specially S. Austins that none without violence can draw them to any other sense then what the Church Teaches Most surely you will now expect that Sectaries Answer us with like measure And give in lieu of these Testimonies briefly hinted at others as clear and significant for their Opinion And this They are obliged to when besides the alleged Authorities we have an Ample ancient and learned Church that speaks in the language of the Fathers and Teaches the very Doctrin They Deliver But all is Contrary 7. I 'll tell you a great Truth and 't is worth a serious reflection Sectaries have not so much as one Ancient Father Greek or Latin not one Ancient Writer Sectaries want of Authors reputed Orthodox not one Council new or old not one word of Scripture that either Positively and Expresly Denies a Purgatory or Prayers for the Dead or the relief we now plead for afforded them in a place of Punishment What not one No. Parallel The Parallel therfore many with None and you will se what foundations Our Adversaries Novelties Stand on I say Expresly and Positively being well acquainted with Sectaries Proceding as well in this as in other Controversies Sectaries way of Arguing Here They will first be upon you with their Negative way of Arguing We read no such word as Purgatory in the Ancient Fathers 2. You may have a Company of blind inferences drawn from Scripture and Fathers before the sense of either be Agreed They make Deductions from Scripture before the sense of Scripture is known on 3. As far as Conjectures can reach they will set Glosses enough upon the best Testimonies allegeable out of Scripture or Fathers c. But mark it all this while you have Nothing Express nothing Positive and significant against us And Do they think that a meer Negative Argument hath force enough to overthrow a Doctrin Positively Professed by a whole Church and so many Learned Fathers Can they perswade Themselves that Their Inferences Forced from Scripture or Fathers are of any validity whilst the very sense of both lye under Dispute Take for an instance An Instance that of S. Iohn Apocal. 14. Blessed are the Dead that Dye in our Lord Amodo from hence forth they rest from Their labours The Question is what Amodo relates to whether to the day of every mans Death or to the last Judgement Day whether the Scripture speak's there of perfect Souls only or of others what is meant by that word labours For if it signify the sufferances and persecutions of this present life the Text Proves nothing for our Adversaries Notwithstanding all these Doubts undecided Their Inference goes on And 't is that S. Iohn here Excludes all sufferance in Purgatory Alas such Deductions are too weak to Oppose Weak Deductions an Express owned Doctrin all over the world as is now proved Yet you have no better from these men Nothing Express nothing openly significant Against us 8. I touched in the last place on Sectaries Glosses and interpretations forced on such Testimonies as are usually cited for our Catholick Faith And here How differently Catholicks and Sectaries proceed I will briefly Discover not only their Cheat but moreover shew you how differently we and They proceed as well in this present Controversy as in all other Disputes between us Observe well The Truth is thus When we Produce Scripture Councils or Fathers against their Novelties They make their own Interpretation to be the last and surest Ground wheron The Sectary makes the last ground of his Opinion to be his own Explication The Catholick hath his Religion proved before He Explicates Their maintained Opinion ultimatly relies Contrarywise the Catholick never interpret's Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries but He ground his Gloss on a surer Principle then his sole Explication reaches to I will explicate my self more clearly by one Instance Besides the Authority of our Church and all other Societies called Christian we allege for example St. Denis his Testimony St. Chrysostoms or any other to prove that Prayer for the Dead Avail's much for their comfort and remission of sins that is for the lessening of the pain due to sin
The Sectary interpret's These and the like passages as his own Fancy suggesteth And if this Fancy hit not right He is undon for He hath no surer Principle to rely on either in this or any other Controversy but His own self conceipted Gloss The Reason is He hath no infallible All sure Principles fail Sectaries Church no clear Scripture no undoubted consent of Fathers no Vniversal Tradition distinct from his Gloss that can so much as make it probable Therfore his own unproved interpretation Doth all it is his last Principle and Strongest Hold He never goes Higher nor can advance one step further I am so confident of this Assertion that I challenge our Adversary to come to a just trial in this one Controversy A fair Offer And if He can Answer to our Authorities now quoted upon the Assurance of plain Scripture undoubted Tradition or the plain Consent of Fathers I 'll cry Peccavi and Ask forgivenes of my rashnes Thus they proceed 9. On the Other side when the Catholick interprets Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries against his Faith He never makes his interpretation to be the The last Proof of a Catholick is not his Interpretation greatest light or surest Proof of His Doctrin but most prudently Answers I am bound to interpret your less clear Authority brought Against me becaus I am Assured Aliunde by the strongest Principles Imaginable whether my Gloss hit right or no that my Faith is most certain Christs Church tell 's me so Fathers Confirm it None ever Opposed it but known Hereticks Here saith the Catholick are my last He hath assured Principles to rely on Principles Upon these I rest And can you my Adversary Imagin that I being so well grounded Ought to leave my certain Principles for a Dark sentence or your unproved Conjectures It is impossible You will se this more clearly by one Example The An Instance Catholick Believes a Purgatory The Sectary saith His belief is against Scripture Wisdom 3. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them No such matter Answers the Catholick for if the word Righteous point at such as are perfectly just and need no Purgatory your proof is proofles or if the word Torments particularly signifies as it doth a racking or torturing forced on Malefactors to confess the Truth before a Judge the Text is wide enough from your purpose For no such punishment shall touch the just departed Now mark The Catholicks just Demand saith the Catholick Will you Sir have me to part from clear and certain Principles wheron my Faith relies for a Scripture whilst the very sense of that Scripture is at least doubtful and obscure and therfore may be well explicated without violence no way Contrary to the Doctrin of my Church It would be a sin and a great one against prudence to yeild upon so slight a ground I should make saith He an ill bargain should I as it were exchange the sure Principles A woful Exchange of sure Principles for uncertain Glosses of my Faith for your uncertain Glosses and you have no more Though you read the Text now cited till your eyes be weary 10. Upon the Occasion now offered give me leave to Tell you one great Truth Viz. All of us must Vnavoidibly either firmly Adhere to the Doctrin of our Catholick A great Verity worthy of Reflection Church in these points of Controversy Or may Sectaries Glosses sway with us we shall be sure to Assent to that which is not only an Heresy but according to Ordinary Prudence and clear Principles a thousand times more improbable and Difficil Observe it in our present Controversy Sectaries hold it no improbability to say That the Souls of good men do not enjoy compleat Happines till the Day of Judgement Any thing may pass but Popery yet this very Assertion if we respect Authority The Improbable proceeding of Sectaries and reason also abstracting from Faith is less probable then our Church Doctrin is Those quoted Scriptures prove Nothing to this purpose as we shall show presently for to find mercy at that great Day inferr's not that all Souls must stay out of Heaven till the second Coming of Christ to judgement Note the like strain in other Controversies They will have me to Deny the Infallibility of my Church and will give me in Place of it their own fallible word which I am sure cannot Stand in Competition with the sole Humane Authority of my Church They will have us to deny the Popes Supremacy And what Do they inforce on us in lieu of that Nothing but Their own jarring heads that agree in Nothing And these must Teach and Govern us in place of a Pope They will have me to Disbelieve my Scripture interpreted by the Church and to believe their Interpretations who are both Churchles and Scriptureles Mark well and judge you whether that which Sectaries They would drive us upon greater Improbabilities would Drive us upon be not in a high measure more improbable and difficile then what we now believe and it must needs be so for as I told you the only support of their whole Religion as Protestancy is neither Scripture nor the Consent of Fathers but their own Glosses forced on both without further warrant Follow them closely through all Controversies you will find I speak Truth Contrarywise The Catholicks Security when He interpret's when the Catholick Interpret's He hath ever at hand a certain Principle distinct from his Interpretation which is his security For saith He I must either Interpret an Authority when it is Dubious or desert those Convincing Principles wheron my Faith is grounded which are without Controversy most certain But to do so is madnes and a notorious sin against Prudence Thus much by way of a Notandum Our Adversaries Objections 11. We come now to Combate a little with our Adversaries Objections but the Quarrel will not be long For besides what is refuted Already and some other Parergons not much as I think to the Purpose the remainder may be easily dispatched 12. He saith first Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what They declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation Mark the word Declare and se Sir what a law you lay on A hard Rule given the Fathers the Fathers they must tell their Readers when they write My Masters so much you are to believe on the account of Divine Revelation and so much not or if They fail in this Declaration they may as you seem to say afterwards speak only their own fancies and Imaginations Contra. St. Austins writes of Purgatory and holds it as we shall se presently But Declares not Explicitly that the Doctrin is of Divine Revelation nor Explicitly that it is his own fancy If therfore He Declares neither Explicitly upon what Principle The Argument is
clearly We may first Suppose Two necessary Suppositions That as God hath Certainly Revealed the Truth of this Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Scripture so He hath also Taught us What we are Truely to Believe concerning it We Suppose 2. That his real Intention was and is That we stand to his Word and Believe Him as he Speak's Vnles we can Learn by some clear and Vndoubted Principle That he spak Reservedly or That his words bear another Sense then what they plainly Signify Vpon these Suppositions I Argue When God Reveals a Truth in Holy A clear Argument Proposed against Sectaries Scripture which concerns the General Belief of all And really Intends to Teach Christians what They are to Believe of that Revealed Truth He cannot Deliver more significantly clearly and expresly that Doctrin which He would not have Christians to Believe Then He Doth the Doctrin which He Would have them to Believe For if He did so whilst We cannot Learn by any known Principle That He speak's otherwise then He Thinks He would not only Equivocate and Deal reservedly with us in a Weighty matter of Faith And this as Ill beseem's his Goodnes as to Speak an Vntruth God in a weighty Matter of Faith cannot deliver more clearly that Doctrin which He would not have Christians to Believe Then he Doth the other which He would have them to believe If God cannot make a fals Religion more credible to Reason by outward Motives Then his true Religion is He cannot deliver an errour not to be Believed in more plain and significant words then he useth when he speaks a Truth to be believed by All. But more if we Rely on Scripture only He would Induce the whole world to Believe a Falsity Now I Subsume But it is most Evident if Sectaries Say right That God in speaking of this Mystery Delivers that Doctrin more clearly And significantly Which He would not have Christians to Believe Then He doth the other which He would Have them to Believe And there is no Imaginable Principle wherby we can learn that he Spake otherwise then He Thought or his plain Words Signify Therfore he speak's not only Equivocally and Reservedly in a weighty matter of Faith which is Alwayes to be Reflected on But He Induceth also the whole Christian World if Scripture guide us to Believe a Falsity by His too plain Speaking 5. Before I prove the Minor And give you this Clearer Language of Almighty God For what He will not Have us to Believe c. Be pleased to call to mind one Truth Explicated more largely Disc 1. cap. 8. For it is the Ground of my Present Discours Vpon that Principle therfore I say now Again As God cannot if True Faith be in the world make a Fals Religion more Prudently Credible to Reason by the force of rational Motives Then His True Religion is Evidenced and made Credible For if he did so He would oblige Reason to Embrace a Falsity and Desert Truth So also when He Delivers a Doctrin Concerning Christian Faith And in the most serious Circumstances imaginable He cannot Deliver an Errour in more Emphatical and Plainer words Then He speak's a Truth which yet You Shall se is Don if Sectaries be Believed The Parity Holds Exactly For As those more Perswasive Motives Antecedent to Belief wherby we are as it were summoned The parity hold's exactly to settle our Faith right Would If They Countenanced a Fals Religion Prudently Induce Rational men to embrace that and Leave the Discountenanced true Religion so This very clearer Language of God Wheron our Faith immediately Relies Would Also if it be more Express and Significant For Errour then Truth Force All to Embrace the Errour and Abandon Truth Becaus the Errour is most significantly Expressed in Holy Writ And the Truth not at All And This is Don when there is no excogitable Grounded Principle to Fancy or the bare words of Sectaries cannot work out of a Christians Hart the open sense of Christs words How Christ speak's and what Catholicks Believe Draw us of the supposed Errour if we be Beguiled or to work this supposed Falsity out of our Harts But the meer Fancy And the bare Word of a few Sectaries who say we are Deceived 6. Now to prove the Minor And Demonstrate that God delivers more Fully and significantly the Doctrin Which He would not have Christian◠to Believe then he doth the other Ponder these two things First what Eternal Truth Speak's in this Matter And we Catholicks Believe 2. What Sectaries say He speak's And They Believe These are Christs words This is my Body This is my Body Which is Given for you This is my Blood of the new Testament that shall be Shed for many Take heed say Sectaries Read warily These words Sectaries must say That Christs vvords taken in their plain literal sense are fals Taken in Their Plain literal and most Obvious sense are Fals and Therfore Express not the Doctrin we are to Believe Again Christ Speak's Thus. This is the Chalice of the new Testament in my blood which Chalice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is or shall be Shed for you Vnles you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed No such Matter say Sectaries This is not the Doctrin we are to Believe For these words Vnderstood in Their Plain Obvious sense are Fals. That Chalice Shed For us vvas not his blood But vvine of the grape We eat not the flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood But only eat Bakers Bread and Drink Natural wine Sectaries make the contrary Proposition to Christs words True His flesh is not really meat nor His blood Drink Observe I pray you Sectaries so Abhor The plain and Proper Sense of Christs own Words that they make the contradictory Proposition to Him Absolutely True in Every Particular And his Fals Therfore they must at least confess that he Speak's too clearly and expresly that Doctrin which They say we ought not to Believe Otherwise Why do They not Admit of his Words in Their open and most candid Signification 7. Shall we next Consider what Sectaries Believe of this Mystery and withall Learn whether Christ Delivers as plainly Their Doctrin in Scripture As ours Sectaries Faith of this Mystery Hear Their Profession of Faith We Believe Say They That that which Christ gave to his Disciples vvas Natural Bread Deputed to a Holy Vse And no More We Believe it to be a Sign Only a Figure Only a Seal a Token a Type Only of Christs Body That is We Believe it to be His Body by Resemblance Symbolically Tropically Metonymically and Significantly Which is to Say it Hath the Scripture no vvhere call's that vvhich Christ gave his Disciples Natural Bread or a Sign only of his Body name of Christs Body But Really is no such
Thing And is This your Belief Yes Out with your Bible Therfore And Shew me as Many clear Texts of Holy Writ where That which Christ gave to His Disciples in his last Supper is called Natural Bread a Sign Only a Figure Token or Type only of his Body For This is the Doctrin you say we ought to Believe As I have now Quoted for the Contrary where it is called Christ Body and Blood Though you Suppose This to be the Doctrin We must not Believe Believe it These expressions This is my Body which is given for you This The words of our Saviour are plain and most Significant is the Chalice in my Blood which shall be shed for you are most Open And Significant Language Answer Me with Other Texts as Significant For your Faith or to this Sense This is not my Body But a Sign Only of my Body which is given For you Speak Plainly was it a Sign or a Figure Only of Christ That He blessed Lord Sacrificed on the Cross Was it a Sign or Figure only of Him That Judas Betrayed or that Suffered For our sins No. It was his Iudas betrayed not a sign of Christ Body but Christ himself very real Body and this Body Truth that cannot Err saith He gave to his Disciples Once more I have right to Demand Give me Text for Text or Cast your Scriptures in a Pair of Scales for a Trope Figure and Sign Only and Lay mine now Quoted By Them for the Reality of Christs Body Present And Let that Side of the Ballance Fall where you find most Weight of Gods Word You will soon Perceive Nothing in Scripture of signes and figures only How Light your Heresy is Compared with Truth And that without further Dispute it Flyes up to Fancy For There is not in the whole Bible so much as one Syllable of these Signes Only of these Figures of these Metonymies or any such Language 8. We se Moreover If Sectaries Speak Truth The Conclusion Fall's on Them with a greater Weight then They Imagined For it Followes That Christ our Lord Hath not only Spoken more Significantly and Expresly the Doctrin He would not have to be Believed Then the other which They say is to be Believed But also That He obligeth us to Believe a Sectaries would have us to believe a Docttin contrary to express Scripture Doctrin And by force of Scripture Which Clear Scripture is so far from Expressing That it Expresly Teaches the Contrary to what They Say All Ought to Believe I might yet Propose this Argument in other Terms and Perhaps with greater Force after this Manner If Christ Delivered that Doctrin more Plainly The Argument is proposed in other Terms which Sectaries Suppose to be Fals and Less clearly Yea not at All The contrary Doctrin which They Suppose to be True They who ground All Their Belief on Scripture must either Interpret the plainer Scripture by the more Obscure yes and I say by no Scripture at All And this is pure Fancy Or will be forced not so much to Misinterpret as plainly to Deny the Obvious and Open Sense of Christs own Words And This is wors then Fancy And here by If by a supposed impossibility Catholicks were deceived in Their Faith the way you may gather 3. If Catholicks who Believe the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist Be Deceived in their Faith They may without Blame Impute the Errour to no other cause But to the plain Speaking of our Saviour and most Justly say Si error est quem credimus à te decepti sumus If we are Deceived 'T is you Blessed Lord who have don it You Tell They might justly blame Christs plain words us This is my Body which is given for you This is my Blood shed for many c. You never uttered the least syllable in your Scripture of a Sign Only of a Trope Figure or symbol Only Say therfore most imparrial Judge Wherin are we guilty whilst We Expresly Believe what you To say that Christ beguil's us or that we are beguiled by him is Blasphemy Expresly Teach And Reject a Novelty which None But Hereticks Brought into the World To Affirm that Christ intended to Beguile us by his too Plain Speaking of this Mystery is open Blasphemy And to Say we are beguiled by him is no Less An Impiety The Answer if Sectaries pretend we do not anderstand Christs words 9. All that Sectaries can Pretend for Their Cause Against this Discours is That we yet Arrive not to the True meaning of Christs sacred Words And Therfore They are ready to Teach us Very Good We are content to learn what is Truth But Before they Begin Their Teaching it will be best for Them To Reflect that we have here a Proposition This is my Body c. And because Christ Delivered It 'T is most True Therfore we have a Subject also This school terms are necessary in the present occasion we have a copula EST IS And a Predicate or Attribute My Body Now If our Adversaries will Vouchsafe to Teach Let Them first Please to Give us Plainly the Total Object of Christs Proposition And Say what that The total Object of Christs Proposition it to be declared Predicate was which He then Connected with the Subject HOC or THIS Did He say natural Bread remaining bread was his Body No 'T is most Fals. Did he say by an Identical Enunciation His Body was his Body No. Did He Say that what He pointed at was By the Energy of his Words made Really his Body No it is too plain Popery and Christ Say they never Spoke it How then shall we Learn what he truely Asserted or find a Subject Copula Sectaries can find no Truth in the proposition unles they first abuse his sacred words and Predicate in this Proposition They Answer And here is their best Instruction it is Impossible to find either Truth or these three Things in it Unles They first Abuse the Words And Say Hoc est Here Sitts Christs Body or That this Bread Per commumunicationem Idiomatum is Christs Body or That this Bread was made a natural Body by the Omnipotent Word of Christ or Finally Say To Omit other Glosses And This sense best Pleaseth Modern Sectaries That the Word Est Imports not Is or any Identity between Hoc and Corpus But Renders an other Sense and only Availes as much As if you sayd Significat This Signifies Christs Body Read therfore the Gospel thus This is my Body id est This Natural bread Signifies or is a Sign a Figure of my Body And we are Right We have the Genuine Sense of his Proposition Thus they Teach us 10. Here you shall se a Powerful work of Fancy A work of Fancy And a mighty injury don to Christ. And the Greatest Wrong Don I think to Christ that ever entred into a Christians Hart. To lay open This sin of Sectaries I
is Given for you They Answer No. It was not his Body but a Sign Only of His Body Given for us Observe well This Interpretation of a Sign Only is a Gloss of Fancy For neither the Word Sign is in Scripture Nor a Sign Only is any Ancient Father We Cite Again that Unanswerable Text of St. Luke This is the Chalice the new Testament in my Blood which Chalice is shed for you And mark the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Case and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Different Case What Answer our Sectaries Marry Beza Tell 's us St. Luke Here either spak a Solacism or a Marginal Note Cre'pt by chance into the Text Here is His best Solution And who Tell 's Mr. Beza so But his own Fancy We Produce moreover Those Testimonies of Ancient Fathers Briefly Hinted at Above And say no Wit of Man can solve Them Chiefly That Authority of St. Cyril Of VVine changed into Blood as water was Once changed into VVine They Answer The Change was only Moral of Wine Deputed to a Holy Use which is Against the very Nature of the Instance And consequently a Strong Thought of Fancy We say No Universal Tradition No Ancient Church ever Opposed the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church concerning this Mystery Herein our Ad 〈…〉 rsaries are Silenced And cannot Design the Orthodox Church that opposed our Doctrin as both We and the whole world beside now oppose their Novelty Parallel therfore the Proceedings of Sectaries Against us A Parallel between their Proceeding and ours Sectaries mangle and pervert most clear Authorities with ours Against them And you will find them to stand upon Quicksand without Principles The very Straits They are put to Demonstrat this Evidently whilst as you have seen They Mangle Pervert Misconstrue and Gloss Every clear Authority cited against Them And We on the other side candidly Admit both of Scripture and Fathers Quoted by Them without Any other Gloss but what the very Text and Context of the Testimonies Allow of 5. And Hence it is that you Always have our Adversaries Sectaries bold in asserting but weak at their Proofs bold in Asserting But Cold Vnmanly and Weak at their Proofs Besides what is now said the true Reason is No Proof can touch much less Vainquish a Verity that Stands firm upon undeniable Principles Plain Scripture the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers undeniable What our Catholick Proofs are Tradition the Authority of a Holy and Vniversal Church and this Negative No Church ever blamed our Doctrin are Strong Supports for the Faith we Profess And can our Sectaries who are as Scriptureles as Fatherles as Fatherles as Churchles and Finally Destitute of All other Principles Think to Dant us with a few Gleancings Gathered Sectaries cannot deny Them now out of This now out of that Ancient Writter when They Evidently se with their Eyes the whole Torrent of Antiquity contrary to Them Can they Perswade Themselves that Because one Theodoret For example Of Theodorets Authority Saith the Mystical Signs after the Sanctification Recede not from Their Nature but Remain in their first Substance Figure and Form are Seen and Touched as Before which words are literally True if we Speak as We Admit of his Words this Author Doth of the visible Accidents of Bread and Wine Can we I say Think that this one Authority Though it were a Hundred times more Difficil Hath Weight enough to turn the Scales Force Enough to Drive us from the Faith which Scripture Church and Fathers most manifestly Deliver It is impossible The obscurer places of Scripture and Fathers are to be Interpreted by the clearer All know when Divines Explicate Scripture or Fathers They Interpret the obscurer Passage by the Clearer And never make the Darker Place to give Light to the more Evident Observe Now. Theodoret saith the Mystical Signs Recede not from their Nature But Remain as before I say so too The only Difficulty is what he Meanes by the Word Signs and Sectaries Glosses without Proof Theodoret cannot be supposed to contradict other most Learned Fathers He is to be Explicated were he obscure by the sense of other Fathers Nature Sectaries Tell us The Sense is Bread and wine Recede not from Their True Substance First This is their Gloss without Proof For the Visible Signs of bread and wine are not the Invisible Substance of Bread and Wine 2. Theodoret in all law of Arguing when His plain Words Force not on us this sense of Sectaries ought to be Catholickly Interpreted And Had we no other Reason but this That it cannot be Reason To make so Learned a Father Though once he stray'd a little to Clash with all Antiquity it were Enough At most His Words are Doubtful And upon that Account capable of Explication is it not Therfore more Just to Explicate Them by the Clear and Vndeniable Doctrin of a Whole Church And other Fathers then to Draw these Fathers from their Open and Manifest Sense to His if it be supposed Obscure as in Truth well Pondered it is not Let Reason Judge Here. 6. By what is said Already We may well pitty the desperate Condition of Sectaries who Pertinaciously Defend an Heresy without so much as a colour of Sectaries want Principles Scripture Church or the General Consent of Fathers For these Principles and none can Parallel them Most evidently Fail our Adversaries Urge them Again and Again to speak more Pertinently to their Cause then is Don hitherto You get nothing but the Old Story told over again And it will never be Better for I se too Plainly Their Humor It is God knows Sectaries Tristing and wherin it Appear's To spend or rather to Mispend their whole Life and Labour in Trifles They Think to Cavil at the Proofs of our Doctrin Establisheth Theirs As if it were sufficient to make their Novelty good Because they can Talk against our Ancient Faith Just as if One to Prove Himself an Honest Man might do it Pithily by calling his Neighbour a Knave 7. I must yet Add one Significant Word more And 'T is very Necessary to lay forth our Adversaries Weaknes as well in This as in All other Controversies Observe Solid Proofs for a Doctrin stand firm and unshaken against all Opponents it VVhen Proofs of a Doctrin Stand on solid Grounds and Principles the Objections Against it are like Fathers cast Against the Wind forceles And return upon the Opponents to their Confusion wherof I think you Have Already seen Enough in this Present Controversy But contrarywise When the Proofs are Meagre Barren and Void of Strength They are ever so with Sectaries The Very Opposite Principles for Truth Dash All Discountenance All and Evidently Shew those Arguments to be Feeble And Truely would our Did Sectaries Proceed Candidly They would se Themselves Convinced Adversaries once Deal Ingeniously Candor would
Force them to Acknowledge what I say to be most True when they can allâ—ge nothing probably for their Novelty against our Plain Scripture Against the Ancient Doctrin of a Vniversal Learned Church And the Authority of so many Fathers now Cited 8. We might yet entertain you with One or Two Difficult â— drawn from the weak Reason of Sectaries solved Difficulties more Drawn from Reason Wherat our Adversaries Measuring Gods Power by their own Wit or Fancy Stumble not a Little One is A Body cannot be in two Places at Once Just so the Peasant Thinks the sun cannot be bigger then a Broad Sieve Because never learning Mathematiks He Measures All by his silly Imagination And so the Sectary Doth Here Because He is no Scholler in Christs School But ad Rem Who Tell 's Him that a Body cannot be in two Places at once Hath God Revealed this in Scripture Nitâ—her Faith nor Philosophy against th being of a Body in two places No But Philosophy Teaches it What Philosophy Aristotles No For the Received Doctrin of his School is That a Body to say nothing of a Soule That is in two places Head and Feet at Once Individually Considered by it Self is no more Actually It s own Local Presence or Place Then the Organ of the Eye is of it Self its own Actual Vision Or Fire A Body is not by it self it s own local presence An other Argument of Sectaries ungrounded by it self Actually Heat This is common Philosophy if That of Sectaries be Better let them Vouchsafe to Learn us Otherwise Not by Saying it is Better But by some Clear and Vndeniable Principle 9. An other Argument is Drawn from the Great Indignities wherunto Christs Sacred Body is lyable if it be in the Holy Sacrament As That a Mouse or Wors Creature may Eat it Vp c. Here we may Justly Exclame with St. Austin upon another Occasion lib. 22. de Civit. c. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis Omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas c. Se with what Slight Arguments Mans weak Wit Opposeth Gods Omnipotency Speak therfore Truth Is it not a greater The pretended Indignities of Sectaries shewed â—rivolous Indignity that Christ Permitt's a Sinner to Receive him with a filthy conscience Then That He lics in the Stomach of a Rat or Mouse Say yet Had a worm Suk't his Precious Blood when it was shed on the Ground in his Passion or a Spider bit his Sacred flesh in the Crib of Bethlem Would that Indignity think ye Have Forced men from a Belief of his Real true Body These are childish Arguments not worth the Answering And here you have almost an End of a Digression which I Think cannot be well Answered 10. I Exceed not in saying It cannot be Answered Some points Briefly touched on wherunto Sectaries are desired to Answer And therfore Tell our Adversaries if it shall please them to Reply They are first to Prove and by certain Principle that Christs Sacred Words now Alleged for our Catholick Verity are Misunderstood by us And ought to have Their Determinate sense of a Sign Figure Metonymy and no Other What we here Require is most Reasonable For if my Faith fall upon Their sense They are obliged to Prove it Revealed by Almighty God Otherwise Vpon sound Principles Contrary to all Reason They 'l Vrge me to Believe what an infinit Verity never Spak 2. They are to Prove And by a clear Principle also That in such an Age after Christ There was an Orthodox Church that Believed their Doctrin of a Sign Figure Metonymy Only c. And Publikly Opposed ours of Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist To do this More is required then to cite a few broken Sentences of Fathers half Abused and wholy Maimed Sentences of Fathers Proofles weighed out of Their Circumstances All which put together Come not neer to a Probable much less to a Certain Principle That 's able to Evert the undeniable clear Catholick Doctrin of other Fathers And the Authority of our whole learned Church with Them 3. They are not only to Interpret the Fathers now Alleged For Fancy without Proof may pervert the clearest Words God ever Spak But when Their Interpretation When Sectaries Interpret the Fathers They are obliged to prove their Interpretation is made They must Shew it grounded upon a contrary Received Principle as Strong as the Express Words of those Fathers are 4. They are to Show That Christ our Lord when He uttered those sacred words to His Disciples This is my Body And then foresaw the universal supposed Errour of Believing his Real Presence in the Eucharist would follow in all Orthodox Churches And from no other Cause but His own Express and significant Speaking They are I say Obliged to Prove And by an undeniable Principle that He shut up in the clearest Proposition He ever uttered that Dark sense which They draw from it And that He did so to Deceive the World Sectaries grant Christians to have been universally Deceived What Sectaries Grant in their Belief of the Real Presence And that the supposed Errour Arose from Christs plain words is Evident For the whole Catholick Church that Believes this Mystery doth so Because Truth it self said plainly vvithout Reserve This is my Body Finally That Christ our Lord would speak as He did is Manifest by the Gospel And that He then foresaw the Supposed Vniversal Errour would be also Believed by force of His words in the greatest part of Christendom is most Vndubitable Because of the perfect Knowledge He had of Future Things 5. May it please Sectaries to Proceed candidly They are to cast a serious Reflection on pass't Ages and Ponder well who those were that Patronized Their Doctrin and Opposed ours They are to compare and justly to Ballance their Obscure Scripture vvith our clear Texts The vveak Testimonies of Their misconstrued Fathers with our contrary now Quoted Authorities Their Novelty with our Ancient Believed Faith The sentiment of their little late Congregation concerning this Mystery with the Judgement and Belief of our long standing Roman Church c. And if when All is Don They can come to a sound Principle Wherby it may Appear to every Rational man That their Scripture Fathers and Church Authority Outweigh as it were Ours Or have more force to establish their Novelty then what is now Alleged to make our Catholick Doctrin most stably sure We will begin to Think They may more laudably write Controversies Hereafter But if contrarywise you find Them Gravelled at every Difficulty now Proposed and hear nothing distinctly Replyed to upon undoubted Principles or Further confuted then a loos wandring Discours will carry on a Weak Cause I 'll once more crave Their Pardon and Plainly Say Our Arguments and Reasons cannot be Ansvvered CHAP. VIII The Conclusion The Churches Evidence 1. WE have seen Enough in the Precedent Discourses That True Religion is not as Sectaries make Protestancy
over Christianity Innumerable Learned Religious Though Various in Matters meerly Opinative Yet so Highly Tender of the Churches Vnity That They would rather Dy then Break or Blemish it All these well Agreeing Harts in one Faith Evidence That This Church is Made up of Members who Glory in Vnion amongst Themselves and Testify it By a due Submission to one Supream Head set over this Blessed Society VOS AVTEM TAM TURBULENTI And what can You late Troublesome People Who Yeild Submission to None But to your own Fancies You Who within the Compass of one Narrow Kingdom are so turbulently Divided in Faith so Horridly Rent and Torn a Pieces with Schism What can You I say Allege For Your Breach of Vnion or Rationally Pretend Against this long Standing and Ancient Agreeing Body of Catholicks 4. Finally You So NEW MEN Behold And it may lay Sorrow at your Harts Innumerable of your own long since Deceased Ancestors Professed Children of this Mother Church Their Monuments Even in Antiquity against Novelty England Sad Spectacles 'T is true But Visible Enough to Your Eyes Plead Strongly for the Ancient Faith which You now Vnfortunately Reject You Se The Very Churches built by Those your Fore-fathers Though in part Defaced Are not yet so much Spoiled But That still a memory is preserved of Catholick Religion in the very Altars half Pulled Down In the Crosses And other Remembrances of their Ancient Renowned Piety You Se withall Whole Volumes writ in Defense of our Catholick Doctrin the very Velume and Characters wherof much elder then your Faith lament your late Change And tell many a sad Story of your new risen Gospel VOS ERGO TAM NOVI And How Dare you so late Masters without Confusion and Torment of Conscience reflect on These Ancestors Look on These Monuments Read these Writings And after all Speak as you do Irreverently of an Ancient Faith meerly to Countenance a Novelty Wherof the World never Heard before you Preach't it Say once Plainly 'T is High time to Speak what Have you for This Protestancy Any Prudent Motives That make it Credible Not One. Have you Scripture Not a Word Do Ancient Councils or the Vnanimous Consent Nothing can defend Protestancy but Fancy of Fathers Favour it No. All Band against it And leave both you and the Novelty professed by you To no better a Ground then what Vphold's all Heresy which is Fancy or some Thing wors then Fancy Therfore Nemini dubium est quin nihil dignum auctoritate praeferatis 5. Some Perhaps will say If Protestancy be thus Highly Improbable And the Roman Catholick Religion so Manifestly Credible As is now Declared From Why Sectaries stay so long in Heresy whilst the Church is so manifest to all Whence is it That Sectaries Stay so long in Heresy And Embrace not a Faith which is without Dispute undoubtedly Clear to All To Answer the Question it would be enough to Propose an Other And 'T is not to Ask Why All Embrace not Protestancy That hath Nothing to induce men to it But Why after It is Answered first by an Instance of Christ and his Apostles not converting all A further Reason is Given All those most Signal Manifest Miracles and Conversions wrought by Christ our Lord and His Apostles the whole world Both Jewes and Gentils came not Then in Vpon such Evident Motives Why Did they not Forthwith Profess Christianity Most Certainly the Attraction was Forceable They wanted no Inducements But Education And a contrary custom of Living Hindred much and Sense too strong with the Most of men Perhaps More For as Sense and Sensual Pleasures Ever Make Vertue Insipid to the will So They often Dull the Eye of Reason also in Order to Truth And Either VVithdraw the Attention from a Serious Contrary on Educati sâ—nâ—iberty se and sensual pleasure Hinder Consideration of what most Concern's our Good or which is VVors totally averts the mind from it VVe Se this misery Dayly For the More that men are Lulled a Sleep in sense and worldly Delights The Less they Listen to what God speak's Though He Call's lowd on Them And Vseth a Language as He doth by His Church most Clear Audible and Significant 6. Add hereunto an Other Verity Delivered by One That could not but Speak Truth 1. Cor. 15. 19. Oportet Heresies must be Haereses esse There must be Heresies and the Reason Followes in the Text. That Those who are Approved may be made Manifest Among you Manifest How I 'll Tell you It is Heresy that hath brought Thousands The Reason of Martyrs and this in the open View of the world to Their Gibbets and Torments without it Much Good followes the permission of Heresy They Had not Dyed for Christ nor Manifested so clearly their Renowned Constancy It is Heresy that hath Evidenced the suffering Patience of Innumerable Confessors who Though shut up in Prisons and Dungeons for their Faith Have yet Their Memory Living and it will Remain upon Record to future Ages It is Heresy That both Proves and Shewes you where True Faith much more precious then Gold tryed by the Fire is Found unto Shewed in particular Praise and Glory It is Heresy That Brings to Light Gods pure Revealed Verities never more spread abroad nor better Known then when Novellists endeavon to Suppress Them It is Heresy that hath set Forth so many learned Volums of Ancient Fathers Sent Innumerable Missioners Up and Down the World And yet Gives you Plenty of painfull Preachers in the Church who Cease not to Speak in Gods Cause It omne os obstruatur that the Mouths of Sectaries being Stopped All may love Truth and Yeild a Due Submission to Christ and His Church You se Therfore How Heresy Though it Poysons Him That Feed's on 't Yet it causeth More Good Among Christians Then our Vulgar And more then is Vulgarly conceived Thoughts easily reach to Seâ— Tertullian lib de Praesc c. 1. And S. Austin de Verd Relig. c. 8. 7. Grow not Therfore Angry with God 'T is Tertullians advise for Permitting Sin and Heresy An God That permitt's sin and Heresy knowes best for what use they serve Infinite Wisdom Knowes best for what Use they Serve You Remember When Those Servants in the Gospel Matth. 13. 26. Saw Cockle Appearing among the Wheat They readily Offred their Service to Pluck it Vp But the wise Housholder Said No. Sinite utraque crescere usque ad messem Suffer Both to Grow until the Harvest And in the time of Harvest I will say to the Reapers Gather up first the Cockle c. They Pressed not further but Remained well Satisfied with Christs Answer Christs Answer Least whilst you Gather up the Tares you Root up also the wheat with Them Now if you Vnderstand not the Deep Sense of these sacred Words Exclaim with the Apostle Rom. 11. 33. O Altitudo O Depth of the Riches of The Apostles pious
exclamation The Prophets Lesson and the wise Counsel of the son of Syrach the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! Quis cognovit sensum Domini Who hath known the mind of our Lord or who hath been his Counseller Learn well that good Lesson Esay 55. 9. My Thoughts are not your Thoughts for as the Heavens are Exalted above the Earth sâ— are my Wayes Exalted above Yours and my Cogitations above your Cogitations Learn more of JESU the Wise son of Syrach Eccles 33. 15. And Look with Him upon all Teach â—â— to Reverence Gods permission of Evil. the Works of the Highest You se Two against Two and One Against One Against Evil is Good Against Death is Life Against a Iust man is a Sinner And I Add Against Truth you have Heresy S. Austin lib. 11. de Civitate c. 18. Call's S. Austins Discours of Contrarieties in Gods works these Things Râ—rum Antitheta Contrarities in the works of God And moreover Assures us That His Goodnes would never have Created either Men or Angels in whom Evil was Foreseen Nisi pariter nosset quibus eos Bonorum usibus accommodaret unles He had also Known how Useful Subservient and Beneficial I 'll would Prove at last to Vertuous Good Men. Atque ita in ordinem seculorum tanquam pulcherrimum Carmen etiam ex quibusdam quasi Antithetis honestaret And How that in the Cours of Ages He might Commend and set Forth all We Se like a well made Vers with certain Contrarieties Evil graceth virtâ—â— and Errour gives a lustre to Truth Evil Therfore Hath its Good and Gives a Grace to Virtue Errour Add's a Comliness to Truth And the more Ugly Heresy is the More it Sett's forth the Lustre of Christs Orthodox Church And makes it glorious S. Austin confirm's the Doctrin Pictor novit They are Words of S. Austin Serm. De Diversis c. 5. fine ubi ponat nigrum colorem ut sit decora pictura nescit Deus ubi ponat peccatores ut sit ordinata creatura A Painter Knowes well where to lay Darker Colours That his Piece may be Fair to the eye And Shall not God Know where to Place Sinners the like is of Hereticks That His Creatures may Therby Appear And shâ—wâ—s of what use erring men are to the Church Seemly and in Order Yes most Assuredly This great Doctor Saith yet More lib. de Vera Beligione c. 6. Haec enim Catholica Ecclesia per totum orbem validè lateque diffusa omnibus errantibus ad profectus suos ad eorum Correctionem cum Evigilare voluerint c. This Catholick Church so far and neer Diffused makes Benefit of all Poor erring Souls Yea and Doth so for their Amendment when They Shall Please to Awake out of their Drowsines It makes Vse of Gentils to let them Se the Wonders it Works of Hereticks to Prove its Holy Doctrin of Schismaticks to give them a Lesson of better Stability of Iewes to Shevv them the Beauty of Christian Religion c. So it is All the Blindnes in the world saith S. Austin els Were Ad aliquem usum Sanctorum ordinatur is Ordained for some Heresy serviceable to the Church Profit and Service of Gods Elect and Chosen People 8. Conclude therfore As there will be Deluded Souls whether Iewes or Gentils As There will be Sin Oppression and Open Injustice to the End of Ages Sic oportet Haereses esse So there will be Heresies also No wonder that some wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of the Church And Those who Wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of a Glorious Mother Church And wonder not at it For you Know That the Son of God Himself came into the World Et mundus cum non cognovit And the World would not know Him His sacred Doctrin was Preach't All over But Seemed Iudaeis Scandalum Gentibus Stultitia A Scandal to the Iewes and a Foolery When the Son of God was not known to All. to the Gentils What Marvel is it then that His Own Holy Church Be less Regarded by Dispirited Souls and the Doctrin therof set Light by Have Patience Wait on Gods Good Leisure No Hart is so Hard but Grace can Soften it These Dimm Eyes of Deceived Men Will at last be Opened Et videbit omnis caro Salutare Dei And all shall Se and Know That as There is no Other Saviour but One Christ our Lord So There is no other Church but No other Christ but one No other Church but the one only Roman Catholick Church One Wherin Salvation long Sought for can be Found But in the One only Ancient Apostolical Catholick and Holy Roman Church CREDO SANCTAM ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM FINIS THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER THE FIRST DISCOVRS Of an Infallible Church and Infallible Teachers CHAP. I. There are Infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion Page 16. CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrin of Christ Necessarily requires Infallible Teachers 20 CHAP. III. Other Proofs for Teachers and a Church infallible 29 CHAP. IV. Replyes to these Arguments are Answered 36 CHAP. V. A Controversy with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty 49 CHAP. VI. Faith only morally certain is no Faith Protestants have no Moral certainty of Protestant Religion 63 CHAP. VII How Sectaries err in the search made after Religion Of their weak and improbable Opposition The Objection is more fully Answered 70 CHAP. VIII A few Reflections made upon these Motives of Credibility No Religion hath Motives founding moral certainty but One only which is 〈◊〉 Roman Catholick Religion 78 CHAP. IX A short Digression concerning the shufling of Protestants in this matter 88 CHAP. X. Protestants have no rational Motives wherby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as Probable 96 CHAP. XI Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of These declared Motives 114 CHAP. XII Protestants for want of rational Motives cannot convert an Infidel to Christian Faith 119 CHAP XIII Protestancy for want of Rational Motives dishonor's Christ and makes way for any new coyned Heresy 128 THE SECOND DISCOVRS Of Scripture CHAP. I. Scripture is useles if none declare infallibly the sense of it 135 CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 144 CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher 153 CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 162 CHAP. V. The Reason of private men and their private spirit cannot interpret Scripture 169 CHAP. VI. The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture which proves the Churches Infallibility is more Amply Refuted 179 CHAP. VII More of this subject 187 CHAP. VIII The new Mode of Sectaries misinterpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion 195 CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture Truely One
to us to be grounded on Scripture In this Sectaries always fail The new mode of Sectaries interpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion Here is the sequel of Sectaries We Catholicks Prove not what we assert therfore they make the contrary Doctrin an Article of their new Faith Faith cannot rely on such Negatives Of the means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture The Holy Ghost only speaking by the Oracle of the Church Interpret's Scripture infallibly in those matters which concern the general belief of all Protestants who profess themselves to be fallible in what ever they teach are no Instruments assumed by the Holy Ghost to teach and interpret infallibly Gods Word No Sectary can judge the Church but the Church is to judge all Sectaries THE THIRD DISCOVRS Of the unreasonable proceeding of Protestants in some Chief matters of Controversy PRotestants who seemingly hold a Catholick Church before Luther larger then the Roman Catholick Church and cannot design it Proceed unreasonably and must falsify that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church Before Luther there were no Christians in the world for a thousand years at least but Roman Catholicks and known Hereticks neither those Catholicks alone as Protestants say nor the known Hereticks nor both together constituted the true Catholick Church therfore there was no true Catholick Church on earth for so vast a time No abstract Doctrin common to all who are named Christians is sufficient to constitute Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet is confuted and his Doctrin shewed improbable Faith in Christ only as a Redeemer is insufficient to Saluation A more explicite Faith of other particulars is proved Necessary If Catholicks and Sectaries are right in the fundamentals of Faith all the pretended Reformation of Protestants comes to a slight work about Non Essentials which may have made Things wors then before It is not the less or more weight of things revealed that makes Faith less or more valued of but the Submission we yeild to Gods Veracity which is one and of equal Authority in what ever he Reveal's Though a Distinction were granted between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Yet Protestants cannot so much as probably sever the Fundamentals from the others by any known Principle If there be no Catholick Church owned at least infallible in Fundamentals all Faith both of Christ and Creed may perish before the world end 's And if there be such an Infallible Church in Fundamentals Sectaries ought to design it and say to whom that Spirit is granted in what subject it resides c. A Protestant who so far Denies Christs true Church That he cannot say where it is and endeavour's to reform others before he have certainty of his own half well made Reformation cannot probably go about to withdraw a prudent Catholick from his Religion Some Propositions of Mr. Stillingfleet are examined His Discours of Fundamentals destroy's Protestant Religion He Speaks of the Being of a Church and saith not precisely how much Doctrin constitutes that Being He cannot name any Orthodox Church that ever Excepted against the Articles believed by the Church of Rome He makes the Negative Articles of the English Church not to be Articles of Faith but only inferiour Truths held only in order to peace and tranquillity His Church therfore is essentially Hypocritical which may believe one thing and must profess an other Though Protestants were very Papists in hart yea and Anathematized all These Negative Articles They may be looked on as Blessed Children of this new Negative Church if their Exteriour be fairly Protestant-like He makes his Church no more an English Church then a Church of Arians and of all condemned Hereticks He saith the English Church makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian world and of Rome it self The Assertion is Evidently Vntrue For no Orthodox Church no Heretical Society no Consent â—f the whole Christian World Ever taught That a Doctrin wherin all Christians agree is sufficient to Saluation When Sectaries Say Christs gave to his Disciples a Sign only of his Body This very Doctrin is either an Article of Their Faith or one of their Inferiour Truths If the first They believe that which never had the approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it self If the second be granted They have no Divine Faith at all of the Blessed Sacrament The Nullity of our Adversaries ground 's is declared though the Church made new Articles of Faith If we speak rigourously The Church makes no new Articles but only declares more Explicitly what was anciently believed The Fathers call the Church a rich Treasury wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is securely preserved The Analogy of Faith is explicated There was a Platform of Christian Religion before Scripture was Writ and the Apostles separated Themselves and Preach't to several Nations Sectaries who seemingly acquiesce in the Judgement of one or two Ancient Fathers most inconsequently reject the Authority of a Learned General Council that is of greater weight and Estimation If the Churches Definitions are therfore to be thought fallible because men declare them and all men are lyars much more are our Sectaries Novelties and Glosses on Scripture to be valued of as Fallible upon the same ground These fallible men tell me my Churches Doctrin is fallible suppose falsly it were so it is altogether as good as this very fallible Proposition is that sayes 'T is Fallible and if which is true it be infallible it is much better No man that holds His Religion fallible can probably endeavour to convert an other though the contrary Religion Professed by this other be acknowledged to be no more but fallible Much less can he persecute Him for not yeilding Assent to a fallible Religion All the Storms of persecution raised against Catholicks are not upon any account of want of Faith but for this sole cause that we will not believe one thing and force our Consciences to Profess an other Which is to say we are persecuted becaus we will not be Hypocrits The Vnreasonablenes of Protestants Schism laid forth from the VIII Chap. of the third Discours to the XV. THe Separation of Protestants from the Roman Catholick Church is as plain and manifest a sinful Schism as ever was Decryed Rebellion in a Kingdom or any Violation of a Countries Right The formal Schism of Sectaries is evident but the Causal charged on Catholicks is no more but an unproved Calumny Proofs brought to received Principles fail Sectaries whilst they make the Roman Church to be the cause of their Formal Schism The supposed errours charged on the Roman Catholick Church by Sectaries are not like the first Principles in nature Evident ex terminis and therfore must be proved by a Discours grounded on certain Principles We Licence Sectaries in their Discours against us to make use of all Imaginable sound Principles Scripture Fathers Tradition or what They pleas and only exclude
Ground and I would se it Answered 4. Some perhaps will say the Doctrin of these Sectaries relies on Gods Word and that alone is a sure and infallible Principle I answer if we speak of Sectaries particular Doctrin as reformed They have not one Article clearly no nor so much as probably grounded on Gods express word for Scripture saith no where that Faith only justifies that all Churches are fallible that there is no Purgatory no Sacrifice of the Altar c. Ergo these Doctrins want certain Principles Now if they Reply Though these particular Doctrins are not express in Scripture yet the general Truths of Christianity are And They rely on these not careing for more I Answer Though these Verities as revealed be infallible in themselves yea and infallible also to the Catholick that admit's of them as infallible for the certain Testimony of his Church yet no man no Church no Oracle of Truth ever hitherto assured the Protestant infallibly that they are infallible for all these with him are fallible therfore They are removed from the nature of being certain Principles in order to his Faith and Doctrin also unles He say that the Objective infallibility of Scripture is evident ex terminis to the very eyes that read the book which is proved improbable Disc 1. c. 12. n. 4. Wherof more presently I Answer 2. If the Objective infallibility of these great Verities be a certain Principle to the Protestant it either Derives into his understanding that teaches them a Subjective infallbility in order to his Doctrin or leaves him as He was before lyable to mistake and errour if the first be granted He is Subjectively infallible when He teaches and this He will not hear of Grant the second viz. That He is lyable to mistake and errour in his teaching He may well miss of the objective Truth because He only saith fallibly what God speaks infallibly and consequently his Doctrin ultimatly resolved saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare what God speaks and it may be not for my Declaration is fallible and may be fals Therfore you Christians who hear me can believe nothing infallibly becaus my very Teaching is doubtful And it is against the nature of a doubt to convey certainty into any understanding Se Disc 1. c. 4. n. 7. 8. Now if you Ask why it is doubtful though he speak truth as it were by Chance I answer the Reason is Because he hath no Pâ—iâ—ciple which determinates his teaching to say that Infallibly which God speak's infallibly The External Principle of Scripture makes him no more Infallible than the worst of Hereticks who read it And all other Principles He works by are lyable to errour And here briefly you se the difference between the Truth of an Act and its Certitude The first only sayes in contingent matters a conformity with the Object The other a necessary Determination to Truth by Principles not liable to errour And Sectaries alwaies want these Principles whilst They teach a Doctrin fallibly If here they take recourse to moral certainty only and think that sufficient turn to the fift Chapter of the first Discours and you will se them evidently confuted It is lost labour to repeat again what is sayd in that place 5. These grounds supposed you shall se how Mr. Pooles Exceptions against them comes to nothing Let us saith He P. 9. n. 2. examin a little the strength of this pretty Proposition viz. That if we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity Iewes Turks and Pagans are as well perswaded of their wayes as we Christians of ours What a mad Assertion saith He is this that nothing is credible but what is infallibly certain and that there is no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities c. To this I answer in a word you shall have the Reason hereafter Nothing in true Christianity is credible but what both may and must be believed by most certain faith in other moral matters things are morally credible though we arrive not to certainty but Faith hath its exceptions Mr. Poole goes on I am not infallibly certain that there is such a place as Iamaica for it is possible that all Geographers may mistake and Travellers may lye Therfore I am as uncertain that there is a sea passage to China by the North c. I am not certain if I find a Calf in a field but that it may as some time it was drop't from the Clouds but will any sober man think that it came not from a cow He hath other instances to this purpose And the man if I mistake not would here liken the cettainty of that Truth we have of Christianity to the certainty we have of Iamaica and a calf coming from a Cow and the Doctrin of Judaism He would have so improbable as if one should say the Calf was dropt from the Clouds In a word if He dispute with a Jew He will hear that his whole Discours is Petitio principij and that his Instances of Iamaica and a calf are nothing to the purpose because he supposeth what should be proved viz. That the Doctrin of a Iew is so improbable to that Sect as this Antagonist makes it And that the taught Doctrin of Sectaries is so highly Probable in order to them as is here supposed Alas the Iew wil utterly silence Mr. Poole with this convincing Reason What ever becomes of my Doctrin I tell you your Protestant taught Doctrin which may be fals is no better than mine because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible Revelation which cannot be fals That it cannot be thus resolved is evident because a Doctrin that is fallible and may be fals though true in it self as fallible and lyable to falsity cannot be as it were cast or laid on Gods infallible Veracity that essentially Disowns and rejects all Doctrin that 's fallible and may be fals Therfore as Fallible ultimately resolved it must be brought to its one home which is not Gods infallible Revelation but to meer fancy or some other uncertainty For example Put the case that an English Synode truely Defines Christ Iesus is God and man yet so that the Definition by vertue of all the Principles it hath or its own intrinsick merit is fallibly Delivered One reflects on this Definition and consider's the Truth of it which is a conformity with its object as also the Weaknes of it which is Fallibility for want of Principles that Determin it to Truth I Ask now why Do Sectaries believe Christ to be God and man by this Fallible Definition 'T is one of your Acts of Faith is it not You must Answer you Believe so because God hath said it in Scripture Very good But I Ask again Hath he said this Fallibly by a Revelation that 's capable of falsity No must evidently His Revelation is infinitly certain Ergo I say your Definition or Act of Faith Quâ fallibilis or as meerly fallible cannot
under that Notion of Fallibility rest upon an infallible Veracity for this infallible Veracity hath neither measure nor Proportion with a fallible Assent nor can a fallible Assent have any measure or Proportion with an infallible Revelation Mark therfore well the Resolution of this whole Assent I believe Christ to be God and man by a fallible Act which may be fals because Gods infallible Revelation which can neither be fallible or fals Moves me to believe so And most justly call it no Faith at all for an infallible Revelation Moves none to believe fallibly therfore the tendency of this Act as it is Fallible Moves forward without a Divine Motive to rely on and hitt's not upon the Strength of Gods certain Revelation but leaves that and runn's no man knows whither or stands without any motive You se therfore that Gods Revelation which is infallible cannot support a fallible Assent and consequently the very best Acts of our Sectaries Belief are no Faith wherof more Disc 1. Chap. 5. and 6. I say the very best Acts. For you may distinguish two sorts of them in Sectaries The first tend to their own particular Novelties and these are both fals and Fallible The other Acts adhere to the general Truths of Christianity And all these though conformable to their objects are yet subjectively fallible and consequently have not the strength of any firm or supernatural Principle to uphold them as you may se in places now cited 6. But we have not yet don with Mr. Poole there are more exceptions against Him Mark his words If saith He we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity Ieâ—es and Turks are as well perswaded of their waies as we are of ours And then Ask's what a mad Assertion is this that makes no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities Now here his Instances follow of Iamaica and a Calf and I think He would say That the Truth of Christianity is probable and so highly Probable as that there is a Iamaica And that Iudaism is so improbable as that a Calfe found in a field should be thought to be dropt from the Clouds 7. In the first place we are to explicate more fully what M. Poole huddles up in these general Terms The Truth of Christianity Three Things therfore may be here reflected on which essentially constitute Christian Religion The first is the Object of it which is Gods infallible Revelation The second is the matter believed by vertue of this infallible Revelation The third is a firm act of Faith that tends into the Revelation and the matter Revealed upon that Devine motive Infallibly Proposed And this firm Assent of Faith intrinsecally Denominates all good Christians Faithfull Believers I say infallibly Proposed For if a Revelation lie as it sometime doth dark in Holy Scripture a Proponent is necessary that brings it to more light And as I noted Disc 1. C. 4. According to the measure or degres of certitude which the Proponent gives to an obscure Revelation An Assent in the Hearer followes and no stronger If He only say probably God speaks thus The assent can be no more but probable if with truth he say certainly it is certain These things supposed be pleased to reflect once more on Mr. Pooles words What a mad Assertion is This That nothing is Credible He means concerning the Truth of Christianity but what is infallibly certain and that there is no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities He would say it is madnes to judge so and Wisdom to make the Truth of Christianity highly Probable and Judaism improbable 8. Now I say Nothing that essentially Constitutes the truth of Christianity is less then certain Nothing in it can be so meanly thought of as to be called only probable And first if we speak of the Material Objects believed These Solely and Objectively considered may we use proper Terms are neither Probable nor improbable for there is no Probability in Objects every thing being what it is in its self independent of my Probable or Improbable Assertion No man when He see 's the sun so darkly through a Cloud that he cannot say whether it be the sun or no yet thinks it is Call's it a Probable sun the Probability is in his act that makes a judgement of it and not in the object Again if we speak of Gods Revelation that Assures these Material Objects to be as they are spoken That very Revelation because it proceeds from an Infinit intellectual power is properly not only infallible but infinitly more infallible then all the words of men and Angels are put together And here is no place for meer probability only though we think of the greatest Imaginable He therfore that Parifies the moral Certainty one hath of Jamaica with the more then Metaphysical certainty of Gods Revelation Doth not only hideoufly err but wrongs God and his eternal verity 3. If we speak of the internal Assent of Faith which Denominates us true Christian Believers and tend's into Gods infallible Revelation upon the perfection of its infallibility as also into the Material Object infallibly revealed This very Act goes far beyond the strongest probability and is more certain then that judgement is which men have of Iamaica The Reason is That which uphold's this act of Faith to say nothing here of other principles which stedfastly fix it on Truth is an infinite Verity an Infinit Objective Certitude Contrarywise that which upholds an Assent given to the Being of Iamaica is only moral Certitude and may be fals For the Act ultimately resolved comes to no more but this Men say so Those are living that have feen the place letters are conveyed thither c. But all these proofs though most morally certain equalize not the Infallibility of an Assent that relies on an Infinite verity that can neither deceive nor be deceived 9. Perhaps you will say Though this Veracity of God be infinitly infallible in it self yet one may rely on it with an Act only Morally certain and you require no more for Faith I grant the case is possible but withall say such an Act is no Faith as is largely proved Disc 1. c. 5. and 6. because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible veracity as the last Motive to rest on but into some other inferiour Motive extrinsick and Distinct from Gods Revelation Put the case that three or four Learned Heathen Philosophers of good repute Assure one of their sect upon their Credit and humane Authority They cannot but judge all things considered that God hath revealed the Incarnation of the Divine word in Holy Scripture Admit also that the Hearer because he esteems them knowing upright and sincere yeilds his assent to that Revelation meerly for their Authority The Formal Object or Motive of his Assent is not if the supposition stand Divine Revelation for this is only yet the Material Object Believed upon humane Authority consequently it cannot be an Act of Faith For Faith as
Faith precisely rest's alwaies on Gods Revelation as the last and ultimate Motive without the mixture of any other See Disc 1. c. 5. n. 5. 6. as also Chap. 6. Now if you desire to know more concerning the certainty of him that Proposeth the Object of Faith darkly revealed in Holy Scripture read the 4. Chap. of the first Discours 10. By what is said hitherto you se Good Mr. Poole that true Christian Religion must either signify the Objective Infallibility of Gods Revelation or the Assent of Faith wherby we Captivate our understanding and submit to an Infallible Veracity both the one and other goe farr beyond the mean measure of meer Probabilities or the highest moral certainty Therfore your Instances of Iamaica and a Calf are here useles and insignificant I say True Christian Religion or to speak in your words The Truth of Christianity For if by the essential Truth of Christianity you will understand the prudent Motives or Inducements that precede Faith and shew us where True Christianity is professed and call these the Essentials of Christian Religion know first you have none of them as is proved Disc 1. C. 8. 9. and 10. Know secondly that these Motives previously pondered before we believe though most requisit to belief are not the Essentials of Faith whether you take Faith obiectively For the matter believed or subiectively for the Act of Belief But objects of Science as you may read in Chapters now Quoted For Faith which essentially constitutes Religion follows in every good Christian after the Consideration of these Motives and sub Notione fidei or as Divine Faith ultimately relies not on them 11. Vpon these Grounds all comes to nothing that you have P. 10. and 11. where you say If besides the Infallibility of the Thing there be required Certitudo subjecti the Infallibility of the person you will bring this fox out of his hole by a notable Dilemma A word only in passing Pray you Sir what 's here understood by the Infallibility of the Thing You either mean Gods certain Revelation and this certainly most infallibly is not to be called a Thing but ought to be spoken of with greater Reverence or you mean and your context bears no other sense the material Objects of our Christian belief now these solely considered can no more properly be called fallible or infallible then probable and improbable No man saith that a stone which he sees in the high way is either fallible or infallible probable or improbable The Reason is Because these Terms certain fallible infallible probable improbable c. note ever the tendency of vital Acts proceeding from an intellectual power And therfore most improperly belong to objects neither vital nor intellectual Thus much only by the Bye Now to your foxing it and fearful Dilemma Either say you a subjective certainty or infallibility of Belief mark your own words of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians or it is not If it be not necessary then Papists too vainly boast of it and must Confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians and infallibility necessary only for the Pope and Councel if a subjective infallibility be necessary for particular Christians then every Papist in England hath a Pope in his belly c. Here is the substance of your Dilemma and it is a strange piece of confused Stuff Observe well You begin with the Subjective infallibility of the Belief of the Truth of Christianity and then run further then to Iamaica to talk of that which you call the probable evidence of it Good Sir the evidence of credibility belonging to true Christianity is totally distinct from the infallible belief of it That if we make a right Analysis precedes Faith Faith followes and is far more certain then the judgement is all have of the Evidence of Credibility See Disc 1. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. Briefly I say first The belief of true Christianity is subjectively infallible in every faithful Christian who therfore may have as sound Faith as the Pope himself or any that sitt's in Councel The Reason already given and further declared Disc 1. c. 1. is thus God an infinite Verity speaks to us for this end that we believe him He speaks infallibly Faithful Christians believe both what He speaks and answerably to their power as He speaks Ergo they believe infallibly Again A fallible Belief cannot be ultimately resolved into an infallible Revelation none therfore that holds himself obliged to Believe an infinit Verity owned as infallible can proceed doubtfully upon that Motive for he knowes An infinit Verity speak's not doubtfully or opinatively I say secondly Infallible Faith of the Truth of Christianity is miscalled if you style it probable Evidence it is not probable but certain because it relies on an infinit Verity It is not Evident but obscure because Argumentum non apparentium Thus much is undoubtedly true if we speak of the Assent of Divine Faith Now if when you talk of particular Papists haveing a Pope in their belly you grosly Imagin that every one can Define or Declare infallibly Christian Doctrin in order to the whole Church as the Pope and Councel Doe you fight with shadowes no Papist hold's such fooleries And by this you se the last strength of your weak Dilemma brought to nothing 12. You are also as unlucky in your next Assault where you Chalenge the whole Club of Jesuits to Answer solidly By the Grace of God you shall have an Answer that will make you silent hereafter Thus you go on Were the Popish opinion of the Churches infallibility true in it self certitudine Objecti so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the infallibility of Scripture true in it self and certitudine Objecti as the must desperate Papists Grant For they say the Scripture is Divine true and certain in it self but not quoad nos therfore hitherto there is no difference It is not worth the while to insist here upon a Catacresis or abuse of words or to say how incompossible these two termes combined together are in the Papist Opinion and certainty of the Object For Catholicks in Matters of Faith content not themselves with a bare opinion where there is certitudo Objecti or Gods certain Revelation duely proposed that exacts from them no Opinion but a sure Assent of Faith And so we say that the infallibility of the Church is a matter believed by us because God hath revealed it consequently it s no Opinion But Sir this is not what I ayme at We will hear you say all And come to the strength of the Difficulty If say you it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist that He hath such probable evidence of this Doctrin of the Churches infallibility why should it not be as sufficient a fundation for a Protestant that He hath such nay infinitly more probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Since the evidence of the later is granted by the Papists
not so Evidently Credible when He saith He would not believe the Gospel unles the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it The Infallibility of it therfore must by proved by some good Principles extrinsick to Scripture but the Sectary hath not one sound Principle Distinct from the Tradition and Authority of the Church wherby this Infallibility is proved Therfore Scripture in order to Him is not so Infallible as the Church is to the Catholick If any Deny my principle and make the Scriptures Infallibility Discernable by its own light by the Majesty of the style purity of its Doctrin or efficacy it works in the minds of those who read it c. I think there are evident Demonstrations against the Paradox For as I noted Disc 1. C. 2. 12. n. 4. Two things are to be considered in Scripture first the exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words and so much precisely is not the Scriptures total Infallibility which sayes more besides that exteriour language and necessarily implies A Divine Act a Volition or Decree of God wherby the Hagiographers that writ the words were infallibly assisted and determined to record truth and nothing but Truth Now this Divine Volition or Decree becaus it is essential to God and therfore no other but God Himself can be no Object of our senses when we hear or read Scripture Consequently it is to be Discovered by a Discours grounded on Principles distinct from the outward letter of Scripture wherby we may come to a sure Evidence of its Infallibility not at all yet within the reach of our senses And this no Sectary can do as I shall presently make Evident 17. I say Therfore if the Motives now alleged for the Churches Infallibility as Conversions Miracles Vniversality c. induce not immediatly to believe that Church they demonstrate to be Infallible much less can the exteriour words or sintax of Scripture be a fit Medium to Convince any of its Infallibility And to prove this besides what is often noted in the Treatise Chiefly Disc 1. C. 8. n. 7. Ill here only Propose two Questions The first Whether if St. Iohn who was infallibly Assisted had not recorded that short sentence in His Gospel The Word is made flesh but some other not infallibly Assisted by the Spirit of God had written the very same Verity as it were by Chance My Question I say is whether the Sectary that now reads this sentence in S. Iohn Gospel can more Discover an Infallibility in it by force of the outward words then if they had been Casually written by one without Infallible Assistance I think He will not dare to say yes or if He Do I 'll urge Him to prove it by Principles when the outward words are the Very same in both Cases and in like manner clear to all that read them My second Demand may yet perhaps better evidence what I ayme at and is thus Suppose that our Sectaries should put the book of Eclesiastes which they hold Canonical into the hands of twelve learned Gentile Philosophers and with it the book of Wisdome or Eclesiasticus also not held Canonical by them Suppose again They desire these learned and disinterressed men seriously to read these three books and after the reading Sincerely to tell them which of them hath Gods Spirit in it or contains his infallible Verities For this may be easily gathered by the very natural evidence of what they read by the Majesty of the style Efficacy of speaking which appears Clearly enough in the outward letter Thus much don seperate these Philosophers by four and four into three Companies put them into three different cells much after that manner as some say the sevently Interpreters were separated Let them with all sincerity read examin and peruse these Books and if when the work is ended they unanimously accord that a greater Divinity a stronger infallibility appear's in the song of Salomon then in the other two books we will say something is proved and hold it as strange a Miracle as that which S. Austin recounts of the 70. Interpreters Now if Any tell us this light of Scripture though sufficient in it self is not evident to every one that looks on it because the blindnes or perversnes of mens minds may keep them from the Discovery of it The Reply hath no place here for we suppose first these Philosophers to be disinterressed learned upright and sincere as well in their reading as in the judgement they give of it And secondly we will suppose that all those are not blind whom Sectaries make blind nor only those quick sighted I mean themselves whom they will have so 18. To these Questions I add one more it may pass for an Argument Ad hominem against Sectaries who hold all the Definitions of our Church even when they are true to be yet fallible I Ask whether these Quick sighted men are able to Discern the Fallibility of these Definitions by force of the outward words therof only as they Discover the infallibility of Scripture by the Majesty of the style and outward Sintax And mack where the force of the Difficulty lies As Infallibility necessarily implyes Divine Assistance in order to the Truths Delivered in holy Scripture so the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions implyes a want of that Assistance in order to those Definitions I Ask therfore whether as the first is Discernable and visible enough to their Eyes by the very context of the outward letter They will consequently grant that the other also is as clearly visible and Discernable by the very words of the Definition If They Answer yes First they need not hereafter to impugn the Churches Definitions by any other Medium but this that they are without further proof by themselves evidently fallible So much is said by them and it proof enough 2. They may as well say They know when a man tell 's a lye and this by force of his very speaking as that they know the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions by her speaking For if their eyes can Discern the want of Divine Assistance in the one case which really is not wanting they may more easily Discern the want of Truth in the other which really is wanting And if this be not a Paradox there was never any in the world Now contrarywise if they cannot Discover the Churches supposed Fallibility in her Definitions meerly by her Exteriour words because that is a thing invisible I would gladly learn how They come to know the Infallibility of Scripture by the words Therof for that is as much if not more invisible and as far removed from our eyes and senses 19. Some who pittifully suppose Scriptures to be proved Divine and Infallible by the very light which is in them Object first When we see the sun and the vast extent of the light it has we may well infer it comes from that luminous body And may we not say These proportionably inferr from the
will not Insist much on their High Contempt of These sacred Words Which in a vulgar and Obvious Sense are as Fals as if I should now say Holding a Paper in my Hands This is my Body But This I must urge to their Confusion And wish All to takâ— Notice of it If the Interpretation now made of the Proposition be true Doctrin it Evidently Followes That Christ spoke so contrary to his Sectaries must say that Christ beguiled the whole Orthodox Christian world by the most Serious words he ever spok mind That He Hath beguiled the whole Orthodox Christian World By the most serious Words He ever uttered in this Mortal Life I 'll show you how Christ say Sectaries Before He spake those words This is my Body c. Had only this internal Act or Judgement in his mind That which I will now give to my Disciples Shall be nothing but Bread only or a bare Sign and Figure of my Body for Sectaries Suppose He never intended to make bread his Body yet hear how They make Christ to speak As it were contrary to his Thought I will Saith Eternal Truth Though I know That that shall be Bread only which I am to give my Disciples Mark the injury They make Christ to say That was his Body which really was not Three Things Evident in the Principles of Sectaries The first that Christ spoke improperly The second that in the Moment He spak He Foresaw a universal pretended Errour would follow in all Orthodox Churches The Third that this universal pretended Errour would proceed from no other Cause but from his improper speaking All Churches Orthodox believed the Real presence So Unluckily Express my self by Outward Words as to Miscal the Sign by the name of the Thing Signified and Avouch that to be my Body which Really shall not be my Body But is here all No. Christ intended more in these mens Opinion and Sayd in Effect thus much Though I now Foresee That an universal Errour will Follow Through all the reputed Orthodox Churches of Christendom upon my Dark and Improper Language yet I will speak as I do Obscurely And Beguile Them I know all will be Beguiled Because all will Mistake my Meaning And Believe That to be my Body which Really is not Thus I foresee They will err And the very Emphasis of my words will Cause this now pretended Vniversal Errour among Them Therfore They cannot But leave off to be Orthodox For a Church Erring in so Weighty a Matter Or That Adores a Piece of bread for God is Absolutely Vnorthodox and Hideously Fals. Sectaries you se grant that Christ spak thus Darkly And that by Doing so He hath Drawn all the Reputed true Churches on earth into This Persuasion is a most Evident Truth For there was never Any Church Acknowledged True in the world But such as litterally Vnderstood his Proposition in its Plain and obvious Sense And consequently All Churches Believed the Real Presence of his sacred Body in the holy Eucharist Though Sectaries say all Erred in that Belief I Say All for so Lanfrancus Speaks in his last book against Berengarius Omnes qui Christianos se esse dici laetantur All who are Glad of the Reality and Name of Christians Glory in this That they Receive in the Sacrament the True Flesh and Blood of Christ which was born of the Virgin Ask of all whether Graecians Armenians or of what other Nation soever Vno ore hanc fidem se testantur babere All of Them with Vnanimous consent openly Witnes That they have this Faith Now if our Adversaries Slight so Worthy an Author let them produce but one as Ancient and learned as Lanfrancus was That saith as much for the owning of Their novelty of a Trope Sign Figure only c. And I will be Satisfied 11. And Here we come to the last Triall of our Sectaries Cause Which is to shew you the High Improbability of their new Fancied Opinion And therfore we are in the next Place to Drive Them of All possible Ground to stand on And Demonstrate That The last Trial of our Sectaries cause which is to lay Forth the improbability of their new Opinion They have not so much as a likelyhood of any undoubted Principle wherby we may Learn That Christ our Lord Spake improperly in the Passages now Quoted or That his Words have any other Sense then what they Expresly Signify Which is our Catholick Doctrin CHAP. VI. Sectaries without either Proofs or Principles VVrest Christs VVords to an Improper Sense And vent an Heresy upon meer Fancy 1. NOte first when Christ our Lord said This is my body c. And used the like or more significant Expressions Registred by the other Evangelists He did not only Institute the Noblest of Sacraments But made also his VVill and Testament He Published a Law The Nature of a noble Sacrament Christs own will a Dogmatical Verity gave a Command Hoc facite Do this At least all Acknowledge That He Delivered a Dogmatical Verity Concerning our Christian Faith And did This in such grave Circumstances And to such Persons His own Dear Disciples That the Time Place and Persons to whom He Spak Required no Dark But most Plain and Proper Language As therfore no Man makes his last And other grave circumstances require plain and proper Language VVill Publisheth a Law Layes an Express Command on any or Delivers a Truth which All are to Learn Vnder Tropes Figures Metonymies or such Obscurities Thefe have place in the Dark Speaking of Prophets and serve well to set forth an Oration But contrarywise in obvious Vulgar and Intelligible VVords So much Less can it be Supposed when Christ our Lord spak of these Serious Matters That He Delivered his Mind in Obscure Metaphors Tropes or any such Expressions Vnles as I noted above We certainly Knew by more Christ could not speak so obscurely of this Mystery without clearing all in other passages of Holy writ plain Scripture Then our Saviours words are now cited That Though He beguile us Here with Tropes and Metaphors Yet in other Passages of Holy Writ He clear's all These dark Expressions by a contrary language And Speak's more Significantly for these Signes of Sectaries Then He doth for our Catholick Doctrin Vnles I say such Texts be at Hand Nothing can Force us from that Express Sense which the Gospel most Significantly Deliver's concerning this Mystery 2. Note 2. Sectaries Advance their Cause nothing at all when They tell us that the word EST sometimes Though the particle Est in some Propositions may be Interpreted it Signifies Imports as much as if We said Signifies As when you se a Picture of Caesar on a wall and Say This is Caesar The seed is Signifies the Word of God c. Could this be proved it is not enough More is required for They are Obliged to Show And by an Vndeniable Principle if my Faith Rely on their Gloss
That 's not enough Sectaries are to Prove it Beares that Sense here An Instance That the Word EST in our Saviours Proposition hath determinatly that Sense and no Other You know Scripture saith Hic est filius meus dilectus This is my beloved son c. Now no Man can Inferr Becaus EST sometimes is Rendred Signifies That Here it looses its Proper sense And only Avail's as much as if you Said Christ only Signifies or is not otherwise the Son of his Father Then a material Picture Hang'd on a Wall is a Sign or Figure of the Prototypon This cannot be admitted of Vnles I say a Stronger Principle which is Impossible Force us to Approve of such an Heretical sense And thus We Discours in our Present Matter 3. Note 3. All the Principles which can be Thought on to Force Catholicks from the Received Sense of Christs Own Words or to Favour our Adversaries Cause must be Reduced to one of these Heads To No known Principle upholds the Doctrin of Sectaries Plain speaking Scripture To Vniversal Tradition To the Catholick sense of Christs Orthodox Church in former Ages or Finally to the General Consent of Fathers If none of these Principles Vphold Protestants Doctrin it Fall's of it self And wholy Relies on Fancy Thus much supposed 4. Here is my Proposition and an Inference also A Proposition against Sectaries Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one of these now Named Principles VVithdraw Catholicks from the Plain Received Sense of Christs VVords They cannot Prove that EST in our Saviours Affirmation Imports only as much as if you said it Signifies Therfore the Doctrin which Denies the real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is wholy Vnwarrantable and Built on Fancy Only 5. The Proofs of my Assertion are as Vndeniably The Proofs of it are no less clear Then the Proposition it self Evident as the very Assertion it self For it is Manifest No Scripture plainly Teaches I say no More now That the Verb EST in Christs Proposition Beares only this sense it Signifies And it is as Clear no Vniversal Tradition Approves of this new Fancied Sense What then Remains But that our Adversaries take Recours to some Ancient Orthodox Church or To the General Consent of Fathers I say therfore If they A Fair offer made to Sectaries can Name any Vniversal Church Nay any particular Church Reputed Orthodox the whole world Over That Interpreted these Words as They do or Clearly Denyed Christs true Body and Blood To be under the Formes of Bread and Wine after Consecration or Believed that Natural bread only hath the Name of Christs Body Though it be Really no more But a Sign only a Figure only a Resemblance only of his Body If I say Protestants you shall se will never Answer Directly to what is here proposed any one of these things can be proved They 'l Come of Gloriously And Gain Thousands to their Opinion But I know all is in a high Measure Impossible I say a Sign only a Figure only For We Catholicks both speak with the Fathers and Truely Believe The Eucharist to be a Sacrament And consequently a Sign of Invisible Grace Yea and a Figure also a Memorial of Christ Himself and his Sacred Passion But this is not the Controversy between us The sole Question therfore is Whether it be so purely a Sign or Figure that What They are to Answer To. the Thing Signified is not in the Sign And the Verity in the Figure That is Whether Christs Sacred Body and Blood be not Truely and Substantially within the outward Sign and really Present There This VVe Affirm and Sectaries Deny Though never Orthodox Church Denyed it with Them 6. To clear this Point And Add If Possible more Weight to our Assertion We Have an Ample Holy and Learned Catholick Roman Church whose sole Authority set Scripture aside is the Greatest on Earth The sole Authority of our Roman Church is Sufficient to Convince Sectaries of Errour Which confessedly hath believed and taught this Doctrin of the Real Presence for at least a Thousand Years I say Ever since Christianity began And can any one prudently Perswade Himself That so Chois and Learned a Society That yet Speak's in Christs ovvn Language And Literally believes his words as They are in the Gospel Hath for so long a time lived in a Cheat and taught Millions of Soules a most Damnable Errour Admit of this Vast Improbability We have yet a Demonstration No Other Orthodox Society Ever opposed our Catholick Doctrin against Sectaries And 't is No Orthodox Church can be named that ever Opposed Found fault or Blamed the Belief of the Roman Church Concerning this Mystery Therfore the Doctrin of this Learned Society is undoubtedly Certain upon a double Account that Christ Taught it And no Vniversal Church ever Condemned it 7. In the last Place we are to Say a Word of the other The last Principle which is the consent of Fathers Principle Which is the Vnanimous consent not of a small Number but of Many most Ancient Learned and Holy Fathers These can well Declare what Scripture Teaches of This Mystery And what Christs Orthodox Church ever Believed If All Readers Have not the Originals at hand They may see them in the Authors Cited above I shall only Hint at a few For to Transcribe All or Half of them And Quote the Places Exactly Would Needlesly lengthen a Digression which I Intended to make short In passing I 'll only say thus much If Sectaries with all the Skill Fathers express for Catholick Doctrin They have can Interpret These few Testimonies Which I shall briefly Glance at They may with the same Ease Yea And far less labour Explicate the Words of the Council of Trent and make that to speak Protestancy Or to Deny the Real Presence 8. Some Fathers therfore Dogmatically Teach What we take into our mouths is not that which nature These Fathers are Faithfully cited Though to avoid Tediousnes in a short Digression I thought it best not to give the Reader more Trouble then is necessary by quoting Exactly the places made But what the Blessing hath Consecrated And that by Consecration the very Nature of bread is changed Thou hast learned that of bread is made the Body of Christ and the wine and water is put into the Chalice But by the consecration of the Heavenly Word it is made Blood The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Sacred Invocation of the Adored Trinity were simple bread and wine But the Invocation being once don the Bread indeed is made the Flesh of Christ and the VVine his Blood The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made Flesh Christ by his own Will once changed water into wine and is He not worthy to be Believed that He changed Wine into Blood Mark a substantial