Tertullian reiect's and hold's insufficient to end disputes And so doth S. Austin also Epistola 49. Ad Deo gratias The other named Pars reflexa and the clearer which speak's of the Foundation of Christian Religion of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world ouer of its marks and Signes of its Perpetuity and infallible Assistance of Nations flocking to it c. This part I say the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word is so perspicuous and clear that it silences all Sectaries and euidently subuert's their Errours But to tell me it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Transubstantiation the number of Sacraments c. And the very sense of Scripture which should end all is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties To assert this I say is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience And therefore I will extort this confession from our Aduersaries may they please to answer that as they shall neuer proue one of their Protestant Opinions so they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin by clear and express Scripture 11. Some obiect S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian S. Austin's Discourse with an Arian who faith Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum c. Bâ—rnob neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou to the Authority of the other Let vs contend by the Authorities of scripture which are common witnesses to vs both Here two things seem clear First That S. Austin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council as Sectaries do now the Church 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to conuince an Arian A word only in passing Dare the Sectary offer thus much or dispute with the Catholick for the supposed Obserue the question here proposed Truths of pure Protestancy or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus I would willingly see some attempt made this way but am sure He will not dare to do it Because he saith His Protestancy or these Negatiues are not reuealed but only à number of inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controuersies when the Protestant ingenuously grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the sufficiency of Scripture help not the Sectary at all Irenaeus for example call's it the Rule of Faith S. Austin A Diuine Sectaries quote Fathers to no purpose Balance Theophilus Alex A firm foundation Gerson A Sufficient and infallible Rule Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part yea and of the obscurer also when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle But what makes all this for pure Protestancy or for its Negatiue Opinions Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith whereof it is vtterly silent Doth it weigh such Negatiues or tell vs what they are worth Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures vs out No Sacrifice on the Altar No purgatory No Transubstantiation Toyes trifles There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposit Verities of Catholick Religion or in behalf of Protestancy Therefore though S. Austin appeald to Scripture against an Arian and had his reasons for it yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent when after their Appeal they find not one sentence for Protestancy or against Catholick Doctrin Now to S. Austin 12. I say first The Saint reiected not the Authority of the Why S. Austin waued the Nicene Council Nicene Council which he euer honourd but only waued that as an vnmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus who no more regarded the Nicene Definitions than Sectaries now do the Council of Trent Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions Thus our Catholick Witers haue answered à hundred times yet we must haue this Crambe recocta serued vp again as à new vnsauory Obiection I say 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter which he Saith is à body without à Soul but to the true genuine Sense Thereof which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuersal consent of Christ's vnerring Church For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin to belieue the Churches sense of Scripture and to belieue Scripture it self which most manifestly commend's vnto vs Church Authority Had then the Saint argued thus against his Aduersary He had conuinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conuiction Council yet thou cans't not deny but that Scripture commend's à Church founded by Christ diffused the whole world ouer what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the sense of Scripture That is the sense of the Holy Ghost And can be no other for à Church which swerues from the true sense of Gods word is no Church founded by Christ But the Vniuersael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy errour Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers stand's opposit to thee also And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it self 13. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture God in Essence and three distinct Persons not so plainly expressed there He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduersary of errour None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself Lib. contra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith viz. of Baptism conferred by Hereticks which though not clearly expressed in Scripture is yet held à true and valid Sacrament His words are Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum c. Although no example of this thing the validity of Baptism by Hereticks can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by vs in this particular Cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesia when we now do that which pleases or is agreable to the Vniuersal Church which Church the Authority of Scripture it self commend's Vt quoniam As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue whilst it commend's the Church and euery one fear 's to be deceiued in the obscurity of this Question Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat Let him consult the Vniuersal Church
is an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God But how far In à few simple Truths called fundamentals in others it may err and profess as much falshood as you please against the Verities of Scripture So that the true Church not defined at all is made by these à fair and foul Spouse at once fair in à few vnalterable necessary Truths but foul vgly and deformed because erroneous in à hundred other matters Mark the Paradox and call it à flat Heresy which separat's him who assert's it from the Catholick body Thus it is Christs Church is true and falfe pure and vnpure right and wrong louely and hateful together The Inhabitants of this Citty of God of this Temple and safe dwelling place are in it by belieuing à few simple Truths And at the same time out of it by belieuing more Falsities This is Mr Stillingfleets strange Doctrin who think 's there is no Church now in the world of one Denomination free from Errour To what desperate improbabilities doth Heresy driue men 6. The 4. Principle The receiued Doctrin of Christs Church chiefly in all points of Controuersy is euer as clear and often more clear by what She teaches than it is in any express words of Scripture The Assertion is vndubitable For Church Doctrin clear in the Churches Definitions who see 's not but that the whole Catholick Doctrin of the sacred Trinity of one God and three distinct Persons of the Father improduced the eternal Son begotten and of the Holy Ghost proceeding from both is more plainly deliuered in Church Doctrin than in any sentence or sentences of Holy Writ The like I say of the high Godhead in Christ which the Arians deny Of Original sin reiected by the Pelagians and other Articles of our Christian faith And thus much is euident against Secctaries for do not they make their own Doctrin of their Caen◠Not alwaies so inscripture as Sectaries grant or Sacrament when they call it à Sign à Figure c. more plain than any words are for it in Holy writ And will they not also grant T' is an Argument ad hominem that our Catholick Tenet of this sacred Mystery laid forth in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. is more express and plain Popery than lies couched in Christs own words This is my body Though the Popery is there clear enough to euery Reader Yes most assuredly For if our Doctrin stand as plain in Christs words as in the Churches Definition drawn from thence Sectaries cannot as they do admit of the one and scornfully reiect the other Therefore they must suppose Scripture more dark and obscure than either their own or our Churches Doctrin is And hence it followes that the very Arians were not so much Hereticks vpon the account that they opposed any most clear and express sentence in Holy writ for really it 's hard to find one manifestly express against them as for contradicting plain Church Doctrin or the true sense of Scripture deliuered by this Oracle of truth Their Heresy then proceeded first from some words in Scripture seemingly clear in their behalf as My Father is greater than 1. 2. From no Text so manifest but that still place was left them to Why the Arians were accounted Heretiques Glosse as they haue done and in their Iudgements with some appearrance of truth yet Hereticks they were and so deseruedly accounted of for contradicting the Church's clear Doctrin Be it how you will thus much I am sure of They neuer mangled or misused any passage in holy Writ when contrary to their Heresy more shamfully than our Protestants now mangle and abuse our Sauiours Proposition This is my body 7. By all you see this Principle well grounded Whateuer Clarity Scripture hath chiefly in Matters of controuersy and clarity helps much in the Rule of Faith Gods true Church which cannot but speak the Scriptures sense in euery particular deliuers it most clearly Wherefore S. Austin told Manicheus Tom 6. contra Epist Fundam C. 14. That if hee was to belieue the obscure Mysteries of Christianity Hee would assent to them vpon the weighty Authority of People and Nations celebrated and spread abroad By the consent of all learned and vnlearned which consent implies the vniuersal Agreement of the Catholick Church And to establish this Doctrin more firmly He assures vs. Tract 18. in Ioan That all Heresy which intangles souls and cast's them into Hell S. Austins Iudgement concerning Scripture proceed's from this one misery that Good Scripture is not rightly vnderstood by them Hence also Hee told vs aboue Lib. 1. contra Crescon C. 32. That if any doubt arise concerning the obscurity of Scripture we are to haue recourse to Christs holy Church and receiue from Her satisfaction To which purpose S. Cyprian speaks most piously Lib. de Vnit Ecclesiae illius lacté nutrimur Spiritu eius animamur adulterari non potest sponsa Christi We are nourished by the milk we are animated by the Spirit of this faithful Spouse of Christ which cannot play the Harlot or become an Adulteress 8. The last Principle The Rule of Faith is plain or its own Self-euidence apt of its own nature to conuince the most obstinate Aduersary whether Iew Gentil or Heretick And for this reason must be immediatly credible by it Self and for it self otherwise it must suppose an other distinct Rule yet more plain more euident more conuincing and more immediatly credible And that Rule à third à fourth And so in infinitum which is impossible Again the Obiectiue Rule we Shall now speak of Answer 's to the thing regulated by it which is true certain and Diuine Faith This Rule then must not only be true and certain in it self but also certainly applyed to Belieuers For à certain What the Rule of Faith implies Rule in it self dubiously applyed to an vnderstanding auail's only to leaue all in Suspence and lead's none to any further Acquiescency but to à wauering and vncertain Opinion And this is neither suitable to firm Belief nor to the Rule it self which ought to establish vs in Gods reuealed truths without doubt and hesitancy Grant this Notion of à Rule to be exact and none shall iustly except against it All we haue said aboue of the Scriptures Insufficiency to regulate Faith or to decide controuersies is no less than à Demonstration against Sectaries Whereof see more in the other Treatise Disc 2. per totum Scripture Certainly is not plain in all things necessary to be belieued for were the true sense of it which indeed is only Scripture as plain and indisputably clear for the Arians or Protestants in euery particular controuersy as their Doctrin is plainly deliuered by them Or contrariwise were the sense of it as plain and indisputably clear for the Catholick Doctrin in Matters of debate as the very Doctrin is taught by the Church All Contention would soon cease because either They vpon the Supposition
principio In the beginning What is that Word saith another which was with God or how was it with God Was it One real thing Essential to him or meerly à breath à Word terminated vpon creatures without which nothing was made All know though the Arians had à Church to teach yet with that sure Rule of faith they mangled and misvsed this very passage of the Gospel Therefore difficulties much more would molest these Philosophers hauing no Oracle to interpret And as many would arise concerning other Scriptures relating to the sacred Trinity Original Sin and the like Mysteries 9. Now here is my reflection and I think euery Intelligent An application made to Sectaries person will speak as I doe Iust so much as these Philosophers haue to gloss with and descant vpon So much Sectaries may challenge but no more if we seuer Scripture from the Churches Interpretation Both haue à Body without life words without sense difficulties proposable concerning their reading but none to Answer them 10. The only difference between them is That the Philosophers yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no Schoole to go to Sectaries haue both yet run as it were from Schoole with half à Lesson with one part and t' is The difference between them and the Philophers much the obscurer part of Diuine Learning only the bare Texts I mean of holy Scripture shutting out the Churches infallible Sense And what haue you in lieu of this light which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Christians The weak and errable Sentiments of a few disvnited Sectaries And is this all we can rely on Do we belieue the Trinity the Incarnation and other high Mysteries so obscurely expressed in Gods word that innumerable haue mistaken the true Sense because à Luther à Caluin or their followers expound Whether Luthers followers or an Ancient Church is to teach it Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches Interpretation which has euer taught the world The One or Other must haue influence vpon Faith if we will belieue But most manifestly the first men only of yesterday and fallible are not our Doctors Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Ascertains vs of the Scriptures Sense of its Truth and infallible Doctrin also 11. Two things necessarily follow from this Discourse The one That Protestants Shew themselues strangely vngrateful because Sectaries manifestly vngrateful And why they slight an Oracle which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Christian Faith for in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scripture vpholds that true Assent they yeild to the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity So much is granted Or not Grant it I Ask. Why disdain they to hear this Church in other matters If you deny Their Submission to this and the like Mysteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible dissatisfactory thoughts and glosses Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitiue Churches interpretation and ground their Assent vpon Her Doctrin Nothing is got this way For the most Primitiue Recourse to the Primitiue Church friuolous exposition of Scripture was no more infallible than what the latter Church or Councils haue Defined But enough is said aboue of this Chasing all Controuersies vp to the Primitiue Ages 12. The second Inference is If God has not made Religion à matter of eternal Debate If all are obliged to belieue by diuine Faith the very truths yea the same infallible truths which God has reuealed and no other of à lower or slighter Rank If he has reuealed them for this end that all may be Ascertain'd A second Inference of their intrinsecal Worth That is of being both Diuine and infallible If the whole Christian world remain's not at this day in Errour or is not cast vpon vncertainties what to belieue If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed Doctrin stand's and subsist's firmly ioyned together in God the first Verity impossible to be separated there And if Finally as T' is there true and infallible all are obliged to learn it Nothing can be more manifest then that diuine Prouidence has established and impowred Some Oracle to teach and propose that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and Nâ—tion as it is both true and infallible 13. Thus much Supposed and proued All further Questions The Oracle teaching truth cannot be questioned concerning the Oracle ceases For it neither is nor can be another but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to interpret Scripture faithfully to rescue Gods truths from the lewd misusage of Hereticks Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abuse Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches our Faith is sound Catholick and Apostolical But if Scripture by reason of its Obscurity deceiues any or the Church could deuiate from the sincere interpretation of Gods truths there registred The Very life of true Religion is lost Faith vanishes into errour 14. Who euer seriously Consider's what is already said in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets scattered Mr Stillingfleets Obiections weightles Obiections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils vtterly void of strength Some worthy person of our Nation who he is I know not in his Guide of Controuersies Disc 3. has so broken and vanquished the little force they haue that I may well supersede all further labour herein There is not one Obiection proposed but T' is either first euidently retorted vpon Mr Stillingfleet Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Question Or 3. Impugn's all Councils Or 4. Appears so slight at the very first view that it deserues no Answer What can be more slight then to tell vs as he doth P. 508. That we He Speak's not truth are absolutely auerse from free Councils because we condemn all other Bishops but those of our Church without suffering them to plead for themselues in any Indifferent Council It is hard to say what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent Councils for he fetters all with so many Conditions that neuer any was yet found in the Church so qualified as he would haue it Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter as also P. 557. You will se what I assert Manifest It is true we condemn A Calumny for à Proof all heteredox Bishops and doth not Mr Stillingsleet recriminate and condemn ours But to say we suffer none to plead for Themselues in à free Council is à flat Calumny vnless that only be free which some bodies fancy makes free and no other A word now to one or two Obiections 15. If you saith Mr Stillingsleet require an Assent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible There must be an antecedent Assent to this Proposition That whatsoeuer Councils decree is infallible I first retort the Argument If you require an Assent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting Or hold That the conuened there deliuered true Doctrin There must be an The first Argument retorted
thoughts before they pass your pen. Haue alwaies this one reflexion in mind It s easy to Cauil easy to talk much but most laborious to make sure what you say by sound Principles And Principles your Aduersaries euer haue an Eye to Had you complyed with this Aduice the greatest part of your Account if not all might well have been spared Never rely on the vain prayses of your vulgar Readers all is not gold that glisters in their Eyes nor do they alwayes speak as they think For as much as concern's your selfe shew sr rather the strength of à Father in louing your works then the weaknes of à fond Mother that hugg's her Brats though most deformed I am told you imagin it à great Acchieuement and your selfe the conquerour in hauing gain'd onc priuate man T. C. to follow your triumphant Chariot Abuse not your Iudgement there is no such matter for in good sober earnest by what I haue perused in T. C. his book rather seem's to be an answer to yours then yours to his Abstain hereafter from opprobrious Language lest you meet with some ruffing Adversary that will pay you in your own Coyn. Please to vse your Buckler better in behalfe of Protestancy and tell me when your Negatiue Articles are thrown away as not reuealed what essential Truth remain's vvithin the Compasse of Protestancy reuealed by Almighty God and necessary to Saluation If you think it the wisest Course not to take notice of what is proposed against you in this Treatise vouchsafe to clear your selfe of the Contradictions charged vpon you And because I find you much intangled in your Resolution of Faith and haue laid your mistakes open to publick view when the Spirit of answering fall's vpon you again Answer I beseech you to the difficulties Obiected in the third Discourse But aboue all Answer to God with à hearty repentance for the wrong you haue done his Church and own me Sr Your friendly Adversary THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER THE RVLE OF FAITH Wherein the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Religion is established against Atheists Heathens Iewes Turks and all Sectaries CHAP. I. VVhether true Religion be in the world The Affirmatiue proued Against Atheists Atheism euidently Shewd'improbable 1 CHAP. II. Reason reiects all sects or Religions not Christian VVhether Gentilism Iudaism or Turkcism bee erroneous and improbable 13 CHAP. III. Christianity as it stands in opposition to Iewes Turcks Infidels and Heretickes is the only true Religion 21 CHAP. IV. Whether Christian Religion since its first Propagation hath not been in like manner preserued pure and further spread by Diuine Prouidence aboue the Power of Nature 25 CHAP. V. VVhether all called Christians Belieue intirely Christ's sacred Doctrin And whether meanes be afforded to arriue to the knowledge of true Christian Religion 29 CHAP. VI. Of our Sectaries errour in their search after true Religion As also of Mr Stillingfleets inconsequent way of Arguing 32 CHAP. VII More of this subiect Doubts concerning the seueral editions of scripture None extant more pure then the Vulgar Latin Abstract from Church Authority there is no Certainty of the best Edition Sectaries Comparing the Present Copies with the more ancient giues no assurance A word with Mr Stillingfleet 42 CHAP. VIII How necessary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in the Church A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles Of Mr Stillingfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 55 CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 67 A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian 71 CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only though all Christians had moral certainty of the right Canon and sense also which is to say the meer owning Christs Doctrin is insufficient to proue it to all sort of People 80 CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 85 Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 94 CHAP. XII A Digressian concerning the Real Presence The Fathers plainly assert it Sectaries glosses friuolous The agreement of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrin indubitable The Catholick's certain Principle A word with Mr Stillingfleet 102 CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubions and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 119 CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 138 CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate faith 152 CHAP. XVI One word more of Mr Stillingfleets Glosses and his vnexcusable abuse of other Fathers 159 CHAP. XVII VVhy the Glosses of Sectaries are impertinent and weightles Mr Stillingfleet misinterprets other Fathers Of his vnskilful Speculation concerning Idolatry charged on Catholicks CHAP. XVIII The Protestant after all his Glosses can not ascertain any of true Religion He would make Controuersies an endles work 180 CHAP. XIX The last designe of Sectaries Glosses discouered They end nothing The clear way to end Controuersies of Religion A distinction between Authority and Principl'd Authority Of the improbability of Protestancy 192 CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 205 CHAP. XXI Protestants granting Saluation to Catholicks by à clear Inference drawn from their Concession end Controuersies of Religion VVhat force their concession hath VVhy they granted so much The Argument is clearly proposed Mr Stillingfleet return's no probable Answer A full discouery of his fallacies 217 THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 241 CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned The properties of à Rule VVhat is meant by the Church Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out Her marks more clear than Her Essential Doctrin 248 CHAP. III. The Protestant has neither Church euidented by Marks of Truth nor true Doctrin made credible to reason His whole Faith is built vpon Fancy 256 CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ was is and shall euer be the Holy Apostolical and Catholick Roman Church Her Antiquity and Constant Perseuerance in the Ancient primitiue Doctrin without Alteration
propose an Argument for the Vulgar Latin which Mr stilling shall not answer In what euer Society of Christians we find faith intirely true we haue there Authentick Scripture But from Luthers time vpward to the 4. or 5. age faith intirely true was only found in the Roman Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians Therefore the Roman Catholick Church which read so many ages the Vulgar Latin as Authentick had true Scripture I proue An argument prouing the Vulgar Latin Authentick the Minor wherin only is difficulty If the Roman Church erred for so vast à time in any point of Diuine Faith there was no faith intirely true the whole Christian world ouer because all other Societies denominated Christians were known condemned Hereticks and consequently had not true faith Therefore either the Catholick Roman Church enioy'd that blessing or we must grant à want of faith for ten ages the whole world ouer But if this Church had Faith intirely true it preserued also Authentick Scripture for where true faith is there you haue true Scripture If not it followes that wee haue no assurance at all either of the one or other Therefore if all Churches vniuersally erred in points of faith no Church can giue so much assurance of authentick Scripture as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting See more here of in the other Treatise Discours 2. c. 2. n. 8. 13. Now we are to solue à difficulty which may arise from our former discourse where 't is said If one rely on humane authority which is fallible and may be false so much mistrust so A difficulty proposed and solued many doubts occurr concening the Originals and various Lections that none can haue indubitable assurance of Scripture How therfore could the Church without moral certainty and greater too had of the Authentick books antecedently to the Councils declaration determin so peremptorily this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick yea and to preferr it before other Latin Copies I might here first by the way demand vpon what certainty can the Sectary prefer his Edition take which hee will before the Vulgar Latin What euer moral assurance he has independently of the Churche's Testimony for his Bible the Church has greater for Hers. But to solue the difficulty positiuely I say the Church after all moral diligence proceeded in this particular vpon an The Catholike Principle ascertaining Scripture vndeniable Principle which is that God by special Prouidence preserued as well Scripture free from Material corruption as Church Doctrin pure and orthodox in both wee Catholiks rely on peculiar Prouidence and all must do so vnless they will rob Christ's Sponse of all the treasure she has and violently take from her not only Orthodox Faith but Scripture also The Church therefore in her Declaration depended not on à meer Moral fallible certainty which may be false but vpon infallible Tradition This gaue indubitable assurance of the Scriptures purity free from all material errour Here is her last Principle And thus you see à vast difference between the Church and Sectaries The Church plead's possession of Authentick Scripture vpon Gods gracious Prouidence and hath it warranted by indubitable Tradition the Sectary reiect's this infallible ground and run's away with no man knowes what Certainty and in doing so cast's himself vpon the greatest doubts imaginable concerning scripture 14. Perhaps you will say Mr Stilling p. 213. relies in this matter on the vniuersal consent of all Christians and Therefore includes the Testimony of the Roman Catholick Church I answer first Hee hath not the consent of this Church for all those Editions He approues and Consequently the greatest part of à vniuersal consent fail's I answer 2. He Sectaries Cannot rely on the Churches infallible Testimony neither doth nor can remaining Protestant admit of the Catholiks surest Testimony or Tradition for our Church own 's in this most weighty matter an infallible certain Tradition Mr Stilling reiect's that therefore he hath nothing from our Church which fauours his Assertion drawn from the most assured consent of all Christians concerning Authentick Scripture And here by the way I cannot but take notice of this Gentlemans weightles obiection Pag. 216. who grants there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from Tradition But think not to fob vs off saith he with the Tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages with the Tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick c. with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Answ I verily perswade my selfe He The surest principle to know ancient tradition speak's not as he think 's for tell me vpon what surer Principle can men now possibly be better informed of Church-tradition in all ages then by the tradition of the present Church You see He slights the Testimony of two or three Fathers needed we relief from them and I am sure the vnanimous agreement of all Fathers makes no where the consent of the Church in all antecedent ages contrary to our present Churches Tradition From whom therefore shall we learn On what vndubitable Principle can we rest or say such was the Tradition concerning Scripture in pas't ages but from the present Churches Testimony It is impossible to pitch on any other Proof which is surer or half so sure 15. What followes is yet worse Fob vs not off with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick Good Sr. designe you or name plainly that Catholick Church distinct from the Roman Catholick in all ages and to vse your own words we shall extol you for the only person that euer did any thing memorable on your side but if you do not this as I know you cannot for all other before Luther were professed Hereticks 't is you that iuggles and fob's vs off with meer empty words He still goes on thus worse and worse If I should once see you proue the A weak Argument reâ—orted infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints the Sacrifice of the mass c. by as an vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is wherby we receiue Scriptures I shall yeild my self vp as à Trophey to your braue attempts Contra 1. ad Hominem If I should once see you proue all Churches fallible the Pope no supream head No Inuocation of Saints no veneration of Images no Sacrifice of the Mass c. and the rest of your negatiue Articles If I could once see you proue two Sacraments only Iustification by faith only Christs not real presence in the Holy Eucharist by as vnquestionable and vniuersal Tradition as that is whereby Scripture is receiued we would yeild also to your braue attempts Answer this if you can or for bear hereafter to weary à reader with euident improbabilities And mark well why I call them so 16. Haue we not à more vnquestionable
vniuersal Tradition for the books of Scripture if Tradition be drawn from the voice of all called Christians whether Catholicks or Hereticks then there is for the very primary Articles of true Catholick Faith A Trinity for example the Incarnation the necessity of Tradition more and Lesse vniuersal Grace Original sin c. Yes most assuredly for innumerable Sectaries admitted Scripture and yet denyed these essential Articles therefore as their Denial made the consent and tradition of all called Christians less vniuersal for such Doctrins so their admitting Scripture with others heightned that Tradition or made it more general Say now Sr. Had those Hereticks argued as you do how little would they haue gained If we should once see you proue à Trinity Or Original sin c. by as vniuersal à Tradition as that is whereby Scriptures are receiued we would acquiese but this is not possible for both you and wee admit Scripture and consequently make that tradition more vniuersal yet we deny your primary Doctrins and therefore all tradition is not so ample for your Doctrins as for the books of Scripture Here is your vnreasonable reasoning Mr. Stilling You know well Hereticks who owned Scripture with vs denied à Sacrifice of Mass An vnreasonable way of aryuing Inuocation of Saints and other Catholick Articles and you 'l haue vs to take à tradition from these men to vphold the Doctrins they denyed Iust as if an Arian should bid me proue à Trinity from all Tradition euen of his Church when he admit's Scripture and denies à Trinity If you reply you vrge vs not to bring in the tradition of all known Aduersaries of the Catholick Church for these now named Articles but only the vniuersal Tradition of the Catholick Church in all ages we haue already answerd that 's best known by the present Churches Testimony no other proof can parallel it And thus much of the Authenticalnesse of our Vulgar Edition free from all material Corruption A further difficulty may yet be moued concerning lesser faults and the preferring it before all other Latin Copies CHAP. VIII How necessary it was to haue one lection of Scripture in the Church A word of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles Of Mr Stillinfleets mistakes and inconsequences concerning them Obiections answered 1. NOte first It was very meete to haue among so much confusion and various sections of Latin Copies one certain approued and set forth by the mother Church to the end her Children might be vnius labij of one tongue and speak one language in their reading preaching and publick expounding One lection of scripture necessary Holy Scripture Note 2. Though the Council of Trent sess 4. declares this Edition of the Vulgar to be Authentick and preferr's it before all other latin Editions Quae circumferuntur which are now abroad it doth not thereby detract any thing from the credit and authority of the ancient Hebrew and Greek Copies whereof Authors dispute whether they be pure or no whilst the Church is silent and defin's nothing Neither doth the Council reiect the Version of the Septuagint or that ancient Latin Copy called Itala read in the Church before S. Hierom as Vnauthentick in any material point for this Argument is conuincing to the contrary As it is madnes to say Christs Church had not true Scripture since S. Hieroms time so is it à desperate improbability The Church had in all ages true Scripture to assert She wanted that in the ages before S. Hierom which is to say The Church had euer authentick Scripture Moreouer shall we think yee iudge that God whose Prouidence neuer failed suffered his own spouse to be beguiled with false Scripture for 15. ages and that now towards the end of the world he will prouide vs of à purer book by the hands and help of à few scattered Sectaries 2. Note 3. Translations may be faulty three wayes chiefly 1. More ambiguity and darknes may lye in à translated word than in the Original and this fault if any is remediless because the latin or à Vulgar language reacheth not alwais to the full Energy and signification of an Hebrew or Greek expression wherof you haue some examples in that learned Preface to the English Rhems Testament anno 1600. 2. Corruptions How Transtations may be faulty may creep into à Version by the inaduertancy or ignorance of the Translator who is neither supposed prophet nor infallible and thus Authors say that S. Hierom though prodigiously learned was not euery way infallibly secured from lesser errours yet this Prouidence God hath for the good of his Church that he will nor permit any considerable deprauation to remain in all Copies If therefore one be faulty all cannot be thought so and the faults of one by carefully comparing it with many and à diligent inspection into other Copies may be corrected See Greg. de Valent lib. 8. Analy C. 5. puncto 4. 3 dly Lesser deprauations often enter à version through the mistakes of Printers Librarians c. Of these you had many in the Vulgar Latin before the correction of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles and they are scarse auoidable chiefly after seueral reimpressions as we daily see in other books Thus much premised 3. Listen à little to Mr Stilling strange inconsequences and groundles exceptions against the Corrections of Sixtus and Clement He saith the one Bible differs from the other as Of Mr Stilling 〈◊〉 gâ—â—und 〈◊〉 exceptions appears by those who haue taken the pains to Compare them in some thousands of places A great number indeed But the first question will bee whether these Pain-takers ought to be belieued vpon their bare word without further examination This Sr. you suppose which cannot well pass before the particulars come to the test and bear the censure of your Aduersaries wholly as learned as you haue any But say on Are these supposed differences any more but like the racings of the skin or do they giue any mortal wound to the Vital part of Scripture If you only assert the first you may not only Cauil at your English Bibles but also at all the latin translations vsed in the Church both before and after S. Hieroms time for they haue some verbal differences which you may call petty and inconsiderable faults Now if you assert that the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are Materially corrupted in points of Faith and manners or to vse your phrase Vitally wounded what is become I beseech you of that peculiar hand of Prouidence you own in preseruing the authentick Copies of religion safe to our dayes Or which much imports you to answer by what other more authentick Copy can you without endles disputes and vncertainties correct the Vulgar This one particular will giue you work enough before you come to à certain decision of the difficulty In à word because I think many know not too well all that concern's these two Editions of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles I
the Vulgar let him read Gretser now Cited Bib. Max. sect 19. C. 4. and Serrarius C. 19. quest 143. And thus much of à digression CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 1. LEt vs if you please suppose that wee and Sectaries had now in our hands the very Autograph's of the whole Bible as it was once writ by the Prophets and Apostles or if you would rather Imagin the book drop't down from Heauen pure and euery way incorrupt I say the Sectary has not probable assurance of Scripture much less such à certainty as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting The ground of my Assertion is this vndeniable Principle owned as well by Protestants as Catholicks Viz Scripture solely considered according to the exteriour letter vnless the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost be had is no Scripture to the Reader For example Because the Arian read's that sacred truth My Father is greater then I and stand's meerly vpon the bare sound of words without the sense intended by the Holy Ghost Hee hath no true Scripture Whence it is that S. Austin serm 70. Temp. hold 's Hereticks most vnhappy because they take the words without the sense haue à body without Words without the true sense no Scripture à Soul the bark without the sap the shell without à kernel c. S. Hierom also in cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 11. speak's to this purpose Ne putemus c. Let vs not think that the Gospel lyes in the words of Scripture but in the sense of those words we read not in the out-syde but in the pith and marrow of it There is no need of quoting more Fathers The Principle is agreed on by all and most indubitable 2. Hence I argue Nothing is more essential to scripture than the sense deliuered by the Holy Ghost but the Protestant where he is most concerned has not so much assurance of the sense intended by the Holy Ghost as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting and I proue it He is most concerned when he opposes our Catholick Doctrin and stand's vp in defense of his own opinions but in neither has he such an indubitable assurance of the Scriptures sense as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting and this I say is euident For he cannot haue so much assurance if as weighty yea à far more weighty authority contradict's his sense But it is clear that not only the present Roman Church but other particular Churches in former ages reputed Orthodox contradict that sense the Protestant drawes from Scripture But Sectaries haue no Certainty of the sense when he opposeth Catholick Doctrin or defends his own singular opinions Therefore he has not so much certainty of the Scriptures sense as excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting Now that the sole iudgement of our present Catholick Church to dispute the thing no higher is as great vpon all accounts as the iudgement of Protestants seem's vndeniable And that the Testimony of our Church weakens the assurance of that sense of Scripture which Protestants lay claim to is most euident as wee see in school opinions when contrary to one an other for no man whether Philosopher or Diuine can prudently hold his opinion so certain as excludes à Possibility of doubting when as many wholly as learned yea more learned and numerous after à full knowledge had of it and long Study also deny that certainty Thus much I say is euident Now if the Protestant tells ' vs the Authority of his party weakens as much that sense wee make of Scripture as the contrary iudgement of our Church lessens his I answer The reply here is to no purpose For all I proue at present is that he want's this certainty whether we haue it or not is an other quaestion and clearly decided for the Catholik cause in the other Treatise Disc 2. c. 9. per totum Again were all granted the obiection would haue Thus much which is most fals only followes that neither of vs know assuredly the sense of Scripture which touches not the difficulty now in controuersy 3. My 2. Argument is so demonstratiue that if the Protestant A 2 Argument most Conuincing will please to solue it I 'le neuer trouble him more with difficulties To propose it clearly know only thus much That when the sectary read's Scripture and would haue it to his purpose He either ouer reaches the Text or fall's short of its meaning For example To those words of S. Math. This is my body he adds this as good sense This is à signe or figure only of my body Mark well We both read the same words but Catholicks deny that to be Scripture not because we deny the words but his sense we say is no scripture To that of our Sauiour I am with you alwaies to the end of the world He adds I am with you alwaies by à fitting but no infallible assistance We say this is no Scripture To that of S. Iames. A man is iustified by works and not by Faith only He adds he is iustified not before God but before men we still deny this to be Scripture And thus sectaries proceed with vs in all other controuerted Texts of Holy writ Whence I argue These Additions of à sign only of à fitting Assistance of iustification before men c are either the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost or Sectaries fancy but most euidently they are not the sense intended by the Holy Ghost for this must either be gathered out of Sectaries glosses and additions not scripture so many express words of Holy writ which is prodigiously false or must arise from the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance whereby Protestants as people Illuminated aboue all others giue vs the true meaning of Scripture and this besides the Paradox when à whole learned Church contradict's the assertion is most destructiue of the Protestants own Principle For they say the Holy Ghost interpret's by none enlightens none teaches none to deliuer the true sense of Scripture but such as do it infallibly which Truth is most vndoubted They say again when they giue the sense of Scripture or interpret God's word they do it so fallibly that it may be false or if they interpret infallibly and cannot err Eo ipso they are so farr infallible which they vtterly deny See Disc 2. c. 9. n. 8. what then remains but that the sense of Scripture proposed to vs by such fallible Teachers is only the thought of their own fancy 5. Some may reply Protestants after long perusing Scripture and comparing seueral Texts together iudge the sense of these and No more are their deductions other controuerted places by à lawful deduction to be as they declare I answer first They shall neuer come to so much as à probable deduction and I earnestly press them to
The iudgement of Credibility not attained by examining the Mysteries of Faith he come to this setled iudgement All I read not euidently true ex terminis is yet indubitably so Now this iudgement is not first got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the Church teaches No. There is à farr easier way whereby reason after à further discourse concludes that either God hath cheated the world by the Miracles the sanctity The blood shedding of Martyrs and all those conuersions wrought by the Church or we must grant That what the Church teaches is true And this general iudgement arising immediatly from à due Ponderation of the motiues of Faith which is Science disposeth an vnderstanding to belieue this great Truth God speaks his eternal verities by that Church be it yet where you will which Christ Iesus founded And in this sense we say à general Notion or knowledge of the Church manifested by supernatural signes is vsually necessary to the belief of euery particular Doctrin deliuered by it and consequently particular Doctrins can be no first mark or sign of this Oracle Thus much is here briefly hinted at to solue the obiection Hereafter the whole Analysis shall be most particularly discussed in its due place 4. A. 2. inference True Religion is first found by its marks The true Church is known before we can know the books of scripture and cognisances before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture can be owned as Diuine We come therefore to à knowledge of these incorrupt books by the help of that Christian Society where true Religion is taught and cannot first know where true Religion is by the books of scripture only I say First know For without all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the sense is once admitted vpon the authority of Christs Church we argue and forceably as the Fathers anciently did against Sectaries by Scripture But all such arguments presuppose the Books proued Diuine and sacred The reason of the inference is These Books only contain à simple narration of our Christian verities which both Iewes and Gentils slight therefore though we cry neuer so loud Scripture is Diuine and written by the Holy Ghost we effect nothing with these Aliens from Christ vnless we first conuince the truth by proofs distinct from Scripture it self And as little is No disputing by Scripture only without the Canon and sense be agreed on done if Christians of à different belief dispute by Scripture when neither the Canon nor the sense is agreed on For example Marcion produceth his Bible The Arian his and his sense A third à Scripture without S. Iames Epistle or that to the Hebrewes Our Sectaries Crowd in with their book whilst others as learned reiect their Canon and much more that sense they force from it in à hundred passages What is to be done in this Confusion Must wee admit of Marcions Bible or submit to our Sectaries Canon and new sense also No certainly it Cannot be expected Perhaps they will say we are to dispute the question and rigidly examin who hath the true Canon and sense of Scripture They or wee This ends the difference Very good But say on I beseech you And first giue vs à sure Principle à doubtful one in so weighty à matter help 's little which may bear vp the controuersy and at last end it for vnless this principle be agreed on the result of our dispute will be nothing but à fruitles wrangling O the Fathers and Antiquity well pondered cannot but decide the debate I answer may we iudge by the effect the assertion is most vntrue The ancient Fathers peruerted by sectaries end not Controuersies For haue not we and Sectaries now read and pondered the Fathers and Antiquity for one whole age what can be alleged on both sides as well for the Canon as the sense hath been said and after all are we not still as much at variance as farr off from ending the controuersy as when we began it Say Now but vpon à solid Principle who is in fault The Sectary thinks wee vnderstand not the Fathers and we are sure he abuseth them with farr fetch 't glosses He saith their words are clear for his sence and we profess the Contrary Hitherto we come to nothing like à Principle The Controuersy therefore driuen on no further but to the sectaries bare Yea and our No hangs yet in the ayre wholly vndecided The reason is Though the Fathers words be neuer so plain for our Catholick verities yet after the Sectary hath laid his glosses vpon them they are most vnworthily made by him as doubtful and à matter of as great contest as the very sense of Scripture is which both of vs would haue cleared by the Fathers testimony That is There is as much adoe may Sectaries glosses haue place to vnderstand what à Father teaches concerning the sense of scripture as to vnderstand Scripture it self before we haue recourse to the Fathers To recurre therefore to their interpretation in Controuerted matters whilst Sectaries as much darken that by their glosses as they obscure the Scripture we dispute about is The matter in Dispute no meet Principle to end it euidently à most vnfit way to end any Controuersy vnless that which is the very matter of Dispute between vs can be supposed à meet and sufficient means to end it which is impossible Now if the sectary blames vs because we reiect that sense he drawes from either Scripture or the Fathers and he also reiect ours what haue we but wrangling Both parties hitherto only word it and stand chafing at one an other without Principles God therefore hath prouided vs à surer and easier way to end debates about Religion whereof more in the sequele Chapters CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 1. NOte first If God as I said aboue once established true Religion among Christians He made it so discernable from all false sects that it may be found out by prudent reason Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertull. lib. 1. de Testimonio animae It s more known then any other learning For to say on the one side That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the world which shall not perish and on the other to assert it cannot be proued or found out is first to cast à blemish on Prouidence and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it because none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reason or rational arguments Note 2. The Doctrin of Christ which essentially constitutes true Religion stand's most firm vpon
indubitable Principles appliable to the Belieuers reason If therefore à Want be found of such proofs and doubts arise whether Christ's Doctrin be taught or no None can by doubtful or ambiguous Proofs of true Religion easy and Conuincing Principles only absolutly say This is Christs Doctrin and Consequently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightines of the matter that is they are clear conuincing and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting Thus much supposed 2. I say first who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox when the matter is of Controuersy and cannot The sectaries proofs as dark as his Doctrin bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle then the particular assertion is which should be proued argues improbably The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so that is he neuer goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is which should be proued therefore he Argues improbably 3. To proue the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies Take à veiw of all our Protestant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask what Protestant dare appear and venture to proue That Faith only iustifies The like I say of his other negatiue Articles Of no real Presence of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass c. I absolutly affirm He cannot make one of these Articles good by any vndoubted Principle or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer than that dark article is which should be proued One reason is These Doctrins opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also are not euidently known as truths by the light of One reason of our Assertion nature or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years agone and Consequently no vniuersal tradition is for them The only difficulty is whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers generally patronize such Doctrins And to fauour Sectaries all that 's possible we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible but withall assure them it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book and the impossibility will be thus manifested As long as these men cannot proue their new Doctrin to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted but vpon less sure grounds or less assured tradition so long their doctrin is naught and stands vnprincipled But this is so as we shall see presently And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick The difference beween the proofs of Catholiks and Protestants and Protestant The first proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine the Church assures him of both but the Sectary euer fall's short in this and cannot giue you so strong à proof for his particular Doctrin as he doth for the very letter of his book which he supposes teaches that Doctrin 4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth and take one particular Controuersy we cannot insist on all and ask the Protestant How he proues that the real presence of Christs sacred body as Catholicks assert is not expressed in the literal sense of those words This is my body His negatiue assertion most euidently is not there in plain terms We therefore vrge him to make it good by à proof that 's clear or more conuincing than his own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is And is he not obliged think yee to produce à strong proof indeed when he hath so many powerful Aduersaries to contrast with 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers vsually cited by Authors opposite to him 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church for both Churches mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day 4. The express Doctrin of general Councils which define our Doctrin positiuely and The grounds of our Catholick Tenets condemn the figuratiue presence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery related by authors of most indubitable credit These are no slight grounds of our Doctrin Let vs see by what strong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them or which is immediatly to my purpose proues his new negatiue Position Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist Not one word in the whole Bible is like it much contrary Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him No. What euer sense he drawes from thence seemingly to his purpose will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle as his own improbable position is and therefore most vnfit to perswade it Has he as vniuersal Tradition or the vnanimous consent of Fathers for his negatiue or for that sense he would force out of Scripture as he and we haue for the letter of the Text now cited Nothing at all And to show you how iustly I propose this question call to mind what Mr The Sectary answers not to any Stilling exact's of his Aduersary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should saith he once see you proue the infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints c. by as vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is whereby we receiue the Scriptures I would extoll you for the only person that euer did any thing considerable on your side Thus he speakes after this precaution giuen Think not to fob vs off with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catholik with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Your own words Mr Stilling shall here condemn you The Question is whether your Negatiue Christ is not really present in the Eucharist as Catholiks affirm be Orthodox Doctrin We exact as rigid à proof from you as you demand of vs but fob vs not off with your own talk Tradition you haue none nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers but giue vs the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time as What we iustly require of Sectaries clear for your negatiue as you demand of vs for the articles now mentioned Or if this be too much giue vs but only the indubitable sentiment of any Church reputed Orthodox four or fiue hundred years past for this your sense and assertion and I will applaud you as à most singular person But this you shall doe when you haue turned all faith out of the world that is neuer I say therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer now alleged Therefore if we be in errour the wit of man cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles And here I vrge Mr Silling to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and significant that is Scripture as clear Fathers as clear Tradition as clear the Iudgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted for the opinion he hold's as we now allege in the defense of our Catholick verity Belieue it if he suppose as he certainly doth the Church to haue erred so grosly for à thousand years The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subiect when they meant no such thing He ought to fasten vpon sound Principles indeed before we yeild and must not think to ouerthrow What sectaries are obliged to our Doctrin or foile vs with à few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff which comes no neerer to Principles than improbability to Euidence Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities If à man saith he P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be false which sense iudges to be true he means which weak reason vpon the discouery of sense iudges true for our outward senses make no iudgement What assurance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrin A word to our Aduersaries strange demand Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christs resurrection if their sight might be deceiued about its proper obiect c I am astonished to read this and answer briefly Christ's Resurrection the like I say of Miracles was most vndoubted vpon the discouery which sense and reason made in the presence of such obiects because no contrary Principle so much as weakly stood against that euidence and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was obiected to sense then I now doubt of writing these lines But all is contrary in the present Mystery For here the vnanswerable words of Scripture the Authority of my Church the Clear Testimonies of Fathers the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to belieue the Diuine Reuelation which is either certainly known vpon these grounds or we boldly say no Christian verity was euer yet known vpon any sure Principle What if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling may roundly grant that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real presence for many ages and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been besotted them selues but moreouer haue basely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of belieuing that to be Christs body which really is not Howeuer he will honour the Fathers so far as to afford them the fauour of his glosses Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrin Mr Stilling is obliged to name some Churh reputed Orthodox 3. or 4. hundred years past for then there was à true Church in the world which held his opinion or as expresly denyed the real Presence as our Church both then and now mantains it and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy for I am sure there was neuer any such Church on earth Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery Fathers He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin and make all belieue that we Catholicks hold not yet the real presence Obserue the same language in all That wich in seen is not bread though it seem's so to the tast But the body of Christ Our sense may be deceiued Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed â— made the flesh of Christ and the wine his blood c. Thus the Fathers deliuer their sense and it is the Churches language also If therefore Mr Stilling can so gloss these words of the Fathers as to make them speak Protestancy or not to deliuer our Catholick Doctrin I should not wonder if in the next book set forth he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence If he did so I am sure his attempt would proue as vnsuccesful in the one case â— in the other 11. Well But permit him to interpret the Fathers and to fall foule as he is wont to do vpon our supposed Church errours what is the vtmost that followes Thus much only Meer talk without Principles For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know that his glosses which striue to dead the very obuious sense of the Fathers plain words implie not altogether as little satisfaction as little assurance as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it If so and so it is most euidently as his Doctrin before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians so his interpretations goe no higher but are euery whit as improbable 12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling that vnless his explanation Sectaries glosses vnprincipled worth Nothing of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distiâ—ct from and extrinsick to his glosses they are worth nothing For what auail's it me to read his glosses when no receiued Principle vp hold's them but fancy Reflect à little I read in Scripture This is my body My Church tell 's me the literal sense is true The Fathers as you haue heard and the Tradition of two Churcheâ— confirm this sense Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiect's my Churches authority then begins to strain the Fathers Testimonies with his glosses Stay Sr say I. I except against your glosses and iustly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coynâ— If true they stand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at Proue this and I 'le reuerence your glosses but if you fail and fail you must your Doctrin and glosses are both alike Counterfeit and thoughts of fancy only 13. Hee may reply When Protestants cite the Fathers against the Real presence For example That of S. Austin or Theoderet mentioned aboue we Catholicks explicate them and now which seem's foul play we except against his Glosses For If we interpret An Obiection why may not Hee doe so also A word only in passing conformable to what is noted aboue If to decide this one Controuersy of Christ's Real Presence recourse be had to the Fathers and the two aduerse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations the Dispute will neuer be ended Because priuate glosses leaue the two Dissenters as much at iarrs as they were before God therefore as I haue often said affords an easier means to know his reuealed Truths Now my Answer to the obiection is The Catholick then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation when it sham fully out-faces the
clear words of à Father and when the Glosser has no vndubitable Principle distinct from his gloss wheron to settle his Doctrin as he has not in our present Controuersy Obserue well The Fathers say What wee see is not bread but Christs very body The Sectary interpret's That wee see is not common bread indeed but Christs body Figuratiuely or Sacramentally The Fathers say it is not figuratiuely only but really his body So Theophilact Answered and the reason giuen and S. Iohn Damascen cited aboue Had the Sectary who interpret's thus an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss deliuered by any Oracle of Truth Scripture Traditions or Orthodox Church there would be good reason to giue him hearing But when we euidently see that the best and only proof of his Doctrin is no more but the very gloss he makes without Further Principles we iustly except against him and hold such glosses improbable 14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer interpret's any Authority but when t' is dubious and if it be so it neither help 's the Sectary nor hurts the Catholick and therefore ought In reason to be cast aside as either impertinent or as weak and forcelesse in all disputes of Controuersies The fundamental Christ's Doctrin not proued by glosses or any ambiguous Testimony Reason already hinted at is The true Doctrin of Christ is not proued by Glosses or any doubtful Testimony but stand's most firm vpon known and indubitable Principles or if in order to Christians it want's such supports it cannot pass for Christ's Doctrin An ambiguous Testimony therefore which seemingly opposes this true Doctrin Certainly Principled is most impertinently alleged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick Faith 15. Vpon this one sole ground now clearly laid forth I confidently Affirm all Controuersies in Religion might be easily ended would Sectaries please to lay Preiudice aside and follow manifest reason I 'le shew you how Write down first the two contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Protestants Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist Christ is not really and substantially present Next examin well the Principles wheron these Contrary Doctrins rely or are supposed to rely The Catholick vrgeth first Christ's plain words 2. The Authority of his Church and saith his Churches Doctrin is the very same that Christ words literally taken express 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of The Catholick Principles Fathers and discourses thus When I find the most significant expressions of Fathers consonant to our Sauiour's plain words and to the owned Doctrin of my Church I must assuredly rest on these as indubitable grounds or Confess that There neither is or was euer any Principle for the soundest Article of Christian Faith Examin next the Sectaries Principles Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine or to this sense This is not my body b◠à Sign only of it Euidently No. Has he any Church esteemed Orthodox by the Christian world which without Controuersy taught this Doctrin of à sign only three or 4. ages since Name Sectaries haue none such such à Church He will speak's to the purpose Has he Fathers so numerous so express and clear for his Signe and figure only as the few Testimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Doctrin If he haue let him please to produce them I 'le doe no more but lay my Testimonies by them and if after the perusal or à iust Parallel made of both All the world iudges not those I quote to be most conuincing may the literal sense stand and his both dark and ambiguous I will vndergoe any Censure You haue heard how loud and express the Testimonies briefly hinted at and innumerable more are for our Catholick Verity I challenge Mr Stilling to Confront them with others as openly significant for his opinion I verily think he will neuer goe about to doe what is desired but fob vs off with killing flies and no man knowes what 16. In the interim I Argue I am either obliged to renounce An Argument drawn from our Catholick Principles the obuious sence of these Authorities which I see euidently Consonant to the words of Scripture and to the Doctrin of my Church or by force of these Proofs am still to belieue as I doe Grant this second I stand on secure ground But if I am obliged to renounce the obuious sense of Christs words my Church Doctrin and the expressions of these Fathers c. Our Aduersaries are bound if à spark of Charity liues in their Hearts to plead by stronger Principles which may settle me in an absolute Renuntiation of my Doctrin and withdraw me from the supposed errour I liue in Is not this iustice and Charity think ye And is not the Compliance most easy For if their Doctrin be Christ's Doctrin and mine not Theirs stand's as I now told you vpon clear and indubitable Principles And Principles of that nature are easily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderstanding Now I subsume But it is euident the Sectary hath no such conuincing Principles which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal sense of Christs words and the Fathers already cited And this I proue What euer Principle obliges me to renounce or to deny the plain literal sense of such words must giue assurance that those expressions literally Why none can remoue me from our Catholick Tenet vnderstood are dangerous and apt to induce Christans into gross errour for if literally taken they do no mischief or be not apt to induce into dangerous errour why should I Deny their obuious sense because Ptotestants will haue me do so But there is no Principle so much as meanly probable whereby these expressions are proued false or inductiue into dangerous Errour for were this really so some Church or Author of Credit would long sincé haue noted their ouer much vehemency in sayng more then was true concerning this Mystery which none euer yet did Therefore I may still and without Reproof hold where I am and adhere to their literal Doctrin which my Church teaches 17. Some may teply Sectaries vrge vs not so crudely to reiect the Fathers Testimonies as only to moderate or rectify their sense by the help of our Modern mens glosses which is à blamles proceeding for we do so with Gelafius and other Authors when they seemingly make against our Doctrin and Protestants do no more Answ Protestants do more for their interpretations euer imply à peremptory and absolute denial of that very literal sense which the Father words express For example S. Cyril saith Catech. Mystag 4. He that changed water into wine by his sole will hath also A reply of sectaries answered changed wine into blood The expression inuolues à parity and implies thus much That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee so wine was really and substantially changed into Christs blood Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and substantial change of wine
into blood as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine Consequently they renounce both the parity and open sense of the words And which is euer to be noted wilfully do so when they haue nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on Contrariwise the Catholick in this debate denies no express sense of any Fathers Testimony but only makes Inquiry into the Signification of words which are confessedly dubious Take here one instance Gelasius saith The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be First I make no account of this Gelasius Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi Contra Eutich He was not that holy Pope so called but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl Howeuer these two particles substance and nature may ex placito indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massinesse of bread and wine for natural qualities which flow from an Essence haue or often sustain as was noted aboue the name of that Essence they come from Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious sense but only contends that Nature and substance may signify as is most Of Gelasius How much his authority is worth vsual the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be And he giues this signification to these two words because Scripture Church and the Fathers wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends forceth him to it And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine Thus much may be said if that authority were worth any thing Read I beseech you Brereley In his Lyturgy of the Masse cited aboue pag 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined and that in very truth this Gelasius who euer he was speaking against the Eutichians as Theoderet did vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also Open the book and read you will be satisfyed I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Obiections 18. There is yet an other Reply Sectaries may say we suppose all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin The Supposition is denied because they quote t' is true not many but some Fathers and Scripture also to countenance their new opinion By the way here is occasion again to reflect on what is often noted viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers and they explicate all They cite also and we do the like and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other we are as much iarring as we were before without hope of ending Controuersies this way Now my Answer to the first part of the Obiection is We Catholicks suppose nothing but only The answer to an other reply take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church which was neuer censured by any Orthodox society of Christians Vpon these Principles therefore Scripture Church and Fathers we stand immoueable To that which followes I Answer Sectaries haue not one syllable of Scripture in fauour of their Nouelty and to omit à rehearsal of those triuial Arguments drawn from certain passages where they conceiue the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine c. I conuince my Assertion by the positiue ground abready established which none shall ouerthrow If this be the true sense of Scripture when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solue it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament Christ who is aboue in heauen is not really present on the Altar but in his sign only Or that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread only deputed to à holy vse If this I say be the true sense of Gods word Christs Orthodox Church expresly deliuered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luthers Reuolt for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth But no Orthodox Church then taught so or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture or Malicious and concealed it from Christians our Sectaries sense is not Scripture To confirm this Reason All know that the Roman Catholick Church then as well as now absolutly renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture and for that cause was not say they Orthodox in this particular Doctrin but no other Church confessedly Orthodox taught it at that time Therefore it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning All I would say is briefly laid forth thus 19. The true Church of Christs euer deliuers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters so much Protestants grant But No true Church deliuered this their sense three or four ages before Luthers reuolt Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost but à whimsy lately inuented This Argument I hold demonstratiue You will perhaps ask What is that these men can pretend to hauing neither Scripture nor Orthodox Church to rely on I 'le tell you in à word They allege How Sectaries endeauour te solue it first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers which the Catholick admit's not in the sense of Nouellists yet according to the clear plain and obuious signification of words as is now declared and He prudently giues this signification to ambiguous words because the Doctrin he owns stand's firm vpon other indubitable Principles Scripture Church and Fathers The Sectary euidently wants such Principles and therefore vapors as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities The next thing relyed on is much worse and purely nothing but fancy He reads Scripture and those euident Testimonies of Fathers as manifest for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it and these forsooth he endeauours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses without the least shadow of any distinct Principle which giues so much as à Colour to his fancied interpretations You shall see this truth most manifestly proued in the ensuing Chapter CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubious and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as vnwilling to catch flies as Mr Stilling is to kill them T' is his own phrase yet I must do so in some measure or permit à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort wauing many of lesser moment and I doe thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores For I am well assured If our
to the Receiuer Speak out Sir What is it that has relation to the Receiuer only The very body and blood of Christ vnder the Type of bread and wine which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee These substances of his body and blood as really present work their effect in à worthy Receiuer where you euidently see that the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred body and blood is presupposed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul Therefore to talk of à presence which hath relation to à Receiuer only without the true supposed real verity of Christ body and blood present is no more then à peruerse and an improbable Gloss if S. Cyril speak sense 18. Your next Gloss vpon these words It is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the Body of Christ is worse if worse can be For you only frigidly say Hereby is meant no alteration i◠the Substance of it but only that it is not That common Bread it was before Sir the contrary is now demonstratiuely proued against The change made in Chrism wholly different from that in the Eucharist you But you hope to help your self by an Instance which S. Cyril hath of Chrism in his 3. Mystag Pag. 525. where he Seem's to Parallel the change made in Chrism or holy oyntment with the Change of bread in the Eucharist By the way If Chrism be so sacred à thing it is à shame you haue no more vse of it in your Church but let that pass and mark the Parallel and your own mistake with it A change there is in both bread and common ointment but as different in Themselues as they are differently expressed by this Father The one change is Real and intrinsecal made in the Substance of bread and wine The change of common ointment is not so but Moral into à grace or Gift or Christ S Cyrills words take away all ambiguity See saith he That thou think not this ointment to be common or meer ointment For as the bread of the Eucharist after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread but the body of Christ here is the real change So this holy ointment is no longer naked or common ointment after it is consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyrill's words denote the difference but à grace or Gift of Christ and the Holy spirit which operates through the presence of the Diuinity Here is the other and à quite different change Bread is made the body of Christ Chrism his holy and sacred Gift The Parallel or parity therefore as I now said lies in this That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were and this is enough for Cyrills intent who only proues Chrism to be à holy thing but it fail's when he positiuely and expresly diuersifies the nature of these changes of bread into Christs body of Common ointment only into à grace or à gift of Christ And Hence Sr your Question whether we may not as well proue à Transubstantiation in the Chrism as we do in the Eucharist is both fond and friuolous We Answer No because the real change of bread into Christ's body fully expresseth Transubstantiation the Terminus à quo and ad quem being Real and Substantial The other Change of ointment into à Gift of Christ denotes à moral change quite different and nothing like the other which is most real S. Ambrose next cited no less abused then others 19. Your next and last Gloss abuses S. Amb. De ijs qui initiantur C. 9. who saith Bread is no longer that which Nature has framed it but that which the Benediction of Consecration has made it You Answer It is the body of Christ but not in our gross sense Pray Sr Inform vs à little of your more quaint meaning Say how bread is Christs body if it still remains as substantially bread after the Benediction as water in Baptism remain's substantially water Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed cease to be water because it is à Sacrament No certainly yet bread if S. Ambrose speak truth ceaseth to be that which nature framed it You endeauour to make These words forceles because S. Chrisost in Act Hom. 23. saith of Baptism I'ts virtue is so great that it suffer's not men to be men and then you wisely ask whether we will grant it Transubstantiat's them Friuolous The Saint only speaks of the virtue of Baptism which as he obserues makes vs sons of Adoption That is it Changes à soul from the miserable state of Sin into à happy state of grace and so permit's not men once infected with that leprosy to be men as they were before vnregenerate And therefore he adds in the ensaing words The great power of the Holy Ghost is that it Transform's our Manners and makes them composed What is here of any thing like Transubstantiation or of à ceasing of that which nature hath framed But enough and fully enough of Mr Stillingfleets most improbable glosses so I must and will term them vntil some surer Principle than fancy giues them more strength which shall neuer be 20. To end I 'le say à great Truth Had this Gentleman twenty Cyprians twenty Cyrills twenty Austins as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament as the Testimonies Had this Aduersary so much Authority for hy opinion as wee Produce in behalfe of Catholick Doctrin No man Could belieue any thing now cited are significant for Catholick Doctrin Had he à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his Opinion fiue or six ages since as the Catholick Church then held and yet hold's our Catholick Doctrin Finally had he Scripture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Christs body as it is euidently clear for the Real Presence I verily think no prudent man could or would belieue any thing of this great Mystery And consequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Christian Religion Because Fathers vpon the Supposition are directly contrary to Fathers Church stand's against Curch and Scripture against Scripture But now when he hath not one Clear Testimony of à Father much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church nor so much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick Position I must Conclude that his Glosses already laid on these Fathers are not only improbable but more than highly improbable 21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet may reply His glosses T' is true because they are the Sentiments of à fallible man are indeed lyable to errour but He bidds me look well to my Refutations and beware of setting to high à value on them whilst I oppose him For my Opposition because I may mistake amount's to no more but to à weake degree of Fallibility so that Hitherto He and I stand vpon equal Terms Answ If the contest be thus much only whether his Glosses are not clearly refuted the Iudicious Reader after à due
Ponderation of my Replies is so far to iudge between vs. But here is not all I must Say more Though I am as fallible in excepting against His glosses as he is in making them yet my Faith depend's not vpon my Exceptions but vpon the Doctrin of my Church The express words of Scripture and Fathers These oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe But all that Mr Stilling hath for his Faith is only the vncertainty of his own No man builds faith vpon his own Glosses coniectures ancient Church he has none nor express Scripture nor one Clear sentence of any Ancient Father And will hee Dare to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his Glosses or the opinion he would mantain by them vpon no other Ground but his weak Coniectures I appeal to his own Conscience for an Answer Well Be it how you will thus much is euident and T' is the only thing I aime at in this whole Discourse if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Aduersaries of different Religions when no surer Principle is at hand to rely on but the fallible Glosses of the One and à contrary fallible combating with those Glosses in the Other they may both as the world goes now sit long at the sport before one Controuersy Other mean◠to end Controuersies then meer Glosses be ended Therefore God as I said aboue has Prouided vs of an easier way to end these weighty difficulties or we may All turn Scepticks Some may say The old mode of the World was to dispute by Scripture and Fathers dare we reiect this way of arguing as insufficient Answ No truely It is an excellent way amongst Christians though insignificant to Heathens when the Aduerse Parties can Clear the sense of Scripture and Fathers vpon certain Principles But if the very sense of Scripture and Fathers be called into Question As now à daies it is by Sectaries We must of necessity haue Recourse to an other more Clear easy and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vse among the Holy Fathers Whereof more afterward In the Interim the ensuing Chapter may giue you entertainment CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 1. THis Assertion not slightly proued in the other Treatise Disc 2. C. 4. I hold so certain That the wit of man shall not rationally contradict it And to giue yet more light to what is there said Be pleased to exclude or mentally only to cast aside All thought of an vnerring Church of her infallible Tradition al so of the Definitions of General Councils For all these which Sectaries hold fallible are Essential to an vnerring Church If any such thing be in the world whereof we shall Treat afterward Next look about you And consider well what remain's to end Controuersies withall or to regulate Diuine Faith You haue VVhat Principles Sectaries Can Pretend to distinct from an Infallible Church first Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à Iew partly reiects Yet with such Aliens from Christ à Christian can argue rationally yea and clearly conuince them as I shall proue in the second Discourse After Scripture you haue the sublime Mysteries of Faith the Fathers Doctrin laid forth in their Volumes and the History of the Church Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries besides their priuate Spirit which can be no more à sound Principle to them than the contrary Spirit is to Their Aduersaries 2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end any Controuersy by these Principles without an infallible Church And be pleased euer to attend to the Aduersary he Treat's with If he attempt's to do good on à Heathen by Scripture or bring 's in the Reasonableness of Christian Religion The Heathen and Iew also laugh at his Folly And wish him to proue his Book to be Diuine If he proues that by the Vniuersal Tradition of all Called Christians the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him as I may hereafter about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition but desires him to goe among the Chineses and lay his Bible down by That book which their supposed Prophet Confusius wrote full of excellent Moral Precepts Thus much done the Contest Begin's The Sectary saith his Bible is Authorized by à great Prophet called Christ A learned Bonzius Answer 's and his is also Authorized by à great Prophet called Confusius The Sectary saith all Christians own his book vpon à neuer interrupted The Protestants Contest with ◠Heathen Concerning the Bible Tradition to be indited by the Spirit of Truth The Bonzius replies All China of à mighty vast Extent age after age hath the like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible What followes but that These two Aduersaries peruse their Bibles The Bonzius read's ours and Reasonably ask's whether the Sectary can infallibly proue such strange Mysteries as are registred there for example à Trinity the Incarnation of the Diuine word to be Truths Reuealed by Almighty God The Sectary answers All the infallible certainty he hath of these particular Verities lastly Relies only vpon Scripture it selfe For what euer Principle can be imagined distinct from that written word whether Church or Tradition is Fallible and may deceiue If so saith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me Because you proue the Mysteries contained there by that which causes my doubt or is the matter in Question for you say all I read is of Diuine inspiration because your Bible relates them and therefore make that à proof of your Doctrin which is the Matter in question or causes my doubt O saith the Sectary read on with Humility and you will find that the very Maiesty of the style the Energy of the words will quit you of doubting And to ease you of too much pains know we Protestants hold That the Belief of à very few chief Articles or simple Truths as that Iesus is the Christ The Diuine Word is incarnated c is faith enough to gain Heauen Contra The Heathen except's against the Protestants plea. Replies the Heathen I see no other Maiesty in the Style of your Bible than in mine and other pious books The exteriour Syntax or ioyning of words together is common to all such Writings But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man knowes what splendor shining in the bare Letter when you say that shines not to Pagans but only to those who haue the Spirit of God and are the Elect amongst you Now to what you Add of à few chief Articles necessary to be belieued and no more I answer first Your Scripture saith no such Thing nor tell 's me or you which Articles are necessary which not and if it did so you are only where you were before in darkness
Since you proue not so much as one of these few Articles to be of Diuine Reuelation but by the book which records them And this you do whilst I iustly question not only the book but the Truth of this very article which you make Diuine because it is in your Bible But enough of this subiect at present whereof see more C. 9. n. 7. All that is said there and further enlarged here makes this Truth not only probable but demonstratiuely euident That Scripture alone is no vniuersal Means to end Controuersies debated between Christians and no Christians which is the only Thing we now insist on yet Iesus Christ hath left sufficient means whereby such Aliens may be reclaimed from their Errours and attain saluation Scripture doth it not for all Therefore à more satisfactory way must be thought of 3. Now if we begin to speak of the Fathers with à learned Heathen t' is labour lost for He who belieues not the Diuinity of The Fathers of no Authority with à Heathen Scripture will little regard the Fathers Authority To tell à Heathen of the high Mysteries of our Faith augment's his Difficulties puzzles Reason and rack's his vnderstanding To weary him with à long narration of Ecclesiastical history is most impertinent when as yet He neither belieues Scripture nor Fathers Yet this man may be conuerted to Christian Religion if he followes Reason Vnless we say which is intolerable to hear That our Lord Iesus will haue this poor man lost or left without means to attain Saluation by 4. The next Aduersary the Protestant may attaque shall be if you please à Roman Catholick we will here to gain time omit his Contest with Arians and other Hereticks And his whole The sectaries attempt vpon Catholicks vain and why endeauour if he goe Closely to work must either be to Establish his own Protestant Tenets by Scripture Fathers and Antiquity or forceably to disswade all by virtue of these Principles from the Belief of our Catholik Doctrin I say it is impossible to do either Because the Sectary has not in the whole Bible one clear and express Text for any one Tenet of Protestancy as t' is reformed Nor so much as one clear and express Text against any one Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Religion Therefore as Scripture cannot Pass an obligation on him to belieue one Article of his new Faith so it cannot oblige him or me to disbelieue one Article of our Roman Catholick Doctrin For vpon this supposition it neuer meddless with the one and often omit's to speak of the other in plain open and significant Terms For example Scripture neither expresly denies Transubstantiation with the Protestant nor in that plain open Term affirm's it with the Catholick it neither clearly Saies there are Two Sacraments only nor in express Words allowes of Seuen It neither clearly denies Purgatory nor vnder that express word asserts it How then can the Protestant when he hath not one clear syllable in Scripture for what he hold's in these particulars nor à word against our contrary Doctrins euer probably venture Not one Text in Scripture clear for Protestancy nor one against Catholick Doctrin to decide these and the like controuerted Matters by the plain and express letter of the Bible It is impossible The Reason is it cannot determine that whereof it speaks not clearly nor become an intellectual Rule or Measure whereby we are to iudge what 's true or what 's false concerning these controuersies if it Meddles not with them in express Terms I say in express Terms For what euer is less then that or not express must either bee the Sectaries Gloss or his fallible Deduction I reiect both and appeal to him who wrote the original Book with all it's candor and simplicity If I find Protestancy there well and good If otherwise no Gloss no Deduction shall preuail with me to belieue the Nouelty vnder pain of damnation vnless he who tampers with à Text first bid's me belieue vnder pain of damnation that he is an vnerring man or that his Glosses or deductions are infallible which I am sure is not God's command Again If I find nothing plain and express in Scripture against my Catholick Doctrin but much for it I should be worse then foolish to change my ancient Faith vpon the slight ground of farfetch't Glosses and fallible inferences 5. Shall I say yet more clearly what I here aime at Some Christians there are now in being who Belieue the true Doctrin of Christ so firmly that though an Angel preach't Contrary Galat 1. 8. They ought not to be remoued from it if therefore Protestants belieue their own Doctrin so stedfastly and say that Papists for The Asssâ—rtiâ—n proued example err in the Belief of Christ's true Doctrin they are to Euidence it by à more indubitable Principle than that is which the Apostle vnderstand's by the preaching of an Angel But such à Principle can be no other nor less certain than plain and open Scripture How Therefore can the Protestant so much as weakly hope to disswade from Popery and perswade to his opinions by meer guesses weak inferences weightles coniectures c. without plain Scripture Now to shew you he hath no more but guesses Let him please to Discuss rigidly with me but one point in Controuersy by Scripture only That of Transubstantiation wherein he think 's to haue most Aduantage may perhaps occurr and like him best I say after All he can allege for his opinion or against our Catholick Doctrin shall be no more but meer Coniectures improbable Glosses vncertain Topicks false Suppositions and the like And are these think you weighty enough to establish his Opinion which he meer Coniectures are Protestants only proofs hold's to be reuealed Doctrin No certainly The Doctrin of Christ stand's so sure vpon certain known Grounds that an Angel though he preach otherwise is not to be belieued and if it be not thus stedfastly founded it is not as I obserued aboue Christ's Doctrin How easy were it for the Sectary to end much of these debates by à due examination of this one Controuersy I vrge him to it yet you 'l see he will refuse this Modest Challenge 6. Wherefore I shall neuer comprehend why these men trouble the world as they do with writing Controuersies What is their aime Is it to draw any one Soul to Protestancy or only to giue à proof of wit and show that they can speak against God's truths which an Angel cannot Disswade from If this later be intended the Arians of old did so before them And the Diuel can do it much better than either Arian or Sectary If it be to conuert men to Protestancy The Attempt is desperate vnless they come strongly armed with plain express and Significant Scripture Whereof there is no fear at all For had they clear Scripture against one sort of their supposed erring Christians Papists for example they would not spare vs
one whit but most willingly Silence vs with Gods own plain language This we look for but in lieu of it what haue we Fancies Coniectures Glosses friuolous Discourses And thus forsooth Popery must down I marry and Protestancy be thought the pure and most refined Religion 7. By what is said already you see how vnluckily these men run Sectaries argue improbably out of the way of all probable Arguing whilst Scripture is made so clear that by the light thereof All Controuersies now raised amongst dissenting Christians can be determined Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you no Purgatory no Inuocation of Saints by plain and express Scripture Is it so conuincing and clear Proue you plainly that to deny Purgatory or Transubstantiation is as necessary to Saluation as to deny à Quaternity of Diuine Persons Now if it be not clear in such matters Why keep you à coile about these Negatiues Why do you threaten vs with God's iudgements for mantaining the Contrary Doctrins Why haue you not only made an vproar in the world about Doctrins meerly vnnecessary but more which may lay sorrow at your hearts why haue Negatiue Opinions the cause of Sectaries Separation you shamefully separated your selues from an Ancient Church whereof your Ancestors were members And this is desperately done for à Company of Negatiue Opinions Though it import's not one straw whether they be belieued or no. Contrariwise if you make the Belief of these Non-Articles necessary to Saluation they must be proued by the plain and express word of God which is vtterly impossible and therefore I said right that Scripture cannot end Controuersies between dissenting Christians Catholicks for example and Protestants 8. And thus much in effect our Newer men grant who talk much of à few simple Truths sufficient to saluation called fundamentals Is is not enough saith Dr Taylor in his 2. Disswasiue P. 168. That we are Christians that we put all our hope in God who freely giâ—es vs all things by his Son Iesus Christ That we are redeemed by his Death that we are members of his body in Baptism that he giues vs his spirit that we do no Euil that we do what good we can c. Is not this Faith ruâ—e Righteousness and the Confession of this faith sufficient vnto saluation Obserue well If such à faith of à few Nouellists and the like simple Truths which no Arian denies vnder such general Terms Of Sectaries simple Truths and cannot be proued sufficient by plain Scripture be enough to Saluation what need had Sectaries to Calumniate our ancient Church and expose Christianity to the scorn of Iewes and Atheists for lesser Matters as they think than these fundamentals or few simple truths are Do we disown any of them No. We are Christians as well as they we put our hope in God we say all things are giuen vs by his son Iesus Christ we are redeemed by his Death c. Wherein then lies our Offence O we hold strange Nouelties Inuocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation I dâ—â—y they are Nouelties but be it as you will They are out of the 〈◊〉 â—f your simple Truths and in your Principles no more but Opinions and can you haue such cruel hearts as to persecute vs banish vs and shed our blood for meer Opinions Where is your Châ—rity Again I argue Ad hominem If to hold à Purgatory be only â— Opinion your denying it is no more but an opinion also Therefore you cannot proue your Negatiue by plain and express Scripture for if you do so it well be no longer an Opinion but à 〈◊〉 led Truth and certain Doctrin Conuince this if you can and thâ— tell vs that Scripture decides all Controuersies between vs or his an obligation on vs to belieue more then These few simple Truths 〈◊〉 No Purgatory for example No Transubstantiation or say plainly that Scripture doth not put an end to these Controuersies which Truth is euident by manifest Experience 9. It is strange to see how endlesse Sectaries are and to no purpose at all in quoting Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of Scripture in all things necessary but afterward spoil all with à new Scripture sayes not how many are necessary Whimsey For they make iust so much as they please à few Simple Truths serue the turn to be Necessary and sufficient Here are three insuperable difficulties First They speak without book For God neuer told them in Scripture how many or how few of these Truths are necessary and Sufficient Therefore if I admit this Principle the Protestants sole Word must secure me though I know well that their word is neither à necessary nor à sufficient warrant for my saluation Hence 1. I vrge them to show by plain Scripture the number of these fundamentals precisely necessary 2. I must tell them If Scripture be clear in à few Fundamentals and so much only be necessary and sufficient this reasonable Quaestion may well follow What 's the rest of the Bible good for with them Most certainly the far greater part of it where it speak's not of these few Necessaries may be cast away as vseless and impertinent 3. These Nouellists Pronounce and Proue against themselues in all such Controuersies as are now in debate between them and Catholicks For if Scripture which tell 's vs of all Necessary and Sufficient things to saluation comprised in à few simple Truths whereof there is no strif now omit's whilst it mentions Sectaries proue against themselues these to speak plainly in behalf of our Protestant Opinions Nâ— Sacrifice No Transubstantiation c. With what Conscience can they tell vs and They haue often said it that this Book alone can decide these controuersies and recall vs from Popery to their new mode of Protestancy I would willingly haue Satisfaction to this one difficulty 10. Well To answer all they can pretend to out of the ancient Fathers for the Clarity and sufficiency of scripture in order to things necessary be pleased to obserue that the learned Tertullian against Marcion but chiefly in his book de Praescript cap. 16. at those words We are not to recurr to Scripture wherein there is no victory or à very vncertain one c. And S. Austin S. Chrisostome with others may perhaps seem to à less diligent Reader to be of contrary iudgements Tertullian now cited saies Scripture is insufficient to decide Controuersies concerning Religion amongst Christians S. Austin De Bapt. Contra Donat lib. 2. C. 6. plead's much for it's sufficiency I say here is no Contrariety both speak well both deliuer Catholick Doctrin Know therefore that Scripture is deuided into two Parts or Sections as you may read in Sixtus Senensis Two parts of Scripture distinguished Lib. 6. Bibl. Annot 152. Who cites S. Chrisostom for it The one vsually called Pars Directa or direct part treat's of the abstruse Mysteries of Christian Faith and this which is Matter of Contest between vs and Sectaries
of this particular Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate Thus S. Austin himselfe Answers most profoundly S. Austin And he giues an Answer to the present difficulty viz. That if the Obscurer Part of Scripture speak not plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick the Heretick is to address himself to the Church and learn by Her what the sense of Scripture is Without light borrowed from the Church we haue only words about these high Mysteries but not fully sensed words chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries whose glosses depraue the plainest Passages in Holy writ as the Protestant doth Christ's clear Proposition This is my body If therefore we go on in such à contest with words not fully sensed we may well end our liues as S. Austin notes before we end one Controuersy 14. And thus you see as the One Part of Scripture is à body without à soul before it be receiued by the Church so the Other Part is also before it be both receiued and sensed by this Oracle of Truth Vpon this ground all those other Testimonies vsually alleged by Sectaries out of S. Austin against the Donatists Of Optatus Meleuitanus and S. Chrysostom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly solued for here is S. Austins Principle The sense of Scripture intended The sense of Scripture and the Church alwaies the same by the Holy Ghost and the sense of Christs true Church concerning Scripture can neuer clash but is one and the same If therefore I know the sense of the Church I haue with it the sense of Scripture also but with this difference That what Scripture often expresses less clearly Christ's Church deliuers more fully and Explicitly Whence it followes that if the Churches sense conclude against these Sectaries the Scriptures sense where it is obscure is in like manner concluding 15. You may obiect Scripture is in the noblest manner infallible For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly and may well be à distinct Rule or Principle from that sense which the Church giues of it Why therefore should not Sectaries haue recourse to that first and noblest Principle without relying on the Churches interpretation I haue answered because they know not guess they may and miss what Scripture saies in à hundred difficult Passages Therefore they are to recurr to the Church or must make vse of their own fancies to sense it The Argument purely fallacious is much to this sense Christ our Lord when he taught his Disciples was in the noblest manner infallible being Truth it self the Apostles were only infallible in their teaching and An Obiection answered further Explanation of those Verities they learn'd by à Singular Grace or participation of Infallibility Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the first sure Principle Christ's own words flowing from the Fountain of infallibility without depending on the Apostles Doctrin not so eminently infallible Now be pleased to hear S. Austin pondering those words Psal 57. Alienati sunt peccatores c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Christ and the Church and solues the Difficulty Ex veritatis ore ag 〈…〉 Christum ipsam veritatem Taught by the mouth of Truth I acknowledge Christ Truth it self ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam participem veritatis And by the same mouth of Truth I acknowledge the Church partaking also of Verity That is I own the Church to be not Truth it self not Scripture it self but à Copartner of Truth with Christ and Scripture I own it to be not Infallibility it self yet so eminently infallible by à singular grace or participated Infallibility That to dispute against it is most insolent madness Witness the same S. Austin Epist. 118. C. 5. ad Ian If he dare to do so Saith the Saint Serm 14. de verbis Apost C. 18. or rus◠violently against this impregnable wall of the Church let him know his doom ipse confringitur He is shattered in pieces Hence you see first that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary to the Churches sense giuen of Scripture without thwarting Scripture it self You see 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles looking as it were different waies but one and the same in order to our direction and regulating Faith whereof Scripture and the Church in order to all is one Principle more Hereafter 16. In the mean while you may ask why our Sectaries keep such à Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things necessary It is hard to say what they driue at For if all this pretended clarity diffused it self through euery passage of Holy writ worse it is for them and to their vtter confusion Obserue My reason The more clear Scripture is made by Nouellists the greater is their shame whilst they cannot proue by it's supposed clarity so much as one Protestant Doctrin nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholick Faith Therefore nothing is gained this way Nay all is los t by Their casting off Church Authority when after that wicked Fact clear Scripture leaues them as Scripturelesse as Their own malice has made them Churchlesse It is true I see some Colour for their Pretence to Scripture and thus it is Like men lawlesse they haue shaken of all other receiued Principles of Christian Religion Speak of à Church She is fallible and has actually erred Cite Fathers some pitifully gloss them others roundly reiect them as men meerly Fallible Mention Tradition the very word is odious Now for stark shame whilst they bear the name of Christians it is hard to throw away all Christian Principles What 's done therefore Why Sectaries take recourse to the bare letter of Scripture I 'le tell you They lay hold of à body without à Soul I mean the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Sense and this is all that 's left them I say without the sense whereof you haue seen enough already for when the sense of God's word is controuerted between them and vs and their sense run's contrary to the receiued Church Doctrin no probable Principle can make it defensible and vpon this Ground I said right They are as Scripturelesse as Churchlesse All this is most true and I well vnderstand it But why these men labour so earnestly to make the Bible plain when not so much as one plain passage is found there for Protestancy or against our Catholick Doctrin is à Riddle aboue my reach I vnderstand it not Let then as much as you will of the book be clear whilst the Clarity fauour 's not one of our Sectaries forged Nouelties nor Contradict's one of our Catholick Tenets it neither help 's the Protestant nor hurt 's the Catholick In the next Discourse we shall treat of the Church and more oportunely solue there à few obiections of Sectaries CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate Faith 1. THe next Principle after Scripture we named the
viz That that giues no Moral certainty but leaues you where you were before in à state of doubting Obserue now All you get from the Protestant when the Fathers plainly teach Catholick Doctrin is either to deny the Authority as the Elder And perhaps wiser Protestants haue done or after Mr Stillingfleets new Mode How Sectaries Shift off Authorities to Gloss them All you get when à passage seem's dubious is to squise more out of it than it has Whence it is That you euer find the Sectaries Doctrin when He tampers with à Te◠seemingly doubtful to ouerreach or to goe beyond the strength of his Quotation That is He speak's plainly what he would haue you belieue And the more plainly he speak's the further he run's from his Authority which Therefore check's his Boldness And Tell 's him I say no such thing as you Teach Take for example those words of Theoderet The Mystical Symbols remain after Consecration c. O saith the Sectary the meaning is the inward Substance of bread remain's Hold Sir there That 's more then the words allow of Mystical Symbols may as well yea far better signify the exteriour Accidents than the inward Substance of bread Therefore you ouerreach the Text And abuse your Author 12. Thus much premised We shall come to our last intended Demonstration And by the grace of God Euidence How Controuersies may be ended Though indeed the Sectaries intricate way of handling Matters makes them seem to à vulgar Reader à work without end For say I beseech you What can be more slight or more remote from Reason than after à long Profession and quiet Possession had of our Catholick Verities To see à few Sectaries late Strangers to Christianity step in amongst vs And after so many Ages strutt vp and down in à corner of the world As if They forsooth By their bringing to light again The procedure of Sectaries Slight nothing but à list of old absolete worn-out Heresies could now Ascertain Papists How much of their Doctrin is Orthodox And How much not And this ò strange Boldnes is done vpon no other Principle than vpon à few misconstrued words of some few ancient Fathers without alleging plain Scripture or the Authority of any Church for this most vncouth and strange Proceeding What can be more slight than to follow the lesser Light or rather no Light at all And to preferr That before the Luminare maius which hitherto has illuminated the whole world What can be more slight than to stand guessing at the sense of Fathers To Gloss their plainest Testimonies when these guesses and Glosses are vnprincipled and haue no more Support than the fancy of him who makes them You shall now see whither these Glosses tend And an End put to Controuersies CHAP. XIX The last designe of Sectaries Glosses discouered They end nothing The clear way to end Controuersies of Religion A distinction between Authority and Principl'd Authority Of the improbability of Protestancy 1. NOte When Sectaries Gloss Scripture or Fathers clear for Catholick Religion and after much tugging violently force some piece of their new Doctrin from Passages lesse clear Their aym is to keep vs off from the last sound Principles of ending What Sectaries aym at ◠by their Glosses Controuersies Mr Stillingfleet like one haunted with two contrary Spirits has à rare Talent this way Now He charm's à darker Passage out of all obscurity And makes it speak Protestancy So he giues light to Theoderets Mystical Symbols Now He does the contrary feat And cast's as clear words as euer Father vttered into so much darknes That it is hard to know what is said Take here one instance You haue it in his Page 217. Where he Interpret's that plain passage of S. Austin Tom. 6. co 〈…〉 Epist Fund C. 5. I would not belieue the Gospel vnless the Authority of the Church moued me therunto And to obscure this most manifest and profoundly well expressed Truth The Gentleman spend 's three whole pages in Guesses and coniectures And all is to Vnsay what the Saint had most euidently Asserted First forsooth he tell 's vs What the Controuersy was which S. Austin then discussed 2. What Church that was which moued hi◠to belieue the Gospel Here He Guesses and Misses 3. In what way and manner the Churches Authority did moue him And in this particular Mr Stillingfleet err's grosly who will needs perswade S. Austin very clear made obscure vs That S. Austin belieued not the Diuinity of Scripture vpon the Churches Authority But only the Authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists As if to belieue the Authenticalness of the Gospel could be separated from belieuing that very Gospel to be Diuine It s à whimsy As shall appear afterward In the mean while you see How all these Coniectures laid together I medle not with them at present are incomparably lesse clear than S. Austin's plain words Yet I must so far put out my eyes as to esteem them the only light to regulate my iudgement by and Consequently make Non-sense of S. Austins clear Expression Is it not reasonable think you Before I do so To ask first by what Principle I may know That these Coniectures hit right 2. Now here you haue what I wish the iudicious Reader seriously To reflect vpon Suppose one should follow Mr Stillingfleet through all those windings and Turnings wherewith he encumber's this one short Sentence of S. Austin And Answer step What the Reader is desired to reflect on by step to euery Paragraph in order Suppose Hee that vndertakes such à Task should in like manner proceed through all The Gentlemans Rational Account as 'T is Called And attend to his discourses reply to euery particular of his endles Glosses laid on Scripture and other Fathers Suppose Thirdly He should rigidly Examin euery circumstance related in the Stories of that voluminous Book Doe only thus much and you draw the book dry For besides cauils you haue no more How many volumes think ye would This way of Answering bring forth to the world before the whole Account were Answered And when all is done Much God knowes is not done to end Controuersies with Satisfaction Thus the contest goes on 3. Mr Stillingfleet like one affraid to meddle with sound Principles begins to Glosse His supposed Aduersary because no better stuff is giuen to work vpon goes not yet deeper into difficulties But turn's to the Scripture and Fathers Read's and Iudges by His own Reading That much is interpreted amiss in this Rational Account Therefore Vnglosses as fast as Mr Stillingfleet Glossed And hopes He doth very well Mr Stillingfleet discourses This Aduersary doth so also But finds or pretends to find I say no more yet His discourses vnsound at the bottom Much Confusion sollowes this way And too weak to bring in à good Conclusion Mr Stillingfleet relates his Stories set forth with à number of circumstances Our supposed Aduersary discouer's
without Progenitors successors without à Pedegree New Teachers without commâ—ssion Protestants indeed but without Principles 15. Hence I argue and it is à demonstration against Sectaries If neither Church nor Councils nor Pastors nor Doctors nor any Orthodox Christians in forgoing Ages euer owned or so much as heard of Protestancy before one vnfortunate Fatherles Luther broached it If no Antiquity so much as once mentioned one Professor of that Religion if no Tradition handed to Luther the new Faith he taught all which is without dispute manifest Protestancy most enidently is vpon this very account both an Vnwitnessed and an Vnprincipled Religion And not only improbable but in the highest degree improbable But no Authority can release an vnprincipled Nouelty from its own intrinsick miserable and â—ssâ—ntial state of improbability Therefore our Sectaries votes of no weight at all cannot make it probable And thus Controuersies are ended because an improbable Religion And for this reason improbable because vnprincipled is not defensible 16. To add more to this Discourse I Ask whether one Arius opposing the whole Church represented in the Nicene Council Protestancy as improbable as Arianism defended probable Doctrin or no You will answer No. Very good Yet he quoted Scripture and might one insist vpon the exteriour letter or sound of words more plain and express in the behalf of his Heresy than all the Protestants on earth can produce Fathers plain and Expresss for their Nouelty of Protestanism I would say Neither Theoderet nor any other Father speak's half so clearly to the Doctrin of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass c. As these words to omit others My Father is greater then I may the exteriour letter regulate here seemingly express an inequality between the Father and the Son Now if the seeming clear sound of Scripture made not Arius his Doctrin probable against the Church Then much less can the more obscure Testimonies of some Fathers make the Doctrin of Protestants probable against the Church Now. And if we speak of followers that Arius gained in his time There is no comparison He had more than euer England had Protestants in it 17. One may yet reply The Nicene Fathers cited plain Scripture against Arius Very true And so do Catholicks against Protestants For Christs Sacred words This is my body are as significantly plain against Protestanism as any Text those Fathers then vrged or yet can be vrged against Arianism The Arians not Conuinced by Scripture only But this you see did not the deed nor was then the last conuiction And why Here is the reason Because as Protestants now wilfully Gloss this plain Passage of Scripture and many others So the Arians then wilfully Glossed all those Scriptures alleged by the Nicene Fathers And yet hold on in that strain to our very dayes as you may read in Crellius and Volkâ—lius Yet more As the Arian Party then only Glossed but without the help of any antecedent Church Doctrin known to the world or vniuersal Tradition to settle their Glosses on So our Protestants now do the very same There is no disparity betwixt them They Gloss 't is true but giue vs Churchles Glosses Finally as those Fathers at that time did not only reiect the Arians Glosses but established also their own Definitions vpon Scripture How Conuicted interpreted by the known deliuered Doctrin of the then present and the more Ancient Church for they represented both And thus ended that Controuersy So we Catholicks proceed against Protestants And bring all debates to the like last period The Church or nothing must end them Without recourse had to the known and owned Doctrin both of this present and precedent faithful Oracle They and we may interpret Scripture long enough They may Cauil And we may hold on in our Answers to the end of an other Age without hope of ending so much as one Controuersy But of This enough is said already CHAP. XX. A word to one or two Obiections It is further proued That Controuersies are ended with Protestants who haue no Essence of Religion but false opinions only 1. SEctaries may obiect first We Suppose all this while But proue not The Orthodox world to haue hitherto maintained the Doctrin now taught by the Roman Catholick Church concerning Transubstantiation Inuocation of Saints c. Therefore our Discourse seem's vngrounded I answer 1. The Reply is not to the Purpose in this place whilst we only press Sectaries to giue in Proofs for their Contrary Positions This wee say They Cannot doe Now if wee bee as farr of From Proofes or Cannot ground our Tenets vpon vndubitable Principles Controuersies are ended without more Adoe Because The first Obiection answered both of vs if the Supposition hold's haue no Articles of Religion to Propugn But weak opinions which whether true or false import not Saluation Nay the Truth of them could it be known is scarse worth any mans Knowledge I Answer 2. Our Proofs to say no more now Stand firm vpon Church Authority once at least owned Orthodox on our Councils and ancient Tradition neuer yet repealed nor excepted against But by Hereticks only May it please our Aduersaries to come Closely to the Point and plead in behalf of their Tenets by the Authority of any like or better Church than ours is We haue done and must yeild But this they know is impossible And therefore neither will nor can Answer our Discourse If they say our Church where its contrary to Protestancy has erred Vrge them to proue the Assertion by any Principle either equal to or stronger than our Church Authority is And you will haue them driuen again to their Glosses or to some few gleanings of Fathers In à word to no Principles 2. They may obiect 2. We haue took much pains to proue Nothing against Protestancy For we know some late Professors namely Doctor Bramhal and Mr Stillingfleet stifly maintain A second Obiection Proposed these Negatiues of No Transubstantiation No Sacrifice of the Mass No Inuocation of Saints c. To be only pious Opinions or inferiour Truths Neither reuealed by God nor Essential to Protestant Religion Therefore whilst we vrge them to ground such Negatiues vpon plain Scripture vpon the Authority of an Orthodox Church Councils Tradition c. They tell vs we meddle not at all with the Essentials of Protestancy But only dispute against Opinions And Contrary to iustice force them to proue meer opinions by Scripture Church c. wich is more then we can press vpon them or doe our selues For haue not wee Catholicks many Opinions in Schools which none pretend to ground vpon so strong Principles as we settle our Articles of Faith on Yes most assuredly Opinions then and Articles of Faith cannot but be very differently Principled And thus Point's at à distinâ—tion between Faith and Opinion the Protestant discourses in the present Matters Here saith He is the only difference That Catholicks lay Claim to more Articles
must become Papists or wee turn Arians and Protestants Or finally be forced to deny plain Scripture A most conuincing Argument 9. The difficulty therefore is not and Sectaries seldom touchit whether Scripture be true were the sense known or out of Controuersy but what that true sense is which lies in obscurity and cannot be known without à certain Interpreter Here is the only Question debated between vs and Sectaries One may The only difficulty concerning Scripture Reply It is no good obiection to say learned men differ about the sense of Scripture Ergo it is not sufficiently plain because à great wit may wrest the plainest words God euer spake to à sinister sense Contra. 1. But who knowes when two learned Parties contest in this Matter which of them is the sinister Wrester Contra 2. When à whole Society of men as the Arians were and Protestants are now Tamper with à Text which touches an essential point of Faith And dissent from others as learned as Themselues about the meaning The sense cannot be supposed more clear for the one than the other without an other Rule certain and Definitiue Pray you say Is the sense of those words My Father is greater than I indisputably clear for the Arian Or the sense of Christs words This is my Body without controuersy clear for the Protestants Doctrin concerning the Sacrament when à whole learned Church opposeth both Euidently No. Therefore Sectaries must acknowledge an Obscurity in Scripture our Nouellists must grant that Scripture is not only obscure in these two places But more That à Iudge is necessary to ascertain all of its true meaning as well in these as in à hundred other Passages Again if Scripture want this clarity it cannot be its own Self-euidence much less conuince an obdurate Aduersary Nay I say though it were clear and the sense thereof agreed on by all called Christians yet both Iewes and Gentils scorn the Diuinity of the book And say if 't be of Diuine inspiration That must be proued by à certain Rule extrinsecal to Scripture Therefore it is not immediatly credible by it self or for it self Lastly were Scripture plain in it self yet And this vtterly ruin's Sectaries The certain Doctrin of it can neuer be applyed indubitably to any vnderstanding For our Nouellists say because all Teachers of Christian Doctrin are fallible none can make an infallible Application of it to any or teaeh that Doctrin infallibly which is in it self infallible See more hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. and C. 4. N. S. CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned The Properties of à Rule VVhat is meant by the Church Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out Her marks more clear than Her Essential Doctrin 1. THe true Church of Christ in this present State manifestly demonstrable by signal Marks and Motiues is the only plain certain Self-euident Rule of Faith apt to conuince the most obdurate Vnbelieuer It is immediatly credible and the Doctrin of it certainly applyed to à Seeker after truth These Assertions stand firm vpon 3. Principles 2. 1. Christ Iesus has prouided Christians of à clear and easy Rule otherwise All are left in darknes and know not what or how to belieue 3. 2. Nothing assigned by Sectaries Bee it Scripture solely or what els Imaginable Carries so much as à weak probability of being à Rule so plain easy and satisfactory as the true Church is 4. 3. All the properties of à Rule exactly agree to the Church of Christ and to Her only 1. The Rule of Faith is plain Christs Church is the Rule of Faith so is Church Doctrin and much more plain than Scripture I mean we easily vnderstand what the Church teaches though the Doctrin in it self be difficult 2. A Rule is its own Self-euidence so the Church is taken with the Marks and Motiues whereby She is demonstrated 3. A Rule is apt to conuince the most obstinate Aduersaries Christs Church has euidently don so witness the innumerable Conuersions wrought by Her vpon Iewes Gentils and most obdurate Hereticks 4. A Rule must be certain and certainly applyed to Belieuers what Christs true Church teaches is so for She is Gods own Oracle as shall be proued hereafter and teaches her Children infallibly The Truth of these particulars will be more fully laid forth in the sequele of this Discourse In the mean while two things are to be cleared The first what we vnderstand by the Church of Christ 2. How and by what means She may be known Thus much done we shall easily find out those Christians who are Members of this happy Society or essentially constitute that visible moral Body called the Holy Catholick Church What is meant by the Church 5. Concerning the first We speak plainly and vnderstand by the Church à visible Society of true Belieuers vnited in one profession of Christian Faith and the communication of Sacraments vnder the Conduct and Gouerment of Christ's lawful Commissioned Pastors I say no more yet hoping no Sectary can iustly quarrel with the Notion of à Church expressed in such general Terms And therefore waue at present that other worn-out controuersy agitated by Protestants viz. Whether the Predestinate only make vp the true Church or great Sinners also may be included That is not at all to our purpose now when we only seek after à Society of Christians vnited in the true Faith of Jesus Christ who owne à due submission to lawful Commissioned Pastors whether those who teach or are taught be Saints or sinners concerns them t' is true but not our present Question Of such Belieuers there cannot be two or more Churches but one only And to auoid all confusion or the mingling of different Questions together we here moue no doubt concerning the Head The meaning of the question proposed or chief Authority of this Church but immediattly Ask whether there is now and has euer been since Christs time à visible diffused Society of Christians who haue faithfully belieued the Orthodox Doctrin of Christ and vpon that Account well merit to be called the Professors of the true Catholick Church Of this Vniuersal spread Society our Sauiour spake most clearly or of none Hell gates Can not preuail against it The Spirit of Truth abides with it to the end of the world c. I think no Sectary will deny such à Church 6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and large diffused Body of Christians vnited in one true Faith and the sincere Worship of God And nothing is more consonant to reason more express in Holy Writ or more clearly asserted by the ancient Fathers than that the true Church laies forth Her own euidence or clear Discernibility whereby She is distinguished from all Heretical Sects That is She lies manifestly open to all eyes and Cannot but bee most easily known She is à Ciâ—â—y built vpon à mountain The light of the world A
S. Cyprian Epist 76. That that man is not in the Church nor can be thought à Bishop who succeeds to none but hath his Authority and Origen from himself These and other forceable Testimonies we waue and urge Sectaries as the ancient Tertullian did the Hereticks of his time Lib. de praesc Evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum c. Let them vnfold the Catalogue of their Bishopr from this day to Luther and from Luther vpward and here we call not for Hussits VValdenses or such like men but for à continued descent of Bishops and Pastors Lawfully ordained and commissioned by Authority to preach Protestancy VVe Protestants haue none call indeed but hear of none before the daies of that vnfortunate Luther Therefore as I said aboue they are sons without Fathers they would be thought spiritual Children but are so vnbegotten that no body own 's them 5. Reflect à little Gentle Reader and cease not to wonder at the greatest Paradox I think that euer entred into the thought of man Holy Scripture Ascertains vs that Prouidence hath appointed Bishops to gouern his Church Pastors and Doctors to teach till the Consummation of Saints for the edifying A Paradox maintened by Sectaries of Christs Mystical body The Roman Catholick Church gives in Her Catalogue of Bishops and Pastors euer since Christ The first Apostolical Pastors receiued their learning from an Infallible Master God and man These conueyed it to their Successors They to others till this very age And to proue that They both kept and faithfully conueyed the same Doctrin without Change or Alteration you haue not only Church Authority the greatest on earth but more Gods own seal set to this Doctrin Christ's owne signes and Marks Miracles vndeniable Miracles Conuersions of nations c. Now start vp à knot of late vnknown strangers called Protestants without Bishops without Pastors for 1â— Ages These pretend to haue receiued new letters new learning from Jesus Christ That is an other sense of Scripture than was formerly deliuered This Letter is read This learning is published to the world VVe Ask what lawful Pastors taught it four Centuries since VVhat ancient Church owned it They Answer none VVe demand again To haue at least à Demands proposed to Sectaries sight of God's Seal set to this Letter some visible Marks of Christ Miracles for example to make the doctrin accepted They haue not any Ergo say wee The letter is forged the Doctrin is false uneuidenced improbable 6. All that 's pleadable against this Discourse is That our Doctrin once confessedly Orthodox was changed by the Church in after Ages Answ VVe are both willing and ready to discuss and that most rigidly this particular with Protestants but before hand giue them one Caueat Viz. That no Topicks but sound Principles enter here or bethe last Probation If then wee produce and most euidently à list of our Bishops and Pastors euer No Answer giuen since Christ as Witnesses of our Faith They are to do as much and produce as many for Protestancy If we as we do euer force Sectaries to name some known Orthodox Society of Christians that condemned our Doctrin in any Age they are obliged to vnbeguile vs and show vs where or when or by whom we were condemned If finally we vnexceptionably euidence most glorious Miracles to haue illustrated our Church euen after Her fancied Falling from the Primitiue truth after she became What sectaries are forced to grant the whore of Babylon our new men must either deny her such Miracles if so we vrge them to ground the denial on Principles equal to our contrary Probations or will certainly be forced to confess That God wrought Miracles in à Church which had brought in shameful Errours and quite forsaken the Primitiue Doctrin Obserue well the force of our Argument It s improbable to say That God fauoured this Church with the Glory of Miracles Had She falsifyed His reuealed truths And it is as wholly improbable to deny Her the Glory of Supernatural wonders Sectaries worn-out Obiections are not worth taking notice of Some oppose the Greeks though now not of the Church pretending to à Succession We answer if the Pretext be true Their cause vpon that Account is better than Protestants But withall say though Succession bee euer necessary to demonstrate the Church yet it followes not where we haue it There is the Church For Other Errours may vndoe all And de facto Vnchurch the Greeks guilty and condemned in three General Councils See Bellarmine de Notis Ecclesia Lib. 4. Cap. 8. 6. secundo 7. Enough is said aboue and in the other Treatise also Disc 1. C. 10. n. 4. 12. of the Vnion and Sanctity of our Church Vnity à Mark of the Church Vnion in Faith the greatest Blessing hearts can desire asserted by S. Hierome Epist. 57. ad Damasum Those are prophane who â—ate not the lambe in the Roman Catholick Church And innumerable other Fathers knit's together this whole Moral Body amongst so many different Nations different judgements different manners different Education different times different places from one end of the world to the other All belieue as the Pope himself belieues or is no Member of this Church And here is our Glory Wheras if on the other side we cast à sorrowful Vtterly destroyed by Sectaries thought vpon all the Hereticks who from the beginning rent themselues from the Roman Church we shall find Diuisions and subdiuisions Foreruners of Ruin endlesly following which at last destroyed them From one Luther as Bellarmin now cited obserues Cap. 10. à hundred Heresies sprouted vp And since his time there are more added to that number in our Mr. Thorndicke true Obseruation once most Catholick England He that can take measure saith Mr. Thorndicke in his late little Book of Forbearance P. 33. how much of common Christianity is lost by these Divisions in thirty years time since our troubles began euen among them that call them selues Godly and Saints will easily belieue that it he means Christianity hath not long to liue in that Isâ—and vnless Diuision be put to death 8. A iust iudgement of God vpon them pointed at by the Prophet Isay Cap. 19. 2. I will make the Aegyptians to run against Aegyptians and à man shall fight against his Brother euery man against his friend Citty against Citty and Kingdom against Kingdom Such confusion such an Abomination of desolation we Englands Diuision remediless vvithout returning to the Roman Catholick Church see now standing in that once holy Nation Hee that reads let him vnderstand which might iustly draw teares of blood from Compassionate Eyes Were it not that as S. Hilary notes Bellum haereticorum pax est Ecclesiae The Dissensions of Hereticks brings peace to the Church This some what asswages our Grief and stint's our teares But the Euil is desperate and incurable do what Sectaries can without returning to the Church of Rome which causelesly
can probably oppose the receiued Doctrin of our Catholick Oracle or defend his own contrary to it whilst he is Churchless I mean so long as he giues in no Euidence The true reason why no Heretick can oppose the Church of an other Church distinct from the Roman Catholick as Ancient as vniuersal as She is as glorious in Miracles as She is as famous for Conuersions as She is as Vncensured as She is as commissioned to preach and teach the world as She is I say whils't no such qualified Church can be euidenced which contradicted our present Catholick Doctrin and maintained that of Sectaries so long the Protestant cannot defend his own opinions nor rationally oppose our Catholick Tenents For here as S. Austin anciently obserued disputing with the Donatists lies the main Business and it decides all Difficulties Vtrum vestra an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei Whether yours or ours be the Church of God Let then this one point worthy Debate be rigidly examined And 't is easily done may the euer acknowledged Marks and Signes of the true Church haue weight with Prudent reason We are all without more Dispute reunited in one Ancient Faith 24. And who can if his cause be good decline this modest Offer When t' is known that these publick Signs haue fix'd Sectaries Euer decline the Sentence of an Euidenced Church and established this publick Iudgement in all through the Christian world That à Church so vndeniably Ancient so Miraculous and drawing Souls to Her cannot but be Gods Sacred Oracle But Sectaries in all their Polemicks waue this worthy Question concerning an euidenced Church and vnworthily to the great Wearisomnes of euery Reader stand pitifully trifling with à few long since defeated and worn-out Controuersies I say trifling For is it not more then slight and friuolous now to flurt at the worshiping of Images now to pelt the Pope now to quote à half sensed Sentence against Purgatory now to misrelate And trifle time away à Story now if à wickednes lie in à Corner to rifle that Now to talk as if men were mad of the Roman Churches Idolatry Here to iibe at our Ceremonies there to attaint the Spotles Reputation of Christs Spouse Say for Gods sake to what purpose is this when the Knowledge of that Vnum necessarium which cannot but be known viz. Here is Gods euidenced Oracle so clearly ends all Debates so iustly determin's what 's true and what 's false in these and the like particulars that none can vnlesse led on with à Spirit of Contradiction withstand the iust Sentence of this One euidenced Oracle 25. If the Sectary reply notwithstanding the Churches Euidence many things She teaches appear doubtful to him I haue Answered Disc 1. C. 18. Proofs only doubtful yea though Probable also which is not want pith to gainsay an Euidence What the most ancient Christians owned owned by the publick Wisdom of the Christian world But the greatest Part of the Christian world Alwayes owned these Truths First That God has and euer had à Church Visible on earth 2. That his Church may be known by Her Marks Signes and Motiues and that the most meet Signes to Distinguish Her by are answerable to those manifested in Christ our Lord. 3. That rhe Roman Catholick Church only Euidently shewes these Signs and by Virtue of them demonstrat's Her self to be Gods own Oracle Here you haue my Principles already laid forth And à Petition with them to Protestants to infringe or weaken but One of them vpon Scripture-Proof vpon the irrefragable Testimony of Fathers or by Virtue of any Principle which may appear probable to the vniuersal Sense or rational Consent of such as haue been owned Orthodox since Christ liued on earth But to do this is vtterly impossible 26. Descend now if you please to particular Controuersies you shall euer find that nothing but the twilight of weak Reason meer Doubtfulness I mean support's Protestant Religion It is doubtful say these Aduersaries whether Purgatory be or Doubts and Cauils are the only Support of Protestancy no. It is doubtful whether Praying to Saints be Orthodox Doctrin The Popes Supremacy ouer the whole Church is Doubtful and Questionable Very Good let these Propositions pass yet as doubtful Perhaps Purgatory is not Perhaps it is Perhaps inuocation of Saints is Orthodox Doctrin Perhaps no For neither the one nor other considered in Themselves is à Truth Euident Ex terminis or so much as Morally certain Now here is the iust Trial. The Protestant positiuely denyes Purgatory I positiuely Assert it Both Propositions are hitherto supposed doubtful Therefore He who maintains truth is obliged to raise his Proposition from that low State of à poor Perhaps or doubting to à higher Degree of certainty The Catholick speaks plainly and Argues thus Gods euidenced Oracle which beares the Marks the Ensigns of Christ Iesus and taught the world from the Beginning obliges all as well to belieue à Purgatory as à Trinity of Persons I cannot therefore Saith he without à Forfeiture of all Reason and striuing against the Publick wisdom of the Christian world Own this à faithful Oracle in the Proposal of the one Mystery and hold it Perfidious or Traiterous in the other Here is the Catholicks Euidence Now Mark well The proofs of the Protestants Proposition There is no Purgatory are euer as remote The Assertion declared and proued from Certainty as miserably dubious as his very Assertion is I say no Proof goes aboue the Strength of one poor deficient and weak Perhaps If he allege Fathers Contrary to Purgatory or any other Catholick Tenet His own reason yet in à cloud tell 's him Perhaps He hitt's on the true Sense Perhaps not If he plead by Scripture he neuer get's aboue the degree of doubting If he take recourse to History or any other Principle what euer He shal find himself at the end of his labour where he was at the Beginning as doubtful in his Proofs as in his Assertion And why He hath no euidenced Church to rely on But more of this hereafter See also Disc 1. C. 11. CHAP. XIII Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrin Atheists and Heretick Argue alike The Motiues of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what euer the true Church Proposeth A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church 1. THe first Inference All that 's pleadable in Behalf of Protestancy or any particular Tenet thereof is not only doubtful but highly improbable vpon These two Principles First that à Church euidenced by the very same Marks and Motiues which Christ our Lord Shewed to the world reiect's the Two Principles Nouelty And no Authority on earth can Contest with an Oracle so clearly Manifest The other Principle No Society of Christians signalized with the like Motiues as the Roman Catholick Church Demonstrat's euer maintained so much as one Tenet of the Protestants Doctrin Here the ingenuous Reader is desired to reflect
And because it is here impossible to descend to all particular controuersies we will fall vpon one only much debated one serues for all Viz whether Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation be Orthodox Doctrin The truth yet lies in darkness there is no Self-Euidence either in the Affirmatiue or Negatiue T' is yet no more but doubtful or à meer Perhaps whether the Protestants or we Speak Truth Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is Where the difficulty lies yet obscure to vs both and as little euidenceth it Self as the Verity we enquire after By what means then can we raise our selues aboue this state of Doubting to so great à degree of certainty as to Say without fear Transubstantiation is Orthodox Doctrin And the contrary is not so 10. The Catholick to waue in this place other proofs recur's to his Church And saith this Publick euidenced Oracle as well raises him to à State of certainty for his Tenet as the euidenced Primitiue Church rais'd the first belieuing Christians from their doubts to Security For the like full euidence alwayes lead's to How the Catholick Peoceed's a like certainty of Belief The Protestant hauing reiected our present euidenced Church hopes well and will needs find flawes and falsity too in Her Doctrin not by confronting Her Euidence or denoting an other Church As ample as ancient as miraculous as She is which held his Doctrin for this though it should be pleaded if we come to à clear Decision is vnpleadable because the Protestant has no such Oracle What 's done therefore I 'll tell you and you may iustly wonder He shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's though there is no such matter to launch into the vast Ocean of Scripture Councils volumes of Fathers ancient Records and thinks The Sectary takes à Contrary way to carry on his cause this way Here He pick 's vp one dark Sentence of à Father and triumph's with that There on another Here vpon the least hint giuen he Snarles at one piece of Popery there at another Here he guesses and there he misses In à word the man is busily idle doth much and iust nothing run's on but is out of his way utterly lost without the guidance of God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the Labyrinth And if you Ask why he is out I Answer his Errour lies here that both in this and all other Controuersies he makes his false Suppositions to pass for proofs against euidence 11. You shall see what I here Assert Made Good To proue no Transubstantiation the Se ary read's Scripture Fathers Antiquity or what els you will Be it so He read's but not alone For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's also Mark now The One after his reading glosses so doth the other The One compares Passage with Passage so doth the other The One discourses So doth the other But when all is done and here lies the mischief the Protestant imposes one sense vpon the perused Testimonies and the Catholick another Which leaues him in State of doubting quite contrary This dayly Experience teaches viz. That we differ not so much about the words we read as about the sense of Scripture and Fathers Therefore this also is Euident That the Protestant aduances not his Doctrin if yet he get so high aboue the degree of guessing only whilst he pleads by his glossed Scripture and Fathers For as long as the Catholick wholly as learned and conscientious as He is and an ample Church besides opposes his far-fetch'd Sense out of the Fathers He cannot without Impudency and making à false Supposition to pass for his Proof cry it vp as certain Now further As the sense he drawes from Scripture and the Fathers is no more but at most doubtful I say improbable so his Assertion concerning no Transubstantiation or what euer els he holds contrary to the Roman Catholick faith is wholly as much wauering or purely doubtful But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak What euer is doubtful grounds not Faith either to ground any Christian Tenet vpon or to Contrast with the Roman Catholick Church whose Doctrin is indisputably made euidently credible Therefore unless à weake Vncertainty can reuerse Euident Credibility the Sectaries Plea against the Church is not only improbable but highly improbable 12. To conclude this Point Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma It is possible to Denote and point at another Church which without dispute taught Protestant Doctrin and opposed ours as Ancient as large and euery way as Euidenced to sense and reason as the Roman Catholick Church is Or it is not possible If possible controuersies are strangely ended for proue A Dilemma me once such à Church I say plainly There is no such thing as true Faith in the world worthy defense Why Because if the Supposition hold's two different Churches euidenced à like equally as ancient as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Miracles clash with one another Say and Vnsay approue and condemn The one condemn's Protestancy The other Popery One will haue Transubstantiation belieued The other not which is as wholly destructiue of Christian Faith as if Scripture it self should plainly Speak Contradictions 13. On the other side If the Sectary can neither name nor point at à Chutch euery way as euidenced as the Roman Catholick No euidenced Protestant Church no pleading for Protestancy which expresly propugned Protestancy and opposed Popery He shall neuer utter probable word against any one Article of our Catholick Faith For throw an euidenced Protestant Church out of the world All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin or against vs will either End in à slight discharge of à few scattered vnweighed Sentences of holy Fathers no sooner read than Answered or as we dayly Experience in gross Mistakes and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrin And can these think ye extinguish the visible Lustre of our Chureh can these lessen the euident Credibility of Her Doctrin or bring so known and owned an Oracle into open disgrace or publick Disreputation It is impossible The most vigorous Abbettors of Protestancy may not only blush to Assert it but will be bafled did we once liue to see the happy day when our iust cause might be proposed and heard in à Publick Dispute before Learned and impartial Iudges A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick and hold him much more wise Learned and moderate then some late voluminous Writers haue been yet because Truth will out I must not dissemble but Speak truth And therefore Say in à word His whole attempt against the Roman Catholick Church is weake And the feebleness of it Cannot but appear to euery Reader that penetrat's the force of the Principles already established My wish indeed was to haue Vnderstood his meaning better in some particular passages For
publick Dissention Answ These men certainly neuer say their Creed I belieue the holy Catholick Church that is in mind interiourly I giue Assent to all the Catholick Church teaches Now if this Doctrin stand They may well not yeild Assent at all to any Doctrin the Church teaches but like Hypocrits may outwardly be fair Catholicks and inwardly foul Hereticks And this is to Profess one thing and belieue another Christ is ashamed of them Luke 9. 26. and so is the Apostle also Rom. 1. 16. VVho blushed not to preach as he belieued And to belieue as he preached But enough hereof is said in the other Treatise CHAP. XV. Diuine Faith in this present State of things necessarily requir's à Church infallible The Reason hereof The Church neither Defin's nor can Define by Humane Authority only Her Definitions more than morally certain are Infallible Sectaries Recourse to Moral certainty in Matters of Faith à most frigid Plea Their Fallacy is discouered Obiections Answered 1. ONe Principle established aboue N. 6. Proues the first part of my Assertion Diuine Faith which is à firm Assent to what euer God speak's So vltimatly rest's vpon his Infallible Veracity One Principle premised That if à true Belieuer yeild Assent to him as He speaks and because He speaks All the power in Heauen cannot Separate Infallibility from that Belief Herein consist's the Perfection of all Diuine Faith That without sweruing it tend's vpon a Verity Infallible and without Hesitancy hold's that infallibly true which the infallible Verity Reueal's A lesser Perfection than this is not Faith And à greater the Apostles had not if we precisely respect The perfection of Faith the Motiue of their Assent Hence all must Distinguish à twofold Infallibility One intrinsick and infinit proper to Gods Verity The Other answerable to à creatures Capacity finit t' is true yet Infallible and such the Apostles Faith was 2. Thus much Supposed not easily gainsaid by Sectaries the infallibility of one Church which we say is the Roman Catholick Stand's firm And here is the Reason As Faith relies vpon an infallible Verity that reueal's Truth So it also rest's vpon an infallible Oracle which without danger of Errour Applies and Proposes that very Truth yet obscure to Belieuers For it little auail's to haue à Verity infallibly Reuealed if à fallible Oracle which may both Miss and Mislead be our best One ground of the Churches Insallibility and only Guide or Proponent The Church therefore which Saith Indubitably I Propose what God Reueals must be infallible answerable to the Infallibility of Diuine Reuelation Ruin the One or Other Infallibility Faith can be no more but an vncertain Assent And consequently no Faith at all 3. To Reinforce this Reason Please only to cast à serious The reason reinforced Thought vpon such as haue been iustly reputed Hereticks and vpon their Procedure The Arians after the reading Scripture denyed the high Godhead in Christ His Eternal Consubstantiality also to the Father And erred The Pelagians reiecting Original Sin swerued likewise from the Verities of Christian Religion so did the Monothelits that impiously bereaued Christ of his two Sacred Wills Diuine and Humane The true Church All know condemned and yet condemns these Tenets as Heretical Right say modern Sectaries And it was well done Very Good If well done herevpon ensues another troubleson Question and it is Whether that true Church whilst She condemned these Errours and defined the contrary Truths proceeded Doubtfully Probably vpon Moral Certainty only or Spake as Gods Oracle ought If the Church defines doubtful to speak Infallibly If She Defined doubtfully it is yet also doubtful whether Christ be the high God and Consubstantial to his Father Vnless Scripture now supposed God's word in express Terms clear the doubt and raise the Doctrin to absolute Certainty which most euidently is not done 4. The whole Contest then is VVhether the Church or Arians Interpret Scripture better For the Obiect of my Assent when I belieue the eternal VVord Consubstantial being not Express Scripture but an Interpretation only it followes if the Interpretation which the Church giues be supposed doubtful She wrong 's the Arians and all other Christians whilst She obliges them to belieue the Mystery otherwise than only Sub dubio or doubfully which is not to belieue at all Again If the Churches She wrongs both Arians and All Christians Definition get à Step higher to à degree of Probability and no more The Arians Opinion for ought we know yet may be as tenable as the Contrary Doctrin now supposed Orthodox And Consequently the real Consubstantiality of the Son to his Father is no more any Obiect of Faith but meerly à disputable Matter like this or that Opinion in Schools earnestly tossed to and fro But neuer ended Doubts therefore And meer probabilities reiected too weightles for Church Definitions 5. We are next to look à little into one only Refuge left The Sectaries Plea of Moral Certainty examined Sectaries called Moral Certainty T' is à dark cloud they are lately got into our Endeauour shall be to dissipate it They may say When the Church condemned Arianism the like is of any other Heresy and defined the Eternal Word Consubstantial The Definition much aboue Probability though not absolutely Infallible was yet so morally Certain that no man can but most vnreasonably doubt of its Verity In passing I may without Offence take notice of Sectaries Inconsequences and Ask if Moral Certainty be at least had from Church Definitions when She interpret's Scripture though the Doctrin be not formally expressed There Why are not Her Definitions euery whit as Morally certain against Luther and Caluin though what She Defin's be not in express Terms Gods word I would also as willingly learn why Protestant Doctrin is not esteemed ouer all the world so Morally certain as thefe Ancient Catholick Definitions are But let these Queries not easily Answered pass We come to the main difficulty and demand 6. Whether this Positiue Doctrin Christ is the Highest God and Consubstantial to his Father be à Fundamental Article of Christian Faith finally resoluable into the Diuine Reuelation And admitted A question Proposed to Sectaries as most Fundamental by Protestants I verily perswade my self they will Say it is If not This followes ineuitably that there is no fundamental Article in our Christian faith Vpon the supposed Concession I Argue But If the Church be fallible this Positiue Doctrin Christ is Consubstantial is no Article of Faith because it cannot be resolued into an infinite Verity infallibly Reuealing Truth Therefore it is only à Moral humane Perswasion at most which may be false 7. The Proof of the Minor will best appear if we Ask why Sectaries belieue that positiue Doctrin They cannot Answer Scripture expresly Teaches it For most euidently that 's not so Will they say the Mystery may by good Discourse be deduced The true Answer proues Faith Certain from
Contradictions And can any thing like euidence or certainty grow from these contrary Glosses which as Experience teaches breed endles Quarrels 15 Other Principles we haue not any except Mr Stillingfleets Common Reason of Mankind the worst of all for doe we not Scripture Church Fathers and all Principle fail Sectaries se that Hereticks euery where make Themselues and their own Sects most reasonable Where we haue nothing like common Reason but so many different and diuided Sentiments of iarring men dispersed vp and down the world If therefore Scripture Fathers and this Common Reason fail to be Principles our Sectaries Supposition of manifest or Euident falsities in the Church goes beyond all Moderation and implies an Ouerlashing more than intolerable 16. Their vngrounded Mistake lies here That Principles are Supposed at hand or ready at à call to Decide in this case of à Councils Supposed Errour Whereas if both Church and Councils can or do Err There are no such things in being as Principles Topicks Vncertain Topicks no Principles at most or an endles iarring vpon meer Vncettainties lead none to an Euident Discouery of Errours Therefore I sayd right they cannot be known as Euident for want of Principles and if not known as such no Power on earth can amend them Yet good Principles reach thus far at least as to Demonstrate that Protestants grosly Mistake in their Clamours against our Churches errours De facto And here you haue my Principles already hinted at 17. Either these supposed Errours are those vnchristian Tenents mentioned N. 8. And certainly Councils neuer transgressed so enormously as to Define such diuellish Doctrins Or. A Strong Argument against Sectaries 2. They are only Possible false Doctrins which may be Defined if Councils can err but yet are not taught If So All must Say that as it is horrid to condemn à man for à crime he may commit though he neuer did it So it is the highest Iniustice to condemn à whole Church for Falshood's She may teach if fallible though She neuer taught them Nothing then remains but to plead against our Church Doctrin de facto as euidently and intolerably Erroneous and herein we will not spare Sectaries one whit but Vrge them as we doe to speak home in the cause Their Accusation is euident we Press them Again and again to iustify it by Proofs and Principles as euident What must these errours be decryed as Euident and intolerable and can none but Sectaries get so much as à glimpse of the Euidence Away with such fooleries No man can hear them with Patience 18. By what is said already you se that The Doctrin of Protestants Shewes it Selfe as it is not only false but most Inconsequent Sectaries Doctrin in consequent Mark I beseech you the Inconsequence These Nouellists Define the Church to be an Assembly of men who Belieâ—â— and Profess the pure VVord of God But such men find them where you can as belieue and profess the pure Word which is iâ— it Self Infallible are certainly infallible if they Belieue it as God's infallible VVord Therefore they must acknowledge an infallible Moral Body of Christians that Constitutes an infallible Church 19. In Lieu of Doing this They Tear all in Pieces and First Decry the Roman Catholick Church as Errable Yea actually erring Next and this Marr's their own Cause they withall Profess themselues fallible Whereas had any thing like consequent Doctrin entred their Thoughts They should at least haue made â—rotestants infallible being as They Say new commissioned By their own Principles they should hold some Society of men Infallible Doctors sent from God to amend the Churches Errours And belieue it their own Infallibility had they casually laid claim to it would as soon haue been perswaded That 's neuer as now without Probability or any thing like à Principle They endeauour to proue the Roman Catholick Church Fallible But let this pass Thus much I Assert To tell vs on the One side There is an Assembly of men who Belieue the infallible Word of God And on the Other To make all that Teach and Belieue it Fallible liable to False Doctrin is not only to proceed The contrary Doctrin ruins Faith inconsequently but moreouer to Expose Christian Religion to the Scorn of Iewes and Gentils yea quite to ruin Diuine Faith And finally to make vs all Scepticks certain of nothing 20. If it be replyed The Councils and Sectarles with them are at least preserued infallible in things Called the Fundamentals of Faith plainly reuealed in Scripture I vrge them first to giue in their Proofs for this half or partial Infallibility which will be more than ridiculous if once they Appear in paper Again if we are all infallible and secure in à few Fundamentals plainly registred in Scripture to what Purpose do Sectaries keep à coyle about smaller Matters called Vnfundamentals Which are neither intolerable or Considerable because Small Much less can they be Euident Errours so long as à whole Their pretended Euidence of Errours is euidently à Fourb Church defends them as Truths For this Euidence cannot but faile Sectaries or come to nothing whilst the Church and They stand in Contest about it Be it how you will Here without à Iudge we are got into the old Labyrinth again of an endles Dispute which can neuer Produce any thing like Euidence in behalf of Sectaries CHAP. XVIII Two Aduersaries mainly Opposit to True Religion The last and most vrgent Proof of the Churches Infallibility taken from the Necessity the Notion and Nature of true Religion Mr Stillingfleets Obiections found weak and weightles Most of them already Proposed and Dissolued by others A short Reflection made vpon some few â— THere is à Knot of half-witted People who Say though Religion Seem's indeed necessary to Preserue humane Society in peace And to Ouer-awe vnruly Spirits yet the Two Paradoxes maintainâ—e by these half mad men best were any Good is no more but à meer Fiction à forged â—ale in fine an Errour These men make nature Monstruous and must Consequently maintain two vast Paradoxes The one That humane Societies euery were That is All Kingdoms and Common-wealths stand in need of Fiction and Errour to make them happy The Proposition is euident For if peace Tranquility Fiction and foolery can make no man happy and the subduing of vnquiet Spirits be à true necessary Happines to all And these cannot subsist without à fained Religion It is manifest that Fiction Foolery and Errour make theâ— happy which is as much as to Say à Constant Sicknes keep 's the body in health weaknes giues it strength Pain and 〈◊〉 â—ase and refreshment Certainly no less is errour dissoâ—â—â—t to à rational Nature than Sicknes repugnant to health 〈◊〉 to fire or heat to water 2. The second Paradox wholly as bad and clear keeps Parallel with this other It is now supposed that Religion which is nothing els but Fiction necessarily conduceth to the
Peace of Kingdoms and Common-wealths wherevpon their Happines â—est's more secure And is better preserued than if this fiction 〈◊〉 not Hence it followes euidently To know and Profess Truth to quit our Selues of Errour and fiction robb's vs of Happines and makes humane nature miserable The Inference is vndeniable For if we be happy vpon this score that we liue in à Dâ—tage we are miserable in case we get free of it or become Wise which is against the light of Reason For if God has endued Nature is not miserable by being freed from dotage all with à desire of true Wisdom and the knowledge of truth whereof none can doubt Man cannot be miserable if he Possesses that Good which the Author of nature would haue him to enioy Hence it in also Inserred that the vniuersal Perswasion of true Religion is no Dotage no Deception but à Truth and that most notorious 3. Now if you Obiect some liue without Religion and â—â— few embrace à false one you plead by cases meerly Accidental As if one should Say Nature has made man Sociable and giuen him à tongue to Conuerse with others But some Cases meerly Accidental made vse of to no purpose are dumb others abuse their faculty of speaking Therefore man is no sociable creature This is our case Those who liue without all Religion if any such be are the dumbe and blind Those that Profess à falss Religion like lying tongues abuse Gods Gifts the Abuse is Theirs not God's who would haue all to be vâ—ius labij of one Tongue and one heart in à matter of so high Concern And thus much of these first Aduersaries Opposite to true Religion 4. In the next place I may well name our modern Sectaries no less than Arch-aduersaries of Religion who make the Church and all that teach Church Doctrin fallible My reason is A Fained and Fallible Religion are neer Cous 〈…〉 Sectaries parallel'd with the other Aduersaries Germans The one is à Fiction The other at least may be so And for ought any man can know is no better For there is no Principle whereby it may appear so much as probably that all the Christians who liued since the Apostles time or yet are aliue haue not been deluded with fictions concerningâ— Gods truths but rather are plunged into à deep Deluge of gross Errours if the Church and Councils can Teach or belieue false Doctrin And here be pleased to reflect à little Hoâ— neer these two Aduersaries come to one another 5. The first mentioned account it Happines to remain in Errour and Sectaries like well not only the Possibility but more à prefent manifest danger of erring in this matter of highest The Parallel laâ—id forth and proued Consequence Actual errour pleases the one and à great hazard of it contents the other Humane nature say the first would be miserable were men so wise as to learn this Truth that Religion is à Foppery though it be so And we are all vndone Say Sectaries could we acquire so much Wisdom in this present state as to be infallibly Ascertained that Religion is no Foppery which perhaps may be one Wherefore to weaken all certitude They tell vs That none can learn infallibly those truths which God has reuealed because all Churches all Councile all Pastors and Doctors whose Duty is to giue Assurance of trutâ— are so fallible And that the very best may erre and oblige men â—â— belieue Errour Here is all the comfort we haue from Sectaries Thus much premised 6. We come to the fundamental Ground which proues our Catholick Religion and the Church that teaches it to be infallible I Said in the first Disc C. 1. n. 9. speaking against Atheists If we receiue the first lights of nature called general The fundamental ground of the Churches Infallibility 〈◊〉 from any Power inferiour to God They are all fallible and may deceiue vs. This granted which I think no Christian can deny It is most consequent to Assert That if we receiue the Supernatural lights or truths of Grace reuealed in Scripture vastly aboue all humane Comprehension from à less Power than God the wisest of men may liue in errour and cannot but be deceiued And thus both Nature and Grace necessarily depend on God 7. This great Truth iâ— the Apostles Doctrin Iacob C. 1. 17. Omne Donum perfectum de sursum est Euery perfect Gift Deduced from the Apostles Doctrin comes from aboue descending from that Father of lights God therefore rightly stiled the Father of light or as Diuines Speak Prima veritas the first vnerring Verity Pleased to make known some few of his Diuine truths in that Book of Holy Scripture Few I call them compared with innumerable others not at all reuealed which yet his infinite Wisdom comprehend's Howeuer these few often darkly expressed in that mysterious Book or in Terms less perspicuous Dazle the eyes of weak sighted Mortals and wonder nothing The Apostle giues the Reason â— Tim. 6. 16. because all proceed from him Qui lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem That dwell's in an vnaccessible light none can attain vnto Yet truths they are the first vnerring Verity Treasures Communicated Asserts it and therefore ought to be estemed treasures If treasures Prouidence will haue them conueyed vnto vs by secure hands And if eternal truths concerning Saluation God cannot but will and his Will is à law That all be Proposed and Taught as Diuine and infallible Verities depending vpon none How to be Valued if we vltimately bring them to their last Center but vpon the first Truth only who neither will nor can deceiue any 8. Now here is the Difficulty Seing it hath pleased Almighty God for reasons best known to Himselfe to leaue most of the high Mysteries registred in Scripture in no little Obscurity The main Difficulgy Proposed Some express his own Perfections of being one essence and three distinct Persons Others relate to the admirable works of Grace effected by his Infinite Power Of this nature are the Incarnation and the whole Series of mans Redemption The Difficulty I say is to find out à trusty Interpreter some faithful Oracle which can when doubts occurr concerning the darker Mysteries clear all lay open the Book and absolutely Assert An infinite verity speaks thus This sense and no other is what the Holy Ghost intended And this is necessary because Almighty God teaches no more immediatly by himself nor will haue Enthusianisms to be our Doctors 9. Moreouer the necessity of such à sure Oracle if Diuine The necessity of an Infallible Oracle truth must be learn'd is proued vpon this ground chiefly That these mysteries as is now said haue both their Difficulty and Darkness Natural reason left to it self boggles at them Iewes Gentils and Hereticks reiect the highest It is Say they mighty hard to believe á Trinity the Diuine word made flesh God and man to dye vpon à Cross c. What can
antecedent Assent to this Proposition That what soeuer those Dort-men taught is true Doctrin before you own it as true Ascertain vs of thus much And you solue your own difficulty If this Instance please not make vse of another Your Ministers in England pretend to teach true Doctrin though not infallibly Say only vpon what antecedent Proposition the Truth of their Doctrin is assented to by all before it be belieued as true and we shall without labour Answer in behalf of our infallible Doctrin 16. In à word thus Catholicks plead This generall Proposition is to be assented to as both true and infallible Viz. All And clearly solued are obliged to Hear and Belieue the Pastors of God's Church when Lawsully Commissioned to teach in God's name and as the Orthodox Church teaches Here is the Thesis or the vniuersal receiued Proposition But these Pastors and Doctors when assembled in Council are still Pastors of the Church and lawfully commissioned to teach in God's name both true and infallible Doctrin Therefore they are to be heard and belieued in all and euery Definition proceeding from that Assembly lawfully conuened Here you haue the Hypothâ—sis as indubitably certain as the Thesis 17. A second Obiection you meet with in his Page 509. Another Obiection retorted and Solued What infallible Testimony haue you he means Catholicks for this that Councils are Infallible It is not enough for you to say That the Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it For that were to make the Scripture the sole Iudge of this great Controuersy which you deny to be the sole Iudge of any I first retort the Argument and Ask. What Testimony haue you Sectaries I do not say Infallible But so much as seemingly probable taken from Scripture whereby Councils the greatest Representatiues in God's Church are made fallible Not one can be alleged 18. Now my Answer briefly is Scripture once admitted for God's word which our Aduersaries will not reflect on manifestly The Catholick Principles for Infallibility conuinceth the Churches infallibility To those express and significant Passages of holy Writ known to euery one The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth you haue them already We add the iudgement of Fathers cited aboue The guide of Controuersies C. 3. P. 147. Produces more Besides Gods Church which we hold an Infallible Oracle interpret's Scripture to this sense and here are our aboundantly full Principles for Her Infallibility Come you Sr now closely to the point confront vs if you can with as many Passages of Scripture as many Testimonies of Fathers Or and this we alwayes vrge with the Authority of any Orthodox Church which fauours your contrary Tenet of Fallibility The Strife is ended But hereof there is no fear at all And thus you se how Scripture is the Iudge Sectaries haue none for their Tenet when once admitted as Diuine and faithfully interpreted not otherwise 19. A. 3. Obiection Page 509. The Decree or Definition of à Council receiues Infallibility from the Council before the A third weak obiection retorted Pope confirm's it or not If not The whole infallibility resides in the Pope and this some Say is not de Fide vniuersali If it arise from the Council before the Pope confirm's it for that act of confirmation followes the Definition the Council is infallible antecedently to the Popes Confirmation I first retort the Argument An Act of Parlament or à law made for all receiues its force from the Conuened Members before his Maiesty Confirm's it or not If not The whole Power of making such à Law resides in His Maiesty which some will say is not so If it arise ftom the Parlament before His Maiesty Confirm's it and that Confirmation followes the Act The Parlament is impowr'd to make such Lawes before His Royal. Assent Confirm's them Here is the very same Form of arguing though in à different matter and you se the weaknes of it 20. The true Answer to the Obiection is as followes Euery Doctrin definable may be considered two wayes first as it Proceed's from God the most supreme Verity and vnder that Notion it is both true and infallible in it self before the pope and Council Define it And note they can Define no other Doctrin And solued on earth but what God ratifies in Heauen 2. It may be considered as the Doctrin of the Representatiue Church infallibly Assisted to teach Diuine truths And vnder that Notion it is called Church Doctrin proceeding from the Head and Members of one mystical Body The Head therefore Separated or solely taken Defines not in Councils The Members diuided from the Head define not But one and the same Definition proceed's ioyntly from both Head and members vnited together The Instance already hinted at giues light enough If any reply The Definition when the Council proposed it was both true and infallible Doctrin I distinguish the Proposition It might be then Certain Euery Doctrin true in it selfe is not therefore Church Doctrin and infallible Doctrin in it self that 's true but as yet it is neither known or owned as such or called Church Doctrin It was then the whole Councils or Churches true and infallible Doctrin I deny it This is founded vpon both Pope and Council infallibly assisted as is now supposed and already proued 21. I find no more in Mr Stillingfleet worth any notice That which followes in his Page 510. ouerthrowes all councils Other Obiections waued as impertinent or proues nothing What certainty haue you Saith he that this or that Council proceeded lawfully That the Bishops were lawful Bishops That the Pope who confirm's them was à lawful Pope That some By-ends or Interest swayed not many That all conditions were exactly performed c. I Answer first and Ask. What certainty haue you of any illegal Bishops of vnlawful Popes of Interest Swaying all Here because you accuse we put you to the Proof I Answer 2. That Certainty which you or any has of no By ends in the four first general Councils of their lawful Bishops of no interest swayng c. The same we haue of all the approued Councils in Gods Church To insist further vpon such saint Obiections is only to lose time or might one retaliate in Mr Stillingfleets own language meerly to kill flies to run after them and make sport with them And thus much of the Churches Infallibility I mean the Roman Apostolical Catholick Church to whose Censure and infallible Iudgement I do most willingly submit my Selfe and euery particular in this Treatise THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith THe subiect here hinted at is as all Shollers know very Speculatiue Terms according to my little Skill in the English Tongue often Fail to express what is necessary Wonder not therefore if now and then you meet with that which may seem Obscure to à Vulgar Reader My Endeauour Shall be to giue the Discourse so much Light as
become Heretiques by it The very hazard men run in this wilful Course is an open Iniury to the Supremest Verity vnauoidable in out Sectaries Principles 15. And here by the way you se the Vanity of that pernicious Doctrin published by them wherewith the world is Sectaries pernicious Doctrin cheated Viz. The Sense of Scripture is plain enough euen to the vnlearned in things necessary to Saluation in other matters not necessary à right Faith an vnerring Guide an infallible Interpreter See◠vseles and superfluous As if forsooth the Arians Pelagians Nestorians had not grosly erred in Points most necessary though Concerning the Clearness of Scripture they read the same plain Scripture which we all read Did the◠that supposed Clearness nothing secure them from Heresy in Necessaries Why should it I beseech you rescue Sectaries wholly as fallible from gross errours in other matters when the words of Scripture are more express against them than against the worst of Arians But hereof enough is said aboue 16. It followes 3. That no Christian has stability in Faith but the Roman Catholick for the most which others no members of this Church can know if yet they know so much is That the Books of Scripture are Gods word but with this half piece of imperfect Learning they neither know nor can belieue one particular Article of Christian Faith because that other The Roman Catholick only has Stability in Faith Principle the last Resoluent of all Belief God speaks infallibly this very Sense has no influence ouer their Assent and therefore is reiected by them as impertinent to ground Faith vpon One instance will giue you more light 17. The Arian and Protestant agree thus farr That those words Iohn 1. 5. 9. Three giue Testimony in heauen c. are Diuine Both Arians and Protestestants want à Stability Scripture yet so vary about the meaning and the difference is in à matter most fundamental that the One Assent's to the sacred Trinity for these words which yet the Other impiously denies Say now vpon what infallible Principle doth the Protestants faith stand more firm than that of the Arian Will Mr Stillingfleet say the Scripture is Clear The Arian takes him off that Plea and endeauours to obscure the passage by adding to it no small number of his Arian Glosses Next And why he Argues thus ad hominem and thinks no wrong at all done Can yee Sectaries belieue that your glosses laid vpon those Scriptures which Catholicks produce against you are strong enough to diuert and peruert the Sense or Interpretation of their Vniuersal Church and shall my glosses opposite to your Doctrin haue no force to diuert or weaken the late priuate inuented Sense of à few Lutherans What law is there for this I call it late and priuate as it comes from you for you How the Arian argues against Sectaries disdain to ground it vpon any Church Authority absolutly infallible in all She teaches Therefore it is your own Priuate Sense and not the Churches O but the Church of Rome in this particular interpret's Scripture faithfully though She err's in other matters Pitiful That is She hitt's right when You 'l giue leaue and misses when you think otherwise 18. One may Say again The whole Orthodox world euer proued the Mysterious Trinity from that alleged Passage of Scripture Contra Replies the Arian I and my Adherents who deny the Mystery hold our Selues as precious à Part of the His Argument Conuinces Orthodox world as you Protestants doe And hope we expound Scripture by the help of our priuate Reasoning and comparing Texts together as well as you Why not I beseech you Or giue à Disparity But say on And the contest is ended Haue you any Oracle which more infallibly Ascertain's you of that Sense of Scripture to be as you gloss then we haue who giue it à quite contrary Interpretation For hitherto we are both alike and expound all by our priuate Iudgements Grant such an Oracle Distinct from Scripture whereby you haue Assurance of God's meaning darkly expressed in those words you become plane Papists Own not Any Infallible you cast your Selues vpon as great Vncertainties as we Arians are thrown who expound Scripture by our own natural Discourse No infallible Church therefore no Stability No Orthodox world without an Infallible Church in faith no Stability in faith that specious word of an Orthodox VVorld Signifies nothing For this I Defend and haue Proued it if all Churches be fallible in their Definitions there neither is nor euer was since Christs time any such thing in being as an Orthodox VVorld 19. It followes 4. That as it has euer been the proper Mark or Character of all faithful Belieuers to yeild Submission The distinct Marks of true Belieuers and All Hereticks to the Churches Doctrin though weak reason conceiues it difficult so Contrarywise stubbornly to resist Church Authority has euer been inseparably the Mark and Badge of all Heretiques whether ancient or modern With this virulent Spirit they began to Oppose God's Oracle and held on for à time But as S. Austin obserues at last ended in shame Conterentur saith the Saint the battered Rock of the Catholick hitherto stand's firm maugre that Violence And their Scattered forces routed and broken as experience tells vs are brought to nothing CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 1. WHat followes in Mr Stillingfleets 3. or 4 next Pages seem's so slight that the very most is refuted by the grounds already established Yet to Comply with the mans humour we must follow him further How Saith He can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be Infallible when The sirst Argument retorted that infallibility is attempted to be proued only by the motiues of Credibility I Answer Iust as you make the Assent of the Primitiue Christians giuen to the Apostles preaching infallible So I make the Assent to the Churches Testimony infallible The Motiues are alike in both Cases if not greater for the Church 2. He Obiects 2. If Diuine Faith cannot be built vpon the Motiues prouing the Doctrin of Christ what sense is there that it should be built vpon those Motiues which proue our Churches infallibility Here is the old Mistake again I Answer therefore Diuine Faith is not built vpon the Motiues inducing to belieue but vpon the Infallible Testimony of Christ and his Church The Motiues ground the Iudgement of Credibility The Infallible Testimony Support's The second is à gross Mistake Diuine Faith Now if by this word Built you mean no more but rationally To induce I say none in this present State can be induced to belieue Christ's Doctrin reuealed in Scripture in case he reiect's the Authority of that euidenced Church which
strange Mr Stillingfleet saw not the Distinction The Faith therefore of those other Samaritans that belieued in Christ vpon the wonans word Vltimately relyed vpon our Sauiours own Authority who had conuersed with her And hence the Gospel Sayes Now we Belieue not for thy Saying for we our Selues haue heard and know that this man in very deed is the Sauiour of the world T' is true had this woman whom the Fathers Suppose perfectly conuerted to Christ been made an Infallible Oracle in all she deliuered The Samaritan woman proposed what She had heard as the Apostles were in their Teaching or the Church now is Her Testimony might well haue supported Faith but because thus much only can be euinced by Scripture that She â—ealously Proposed what She had heard of our Sauiour Her testimony alone might serue well as à natural Proposition to raise Belief in others though insufficient to ground in them that Supernatural Assent And her words had vpon this Account greater weight because She confirmed them with à Sign aboue the force of Nature This man has told me all I haue done I know some Authors are of opinion that this Samaritan called Photina first reduced to the Faith of Christ her Sisters and Children which done She went into Affrica and there Propagated the Christian Doctrin with great Successe till at last both She and her Different Opinions Concerning her Children were crowned with à glorious Martyrdom The only difficulty is whether She be the fame with that S. Photina whereof à memory is kept in the Roman Martyriloge the. 20. day of March some Greek Authors stand for the Affirmatiue Be it so or other wise it imports little to our present Purpose Who desires more of this Subiect may read the erudite Godefridus Henshenius Tom. 3. de Santis Martij die 20. immediatly after the life of S. Ioachim 11. Conformable to this Doctrin we Answer to these other forceles Instances and might say with some good Diuines That Other Instances Shew'd forceles all Immediate Propounders or Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation in such particular Cases need not to be Infallible For Faith as These Diuines Teach requires no more But first that the Obiect be truly reuealed and Proposed to one vpon prudent Motiues Suitable to the firm Assent Hee must elicite 2. That In Doctrin Commonly receiued by the light of such Motiues Hee be induced to fix Belief vpon the Diuine Reuelation although that full Euidence of Credibility which the Church Manifesteth and the more learned attain to be not yet acquired by him These Conditions presupposed Diuine Grace is euer ready to make that mans Faith most firm and supernatural And consequently an Obligation lies on him to belieue But from this Doctrin which is Common no such thing followes as Mr Stillingf would infer Viz. That the Churches infallibility Seem's vnnecessary to vphold infallible Faith for may not young Beginners growing more mature chiefly if solicited to abandon Their first Faith iustly demand to haue more full Satisfaction in all their doubts and so much Assurance concerning that they once assented to as not to be remoued from it vpon any false Motiues or fallacious Arguments though neuer so Specious Such cases Say these fall out euery day 12. But in this present State none can clear these doubts none can Assure any that his Faith is certainly true none can bring the most learned to à perfect acquiescency in Belief but an Infallible Church Therefore vpon this very Account The Churches Infallibility absolutely necessary Her infallibility is proued not only conuenient but absolutely Necessary And hence it is That Gods sacred Prouidence neuer failed since Christianity began to haue in readines Some one or other infallible known Oracle wherevpon faith might rest most Securely The Apostles had for their Master the best liuing Oracle Christ our Lord. The Primitiue Christians learned of the Apostles After them the Church perfectly founded did succeed as the only Oracle wherevnto euery one may take recourse for further Satisfaction when difficulties arise Though in some particular Cases as is now Said Her Motiues and glorious Miracles be not at the first laid forth most fully to euery simple Belieuer Ceteram turbam saith S. Austin contra Epist Fund C. 4. non intelligendi viuacitas sed credendi simplicitas salâ—am facit That is Candid Simplicity makes these more How young Beginners are drawn safe than curiously to search into the vltimate grounds of Belieuing The Reason is because fewer Motiues if yet prudent and Conuincing may well serue to induce Beginners seldom molested with Difficulties against Faith than will conuince Others more learned who often struggle to Captiuate their Vnderstanding when the high Mysteries of Christianity are Proposed 13. Moreouer many great Doctors maintain that in the Two Solutions more particular cases now mentioned God by his special Illumination Supplies the want of the exteriour Proposition when that 's deficient or less conuincing See Suarez Disp 4. de Fide sect 5. and this way also we easily solue Mr Stillingfleets difficulties Lastly it is noted in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. n. 5. 6. And both receiued Doctrin That whoeuer is lawfully sent to teach the Christian doctrin and deliuers those Truths in the name of God and his Church if considered as à member conioyned with Christs infallible Oracle He may be Said to teach infallibly The Reasons you haue there giuen more largely 14. I am now to retort Mr Stillingfleets Instances vpon himself and show That though he walk's neuer so far abroad to view the seueral Plantations of Faith amongst either Brittans or Barbarians he must solue his own difficulties Thus I discourse We now Suppose All these Barbarians Conuerted to Christ These instances retorted to haue had true Faith and Consequently prudent Motiues to belieue before they firmly assented to the Diuine Reuelatlon We make Enquiry after these and Ask By what Inducements were such as yet knew not our Sauiour drawn to belieue in him Mr Stillingfleet return's the strangest Answer I euer heard What our Aduersary asserts For he seem's to make his Motiues inducing to Faith nothing but the rational Euidence of the truth of the Doctrin deliuered and Therefore grieuously complains P. 118. That we destroy the Obligation to Faith which ariseth from the rational Euidence of Christian Religion If this be not pure Fancy there was neuer any and my Reason is That Supposed rational Euidence is either the very same with the intrinsecal Verity of the Doctrin deleuered or à rational intellectual Light distinct from the Doctrin If it be the very same These truths simply Proposed Christ His rational Euidence of Christian Religion is God and man Adaem infected his posterity with Original Sin God is one Essence and three Persons are without more their own Self-euidences and consequently all the Miracles which Christ and his Apostles wrought to settle these and the like Verities
To lay Faith as low as may be to remoue it from its own Center and fasten it vpon no man knowes what moral ground 's Finally to introduce à new weak and vncouth way of belieuing is the best seruice Mr Stillingfleet can do for God and Christians But Ad rem 9. I Say first Protestants haue no grounds distinct from the Diuine Testimony whereby to discouer any one particular Truth which God has reuealed I proue the Assertion These supposed Grounds are either reduced to the rational Euidence of Christian Religion already refuted as laid forth by Mr Stillingfleet Or to the Doctrin contained in Scripture And this Saith He. Page The Doctrin refuted 170. VVe belieue by Faith vpon à Diuine Testimony which therefore is not the antecedent Reason or ground Why we belieue it For no verity Assented to by Faith can as assented to be the preuious Reason of our Assent or à rational ground iuducing to belieue Therefore we said our Sauiours Miracles belieued by Faith when Rational Inducements to Faith are euer presupposed to Beliefe we read Scripture are not the Inducements to belieue them because an Inducement to Faith is euer presupposed and not inuolued in the Act of belieuing But it is needles to Say more of this For no man in his wits if Questioned by either Iew or Gentil why he belieues the Sacred Trinity can for the last Answer tell him He belieues so because â—e belieues it or because he read's that Mystery in à book called Scripture Now besides these proofles Inducements there are no other imaginable whereby the Diuine Testimony can be Discouered conueyd or applyed to Belieuers but only those known Catholick Motiues as Miracles Sanctity Conuersions Church Motiues Slighted of Nations c which illustrate the Vniuersal Roman Church And these Mr Stillingfleet scornfully call's mute things à grand Salad too often serued vp found very dry and insipid Therefore he has no rational Inducement morally Certain for any one Article of Christian Religion much less for the Tenets of Protestants 10. I Say 2. If the Grounds or Motiues inducing to belieue let these be what this Aduersary pleases haue Infallible connexion with the Diuine Testimony or conuince vpon Metaphysical Certitude that God speak's the Truths we belieue The Assent giuen to the Motiues is not moral but highly infallible Contrarywise if all Motiues preuious Faith cannot be built on Fallible Motiues to beliefe be supposed so fallible that they may deceiue Faith neither is nor can be built vpon them Therefore Mr Stillingfleet Err's in Saying The nearest and most proper Resolution of Faith is into the Grounds inducing to belieue that such à Testimony is Diuine 11. To proue the Assertion I demand Whether God obliges all to belieue his reuealed verities vpon his vnerring Testimony as the only Formal Obiect or to belieue for Motiues extrinsecal to that Testimony which though morally certain may possibly Deceiue Grant the first Faith stand's fast The Assertion proued vpon its own foundation the Diuine Testimony Say 2. It is iointly built on Motiues as the nearest and most proper Obiect which in rigour may deceiue it hangs as it were Vpon two Heterogeneal Principles The One most firm and Infallible The Other weak and fallible Viz. Motiues which being fallible cannot but contribute as much Weakness to Belief as the infallible Testimony giues it Certainty And so these two Principles by their different Influence Doe and Vndoe build and destroy wind on and wind off The one imparts infallible Certainty the other staikes it away and makes Faith no more but à fluctuating moral and fallible Assent 12. To aduance this Proof yet further I Ask Again if all Diuine Reuelation were by à supposed Impossibility not infallible but only morally certain whether then Christians could belieue the reuealed Mysteries with à Faith as certain as they now elicite vpon Reuelation Answer Tea That Perfection of infallibility essential to Gods Reuelation would then be vseles and impertinent to Support Faith Answer The Proof further explained conuinceth No or Say Faith if the Hypothesis stand's would not be Diuine and certain I infer Ergo it is neither Diuine nor certain De facto My reason is So far and not further Gods infallible Testimony or the Diuine Reuelation has influence vpon Faith as fallible motiues Apply it to Belieuers or giue it leaue might one speak so to Support that Assent But these fallible Motiues which immediatly apply the Reuelation to Belieuers permit it not to raise that Act to any greater certitude than only moral which may be false Therefore the Reuelation de facto communicates no more Certainty to Beliefe than if it were only morally and not infallibly certain For here is our Aduersaries Principle According to the Proofs and grounds whereby we discouer the Diuine Testimony to be in Being We belieue But all these Proofs and grounds Say only Morally and Fallibly that the Testimony is now in Being Therefore faith also can be no more but only Moral Fallible and liable to Errour 13. Hence it followes first That neither the very Apostles Ill Consequences deduced out of nor any other Belieuers euer fince that time had any surer faith than only moral which may be false It followes 2. That the Truth of all Christian Religion inuolues in it à Possibility of salshood For being applyed or proposed to vs vpon Sectaries Doctrin grounds only fallible and moral we are to iudge of it according to the Exigency and Merit of such weak grounds And therefore can esteem it no better than fallible It followes 3. And this I would haue noted That Faith in these mens Principles tend's not absolutely into the Diuine Reuelation but only with doubt and fear or meerly conditionally For euery man may rationally Say Lord if you haue reuealed this truth Christ is the true Messias I belieue it as vndoubtedly true but the certainty I haue thereof is only Setled vpon Motiues which They make Faith à Conditional Assent may deceiue me Therefore my faith can be no more but Hypothetical or conditional to this Sense If you haue reuealed it I belieue if not I reiect it Hence you se it were much better could not the difficulty be otherwise solued to Say the Motiues preuious to Faith conuince with Metaphysical certainty that God speak's by his Scripture and Church Than to make the Reuelation so strengthles that it can because weakned by fallible Motiues contribute no other certainty to Belief but what is Moral and may be false 14. And thus much Mr Stillingfleet could he proced consequently This Aduersary Proceed's not Consequently as he doth not should Assert For if as he saith considering the Nature of things moral Certainty be as great or beget's as firm an Assent as any Mathematical or physical certainty what is it that fright 's the man from allowing Infallible certainty to Faith Or what gain's he to Substitute in Lieu of
of faith void For suppose I belieue Euery Resolution made null by this Obiection the Trinity because God hath reuealed the Mystery plainly in Holy Scripture I Ask whether God's Testimony supposed the Principle of belieuing be more infallible then the Trinity which is belieued vpon it here called the Conclusion Say The Diuine Testimony is more Infallible I 'll Affirm the very same of the Churches Proposition For what the Church speak's God speak's Answer No. And giue this reason Because we belieue the Testimony and the Mystery attested by one Indiuisible certain Act of Faith which tend's infallibly vpon both these Obiects at once without making Conclusions The difficulty ceases And hereby you se How the Churches Testimony is the Clearer Principle first How the Churches Testimony is à Principle to the thing belieued For euery one knowes that à Formal Obiect compared with its Materialâ— which lies in darkness is the greater Light and has the preheminence to be immediatly known For it Self and not for another Whereas the material Obiect would still remain in à State of obscurity and neuer be yeilded to but by the Energy of its formal Motiue In this sense therefore the vltima ratio assentiendi or formal Obiect may be well called the more certain Principle Though as I now said the Assent be indiuisibly terminated vpon both Obiects infallibly 18. You se 2. Where the mistake of our Aduersarie lies He Supposes faith generated by Discourse First that we belieue The Mistake discouerd the Trinity for example vpon one Principle Viz. The Churches Tradition or Testimony and then descend lower to belieue the same Mystery vpon God's Reuelation distinct from the Churches Testimony As if forsooth the Churches Testimony were an â—xtrinsecal condition preparing all to belieue vpon the Diuine Reuelation This must be intended or nothing is said to the Purpose now we vtterly deny the Supposition and Say when we belieue the Trinity or any other particular Mystery vpon the Churches Testimony or rather vpon this reuealed truth God speaks so by the Church We then elicite not two distinct Acts one depending on the other but with one One Indiuisible tendency in Faith indiuisible tendency of Faith belieue at once the Formal and Material Obiect together That is we belieue God speaks the truth by the Church which is to say we Assent to it because he speak's it by his own infallible Oracle 19. This one syllogâ—sm clear's all What the Church Saies is true The Church Saies God has reuealed the Trinity Ergo that 's true We resolue the Maior or first Proposition thus What the Church saies iâ— true That is What God speaking by the Church saith is true But God speaking by the Church Saies the Mystery of the Trinity is Ergo That 's true Where you see we only Discourse could Faith be so generated which some Diuines Assert from the Formal obiect or from Gods Reuelation to the Material belieued Now Mr Stillingfleet makes this Sense of the Maior Proposition and here lies his Errour that the Church Saies of Her self not including Gods Reuelation is The Errour more Clearly pointed at an act of Faith and true But the Church of her own sole Authority saith God reuealed the Trinity Ergo I must first belieue the Mystery by one act of Faith vpon the Churches Testimony as à Preparatiue to belieue it better vpon Gods pure Reuelation which is another distinct Formal Obiect from the Churches Testimony This Discourse is implicatory First because the Churches Testimony if separated from the Diuine Reuelation can ground no act of Faith 2. If which is true it only cooperates with or consummates the ancient Reuelation in order to the Belief of any Mystery it can help nothing to bring in à Conclusion wholly as obscure as it self is That word Conueyance beguiled Mr Stillingfleet for he thought if the Churches Testimony conueyes vnto vs the ancient Reuelation What beguiled thy Aduersary it must be excluded from being infallible and much more from being à ioynt Motiue with it Herein lies his Errour 20. It is difficult enough To Say what He would be at in his two next pages Some times he will haue no want of Euidence in faith as to the Reason inducing to belieue And if he means That what we Assent to by faith must be euidently Credible before we belieue it s à Truth but if he will haue the very act of Faith elicited to be euident the Apostle Heb. 11. 1. Faith implies Obscurity contradict's him For Faith is an Argument of things not appearing Sometimes again he saith the Assent is not requried to what is obscure and Vneuident And then to mollify the Proposition add's But what is euident to vs And theresore credible In à word Obscure Doctrin if he intend's thus much only That the euâ—dence of credibility precedes the inâ—â—dent act of Faith all is well But by one Instance we may guess where he err's The manner of the Hypostatical vnion Saith he is to vs ineuident wherevnto God requires not our Assent but to the truth of the thing it selfe Answer good Sr Is the truth of the Hypostatical vnion in it selfe or of the Trinity euident to vs Where lies that Euidence The truth of the Trinity euident to no Belieuer Or vpon what Principle is it grounded Hereticks are found that for the very difficulty of these ineuident Mysteries deny both And the best Orthodox Christians ingenuously Profess they so far Surpass all natural capacities That ther is no assenting to either but only by an humble submissiue Faith which essentially implies Obscurity If therefore what you say bo true We may lawfully suspend our Assent where God giues not euidence of the thing Assented to you may Consequently suspend your Assent and neither belieue the Trinity nor the Incarnation 21. Page 140. He demands why we belieue the Resurrection of the dead We Answer because God reueal's it An Obiection Proposed But Questioned again why we belieue that God hath reuealed it We Answer because the infallible Church saies God did speak it whereby it is plain that though our first Reply be from God's Authority yet the last Resolution of our faith is made into the infallibility of the Churches Testimony For though God had reuealed it yet if this Reuelation were not attested by the Church'es infallible Testimony we should not haue sufficient ground to belieue it Therefore the Churches infallibility must be more credible then the Resurrection of the dead 22. To giue à Satisfactory Answer please to hear what I demand also Mr Stillingfleet belieues that our Sauiour is Answered by Scripture it selfe the true Messias because Christ spake the Truth with his own sacred mouth Iohn 4. 26. And if he belieues Scripture He Assents again to that truth vpon S. Iohns Testimony And so firmly belieues it that if the Euangelist or some other of like authority had not wrote it he could not haue
Euangelists 6. Whoeuer read's these and the like Authorities cannot but Say the Voice of the Church as it Proceeds from that Oracle is the Voice of God And therefore Diuine certain and infallible Or contrarywise must grant it 's only Humane fallible and may â—r Speake so And it followes first that if the whole Church should err in the most essential Points of Faith God would not be yet Said to deceiue any because his increated Authority Speak's not by it nor is engaged to rescue this his own Spoufe from errour It followes 2. If any one denied either Purgatory or Transubstantiation explicitly defined by the Church and not so clearly expressed in Scripture He would not be guilty of Heresy though he peruersly refused to belieue these Articles precisely vpon this account That the Church Defines them The Inference is Reason also proues the Assertion clear for in doing so He denies not Gods Reuelation because the Churches Definitions no Diuine Testimony are in à lower ranck and much inferiour to all that God has spoken It followes 3. We belieue the Churches Definitions by à very different infused Habit from that whereby we Assent to the Truths reuealed in Scripture and to find such à supernatural and Infallible Habit distinct from Faith when we Assent to the Churches Definitions seem's to me à new learning vnknown to Antiquity 7. Thus much and more well considered which might be Said in behalfe of Christ's glorious Oracle And this one Principle added which all Catholicks grant viz. That the Church and Scripture Speak alwaies the same truths and can neuer be at Variance 8. Why may we not in this present State resolue Diuine Faith into the first Verity Speaking by the Scripture or Infallible Faith may be resolued into Scripture and the Church together Tradition and by his own Oracle the Church also For example We belieue the Sacred Trinity the Incarnation Original Sin c. because God reuealed them in Scripture or first conueyed them by Apostolical Tradition But these Verities which the Apostles and Euangelists long since made Credible are now remote from vs without the Churches reflâ—x Testimony whereby God ascertain's all in this State that both Scripture is Diuine The reason and that his Church speak's the very same Verities in Scripture And consequently we Assent to euery particular vpon à Twofold Motiue or rather vpon this one Formal Obiect ioyntly and indiuisibly Scripture and the Church make but one ioynt indiuisible Motiue taken because Scripture and the Church Assert's them Neither is there the least Difficulty in ioyning one reflex Testimony with another former or anciently deliuered whereof we haue examples in Holy Writ For we all belieue God made à Couenant with Abraham of multiplying his Seed because Eternal Truth said so some Ages before Moses Again we belieue that Verity because the reflex Testimony of Moses reiterat's the same Verity anciently spoken to Abraham Gen. 17. 4. An instance Other Instances of the same nature you haue aboue and more are found in Holy Writ 9. Thus much supposed It 's Methinks easy to Say if all be not de Nomine how the Churches Testimony may in one Sense be called the Formal Obiect of Faith and not in another Consider it as Diuine infallible and God's own Voice proceeding from no humane Authority but from the First Verity speaking by How the Church yeild's to Scripture this Oracle it well merit 's the name of à Formal Obiect Compare it again with the Primary Reuelation which it only compleat's in order to vs and consequently presupposes more Ancient more excellent and all things considered more worthy it must yeild to Scripture And may be called an intrinsecal condition whilst it Declares what anciently was Reuealed 10. Now if any Ask wherein the Excellence and Dignity of Scripture consists when you compare it with the Churches Definitions Diuines answer 1. Euery word and reason in Holy writ is de Fide but not so in the Churches Definitions where the Sense only of the Definitiue sentence has weight as comming from the Holy Ghost's Assistance 2. The Church The excellence and dignity of Scripture has her limits and Defines nothing but what was long since reuealed or necessarily connexed with the ancient Doctrin And vpon this account the Hagiogrophers are deseruedly called our first great Teachers who made first euery Truth they wrote à matter of Faith 3. When she Church Defines or interpret's Compared with the Church Gods word All is done for Scripture and look'd vpon as the end of Her labours But what is performed for another yeild's in worth and weight to that other it is done for as S. Austin obserues Lib. de Magist c. 9. Whoeuer desires more of this Subiect may read Bellar. Lib. 1. de verbo Dei C. 15. and Serrarius in Proleg 6. 7. 9. 12. 11. To solue other difficulties proposed by Sectaries please to Note first This Primary Act of Faith All are called into the Communion of one infallible Church whereby God teaches the true way to Saluation is grounded immediatly vpon the Authority One Primary act of Faith is grounded on Church Authority of this Oracle manifested by her Marks and Supernatural Signes Although yet the Book of Scripture be not admitted as God's word Notwithstanding when it is once owned as Diuine vpon Church Authority I can belieue this Oracles Infallibility with another Act of Faith grounded on Scripture How Scripture also terminates that Faith yet if we make à search into the vltimate Principle or final Resoluent of that very Belief We must as is said aboue come at last to Church Authority whereby Assurance is giuen that such à truth is Scripture 12. Note 2. This General truth supposed of the Church being immediatly Crediblâ— or known by her Motiues as an Oracle which teaches the right way to Saluation it therefore followes not that euery other particular Verity for example the â—â—pes Supremacy the Infallibility of Councils c. can in like manner be first and immediatly Credible or belieued explicitly when I Assent to that General Truth For it is enough that such Particulars be consequently or afterward assented to vpon the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture and the Churches own Proposition as is already declared 13. The Reason is because the Marks and Motiues manifest in the Church immediatly induce to belieue that She is How other particular Truths are belieued afterward God's Oracle constituted by Prouidence to guide all in the way of Truth But how or in what manner this Duty is complyed with must be learned by the Practise and Doctrin of the same Church by Scripture and Tradition also Now that it is most Connatural to know first in à General way The Churches Infallibility before we descend to belieue euery Doctrin She teaches in Particular you may well conceiue by the Instance giuen aboue of the blessed Apostles who first acknowledged Christ our Lord
The Roman Catholick Church denies them to be truths in the Sectaries sense But vpon this Account Chiefly that it is impossible to Show where or in what passage of Holy Writ God euer sayd plainly Scripture Contain's All things necessary to saluation Or that such Doctrins as are plainty expressed there without more Comprehend Matter enough to Saluation This cannot passe for an indubitable Principle whilst euident Experience tell 's vs That VVhat Sectaries â—ccount clear Veritios Others do noâ— such Verities as Sectaries hold clear and indisputable are yet to this day Controuerted and not esteemed clear by many who goe vnder the name of Christians Obserue well 4. What Verity can be more clear then the Incarnation of the Eternal word Yet Arians deny it What more clear then the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Yet the Caluinists reiect it Therefore when we Come to Examin which Verities are clearly expressed in Scripture and which not we are thrown into à Labyrinth whilst no other Iudge is made vse of but the bare words of Scripture manifestly peruerted when Opposit to the Interpretation of à Vniuersal Church 5. But here is my least Exception We will Contrary to truth grant gratis That Scripture Contain's all things necessarily to Saluation Withall that the plain Doctrin thereof is matter enough Sectaries clearly conuinced by their own Principles for Beliefe The Sectary yet gain's Nothing vnless He descend's to the Particular Tenets of Protestants Mark my words And truly Assert's These and these Doctrins are plainly set down in Scripture These and these Doctrins I am as Protestant Obliged to belieue vnder pain of Damnation and no more Thus much I say ought to be done which is vtterly Impossible And the Reason is Either those Doctrins layd claim to will not be plain express Scripture Or if plain and express they cease eo ipso to be the particular Tenents of Protestants The last reason of all rest's vpon à Truth already proued and T' is That Protestants haue no Essence of Religion and therefore haue no Faith to resolue 6. In passing you may Ask. What Say we to such Protestants as make the Negatiues now mentioned Articles of their Faith These we dispatch in à word and vrge them to proue their Negatiues by Scripture which is impossible But what is to be done if they Pretend to belieue the Catholick Doctrins the Trinity the Incarnation or any other reuealed Mystery vpon God's diuine Testimony 7. Here we must distinguish between Protestants and Protestants Two sorts of Protestants refuted The older sort belieue the Scriptures Diuinity attesting the Incarnation For example by virtue of à secret and hidden Diuine Spirit of God working in their hearts this being the only light or means whereby that Diuinity is laid open to their intellectual The Priuate Spirited men plainly in à Circle Eyes These ineuitably fall into à Circle for they proue Scripture to be of Diuine inspiration because the Spirit tell 's them so And again they belieue this interiour light or Spirit to be from God moned thereunto by the very light or letter of Scripture not known at all to be Diuine but by this hidden Spirit which is as much vnknown as Scripture without their light But because the recourse to the Priuate Spirit in the Resolution of Faith is amply refuted by euery Polemick Author And now much vnderualued by our latter Sectaries I 'll only briefly Propose one Argument against all that Patronize it 8. Either this Spirit is Scripture or really distinct from A Conuincing Argument against the Priuate Spirit Scripture Grant the first Scripture no Selfe euidence is yet belieued for it Selfe only and so no more is Said but that Scripture is belieued because t' is Scripture without all further Probation If secondly you distinguish this Spirit or light from Scripture it followes that the Diuinity of Gods word is Assented To and belieued Vpon à Motiue which is not Gods word For this supposed Light of the Spirit not at all contained in Scripture is no reuealed word of God and consequently Scripture is belieued for That which is no Scripture 9. The newer Sectaries with whom Mr Stillingfleet Sides suppose à fallible Tradition as à Preparatiue to receiue the meer Books of Scripture which once owned vpon the account Other resolue Faith into the internal Euidence of Scripture of Tradition The Resolution of their Faith is made into the Diuine Light which Shines in the very Doctrin of God's word That is into the rational Euidence thereof So Mr. Stilling P. 226. And P. 222. Discourses thus Though Tradition doth not open our Eyes to see this light yet it present's the Obiect to vs to be seen and that in an vnquestionable manner To giue his Doctrin Tradition Say these Conueyes the Book more Lustre he set's it forth with the sparkling of à Diamond Nay not à man Saith he very probably belieue that à Diamond is sent hiâ— foom à friend vpon the Testimony of à Messenger who brings it and yet be firmly perswaded of it by discerning the Sparklings of it He He would Say Tradition resembles the Messenger that hand 's Scripture to vs but the very innate Splendor and Sparkling of its Doctrin is that which Faith must be finally resolued into without regard had to Tradition 10. This way of resoluing Faith differ's from the Former that it makes the pure Verity of Gods word considered Obiectiuely in it Selfe the last Resoluent or the only Formal Obiect of belieuing How these men differ from the Formar whereas the more aged Protestants superadd to that an internal vital act called the Priuate Spirit or an infused instrinct of Grace whereby the Scripture is clearly discerned to be Diuine and into this Instinct as à Medium Cognitum or the only means to see by which both discouer's the Scriptures Diuinity and it's sense they resolue their Faith This way being already reiected 11. We now Argue against Mr Stillingfleet and Say first The similitude of à Messenger deliuering the Diamond is nothing The Similitude of à Diamond Proofles to the Purpose For were that Diamond found in the streets à skilful Ieweller And who more skilful then Protestants when they read Scripture would soon know its worth by his Art and presently tell you whether the sparkling were Counterfeit or no. Can the Sectary as easily discouer the Diuinity in Scripture by its innate Light and Splendor Speak plainly If The Disparity plain between the Diamond and Scripture he can Tradition no more conduces to its Sparkling then if à Boy first put the Book into our hands or were found by chance in the Highway For as the Diamond Sparkles by it selfe without dependance of the hand which giues it so the Scripture must do if it haue that splendor in it whether Conueyed by Tradition or not Nay if another Scripture were now drop't down from Heauen were the Parity of the Diamond worth any thing
And that which really is Reason There being no word more abused or fallacious than this This word Keason abused by many which vphold's all the Heresies in the world Yea and Atheism also For Euery Atheist euery Arian Euery Donatist laies claim to Reason And thinks his own Errour built vpon reasonable Grounds 13. I Say first The priuate Reason of fallible men considered as priuate and fallible Discerns not easily between truth and falshood chiefly when the contest is about this or that particular Controuerly of Religion The Assertion stand's firm vpon this indubitable Principle None can prudently acquiesce in so weighty à matter as Religion is to that which The weaknes of Priuate and clouded Reason of its own nature may probably bee clouded with Ignorance and Errour to say nothing of passion And for that cause seems vnable to discern between Truth and falshood But the priuate Reason of falltble men considered as priuate and falltble may be so clouded that it discern's not between Truth and falshood Therefore T' is most vnmeet to decide in particular Controuersies 14. To confirm what I Say Imagin that à Protestant and an Arian were at an earnest dispute concerning That which each Party belieues Both plead by Reason What result An Instance think ye can follow vpon the contest whilst both the one and other may iustly auouch Neither of vs know our own Ignorance or weakness Therefore vnless you with whom I Argue can ascertain me And I you That our Reason is purely disinteressed free from mistake and all clouds of Ignorance We must of necessity quit this Tribunal of our own priuate Reasoning and take rccourse to some Iudge that giues Satisfaction And finally declares whose reason is more reasonable 15. One may Reply And t' is the only Obiection of Sectaries Were it possible to find our such à iudge as it is not the priuate Reason of these two Disputants And of euery other particular Man is in points of Religion to ponder well the Sentence giuen T' is He and no other that must The chiefest Obiection of Sectaries conclude within his own Interiour whether the Sentence giuen be reasonable or no And consequently the last Vmpirage the final Decision of all in the choise of Religion is brought to euery Mans priuate Reason Here is the true Rule of Faith Say these when that choise is made For to say Men are damned for Proposed in their own Terms not following the Iudgement of another whilst their own Reason hold's it not Reasonable to do so is harsh Doctrin dissonant to the Principles of nature it selfe And to all Euangelical liberty Wherefore though Atheists Iewes and Turks be Iustly reprehensible because they abuse the Principle of following Priuate Reason yet Sectaries who vse the Principle with moderation And euer belieue something within the compass of Christianity seem not blamable Here you haue the Ground of all Heresy 16. To Ouerthrow this false Pretence and to lay before you à manifest Truth its necessary to premise à few Postulate before we come to our Second Proposition I Suppose first with all Christians Iewes and Turks accord also That God Principles prâ—mised to the has established one true Religion only The Verities whereof as reuealed by the first Verity are infallible I Suppose 2. The end why he reuealed these Truths was that all Should belieue them and belieuing gain eternal Happines Now seing the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 12. send 's afore his Beliefe à measure or Decision of this Contrâ—uersy degree of knowledge Scio cui credidi I first know it followes that all prudent Belieuers must haue the Euidence of Credibility before they elicite Faith I Suppose 3. That God's eternal Design in establishing Religion which comprises reuealed Truths was to haue it known or found out by easy means obuious to the Reason of euery one learned or vnlearned And certainly its far more easy to know by sensible Marks and Signatures where and by whom true Religion is taught than with an industrious and almost endless Scrutiny to find it out by examining euery particular Tenet contained in it 17. The Ground hereof is clear for true Religion cannot Two Reasons shewing but Shew its own facile Obuious Marks and rational Discernibility Otherwise the Ignorant and Vnlearned would be exempted from all obligation of belieuing seing none can Assent to the high Mysteries of Faith without Preuious Euidence of Credibility laid forth to Reason 18. Now if you Reply The learned in case of Ignorance and obscurity are to instruct the illiterate I Answer That 's very why true Religion is easily found out true But if after all Instruction they bring not the Learner to à due Degree of preuious Euidence The Instruction void of substance becomes both vain and fruitless Again And here is my second Ground The Purpose of Almighty God in foundâ—ng Religion was not to puzzle Mens wits with it or to set them at endless debates concerning so weighty à Concern But if it be not obuious and easily found out by its own rational and clear Indications represented to Reason There arises not from Mans malice as now à dayes fall's out But from the very Nature of it euerlasting Quarrels which breed distast and rather inuite all to loath then to loue Religion 19. Hence I boldly Assert could Religion not be known without so many Iniunctions as Sectaries vsually lay vpon vs. The Sectaries way of Seeking is Were it not attained before an exact perusal made of the Fathers and Councils large Volumes Did it lye in Obscurity till such and such Inferences were drawn out of Scripture Had it dependance vpon This and That Deduction framed by euery fancy that reads Gods word were Libraries to be turned ouer and Languages to be learned as necessary to settle all in Truth Could I Say none come to the true knowledge of Religion long tedious and dissatisfactory without without fo much Adoe And so many endless Incumbrances The most of men might well Supersede all further Disquisition and rightly Iudge all further Enquiry too intricate for them being out of the reach of that wee call easy and obuious Reason God I am sure Disowns such Perplexity in the Religion he founded who tell 's vs Deuter. 30. 11. His commands And what 's more seuerely commanded then to embrace reuealed Truths are not hid from vs nor farr off We need not to The word of truth is neer vs. ascend to the Heauens or Cross the Sea to find them out No. The VVord is neer to vs in our mouth and heart c. But of this enough aboue 20. A second Proposition Reason clear from Passion find's out and easily True Religion by an vndoubted Euidence before debates arise concerning particular Controuersies One Proof of our Assertion is already hinted at God obliges all to embrace true Religion and consequently afford's means to know it for to Say on the one side He
as the Apostolical Church was made glorious withall Therefore Reason cannot but acknowledge that this Oracle euer since these first blessed Men preached is the only Marked and Manifested Church in the world Deny the Euidence we Propugn it s own Sensibility and Visibility Obuious to all that haue Eyes to see or Eares to hear is our Proof And because it stand's vpon clear Principles both Sensible and Visible we do here Challenge all the Heathens all the Iewes and all the Sectaries in the world to bring to light any thing The Euidence because Sensible iâ— vndeniable like it in behalf of that they call Religion But there is no fear hereof For such an Attempt would be desperate yea vtterly impossible 6. Now if on the other side the Euidence here pleaded be granted the Church Wee haue our Intent For this Principle If granted we haue our Intent stand's firm Where God preserues the same Euidence of Credibility VVhere He set's before all the legible Characters the Publick Signatures of his own Power and wisdom There Reason cannot but acquiesce By such lights and no other it must be guided and take direction to find out Truth Vpon these Grounds 7. I Say lastly True Religion is easily discouered by Obuious By what Reason true Religion is found reason And in this sense Reason Regulat's Faith but. know withall That that Mans Reason only is reasonable in this weighty matter which has for its Obiect the Signal Marks of an Infinite Power and Wisdom now hinted at and Argues by them Whoeuer therefore makes choise of Religion and is not induced to belieue by these publick Indications which Heauen True and misled Reason distinguished manifest's err's grosly is seduced and Iudges falsly And thus we distinguish between false and true Reason The misled discoursing Man makes his own formal Act Reason whilst he pitches on à Doctrin and auouches that reasonable before he knowes by any rational Motiue whether God be Author of it or no. So Sectaries proceed in euery thing they belieue as Protestants Contrarywise One that 's guided by right and prudent Reason See's before He belieues Scio cui credidi that weighty Obiectiue Euidence whereby Millions haue been gained to Christ Hence I Say As that Man only belieues with Diuine Faith who Assent's vnto what God has Reuealed So He only followes Whâ—t bose are that follow reason in points of Faith true reason who is induced to belieue vpon God's own Euidence laid forth to Reason For I hold this Principle indubitable The Author of Religion giues it also à rational Euidence of Credibility Whoeuer followes not that Light run's astray and cannot belieue 8. By all hitherto noted wee may yet more clearly Discouer what is meant by this word Reason in our present Controuersy Briefly it imports as is already said an Intellectual light grounded By all sayd we better vnderstand what is meant by Reason vpon the Euidence of Supernatural Motiues which God from the beginning of Christianity hath manifested to euery rational Vnderstanding and by it induced the wisest of the world to become Orthodox Christians 9. A second Inference By this easy obuious Rule of Reason grounded vpon rational Motiues All Controuersies relating to Religion are clearly ended For find me out the forementioned Euidence of Credibility Those signal Marks I mean of an Infinite Power and Wisdom We haue with them the manifested Oracle whereby God Speaks to the world Now whoeuer refuses to hear God's own Language spoken by such an Controuâ—rsies ended by reason Oracle is of necessity thrown into à State of perplexity For thus if reason regulates he must Discourse Shall I deny this Euidence of Miracles of Conuersions of Vniuersallity to the Roman Catholick Church I deny that which the whole world How Reason discourses in this matter of Religion owns and is visible to Sense Shall I grant all and Say its forceless or infufficient to induce to belieue that Oracle I Destroy the rational Euidence of Christianity yea of the Apostles Themselues And cannot belieue either Prophet or Apostle were such Messengers sent now from Heauen to teach me For no particular Prophet no Apostle euer shewed the like full Euidence of Credibility as this one Oracle has manifested to the world for fixteen Ages 10. A. 3. Inference Sectaries neuer yet took nor can Sectaries follow no probable way of ending Controuersies take the easy right and Reasonable way of writing much less of Ending Controuersies This one Principle proues the Assertion As the Truth of Christian Doctrin stand's firm when an Euidenced Church teaches it So by the Nullity of an Euidenced Church you may in this present State easily gather the vncertainty and falshood of any Doctrin taught Contrary to that Oracle But most euidently Sectaries haue no Euidenced Church which euer taught their Doctrin or opposed ours Therefore they are impossibilitated to write much more to The Reason why they cannot follow any short easy or rational way of ending Controuersies by an Euidenced Oracle which yet as St Austin cited aboue against the Donatists saith is in the first place to be found out This found by her Marks and Signatures And Digito demonstrari potest Adds the Holy Doctor its pointed out with your Finger all further Contest ceases or might we speak in Cardinal de Riclelieu's own words lately quoted Seems little profitable because The true Church cannot but Ascertain all of true Doctrin 11. Hence you haue à 4th Inference Sectaries who in all their quarrelling Polemicks Still insist vpon particular Controuersies The Real presence Transubstantiation The worshiping of Images c. And dare not so much as offer to haue their Protestancy Sectaries make known the weaknes of their own cause tryed by the Iudgement of any Euidenced Orthodox Church Publish to the world the weaknes of their vndefensible Cause and plainly giue ouer to plead by Reason 12. I 'll tell you à Story for the substance very true concerning à Discourse between à Pert Nouellist and à Catholick The first would needs debate the Controuersy of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Catholick though Sectaries manting an Euidenced Church not very learned yet of à good Iudgement willing to see some effect of the Conference prudently demanded vpon what Grounds the Dispute was to be held on and finally ended The other replied vpon Scripture But said the Catholick what shall be done If you and I agree not about the Sense of Scripture Nouellist We are if things be so to Appeal to the Fathers Catho But what if we vary as much about the Sense of Fathers as about Scripture Nouellist Wee are then to recurr to the Primitiue Church and examin what Doctrin are driuen off all grounds of Arguing She deliuered relating to our Question in those purer times Catho O Sr Wee are yet in Darkness farr off from the last sound Principle For how shall you and I
after our priuate perusing those few ancient Records left vs end our debate whilst you 'l turn them to one Sense and I to another Nouel Reason shall end all Catho That I wish for But quit me yet of one Scruple What if your priuate Reason be byassed one way and mine another Or what if you Iudge that Reasonable which I doe not Here the Nouellist like one struck dumb spake not à word 13. Yet the Discourse might well haue gone on for I would haue further inquired whether to do as all the Christians what is to be Iudged reasonable in the world learned and vnlearned haue done be not reasonable None can deny it Then I would haue inferred But all these Innumerable Christians The very Apostles themselues and others haue vpon prudent Motiues Constantly iudged it reasonable to submit to Mysteries aboue the reach of humane Reason Ergo that must pass as à reasonable Principle But the Reason cannot be taken from the very Act The Euidence of Credibility not taken from Faith of submission For that is Faith nor from any Euidence in the Mystery belieued or obscurely proposed nor finally from Scripture alone for that Book Considered in it selfe is not its own Euidence Therefore the Euidence of Credibility Or the Euidence Proposed to Reason is extrinsecal to what euer I belieue and fundamentally lies in the Marks and Signatures of Christs own manifested Church 14. Hence I Conclude with this Dilemma and hold it vnanswerable Either God has set before all Mens Eyes An Oracle which now teaches truth most discernable by clear Marks and Motiues from all false erring Societies Or omitted to do so Grant the first Reason is as much obliged to belieue A Conuincing Dilemma that Signalized Oracle now As the Primitiue Christians were anciently bound to belieue the Apostles Say Contrary There is no such Marked Oracle distinguishable from erring Sectaries Reason is left in à Labyrinth and shall neuer find out true Religion Wherefore Protestants who seemingly stand for Reason and slight the Doctrin of our Euidenced Sectaries vnreasonable Church are the men amongst all other most vnreasonable and as dayly experience teaches meer Scepticks in matter of Religion 15. A 5th Inference The readiest way to conuince à Sectary How they are easily Conuinced and one though no great Clerk may easily do it is in the first place at least to waue that long tedious work of handling particular Controuersies which depend vpon Authority and to plead by Reason Thus I would Argue and haue often done so with good Success You as à Protestant lay claim to à reasonable Reformation and consequently to à Reasonable Religion Say I beseech you from whence haue you the Moral Euidence which makes this Reformation Credible to Reason I speak not yet of it's Truth for Euidence of Credibility e 〈…〉 preced's the anouching of it true We Catholicks proceed candidly Euidence of Credibility is first to be laid forth and propose to the reason of euery one learned and vnlearned the very Marks and Signs of truth manifest in our Church which Christ our Lord and the Apostles euidenced to the sirst Conuerted Christians You set vp à new faced Religion and when that 's done put it out of Countenance because Reason sees nothing in it which has appearance of Credibility You auouch it true before you make it Credible which Sectaries auouch their reformation true before it be made Credible is to put the Conclusion before the Premises 16. One perhaps will Say first The reason of your Reformation stand's vpon this rational Ground that wee Catholicks were deformed or out of all right fashion in our Religion Lamentable And are you the doughty Doctors that must mend what was marred and prescribe à new Model of Religion Can you Say what is or what is not Catholicism It is too much Boldnes not only to teach more learned then They make à false supposition their Proof you Selues But à high Iniury also to make à meer Supposition and very false too to pass for à rational Proof You know wee deny your improbable Supposition And you vpon no Principle call it reasonable Howeuer Suppose the falshood that wee are out of Fashion doth it therefore follow that you are got into the right Mode of Religion No truly If the Supposition stand's wee are both out And both need à new Reformation 17. Some may yet Reply Sectaries regard not that new coyned word of Euident Credibility à Term wholly Popish They endeauour to proue the Truth of Protestancy by Scripture and Fathers And to do so much is more than to make it Credible Contra. 1. Were it possible as it is not to proue the truth of Protestancy That 's besides the matter here in hand They are still besides the matter now agitated whilst wee only Treat of ending Controuersies by Reason Now all know that Authority whose Credibility must first be Euidenced before it haue weight precisely considered as Authority is not the Reason here spoken of For Example I Assent to the Mystery of the Incarnation vpon Gods own Authority that 's Faith but no rational Inducement to belieue What we demand of Sectaries is to haue the rational Motiues which induce to belieue this Protestancy laid open before the Eyes of rational men Herein we require Satisfaction but haue none 18. Contra. 2. Could these men proue their Protestancy by If the Reformation could be proued true Scripture and Fathers it should Methinks be very easy to point at an Orthodox Church which Six Ages since publickly owned the particular Tenets of it Here is my Reason Whateuer Doctrin the Scripture and Fathers teach the Orthodox Church conceal's not but openly Professeth She is not ashamed if Orthodox to teach what God has reuealed Now further Some Orthodox Church must haue owned it Had such à Church euer owned this Reformation it must either haue been like an inuisible Ghost not perceptible which our Newer Sectaries Disclaim or contrarywise discernable by the like Marks and Signatures of the Apostolical Church And if their Doctrin was euer taught by it They are to talk no more of its Truth before Its Credibility be euidenced to Reason by the Marks and Signs of that Church which is now supposed to haue taught pure Protestancy That is in à word They are first obliged to Say plainly what Articles of Faith Protestants as Protestants hold Essential to their Religion And then to make so much Doctrin and no more first Credible then true by the known Authority of an Orthodox Church But This is impossible Hence 19. And it is the last Inference whereby one grand Cheat of our Sectaries is discouered Long haue we inquired but without Satifaction Where their Church was before Luther The Common Answer returned by some latter Protestants making little Account of an inuisible Church is much to this Sense Our Church was there where it now is and where it alwayes
haue neither Inference nor Principle In very reallity neither true Consequence nor Consequentia No Inference because it s à meer Tautology or à bare repetition of what the Doctor had formerly asserted without Proof or Probability And Consequently far enough from the Nature of either Principle or Inference Had the Doctor brought in any thing like an Inference He Should haue Said Vpon such and such grounds already established It followes that these and what Should be proued these particular Doctrins of Protestants are true and immediatly deduced from this or that Principle But he totally abandon's the Protestants Faith and leaues his Fellow-sectaries as faithless as they were before he wrote these Principles The True Inference therefore or all that followes is that he hath lost his whole Labour 2. The. 2. Inference The Infallibility of that Society of men yet no Inference who call themselues the Catholick Church must be examined by the same Faculties in Man the same Rules of trial the same Motiues c. Answ Here is no Inference but the same thing repeated again which for the substance lies in his 6th Principle what Reason is to examin Now if we Speak of this Doctrin considered in it Selfe we easily grant that the rational faculties in men both may and ought to examin by the Light of prudent Motiues what Society of Christians is Infallible as also what Diuine Reuelation is made euidently Credible to Reason But herein à double Caution seem's necessary The first That Sectaries assume not to themselues the sole Faculty of examining and iudging but leaue to others à share of it also The second A twofold Caution to be obserued Prouiso is that Reason in this Search go not beyond its Bounds but pitch vpon that which is Reasons proper Obiect I mean vpon those Signatures of God's own Visible Wonders already explained These two Conditions obserued All is well Sectaries will soon Se their Errour 3. The. 3. Inference deduced out of no Principle falsly No want of Motiues and Miracles in the Church Supposes but proues not the want of Miracles and other conuincing Motiues in Roman Catholick Church It is largely refuted vpon seueral Occasions in euery one of these three Discourses 4. The fourth Inference From whence it comes I know not is thus The more absurd any Opinions are and repugnant to the first Principles of Sense and reason which any Church obtrudes vpon the Faith of men The greater reason men will haue to reiect the A Speech like that of Iewes and Arians Pretence of Infallibility in that Church as à grand imposture Answ Had à Iew who hold's it against Sense and Reason to belieue that God became an Infant Or had an Arian that denyes the Trinity because the Mystery seem's repugnant to his weak Reason Spoken after this manner None would haue much wondred But that à Doctor who pretend's to belieue these Fundamentals of Christian Religion Cannot find roome enough in his head for reason and Faith in euery particular the Church Teaches argues some little want both of the One and Other But say on what is it he boggles at O à Consecrated Wafer appear's to be bread and is not bread this is repugnant Sense beguiled to sense and reason Contra. Those two Angels that came to Lot Gen. 19. appeared to the Sodomits like mortal men but were not so Was not Reason here vpon the suggestion of Sense How rectifyed beguiled And are not both these faculties now rectifyed in vs by what we read in Holy Writ which ascertain's vs they were not men but Angels Thus it fall's out in the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament Wherefore I Say Were it not that God Speaking by Scripture and the Church assures vs that what we se is not substantianly bread the whole world would guided by outward Appearances hold it bread as those wicked Citizens iudged Lots entertained Guests to be men and not Angels But when eternal Truth interposes his Authority and tell 's vs by his own Oracles what is here contained vnder the Forms of bread is God in this Mystery interposes his Auâ—hâ—rity and vnbeguils reason not bread but Christ's Sacred body Reason yeilds vpon this most prudent Ground It is the highest reason in the world to belieue God though by reason we know not how things are Here is our Principle not possibly to be reuersed vnless the Doctor proues his Contrary Doctrin by the Authority of another Scripture or some other Church more euidenced by Supernatural Wonders and Consequently more Orthodox than the Roman Catholick Church is You may read the First Discourse C. 12. n. 4. where its Proued that the immediate Obiect of Sense Ceases not to be in this Mystery 5. Wherefore I Infer that if the Doctor would haue the Infallibility of that Church reiected as à grand Imposture because A hint giued to Iewes and Arians to reiect the Scriptures Infallibility it obtrudes vpon vs Doctrins in his Opinion repugnant to Sense and reason He ought also by good Consequence to Inuite both Iewes and Arians to reiect the Infallibility of Scripture as à grand Imposture where it Speak's of the Incarnation and the Sacred Trinity for certainly these Mysteries are far more aboue all Mens weak Reason then this other of the Blessed Sacrament is 6. The Doctors 5th and 6th Inferences deserue no such names because they are not deducible from any Principles being Vntrue Assertions in place of Inferences only his own plain Assertions and most vntrue Say I beseech you From what Principles can He infer That to disown à Church which teaches Doctrin aboue the reach of weak Reason is not to Question the Veracity of God but to adhere to that in what he hath reuealed in Scripture How can this be done Whilst the whole No knowing what Scriptâ—re Speaks without an Infallible Church world see 's the holy Book of Scripture so variously Sensed by dissenting men called Christians that none can conclude vpon any clear Principle which sense is true which false without owing à Church Infallible I Say aboue the reach of weak reason But not repugnant as the Doctor supposes For no Catholick Verity can be repugnant to Euident reason though much aboue it In à word That Doctrin is repugnant to Reason from whence two Contradictions clearly follow now I vrge the Doctor to giue vs any thing like à Contradiction in the Mystery already What 's Contrary to Reason mentioned of the blessed Sacrament That Doctrin is aboue Reason which cannot be known by the ayde of natural Principles only And thus the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity of the Incarnation of Original sin and Transubstantiation also are so far remoued from our natural faculties that none but God only can discouer them by his Supernatural Reuelation The 6th Inference And What 's aboue it where the Doctor tell 's vs That the Church of Rome neither is the Catholick Church nor any sound
Reformation Vpon what they would build their Reformation vpon one Principle Chiefly we will here in the first place Shew you what they pretend and vtterly destroy it 2. In à word The main ground of our Protestants late The Protestants pretence laid forth Reformation or the Chiefest cause why they deserted the Roman Catholick Church is best declared in their own language The Roman Catholick Church Say they though once sound and Orthodox yet in after Ages turned from God betrayed his truths brought in Idolatry and damnable Heresies Hence it is we boldly accuse her hence it is we write against her notorious Errours and out of loue to our Souls leaue Her Nos iussu diuino Babylone Egressi Saith Riuet in Sum. Trac 2. q. 2. n. 3. We by God's command are gone out of Babylon he mean's the Roman Catholick Church not so much for her vnpurities as for Her What Sectaries Assert Idols and Heresy More he hath in the following words often accusing this Church of Idolatry and Heresy Consonant to what Mr Stillingfleet teaches in the seueral passages of his Account 3. To overthrow this whole Plea I Argue thus Whoever The ground of their Doctrin ouerthrown euidently impeaches an ample Church of Idolatry or Heresy once vniuersally acknowledged Orthodox and proues not euidently the truth of his Accusation by clear and vnquestioned Principles but desert's that Society without Euidence alleged against her Doctrin by this one Syllogism Acts most vniustly Err's notoriously and Sin 's damnably Bâ—t Protestants do So. That is They euidently impeach à whole ample Church once vniuersally reputed Orthodox of Idolatry and Heresy and haue also most euidently deserted Her without Euidence alleged against her Doctrin which can be grounded vpon vnquestionable Principles Ergo They act most vniustly Err notoriously and Sin damnably 4. The Maior Proposition stand's firm vpon à Principle hinted at aboue Viz. That an euident Accusation in so weighty à Matter vtterly loses force vnless euident Proofs support it The Maior Proposition proued and confirmed This may be further Confirmed by one Ratiocinations in the like Form of Arguing Whoeuer should euidently impute to Holy Scripture once vniuersally receiued as God's Sacred word Idolatry and Heresy or so much as impeach it of flight and incredible Doctrin as the Machiauellians and Socinians do without What if one discoursed of Scripture as â—â—ctaries do of the Church clear and euident Proofs would be à most desperate Plaintife and Sin damnably because he endeauours to bring into publick disreputation God's own truths which the wisest of the world euer reuerenced as Sacred and Diuine And though he should plead as Sectaries Discourse of the Church or Assert that the Book indeed was once pure and Orthodox but afterwards falling into wicked hands notorious Corruptions false Doctrins when or how no body knowes clancularly got in and spoild its purity Though I say He Should plead after this manner without à clear demonstration or Euidence of Proofs He would yet be à most vniust Accuser and Sin damnably Ergo He or they that tax à whole Church once owned for God's Spouse and most certainly Orthodox of notorious corrupted Doctrin with an addition of Idolatry are guilty of the very same open Iniustice and Sin damnably The Parity holds exactly 5. The Minor Proposition viz. But Sectaries impeach c. Sayes two things First that they euidently accuse à whole Church The minor Proued and haue euidently derserted Her which is manifest Ad oculum Secondly that they haue done so without Euidence of Proofs against her Doctrin grounded on vnquestionable Principles And this we shall most easily demonstrate if our Adversaries will please to own with vs these following Principles or any of them as most vnquestionable 6. First the plain and express words of Holy Scripture without Mixture Indubitable Principles supposed where vpon proofs must stand of their particular Glosses or ours also 2. The vnanimous Consent of ancient Fathers but still without Glosses 3. The clear Iudgement of any Orthodox Church wherevnto we add the express Definitions of ancient approued Councils and vniuersal Tradition receiued by all 4. Manifest Reason No Principles can be better or equalize these in worth Proofs if solid must stand vpon One or more of them 7 Speak therefore its high time Let vs not eternally word Sectaries are vrged to follow closely the main point it but go closely to Work We are here in à main Matter Concerning Saluation can you Dr Stillingfleet or any Protestant in England as Euiduntly proue that such and such an Article of Catholick Religion is Contrary to all or any one of these mentioned Principles as euery Grammarian can euidently tell you that this or that Solaecism is euidently against the Rules of Grammer I here boldly challenge you vouchsafe to Answer without tergiuersation if you can reioyn you are worthy Doctors if not be pleased to surcease from writing Controuersies hereafter Yet one word more 8. You say Euidently we are Idolaters because we Adore Christ By Proofs drawn from ihe Principles already mentioned in the Blessed Sacrament Hold on I beseech you and proue your Euident Assertion Euidently by plain Scripture by the vnanimous consent of ancient Fathers by the known Iudgement of any Orthodox Church c. When you pretend to haue done thus much But begin you first I 'll boldly Confront you and demonstrate that the Scripture you allege is no Scripture your supposed Fathers are false Oracles your supposed Councils your Tradition and Sectaries Prooss meer Phaâ—sies lastly what you call Reason merit not so much as the very Names you giue them All this is to Say in other terms You grosly abuse these Oracles you either Corrupt their very words as is most vsual or violently force from them à new peruerse Sense which God neuer intended to speak by them And Consequently the Euidence you pretend to is nothing But à strong Illusion or an vngrounded Phansy not resolvable into the Clarity or Truth of any one of the forenamed Principles Thus much premised 9. I prove the Minor positiuely If it be à manifest Truth The minor Proposition proued that Christ our Lord had an Orthodox Church on earth for the last ten Centuries If it be also manifest that the Professors of this Church be it yet where you will were either Idolaters or damnable Hereticks it is most demonstrable that Sectaries cannot Euidently Euince the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry 10. The ground of my Assertion is Whoeuer euidently Whoeuer proues the Roman Church Idolatrous ruins Christ's true Church proues the Roman Catholick Church guilty of Idolatry euinces eo ipso That Christ had no Orthodox Church on earth for à thoufand years To make this manifest Please to diuide the whole Moral Body of men called Christians into three Classes into Orthodox Belieuers if yet there were any into Idolaters and known Heretiques This Diuision made