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
Fathers nay you haue not so much for this Negatiue Doctrin which vpon that account proue nothing because they are as dark for your sence as the Doctrin is which you would proue by them 5. For example You may allege some passages out of S. Austin chiefly that contra Adimant C. 12. Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue à sign of his body The obuious sense whereof without torturing the Text is thus Our Lord gaue vnto his Disciples the Consecrated species and accidents of bread which were à sign of his Body there contained and doubted not to say that what he gaue them vnder those accidents was really his body Let now any one probably inferr that his S. Austin's words fauour not Sectaries sacred body was not then present vnder the accidents of bread because S. Austin saith those accidents were à sign of his body not absent for à sign or figure implies not the absence of the thing signified by it Well but grant contrary to truth all you can wish The words at most are ambiguous and therefore no fit Principle to ground an article of faith as is now noted You may next allege that known Testimony in Theodorets Dialogues The Mystical signes after the sanctification recede not from their nature but remain in their first substance figure and form are seen and touched as before I answer Theoderet plainly speaks of the Mystical signes More of Theoderet afterward which are seen and touched not of the inward substance of bread and wine which are no immediate obiect of our senses those signes recede not from their nature but remain in their form and figure as before and t' is Catholick Doctrin whereof more presently But grant the vtmost The words are only dubious and therefore insufficient to assure vs of an article of Faith when contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the present Church I assert yet more Though any Father should say That the substance and nature of bread and wine cease not to bee there is nothing yet concluded against vs for by these words substance or nature the outward Massinesse or Corpulency of bread and wine may be well vnderstood which as Theoderet saies remain The reason is In ordinary Speech we often giue to qualities which flow from the essence or nature of à thing the very name of the thing it self Thus we say an excessiue heat is fire à Massy heauiness is lead or à stone wheras heat and heauiness in common philosophy are only natural qualities or properties distinct from each substance respectiuely Such locutions were they found are at most dubious but we stand in no need of any far-fetch't glosses 6. Lastly Tertullians speech lib. 4. contra Marcio cap. 39. ex Cap. 21. Lucae contain's no difficulty Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his body Tertullians sense most plain and easy saying this is my Body That is à figure of my body Obserue the words Made the same his body and all is clear What did he make so I answer That bread which in the old Testament was à figure of his body according to the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius Let vs put wood into his bread that is à Cross into his body he makes now in the new law most truely and really his body Whoeuer read's Tertullian will find this to bee the genuine sense of his whole Discourse in the place cited where first he ieer's Marcion Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis Crucifigeretur Then saies Marcion vnderstand's not that bread in the old Testament was à figure of Christ's body as the Prophet Ierimie speak's Conijciamus lignum in panem eius scilicet They are Tertullian's own words Crucem in Corpus eius That is à Cross into his body See Pamelius his learned notes vpon this passage chiefly n. 662. and. 667. and you will easily free Tertullian from all ambiguity in Speech There are yet other Authorities much weaker produced by Sectaries but these now quoted seem sufficient for my chief aime whereof more presently In the interim I expect from these men à clamorous reply 7. They will certainly tell vs the sense and explication now giuen to these Fathers are no more but meer vnproued guesses or A reply of sectaries answered thoughts of our fancy I might first answer This sense immediatly flowes from the plain words which we admit according to the rigid grammatical signification of euery particular sentence But let vs waue this and ask whether the contrary sense of sectaries be any more but meerly their vnproued glosses or thoughts of fancy I say they are so and consequently as dark and wholly obscure as that Negatiue Proposition is which should be proued by them They storm and say the sense is clear for them I stifly deny it and assert the conttary They perhaps will vrge me to proue my sense I vrge them to proue theirs which cannot be done by the Fathers own words without à surer Principle For you see the words occasion the quarrel but that which is the cause of our dissentions can neuer end them or bring vs to any acquiescency without à further Principle And thus we stand Andabatarum more winking and fighting The one saies Yea The other No. without fruit or further progress and are yet farr from ending difficulties 8. Now here is that which I would haue all to reflect on for it is of mighty importance viz. That controuersies between the A reflection necessary for all that write Controuersies Catholick and à sectary cannot but be an endles work if both endeauour to decide them by Principles and vary as much about the sense of those Principles which are supposed to end the Dispute as we do about the very matter in question This is euer so whilst the sectary reiect's an infallible Church or her vniuersal Tradition Obserue well The matter now in question is Whether Christ be really present in the blessed Sacrament We allege his own Sacred words The Sectary saies we mistake the sense and consequently will not haue the difficulty decided that way To know the Truth both of vs examin all the other passages in Scripture relating to the Mystery both read the originals and the different versions both compare Text and text together nothing is yet ended Still we stand at variance about the sense which should decide matters between vs. Next we read the Holy Fathers for our Sectaries like not Tradition they produce their How Disputes are made endless Testimonies we interpret We produce ours They also interpret Obserue well I say Are we not as much at variance about the sense of these Fathers which are supposed à Principle to end our debates as about the very meaning of Gods word And doth not the matter in question still remain vndecided Most euidently yes Therefore vnless some other means be afforded whereby we may come
Scripture I Could wish to see à clear Deduction yet fear it Howeuer Suppose that done new Doubts arise concerning the certainty of the Deduction which can be no more but morally certain most insufficient to ground Diuine Faith The true Answer therefore must be or none The Nicene Council The both pas't and Present Church faithfully interpreting Scripture Definitiuely deliuered the Doctrin and vpon this ground we belieue the Mystery 8. Now here we come to the main Business and Ask again whether God speaking by this Church as his own Oracle Proposes that Doctrin and obliges all to belieue it Or Contrarywise whether the Church diuorced as it were from Diuine Assistance teaches vpon Her own humane fallible Authority And The Churches Infallibility further euinced obliges all to belieue the Mystery Grant the first The Definitions of the Church are infallible because an Eternal Verity speaks infallibly by Her Say secondly That the Church wholly Vnassisted teaches and Defines vpon Her own fallible humane Authority the Doctrin we learn from Her of the Incarnation of the highest Godhead in Christ of his being Consubstantial of the Blessed Trinity of Original Sin beget's no Faith Because if the Supposition hold's that Assent relies not at all vpon an Infallible Verity speaking by the Church Assisted but vpon à weak and fallible Human Authority which cannot support any certain Beliefe For it is most preposterous to Say that men meerly fallible as all are left to Themselues can Assure vs what that Doctrin is which God Reueal's Infallibly Now we Come to this Moral Certainty 9. And one Perhaps will say Such men though fallible may at least giue Moral Assurance of the truth of the Doctrin and that 's enough Contra. 1. Moral assurance which euer implies some weak Degree of fear of the contrary may in rigour be false But the Church which obliges all to belieue Her Doctrin vnder pain of Damnation speak's without fear and Saith boldly God reueal's as I teach Therefore her Doctrin if false is the Diuels Doctrin But none can say That the Nicene Definition against Arius was the Doctrin of Diuels But Contrarywise à Truth reuealed by God and Belieuable Fide Diuina Ergo it was infallible and more than Morally certain Contra. 2. God The Churches Definitions More then Morally Certain Speaking by the Church giues greater Certainty than Moral And if he do not speak at all by Her the Definition now remoued from Infallible Assistance Vphold's not Faith as we shall se presently nor can it be prudently iudged morally certain 10. Though much be said in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 4. 6. against this Pretence to Moral certainty Sectaries casually light on it because forsooth they brook not the word Infallibility yet here we must wholly weaken that Plea I say Therefore could the Church as She cannot Define or teach without Gods special Assistance Christians would either not attain to so great certainty of Her Doctrin as is Moral Or if no greater could be had That certainty would not be Diuine Faith Euery one knowes Moral certainty to be à kind of knowledge whereby men iudge such things are or are not without great Hesitancy or any reasonable cause of Doubting It is vsually grounded vpon some vulgar Perswasion or common half owned Euidence which the most of men trust to prudently When no surer can be had Thus we say All People in Common Conuersation speak not alwayes contrary to their thoughts Some mean well in their Priceeding The Nature of Moral certainly briefly hinted at Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in being These and the like Assertions may in rigour be false Yet our Iudicatiue faculty without Violence readily yeild's to all induced thereunto by à Perswasion vulgarly receiued whereby we say That as such things are Commonly reported So they also are vsually belieued and Commonly true In à word the greatest part of Moral certainty may be rightly stiled à kind of half Supposed Euidence current in the world which may Deceiue yet easily deceiues not 11. Now be pleased to reflect The sublime Mysteries of A reflection Faith remote from all vulgar Apprehensions and half owned Euidences are neither visible like Constantinople seen by innumerable Eye-wittnesses Nor assured vpon any either Fallible or deceiuable Authority nor finally belieued vpon à meer humane prudential Discourse only No. They lie in à higher Region aboue our natural knowledge in the Abyss of Gods inscrutable Wisdom and the more remote they are from Sense Or any Half-euidences the more they stand in need of an infallible Proponent No Power deceiuable can ground Faith Whereby All rest Ascertained of their being Eternal Truths Hence I Argue None but God aboue who Reueal's and an infallible Church which Proposes the Mysteries can giue Assurance of their being Diuine Truths or say absolut'ly They ought to be belieued answerably to their Dignity as Diuine Now further But if God reueal's them as his own Truths for this End that all belieue them infallibly the Church cannot but Speak in the name of God and independently of this Vulgar The insufficiency of Moral Certainty humane knowledge Propose them also infallibly as Diuine Or if She could turn vs off with no more but à Moral Perswasion of their seeming Gods truths yet may not be so The Strength of Faith vanishes into à dissatisfactory Topick into à meer Perhaps thus It may be we Belieue Truth it may be not In à word we belieue not as the Apostles did infallibly 12. Hence none I think shall euer comprehend how this Whimsy of Moral Certainty got into our Protestants thoughts For had Christians agreed in that Certainty or had they said Because the Mysteries of faith are proposed so weakly We can belieue with no Stronger assurance but Moral They must haue receiued and learn'd that Doctrin not from their own fancy but from some Superiour Power some known Oracle that taught so which either reuealed or proposed the Mysteries as only Morally certain and no more But to point at any such Oracle is impossible And here is the reason All know that God Faith only Morally certain reiected by all that taught Christianity an infallible Verity cannot Reueal any Truth only Morally Certain Christ our Lord taught his own Verities infallibly so also did the Apostles who were Strangers to this low and half lame Assurance No ancient Christians nameable professed à less certainty of Faith than infallible in the Church which taught them The Roman Catholick Church you see for conuincing Reasons laies claim to diuine Assistance when She Teaches and disclaims this petty kind of Certainty which may be false From whence then came the Perswasion of that certainty into mens Heads when neither God nor Christ nor Apostles nor Ancient Christians nor any Orthodox Church euer fauoured it 13. The true Answer is Inimcus homo hoc fecit An old Enemy to decry the Infallibility of Gods own Oracle conueyed the fancy into Ã
which only induce to belieue So the Primitiue Christians belieued vpon Christ's A Mistake in the Obiection infallible Testimony and built not their Faith vpon the exteriour Motiues Euident to Sense which meerly considered as Motiues only made his Testimony highly credible to Reason Viz. One Instance which none can boggle at That it was Diuine and infallible For example Some saw Others heard of our sauiours great Miracles of his admirable Sanctity And then discoursed The Man that doth these wonders cannot but be one sent from God It is true he preaches both new and difficult Doctrin to our eares But if he be sent from God we are obliged to Belieue him vpon his word And vpon that Word Their Faith relyed 9. Apply this Instance to the Church you haue all I would Say The Church is euidenced by Miracles Sanctity of life in Millions by Conuersions and the like signal Motiues Here are the Inducements which proue Her Gods Oracle and Clears all the Doctrin highly credible aboue what euer all other Societies called Christians haue Taught Yet our Faith is not built vpon these Motiues considered as Inducements but vpon Her infallible Testimony The Instance now giuen Concerning the most Primitiue Belieuers is so clear That our Aduersaries shall neuer weaken the force of it or shew the least Disparity 10. And thus you se all Mr Stillingfleets talk P. 113 Comes to nothing I desire Saith he to know whether an infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motiues of Credibility Answ And I desire to know whether an A Question answered and retorted Infallible Assent to the Apostles Preaching was grounded on those Motiues which the Primitiue Christians saw or heard of before they belieued what you say I 'll say Briefly Many learned Diuines hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphysically connexed with Gods diuine Testimony speaking by the Church and if that opinion be true the Motiues ground an Infallible Shewed also impertinent Assent but that 's Euidence and no Faith And therefore most impertinent to your following Inference If say you we affirm the Motiues ground an Infallible Assent there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of our Church infallible in order to Diuine faith For we Catholicks you hope will not deny but that there are at least equal Motiues of Credibility to proue the Diuine Authority of the Scriptures as the infallibility of our Church And if so why may not an Infallible assent be giuen to the Scriptures vpon those Motiues of Credibility as well as to our Churches infallibility Answ A strange kind of Argument 11. First Sir you know or should know Catholicks hold with S. Austin That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority How then do you say You hope we will not deny c No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other Treatise also immediatly make Scripture Credible independently of the Churches Tradition No Miracles were euer heard of No Motiues make Scripture euidently credible which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you more Canonical Scripture than that of Iudith which you reiect Did any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of Salomons Canticle that 's Scripture say you and refuse to dye for the Book of Wsdom cast out of your Canon Or was euer any soul sooner conuerted by reading the One than the other These Miracles Sr these Martyrdoms these Conuersions immediatly illustrate the Church and proue not à Part only but Her whole Doctrin to be Independently of Church Authority most Euidently Credible and worthy of belief whilst you se your Signs of Diuinity and no man knowes what imagined motiues in behalf of Scripture as little Euidence the Books you admit as those you reiect That is neither indeed haue any Self-Euidence in them abstracting from Church Authority Your Euidence therefore is à strong fancy and nothing els 12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole Canon or bare letter of Scripture you haue not any so much as probable for the Sense chiefly in Controuerted matters which properly is God's Reuelation without the Churches infallible Interpretation Speak Sr your Conscience plainly What can it auaile you or me to know that the Book we read is God's No Motiues for the Scriptures Sense word Seing innumerable false Religions by peruerse Misinterpretations are drawn from thence if that other Principle Deus â—â— dixit God or Truth it self speaks This and this particular Sense lies in darkness concealed from vs. This Principle then God speak's this Sense being the very vltimate Resoluent and last foundation of Christian Faith must when that Sense is Obscure borrow light from no dark mistaken fallible or doubtful Orade But the bare letter of Scripture is dark and grosly mistaken by Heretiques mans priuate Iudgement is fallible our comparing the Scriptures Passages together is meerly Coniectural and dubious Therefore if the certitude of Faith must rely vpon VVithout the Churches Infallible interpretation what God has spoken I mean the infallible Sense of his sacred word The Oracle which interpret's can be no other but an Infallible Church And here I both Petition and vrge Sectaries to assign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can be built seing all confess we are obliged to belieue that Infallible sense chiefly in matters they call Fundamental This Argument alone could we say no more forceth euery rational man to own à Church absolutely infallible in Her exposition of Scripture 13. From whence also it followes first that Mr Stillingfleet much mistakes Himself when he Saith Both sides I hope agree Our Aduersary mistaken that there are sufficient Motiues of Credibility as to the belief of Scriptures I answer There is not one firm Motiue for the true reuealed Sense and this only is Scripture if we exclude Tradition and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church Bring to light but one and I am satisfyed 14. It followes 2. That that half Tradition owned by Sectaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books of Scripture leaues them wholly Scriptureles and as Faithles The halfe Tradition for the barc letter as if they had no Bible For it neither grounds faith immediatly because it is not God's Reuelation but the fallible Consent of men Nor can it induce as à Motiue to belieue any one particular Article of Christian Religion without further certitude had from the same Churches infallible Tradition and interpretation Not sufficient concerning that most weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning Reiect therefore this infallible Interpreter All of vs iust like Arians Macedonians Donatists desperatly rely vpon the worst Guides Imaginable our own fallacious and vngouernable fancies and will needs learn of such giddy Teachers the pure interpretation of God's Word These we make our Oracles in lieu of Christs Church and in doing so may easily ascribe to God à Doctrin he disdain's to own and
become Heretiques by it The very hazard men run in this wilful Course is an open Iniury to the Supremest Verity vnauoidable in out Sectaries Principles 15. And here by the way you se the Vanity of that pernicious Doctrin published by them wherewith the world is Sectaries pernicious Doctrin cheated Viz. The Sense of Scripture is plain enough euen to the vnlearned in things necessary to Saluation in other matters not necessary à right Faith an vnerring Guide an infallible Interpreter See◠vseles and superfluous As if forsooth the Arians Pelagians Nestorians had not grosly erred in Points most necessary though Concerning the Clearness of Scripture they read the same plain Scripture which we all read Did the◠that supposed Clearness nothing secure them from Heresy in Necessaries Why should it I beseech you rescue Sectaries wholly as fallible from gross errours in other matters when the words of Scripture are more express against them than against the worst of Arians But hereof enough is said aboue 16. It followes 3. That no Christian has stability in Faith but the Roman Catholick for the most which others no members of this Church can know if yet they know so much is That the Books of Scripture are Gods word but with this half piece of imperfect Learning they neither know nor can belieue one particular Article of Christian Faith because that other The Roman Catholick only has Stability in Faith Principle the last Resoluent of all Belief God speaks infallibly this very Sense has no influence ouer their Assent and therefore is reiected by them as impertinent to ground Faith vpon One instance will giue you more light 17. The Arian and Protestant agree thus farr That those words Iohn 1. 5. 9. Three giue Testimony in heauen c. are Diuine Both Arians and Protestestants want à Stability Scripture yet so vary about the meaning and the difference is in à matter most fundamental that the One Assent's to the sacred Trinity for these words which yet the Other impiously denies Say now vpon what infallible Principle doth the Protestants faith stand more firm than that of the Arian Will Mr Stillingfleet say the Scripture is Clear The Arian takes him off that Plea and endeauours to obscure the passage by adding to it no small number of his Arian Glosses Next And why he Argues thus ad hominem and thinks no wrong at all done Can yee Sectaries belieue that your glosses laid vpon those Scriptures which Catholicks produce against you are strong enough to diuert and peruert the Sense or Interpretation of their Vniuersal Church and shall my glosses opposite to your Doctrin haue no force to diuert or weaken the late priuate inuented Sense of à few Lutherans What law is there for this I call it late and priuate as it comes from you for you How the Arian argues against Sectaries disdain to ground it vpon any Church Authority absolutly infallible in all She teaches Therefore it is your own Priuate Sense and not the Churches O but the Church of Rome in this particular interpret's Scripture faithfully though She err's in other matters Pitiful That is She hitt's right when You 'l giue leaue and misses when you think otherwise 18. One may Say again The whole Orthodox world euer proued the Mysterious Trinity from that alleged Passage of Scripture Contra Replies the Arian I and my Adherents who deny the Mystery hold our Selues as precious à Part of the His Argument Conuinces Orthodox world as you Protestants doe And hope we expound Scripture by the help of our priuate Reasoning and comparing Texts together as well as you Why not I beseech you Or giue à Disparity But say on And the contest is ended Haue you any Oracle which more infallibly Ascertain's you of that Sense of Scripture to be as you gloss then we haue who giue it à quite contrary Interpretation For hitherto we are both alike and expound all by our priuate Iudgements Grant such an Oracle Distinct from Scripture whereby you haue Assurance of God's meaning darkly expressed in those words you become plane Papists Own not Any Infallible you cast your Selues vpon as great Vncertainties as we Arians are thrown who expound Scripture by our own natural Discourse No infallible Church therefore no Stability No Orthodox world without an Infallible Church in faith no Stability in faith that specious word of an Orthodox VVorld Signifies nothing For this I Defend and haue Proued it if all Churches be fallible in their Definitions there neither is nor euer was since Christs time any such thing in being as an Orthodox VVorld 19. It followes 4. That as it has euer been the proper Mark or Character of all faithful Belieuers to yeild Submission The distinct Marks of true Belieuers and All Hereticks to the Churches Doctrin though weak reason conceiues it difficult so Contrarywise stubbornly to resist Church Authority has euer been inseparably the Mark and Badge of all Heretiques whether ancient or modern With this virulent Spirit they began to Oppose God's Oracle and held on for à time But as S. Austin obserues at last ended in shame Conterentur saith the Saint the battered Rock of the Catholick hitherto stand's firm maugre that Violence And their Scattered forces routed and broken as experience tells vs are brought to nothing CHAP. III. More of this subiect Obiections Answered A word to Mr Stillingfleets forceless Instances Motiues of credibility euer Precede Faith VVhether the rational Euidence of the Truth of Christ's Doctrin can be à Motiue to belieue it 1. WHat followes in Mr Stillingfleets 3. or 4 next Pages seem's so slight that the very most is refuted by the grounds already established Yet to Comply with the mans humour we must follow him further How Saith He can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be Infallible when The sirst Argument retorted that infallibility is attempted to be proued only by the motiues of Credibility I Answer Iust as you make the Assent of the Primitiue Christians giuen to the Apostles preaching infallible So I make the Assent to the Churches Testimony infallible The Motiues are alike in both Cases if not greater for the Church 2. He Obiects 2. If Diuine Faith cannot be built vpon the Motiues prouing the Doctrin of Christ what sense is there that it should be built vpon those Motiues which proue our Churches infallibility Here is the old Mistake again I Answer therefore Diuine Faith is not built vpon the Motiues inducing to belieue but vpon the Infallible Testimony of Christ and his Church The Motiues ground the Iudgement of Credibility The Infallible Testimony Support's The second is à gross Mistake Diuine Faith Now if by this word Built you mean no more but rationally To induce I say none in this present State can be induced to belieue Christ's Doctrin reuealed in Scripture in case he reiect's the Authority of that euidenced Church which
of Diuine Inspiration because this Otacle saith so Then we Argue vpon à Principle proued by vs and supposed though not proued by Sectaries The Principle is Scripture is God's word We read the book which all Christians Say is Diuine And proue also from it the Churches infallibility against our Aduersaries Ex probatis concessis That the book is Diuine Here is no danger of à Circle nor any fault in this way of Arguing 8. Yet Mr Stillingfleet makes his Exceptions and will needs haue the Circle goe on against vs. You proue Saith he the Churches infallibility from such Passages Super hanc Petram Pasce oues c. But how come you to know infallibly A reply retorâ—ed that the Sense of those places is as you belieue For your Aduersaries deny any such thing as infallibility proued out of them I may Answer first by proposing the like Question How do these Aduersaries know that their contrary sense is exactly the true Meaning of the Holy Ghost Will they tell vs they think so here is all we haue from them what am I better for that When the Donatists Pelagians and all Heretiques can think as boldly as any Protestant And by their deluded thoughts vnsense as we se by experience the most choise and sacred Passages in holy writ To whom then shall we recurr in case the Sense be doubtful I Answer to the Church O saith Mr Stillingfleet Here we are got into à Circle again and though his own words see them in the page cited fine giue no force to his Probation yet I 'le help them on to all the Strength his meaning is capable of He should therefore Another Reply Answered Argue thus We belieue the Churches infallibility because the true sense of Scripture sayes she is infallible Again We belieue this very Sense of Scripture to be infallibly true because the infallible Church saith so I haue Answered The first Act of Faith wherwith we belieue the Churches infallibility is not at all founded vpon the true Sense of Scripture as yet not known in illo signo to be so much as Diuine but vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediatly credible 9. Now if we Speak of another Distinct consequent and more explicite act of Faith when we belieue the Churches infallibility vpon this ground That She declares the Scriptures geâ—â—in Sense which proues Her an infallible Oracle There is no difficulty at all Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last Principle is vltimatly resolued into and therefore again belieued vpon the same infallible Authority The sense of Scripture resolued and belieued of the Church or rather vpon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus iointly taken They ground Faith and not like two disparate Principles As if we first belieued the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation And then Vpon Scripture and Church Authority ioyntly again belieued the Churches Interpretation to be infallible because the Sense of Scripture known aliunde or without Depending on Church Authority Saith she is infallible This cannot be if Scripture and the Churches Interpretation Indiuisibly concurr to this lotter act of Faith whereof we now speak 10. Here then is à Dilemma that clear's all and free 's vs from the least Shadow of à Circle We either know or belieue the Scriptures Sense independently of the Churches infallible The Assertion Clearâ—d Interpretation or receiue it vpon her infallible Authority Grant the first There is no danger of à Circle for in case that Truth were know vpon à sure Principle distinct from the Church it would be another new and as strong à Probation of her Infallibility as if an Angel sent from Heauen should interpret Scripture to the Catholick Sense And then we might Assent to the Churches Infallibility vpon two disparate Principles which proue not one another The one Ordinary the Churches own Interpretation The other independent and extraordinary Should an Angel or Prophet sent from God interpret Say 2. We belieue the Sense of Scripture vpon the This way no two Propositions to make à Circle of Churches own infallible Authority There are no two imaginable Propositions to make à Circle of whilst that Sense internal to the letter can not be infallibly propounded otherwise then by the Church 11. Page 128. I find an vnlearned Obiection much to this Sense We Catholicks destroy all Possibility of auoiding à Circle if we proue by the Motiues of credibilty no new Reuelations Distinct from the old And this we Pretend not to For A weak Obiection in effect solued we only seek to euince by these Motiues à Diuine Assistance with the Church in euery thing She Defines but this Assistance cannot be proued from any other ground but only from the Promises made in Scripture Therefore we are still in à Circle For we belieue the Scriptures infallible because of the Churches Testimony and we belieue the Church infallible because of the Promises in Repeated Again Scripture concerning the Assistance of the Holy Ghost with the Church so as to secure Her from all Errour Here in Effect is the same Obiection repeated again Therefore I Answer We belieue not in the first place the Churches infallible Assistance moued therevnto by the Promises in Scripture For this first General Act of Faith wholly relies vpon the Churches own infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture because Her Testimony One Instance clear's all is made most Credible to reason by conuincing Motiues before we belieue that She is insallibly Assisted All must Say what I now Assert For before Scripture was written The Primitiue Christians belieued infallible Assistance granted the Apostles in euery Doctrin they taught being induced to belieue so by the Signes and Miracles which those blessed men Euidenced In like manner we in this present State answerable to the Procedure of these Christians hauing the same Motiues manifest in the Church may well be induced to belieue That She both now is and euer was no lesse Assisted by the Holy Ghost to speak Truth then the Apostles were for as much as concern's the Substance and Verity of her Doctrin CHAP. VI. Mr Stillingfleet solues not His Aduersaries Argument A word of his tedious Shuffling The Motiues of Credibility both distinguish the Church from all other Heterodox Communities and proue Her Infallible The Agreement with the Primary Doctrin no Mark of the Church More Mistakes and Errours discouered Of Mr Stillingfleets double Faith who Belieues but not vpon Diuine the Testimony That the Books of Scripture contain Gods word in them Yet Belieues the Doctrin in those books to be Diuine 1. IN the next place Mr Stillingfleet labours to solue his Aduersaries main Argument the Substance whereof The substance of the Argument is As Christ and his Apostles proued themselues Oracles sent from God by their works Signes and Miracles Again as the Primitiue Christians
infallible Oracles And it is very true But we proue the like Signs accompanied and followed the Church in all Ages therefore her Hearers are also bound to acknowledge Her an infallible Oracle also In this place you should haue spoken to the Cause and Shewed Why or vpon what Account those first Signs were so powerful to Proue the Apostles infallible And these latter of the Church lesse pregnant to proue Her infallible This and t' is the main Point you wisely waue For it is vnanswerable and most frigidly tell vs The main point pressed again P. 153. You must be excused as to what followes viz. That those same Motiues moued the Primitiue Christians and vs in our respectiue Times to belieue the Church And why not dear Sr Giue vs the Disparity and we haue done but you cannot If therefore it which cannot be Answered be à bold Attempt to deny the Euidence of the Church we plead for which S. Austin Epist 166. compares with the Sun manifest to all vsque ad terminos ad terrae To the last bounds of the earth it is impossible to weaken the force of our Inference when we Say The Church is proued by her Motiues an infallible Oracle You next Terme this Expression The formal Obiect of faith à Coccysm whereby it appear's how little you are versed in School-Diuinity 29. It seem's in the Page now cited your Aduersary vrges this Argument Ad hominem If à Church be acknowledged An Argument vrged ad hominem infallible in Fundamentals The last reason why you belieue it infallible must rest vpon this Principle That the present Church doth Infallibly witness so much by her Tradition To this you return à most dissatisfactory Answer in these words VVhen you Ask â—s Protestants why we belieue such an Article to be fundamental As fâ—r an Instance Christ will giue Eternal life to them that belieue him The Sectaries Answer â—e Answer not because the Church which is infallible in fundamentals Delieuers it to be so For that were to Answer Idem per Idem But we â—peal to that Common Reason which is in Mankind whether if the Doctrin of Christ be true This can be any other than à fundamental Article of it it being that without which the whole Design of Christian Religion comes to nothing 30. Good Reader ioyn here two things together Mr Stillingfleet believes and Mark the word such an Article to be Fundamental not vpon Scripture or Church Authority for neither makes the Distinction between fundamentals and not fundamentals highly dissatisfactory and why And again before he has proued by any infallible Authority that such à Distinction in his Sense ought to be made He brings in the common Reason of mankind to Iudge in à matter which Catholicks Say is de Subiecto non supponente not capable of Iudicature Because there are no Things in being as he call's fundamentals distinguisable from others of à lower Rank Moreouer And take notice of this He belieues such an Article to be à truth because God reueal's it and belieues it to be à Fundamental Faith stand's not vpon two disserent Motiue Diuine and humane Truth vpon this Motiue that Common reason hold's it so Doth not therefore this one act of Faith rely vpon two heterogeneal Formal Obiect As Faith it is built vpon God's Veraâ—ity as Fundamental Faith it stand's tottering vpon mans fallible reason 31. What followes is as bad or worse It is sufficient Say you That the Church doth deliuer from the Consent of vniuersal Tradition the infallible Rule of Faith which to be sure contain's all things Fundamental in it though She neuer meddles with the deciding what Points are fundamental and what not Pray you Sr Answer Who shall dare to meddle with those fundamentals were they Supposable in Worse Doctrin yet your sense if the Church doth not What must your priuate Iudgement or mine decide here Quo iure by what law or Authority whilst Scripture saies nothing and you will not permit the Church to meddle in the Business were there any such thing to be meddled with Therefore you leaue all to mens priuate Opinions to make what they please fundamental and exclude from Fundamentals euery thing which likes them not And here is your fumbling way of Belieuing no man knows what whilst Their broken kind of Faith the Church tells you that euery thing She Proposes as an Article of faith is Fundamental This impregnable Principle we establish in Lieu of your loose Faith and broken way of Arguing also Lastly you are out in the main Supposition that Scripture only is the Rule of faith But hereof enough is said in the first Discourse 32. The next Thing I meet with worth any Notice is P. 158. Wherevnto we also ioyn his 170. Page It seem's D. Lawd before Mr Stillingfleet wrote his Account was vrged to giue à The main Point concerning Scripture and its sense examined satisfactory Reply to the Question VVhy or vpon what ground Protestants belieue the Books of Scripture to be the VVord of God Scripture alone Sayes not which Books are Canonical much lesse declares their Sense in matters controuerted Sectaries reiect the Churches Infallible Authority And say She is not to tell vs which Books are Scripture or what their sense is though admitted as God's word Is it not very reasonable think ye to A reasonable Demand demand vpon what Ground these men stand when either they belieue Scripture to be the word of God or giue an Assent to the particular doctrins contained in the book For clearing these difficulties you shall haue Mr Stillingfleets own word's P. 170. 33. This Question Saith he how we know Scripture to be Scripture may import tvvo things First how we know that all those books contain God's word in them Or secondly how we know the The substance of Mr Stillingfleets Answer Doctrin Contained in these Books to be Diuine If you then ask me whether it be necessary that I belieue with such à Faith as is built vpon Diuine Testimony that these Books called Scripture contain the Principles of the Iewish and Christian Religion in them which we call God's word I do and shall deny it viz. That This belief is built on any Diuine Testimony and my reason is because I haue sufficient ground for such an Assent without any Diuine Testimony But if you ask me â—â— what ground I belieue the Doctrin to be Diuine which is contained in those books I then Answer affirmatiuely on à Diuine Testimony because God hath giuen abundant Euidence that this Doctrin was of Diuine Reuelation 34. Here are two Assertions The first is That the Books of Scripture contain God's word in them And this cannot belieued vpon any Diuine Testimony Thus much granted It followes ineuitably Though one should pertinaciously reiect the whole Drewes an ill Consequence after it Canon of the old and new Testament or absolutely affirm These Bookt
Article proposed by the Church speaking in the name of God If which is already proued the same God deliuers Truth as well by this Oracle as he did anciently by the Prophets and Apostles No disparity can be giuen 9. Hence I Say whoeuer will make à full Proposition of Diuine Faith and giue à Satisfactory Resolution thereof must both Propose and Resolue it into God's Authority speaking by this one Signalized and euidenced Oracle And here in few words is the vltimate reason of our Assertion If we exclude the infallible Authority of an euidenced Church neither the Canon of Scripture nor any verity in it nor its true sense which Heretiques depraue can be admitted as Gods infallible word Therefore S. Austin Spake most profoundly where He The reason why faith must be resolued into Gods Testimony Speaking by the Church professes He would not belieue the Gospel without Church Authority Hence it followes That though one might belieue the Mystery of the Trinity or the Incarnation for the truths reuealed in Scripture yet if à further Question be moued concerning the Authenticalness of these very Scriptural Expressions All if they will finally resolue their Faith must rely on Gods Testimony speaking by the Church and belieue that very Doctrin to be Diuine because She own 's it as Diuine 10. Thus we said Chap. 20. n. 11. That the infallible Authority of the present Church consummates the ancient Reuelation which long since past and remote from vs cannot moue to belieue vnlesse Her Testimony conuey's it to vs and in this sense compleat's it And what way of belieuing or resoluing Faith can be more easy then to Say I belieue the This way of belieuing most easy Incarnation both because S. Iohn wrote it and because God speaking by the Church saith he wrote it These two Indiuisibly taken may as well make vp one total Motiue of belieuing as the Royal Prophets Testimony and. S. Peters infallible declaration added to it Act. 2. V. 25. became one entire total Motiue to those first belieuing Christians I say Indiuisibly And The Churches Testimony not meerly à Condition therefore the Churches Testimony concurres not meerly as an extrinsecal condition preuiously assented to but iointly terminates Faith together with the ancient Reuelation as shall be Presently declared Herein also there is nothing like confusion but the greatest Clarity free from all danger of any vicious Circle 11. A. 4. Obiection The Motiues inducing to belieue that God speak's by the Church or that all ar called to seek their Saluation in this one Euidenced Oracle are Church Doctrins For we all belieue that the true Spouse of Christ is Holy How the Motiues inducing to belieue vnited in Faith vniuersally spread the whole world ouer c. Therefore they can no more rationally induce to belieue that first necessary Truth Viz. All are called to one Communion of Faith Than one Article of faith obscure in it selfe rationally induce to belieue another wholly as obscure We haue Answered aboue These Motiues may be considered two wayes First as they are euidently perceptible by sense and so naturally they precede Faith and induce to belieue 2. As attested Are Doctrinâ— of the Church also vpon Gods own Authority speaking by the Church And in this Sense they precede not Faith but are Articles belieued wherein there is no Mystery at all if which is certain The same thing can be both known and belieued by different Assents vpon distinct Motiues A. 5. Obiection Scripture when newly written and proposed by the Euangelists or Apostles to the Primitiue Christians In what sense Scripture was Compleat to the Primitiue belieuers was to them so total and compleat à Formal Obiect to ground faith vpon that they needed no Authority of the Church to compleat it more Therefore it 's still à full and perfect Motiue of belieuing in order to all this very Age independently of Church Authority The Obiection brings with it its own Solution For if those Holy Writers of Scripture were Infallible whereof no man doubt's and proposed all they wrote as Gods Diuine word That very Proposition was fully as certain to them as any Church Authority whether past or present can be to vs. Hence I say though Scripture was then That infallible Publication supposed à full and compleat Motiue to ground faith vpon yet now it Cannot be so Quâ—ad nos or in order to Belieuers in this present State without more not because there is any want in Scripture considered in it self But vpon another account that Circumstances are very Why not so now to vs without Church authority different and notably changed since those first dayes For now we haue neither Apostle nor Prophet at hand to Testify or publish the Scriptures Diuinity The ancient signes of Credibility which adorned those first blessed men and made Scripture most acceptable are out of our sight Therefore God's Church succeed's with her Lustre and Supplies as it were that want or takes the place of those deceased Prophets and Apostles 13. By what is here Said you may easily vnderstand the Two Terms explicated sense of those two Terms Quoad se and Quoad nos frequently vsed in this matter though not free from Sectaries Cauils Who say Whateuer is Quoad se considered in it selfe à Formal Obiect must be so in order to others because it is à Relatiue and cannot but haue respect to our vnderstanding Answ All this is true after à full and infallible Proposition A Reuelation may be in it selfe Diuine made of the Obiect Otherwise most certainly à Reuelation may be in it Selfe both Diuine and infallible though it appear's not so to all for want of à due application to Belieuers Again It may be in some Circumstances à compleat Motiue to ground faith vpon and in another State cease to be so Many Verities in Scripture when first written and proposed by Apostolical men were compleat Obiects of faith to the Primitiue Christians yet are not by virtue of that Proposition Thought it appears not so to all now so to vs Because They neither write in this State nor immediatly Propose the truths contained in Scripture Hence it is that the Church as wee said Supplies that defect and compleat's by her Proposition those ancient Reuelations which issued from Christ and his Apostles And for The Churches Testimony Clear this reason Her Testimony Quoad nos is more clear more known and more immediatly Credible than Scripture can bee 14. 3. Difficulties may arise concerning the Scriptures Canon and sense also which none can decide but the Church only and vpon that Account Shee is more Credible and more And necessary for other Reasons immediatly known to vs than the Scriptures abstruse Sense which is very often remote from vs before God speaking by this Oracle laies the truth open in clearer Terms And what wonder is here Whilst Sectaries confess to vnderstand the true sense of God's word
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
Se more hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 5. n. 12. 13. 26. By all hitherto Said you se How the Priuate Reason Particular Controuersies examined by this and that particular Authority not easily ended of this or that Man may more easily swerue or lose the right way of Arguing when à Dispute is held vpon particular Controuersies then when it s brought to the Censure and easy Tryal of an euidenced Church This Oracle Speak's clearly Whereas if the debate be of particular Points examined by Scripture or Authority We find by experience that two Aduersaries seldom or neuer agree vpon the Sense of those very Authorities they would haue Matters decided by 27. You se 2. The Summ of all handled in this Chapter The summ of all hitherto handled to be as followes The Catholick hold's his Faith infallible which essentially relies vpon à Reuelation Diuine and Infallible Now because God proposes not by Himselfe or immediatly His own sacred Doctrin to Euery faithful Belieuer in particular He hath established à Church and made Her an Oracle briefly hinted at to speak in His name She comes as it were between God and Belieuers And conueyes vnto vs the true Diuine Doctrin of the first reuealing Verity Now because She is an Oracle immediatly Credible by supernatural Signs which an Infinite Power and Wisdom Demonstrates We Iustly call Her the Infallible Rule Though Scripture faithfully interpreted be our Rule also but not so immediatly Credible The Church once discouered by the Euidence of an Assent grounded on conuincing Motiues Regulates Faith plain Reason preuiously resting vpon those Motiues tell 's vs God speak's by Her Here we rest by this Rule we are guided 28. Hence you se 3. Whoeuer depriues the Church of her Lustre and Signal Wonders manifest to Reason makes her Doctrin and the very Scriptures also not worthy Beliefe Ill ' Consequences follow the Denial of Church Motiues dead 's Faith Eclipses Gods reuealed Truths and doth the vtmost to bring in Atheism In à word He makes Christian Religion vnreasonable which is vtterly to Destroy it what I say seem's manifest For Suppose we had had no Miracles since the Apostles times no Succession of Commissioned Pastors no further Conuersions of Nations No more eminent Sanctity in this great Moral Body after that first Age No Martyrdoms no Generous contempt of the world Who I beseech you would or Could haue certainly belieued either the Sacred Trinity or the great Mystery of the Word Incarnate vpon the bare report of à few fallible vncommissioned Men or woemen that might Perhaps haue Spoken and Perhaps not of these and other sublime Mysteries but without The world not with standing most glorious Motiues Shewn is much incredulous rational Motiues Appeal now boldly to the Tribunal of Reason and Ask whether such à Doctrin appears not to all Prudent men more than improbable Whilst experience teaches that à great Part of the world both now and in former Ages also though the Church euer shewed Her Selfe the only glorious euidenced Oracle remain's notwithstanding in à State of Incredulity What then would so many Nations haue done without them would haue not belieued any thing How cold would Their Faith haue been Who would haue belieued had all the After-Motiues of Faith perished and nothing been heard of but high Mysteries mentioned without supernatural Signs Confirming the Doctrin In à word without all Euidence of Credibility Hence 29. You Se. 4. The hideous sin of Sectaries who do not only rob the Church of her Glorious Marks manifed to Reason and so make Her Doctrin and whateuer Scripture teaches The sin of Sectaries incredible But to ruin all They will haue the Mysteries of our Faith talk't of but not one Taught Infallibly And thereby destroy Faith it Selfe Thus Reason and Religion go to wrack at once 30. You Se. 5. It is impossible without subuerting Christianity to Seperate the euidence of Credibility grounded on Conuincing Motiues from true Christian Religion Wherefore Euidence of Credibility not Separable from true Religion I conclude That as God has euer hitherto assisted the Orthodox Church to Teach Truth So also he has and will preserue in Her the euidence of Credibility whereby all Rational men may find truth And indubitably Assert This and no other is the only Society of Christians which teaches God's reuealed Verities and can best inform vs of euery Doctrin the Church taught in foregoing Ages CHAP. XVII A Digression Concerning Doctor Stillingfleets Discourse VVhere he treat's of the Protestants Faith reduced to Principles He is all à long quite besides the matter handled and Sayes no more for Protestancy than for Arianism or any other Heresy 1. KNow Courteous Reader that when this Treatise The Occasion of writing this Chapter was vnder the Press and towards an end there came now very lately to my hands A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome A stale worn-out Cauil by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Doctor as I interpret of Diuinity though in his Account he was only B. D. and therefore hitherto named by me plain Mr Stillingfleet The fault if any is easily amended He shall haue his due hereafter and be called Doctor In this Discourse which very candidly I haue not read nor I belieue euer shall For the matter appear's very triuial and look's like à Rapsodie I find towards The Doctors quick Dispatch the end of it à Flurt and no more at à Book Intituled Protestants without Principles I know Saith he no other Answer Like one Loath to engage necessary not only to this present demand but to à Book called Protestants without Principles the falsity of which will appear by what followes 2. You may well imagin I hasten'd to this What Followes And saw in the next Page Six Principles agreed on by â—oth Sides 1. That there is à God from whom Man and all other Creatures had their Being 2. That the Notion of God doth imply that he is à Being absolutely perfect 3. That man receiuing his Six Principles remote from Protestancy Being from God is thereby bound to obey his will and so on to the Sixt which Methought seem'd as remote from Principling the Protestants Faith as if he had told vs. Adam was tempted by Eue. 3. The next Leaf turned ouer I found this Title Contrary to Protestancy without Principles The Faith of Protestants reduced to Principles with this Addition These things viz. The six Principles being agreed on both Sides we are now to inquire into the particular wayes which God has made choise of for reuealing his will to Mankind He should also haue said And Coâ—cerning the Faith of Protestants here lies the main Business if mankind be concerned in it but this is waued 4. Nay more is waued whereon all depend's Obserue I A promising Title But the main matter is waued beseech you We haue here à fair Title The Protestants faith reduced
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
make their sense good in the passages alleged when we now stand to Scripture only I answer 2. such dark inferences drawn from comparing Texts together not grounded on the very words euer imply à mixture of humane discourse which therefore is fallible and may be false Whence it followes that Sectaries can belieue none of these senses by Diuine Faith because the last Motiue or formal obiect of their Assent is à fallible reasoning only and this may erre And here you may learn how necessary an infallible Interpreter of Scripture is without which we are cast vpon meer vncertainties and vnauoidable improbabilities 6. The Sectary may yet answer To the comparing of Texts together He add's the sentiment of some Fathers for his sense I say of some for t' is euident He hath not all much lesse the Vniuersal consent or Tradition of the Church in euery age If this be the reply I may well oppose it in Mr Stilling own words pag. 216. Think not to fob vs off with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time c. But what will you say if he has not one clear Testimony of à Not on◠ancient Father Clear for protestancy The reason is giuen Father for him I boldly assert it and vrge him to produce but one The reason is What-euer Testimony of à Father is alleged for his sense will be at most if 't come thither so notably ambiguous that weighed with all circumstances it may well haue à Catholick meaning That sense therefore must stand good without contest when it answers to the iudgement of à whole learned Church and the Sectary hath nothing to draw it to his particular opinion neither vniuersal Church nor vniuersal Tradition but only à few ambiguous words capable of interpretation and his own fancy to boot Nay I say more He hath not so much as any little appearance of ambiguous words for his sense Pray you tell me and let Protestants shame me if they can where has he any hint of à Fathers doubtful words for his minc'd fitting assistance only allowed the Church Positiuely excluding infallible assistance For iustification by Faith only For two sacraments only For à signe only of Christs presence in the Eucharist yet these senses he vend's as the genuin meaning of the Holy Ghost without proof or probability therefore fancy only plaies here And thus you see the first part of my Assertion demonstratiuely proued viz. That Protestants haue not so much as à weak probable assurance of that which is the very life and essence of Scripture I mean of the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost Yet you know Tertullians iudgement Tertullian saith Lib. de Praescript cap. 17. Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum corruptus Stylus A fals sense depraues Scripture as much as if the words were corrupted Thus much premised and so fully proued that sectaries cannot return à probable answer I 'le add one consideration more to confirm what is said A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian 7. Imagin that à well disposed Gentil Philosopher half perswaded of the truth of Christian Religion addresses himself to the most knowing Protestant or Arian and not to dissemble the force of the Argument to some learned Catholick also He find's them strangely deuided about their Canon of Scripture about their Translations and which is to our purpose now at high difference concerning the meaning also The Arian tell 's him he hath the How men called Christians differ about scripture true sense so doth the Donatist the Protestant and Catholick likewise The wise man is not so foolish as to belieue any of them vpon their bare word although Stentor-like they cry this and no other is Diuine Doctrin Therefore he concludes if reason may haue place This way of finding what he would know without the help of some other Principle distinct from Scripture and the fallible Assertion of particular men opposite to one an other is so highly dissatisfactory and wholly insufficient that it cannot settle him in the truth of Christianity Nay he may wel argue further If I yet no Christian cannot so much as know these very books to bee Diuine because you say they are so when we Gentils and Iewes in part hold them only humane If I though I own them as Diuine can learn from none of you what they say for I find you all at high contradictions about the sense How will you induce me by this your Bible only to become Christian Or how can you when you dispute with one an other so much as propose à probable Argument out of Scripture in behalf of your different Tenets For The Heathens Discourse none of you yet know by Scripture only the true meening of it You first suppose à sense and then argue wheras you should clear the sense and proue it or your Argument fall's to nothing For example The Protestant find's in Scripture that the Holy Eucharist is called Bread supposing Bread to signify natural bread or at most bread deputed to à holy vse the Catholick denies this supposition and sense also Hee reads again in S. Iames c. 4. T 〈…〉 is one Law-giuer and iudge who can destroy and free Ergo saith the P 〈…〉 stant there is no other visible iudge in the Church to end Co 〈…〉 ersies As odd an inference as if one should conclude because it is said in Scripture Bee not yee called Masters for your Master is one Christ no other ought to be called Master and therefore this sense and supposition in also denied And thus it must needs fall out whilst the Sectary has not one express word of Scripture for his nouelties wheras saith the Gentil the Texts seem clear enough for Catholick Doctrin taken in an obuious sense yet not so clear but that à peeuish Glosser may peruert all by his wilful fancy 8. Yet the Gentil Argues You Christians say there is true Religon amongst you and that God the Author of it hath allowed The Heathens Argument Clearly proposed against sectaries means abundantly sufficient to knowit Means I say whereby not only Gentils Turks and Iewes but Arians and other Hereticks also may be reclaimed from their errours Thus much you must grant or say that Christ hath left an vnbelieuing world vnder an impossibility of being conuerted And if this be true that is if meanes be wanting to know the verities of Christian Religion The Gentil may blamlesly remain as he is and so may the Turk Iew and Heretick also Now saith our Heathen 'T is euident Scripture alone without further light is no meet means to reclaim any of them for the Gentil slights your whole Scripture and can that by it self draw him off his contempt Again The Bonzij in that vast Kindom of China pretend to an other Bible writ long since by their supposed great Prophet called Confusius and the book
and both as you see stand opposite to Mr Stilling weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason 6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome In. 1. Cor hom 24. Other Authorities Chrisostom Pachasius Damascan who saith The kingly body in heauen is set before vs on earth We touch it and do not only touch it but eate it This body the barbarous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling Thou add's the Saint See'st him not now in the manger but on the Altar not held in à womans arms but by à Priest present c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg he explain's himself further Truly this table supplies the place of the manger for here also is our Lords body laid Paschasius à latin author who liued about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence à nd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. Sanguine Dm'i that the Centurist's Cent. 9. C. 4. Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen Pag 288. and other Sectaries charge him with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christs body No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. whose discours on this subiect though long is most significant As bread saith he naturally meat and wine and water by drink are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drink 's So this bread proposed the wine and water also by the inuocation and comming of the Holy Ghost are in à miraculous manner conuerted into Christs body and blood neither are they two but one and the same Our Lord himself hath said This is not à sign of my body but my body This is not à sign of my blood but my blood Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. reiects the Doctrin and call's this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. Iohn Damascen slight and fabulous sodo other Sectaries with him also 7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr clear noted First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who liued with our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn seem's to me vnanswerable Epist ad Smirnen not far from the beginning They saith he that is certain Sacramentarians admit not Eucharists and oblations because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins and his Father graciously raised from the dead So Theoderet 12. ages since Tom. 4. Dialogo 3. reads And Iaac Vossius who followes the Florentine Copy differs little or rather nothing at all None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear 8. The second authority as pregnant is taken out of S. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for Christians vsually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant Apology Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour by the word of God was made flesh and haed for our saluation flesh and blood so also after the same manner we are taught that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with thanksgiuing of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ which was Incarnate And for proof hereof he allegeth Christs own words This is my body This is my blood Thus S. Iustin speak's who liued not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin I know some Sectaries Cauil at the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by transmutation The sectaries Cauil answered and think Iustin held the Eucharist to be food for the body but his sense is clear for he saith only That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation is made after consecration the very body of Christ and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus Pag 368. translates Iustins S. Iustin's true sense words out of the Greek thus Sumimus autem hunc panem hunc potum non vt Communem sed eo modo quo edocti sumus Iesum Christum seruatorem nostrum habuisse pro salute nostra carnem sanguinem sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro sanguis aluntur post benedictionem ipsius esse carnem sanguinem Domini That is in plain English The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incarnate Sauiour Conformable hereunto Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenaeus aduersus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. Iustins words Sic per verbum precationis gratiarum actionis sacratam ab ipso alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes sanguinem Illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse didicimus The Interpreter also I follow significantly renders the same sense Alimoniam vnde c. The food from whence from which or where with we are nourished this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate Iesus Well but admit that Iustine call's the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies How some Fathers call the Eucharist Nourishment to the body he makes it not therefore Corporal food but Spiritual which nourishes them to à ioyful resurrection or to immortality and thus the other Fathers chiefly S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus finem speakes Quomodo saith he rursus dicunt c How do these Hereticks plead again that our flesh shall come to corruption and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord where with it is nourished Again Sic corpora nostra c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are not corruptible hauing hope of à ioyful resurrection But enough of these authorities Whoeuer desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his 2. book of the Holy Eucharist Out of what is said already I argue 9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also haue most impiously betrayed Christs cause in deliuering false Doctrin contrary to sense and reason or worthily defended à Christian verity Grant this second we haue our intent But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief and impiously erred in their expressions Ponder first what à frontles impudence accompanies the reply Next make this true inference It is impossible that such à supposed vniuersal errour should euer be rased out of A Conuincing Argument the minds of men by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à receiued Principle For what proofs or vndoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture our Tradition the sentiment of the Church and the iudgement
clear words of à Father and when the Glosser has no vndubitable Principle distinct from his gloss wheron to settle his Doctrin as he has not in our present Controuersy Obserue well The Fathers say What wee see is not bread but Christs very body The Sectary interpret's That wee see is not common bread indeed but Christs body Figuratiuely or Sacramentally The Fathers say it is not figuratiuely only but really his body So Theophilact Answered and the reason giuen and S. Iohn Damascen cited aboue Had the Sectary who interpret's thus an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss deliuered by any Oracle of Truth Scripture Traditions or Orthodox Church there would be good reason to giue him hearing But when we euidently see that the best and only proof of his Doctrin is no more but the very gloss he makes without Further Principles we iustly except against him and hold such glosses improbable 14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer interpret's any Authority but when t' is dubious and if it be so it neither help 's the Sectary nor hurts the Catholick and therefore ought In reason to be cast aside as either impertinent or as weak and forcelesse in all disputes of Controuersies The fundamental Christ's Doctrin not proued by glosses or any ambiguous Testimony Reason already hinted at is The true Doctrin of Christ is not proued by Glosses or any doubtful Testimony but stand's most firm vpon known and indubitable Principles or if in order to Christians it want's such supports it cannot pass for Christ's Doctrin An ambiguous Testimony therefore which seemingly opposes this true Doctrin Certainly Principled is most impertinently alleged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick Faith 15. Vpon this one sole ground now clearly laid forth I confidently Affirm all Controuersies in Religion might be easily ended would Sectaries please to lay Preiudice aside and follow manifest reason I 'le shew you how Write down first the two contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Protestants Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist Christ is not really and substantially present Next examin well the Principles wheron these Contrary Doctrins rely or are supposed to rely The Catholick vrgeth first Christ's plain words 2. The Authority of his Church and saith his Churches Doctrin is the very same that Christ words literally taken express 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of The Catholick Principles Fathers and discourses thus When I find the most significant expressions of Fathers consonant to our Sauiour's plain words and to the owned Doctrin of my Church I must assuredly rest on these as indubitable grounds or Confess that There neither is or was euer any Principle for the soundest Article of Christian Faith Examin next the Sectaries Principles Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine or to this sense This is not my body b◠à Sign only of it Euidently No. Has he any Church esteemed Orthodox by the Christian world which without Controuersy taught this Doctrin of à sign only three or 4. ages since Name Sectaries haue none such such à Church He will speak's to the purpose Has he Fathers so numerous so express and clear for his Signe and figure only as the few Testimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Doctrin If he haue let him please to produce them I 'le doe no more but lay my Testimonies by them and if after the perusal or à iust Parallel made of both All the world iudges not those I quote to be most conuincing may the literal sense stand and his both dark and ambiguous I will vndergoe any Censure You haue heard how loud and express the Testimonies briefly hinted at and innumerable more are for our Catholick Verity I challenge Mr Stilling to Confront them with others as openly significant for his opinion I verily think he will neuer goe about to doe what is desired but fob vs off with killing flies and no man knowes what 16. In the interim I Argue I am either obliged to renounce An Argument drawn from our Catholick Principles the obuious sence of these Authorities which I see euidently Consonant to the words of Scripture and to the Doctrin of my Church or by force of these Proofs am still to belieue as I doe Grant this second I stand on secure ground But if I am obliged to renounce the obuious sense of Christs words my Church Doctrin and the expressions of these Fathers c. Our Aduersaries are bound if à spark of Charity liues in their Hearts to plead by stronger Principles which may settle me in an absolute Renuntiation of my Doctrin and withdraw me from the supposed errour I liue in Is not this iustice and Charity think ye And is not the Compliance most easy For if their Doctrin be Christ's Doctrin and mine not Theirs stand's as I now told you vpon clear and indubitable Principles And Principles of that nature are easily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderstanding Now I subsume But it is euident the Sectary hath no such conuincing Principles which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal sense of Christs words and the Fathers already cited And this I proue What euer Principle obliges me to renounce or to deny the plain literal sense of such words must giue assurance that those expressions literally Why none can remoue me from our Catholick Tenet vnderstood are dangerous and apt to induce Christans into gross errour for if literally taken they do no mischief or be not apt to induce into dangerous errour why should I Deny their obuious sense because Ptotestants will haue me do so But there is no Principle so much as meanly probable whereby these expressions are proued false or inductiue into dangerous Errour for were this really so some Church or Author of Credit would long sincé haue noted their ouer much vehemency in sayng more then was true concerning this Mystery which none euer yet did Therefore I may still and without Reproof hold where I am and adhere to their literal Doctrin which my Church teaches 17. Some may teply Sectaries vrge vs not so crudely to reiect the Fathers Testimonies as only to moderate or rectify their sense by the help of our Modern mens glosses which is à blamles proceeding for we do so with Gelafius and other Authors when they seemingly make against our Doctrin and Protestants do no more Answ Protestants do more for their interpretations euer imply à peremptory and absolute denial of that very literal sense which the Father words express For example S. Cyril saith Catech. Mystag 4. He that changed water into wine by his sole will hath also A reply of sectaries answered changed wine into blood The expression inuolues à parity and implies thus much That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee so wine was really and substantially changed into Christs blood Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and substantial change of wine
Tertullian reiect's and hold's insufficient to end disputes And so doth S. Austin also Epistola 49. Ad Deo gratias The other named Pars reflexa and the clearer which speak's of the Foundation of Christian Religion of the Extent of the Church diffused the whole world ouer of its marks and Signes of its Perpetuity and infallible Assistance of Nations flocking to it c. This part I say the book being once admitted as of Gods Diuine word is so perspicuous and clear that it silences all Sectaries and euidently subuert's their Errours But to tell me it is clear and sufficient enough to decide differences when we dispute with contentious men about the particular Mysteries of Faith the Trinity for example Transubstantiation the number of Sacraments c. And the very sense of Scripture which should end all is not agreed on by the two dissenting Parties To assert this I say is not only à Paradox but à manifest improbability contrary to all experience And therefore I will extort this confession from our Aduersaries may they please to answer that as they shall neuer proue one of their Protestant Opinions so they shall neuer oppugn one Catholick Doctrin by clear and express Scripture 11. Some obiect S. Austin disputing against Maeximinus an Arian S. Austin's Discourse with an Arian who faith Lib. 3. C. 4. 14. Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum c. Bâ—rnob neither I ought to allege the Nicene Council nor thou that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor thou to the Authority of the other Let vs contend by the Authorities of scripture which are common witnesses to vs both Here two things seem clear First That S. Austin reiected the Authority of the Nicene Council as Sectaries do now the Church 2. That He held Scripture à sufficient Rule to conuince an Arian A word only in passing Dare the Sectary offer thus much or dispute with the Catholick for the supposed Obserue the question here proposed Truths of pure Protestancy or his Negatiue Articles by Scripture only as he here supposeth S Austin did Argue in other Matters with Maximinus I would willingly see some attempt made this way but am sure He will not dare to do it Because he saith His Protestancy or these Negatiues are not reuealed but only à number of inferiour truths which cannot be proued by Scripture To what purpose then is it to allege any Testimony which makes Scripture sufficient to decide Controuersies when the Protestant ingenuously grant's he can proue nothing of his pure Protestancy by plain Scripture Hence I Say all the Quotations of Fathers haled in to proue the sufficiency of Scripture help not the Sectary at all Irenaeus for example call's it the Rule of Faith S. Austin A Diuine Sectaries quote Fathers to no purpose Balance Theophilus Alex A firm foundation Gerson A Sufficient and infallible Rule Most true if we speak of the scriptures Clearer part yea and of the obscurer also when it is interpreted by an infallible Oracle But what makes all this for pure Protestancy or for its Negatiue Opinions Doth Scripture regulate this new Faith whereof it is vtterly silent Doth it weigh such Negatiues or tell vs what they are worth Is it à firm Foundation to establish these Fancies A sufficient and infallible Rule which measures vs out No Sacrifice on the Altar No purgatory No Transubstantiation Toyes trifles There is not à word spoken in the whole Bible contrary to the opposit Verities of Catholick Religion or in behalf of Protestancy Therefore though S. Austin appeald to Scripture against an Arian and had his reasons for it yet our new mens Plea is more then impertinent when after their Appeal they find not one sentence for Protestancy or against Catholick Doctrin Now to S. Austin 12. I say first The Saint reiected not the Authority of the Why S. Austin waued the Nicene Council Nicene Council which he euer honourd but only waued that as an vnmeet Principle in his contest with Maximinus who no more regarded the Nicene Definitions than Sectaries now do the Council of Trent Therefore as we Argue not from that Council against them so S. Austin then argued not from the Nicene Definitions Thus our Catholick Witers haue answered à hundred times yet we must haue this Crambe recocta serued vp again as à new vnsauory Obiection I say 2. S. Austin by his Appeal to Scripture recurr's not to the bare letter which he Saith is à body without à Soul but to the true genuine Sense Thereof which he supposeth known in that Scripture which we call the Reflex part and yet is more clearly known by the Vniuersal consent of Christ's vnerring Church For it is one and the same thing with S. Austin to belieue the Churches sense of Scripture and to belieue Scripture it self which most manifestly commend's vnto vs Church Authority Had then the Saint argued thus against his Aduersary He had conuinced him by the Clearer Part of Scripture Though thou exceptest against the Nicene A clear Conuiction Council yet thou cans't not deny but that Scripture commend's à Church founded by Christ diffused the whole world ouer what euer Therefore this Church deliuers concerning the sense of Scripture That is the sense of the Holy Ghost And can be no other for à Church which swerues from the true sense of Gods word is no Church founded by Christ But the Vniuersael Sentiment of this Church opposeth thy errour Therefore the true sense of Scripture which this Church plainly deliuers stand's opposit to thee also And thus thou art conuinced by Scripture it self 13. Perhaps you wil ask whether if S. Austin had argued from the Obscurer Part only which treats of à Mysterious Trinity one What if S. Austin had argued from the Direct part of Scripture God in Essence and three distinct Persons not so plainly expressed there He could then haue conuinced his Arian Aduersary of errour None can better satisfy the doubt than S. Austin himself Lib. contra Cresconium C. 33. where he speaks of an other Matter of Faith viz. of Baptism conferred by Hereticks which though not clearly expressed in Scripture is yet held à true and valid Sacrament His words are Proinde quamuis huius rei certè de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum c. Although no example of this thing the validity of Baptism by Hereticks can certainly be Shown by Scripture yet the Verity of these Scriptures is held by vs in this particular Cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesia when we now do that which pleases or is agreable to the Vniuersal Church which Church the Authority of Scripture it self commend's Vt quoniam As that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue whilst it commend's the Church and euery one fear 's to be deceiued in the obscurity of this Question Eamdem Ecclesiam de illâ consulat Let him consult the Vniuersal Church
of this particular Which holy Scripture without all ambiguity Doth demonstrate Thus S. Austin himselfe Answers most profoundly S. Austin And he giues an Answer to the present difficulty viz. That if the Obscurer Part of Scripture speak not plainly in the debate betwixt him and an Heretick the Heretick is to address himself to the Church and learn by Her what the sense of Scripture is Without light borrowed from the Church we haue only words about these high Mysteries but not fully sensed words chiefly when we argue with contentious Sectaries whose glosses depraue the plainest Passages in Holy writ as the Protestant doth Christ's clear Proposition This is my body If therefore we go on in such à contest with words not fully sensed we may well end our liues as S. Austin notes before we end one Controuersy 14. And thus you see as the One Part of Scripture is à body without à soul before it be receiued by the Church so the Other Part is also before it be both receiued and sensed by this Oracle of Truth Vpon this ground all those other Testimonies vsually alleged by Sectaries out of S. Austin against the Donatists Of Optatus Meleuitanus and S. Chrysostom for the clarity of Scripture are clearly solued for here is S. Austins Principle The sense of Scripture intended The sense of Scripture and the Church alwaies the same by the Holy Ghost and the sense of Christs true Church concerning Scripture can neuer clash but is one and the same If therefore I know the sense of the Church I haue with it the sense of Scripture also but with this difference That what Scripture often expresses less clearly Christ's Church deliuers more fully and Explicitly Whence it followes that if the Churches sense conclude against these Sectaries the Scriptures sense where it is obscure is in like manner concluding 15. You may obiect Scripture is in the noblest manner infallible For it hath its infallibility from God immediatly and may well be à distinct Rule or Principle from that sense which the Church giues of it Why therefore should not Sectaries haue recourse to that first and noblest Principle without relying on the Churches interpretation I haue answered because they know not guess they may and miss what Scripture saies in à hundred difficult Passages Therefore they are to recurr to the Church or must make vse of their own fancies to sense it The Argument purely fallacious is much to this sense Christ our Lord when he taught his Disciples was in the noblest manner infallible being Truth it self the Apostles were only infallible in their teaching and An Obiection answered further Explanation of those Verities they learn'd by à Singular Grace or participation of Infallibility Why then should not Sectaries rely only on the first sure Principle Christ's own words flowing from the Fountain of infallibility without depending on the Apostles Doctrin not so eminently infallible Now be pleased to hear S. Austin pondering those words Psal 57. Alienati sunt peccatores c. Where he makes this Parallel betwixt Christ and the Church and solues the Difficulty Ex veritatis ore ag 〈…〉 Christum ipsam veritatem Taught by the mouth of Truth I acknowledge Christ Truth it self ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam participem veritatis And by the same mouth of Truth I acknowledge the Church partaking also of Verity That is I own the Church to be not Truth it self not Scripture it self but à Copartner of Truth with Christ and Scripture I own it to be not Infallibility it self yet so eminently infallible by à singular grace or participated Infallibility That to dispute against it is most insolent madness Witness the same S. Austin Epist. 118. C. 5. ad Ian If he dare to do so Saith the Saint Serm 14. de verbis Apost C. 18. or rus◠violently against this impregnable wall of the Church let him know his doom ipse confringitur He is shattered in pieces Hence you see first that no mans priuate Iudgement can be contrary to the Churches sense giuen of Scripture without thwarting Scripture it self You see 2. That Scripture and the Church are not two Principles looking as it were different waies but one and the same in order to our direction and regulating Faith whereof Scripture and the Church in order to all is one Principle more Hereafter 16. In the mean while you may ask why our Sectaries keep such à Coile about the Clarity of Scripture concerning things necessary It is hard to say what they driue at For if all this pretended clarity diffused it self through euery passage of Holy writ worse it is for them and to their vtter confusion Obserue My reason The more clear Scripture is made by Nouellists the greater is their shame whilst they cannot proue by it's supposed clarity so much as one Protestant Doctrin nor probably oppugn one Article of our Catholick Faith Therefore nothing is gained this way Nay all is los t by Their casting off Church Authority when after that wicked Fact clear Scripture leaues them as Scripturelesse as Their own malice has made them Churchlesse It is true I see some Colour for their Pretence to Scripture and thus it is Like men lawlesse they haue shaken of all other receiued Principles of Christian Religion Speak of à Church She is fallible and has actually erred Cite Fathers some pitifully gloss them others roundly reiect them as men meerly Fallible Mention Tradition the very word is odious Now for stark shame whilst they bear the name of Christians it is hard to throw away all Christian Principles What 's done therefore Why Sectaries take recourse to the bare letter of Scripture I 'le tell you They lay hold of à body without à Soul I mean the bare letter of Scrrpture without the Sense and this is all that 's left them I say without the sense whereof you haue seen enough already for when the sense of God's word is controuerted between them and vs and their sense run's contrary to the receiued Church Doctrin no probable Principle can make it defensible and vpon this Ground I said right They are as Scripturelesse as Churchlesse All this is most true and I well vnderstand it But why these men labour so earnestly to make the Bible plain when not so much as one plain passage is found there for Protestancy or against our Catholick Doctrin is à Riddle aboue my reach I vnderstand it not Let then as much as you will of the book be clear whilst the Clarity fauour 's not one of our Sectaries forged Nouelties nor Contradict's one of our Catholick Tenets it neither help 's the Protestant nor hurt 's the Catholick In the next Discourse we shall treat of the Church and more oportunely solue there à few obiections of Sectaries CHAP. XV. The other mentioned Principles aboue are insufficient to decide controuersies Or to Regulate Faith 1. THe next Principle after Scripture we named the
what auail's it to haue à Church garded from vniust dealing in Matters of Trust if you make it lyable to Errour in the main Essential which is true Faith the very ground of Saluation And Principle cause also of iust proceeding amongst Christians Perhaps these men will say S. Cyprian in his Elogium respected only the first Romans commended by the Apostle not Those who liued in his An other Gloss refuted time Contra 1. That is not only said without Proof but improbably falsifies the Saints express words Eos esse Romanos as is now noted Contra. 2. If S. Cyprian only relate to the Romans whom the Apostle taught what need is there to keep à coile about the signification of Perfidia when those first Christians had for their Instructor an Infallible Apostle If therefore S. Paul could not err in faith Perfidia may well exclude all misbelief or errour in Matters of Faith from that Apostolical Church And here we make way to discouer the Bishops leuity in his second Gloss. 8. Suppose saith he it be granted that Perfidia Signifies errour in faith or Doctrin yet it belongs not to the Romans absolutely but with à respect to those first Romans whose Faith was commended by the Apostle Contra 1. Vpon what certain Principle doth this confident Assertion stand It belongs not absolutely to the Roman Church Proue thus much by à sure Principle and something is said to the purpose But without à solid Probation we look on it as à whimsey only or à thought of fancy Yet more What mean's his Lordship by those dark words With à respect to those first Romans Will he say that the first Romans were infallible in Faith and make those others to whom S. Cyprian wrote fallible This must be his meaning or nothing A second and third Gloss reiected For if both were equally infallible or both alike fallible he gains nothing by the word Respect to the first Romans Therefore he must hold that ancient Church of Rome to be more infallibly founded in Faith than the later Romans were to whom S. Cyprian wrote Admit this He makes the Saint not only to flatter à whole Church but to speak Nonsense also For in effect he saith thus much Your Ancestors the Romans were so secured from errour in Faith that they could not decline from Christ's Doctrin but you now are in à very tottering Condition for you may swerue from the Faith of your Ancestors you may perhaps belieue as they did and perhaps not Howeuer I will sooth you vp and praise you as à Church impossible to erre with an Ad quos Perfidia habere non possit accessum You are men so faithfull that no Misbelief can touch you The last Gloss of the Bishop is thus S. Cyprians Elogium seem's rather à Rhetorical insinuation than à Dogmatical Assertion Mark the proofles word Seem's t' is only à thought of my Lords fancy which I am sure seem's far from à dogmatical Assertion What That à Saint and worthy Bishop should Rhetorick it in so weighty à Matter But enough of this nothing 9. To make something doe at last Mr Stilling Page 317. laies his Gloss by my Lord's and has à good opinion of it To Mr Stilling misinterpretation giue every man his due it is better than any of the Bishops He sayes in à word after à relation of the present state of Rome at that time when those Schismaticks Felicissimus and Fortunatus came thither that Perfidia may well denote the Falsness and treacherous dealing of those two Persons who seemed good Catholicks but were not so and sought to ioyn in Communion with Cornelius and the Catholick Party but meant it not Now such Iuglers should haue no Access to the Principal Church or to those Romans whose Faith the Apostle so highly extolled so that Perfidia Respects not the Romans nor excludes Errour from that Church but laies falshood as was well deserued on those Schismaticks This I take to be Mr Stilling meaning Contra. 1. The Gloss euery one sees violently strained makes the allusion between Fides and Persidia Both Strained and inconsistent with S. Cyprians sense insignificant 2. It is inconsistent with the Authors whole sense who speak's not of perfidious men but of Falshood and Vntruth which could not haue Access to that principal Church For it is euident that perfidious persons as Mr Stilling tell 's the Story actually had Access And therefore could certainly haue it when Fortunatus and Felicissimus came to Rome 3. Make the most you can of this Gloss it reaches no further but to à meer far-fetcht Guess and what is gained by That Can Mr Stilling establish his Opinion of the Churches fallibility on no surer grounds Can he hope to driue me by guesses and Glosses not only from the Obuious sense of these words but also from the clear Expressions of innumerable other Fathers who stand openly for an infallible Church It is à disperate Improbability Yet so it is These selfconceited Glosses and nothing els Vphold Protestancy in euery controuerted Matter The infinite number of them and the Stories Mr Stilling tell 's to no purpose at all so enlarge his Rational account That if you fling these away you may easily put the remainder of that Book into à smal Decimo sexto 10. Be pleased to obserue à little We say and Christ said it before vs Hell gates should not preuail against the Church founded Glosses opposed to manifest Proofs by Diuine Prouidence But fancied Glosses disputes it at last into à Possibility of being peruerted by Hell and Heresy also We say it is the Pillar and ground of Truth but Glosses laid vpon these words must be thought so strong as to shake it all in pieces We say Christ will be with his Spouse to the end of the world Hold there say Sectaries our Glosses tell you No For this promise was only Conditionally True in all that succeeded the Apostles A fitting Assistance we allow it such as pleases our fancies But no more We say with S. Cyprian S. Hierome S. Irenaeus and other Fathers that the Church neuer depart's from what She once held that in Her is the Rule and square of Faith that in Her is the Spirit of God That She is the welspring of truth The dwelling place of Faith c. But à companie of Glosses spoil all this Doctrin And so rack the sense of these clear Expressions that one may boldly swear the Gloss and Text are sworn enemies 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 1. MVch is said in the Other Treatise Disc 4. C. 4. n. 8. of our Protestants Glosses Here you haue à further discouery of their weakness And t' is the only thing aym'd at in this And the precedent Chapters In à word thus I conclude That man who in Matters of Controuersies defend's à Doctrin
our Church hath erred but in one only Matter of Christian belief She is Traiterous disloyal to Christ and can be belieued in nothing To proue The Church is traiterous if false in one Article the Assertion Suppose an Embassadour sent to à forraign state with this deep Charge that he vtter nothing in his Princes name but so much only as he is commissioned to speak Suppose again the man declares some few truths to the state as his Lord commanded But withall forges twenty other vntruths on his own head and stifly affirm's his order is to deliuer all he saith in his Masters name Would not such à man think ye be à Traitour vpon à double account First because he exceed's the bounds of his Commission and deliuers that he had no order for But chiefly because he speaks vast falsities wholly Contrary to his iudgement who sent him 2. The Application in easy The first Teachers of the Gospel were legates sent from God to à great State the whole world For in omnem terram exâ—uit sonus eorum They taught euery where and well for some short time our Christian Verities as the Prince who sent them Commanded But their Successors the Pastors and Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church in after Ages had Say Sectaries the ill luck to miscarry to turn Traitours for besides à few fundamental Truths vpheld no man knowes how They did not only exceed their commission in deliuering Doctrin to all Nations which Christ their Master neuer allowed of but more ouer forged of their own heads twenty vntruths Purgatory Praying to Saints Transubslantiation c. And spake all in their Princes name Said also they had Commission from Christ to teach so This fact if the Charge be true is Treasonable they iniured Christ And consequently not Orthodox and his Verities and betrayed their trust But à Church so perfidious cannot be Orthodox Therefore if Sectaries do not Calumniate Christ had no Orthodox Church in the world before Luther which I intended to proue and Consequently Protestants are yet no true Church at all 3. I say moreouer If the Roman Catholick Church hath taught false Doctrin but in one onely Matter of Christian belief She can be belieued in nothing yea I may rationally suspect her false in all She teaches Iust so it is If the book of Scripture deliuer's one Doctrin false which Christians now belieue I cannot credit it in any thing The reason is One and the same Motiue of my belief duely and equally applied euer moues to an equal Assent or to None at all For example I belieue Christ dyed for vs because Gods word saies so Here is the Motiue of my Assent I belieue also that he ascended into Heauen because the same word of God speaks it here is the same Motiue Imagin now by à supposed impossibility that this latter Article A Church false in one Article merits no beliefe is Gods word but false I cannot belieue our Sauiours Death vpon the Motiue of God's word For if this word be false and once deceiue it may as easily be false and deceiue me twice And there is no possible means to quit me of my errour Because whoeuer endeauours to do that is of less Authority than God's word which is now supposed to deceiue me If therefore the First Verity can reueal an vntruth none can belieue either man or Angel speaking of the high Mysteries of our Faith and Consequently All must still remain in Errour 4. Apply this Discourse to the Roman Catholick Church which pretend's at least I say no more yet to be Gods Oracle and to speak in His name She speaking in his name assures me that Infants are to be Baptized I belieue Her vpon her word She also tells me there is à Purgatory but we must now suppose with Sectaries it is à great vntruth if so I cannot possibly belieue Her in the other Doctrin of Infant Baptism For if she deceiues me once She may well do it again and which is to be noted There is no means left vnder Heauen to vnbeguile me or to draw me out of my supposed Errour for who euer attempts to do that is of less Authority than my Church which is supposed to teach to err in Her teaching and stifly to maintain the Errour Scripture cannot help here vnless it be clear vpon an indubitable Principle that the sense of it and Doctrin of my Church can differ in points of Faith which must be proued and not Supposed If Fathers be alleaged Seemingly contrary to this known Doctrin my duty is to explicate them and rather to draw the Fathers to what the Church teaches than to renounce Her Authority and adhere to the dubious and yet vnknown Sense of any Father 5. Now here is à short consideration For Sectaries I said whoeuer supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred A Reflection for Sectaries must ioyntly own it so remediless an Euil that all the men on earth cannot help or remoue the supposed errour from this Church The reason is All the Proofs and Principles setting plain Scripture aside whereof there is no danger which may be thought pertinent to impeach Her of errour will fall infinitly short and proue less ponderous less substantial to perswade that She has erred than her sole Vote and own Authority whilst she anathematizes the falshood is to perswade the contrary Viz. That She neuer erred Hence Sectaries confessedly fallible men who Sectaries Attempt desperate and why may easily spoil all they goe about to mend aduenture desperatly to reform the Church when the very Principles they should reform by were there any such in being are incomparably of less weight strength and force than the Authority of this Church is which saith She cannot erre Howeuer She must be reformed and here is the wonder before they know whether She has erred or haue the least assurance of their own half accomplish't reformation Who then see 's not euery attempt made against our Church this way to bee as really it is à folly an vnaduiced Enterprise no less impossible than in the highest manner improbable Mark what à task lies on them 6. First they are to proue She has erred which was neuer yet done 2. To giue in Principles whereby they will reform 3. To VVhat they are to proue Shew themselues well setled in à perfect Reformation 4. To euince that all those innumerable learned men of our Church from the Fourth to the present Age haue been stupidly blind bereaued of iudgement and besotted with Errour 5. Wheras other Christians both more aged and most learned espyed none of these Errours They are to proue that God made choise of such vncommissioned men to perform à work so long neglected by the Orthodox world But of these particulars enough is said in the other Treatise 7. Hence two things follow First that Sectaries only lose time when by alleging à few dark Testimonies of the Fathers they offer to
à most sâ—uere Examination and finally to make the Glorious vvorks of God knovvn Sentence vvas Iuridically pronounced by à vvorthy Arch-Bishop as is novv said Quod si rei tam notae contradicere ausint And if Sectaries yet dare contradict so manifest à Verity Quis illos c. who is there that vvill not look on them As impudent and list them among incredulous Iewes 21. Yet our Mr Stillingfleet forsooth Shifts all off with à Ieer. It is an easy thing for à Stump to grovv à leg in its passage from Spain hither What will not this man write to his petty purpose if 't come in his way What will he not pare away Mr Stillingfleets cheat and open fraud and add to à Story remote from the knowledge of the vulgar His book is full of such fraud Will he not think ye say any thing before the illiterate and ignorant in the high Mysteries of Faith whilst he blushes not to cheat and deceiue his Reader in à matter of Fact Notorioussly known to the world If he thinks I haue forged this Relation Hee shall haue the very indiuidual Copy I made vse of sent him the Bulk is not big If he doubt's of the Authority of these witnesses already produced and say yet all is à Fourb I 'll say as easily I am fooled in belieuing there is such à man in the world as Mr Stillingfleet whom I neuer saw And next will force him to exchange Principles with me à little You Sir say its à fourb à pretended no real Cure What 's required of Him I say Contrary The Cure was real and à great Miracle Proue now you Your Assertion vpon as good Humane Authority as I haue proued mine And we come to Principles fit to decide in the present Matter Fail to do this your Assertion hath not so much as one leg to stand on besides fancy or something worse CHAP. X. Other Marks and Signes peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church proue her Orthodox And make Her Doctrin euidently credible These laid forth to Sense and Reason distinguish the true Church from all Erring Societies Inferences drawn from the Doctrin Here deliuered 1. VEry little may suffice concerning the first part of the Title our Catholick Authors hauing done the work to my hands whilst they treat most largely and learnedly of the Amplitude and Vniuersallity of the Roman Catholick Church of the continued and Succession of Her Bishops Pastors and people of Her Vnity in one and the same Faith of Her Sanctity of the efficacy of Her Doctrin in conuerting whole Nations to Christ which S. Austin justly hold's miraculous The Largeness of this great moral Body rightly called by Sectaries à growing Religion which no persecution of Tyrants could hitherto suppres For time extends it self without dispute to all pass'd Ages since Christ And The Largeness of the Catholicks Church if we speak of place the growth successiuely was so great That In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum it hath been preach'd with immense fruit to all Nations Answerable to that of the Royal Prophet Psalm 2. where the eternal Father speaking to Christ our Lord as man giues him an ample Kingdome spread all ouer for his Possession Ask of me and I will giue the Gentils for thy Inheritance and thy possâ—ssion the last ends of the earth 2. Hence we first distinguish the Church of Christ from the lewish Synagouge limitated to one time till the comming of our true Messias And to one place also For the Sacrifice essential to that Religion could not be offered but in the Temple of Hierusalem only We distinguish both Church and Doctrin likewise from Mahumatism Nestorianism Eutychianism and other Heresies in Distinguishes Her from all false Sects the East which neuer got any considerable footing in these Western parts of Europe Finally we distinguish it from Lutheranism Calvtanism and Protestanism à confused Mixture of both and other late Doctrins These and their dissenting Heads stay in our Northin Climats without fruit or Progress made into Asia Affrica Greece or the like remote Countries wherefore some doubt not to auerr and most truely That the Holy Orders of S. Dominick of S. Francis and of the Society of Jesus are further spread more diffused through the world at this day â— than all the Sects or Subdiuisions of Protestants euer yet were or I think will be But the Kingdome of Christ's Church as Tertullian Cited aboue Chap. 1. n. 6. well obserues Vbique regnat reignes euery where and is The Amptitude of Christ's Keingdome euery where belieued Nor can these latter Sectaries now in an aged world hope to Propagate further For if S. Austin De Vnit. Eccle. C. 14. Thought it enormously improbable that Donatism then so early could diffuse it selfe the whole world ouer much less can our confined Protestants very late Teachers after so many Centuries when Heresy euery where lyes à gasping Hope to draw forreign Nations to à Belief of their Nouelties 3. The reason à Priori is A greater extent à further increase seem's inconsistent with the very Nature of those who professe this Religion For once liuing in the Vine and drawing Nutriment from thence they wilfully cut them selves off and separated from the Church Therefore as S. Austin saith they lie where they are Withering and dying without Lustre or any Enlargement Again as they began this new learning without Gommission to teach So they can send none hereafter Authoritatiuely to spread it further Hence I Argue That Church only is Christ's true Spouse which euer Protestancy increases not And why was from the first Rise of Christianity and successiuely got Possesin the four Parts of the world But thus the Roman Catholick Church was and is Still diffused here is Christ's promised Inheritance Therefore She is the only true Church Contrarywise the narrow confined and iarring multitudes of Sectaries scattered vp and down in à few corners in Europe All late Beginners and shameful Desertors of this Ancient Society neuer had so ample an inheritance and Consequently Their pretence of being the true Church of Christ is more than improbable 4. VVe may yet subioyn to the Amplitude of our Religion the euer visible and neuer interrupted Succession of Bishops and Pastors in the Roman Catholick Church from Christs time A Mark no less euident to sense than openly destructiue of Heresy This succession long since Prophesied by Daniel Cap. 2. Christ Kingdom shall neuer be dissipated and foretold by the Apostle Ephes 4. 11 He gaue some Apostles c. Sett's forth the Glory of it VVe need not in this place to weary the Reader with the known Authority of S. Austin positiuely Asserting Contra Epist fundam The succession of Lawful Pastors vrged C. 4. That the Succession of Pastors from S. Peters time held him in the Catholick Church and the Argument is more fully urged again Lib. de utilit Credendi C. 17. VVee need not tell any with
is in the hearts of such as are Assembled together in God's name and Assisted to define infallibly Diuine Faith T is true actually elicited euen after the permanent Habit infused requires à Supernatural Motion of Grace But hereof we speak not at present 5. A. 4. Principle When it is enquired Whether the Church Distusiue be infallible the Querie is not whether the Motiues inducing to distinguish that Oracle from others Demonstratiuely and with all Metaphysical certitude euidence likewise Gods Reuelation relating to the Mysteries Belieued For this might lead vs to enquire whether Faith be euident in Attestante That is so Vnexceptionably manifest that all may clearly Infer from the Reuelation clearly known That the Mysteries belieued are euidently true We now meddle not with that Difficulty though great Diuines patronize the Affirmatiue But only Ask Whether the Doctrin of Christ's Church be so infallibly Certain that it cannot be False or deceiue any Catholicks The Question Stated own à triple infallibility necessary to Faith The first proper to God's Reuelation no Protestant denies that The second belongs to the Church either Diffusiue or Representatiue in General Councils whereby we learn and that infallibly those Truths which God reueals The third infallible Assurance necessary to Faith all Orthodox Christians haue that belieue the A threefold Infallibility Mysteries reuealed vpon the Diuine Testimony Proposed by Christ's Church 6. A. 5. Principle If what is most vndoubted Diuine Faith essentially relies vpon Gods infallible Verity speaking by one or more men sent to Teach who proue their Mission and Demonstrate the Credibility of the Doctrin deliuered it necessarily followes That that first infallible Verity beget's in euery true Belieuer no less perfect Faith Than what is most certain and infallible Wherefore as it is the indispensable Duty of euery belieuing Christian to acquiese in and rest vpon God's infallible Mans Duty grounded on Christ's Promise Veracity So it is an indispensable Promise That we haue Christ present with à Church which teaches all Truth And therefore cannot but Propose the Obiect of Faith infallibly The firm Promise irreuokably issued from Power and Goodnes it selfe Matt. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes to the end of the world Iohn 14. 16. I will Ask the Father and he will giue you an other Comforter the Spirit of truth to remain with you for euer Hell gates cannot preuail against the Church Thus much premised 7. The Difficulty now agitated is Whether the Roman Catholick Church and Her approued General Councils be so secured from Errour That She cannot swerue from that first Support of Truth I mean God's infinit Veracity But must when She teaches Teach that exactly which God hath reuealed and will haue after à sufficient Proposal Vniuersally belieued Sectaries say She may Yea actually has swerued from God's Reuelation and in great Matters too though not perhaps in the What Protestants assert Primary Fundamentals as they are Called or in Fundamentals Simply necessary to Saluation And they were forced to this wicked Doctrin vpon three naughty Motiues 8. First to giue Scope or rather to inuite Libertins to hold or deny so much of Christian Religion as pleaseth their fancy And do we not see the liberty effectually laid hold on in England amongst Phanaticks and such giddy People All this giddines And why came first from the reformed or rather the deformed Nouelty of Protestancy They do it 2. to make Controuersies Endles For deny the Churches Infallibility Cauils go on Grant Her infallible Disputes are ended 3. This is done to quit themselues of an Infamy iustly laid vpon them of being both Schismaticks and Heretiques at once which shall neuer be claw'd of do what they can For these vnsound reasons or pestilent The Catholick Assertion Motiues rather The Church forsooth must needs be fallible Catholicks on the other side maintain the contrary And say there is à Church so Infallible that She cannot err in any thing She teaches as Faith And thus much God willing shall be euinced in the following Discourse But to do it exactly I am briefly to lay open to all that haue eyes The Abiect the Desperate and Desolate condition of à fallible Church You haue here my first Proposition 9. A fallible Church is essentially Constituted in à State of publick A fallible Church is in à State of rebellion Rebellion and Hostility with it Self Wages war against Infidels without hope of conuincing or conquering any And therefore cannot be Christ's Orthodox Church To declare further what I would say know first That Sectaries own à Catholick Church much larger than the Roman Catholick And make Themselues Part of it Conceiue now which though very hard is yet possible that the Representatiue of this great Moral Body meet 's in à General Council and discusses the Question now in hand Viz. Whether there be à Church of one Denomination Preserued infallible by Diuine Assistance Part of the Representatiue and these are Protestants Oppose the total Infallibility of euery Church Part Catholicks I mean Say one Church is infallible and that is the Roman The Difficulty proposed can be decided or not If not This great Representatiue meet 's to no purpose but only to make more No means to vnite it Strife in the world If it can be decided God has prouided means whereby the truth of so weighty à Matter may be known But there is no such means left vnless some one Church or other or all together be owned infallible Therefore an endles Hostility goes on in this supposed Representatiue 10. That all means fail may Sectaries Votes haue place is indisputably Euident You shall see it clearly The Catholick Party Appeales to Scripture alleges these and other like Passages Without some One Church be Infallible He who hear's you hears me and from thence infer's Who euer hear's the Church hear's Christ an Infallible Teacher The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith and hence concludes She is infallible The Spirit of Truth shall remain with the Church for euer Pastors and Doctors are appointed by Prouidence to preserue the faithful from wauering in Faith and all erroneous Circumuention Hell gates cannot preuail against the Chutch c. What can be more The Scripture Significant if plain words haue sense for the Infallibility of some One Church Yet all these and many other Testimonies so shrink to nothing may Sectaries Glosses stand in force That no man can say what God speak's in these Scriptures or know the Truth now debated Viz. Whether any Church be infallible or not This means failing of its End which ought to compose our Strife Hostility is as vigorous as when the Dispute began for yet we know nothing certainly 11. Passe from Scripture to Fathers We haue there most pregnant Expressions The Church cannot be adulterated Cypria◠And Fathers Speak significantly the Churches Infallibility de Vnit Eccle VVhat She once receiued from Christ
Infallible then those first Masters of Christianity were Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is constrained whether he will or no if he giues in any thing like Euidence to make vse of these good mute things the Motiues of Credibility which he scornfully call's Coleworts too often serued vp or shall neuer proue that God once said The Diuine word is made flesh Which is to Say He must first euidence à Church before he Proues those words Diuine 40. It may be replyed His Euidence for the whole Book of Scripture and euery particular sentence in it is taken from the fallible Tradition of all called Christians and others also no Christians I Say fallible For he owns none Diuine or Infallible Tallible Tradition no sufficient Euidence Contra. 1. The Scripture was acknowledged Diuine before men agreed so vniuersally that it was Diuine Tradition therefore which is rather an Effect of our Christian Beliefe concerning Scripture then à proof of it presupposes some other more clear foregoing Euidence whereby the Book was anciently owned as Diuine This we enquire after and very reasonably because the Chineses haue à vniuersal Tradition for their Bible and the Turks for their Alcoran one also general yet such à humane fallible and weak Tradition proues not those Books to be Diuine Contra. 2. And here is an An Argument ad hominem Argument ad Hominem If Mr Stillingfleet belieues the Testimonies of Scripture Infallible vpon fallible Tradition which may be false he makes his Conclusion concerning the belief of euery Passage in Holy Writ far more sure then the Premises are which lead in the Conclusion And this Doctrin he reiect's aboue as improbable Contra. 3. He has neither vniuersal Sectaries haue no vniuersal fallible tradition for their Seripture Tradition for the Protestants Canon of Scripture disowned by more then half of the Christian world much lesse for its true Sense wherein dissenting Christians so much vary that none of them all can Say vpon humane or fallible Tradition what the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is and consequently this very Tradition as also Mr Stillingfleets double Resolution of Faith into the Books of Scripture and into the Doctrin or Sense come iust to nothing 41. Page 158. He Argues the whole Church consist's of men subiect to errour That is All the Parts are liable to mistake Ergo the whole Church cannot possibly be infallible A faslacious Obiection Solued in and of it selfe Answ Lay open these couered Terms In and Of it selfe The Argument loses force I Say therefore Men meerly considered as nature has made them fallible in order to belieue Supernaturally haue In and Of themselues no immunity from errour yet taken vnder another Notion as they constitute à Church they are infallible That is There was is and will euer be à Church Teaching and à Church Taught Infallible So that all shall neuer err in Faith You may easily reioyn This or that man these or those Multitudes may wilfully abandon Christ's Doctrin Too true God knows And if so They are no more members of the Church but Heretiques or Infidels Again If you run Some may err All the Church cannot ouer the rest of Christians remaining Orthodox whether Pastors or People and Say these may also fall from Faith I Answer Some may All cannot because God has promised euer to preserue à Church in Being I mean faithful Teachers and faithful Belieuers to the end of the world And must not Sectaries acknowledge thus much who hold à Church infallible in Fundamentals which vpon that account cannot wholly err 42. Mr Stillingfleet Answer 's Though the Authority of the whole Church be not Diuine yet she cannot err in Fundamentals because she is tyed to the vse of means Say Good Sir who tyes Her to this infa 〈…〉 ble vse of Mean's if the whole Moral Body and euery Member of it be fallible Grant that God by his special Assistance ties Her fast She is for that reason infallible and must Vse the means Take from Her diuine Assistance and Say She is only guided by the erring Conceptions of fallible men She may easily swerue from the Means and reuolt from Christ And thus the fallacy is cleared You The fallacy discouerid Sr Suppose the Infallibility must be taken from the right vse of means whercas the contrary is true Viz. Therefore Sâ—e rightly vses the means because She is antecedently preserued infallible by Diuine Assistance You suppose again that all the Parts of this They rightly vse the Means because antecedently made Infallible Assisted Church are fallible And we Say no For as long as they continue members of it So long as the Pastors lawfully commissioned teach in Christ's name and the faithful belieue their infallible Doctrin There will be euer such à Church on earth So long they are all infallible If any fall from Faith whether few or many These eo ipso cease to be Members of this Mystical Body yet the Church fail's not for the failing of some infer's not à possible Failure in all The want of this Distinction caused your errour 43. And thus hauing remoued such weak difficulties out of the way thought great ones in that 5th chapter which to an Difficulties remoued we proceed to the Resolution an vnwary Reader may seem to Obstruct the Catholick Resolution of Faith We will in the following Discourse first Premise some Principles much auailing to conceiue the easiest Resolution and next declare where the chiefest difficulty lies which Mr Stillingf has not done and finally endeauour to solue it without the least danger of any vicious Circle Afterward we shall proue that Protestants haue no Faith at all to resolue CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 1. THe first Principle God who is an Infinite verity and speak's not to stones can by à Diuine Language proper to himselfe so make his interiour mind and sincere God's proper language meaning known to rational creatures that all vpon hearing His voyce may without hesitation indubitably Say Thus God Iudges this be Speak's which granted All are obliged both readily and firmly to yeild assent to so great à Maiesty for his own Authority Known to all The reason hereof is clear If God can speak to Mortals and for this end that he be vnderstood there arises an obligation in euery one to belieue him without fear or doubt Or in case it be impossible after all humane industry vsed to learn what he speak's none can absolutely belieue him 2. A. 2. Principle Then and not otherwise this external Language is certainly known to come from God when it is spoken in his name and so fairely appear's by its own Signatures Lustre and Wonders to proceed from him That all must confess
those first great Masters vpheld the Primitiue Faith without any further ground or Process in Infinitum So his own Speaking Our resolution the same with that of the Primitiue Christians by this Oracle of the Church vphold's mine And I can go no further For the last formal Obiect of Faith has none latter That One word of Truth is enough to belieue vpon Again as those first pious Christians had any moued à doubt concerning their Inducements to Faith would haue answered The blind see The lame walk strange Miracles are wrought by ehese blessed men And therefore we both must in Prudence and will belieue that God speak's by them So I likewise bring to light the same Signal Motiues Euident in the Church and The Motiues alike Say I both must if prudence guides me and Will belieue that God speak's by this Oracle known as well by Her Miracles and supernatural Signatures as euer any Apostle was known 20. And thus you see first as I noted aboue How we passe from the Formal Obiect of Faith God's own Testimony proposed by the Church to the Prudent Inducements of belieuing wherevpon the Iudgement of Credibility not Faith it felfe is vltimatly Why we belieue And how vve proue by rational Motiues grounded Now these Inducements being laid forth to reason The Will command's an absolute Assent which rest's vpon God's word spoken by this Oracle You see 2. All danger of à vicious Circle auoyded in this way of resoluing Faith For when I belieue that God speak s by the Church I resolue not the Belief of that Truth into another antecedent Reuelation taken from Scripture yet wholly obscure and no way so immediatly Credible as the Church is for if I did so a Process in Infinitum would necessarily follow But I belieue that word of Truth for it selfe immediatly and rest there As the ancient Christians The word of truth belieued for it Selfe relyed vpon the very words spoken by the Apostles without recurring to any former or surer Reuelation If therefore those happy Belieuers made no vicious Circle in their Faith hauing no tâ—o Propositions prouing one another to make à Circle of We in our belief are altogether as free from that faulty Circular way in our Resolution It is true All of vs if The primitiue Motiues and ours the same Questioned about the Euidence of Credibility most bring to light Motiues inducing to Faith They theirs We ours both are à like significant both Supernatural as is already explained 21. You may gather 3. out of what is here and formerly noted how easy it is after à full Sight had of those signal The illustrious Signs apparent in the Church Motiues and they more set forth the Churches Glory than any Traine of attendants can illustrate the greatest Monarch That the first connatural Language which God speak's by the Church is this general Truth There only his Special Prouidence are God's own Voice Directs and gouâ—rn's where the illustrious Signes of his own Soueraignity manifest That he teaches by à Voice peculiar to Himselfe But these Signes most euidently are seen in one only Society of Christians the Roman Catholick Church Therefore he teaches by this One only Oracle And the necessary Lesson he will haue all to learn is That he has called all to one Communion what we learn by them of Faith in one Church Euidenced by Supernatural wonders This fundamental Verity we belieue And it is the first Act of faith we elicite Or that Primigenial Assent which connaturally arises from God's own voice deliuered to vs by this Oracle without depending on Scripture if we make à right Analysis This General truth once established and none can rationally contradict it We now proceed to solue à few Obiections CHAP. XI Sectaries Ohiections solued The fallible Agreement of all Concerning the Canon of Scripture no Proof at all No vniuersal Consent for the Sectaries Scripture or the Sense of it How the Church is both the Verity belieued and the Motiue why we believe Other Difficulties Examined 1. I Speak here of Sectaries Obiections knowing well some Diuines who make the Churches Proposition most infallible Sectaries Obiections only answered and herein all Catholicks agree yet hold it insufficient to be the last Principle Whereinto Faith is resolued For say these it is only à necessary Condition by virtue whereof the ancient Reuelation is infallibly applied to vs. In this Strife purely Theological and some what as I thinke de Nomine I shall not long busy my Selfe being chiefly to attend to what Sectaries do or can propose against our Doctrin 2. The first Obiection If the Catholick after à prudent Consideration had of the known Motiues already specified can belieue what euer the Church teaches and Consequently resolue why Sectaries cannot resolue their Faith into Scriptures his faith into the Authority of God speaking by that Oracle Why may not the Sectary as well vpon this one Iudgement viz. All acknowledge Scripture to bee God's word as easily belieue and resolue his faith into pure Scripture independently of Church Authority Answ Such à Beliefe and Resolution is impossible because as we said aboue none can in this As Catholicks Doe into the Church present State assent to this general Truth Scripture is God's word or belieue so much as any Verity in it if the Authority of an Infallible Church be reiected To the pretended ground taken from the Consent of all Christians owning Scripture for God's word I haue partly answered That consent alone induces not any to belieue one reuealed Article by an Infallible act of Faith if those whole Consenting multitudes be all supposed fallible First euery one knowes the multitudes of Turks agree thus far that their Alcoran is God's word yet such an agreement though very Vniuersal induces no wise man to belieue any Diuinity in the Book or to own its Doctrin as Diuine and sacred 2. And this reason hinted at aboue is more à Priori 3. The Agreement of all Christians is truely an effect of Faith or rather of the Obiects Credibility antecedently presupposed The agreement of all Concerning Scripture is an effect Credible vpon other grounds before men agreed so vniversally in that Christian truth For this Causal is good Therefore Christians agreed in that Truth because it was preuiously made Credible vpon other sound Motiues And not the contrary It is credible because all conspired in à Consent so vniuersal Wherefore if very many who now own Scripture to be Diuine should leaue off to iudge So and reiect the Book or any Part in it as fabulous That would not diminish its ancient Credibility And no more Not the Original Proof of the Scriptures Credibility Say I would the Addition of any new Consenters who now reiect it should they agree with vs highten one whit our Beliefe or make the Truth we Assent to more Credible than it was before And this proues That the Original
in matters most Fundamental other Rules and means must be vsed The Original Languages are to be examined seueral Passages compared together daily Reading and pondering the different places with much Prayer also seem What Sectaries acknowledge necessary What is this to Say but that their reading pondering and comparing are in order to them means and Rules more immediatly known then the hidden Sense of Scripture Herein then lies the difference that we in Lieu of their fallible reading recurr to an Infallible Church and Say her Testimony is more perspicuous easy and clear to vs than the dark Verities in Scripture are to them after all their pondering and comparing CHAP. XII The last Obiection Proposed VVhether the Churches Testimony may be called the Formal Obiect of Faith Other Notes and Considerations Concerning The Resolution of Faith 1. A 6 th Obiection If God whereof no man doubt's once said in Scripture The Word was made flesh its needless to speak the same Truth again by the Church Nay this God has spoken the Same Verity by different Oracles seem's impossible vnless the Churches Testimony be properly the Formal Obiect of Faith Answ The first part of the Obiection contains no difficulty for it is certain God has spoken the same Verities by distinct and different Oracles by different Euangelists for example And why cannot he as well speak them again by an Euangelist and the Church If the Church be absolutely infallible for the Diuersity of the Organs or Oracles He speak's by diuersifies not at all his Sacred word 2. Now to what is hinted at concerning the formal Obiect A question proposed I Ask whether this Assertion in Catholick Principles be not de Fide and reuealed by Almighty God Euery Doctrin proposed by the Church is true The Catholick Answer 's affirmatiuely And here is one Verity as an Instance for many The Church is infallible or cannot err I Ask again whether this very Proposition made by the Church may not be belieued vpon Her own Authority What somâ— Diuines answer by an Act of Diuine Faith Some Diuines Answer negatiuely and Discourse thus The Assent giuen to the Authority or Proposition of the Church is not Faith but rather an extrinsecal disposition to Faith So that by one Assent we first Say The Churches Proposition is infallible and afterward by à true Act of Faith belieue the Truth proposed by Her vpon God's pure Reuelation contained in Scripture or vpon Apostolical Tradition 3. Though this Discourse which defend's the Churches absolute Infallibility giues no aduantage to Sectaries yet it seem's Their Answer Seem's difficult difficult for two reasons chiefly First if à firm and infallible Iudgement terminated vpon the Churches neuer erring Proposition which fully declares Christ real Presence in the Eucharist for example Precedes the true belief of that Mystery grounded on Scripture or Apostolical Tradition That very faith as grounded on Scripture would be à necessary obscure act generated by the Discourse or ineuitably inferred from the Connexion between the Churches infallible Proposition not assented to by Faith and the Diuine Reuelation in Scripture The Inference is clear For the Church Saies infallibly Christ is really present And I Assent to that Truth but by no Act of Faith say these Yet from thence I euidently inferr That He is really present and this is done before I belieue the Verity by Supernatural Faith I think this cannot What is necessarily inferred vpon that Iudgement be granted Some Answer that preuious Iudgement is only à condition disposing to belieue and not the Cause or Motiue why I belieue Contra. Call it cause call it condition or what you please by virtue of that Iudgement I Assent to the truth of the Mystery in it selfe and from thence must necessarily infer that God has reuealed it before I belieue it by supernatural Faith And this is to Discourse not from the formal Obiect of Faith to the material which may be probably defended but from one Principle purely extrinsecal to Faith viz. The Churches Proposition obscurely known to the Diuine Testimony and the matter reuealed 4. A second Reason God truely speak's by the Church which is as well known by its own lustre and Miracles to be à Diuine Oracle as euer Prophet or Apostle were known to be so The Church immediatly Credible by their Signatures and Miracles No Disparity can be giuen But these Prophets and Apostles were made by their Marks and Wonders immediately Credible therefore the Church hold 's Parallel and is also by it Selfe and for it Selfe immediatly credible And hence it followes That the Churches Infallibility may and must in à General way be belieued before we come to an infallible Belief of Scripture For to Say I must first belieue by true Faith the Churches Infallibility vpon Scripture And to Say again I cannot first belieue that very Scripture to be Diuine This way of belieuing implâ—x and intricate or to speak truth But vpon the Churches Testimony seem's if not impossible at least à very implex intricate and à difficult way of Belieuing I say first belieue For none in this present state can know the Scriptures Diuinity without Church Authority 5. For these and many other Reasons I Conclude that this Proposition made by the Church She is an Oracle teaching all The Church can ground an act of Diuine Faith truth whereby men may attain Saluation is à sufficient Motiue to ground an Act of Diuine Faith vpon The learned Suarez to omit many other Diuines Disp 9. de Fidâ— Sect. 9. n. 14. Speak's most profoundly and pertinently to my purpose Ipsa Ecclesia seipsam proponit vt veram quia c. The Church proposes Herselfe as true and because she is sufficiently and euidently proposed therefore she obliges all to belieue such à Verity no less then other things appertaining Diuines teach So. to Faith Iust after that manner as à true Prophet who sufficiently proposes truths reuealed to him by God Consequently Sufficiently proposes himselfe to be à true Prophet Moreouer Disp 3. de Fide Sect. 11. n. 11. Quod Ecclesia definit Deus per Ecclesiam testificatur VVhat the Church Defines God testifies the same Verity by the Church Scripture accord's Scripture is Consonant where the Church is called the Pillar and ground of truth The Fathers accord so vniuersally that à Volume would not set forth their expressions Take only these two in place of many S. Cyril in Conc. Ephes Tom. 1. de Nicaenis Ancient Fathers Speak most significently Patribus They the Fathers there were inspired by the Holy Ghost â—ot to recede from Truth Non enim iâ—si loquebantur c. For they spake â—â—t but Christ our Sauiour witnessing â—t was the Spirit of God and the Eternal Father that spaâ—e in them S. Greg. Lib. 1. Regist Epist 24 Is yet more significant where he professes no less Reuerence to the four General Councils then to the four
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
Writings being owned as Containing in them the whole will of God so plainly reuealed that no sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for Saluation There can be c. First its false that the whole Will of God is plainly reuealed in Scripture And An Vntruth Supposed had we no more but Thus much only Viz. The vast multitudes of Christians who zealously defend that sense they Conceiue of Scripture yet contradict one another in Points most Though the Assertion were supposed true it helps not Protestants Essential Proues it false whereof enough is said in the seueral parts of this Treatise But let that Pass Suppose it à Truth The Propositions or Proofs must run thus No sober Enquirer can miss of knowing God's will or of what is necessary to Saluation Now add this Minor But the Protestant only is the sober Enquirer For No Arian No Pelagian No Quaker No Papist soberly enquires excepting the Protestant Thus much must be Assumed or to the General Proposition Vnapplyed help 's the Protestant no more then others that execrate his Doctrin For if these or any of them may be listed among the number of sober Enquirers The Reason hereof its ridiculous to exclude all and yet reiect Protestanism The general Proposition for ought appears yet may be applyed as well by euery one to his particular Religion as by the Protestants to Protestancy Therefore it signifies Iust Nothing before à right Application be made by distinct Proofs to the One only true Religion Some may reply euery Man is to enquire and Answer for Himselfe Pitiful That 's to Say we must alwaies be Scepticks euer learning and neuer well taught Weak reason and fancy are thus made Sectaries after their long Enquiry haue no Vnion in Faith our Doctors if this Principle be owned Se Disc 2. C. 17. Per totum In the Interim know this long inquiring after one whole Age brings no vnion in faith to Protestants who are as the world Sees at endless Iarrs amongst themselues 20. The 16th Principle Opposes such Men as pretend to infallible Assistance without giuing an equal degree of Euidence that they are so assisted as Christ and his Apostles did by Miracles as great as publick and conuincing as these were Answ This This Principle is first against Protestants Principle is quite besides the matter First because Protestants own à Church infallible in Fundamentals without giuing an Euidence equal to that of Christ and his Apostles Why then may not such an Euidence as proues the Church Infallible in Fundamentals be further extended and induce All to belieue Her Infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches 2. The Principle Secondly false is falfe We haue Apostolical Euidence in the Church euer since those Primitiue times as is largely proued Disc 1. C. 14. 15. 16. And Disc 3. C. 3. Lastly it is no more Thirdly though Supposed true it help 's not Protestants but à Proofles Assertion against the Church which laies claim to Infallibility And cannot though it were true aduantage Protestancy one whit Please to obserue my Reason Suppose the Catholick Church and the Protestant party were like one another equally fallible vpon what Principle can the fallible Protestant Party plead better or Say more for his Cause then the Supposed fallible Roman Church in behalfe of Her Doctrin Both of them as is proued in the second Discourse would in this case be à Publick scorn to Iewes and Gentils whilst they The reason hereof Conuinces Out-braue one another with the Meer Nothing of fallible Principles And which is euer to be noted can stand on no surer Ground then what is fallible and may be falfe if no Church be owned Infallible 21. In the. 17th Principle we are told its absurd to pretend the necessity of an Infallible Assistance to assure vs of the truth of Scripture And at the same time to Proue the Assistance Nothing yet for Protestancy from those writings from which nothing can be certainly deduced Answ Here again is nothing for Protestancy For Suppose which is false we proue not an Infallible Assistance Are therefore Protestants in à better condition then Catholicks How The Churches Infallibility is first Proued But to speak truth the Doctor wholly Mistakes we proue the Churches Infallibility independently of Scripture Read Disc 3. C. 5. In the. 18. Principle we hear talk again of the best Means for vnderstanding the Scripture but whether we Catholicks Arians or Protestants happily light on 't is not so much as hinted at by the Doctor wherefore I Said aboue these Generalities proue nothing without à neerer Application made by Proofs yet more immediate 22. The. 19th Principle The Assistance which God hath promised to those who sincerely desire to know his will may giue them greater Assurance of the truth of what is contained in Scripture than it is possible for the greatest infallibility in any other persons to doe Supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility Answ All this were it true is to say Iust nothing concerning Protestants vnless they be supposed the only Men who sincerely desire to know Gods Will for if any other called Christians Sectaries gain nothing by this abstract Principle of à different Beliefe be as Sober Inquirers or desire as earnestly to know Gods vvill as Sectaries What gain they by this remote abstract Principle Now to Suppose all other Christians negligent in the Inquiry after God's will and Protestants only the zealous Seekers comes neerer to à bold Presumption than to any thing like the nature of à Principle In à word here you haue all The Application to the Protestant Faith is wanting But what will you The Doctor cannot Vnless they Suppose Themselues the only sober Inquirers Want of Sense be drawn to plead for his own cause Finally sense is wanting in that last clause Supposing they haue not such assurance of their Infallibility Which is only to Say Supposing the Church be not Infallible Catholicks cannot belieue Her Infallibility 23. The 20th Principle No Mans Faith can therefore be infallible meerly because the Proponent is said to be Infallible Answ But if This Principle concern's not Sectaries the Proponent be both Said and Proued Infallible and this is amply proued Faith with the Assistance of God's Grace may well yea and must depend vpon it and be infallible Howeuer let all here Said pass There is yet nothing drawn from the Principle more concerning the Faith of Protestants then of the More then the Arians Arians Obserue well Both hold the Proponent of Faith which is the Church Fallible Make now the Inference Ergo the Protestants Faith seem's more sound then the Arians is à pure Non-sequitur not at all Deducible from this Principle alone nor indeed from any other 24. In the three folloing Paragraphs 21. 22. 23. You haue only gross Mistakes though if all were true Protestancy has None can infer if Taith be
Both I suppose are not guilty The Iudge speaks once and no more but these two at discord agree not Their vnreasonable proceeding declared by one Instance about the main point which â— the true meaning of his Sentence may not Both return home as wise as they came and contend till Dooms Day vnless some other Iudge break 's off the quarrel and sayes plainly Thou art the Traitour 22 This is our very case either we or Protestants betray This Discourse driuen home and applyed to these two dissenting Parties Gods truths The one or other Party Contradict's the first Verity and boldly auerres he Speak's what he never Spake We appeal to Holy Scripture and would haue our Debates decided by that Oracle Two or three Passages He that hear's you hears me The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth He that hears not the Church let him be as à Heathen c. literally taken denote the guilty Party But our Sectaries tell vs we mistake the Scriptures meaning They Sectaries cast themselues into in extricable difficulties vary from vs in the main Point concerning the very Sense of our Iudges Sentence Is it not therefore euident that they must either recurre to some other Tribunal for à final decision or Secondly ingenuously Confesse they are the men who will not haue the traiterous Party discouered Or lastly acknowledge Controuersies can haue no End and that God has not left any means on earth whereby the notorious Deprauers of his reuealed Truths may be known One only Instance will giue more light to what I haue sayd 23. We and Sectaries appeal to Christs sacred words This is my Body We vnderstand them literally and strongly plead our cause what different senses are made of Christs own words alleging for vs not only the Authority of the western and eastern Churches but if need were of the Lutherans also They reiect all yea Say we grosly mistake the sense of Christ's words and therefore hold vs the Traitours that commit grosse Idolatry in the sight of God and Angels Consider good Reader are not such Aduersaries obliged to plead their Cause before How the Catholick plead's this Iudge of Scripture by à Church as vniversal by witnesses as Faithful by an Authority as great as we produce against them or to confesse ingeniously This Controuersy cannot be decided They may 'T is true Oppose the Caluinists to Lutherans but to Sectaries allege nothing for their Sense denote à Church either Latin or Greek that maintained their Opinion of the Eucharist Shall neuer be made so much as meanly Probable O yes the Primitiue Church taught as they teach Contra. It s vtterly vntrue as is largely proued in the first Discourse Again that 's à thlng yet in Controuersy and therefore far from being à manifest sentence against vs yet their Clamours against our Idolatry are manifest and as iniurious as manifest 24. These and yet far more forceable Arguments proposed by Catholick Authors against Protestancy our Aduersaries call Flies Small Grains gnawing of Rats c. We wholly Contrary hold them conuincing and the cause we defend most iust Here both Parties Stick in the hight of their heats Stiffe in their wayes without yeilding to one another Is it not therefore full time and reasonable think A Iudge distinct from Scripture proued absolutly necessary ye to appeal to some Iudge distinct from Scriptureâ— by whose just Sentence it may appear whether we old Papists or our young Nouellists are the guilty men that impiously oppose God's truths 25. You se whilst the sense of Scripture and Fathers is not agreed on we are aduanced no further but only to quarrel as if Contention is not the last end of writing Controuersies Contention were the final end of writing Controuersies Or as if an eternal Debate were desired and after that to haue nothing decided For this sole Reason A Iudge is absolutely necessary though our Aduersaries will hear of none hauing an horrour to admit of any Churches Iudgement whereby the cause now in debate may be happily ended Yet if we follow the Rule of Catholicks appeal to one Iudge Reason what can be more Satisfactory then to appeal to Church Authority in this weighty matter We Catholicks stand to the Sentence of our own euidenced vniuersal Church She is our Protestants are forced to appeal to another of equal Authority or their Cause is lost Iudge Are not Sectaries therefore obliged if their Arguments against vs be thought solid and their cause good to appeal to the Iudgement of some other Church as euidenced by Miracles and as vniuersal as ours is which once taught as they teach and publickly decryed our supposed Errours 26. What we now propose seem's reasonable because Protestants most certainly aâ— they defend Protestanism will not pretend to publish à Doctrin with à strict obligation laid on their They cannot pretend to teaâ—h à Doctrin which no ancient Church euer taught Partizans to acquiese in it which no Orthodox Church euer taught or if any Church euer taught so This must be as clearly euidenced as it is euident that the Roman Catholick Church taught Popery seuen or eight Ages since Here in à word is the true trial of their whole Cause Denote Point out or name an Orthodox Church which owned this Protestancy fiue or six Centuries since Controuersies are ended But if it be as it is most impossible to name such à Church The Abetters of Protestancy Sectaries proue themselues heretiques only follow the strain and Method of all Condemned Hereticks and proue themselues by their own procedure Heretiques That is They plead against Catholick Doctrin by false Calumnies weak Cauils lame coniectures vnsensed Scriptures and Calumnies their only Defensâ— abused Fathers without any Church Authority to rely on And thus all your ancient Heretiques haue Proceeded 27. Wherefore to conclude I Say in à word Protestancy Protestancy proued an Improbable Religion as Protestancy is à most improbable Religion or to speak more plainly no Religion at all The ground of my Assertion will be best laid forth in these few words No ancient vniuersal Church no Orthodox Christians in any part of the world euer taught Protestancy Ergo its improbable Nay more no Heretical Society The ground of our Assertion of men euer taught that whole Doctrin Therefore it is an vnpatronized Nouelty reiected by the Vniuersal Christian world whether Orthodox or others And Hence it is that whateuer Protestants can Say in behalfe of their own Tenets or Contrary to Catholick Doctrin comes to no more but to improbable and vnproued Suppositions Obserue I beseech you 28. They tell vs the Roman Catholick Church once true deserted Improbable Suppositions the only Proofs of Sectaries the Ancient Faith we vrge them to proue the Assertion and with good reason because neither ancient Church nor any sound Christian euer said so before themselues And what Answer haue we The
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
As he thinks many à Flaw many à Mistake much iumbling much disorder in the Narration of his Circumstances Reflect well good Reader Doe you not see here à strange Confusion When after the vtmost done by these two Aduersaries You haue two quite different Doctrins raised from the same Authorities of Scripture and Fathers And that after the recourse of both to History You haue two as different Stories told you as Yea and No. In like manner after Their long discourses You haue two contradictory Conclusions drawn out And laid before your eyes to read Vpon what Principle if no more be Said can the yet perplexed Reader come to so much certainty of our Christian Truths as is necessary to Saluation By what means shall He know whether of these Two relates the truer Story Glosses or discourses better O He must peruse Ecclesiastical History Scripture also And the Volumes of Fathers And then iudge Pitiful More than half the world want's means to doe this And He who is able to comply with that laborious Task must at last trust to his own Iudgement Howeuer giue me one who will conform Himselfe to what he Reads and not draw all to à preiudicated Iudgement That man will find out Catholick Religion 4. Be it how you will The Catholick has à better And far more easy Principle to rely on in so weighty à Matter whereof The Catholicks Principle far more easy and plain we shall Treat largely in the next Discourse The Sectary has no other Ground to set footing on But his own priuate Fancy And here is the true Reason why he loues à life to stand dallying with you vpon Authority and History Goe no further He is sure to haue some Reply at hand For it is easy to trifle à long time whilst you only giue him this Authority And that Parcel of History to quarrel with The one as we haue seen He wrest's to what Sense he pleases On the other He can put so fair à Varnish by concealing some Circumstances and iumbling others together That the eyes of à vulgar Reader are easily dazled In the mean time He warily waues And is well content to doe so The last sound Principles which only can end Controuersies Wherefore Methinks one cannot fit the Sectaries Humour better than to attaque him with Authorities And next leaue the Glossing them to his fancy To recurr to Antiquity And permit him to put an other face on the whole Story Thanks be to God the Catholick Writers of our own Nation to say nothing of others who handle Matters most profoundly And in real truth haue already brought these debates to à Period giue no such Aduantage to Sectaries But relying What Sectaries would be at on sound Principles as learnedly reiect these Glosses as our new men wilfully make them without Principles Yet this is Truth As nouellists can do no more But Gloss without Principles So as I said now They are well enough content if the Catholick will doe something like them And only interpret or discourse vpon Authorities And this I call the less or not the last plain way of Ending debates Goe no further they think Themselues safe For example Read S. Austin in the place now cited I would not belieue the Gospel c. Ponder His whole Context attend to his learned Discourse Mark well how He both disputes and proues That he would not belieue the Gospel as Gods Diuine Word but vpon This solid ground That the Authority of the Church then when he wrote moued him to belieue so Descend yet to other particulars taken from his most Connexed way of Arguing Allege all plainly against the Sectary which hath been done and most landably again and again by Catholick Authors Yet after all you see Mr Stillingfleet begins new Quarrels as fiercely as if nothing had been said And if one should vnrauel what he hath wouen in his three pages would not â—e think ye to prolong these vnfortunate Strifes possibly find something to except against you And must not you to vnbeguile the Reader once more reply And except against all his new Exceptions How long may controuersies not yet brought to the last plain Principles run on without ending A shorter way Therefore must be thought of And thus it is 5. Take only that Positiue Doctrin which the Protestant plainly makes his own dogmatical Assertion when he either Adds his The clearest way of ending controuersies new Gloss to an obscure Authority or cast's one clear for Catholick Religion into darknes If you will haue Scripture Quote that Passage of the Apostle The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith This is my body or what els you like best If Fathers Cite S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Iustin Martyr or any other quoted aboue in defense of the Real Conuersion of bread into Christs Sacred Body This done First consider well what Church speak's most Conformably to the obuious Sense of these Authorities 2. Distinguish exactly between the Sectaries Gloss which contain's his Doctrin And the plain words of that Authority which he Interpret's Withall Ponder how little these two look like one another How little their Gloss. This is à Sign of my Body hath to doe with our Sauiours clear Expression This is my body 3. Stay not too long vpon the Energy of à Testimony Though plain in your behalf nor weigh ouer much the Circumstances wherein it was spoken For though both be well done yet This fitt's the Sectaries Humour Who waits for such By-Matters And in his Answers as I haue often obserued To shift off what mainly vrgeth will giue you work enough with his Suppositions his May-bâ—â—s And endles Windingâ— What is then to be done when he supposes his coniectures or Glosses to be true Doctrin This way I am sure is very solid 6. Propose with all moderation These following Questions Haue you Sir any Orthodox Church euer since Christianity began The Sectary is vrged I am sure you haue no express Scripture which without dispute as plainly deliuered the Doctrin contained in your Gloss as you now plainly Teach it Haue you any Orthodox Council which without Exception as Clearly defined it as you now Assert it Haue you any Tradition which by à continued Succession Age after age conueyed vnto you the Tenets you pretend to find in some few Fathers And now publish to the world as Christian Truths If you ground your Glosses or Doctrin on such excellent Principles we Catholicks are certainly in Errour And ought to conform to your reformed Gospel But if you fail and fail you must to doe thus much if you only giue vs empty Glosses without further Proofs we look on them as slight things cast off by the Orthodox world as both vnprincipled and vnpatronized Therefore Scriptureless as they are Churchless as they are they fall of Themselues to nothing And bring vtter ruin to your new Machin of Protestancy 7. I doe you no wrong when I draw you off
of that weak Declaration it appear's no other to me but As things are proposed so they are to all that belieue weak and fallible And none on earth can vnbeguile me or Propose it with greater certainty Because all are now Supposed fallible in their Teaching 8. One Instance may yet clear my meaning The Protestant reads Christs Sacred words Matt. 26. This is my Body And Proposes what he conceiues to be belieuable by Faith But An Instance doth it fallibly Imagin that the Roman Catholick Church also could Say no more for Her Doctrin or the Sense of those Words But as the Protestant doth so fallibly that all might be False it is clear That none whether Catholick or Protestant can haue Certainty of the Doctrin which Christ our Lord deliuered in that one short Sentence Why Both declare their fallible Sentiments only and Fallibly concerning the Sacrament So far their teaching reaches and not farther Therefore the Faith which should be had of the Mystery dwindles into nothing but into à fallible Opinion by virtue of that imperfect Teaching 9. Hence we learn that à Doctrin though infallible in Gods word without more Help makes no man though he be à Prodigy of wit an Infallible Teacher The reason is Infallibility Scripture alone makes no man infallible And why Proceed's not from Scripture easily misinterpreted but immediatly from Gods special Assistance And this Assistance which fixes an Assumed Oracle vpon Truth vnerrably no malice can wrest to falshood Now that the Book of Scripture as dayly Experience teaches is horridly peruerted to à Sinister sense needs no proof For all know what ruin Hereticks haue to the vttermost of their Power endeuoured to make of the chief Articles of our Christian Faith though they aknowledged Scripture to be God's Diuine Word There is scarce One which remain's Vnperuerted Some Deny the Necessity of Diuine Grace Others that great Mystery of the Incarnation Others an Equality in the Diuine Persons Others our Sauiours two Wills Diuine and Humane Thus the Pelagians the Antitrinitarians the Apollinarians and Monothelits taught and deceiued The world And when Scripture is Alleged in behalf of euery Orthodox Truth All you haue from them is à return of ouerthwart Glosses Grace must signify what the Pelagians please The VVord made Flesh How abused what the Antitrinitarians fancy and so of the rest Whence it is Euident that Scripture Alone without more light clears not sufficiently its own Truths For here you Se the most Primary Atticles disowned and Consequently Scripture abused by Priuate Spirits which therefore makes none infallibly certain of God's reuealed Doctrin 10. We Catholicks require à further Help One faithful Oracle to teach which in this contest about the Sense of Gods What Catholicks require besides the bare Letter of Scripture Word end 's all Strife and Saies both plainly and infallibly Thus and thus an Infinite Verity speaks in Scripture Yet Sectaries are offended with vs because we can assert without hesitancy VVe belieue infallibly what Truth it Selfe Reueal's infallibly Nay more They are angry with God for hauing done them the greatest fauour Imaginable For to put à Period to these endles A signal Mercy of God makes sectaries offended debates raised among Christians To teach all Infallibly by his own vnerring Oracle what may and ought to be belieued Infallibly is à signal Mercy for which due Thanks can neuer be rendred Disowne the Mercy we liue and shall liue in à Spirit of Contention to the worlds end 11. Now if you Ask why the Church after She has proposed the Sense and verity of Scripture more easily beget's infallible Faith in Her Children Than the bare letter of Gods word can doe without Her I Answer The facility Diuine assistance Supposed arises from the Clarity of Her teaching known to all Vniuersally whether Orthodox or others Whence it is that few of our Aduersaries scarce moue any doubt concerning the Sense of the Churches vniuersal receiued Doctrin for that 's plain but chiefly Question the Truth of it Whereas all is contrary in our contest with the forenamed Hereticks For there is no Dispute whether Scripture be true What is chiefly debated with Sectaries The debate only being what it Saith or what the Sense of Gods sacred word is Here we fight in darkness before the Church Speak's and Declares Her Sense And if She be diuinely Assisted to teach truth as is already and shall be more amply proued in the sequele Discourse that doubt also ceases and vanishes into nothing 12. In the mean while Some may Object 1. The greatest part of Christian Doctrin is now agreed on and Supposed by Catholicks and Protestanss both true and infallible what necessity then haue we of any other Oracle besides Scripture to teach infallibly Answ The Agreement is Null and the Supposition destroies it self if all that taught Christian Doctrin since the Apostles time teach it fallibly For How could any An Obiection Answered agree in this That such and such à Doctrin is both true and infallible when He or They yea all that teach may because fallible erre in their very teaching and call that infallible Doctrin without Assurance giuen of its Infallibility Do Therefore all own the Verities in Scripture infallible not infallible ex Terminis We must ioyntly own with that an Oracle which Proposes these Verities infallibly or can belieue nothing And by this you Se the Supposition destroies it Selfe For The Sectaries Supposition destroyes it selfe to Suppose à Doctrin infallible when none can Propose it answerably to its Merit as infallible or infallibly is as implicatory as to Suppose without Proof the Starrs in Heauen equal in number and from thence to Inferr they are to be iudged equal The Parity holds exactly 13. Obiect 2. Whoeuer though fallible Deliuers by chance Infallible Christian Doctrin Teaches the very sence that Christ taught Answ Very true But he giues no Assurance Aunother Errour of Sectaries That he doth so For à fallible Deliuery of à Truth as yet only Supposed not Proued infallible raises it no higher but to such à State of Vncertainty that one may iustly doubt whether it be Christ's infallible Doctrin or no. 14. Obiect 3. The fallible teaching of an infallible Verity may well conuey vnto à Hearer that which God has Reuealed For why may not an infallible Verity as Reuealed though fallibly Proposed haue influence vpon Faith and work in Belieuers à most firm Assent Answ It is vtterly vmpossible For à fallible teaching of an infallible Verity not yet Proposed as infallible by any neither Supposes the Truth Certain vpon other principles and this is euer to be noted nor makes it infallible It Supposes no Truth taught infalliby for Protestants Say None now can teach so All Doctors being fallible And most euidently Sectaries clearly conuinced it makes not that Verity infallible For the Verity as reuealed was antecedently Infallible before this fallible teaching
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
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
both Ascertains him of the Canon and the Sense also Hence That other Obiection fall's to nothing How can there be an infallible Assent to the truth of this Proposition Scriptures are The third retorted and answered the word of God when that Infallibility at the highest is but euidently Credible I Answer and retort the Argument How could the Primitiue Christians Assent to the Apostles preaching as infallible when that infallibility at the highest was but Euidently Credible before they belieued 3. The whole Confusion lies as is said in not Distinguishing between Faith and the Iudgement of Credibility Infallibility therefore whether we Assent to Christ to his Apostles or to the Church all taught one and the same Doctrin is the Obiect of Diuine Faith but none euer assented to any Doctrin these Oracles taught infallibly without sufficient Euidence preuiously had A Discouery of the whole Fallacy of its Credibility And thus I belieue by Faith Scripture to be God's word because the Church Saith so But if you Ask why I hold all the Church Teaches to be Euidently Credible I Euince not this truth by the Infallibility I belleue But recurr to those Motiues whereby She is proued an Oracle as euidently Credible as euer any Apostle was And consequently I belieue Her Infallibility with the same Diuine Faith as I belieue the Words of Scripture 4. Page 114. He Obiect 's 3. We Catholicks make by this way of resoluing Faith euery man's reason the only Iudge in the Choise of his Religion Why doe we more so I beseech you than the Primitiue Christians who certainly had the very like rational Motiues with ours and no other before they belieued But of this Subiect we shall treat largely towards the End of this Discourse 5. Page 115. He Saith If the Infallibility of the Church of Rome be à sure foundation of Faith what will become of the Faith of all those who receiued Diuine Reuelations without the Infallibility of any Obiections grounded on Instance Church at all And he brings in these Instances First of the Apostles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament when Christ suffered which certainly was not Grounded on the infallible Testimony of the Iewish Church for at that time it consented to the Death of the â—essias 2. Of all that belieued the woman of Samaria no infallible Oracle when She declared the Discourse between Christ our Lord and her self 3. Of such as belieued our Sauiours Doctrin and Miracles related by men honest and faithful These Saith â—e had no infallible Testimony but only à rational Euidence to build Faith non and consequently an Infallible Testimony of the Conueyers of Diuine Reuelation is Vnnecessary to Diuine Faith which seem's vndoubted For very few in the first Ages of the Christian Church receiued the Doctrin of the Gospel from the mouths of persons infallible 6. By the way I much wonder Why Mr Stillingfleet omitted to touch here vpon an other Instance farr more difficult which both he and all other must solue concerning rude and illiterate Persons chiefly if of no great maturity who are induced to belieue by the Testimony or Instruction of their Parents or of Another Instance more difficult some other simple Teachers These certainly may haue Faith without acquiring that full Euidence of Credibility whereunto the learned reach yea and without any Discouery of the Scriptures rational Euidence neuer perhaps heard of much less vnderstood by them 7. Now I Answer to the Obiection None makes the Roman Catholick Church in all Circumstances the only sure foundation of Diuine Faith For the first man that belieued in The Church in all Cireumstances was not the only Foundation of Faith Christ our Lord before the Compleat Establishment of His Church had Perfect Faith resting on that great Master of Truth without dependance on the Christian Church For Christ alone was not the Church But the supreme Head of it Faith therefore in General requires no more but only to rely vpon God the first Veriâ—y speaking by this or that Oracle by one or more men lawfully sent to teach who proue their Mission and make the Doctrin proposed by them Euidently Credible In like manner the Apostles preached no Doctrin in the name of the new Christian Church whilst our Sauiour liued here on earth But Testified that he was the true Messias by virtue of those Signs and Miracles which had been already wrought aboue the force of nature Thus much Supposed 8. It is hard I think for any to Say where the force lies in The Mistake of the first Instance that Instance of the Apostles belieuing the Diuine Authority of the old Testament which innumerable Iewes then dispersed all Iury ouer and the other parts of the world not at all conscious of Christ's Passion most firmly belieued Why therefore might not the Apostles belieue the Diuinity of the old Scripture vpon the Authority of that Church whereof there were at that time many and very many Professors in other places distant from Hierusalem Hence I say the Belief of that Article neuer failed But was alwayes preserued entire in both Churches of the Iewes and Christians for we all yet belieue the Authority of the old Testament And Consequently its hard to Conceiue what this Obiection aymes at 9. Again admit à total Subuersion of the Iewish Church Had not the Apostles our Blessed Lord present who could well Ascertain them that he came not to Cancel any Diuine Supposed true its forceles Authority of Scripture for this was impossible vnless God be contrary to God but to fulfil to perfect and change the old Law into à better State O but the High Priest and the Elders also erred in consenting to Christs death Very true and the Reason is because their Priuiledge of not erring lasted only to Christ's comming and not longer But hence it followes not that then there was no Iewish Church which belieued the Diuine Verities of the old Scripture I verily think Mr Stillingfleet mistook one Obiection for another Perhaps he would haue said that the Apostles lost faith of our Sauiours Resurrection at the time of his Passion But this Difficulty is solued ouer The Apostles failed not in Faith and ouer First it is Answered that Article was not sufficiently Proposed to them Therefore we read Luke 18. 34. They vnderstood none of these things This Word was hid from them Again Had they failed in Faith ar that time They were then as Bellarmin obserues Lib 3. de Ecclesia C. 17. neither the whole Church but only material Parts of it nor could that improbable Supposed Errour haue preiudiced one whit the Faith of others who firmly belieued in Christ 10. That other Instance of the Samaritan woman is soon cleared if we distinguish between the Motiue or the natural Proposition The other Instance cleared by one 〈…〉 tion of Faith which comes by hearing and the infallible Oracle wherevpon it relies And T' is
vnderstanding to an infallible Assent 4. To Solue this pressing Argument many learned Diuines ascribe and Methinks most reasonably so great an Euidence to the Motiues of credibility so strong à connexion between The Iudgement of learned Diuines them and the Diuine Reuelation that it 's impossible to separate what God has conioyned Viz. The Truth of his Reuelation from the euident appearance or rather the real Exhibition of so many glorious Miracles so much blood shedding for Christ so great Sanctity Such innumerable conuersions wrought vpon Millions c. These and the like Signal wonders taken atlogether God cannot permit to be done in his name and with all their Circumstances to confirm à Faith which tend's to no other end but Holiness of life and euerlasting happines vnless the Diuine Testimony were really in Being as these Signs conuince VVhere in the force of Church Motiues lies 5. To illustrate more this necessary Truth be pleased to consider à little wherin the weight of our Church Motiues lies and first behold them as they are Positiues Signes Miracles Sanctity Conuersions so positine that neither Iew nor Gentil can deny one of them 2. Carry well in mind this negatiue Truth also The want of Arguments to the Contrary I would Say Nothing like à rational Proof can be alleged against them but what equally discredit's the admirable Wonders of Christ and hie Apostles Add herevnto 3. That no Society of men be they Heathens Iewes or Hereticks haue hitherto shewen or shall hereafter shew Signes Comparable to these in confirmation of any doctrin apposite to that which the Catholick Church teaches God's exteriour voyce net â—mitable by the Diuel or any false Prophet 6. From what is here hinted at and the Principles already laid I Discourse farther God can speak to creatures in à Language worthy himselfe and so proper to his own great Maiesty that no false Prophet can forge counterfeit or perfectly imitate it The Assertion seem's manifest For if his own Language be forgeable or imitable by Enemies It is impossible to judge by any Sign whether he or the Diuel speaks Nay it followes clearly that God Cannot speak at all in à Language worthy himselfe or powerful enough to gain Belief For if His voyce be not distinguishable from that of an Enemy How Shall men yeild à surer Assent to God when He speaks than to an Impostor that speak's like him 7. Thus much supposed these two things follow ineuitably Church Motiues certainty Speak Something and in right Order First Something is certainly signified by these Marks and signal Motiues manifest in the Church and consequently they are either God's Voice or the Diuels Take which you will If God's own Voice for etiam factis loquitur Deus Saith S. Austin it is so clear and discernable by it selfe from another cogging Gypsie Language that all may know it proceed's from God Or if this cannot be known it auails him not what followes if the Language of the Motiues be an illusion to speak when the language he vtters cannot possibly be discerned to be his Contrarywise if you say The whole Aggregation of Motiues are à meer illusory language of God's professed Enemies you vndoe all you destroy the Euidence of Christianity you annul our Sauiours most glorious Miracles and render the Apostles admirable wonders not only insignificant but contemtible to Iewes and Gentils Let therefore the man appear in publick who dare boldly Assert All the illustrious Motiues and markes God either Speaks by them or Christianity Perishes of the Catholick Church which as I said certainly signify something are the Language of Diuels or false Prophets when it is euident they induce to belieue à Doctrin most Pious and sacred If you Affirm Christianity goes to wrack Say no or acknowledge such supernatural Signes to proceed from God we haue enough the very Lustre of ithem so discountenances and abashes Heresy that it appear's as â—t truely is in the highest measure improbable 8. Hence we see T' is the second inference and the chiefest thing I aym at an inseparable Connexion between these supernatural Signes and the thing signified I mean between the Motiues and the Diuine Reuelation For if it be certain that such Signes The Connexion asserted followes from hence proceed from God which is indubitable vnless either Diuel or false Prophet fourge them None can doubt but that God's interiour Reuelation actually exist's as the Motiues Morally Euident do Conuince 9. You will Say If the Motiues haue an Infallible Connexion with Gods internal Reuelation that very Reuelation and Consequently the Mystery Reuealed must also appear euident Faith not Euident though the Motiues haue an Essential Connexion in Themselues to all Belieuers And so faith would be Euident I deny the Consequence because the Assent giuen to that Connexion which implies the highest Moral certitude conceiuable vnder the degree of most strict Euidence is Science and not Faith For it saies no more but thus much The Diuine Reuelation not seen in it Selfe but only by the light of external Signs is by virtue of these Signes made euidently Credible Now this euidence Faith as Faith leaues Or laies aside And firmly adheres to the Diuine Reuelation only for it Selfe as Contradistinct both from the Moral Euidence of the Motiues and their apparent Connexion with the Reuelation 10. The reason is taken from the Notion of Faith which essentially tend's obscurely vpon its own Obiect as the most ancient Fathers assert whose words because known to Euery one I waue at present and will only mind you of what some Protestants teach Faith Saies one and the Twi-light seem to agree in this Properly The nature and tandency of Faith that à mixture of darkness is requisite to both with too refulgent light the one vanishes into knowledge as the other into day Thus much granted t' is clear that no Euidence of the Testimony assented to can moue to Faith not only because we should in the case of Euidence be necessitated to belieue But vpon this account also that the certitude of Faith taken from the Supremest Verity is of à higher Strain and far surpasses all the certitude we find in Nature or in the Motiues inducing to belieue For were it possible as it is not that these Motiues and all the preuious Proofs leading to Beliefe could deceiue it is yet more impossible that God's infinite The excellence of it surpasses all created Certitude Veracity deceiues any Now by Faith we lay hold vpon this most Supreme or All-comprehending Infallibility proper to God alone not communicable to any creature And in this sense Faith far transcend's the Certitude of the forementioned Connexion which is known to be Infallible by Natural Discourse only 11. It is true The more euident these Motiues appear the better they induce to belieue yet for that reason haue lesse to doe with the very act of Faith which as I sayd rest's vpon and
very Calumny without more and their own vnproued Suppositions serue both for proof and Answer We demand Again Questions proposed â— when the Church failed when or in what Age the Church became thus accursed and traiterous to Christ They fob vs off with fooleries of beards growing Gray and weeds peeping vp in à garden inperceptibly Is not thy ridiculous We Ask. 3. Seing the world was neuer Since the Apostles preached without an Orthodox Christian what other pure Church succeded in place of Roman supposed Idolatrous How many different Churches will Sectaries own why Should the Protestants Reformation be better then that of the Arians Society what other pure Church succeeded in place of the Roman now supposed Idolatrous and heretical None hitherto has offerred to answer this Question nor can it be Answered vnless Sectaries admit two or three distinct different Churches The first Primitiue and pure the second corrupted which came in when the Roman Catholick began her supposed Idolatry The third again pure and spotless which closely followed the Roman fallen into Errour And this is à meer chimera We lastly demand why this Protestant Reformation should be more lik'd more look'd on or held any wayes better then those precedent Reformations of their elder Brethern the Donatists or Others Will it be said Protestants came after the rest or in the last place and therefore think themselues more skilful the only gifted men in this business of mending Religion Plead thus I answer They speak improbably and are worse then all their Predecessors vpon this very account that hauing For one weighty reason it is far worse seen the Malice the weak Attempts the vnlucky successe of defeated Heretiques in former Ages will not learn by such woful examples to be more wise and wary then to run the Risque with them and thereby to incurr God's heauy Indignation 29. Whoeuer desires to make à further inspection into that The improbability of Protestanism further declared in à very vnequal Parallel The first reuerenced the other scorn'd The one hath à head the other is headles Tradition teaches the one fancy the other The one far and neer diffused the other hid in corners Councils and no Councils Vnity and Diuisions visible Pastors and inuisible Compared together high improbability which other Christians Charge Protestancy with may please to compare à little our Catholick Religion with this other late risen Nouelty If things be well weighed without Controuersy so euident that they need no Proof The first will be found alwayes reuerenced and neuer opposed by Orthodox Christians Contrarywise the other will appear an obiect of scorn not only to the wisest of the world but also to innumerable that professe it against their own Consciences The One hath an Ecclesiastical Head for its Guide The other is an vngouernable Body without head or ioynts to tye its iarring parts together The One shewes you manifest and most euident Miracles The other if euer nature wrought Miracles à Miraculous boldnes to deny the greatest wonders God hath wrought by the Church The One teaches what it anciently receiued by à neuer interrupted Tradition The other what is suggested by euery Priuate Phansy The one is diffused the whole world ouer The other only Creeps vp and down in à few Corners of these Northern parts in so much that some Religious Orders are further extended than Protestancy The One hath had seueral Oëcumenical learned Councils The other neuer any learned or vnlearned The one still retain's à strict vnity in Faith the other manifestly is torn in pieces with Diuisions The one giues you à large Catologue of its ancient visible Pastors and visible professors for full Sixteen Ages The other cannot name one Protestant Village nor one Protestant man before the dayes of the vnfortunate Luther 30. The one hold's its Catholick deceased Ancestors worthy respect and veneration The other makes them all besotted Idolaters Respect and à high dishonour and worse then mad men The one Religion Stand's firmly built vpon plain Scripture and the Authority of an euidenced vniuersal Church The other vtterly vnprincipl'd has not one word of Holy writ for it nor either vniuersal or particular Church which euer taught Protestancy The one has Principles and no Principles An Interpreter and no Interpreter Faith and no faith Infallibility and fallibility à An ancient Possession an open vrong Diuine Assistance and no Diuine Assistance à Mysterious Bible and à certain Interpreter the other à meer body without à Soul the bare letter without life words without sense and Phansy to Interpret The one resolues its faith into God's infallible Reuelation the other has nothing like Faith to resolue The one Religion Proues its truths Infallible The other seek's for fallible Doctrin and has found enough of what is both fallible and false also An Ancient Possession vphold's the One and à publick iniurious rebellion against the Mother Church giues the other all the Right it hath The Professors of the one proue God to haue been the Author of it who yet preserues it vnalterable and pure by Diuine Assistance The Professors of the other say plainly that God neuer reuealed one Article of their reformed Protestancy and therefore need no Diuine Assistance to preserue it The Professors of the One shew you à Church gloriously marked with Signes and Wonders peculiar effects of God's Infinite Power and Wisdome which make the Religion euidently Credible to Reason The Professors of the other in lieu of such Marks Shew you A glorious euidenced Church and a meer Naked Nothing parallel'd à bare Naked Nothing without Miracles without Conuersions without austerity or any thing that appear's like à work of God in it and therefore is most euidently incredible 31. Thus much for an Essay only which might be further enlarged but its needles for you haue euery particular proued in the Treatise here in your hands If our Aduersaries hold themselues or cause iniured whilst we so highly extol the one What 's required if our Aduersaries hold their Cause wronged Religion and extenuate the other to Improbability it will methinks be very easy to right Both by shewing plainly vpon sound and very sound Principles wherein our mistakes lie or in what substantial Matter we haue erred But still remember Principles 32. What I here propose Seem's reasonable and 't is done for this sole end Almighty God knowes that after our long The sole End why we propose this Debates it may at last appear to euery one on which side Truth stand's Now if vpon so faire an Offer we haue nothing return'd but Sectaries wonted strain of Cauils trim'd vp with pretty ieers I for my part haue done and shall in place of Arguing further mildly exhort as Blessed S. Austin once did in We exhort with Blessed S. Austin à like Occasion De Vnit. Ecclesiae C. 19. fine Sâ— auâ—em non potestes quod tam iuste à vobis flagitamus ostendere Credite veritati Conticescite Obdormiscite à furore expergiscimini ad salutem If you Sectaries cannot Conuince our Church guilty of errour by vndeniable Principles this we iustly require Belieue Truth Let your weak Attempts and fury sleep Surcease from this friuolous And appeal to their own guilty Consciences charging vs with Heresy and Idolatry You know Gentlemen you know full well we are no Idolaters your own Consciences tell you your Plea is naught your Cause vndefensible Expergisâ—imini ad Salutem Wake open your drowsy eyes and look about you 33. You se our Noble England set on fire by your vnfortunate dissentions concerning Religion bring your teares to After â— long drawsy sleep its time to wake quench the flames You se your Selues vpon your different Engagements some brain-sick with Fanaticism some with no man knowes what worrying one another Wonder nothing it must needs be so whilst you are out of the peaceable Fold of Christ's vnited Church You haue been too long Prodigal Children straying from the house of God return with à hearty Peccaui A tender Mother the Catholick Church is willing to receiue you and à good old Father Christs Vicar vpon earth as ready to embrace you with open armes You se Atheism enters and is rife among you pernicious Leuiathans and other like Monsters range vp and down and poyson innumerable How Should it be otherwise Atheism followes vpon what you haue done For those who Separate from the true Church soon Separate from Christ also and cannot after that double Diuorce long Continue Friends to God Wherefore once more Expergisâ—imini ad salutem be The Authors hearty wish vigilant Hora est iam nos de somno surgere it now high time to wake Your Concern is no less à Matter then eternal Saluation My earnest prayer is that Christ our Lord the Light of the world may break through the thick cloudes of all darken'd hearts and with the radiant beams of Diuine Grace illuminate euery one Ad salutem to endles Bliss and Happines FINIS