strain as is already declared Hence I say this part of the Dialogue is so inuincible à proof against Protestants in behalf The Centurist's Censure Theoderet of the real Presence that it cannot be answered and therefore the Centurist's with other Hereticks quoted by Brereley pag. 111. and pag. 258. hauing charged S. Chrisostome with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation censure Theoderet vpon the same score as one that speak's dangerously in the matter These men it seem's saw no great force in the later part of the Dialogue which our modern Protestants so much vrge and followes thus 16. When Eranistes had asserted that the Symbols by the inuocation of the Priest are changed and made other things and from that change inferred that our Lords body after his Ascension was conuerted into the Diuine substance The Orthodox Answer 's Thou art caught in the netts thou hast wouen Theodoret's Assertion For the Mystical symbols after Sanctification go not away from their nature For they remain in their former essence and figure and form and â—â—y be seen and touched aâ— before But yet they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made and belieued and adored to be those things as they are belieued Thus the Latin interpreter render's Theoderet's words you shall haue presently an other Lection though truely to read them as you see here after due reflection made vpon the precedent part of the Dialogue is so fully enough to ascertain euery one of this learned Father's meaning that I wonder any iudicious Man can scruple at it The genuin sense is Thou Eranistes maintain's that the visible circumscribed body of our His whole sense declared Sauiour was after his Ascension swallowed as it were vp or totally changed into his Godhead To illustrate this thy Doctrin thou takest à proof from the Mystical signes or Symbols of the blessed Sacrament and not only from the inward substance of bread which thou acknowledgest changed I tell thee thou art caught in thy own net the parity fail's there for the Mystical signes remain to sense as before in the same exteriour form and substance they are seen felt c. Darest thou Eranistes say Christ's sacred body retain's yet the same exteriour form it had on earth Has it yet in Heauen the same dimensions as these symbols haue after Consecration Is it visible or extended Answer as thou pleasest Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma for thee Either thou maintains't that A dilemma Chris'ts glorious body is now visible and extended as the Symbols of the Sacrament are Or contrariwise not sensible not seen not extended Grant the first Thou denies't thy own Doctrin and must assert that his whole glorious body is not conuerted into the Godhead Grant the second or say it has not the same exteriour form the same visibility and extension Thy instance and proofs taken from the Symbols of the Sacrament are Eo ipso made null and forcelesse for these signes keep the same form as before they are perceptible to sense extended c. and thus thou art both caught and conuinced 17. By what is now said you find Theoderet's discourse most solid against the Heretick who would needs infer grounding himselfe vpon the change made in the Sacrament that Christ's whole humane nature was conuerted into the Diuinity Thus much saith Theoderet is euidently false for these Symbols remain in their exteriour form vnaltered but Chris'ts humane body with thee remain's not so for all in it the very exteriour is changed into the Godhead Therefore thy proof taken from the symbols Theoderet only speak's of the Species or accidents remaining of the Sacrament not changed at all is void of strength faint and weightlesse Now that Theoderet speak's only of the outward symbols of the Sacrament is manifest First by what is noted already where he saith we are partakers of the true body and blood of Christ 2. By his answer to the Heretick where he openly professeth that though these symbols are seen and handled as before yet to the vnderstanding and Faith they contain the things we truely belieue That is Christ's real body and blood And thus much He proues in the following words where he asserts that they are to be adored no otherwise than Christ's immortal body is now adored sitting at the right hand of His Father for in both places as you may read in the text the same word of Diuine honour is referred to Christ in the Sacrament and now glorious in heauen 18. You must here haue à word of the other Lection already hinted at which clear's all and takes away the least shadow of à difficulty The most eminent and learned Cardinal Perron propound's it and proues it also absolutely the best by six stronge Arguments Liu. 2. De L'Eucharistie Chap. 12. P. 539. First Theodorets Text dubious saith he There is certainly in Theoderet's Greek Text à dubious form of speaking perhaps vsed on set purpose because of some Auditors present not yet initiated or first instructed in these Mysteries The Original words are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is The symbols remain in their former essence and figure and form and may be seen c. But read them thus saith the Cardinal by à Transposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is For they remain and iâ— the form and in the figure of the first substance and all difficulty How the Cardinal read's ceases For by this construction Theoderet only sayes the accidents or species of bread and wine remain intimating nothing at all of any inward substance of bread remaining nay his whole context supposes the inward substances changed into Christs body 19. If this Construction be admitted so that the Genitiue case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be as it is à Genitiue and the other two follow in form of Latin ablatiues you haue this Connatural sense Manent in priâ—â—â— essentiae formâ figurâ The Symbols remain in the form and figure of their first essence which preiudices nothing the real Transmutation of bread into Christ's body but much confirm's it But such à Construction add's the learned Cardinal or Transposition of words is not only possible but very frequent in the Greek Language whereof he giues examples and one out of Theoderet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is The body of our Lord of the nature In lieu of saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est The body of the nature of our Lord. 20. The Cardinal maintain's the construction now giuen both as the more elegant and most agreable to Theoderet's whole context for many sound reasons Here is one taken from the Authors very next words But they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made and belieued and adored How Adored As they are truely belieued That is as containing the true body and The reason why he read's so blood of Christ For were this not really so Christ could not be adored For as
of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer now alleged Therefore if we be in errour the wit of man cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles And here I vrge Mr Silling to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and significant that is Scripture as clear Fathers as clear Tradition as clear the Iudgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted for the opinion he hold's as we now allege in the defense of our Catholick verity Belieue it if he suppose as he certainly doth the Church to haue erred so grosly for à thousand years The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subiect when they meant no such thing He ought to fasten vpon sound Principles indeed before we yeild and must not think to ouerthrow What sectaries are obliged to our Doctrin or foile vs with à few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff which comes no neerer to Principles than improbability to Euidence Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities If à man saith he P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be false which sense iudges to be true he means which weak reason vpon the discouery of sense iudges true for our outward senses make no iudgement What assurance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrin A word to our Aduersaries strange demand Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christs resurrection if their sight might be deceiued about its proper obiect c I am astonished to read this and answer briefly Christ's Resurrection the like I say of Miracles was most vndoubted vpon the discouery which sense and reason made in the presence of such obiects because no contrary Principle so much as weakly stood against that euidence and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was obiected to sense then I now doubt of writing these lines But all is contrary in the present Mystery For here the vnanswerable words of Scripture the Authority of my Church the Clear Testimonies of Fathers the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to belieue the Diuine Reuelation which is either certainly known vpon these grounds or we boldly say no Christian verity was euer yet known vpon any sure Principle What if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling may roundly grant that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real presence for many ages and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been besotted them selues but moreouer haue basely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of belieuing that to be Christs body which really is not Howeuer he will honour the Fathers so far as to afford them the fauour of his glosses Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrin Mr Stilling is obliged to name some Churh reputed Orthodox 3. or 4. hundred years past for then there was à true Church in the world which held his opinion or as expresly denyed the real Presence as our Church both then and now mantains it and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy for I am sure there was neuer any such Church on earth Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery Fathers He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin and make all belieue that we Catholicks hold not yet the real presence Obserue the same language in all That wich in seen is not bread though it seem's so to the tast But the body of Christ Our sense may be deceiued Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed â— made the flesh of Christ and the wine his blood c. Thus the Fathers deliuer their sense and it is the Churches language also If therefore Mr Stilling can so gloss these words of the Fathers as to make them speak Protestancy or not to deliuer our Catholick Doctrin I should not wonder if in the next book set forth he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence If he did so I am sure his attempt would proue as vnsuccesful in the one case â— in the other 11. Well But permit him to interpret the Fathers and to fall foule as he is wont to do vpon our supposed Church errours what is the vtmost that followes Thus much only Meer talk without Principles For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know that his glosses which striue to dead the very obuious sense of the Fathers plain words implie not altogether as little satisfaction as little assurance as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it If so and so it is most euidently as his Doctrin before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians so his interpretations goe no higher but are euery whit as improbable 12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling that vnless his explanation Sectaries glosses vnprincipled worth Nothing of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distiâ—ct from and extrinsick to his glosses they are worth nothing For what auail's it me to read his glosses when no receiued Principle vp hold's them but fancy Reflect à little I read in Scripture This is my body My Church tell 's me the literal sense is true The Fathers as you haue heard and the Tradition of two Churcheâ— confirm this sense Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiect's my Churches authority then begins to strain the Fathers Testimonies with his glosses Stay Sr say I. I except against your glosses and iustly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coynâ— If true they stand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at Proue this and I 'le reuerence your glosses but if you fail and fail you must your Doctrin and glosses are both alike Counterfeit and thoughts of fancy only 13. Hee may reply When Protestants cite the Fathers against the Real presence For example That of S. Austin or Theoderet mentioned aboue we Catholicks explicate them and now which seem's foul play we except against his Glosses For If we interpret An Obiection why may not Hee doe so also A word only in passing conformable to what is noted aboue If to decide this one Controuersy of Christ's Real Presence recourse be had to the Fathers and the two aduerse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations the Dispute will neuer be ended Because priuate glosses leaue the two Dissenters as much at iarrs as they were before God therefore as I haue often said affords an easier means to know his reuealed Truths Now my Answer to the obiection is The Catholick then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation when it sham fully out-faces the
belief of Christ's real Presence in the Eucharist be an errour Christ and his Church and innumerable Fathers also haue deceiued vs. 2. One Authority alleged against Mr. Stillingfleet you haue in his own page 568. And t' is à known passage of S. Cyprian de Caena Dmi or of some other Author not much inferiour to him if we belieue Mr Fulk against the Rhem's Testament In 1. Cor. 11. and Erasmus his Annotations vpon S. Cyprian Basil print anno S. Cyprians Authority examined 1558. fol. 287. Mr Stilling contend's it is of à later Date yet is pleased by an Addition of his glosses to vnsense the words as well as he can and at last make them to speak Protestancy 3. The Authors words are These This common bread changed into flesh and blood giues life The bread which our lord gaue to his Disciples being Changed Non effigie sed naturâ not in outward form or semblance but in its inward nature or substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 4. Mr Stilling Asserts all this proues not Transubstantiation first because the Author Saith Christs words Vnless ye eate the flesh Mr stillingfleets reasoning not solid and drink the blood of the son of God you shall haue no life in you are not to be vnderstood after à Carnal sense Answ That 's true yet your Inference Sir is most improbable The Principle you must rely on is None are to think as the Capharnits did witness S. Austin that they were to cut into pieces Christs Sacred flesh and eate that as we do Common meats And your inference ill deduced run's thus Therefore the inward substance of bread is not changed into his body This inference I say is null for both these are eternal truths and well consist together Bread is changed into Christs body yet we neither cut that body à pieces or eate it as the Capharnits grossly imagined 5. He argues again and more improbably This Author saith he by the effects attributed to the Sacrament calling it His second Argument more slight food which nourished to immortallity cannot possibly be conceiued to speak if Christ's Corporal presence because we Catholicks confess Christs body remain's no longer in our body then the Accidents of bread and wine are there I verily think the man was busied with other thoughts when he wrot these lines For what sense haue we here Christ's Sacred body really present giues grace and is no longer present then the Accidents of bread and wine remain Ergo bread and wine are not Really changed into his body This I say is à most improbable inference For the effects of the Sacrament which imply the production of Grace may and must stand with Christ's real Presence though that production of grace Sacramentally giuen last's no longer then his Blessed body is vnder the forms of bread and wine 6. But an other doughty Argument is drawn out of S. Cyprian's words which Mr. Stilling cites in his Margent Sed immortalitatis alimonia datur à Communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens speciem sed virtutis diuinae inuisibili efficientiâ probans adâ—sse presentiam His third Argument proues nothing And He vnworthyly renders them thus in English That immortal Nourishment is giuen vs which differs from common food that it retain's the Nature of à Corporeal substance but prouing the presence of à Diuine power by its inuisible efficiency So that saith he what presence of Diuine power is there is shewed in regard of the effects of it not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ Sr I vtterly deny your prooflesse So That and say your deduction is more then improbable This Author saith expresly common bread changed into flesh by the omnipotency of the word giueth life and immortal nourishment which is Diuine grace and therefore the Diuine power appeares in both first in the substantial change of bread into Christs body next in the effect or production of grace in à worthy Receiuer and you improbably conclude it shewes it self in regard of the effects only 7. Like one half guilty of iugling you goe on I know you will quarrel with me for rendring Corporalis substantiae retinens speciem By retaining the Nature of à Corporeal substance Answ I do so indeed and will proue you à cheat for your pains First because you make this Author speak nonsense for if Corporalis substantiae The fallacy discouered retinens Speciem may be Englished By retaining the nature of à Corporeal substance you may as well render it by retaining the substance of à corporeal substance because nature and substance are here synomima's And if this be sense we haue à pretty Tautology or rather non-sense with it thus It differ's from Common food yet retains the substance of Corporeal substance or common food and in real truth is still natural bread or Common food Wheras if we read It differ's from common food yet retain's the outward forms or external Accidents of à Corporeal substance or common food the sense is good clear and open to euery Reader But we must go on You contend that the word Species in this place Signifies Nature or à solid body and not the external Accidents because Species anâ—nariae Species largitionales Curator Specierum whereof we read in the Ciuil law express the substance of things not the Accidents and so S. Ambrose must be vnderstood when speaking of our Sauiours changing water into wine he faith Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae substanâ—â—am in vini speciem commutaret Now no man will say that he changed the substance of water into the external Accidents of wine but into the nature of wine Therefore Species may sometimes signify substance Answ All this is true yet nothing to the purpose What the word Species signifies for can you or any man proue because Species signisies sometimes kind or substance that it alwaies doth so We read in Scripture Daniel 13. Species decepit te Isa 53. non est ei Species neque decor Daniel 10. Species mea immutata 1. Tim. 3. Habentes Speciem pietatis c. Will you translate Nature or substance hath deceiued thee There was no nature or substance in Christ of whom the Prophet speaks My nature or substance is changed Hauing piety in nature or substance All is ridiculous and therefore though Species may sometimes signify substance or kind vnless that signification hold vniuersally these instances of Species annonariae and Species vini proue nothing You will ask perhaps because the word is ambiguous how we may know whether in our present Controuersy Species signifies shape form Accidents or substance Answ This rule is certain when the word Species stand's in opposition or is distinguished from an inuisible Nature or essence it must of necessity signify the external shape or form of à thing and not the substance So when the Apostle exhorts vs. 1. Thess 5. The
neither the words nor the sense bear S. Cyril saith Do not consider them as meer bread and wine Then he tell 's you positiuely what they are For they are the body and blood of Christ Now your Gloss designed for à higher vse to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers first Deads the very life of Cyrills words and then run's into nonsense I therefore Ask whether What is bread and wine to exhibit the body and blood of Christ this gloss Bread and wine exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers saies Bread and wine really changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee are after that change as really Christs body and blood as that water was really wine after Christs Miracle If your gloss say thus much you are à plain Papist if lesse it s none of S. Cyrills Doctrin for the Saint deliuers this as significantly yea and more fully then I now express it I well vnderstand S. Cyrills sense by his words but for my life I know not what you mean by your particle Exhibit Tell us I beseech you How do bread and wine Exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Do they only mind vs of his body and blood A Crucifix representing our Lord bleeding on à Crosse can well serue for so much Do they shew or point vs out à Real presence of the same body and blood vpon the Altar which are now in heauen If so Belieuers haue an obiect of Faith and that truth to fasten on which the Church teaches but if your word Exhibit saies or signifies less then this or only expresses your euer yet concealed Sacramental presence you cheat the world with ambiguous dark Term's and in good earnest know not what you say 15. Answer therefore What is Christs body and blood to be Sacramentally present when really they are not vpon the Altar but absent in Heauen only The question deserues an Answer For you Sr distinguish between à Sacramental and à Corporeal Presence you grant the first and deny the second That which you grant is à Presence of Christs body and biood distinguished from the Catholick Real or as you call it Corporeal Presence Vouchsafe to enlighten vs à little concerning it which you page 574. seem to Our Aduersary is vrged to declare his sense make real There is say you à Real presence of Christ in and with them that is in and with bread and wine to the souls of Belieuers Very good Giue vs I beseech you the total Obiect which these Souls haue before them when they belieue à Real presence of Christ in and with bread and wine vpon the Altar Is this obiect Christ himself whom they pull as it were by Faith out of Heauen at the time they receiue your piece of Bread No. Christ still in Heauen is yet Locally distant and therefore not really present in and with bread and wine Vnless he be in two places at once And Consequently the Faith of these Belieuers has no real Obiect present to fasten vpon Is it that Christ is present in the Signes of bread and wine as Caesar is in his Image Pitiful He is thus present in euery Crucifix though really distant millions of Miles This no way makes him actually there in and with bread and wine as you Assert Doth finally this your Obiectiue presence imply only thus much that Christ by his power though really absent work 's the same effects in à worthy Receiuer as if he were actually there No. For he works the same effects and though absent produceth grace by the Sacrament of Baptism as if he were present dare you Therefore say he is in as peculiar à manner Really present in and with the water of Baptism as he is in this Sacrament in and with bread and wine Yet more Such à Moral The Sectaries Sacramental Presence contradict's all Authority Presence directly contradict's Christ's words This is my body It directly contradict's S. Cyrills words Though it seem to the tast to be bread it is not bread but the Body of Christs It directly contradict's that vnanswerable Truth As water was changed into wine so wine is changed into blood c. 16. And thus Sr you see how impossible it is to giue your poor Belieuers any thing like à Real obiect which may be called à true Real Presence though I hold you obliged to help both them and me to à clear Notion of it Because Christ's Sacred body and blood are Real things you attribute to these two Real things à true real Presence in and with bread and wine which cannot but denominate them really present with these two Substances vpon the Altar Therefore you are obliged to tell me what that is A parte rei which I once more say is impossible For as your Sacramental presence in your sense is à word no man vnderstand's so your Doctrin is as wholy vnintelligible Yet I haue not said all In this your discourse of à Sacramental and Real presence you would fain take some aduantage against vs by other words of S. Cyril Do not consider them as meer bread and wine for they are the body and blood of No aduantage giuen Sectaries by any other words of S. Cyril Christ according to his own word Hence you infer it is plain He speaks of à Sacramental presence for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine but to meer bread id est That they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signes but as Signa efficacia or efficacious signes Answ First The Saint has not à Syllable of either Signes or Signae efficacia Next your Speculation about meer bread is à meer nothing For meer bread is bread without Consecration S. Cyril opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to meer bread Ergo He opposeth them to bread without Consecration but bread without Consecration or meer bread is the very Substance of bread Therefore he opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to the substance of bread vnless you can find the Meerness might one speak so or nakednes of bread distinct from its substance which is not only improbable but impossible 17. Vpon this solid and vndeniable Ground it imports your A meer quibble about à word cause nothing whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Cyril signifies Species as it is commonly rendred by Interpreters or as you say that which doth figure or represent for as long as this verity stand's vndoubted that vnder the Type or Species of bread Christ gaue his own body and That that body is opposed to the very Substance of bread the expression is so clear and the same with our Catholick Doctrin that were à hundred Glosses more laid vpon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All would not do nor rack it to any contrary meaning You Reply S. Cyril speak's of such à presence as hath relation
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
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
so high as to giue fall satisfaction herein though he is pleased to plead euidence drawn from sense and reason against the B. Sacrament as if forsooth the full portion of both were like à legacy Mr stillingfleet argues Improbably bequeathed him and à few Sectaries whilst so many Fathers so many Schoolmen soo many profound Doctors of our renowned Church must haue no small share allowed in either but are as you see censured like men sensless and vnreasonable 2. Say I beseech you Who can perswade himself that those three worthy eminent Cardinals Bellarmin Perron and Richelieu all haue writ on this subiect and are famous the whole world ouer for their great wisdom and learning who dare I say without à measureless audacity cast these could we vrge no more into the Catalogue of dull sensles and vnreasonable men None would haue ventured on such à vast improbability but one who either knowes not or cares not what he saies Now add to these the consent and acknowledgment of the whole Orthodox world you may iustly say it is much harder or there is more violence offered to mans vnderstanding in conceiuing that God who is essential Verity and therefore inclined to preserue the Church he founded in truth should permit all those millions of Christians who haue belieued the Real presence to be so long deceiued in their Faith than to submit vpon so great authority to the very mystery we belieue Reason more rack'd by denying then belieuing the Mistery For by submitting to the mystery we proceed rationally and prudently iudge that an infinite power can do more than our weak capacities reach vnto but if we say his Goodnes hath permitted the Church to be seduced by à gross errour age after age or that so many Christians haue been cheated into à false belief of so high à Mystery we force our vnderstandings more we clash with an euident Principle and must assert that God has no care of his Church or of mans saluation The blame therefore if we be in errour would at last redound to God as I shall amply proue in the next Discourse 3. Thus much noted Let vs look à little into the strength of Mr Stillingf weak argument which must run thus What I see seem's or is bread to the Eye and tast yet t' is not bread but Christs sacred body therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense One distinction ouerthrowes this lame discourse I answer in à word What I see seems or is the inward substance of bread I deny it What I see seems yea really is the outward accidents or species of bread I grant that Therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense I deny the consequence The Argument purely fallacious supposeth Our Aduersaries fallacy solued the immediate obiect of our sense to be the inward substance of bread which yet as euery Puny knowes is not so in common Philosophy for the immediate obiect of the Eye is colour or light and so much remain's after consecration as well as other accidents doe but these sensible obiects are in known Philosophy distinct from the inward substance of bread which is not immediatly visible tangible or tastable Mr Stilling therefore gain's little by this dreaming way of arguing Now à word to his plea of Reason 4. He may say Reason tell 's me there is bread still after consecration Why so surely the answer must be because sense vpon the discouery of its immediate obiects colour quantity c. induceth reason to conclude there is bread vnder these accidents I answer Reason thus far would well conclude were it not that à stronger Principle enters here which ouerawes as it were weak reason and bids it yeild Pray you tell me Did not sense and reason also assure Christs Disciples Matth 14. before S. Peter was seen walking on the water that that liquid substance could not bear vp à weighty body without sinking yes most assuredly yet they saw him walk and reason following the guidance of their eyes checked that other natural discourse and acknowledged à Miracle And thus weak reason must yeild in the present Mystery when à Stronge Principles where vpon our Faith relies stronger Principle interuen's and forceth it to submit Thanks be to God Habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem 1. Petr. 2. we haue yet à stronger Principle to vp hold our cause than weak discourse is The spirit of eternal truth The express words of Christ which the wit of man shall neuer draw to any other sense but what we Catholicks own 2. The constant professed Doctrin of the two Churches Greek and Latin yea and I say more of all other called Christians as is now declared 3. Might we here introduce the known Testimonies of most ancient Fathers They are so numerous and so fully significant that would à Catholick study to set down the truth of this Doctrin he cannot do it in clearer language 5. Good God saith S. Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerd Cap. 4. What à wonderful miracle is this how great is Gods loue towards mankind Behold who sitreth aboue with his Father in one and the same moment of time is touched by the hands of vs all and giueth himself to such as are desirous to receiue and imbrace him Theophilact c. 4. in 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation The ancient Fathers speak in our behalfe although to vs it seem's bread Because we are weak and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appears but in the essence and substance it is not bread Again Christ said not this is à figure but this is my body for by an ineffable operation bread is changed c. Indeed it appears Bread but it is really flesh Yet more How often do the Fathers S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Chrisostome and others exhort vs not to come vnto the Eucharist as vnto simple bread and wine for say they it is the body and blood of Christ according to our Lords affirmation Although sense suggest the Contrary yet let faith confirm thee Iudge not of the thing by thy tast c. Again know this and with full certitude belieue that the bread seen is not bread though it seems so to the tast but the body of Christ and that wine seen is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the blood of Christ Though saith S. Chrisostome what we see seem's to our sense and thinking to be bread Let Gods saying This is my body Master our sense and reason Let vs doe this in all things especially in the Mysteries not regarding alone the things which lie before vs but holding fast to his words For by his words we cannot be-cousened our senses may be deceiued his words cannot be vntrue our sense is often time beguiled c. Thus these Fathers known to euery one to omit in numerable others speak and belieue thus the Church of Christ speaks and belieues also
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
can cite Snares as if he fauored your late inuented Accidental mutation for you say he affirms these expressions of Fathers are more accommodated to that Sr. I haue read this learned Author in the place you quote 3. part Disp 50. sect 3. and perused also his 4 th Section where he Snares abused treat's largely of the Conuersion of bread into Christs body and expresly mantain's à Real action necessary in this Conuersion and calls the change Real and Substantial and it must be called so when the Terminus à quo and ad quem are as they are in this Mystery Real and Substantial T' is true he cites Diuines who say the Adduction of Christs body vnder the formes of bread is sufficient to verify à Real change Bread ceasing to be because of Christs body present without à new action or production terminated vpon that body and it is à probable opinion in Schools but as remote from your Accidental extrinsecal mutation as Heauen is from earth and to as Little purpose as an other wise question is when you Ask whether those who are changed by Regeneration A quaestion answered may be said to be Transubstantiated by it Friuolous Sr. when the Terminus ad quem in conuersions is substance it beares properly the denomination of Transubstantiation or Transelementation when it s meerly an Accident or quality as in Regeneration the denomination followes the nature of the quality produced and is rightly called an intrinsecal accidental change but not Transubstantiation Had you reflected on what is here said your pretty Criticism where you torture à poor Greek word and learnedly examin whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Gregory comes from the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might well haue been spared I giue you your Choise take whether you will your cause lies where it was nothing at all aduanced But really I am weary of this sport which is more irksome to me then to kill the flies you so often talk of Howeuer I must haue patience and briefly say à word to one or two authorities more pitifully abused by you 13. That known passage of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Catech The Testimony of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 4. occurr's next in your 573. page The words are He Christ our Lord changed water into wine at cana in Galilee by his sole will and is he not worthy to be belieued that he changed wine into blood For if inuited to à marriage he wrought then that stupendious Miracle viz of changing water into wine shall we not Confess that much more he has giuen his body and blood to the Sons of the Spouse wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let vs take with all certainty the body and blood of Christ And he giues this reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For vnder the Type or Species of bread his body is giuen thee and vnder the type or species of wine his blood is giuen thee that by taking this body and blood of Christ thou mayst be made partaker of his body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so we shall be Christophori Carrying Christ when we receiue his body and blood into our members Soon after he saith Do not therefore consider this as meer bread and meer wine for it is the body and blood All along most clear and significant of Câ—rist according to his own words for although sense suggest that it is bread and wine yet let faith Confirm thee and do not iudge of the thing by thy tast but hold this most certain by thy Faith that the body and blood of our Lord are giuen thee so that there arise no doubt at all in thee Again towards the end of this 4. Catechesis he repeat's and most energetically the verity he would haue vs learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Knowing and holding it most certain that the bread which is seen by vs is not bread but the body of Christ and the wine which is seen by vs although it seem to the sense of our tast to be wine The Church Speak's not in clearer terms yet is it not wine but the blood of Christ Thus this ancient Father and worthy Bishop speaks so significantly that the witt of man shall neuer force on him any other sense but that which the Roman Catholick Church taught in the Council of Trent and teaches to this day 14. Now listen à little to Mr Stilling glosses and say in Conscience whether they haue so much as à seeming probability Mr stilling glosses improbable First he tells vs it is euident and it was for his purpose to cry Euidence at the begining that Cyrills design here is to perswade the Catechumens from whom the Mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed that the bread and wine were not meer common Elements but designed for à higher vse to â—xhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Is this Sr your Euidence Is it euident that Cyril here intended to instruct the Catechumens only We read that the Saint was à laborious Preacher and complyed with that Charitable duty euery Sunday and day in Lent Surely all who heard him were not Catechumens and why may not these instructions contain part of that Doctrin he publickly deliuered to his Auditors All you can proue is that his first Catechesis was to the lately Baptized but that this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only is not probable Turn to the Edition of S. Cyril Paris print 1609. You will find after the Dedicatory Epistle vnder this Title De scriptis Cyrill That in his last fiue Mystagogical institutions he gaue solid food and explicated the Diuine Mysteries of our Faith of Baptism Chrism the Eucharist and that great Sacrifice of the Mass which Certainly belong to Christians of riper knowledge than Catechumens were Again I' ft be euident that S Cyrill is made to mâ—sse of his ayme the Saint in this Catechesis concealed the Mysterious presence of Christ in the Sacrament He missed extreamly of his intent for no Catholick can speak now with greater clearity of the Mystery or more fully express the Churches sense then S. Cyril did aboue thirteen ages since Yet one word Say I beseech you what need was there then of concealing this Mysterious presence i' ft be no more but as you say à piece of bread deputed to à holy vse or à meer sign of Christs body present Such à Mystery requires no secrecy at all Catechumens might as well haue heard of it without torturing their vnderstandings as now they hear of the Sacrament of Baptism Lastly is it euident that S. Cyril aimed at nothing but to show that bread and wine were not meer common Elements but things designed for à higher vse or as you say to Exhibiâ— the body of Christ to Belieuers T is improbable First because you add that to the Text which
to the Receiuer Speak out Sir What is it that has relation to the Receiuer only The very body and blood of Christ vnder the Type of bread and wine which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee These substances of his body and blood as really present work their effect in à worthy Receiuer where you euidently see that the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred body and blood is presupposed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul Therefore to talk of à presence which hath relation to à Receiuer only without the true supposed real verity of Christ body and blood present is no more then à peruerse and an improbable Gloss if S. Cyril speak sense 18. Your next Gloss vpon these words It is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the Body of Christ is worse if worse can be For you only frigidly say Hereby is meant no alteration i◠the Substance of it but only that it is not That common Bread it was before Sir the contrary is now demonstratiuely proued against The change made in Chrism wholly different from that in the Eucharist you But you hope to help your self by an Instance which S. Cyril hath of Chrism in his 3. Mystag Pag. 525. where he Seem's to Parallel the change made in Chrism or holy oyntment with the Change of bread in the Eucharist By the way If Chrism be so sacred à thing it is à shame you haue no more vse of it in your Church but let that pass and mark the Parallel and your own mistake with it A change there is in both bread and common ointment but as different in Themselues as they are differently expressed by this Father The one change is Real and intrinsecal made in the Substance of bread and wine The change of common ointment is not so but Moral into à grace or Gift or Christ S Cyrills words take away all ambiguity See saith he That thou think not this ointment to be common or meer ointment For as the bread of the Eucharist after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread but the body of Christ here is the real change So this holy ointment is no longer naked or common ointment after it is consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyrill's words denote the difference but à grace or Gift of Christ and the Holy spirit which operates through the presence of the Diuinity Here is the other and à quite different change Bread is made the body of Christ Chrism his holy and sacred Gift The Parallel or parity therefore as I now said lies in this That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were and this is enough for Cyrills intent who only proues Chrism to be à holy thing but it fail's when he positiuely and expresly diuersifies the nature of these changes of bread into Christs body of Common ointment only into à grace or à gift of Christ And Hence Sr your Question whether we may not as well proue à Transubstantiation in the Chrism as we do in the Eucharist is both fond and friuolous We Answer No because the real change of bread into Christ's body fully expresseth Transubstantiation the Terminus à quo and ad quem being Real and Substantial The other Change of ointment into à Gift of Christ denotes à moral change quite different and nothing like the other which is most real S. Ambrose next cited no less abused then others 19. Your next and last Gloss abuses S. Amb. De ijs qui initiantur C. 9. who saith Bread is no longer that which Nature has framed it but that which the Benediction of Consecration has made it You Answer It is the body of Christ but not in our gross sense Pray Sr Inform vs à little of your more quaint meaning Say how bread is Christs body if it still remains as substantially bread after the Benediction as water in Baptism remain's substantially water Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed cease to be water because it is à Sacrament No certainly yet bread if S. Ambrose speak truth ceaseth to be that which nature framed it You endeauour to make These words forceles because S. Chrisost in Act Hom. 23. saith of Baptism I'ts virtue is so great that it suffer's not men to be men and then you wisely ask whether we will grant it Transubstantiat's them Friuolous The Saint only speaks of the virtue of Baptism which as he obserues makes vs sons of Adoption That is it Changes à soul from the miserable state of Sin into à happy state of grace and so permit's not men once infected with that leprosy to be men as they were before vnregenerate And therefore he adds in the ensaing words The great power of the Holy Ghost is that it Transform's our Manners and makes them composed What is here of any thing like Transubstantiation or of à ceasing of that which nature hath framed But enough and fully enough of Mr Stillingfleets most improbable glosses so I must and will term them vntil some surer Principle than fancy giues them more strength which shall neuer be 20. To end I 'le say à great Truth Had this Gentleman twenty Cyprians twenty Cyrills twenty Austins as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament as the Testimonies Had this Aduersary so much Authority for hy opinion as wee Produce in behalfe of Catholick Doctrin No man Could belieue any thing now cited are significant for Catholick Doctrin Had he à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his Opinion fiue or six ages since as the Catholick Church then held and yet hold's our Catholick Doctrin Finally had he Scripture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Christs body as it is euidently clear for the Real Presence I verily think no prudent man could or would belieue any thing of this great Mystery And consequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Christian Religion Because Fathers vpon the Supposition are directly contrary to Fathers Church stand's against Curch and Scripture against Scripture But now when he hath not one Clear Testimony of à Father much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church nor so much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick Position I must Conclude that his Glosses already laid on these Fathers are not only improbable but more than highly improbable 21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet may reply His glosses T' is true because they are the Sentiments of à fallible man are indeed lyable to errour but He bidds me look well to my Refutations and beware of setting to high à value on them whilst I oppose him For my Opposition because I may mistake amount's to no more but to à weake degree of Fallibility so that Hitherto He and I stand vpon equal Terms Answ If the contest be thus much only whether his Glosses are not clearly refuted the Iudicious Reader after à due
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
the Moral Body of Christians and Consequently that Opposition was à thing as notoriously known as loudly noised some Centuries since as it is Notoriously known and noised that our Sectaries haue now espied those false Doctrins VVe vrge them to bring to light that publick known Opposition of their Imagined Church against the Roman Catholick Society fancied à Changling And what haue we Deep silence from some and from such as dare speak false Suppositions for Proofs vnworthy Calumnies for an Answer Please to se this Argument fully handled Disc 2. C. 6. Time was the world knowes well when our Aduersaries auouched they could prove their Protestancy and refute our Catholick Doctrin by plain and express-Scripture we come to the true Trial in this Treatise and in lieu of God's word find their Books full fraught with meer far-fetcht Glosses Not one Passage I boldly assert and put Sectaries to the Proof fauours this Protestancy as it is distinguished from Popery and the known Heresies of former Ages Now that nothing from Scripture can be alleged Contrary to our Catholick Doctrin is manifest vpon this one Principle which none shall overthrow VVhat Scripture faithfully interpreted teaches in these weighty matters of Religion some Orthodox Church delivered in foregoing Ages For example If Scripture deny Adoration to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament or Transubstantiation an Orthodox Church which cannot clash with the verities of God's word in some Age or other maintained these Protestant Tenets and published them to Christians But no Orthodox Church euer sided with Sectaries or taught such Doctrins Therefore their pretence to Scripture against our Catholick Tenets is friuolous and implies no more but à false supposition for à Proof And this strain of turning bare Suppositions into proofs which never go beyond the strength of their own vnproued Assertions so vniuersally trancends all their Polemicks that I stand astonished to se men who will be accounted learned wholly busied in doing Nothing Reflect I beseech you à little They haue been told and I remind them of it again in this Treatise that whoeuer makes the Roman Church Idolatrous or Erroneous must hold the supposed Idolatry and errour so remediles an Euil that none on earth can redress either because all the Proofs or Principles whereby the Reformation should be made will euidently appear less ponderous to Euince this Church guilty of errour then Her sole Authority is to perswade the Contrary viz. That she neuer erred VVherefore Sectaries Confessedly fallible men desperatly adventure to reform vs and cannot but spoile all they go about to mend whilst they Euidence not whilst they plead not by the Authority of an Antient Orthodox Church which taught that very Protestancy they teach now and decryed these Supposed Popish errours as loudly as they decry them But to do thus much is impossible as manifestly appears by their own writings For tell me I beseech you whoever yet heard Protestant in all those weak skirmishes made against Catholick Religion Say plainly and prove it Such à Church reputed Orthodox fiue or Six Ages since taught as we teach sensed Scriptures as we sense them Christians then vniuersally belieued no Real Presence No sacrifice of the Masse c. Has euer Protestant I say gon thus groundedly to work No Most euidently No. I shall highly extoll the man that will dare to proceed so ingenuously but find none engaged in this right way of Arguing It s true some who leap over the heads of all their more Immediate Ancestors between Luther and the three or four first Centuries tell vs those Primitiue Christians were good Protestants like them Ill luck Say I that Protestancy had not to be intailed vpon some Successors in following Ages for most certainly since those dayes the world neuer saw Protestant before Luther In à word the Assertion is à loud vntruth an vnworthy begging of Question and besides implies à fancied supposition for à Proof To show this we reduce these ranging Spirits to a lesser compass and oblige them to name but one Protestant neerer their shameful Reuolt from our Catholick Society Here they stand grauelled as mute as fishes and are highly angry because we touch them where they are most weak This want of à Church to ground Protestancy vpon makes their Polemicks to be as they appear rambling faint shallow and so dissatisfactory that great patience is requisite to peruse them VVonder nothing they can do no better Rebells they are against an antient Church and their handling Controuersies may well be compared with the proceeding of Rebells in à Common wealth who curiously mark and diligently attend to what euer may seem welcome to your ignorant seduced and disgusted Multitudes That be it what you will is fomented that 's laid forth and inculcated It is no newes to tell you that our Ministers in England now for à long time haue had à number of seduced People bread in their own rebellious bosomes and brought vp in à spirit of Schism who God knowes haue heard little but of the Idolatry of the Superstitions and wickednes of some Professed Catholicks O say these Incendiaries we will nourish this Popular humour with food suitable to its palate we will write Books of this Popish Idolatry we haue tongues and can poyson with delight we will lay forth in folio what we conceiue of the Roman Superstitiâ—ns and the wickednes of Popes VVe know well to Cauil and how to ensnare the vulgar on vvhom we depend when our Cauils are once out though neither reducible to Principles nor subiect to the Censure of any Iudge for we own none let them shift for themselves Our only care is to talk on though we prove nothing And chiefly to be vvary in one particular It is never to mention any thing of à Church which taught Protestancy before Luther meddle vvith that Mischiuous difficulty vve are vndon for really vve have no such Church This in à word and much vvorse is Protestancy as is amply declared in the following Treatise vvhere you also haue the distinctiue Cognisances of Christ's true Church the Rule of Faith and the Properties of à Rule explained vvithall an easy vvay vvhereby to put an end to these vnfortunate Controversies You haue moreover the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church asserted Faith resolued into its true Principles Mr Stillingfleets grosser Errours discouered The Reasonableness of Catholick Religion laid forth to euery rational man And to omit other Questions all cannot be hinted at in the narrow compasse of à Preface you haue this great Truth proved viz. That if the Roman Catholick Church hath taught but one false Article and obliged all Christians to belieue it vnder pain of damnation there neither is at this day nor was before Luther any true faith in the world VVherefore Sectaries who haue made it their chiefe busines to impeach our Church of Idolatry and Heresy and the louder they cryed the more they thought to destroy vs haue done their vtmost to ruin all the
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
indubitable Principles appliable to the Belieuers reason If therefore à Want be found of such proofs and doubts arise whether Christ's Doctrin be taught or no None can by doubtful or ambiguous Proofs of true Religion easy and Conuincing Principles only absolutly say This is Christs Doctrin and Consequently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightines of the matter that is they are clear conuincing and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting Thus much supposed 2. I say first who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox when the matter is of Controuersy and cannot The sectaries proofs as dark as his Doctrin bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle then the particular assertion is which should be proued argues improbably The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so that is he neuer goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is which should be proued therefore he Argues improbably 3. To proue the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies Take à veiw of all our Protestant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask what Protestant dare appear and venture to proue That Faith only iustifies The like I say of his other negatiue Articles Of no real Presence of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass c. I absolutly affirm He cannot make one of these Articles good by any vndoubted Principle or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer than that dark article is which should be proued One reason is These Doctrins opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also are not euidently known as truths by the light of One reason of our Assertion nature or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years agone and Consequently no vniuersal tradition is for them The only difficulty is whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers generally patronize such Doctrins And to fauour Sectaries all that 's possible we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible but withall assure them it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book and the impossibility will be thus manifested As long as these men cannot proue their new Doctrin to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted but vpon less sure grounds or less assured tradition so long their doctrin is naught and stands vnprincipled But this is so as we shall see presently And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick The difference beween the proofs of Catholiks and Protestants and Protestant The first proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine the Church assures him of both but the Sectary euer fall's short in this and cannot giue you so strong à proof for his particular Doctrin as he doth for the very letter of his book which he supposes teaches that Doctrin 4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth and take one particular Controuersy we cannot insist on all and ask the Protestant How he proues that the real presence of Christs sacred body as Catholicks assert is not expressed in the literal sense of those words This is my body His negatiue assertion most euidently is not there in plain terms We therefore vrge him to make it good by à proof that 's clear or more conuincing than his own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is And is he not obliged think yee to produce à strong proof indeed when he hath so many powerful Aduersaries to contrast with 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers vsually cited by Authors opposite to him 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church for both Churches mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day 4. The express Doctrin of general Councils which define our Doctrin positiuely and The grounds of our Catholick Tenets condemn the figuratiue presence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery related by authors of most indubitable credit These are no slight grounds of our Doctrin Let vs see by what strong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them or which is immediatly to my purpose proues his new negatiue Position Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist Not one word in the whole Bible is like it much contrary Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him No. What euer sense he drawes from thence seemingly to his purpose will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle as his own improbable position is and therefore most vnfit to perswade it Has he as vniuersal Tradition or the vnanimous consent of Fathers for his negatiue or for that sense he would force out of Scripture as he and we haue for the letter of the Text now cited Nothing at all And to show you how iustly I propose this question call to mind what Mr The Sectary answers not to any Stilling exact's of his Aduersary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should saith he once see you proue the infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints c. by as vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is whereby we receiue the Scriptures I would extoll you for the only person that euer did any thing considerable on your side Thus he speakes after this precaution giuen Think not to fob vs off with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catholik with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Your own words Mr Stilling shall here condemn you The Question is whether your Negatiue Christ is not really present in the Eucharist as Catholiks affirm be Orthodox Doctrin We exact as rigid à proof from you as you demand of vs but fob vs not off with your own talk Tradition you haue none nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers but giue vs the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time as What we iustly require of Sectaries clear for your negatiue as you demand of vs for the articles now mentioned Or if this be too much giue vs but only the indubitable sentiment of any Church reputed Orthodox four or fiue hundred years past for this your sense and assertion and I will applaud you as à most singular person But this you shall doe when you haue turned all faith out of the world that is neuer I say therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
none can adore one that meerly takes vpon him the Maiesty of à King who is not with an Adoration due to that Maiesty so none can honour or adore Christ in the Eucharist with an honour due to Christ when truely and really he is not present but saith Theoderet Christ is to be really adored in the Eucharist and Consequently he is really present there 21. For the rest I remit the Reader to C. Perron who in the following Chapters dissolues and most clearly what euer can be obiected against his Doctrin To end this point be pleased to reflect vpon this one particular Had Theoderet said The Symbols remain in their first essence figure and form and included in that very speech as our Aduersaries will haue the One reflection more very substance of bread He had spoken most improperly which ill beseem's so learned an Author for vpon this supposition he speak's as incongruously as if one should say Peter this very hour who is himselfe both Soul and body remain's in him selfe that is The Cardinals reading clear's all in his Soul and body But if you read with the Cardinal Thus. Car ils demeurent en lae forme en la sigure de la premiere substance They remain and in the form and in the figure of the first substance of bread before Consecration really formed and figured by them the Construction is good the sense most clear perfect and without exception 22. Thus much I haue noted to satisfy the Gentleman and hope neuer to hear Theoderet obiected hereafter against Transubstantiation If I doe I shall say an old obseruation of mine alwaies proues true and t' is That the best Arguments of Sectaries Printed and reprinted in their little books are like old thread-bare garments quite out of fashion cast off and reiected I mean answered ouer and ouer by Catholick Authors yet Brusht vp must appear as new And this less blamable may pass for they can do no better but methinks it is intolerable that they bring again to light such worn-out stuff as you see now done in this particular and dare not inform the Reader how often it hath been torn à pieces Yet the worst of all remain's Viz. That they build their faith vpon sand one dubious Authority of à Father if yet dubious supports it and seem's to these new spirits ground enough to foment Schism to maintain à rebellion against as ancient Church which neuer belieued as they do CHAP. XII A Digression concerning the Real Presence The Fathers plainly assert it Sectaries glosses friuolous The agreement of the Church and Fathers make à Doctrin indubitable The Catholick's certain Principle A word with Mr Stillingfleet 1. BEfore we produce these Testimonies and lay open Mr Stillingfleet's Mistakes turn I beseech you to his Account of Protestancy Part. 3. c. 3. page 567. Where he treat's of Transubstantiation and calls it an vnreasonable Doctrin because repugnant to sense and reason also It seem's contrary to sense for sense tells vs what we see and tast is bread after consecration and reason vpon that sensible suggestion ought to conclude it still remains substantially bread Obserue I beseech you how the Gentleman to maintain his proofs drawn from sense is not only forced to reiect the plain sense of Christ's words according to the letter This is my body which is giuen for you This is the Chalice of the new Testament wich is or shall be shed for you But more Mr Stilling quarrel 's with all Christians except à ferr Protestants ouer how he is thrown into à desperate quarrel wherein he will neuer come off hansomly For he is engaged to make not only the Professors of the Roman and Greek Church who indubitably belieue the Real presence more than stupid because opposit to that he call's sense and reason but besides He contrast's with à far greater moral body of Christians I may rightly stile it the Representatiue of all named Christians in the world excepting à few Protestants I 'le shew you how At this day there are in that famous Temple of Hierusalem dedicated to the Holy Cross called the Church of the Sepulcre Catholicks Graecians Abyssins those most ancient Christians Syrians Maronits Georgians and others All haue their Altars in one and the same Church and all though different in some Doctrinal points and Ceremonies vnanimously belieue à true vnbloody Sacrifice and with it the real presence of Christ after Consecration No moderne sectaries haue place here witnesse Prince Radziuill in his Ierosoly Peregrin Antwerpe Print 1614. Pag. 109. Nay they are so meanly thought of that when the Prince named Lutherans Zwinglians c. The party he conuersed with demanded whether they were Christians What Christians said he and haue no Priest no Altar no sacrifice offerred vp to god in this sacred place where Christ wrought our redemption you may see more hereof in the following page of this Author In the mean while shall any say that à Representatiue of so many Christians are to be deemed fooles vpon this account that they contradict sense and reason It is so vast à Paradox that though Mr Stillings should write volumes on this subiect He would neuer speak à probable word against such à cloud of witnesses You may add herevnto if you please those many Christians conuerted to our The Chineses difficulty Catholick Faith in that vast Kingdome of China à People the whole world knowes most ingenious All of them as I haue heard from two worthy men à long time Missioners there the one is yet liuing who reclaimed many from their errours raise most difficulties before their conuersion against that one Mystery of our Faith the Incarnation of the Diuine word but after satisfaction receiued in this particular they submit easily to the belief of other Catholick verities and neuer Scruple in the least at the Mystery of the Eucharist as à Doctrin Contrary to sense and reason And they proceed most rationally for in real truth there are incomparably Most Concern's the Incornation greater difficulties in this one Mystery of the Incarnation to say nothing of the Trinity might weak reason decide the case than in the other What That God who is essentially immutable becomes man by à vnion betwixt the Diuine word and humane nature which vnion toucheth so intrinsecally on that Diuine Person that we must truly say This word is now intrinsecally affected otherwise then he was before and to conceiue all this done without à real change may the Common notion of mutation stand Mutari est rem aliter se habere is à difficulty so great say good Diuins that it hath rack't many à strong wit and yet can scarse be well solued Vtramque enim Substantiam in vnam conuenisse personam c. They are words of S. Leo Sermo 9. de Natiu Dmi nisi fides credat sermo non explicat That is the Mystery is very abstruse I verily belieue Mr Stilling Metaphysick will not reach
true signification in this place giuen 22. Ab omni specie mala abstinete vos The sense is Abstain not only from inward malice but and here mark the opposition from all Shew or semblance of euil And when S. Cyril saith Orat 4. Mystag vnder the Type or species of bread is giuen the body of our Lord he euidently distinguisheth the Form or shape of bread from its substance And so S. Cyprian doth in the words alleged Corporalis Substantiae retinens Speciem retaining the exteriour shape or form of à Corporeal substance and mote plainly thus The bread being changed not in its outward Form and semblance but in it's inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 8. Mr Stilling again page 570. in his Answer to S. Cyprian This common bread is changed into flesh and blood saith we Protestants do not deny à Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which ye Papists assert Pray you Sr tell me what is the Terminus à quo and the Terminus ad quem of this your mysterious change You acknowledg some thing Protestants cannot say what is changed into Christ's body changed into the flesh and blood of Christ Is the substance of bread the terminus à quo or that which is changed into the flesh No t' is too plain Popery Is bread made à Sacrament or à Sign of Christ's body changed into the flesh of Christs Euidently no for neither the Sacrament nor that which you call à Sign of Christ's body is changed into flesh Note well the Emphasis of your own words of something changed into the flesh of Christ and say on Gods name what it is You may reply you speak only of à Mystical and Sacramental change That 's not to the purpose now the Emphasis of your words point at something created or increated changed into the flesh and blood of Christ tell vs plainly what that is or in good earnest your expression fal's too short of any intelligible sense 9. In case you run on trifling with your Mystical and Sacramental change only made vpon the accidents or substance of bread the Author now cited positiuely asserts more viz. Panis non effigie sed naturâ mutatus The bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed not in Outward form and appearance but in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh where 't is plain your extrinsecal sacramental change passing only vpon the accidents of bread or on the substance S Cyprian reiects the Protestants extrinsecâ—l Change which you say remains is excluded and à Real Conuersion of the inward substance of bread is positiuely asserted by S. Cyprian You Answer Some great Criticks haue assured you that the place is corrupted and that the ancient Manuscripts read otherwise Non effigie nec naturâ mutatus neither changed in outward form nor substance You see to what desperate shifts these men are driuen T is wonderful they cite not some great Criticks for à Contrary lection of Christs words Hoc non est corpâ— meum This is not my body Well I say first if those nameless and vnknown Criticks err and the Author speak sense as we now read without the Critiscism Non effigie sed naturâ mutatus not changed in outward form but in its nature Transubstantiation is asserted and your contrary Doctrin is condemned I say 2. This Criticism is improbable and not only turn 's the words out of sense into pure Nonsense but moreouer implies an impossibility I 'le shew you how The Criticism will haue vs read thus Panâ— iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie nec naturâ mutatâ— Omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward substance is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh Obserue well This bread remaining bread in outward shew and inward A Criticism exploded substance is made the flesh of the Son of God An vtter impossibility For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and substance be made flesh factus est caro than Lots wife remaining what She was flesh and blood in outward form and inward substance be made à pillar of salt The Omnipotent power of God cannot change one substance remaining what it is into an other T' is true Luther said Christs body was really present with bread but neuer thought of making bread remaining bread to be that other substance of Christs body 10. Mr Stillingfleet tell 's vs more P. 572. that Substance and nature with the Fathers and we confess it are not alwayes taken properly but sometimes more largely for Accidents Why therefore may not these words Sed natura mutatus in S. Cyprians Context bear that improper sense I Answer and ask first Why may they not also be taken properly When they clearly deliuer à Doctrin conformable to à whole learned Church and your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to stand on but fancy Had you any ancient Orthodox Church vniuersal Tradition or the plain consent of Fathers for what you assert you might speak more boldly and I would then say S. Cyprians words are false but without such helps to torture à Text as you do to turn good sense into nonsense and this without proof or Principle is more then intolerable Now here reflect à little on what hath been often noted You say the words are improper and render your sense I say they are proper and significantly speak what the Church teaches Pray Answer By what Principle shall you and I come to à decision of this one difficulty Hitherto if nothing be added we haue no more but our two contrary iarring opinions And are not Controuersies may this strain hold made an endles work To add more I Answer 2. If this Author speak sense Not changed in its outward form but in nature Your gloss is Nonsense Obserue well He speakes of The reason why we reiect it bread held in à Priests hand and saith first This bread is not changed in its outward form or Accidents Then he put 's his Aduersatiue Sed. but it is changed in nature and substance If therefore Nature here signifies as you would haue it the outward form or accidents of bread you must read the words thus Bread is not changed in its nature and Substance yet it is changed in nature and substance which is non-sense I proue it Nature and substance with you import the exteriour form or Accidents of bread bread is not changed in this exteriour nature and substance saith the Author yet you say it is changed in this very nature and substance Yet more S. Cyprian asserts à change in one thing not in an other I ask what is changed and what is not changed If the exteriour Accidents of bread as contra distinguished from the Sectaries cannot say what
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
is an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God But how far In à few simple Truths called fundamentals in others it may err and profess as much falshood as you please against the Verities of Scripture So that the true Church not defined at all is made by these à fair and foul Spouse at once fair in à few vnalterable necessary Truths but foul vgly and deformed because erroneous in à hundred other matters Mark the Paradox and call it à flat Heresy which separat's him who assert's it from the Catholick body Thus it is Christs Church is true and falfe pure and vnpure right and wrong louely and hateful together The Inhabitants of this Citty of God of this Temple and safe dwelling place are in it by belieuing à few simple Truths And at the same time out of it by belieuing more Falsities This is Mr Stillingfleets strange Doctrin who think 's there is no Church now in the world of one Denomination free from Errour To what desperate improbabilities doth Heresy driue men 6. The 4. Principle The receiued Doctrin of Christs Church chiefly in all points of Controuersy is euer as clear and often more clear by what She teaches than it is in any express words of Scripture The Assertion is vndubitable For Church Doctrin clear in the Churches Definitions who see 's not but that the whole Catholick Doctrin of the sacred Trinity of one God and three distinct Persons of the Father improduced the eternal Son begotten and of the Holy Ghost proceeding from both is more plainly deliuered in Church Doctrin than in any sentence or sentences of Holy Writ The like I say of the high Godhead in Christ which the Arians deny Of Original sin reiected by the Pelagians and other Articles of our Christian faith And thus much is euident against Secctaries for do not they make their own Doctrin of their Caen◠Not alwaies so inscripture as Sectaries grant or Sacrament when they call it à Sign à Figure c. more plain than any words are for it in Holy writ And will they not also grant T' is an Argument ad hominem that our Catholick Tenet of this sacred Mystery laid forth in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. is more express and plain Popery than lies couched in Christs own words This is my body Though the Popery is there clear enough to euery Reader Yes most assuredly For if our Doctrin stand as plain in Christs words as in the Churches Definition drawn from thence Sectaries cannot as they do admit of the one and scornfully reiect the other Therefore they must suppose Scripture more dark and obscure than either their own or our Churches Doctrin is And hence it followes that the very Arians were not so much Hereticks vpon the account that they opposed any most clear and express sentence in Holy writ for really it 's hard to find one manifestly express against them as for contradicting plain Church Doctrin or the true sense of Scripture deliuered by this Oracle of truth Their Heresy then proceeded first from some words in Scripture seemingly clear in their behalf as My Father is greater than 1. 2. From no Text so manifest but that still place was left them to Why the Arians were accounted Heretiques Glosse as they haue done and in their Iudgements with some appearrance of truth yet Hereticks they were and so deseruedly accounted of for contradicting the Church's clear Doctrin Be it how you will thus much I am sure of They neuer mangled or misused any passage in holy Writ when contrary to their Heresy more shamfully than our Protestants now mangle and abuse our Sauiours Proposition This is my body 7. By all you see this Principle well grounded Whateuer Clarity Scripture hath chiefly in Matters of controuersy and clarity helps much in the Rule of Faith Gods true Church which cannot but speak the Scriptures sense in euery particular deliuers it most clearly Wherefore S. Austin told Manicheus Tom 6. contra Epist Fundam C. 14. That if hee was to belieue the obscure Mysteries of Christianity Hee would assent to them vpon the weighty Authority of People and Nations celebrated and spread abroad By the consent of all learned and vnlearned which consent implies the vniuersal Agreement of the Catholick Church And to establish this Doctrin more firmly He assures vs. Tract 18. in Ioan That all Heresy which intangles souls and cast's them into Hell S. Austins Iudgement concerning Scripture proceed's from this one misery that Good Scripture is not rightly vnderstood by them Hence also Hee told vs aboue Lib. 1. contra Crescon C. 32. That if any doubt arise concerning the obscurity of Scripture we are to haue recourse to Christs holy Church and receiue from Her satisfaction To which purpose S. Cyprian speaks most piously Lib. de Vnit Ecclesiae illius lacté nutrimur Spiritu eius animamur adulterari non potest sponsa Christi We are nourished by the milk we are animated by the Spirit of this faithful Spouse of Christ which cannot play the Harlot or become an Adulteress 8. The last Principle The Rule of Faith is plain or its own Self-euidence apt of its own nature to conuince the most obstinate Aduersary whether Iew Gentil or Heretick And for this reason must be immediatly credible by it Self and for it self otherwise it must suppose an other distinct Rule yet more plain more euident more conuincing and more immediatly credible And that Rule à third à fourth And so in infinitum which is impossible Again the Obiectiue Rule we Shall now speak of Answer 's to the thing regulated by it which is true certain and Diuine Faith This Rule then must not only be true and certain in it self but also certainly applyed to Belieuers For à certain What the Rule of Faith implies Rule in it self dubiously applyed to an vnderstanding auail's only to leaue all in Suspence and lead's none to any further Acquiescency but to à wauering and vncertain Opinion And this is neither suitable to firm Belief nor to the Rule it self which ought to establish vs in Gods reuealed truths without doubt and hesitancy Grant this Notion of à Rule to be exact and none shall iustly except against it All we haue said aboue of the Scriptures Insufficiency to regulate Faith or to decide controuersies is no less than à Demonstration against Sectaries Whereof see more in the other Treatise Disc 2. per totum Scripture Certainly is not plain in all things necessary to be belieued for were the true sense of it which indeed is only Scripture as plain and indisputably clear for the Arians or Protestants in euery particular controuersy as their Doctrin is plainly deliuered by them Or contrariwise were the sense of it as plain and indisputably clear for the Catholick Doctrin in Matters of debate as the very Doctrin is taught by the Church All Contention would soon cease because either They vpon the Supposition
an Oracle of truth whilst all it teaches now is fallible and may be false 7. Hence I argue What Scripture saith is true Scripture here speaks of à Church founded by Christ of an Ancient Visible An Argument drawn from what is now said Society of Her perpetual Pastors without interruption of à Church conuerting Nations c. Therefore it speak's Truth and points at à sure Oracle marked with the notes we plead for who euer then admit's Scripture must ioyntly own these Marks and Signatures of the true Church But yee Sectaries admit Scripture and haue no such Marked Church with Antiquity continuance of Pastors c. Ergo you are not members of the true Church which must necessarily be found in some other Society of Christians 8. Here by the way we must preuent à triuial Obiection For some less knowing Aduersary may reply Wee destroy our own Ground and now proue the Marks of the Church by Scripture whereas we suppose the Scripture first proued to be of Diuine Inspiration because the Church manifested by her Marks and Motiues saith so 9. I Answer we proue the Marks of the Church and the Form of her essential Doctrin also by Scripture But how Vpon à Supposition that the Book be first proued Diuine by Church Authority Thus much done it is an excellent Principle But not Primum indemonstrabile it s own Self-Euidence Or first indemonstrable Principle This Truth is clear For no man goes about to conuert à Iew by alleging Passages out of the new Testament or to draw à Heathen to Christianity by any thing written either in the old or new Scripture As therefore that Scripture not the first in demonstrable Principle man would not be well in his wits who hopes to conuert à Protestant by meerly alleging the Definitions of the Council of Trent which he slights so he would be as sensles did he hope to conuert à Heathen by Scripture only as much vnderualued by him as the present Definitions of the Church are by Protestants Hence you see how Scripture is à Principle against Sectaries who admit it and reiect an infallible Church By Scripture we Argue and conuince them of errour might the words Thereof bear their proper sense without fancied Glosses Yet if we make à right Analysis it is not the first indemonstrable Principle but Per Modum suppositionis only that is it must be either supposed or proued Diuine 10. I say yet more Though both the Iew and Heathen owned Scripture as it truly is à Book indited by the Holy Ghost Though it were so there yet remains à difficulty not to bee solued yet they haue but made one step as it were towards Christianity For when such men look well about them and find Scripture differently sensed by so many iarring Heads as haue it in their hands by Arians Socinians Quakers Protestants c. Catholicks dissent from them all where can I beseech you these half Christians whether Iewes or Heathens securely rest With whom can they rationally vnite Themselues whose sense must they belieue and own as the vndoubted meaning of the Holy Ghost To doe any thing prudently in so weighty à Matter is impossible Vnless they first come to the knowledge of Christs true Church which as well Ascertain's them of the Scriptures sense in all Controuerted points of Faith as it doth of the Book 's Diuinity Now further It is not possible to know the true sense of Scripture but by the Church it is not possible to know the Church but by her Marks the essential Doctrin Thereof no more mark 's it self as true than Scripture Doctrin denotes its own Diuinity The Sectary therefore that rob's the Church of her Marks and the external Glory of Miracles Conuersions Perpetuity c. is guilty of three hainous crimes at once 11. First he makes the Conuersion of à Iew to Christianity Sectaries make the Conuersion of Iewes impossible most impossible I 'le show you how The Iew Admit's of the old Testament and drawes from euery passage which speak's of Christ and the Church à Sense quite different from that which Christians own The Protestant admit's both the Old and New Scripture And as we may Suppose is at à hot dispute with à Iew concerning Christian Religion First saith the Iew Lay Sir your New Testament aside which is no Principle with me Because it neither euidences it Self immediatly to be Gods word nor can you proue it Diuine vpon any sure ground extrinsecal to the Book Therefore we must Argue by à Principle common to vs both The old Testament only You read There I read also You know the Original language so do I You compare Text with Text I doe the like You Gloss and I Gloss against you Yet after all is done you draw one sense out of this very Scripture and would proue Christ to be the true Messias I draw from thence an other quite Contrary And say He is not My demand is whether Christ The Assertion proued whom you Adore hath prouided men of better means Than your Glosses and mine are whereby we may certainly know what the sense of this Scripture is If he haue done so it can be nothing but à Church manifested by Supernatural Signes and miracles for God now teaches none by Angels or Enthusiasms if the guidance of à Church be wanting we are all left in darkness And know not what Sense to make of Scripture and this ill beseems the Goodnes of à Sauiour who as you say came to enlighten the world and teach all truth which is not done For he leaues Reason in Darkness and Teaches not where his true Church is It may well be the Protestant will except against his Aduersaries Glosses but He is soon silenced for Saith the Iew you good man when you treat with Papists interpret Scripture as you please and why may not I proceed so with you And vse the like liberty 12. The second crime committed by the Protestant who depriues the Church of Her external Signes is that he Eclipses that great light of the world which as Origen saith shines to all And make it as Obscure as some Protestants make their Church inuisible before Luther What I say is certain For no man can find the Church by reason when all rational Motiues are What Sectaries are guilty of taken from it And held impertinent to illustrate that great moral Body Hence you see the third sin of Sectaries relating to Scripture This Book also loseth all credit with Christians because it Euidenceth not its own Diuinity nor can any Signalised Church tell vs it is Diuine or certainly declare the true sense thereof to either learned or vnlearned 13. My last argument against the Protestant is no Topick nor bare Probability but à plain Demonstration The Title saith This reformed man has no Christian Doctrin made credible to The last conuincing Argument Reason whilst he belieues as Protestant To proue the Assertion Three
Church of Christ the only Rule of Faith which decides all Controuersies Concerning Religion CHAP. IV. The one and only true Church of Christ was is and shall euer be the Holy Apostolical and Catbolick Roman Church Her Antiquity and Constant Perseuerance in the Ancient primitiue Doctrin without Alteration proues The Assertion 1. IT is hard to illustrate à manifest Truth because what euer reasons are brought to light for it surpass not much the Euidence of the thing you would make clear Who euer goes about to proue by Arguments that the Sun is the most luminous Body in the Heauens will haue much to do because that 's euidents to our senses and so is the true Church of Christ saith S. Austin digito demonstrari potest She can be pointed at with your finger Origen adds Hom. 33. in Matth. She is like à sun casting her beams from one part of the world to the other Howeuer because we now treat with men who either see not or pretend not to see I will giue them all the Euidence gathered from demonstratiue Signes which à heart can wish for 2. I say first before we come to more conuincing Arguments Antiquity is à certain Note of Christ Church The reason is As God was before the Diuel and Truth before falshood So the Orthodox Church whether you take it from Adam or Antiquity denotes the true Church from the first preaching of Christian Doctrin was before all Sects and Heresies The Roman Catholick Church only which Christ founded and is so much extolled by the Apostle has this Precedency It was when the Arians were not we know their first Rise it was when the Pelagians were not we know their Beginning it was when rhe Donatists were not their Origen is as well known as that of Protestants which first peeped out with one unfortunate Luther something aboue an age since Might not then the Roman Catholick Church more ancient than all these Sectaries haue most justly questioned each of them at their first appearance as the learned Tertullian Lib de Prescrip did those of His time Qui estis vos who are you new men Vnde quando venistis From whence came you Vbi tam diu latuistis Where haue ye been hid so long No body yet saw you or heard of you I waue the Testimonies of other Fathers chiefly of S. Austin and S. Hierome though none presses this Argument drawn from Antiquity with greater efficacy than Optatus Meliuitan Lib 2. contra Parmeâ—an They are known to euery one But this Mark must not goe alone 3. I say 2. Antiquity and à neuer interrupted Continuance The Church once true neuer Changed her Doctrin of the same Visible Society Age after Age and the same Doctrin vpheld without change or Alteration clearly euidences Christs Church This Scripture strongly Asserts Osee 2. where the Church is said to be espoused to Christ in Sempiternum for euer Math 16. Hell gates shall neuer preuail against it Math. 28. Christ will be with it to the end of the world vpon which Passage S. Hierome speaks most clearly Qui vsque ad consummationeâ— sae 〈…〉 c. He who promised to be with his own Disciples to the end â—f Authority â—nd the world both showes that these blessed men shall euer liue in their successors And that he will not depart from the true Belieuers Videtur sicut luna c. They are words of S. Ambrose lib 4. Hexam The Church may be seen like the moon eclipsed but neuer perisheâ— She may be clouded and ouer cast with darknes but cannot fail The reason is If Christs Church could fail not only all memory Reason proue the Assertion of his sacred Passion with the other Mysteries of our Faith but the whole Scripture also would for that time of her supposed Deficiency haue been no obiects of Belief None could then haue said with truth I belieue the Holy Catholick Church or haue had Access to it because it was not then in Being Now further As the Church cannot fail so She cannot Alter from her self or change Christs Doctrin For if She did so She were no more Orthodox Christ could not own Her for his Spouse Ponder S. Austins Discourse on this subiect in Psal 101. Existâ—â—t qui dicunt c. There are some who say This is not the Church of all nations which once was No. That 's gone and thus they Speak saith the Saint because they are not of the true Church O impudentem S. Austins Iudgement vocem illa non est quia tu in illa non es O impudent speech it is not the same Church it was because thou art not in it Vide ne tu ideo non Sis. look to thy self least thou be not for the Church will be although thou were not in the world Then he decries this Doctrin of the Churches failure as most abominable detestable and pernicious And in Psalm 60. positiuely Asserts the permanency of it to the end of the world 4. Hence I argue But the Roman Catholick Church only hath euer continued in being without interruption and neuer The probation vrged changed or Altered the Doctrin which She first learned of Christ Protestancy which began one only Age since most euidently wants this continuance and euery year put 's on à new countenance Therefore the Roman Catholick Church and not that of Protestants is the Spouse of Christ That the Roman Catholick Church stood permanently in being euer since Christ is as demonstrable as that Protestants were not before Luther The Visible perpetual Succession of our Popes of our Bishops of our Pastors and of our Catholick People in all ages is an irrefragable Proof Neither do Sectaries much cauil at this Personal Succession or the exteriour Permanency of our Church for What Sectaries obiect that 's euident But here is their Plea This Church say they once Orthodox changed from her selfe forged new Articles of faith Contrary to the primitiue Doctrin Herein lies the great Charge Now if I demonstrate that the Roman Catholick Church once confessedly Orthodox hath euer since been Visible in the world and neuer swerued from the pure Primitiue Doctrin in after Ages She is certainly the Church of Christ still without Alteration You will Ask how can this be euinced 5. Some may think 't is best done by Paralleling our present known Church Doctrin with that of the Primitiue Times Very good But by what means shall we come to à right Parallel One may Say Make A diligent Inspection into the Records and Writings of those worthy Fathers who liued in the first Ages And all is done I Answer This Rule precisely considered help 's nothing For what if those Fathers neuer medled with most of the Controuersies now agitated between vs and Sectaries And t' is no wonder at all if they did not For may not à new Sort of Hereticks rise vp to morrow whose Errours neuer entred into the thoughts either of the
Reflect GeÌ„tle Reader vpon these Consequences the Legardemaine the Imposture of this supposed Deceiuer It followes 2. That the Iewes who crucified our Blessed Lord iustly deserued vpon that Account Renown and Honour yea the highest Recompence For it was à laudable fact to comdemn à Counterfeit sâ— openly wicked as dared to call Himself the Son of God when Hâ—e was not Perkin Warbecks disguise was but à Peccadilio compared to this shameful cousenage The sin of Mahomet who neuer made Himselfe God but à Prophet only came not neer the Malice of this one supposed abhominable loud Vntruth It followes 3. That our supposed Impostor I haue à horror to pronounce the word deseruedly merited And yet merit 's for His vnexcusable Hypocrisy eternal Reproach contempt and ignominy in the just judgement of God men and Angels Hence I Argue 5. God is just and hath Prouidence ouer the world But our just and wise God neuer since Christianity began Seâ— Mark or Sign of Ignominy vpon our Blessed Sauiour as he hath done vpon other Impostors Our just and wise God euer since that wicked People nailed him to à Cross hath been so far from honouring them or rewarding Their impious Fact That most visible and seuere Punishments haue proued the only Recompence and best Reward The Temple ruined their Dispersion followed Christ honoured the Iewes contemned vp and down the world where they liue contemptible chiefly infamous for Hypocrisy and Auarice Se also this Argument more enlarged aboue Chap. 2. n. 4. Our most just God hath not only taken of all Marks of Ignominy but euidently to our Senses declared by real Effects His innocent Lamb our louely Sauiour worthy of Honour Benediction and Glory So true it is We read Apocal. 5. 13. Dignus est Agnus qui occisus est c. The iust Tribute of Prayse and Glory is visibly paid him so Prouidence hath ordained not only by Kings Princes Learned and vnlearned by all Nations far and neer But by the very Turks also 6. And is it possible reflect I beseech you that God who is no Exceptor of Persons could haue punished so dreadfully these abandoned Iewes had they done well in crucifying our Lord Jesus Is it possible that his iust and wise Prouidence could euer haue crowned à Counterfeit with so much Honour God's iust Iudgement and renown as our Sauiour hath gained or permitted A cheâ— not only to be Reuerenced as the true Son of God so long though he was not but moreouer to draw so many Millions and Millions of Souls into errour as belieued in him for sixteen Ages and more The Paradox is so desperate so highly improbable That one would as soon deny both God and Prouidence As once seriously harbour it in his thoughts Obserue my Reason 7. The Light of nature dictates abstracting from Authority Rom. 2. 9. That as on the one side Shame Ignominy and Confusion pursue horrid Workers of iniquity So on the other Proue ouâ— Sauiour Innocent Glory Honour and renown inseparably follow the manifestly declared just and innocent But Shame Confusion and Ignominy Gods Iust Signes of indignation yet visibly follow that wicked race of People the Authors of our dear Sauiours death contrarywise Glory and renown euer since he dyed haue been his due reward and own inheritance Therefore if God speak's And the Iewes Criminal as He doth by these Signal Effects of Iustice The Iewes so long seuerely punished stand like guilty Criminals in that high Tribunal of Heauen There sentenced answerable to their Desert as Workers of iniquity And our Holy Lord Iesus so long honoured the whole world ouer receiues the contrary Sentence And is by visible effects there proclaimed just and Innocent A Domino factum est istud c. It was not chance but à Signal work of Prouidence that the Stone these Builders reiected became so glorious as to support the noblest Fabrik God euer made 8. Apply what is is now said to the Roman Catholick A true Application of this whole Doctrin Church We shall se an exact Parallel of proofs deliuered in the same Terms Christ our Lord called Himself Eternal Truth in all he taught Our Church stil's Herself Gods own Oracle in all She teaches Now whilst so high à Prerogatiue is claimed She either speakes Truth or lies most impudently Grant the first Viz. That this Church speaks Truth she is to be belieued in all she teaches Say secondly she falsly makes Herself Gods own Oracle when she is not Diuine Prouidence which cannot dissemble nor Design to ruin Souls by the false Doctrin of an infatuated Oracle would long before this day haue either destroyed Her or marked Her out as à Cheat by some euident Sign of Justice as he hath marked other false Oracles Iewes To the Roman Catholick Church Turks Infidels and Hereticks with Contempt ignominy and Disgrace The sin is so hideous that it well deserued à greater Punishment and would haue been inflicted vpon this Church also if the Supposition stand Vnless as is now said we Assert which is abominable that Gods express Will was that She should poyson whole Nations for so many Ages with corrupted Doctrin But All is contrary To our vnspeakable comfort the Roman Catholick Church fail's not She keep 's her Posture still She flourishes euery where euen amongst thousands and thousands She flourishes that dare not interest will haue it so Profess Her Doctrin And without any least Note of infamy proceding from God what Diuels or Malice inuent or vent against Her we heed not Teaches not only the most pious and learned in this neerer world But the wisest also of the whole Vniuerse Thus we discoursed of Christ our Lord and the Argument hold's as strongly in behalf of our Church 9. Again Hath God whose Counsels are just Crowned our Sauiour with Glory and Renown Has he also who knowes well where to inflict Punishment manifested his Wrath vpon an vngracious People that condemned Him Ponder I beseech you first How visibly Prouidence has made his own Spouse the Roman Catholick Church Renowned And wonder not the Made renowned Son of God paid dear for the Renown and gave his life for it Vt exhiberet ipse sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam Ephes. 5. 27. That he might exhibit and present to Himself and the whole world à most glorious Church All this I say visibly Appears to oâ— eyes and senses 10. Ponder 2. Where and vpon whom God hath Set Marks of ignominy and inflicted most rigorous Punishments Whâ—â— vpon Iewes only that opposed and condemned Christ Are Iewes and Heretiques these only Marked and Chastised No. Those rebellious Spirits also Those first Renegados I mean the chief Arch-hereticks that opposed and condemned his Church Vile and abiect in life dying felt Gods heauy hand of Iustice Manichaeus was stead à liue Montanus hanged Himself Arius voided out his bowels and filthy soul together in à Priuie God strook Iulian the Apostate dead
Council either break vp and Define nothing Or if à Definition issues forth that only shall be defined which is certain and infallible Thus much is granted Yet I deny the Consequence and Say The Argument drawn from Hostility Conuinces Here is my reason That Imagined Râ—presentatiue consist's as we now suppose of Arians Protestants Catholicks Socinians and all other called Christians For these as some think Collectiuely taken make vp the diffused Church of Christ more ample than the Roman Or if so many The Argument taken From Hostility Conuinces Constitute it not Let Sectaries please to tell vs what Christians are to be excluded or precisely how many are the Members of this diffused Catholick Body In the mean while vouchsafe to Consider the force of my Argument grounded vpon an implacable Hostility 17. This whole diffused Moral Body euidently maintain's Contradictions For example Christ is the highest God Christ is not the highest God Our Lords Sacred Body is substantially present in the Eucharist That Body is not substantially present As therefore this large Society of Christians now supposed but one great Church holds contradictions So it must be granted that the Representatiue of it also hold's the same Contradictions Or ceaseth â—o ipsâ— to Represent the whole Diffused Moral Body 18. Hence one of these three Sequels ineuitably followes The first If this Representatiue still continues to Represent which is euer to be noted and proceed's to à Definition answerable to the Sentiment of the large Moral Body in Diuision it necessarily Defines the contradictions of those Churches to The Reasons and Proofs of my Assertion be Orthodox Doctrin and were this done There is More then Hostility enough For thus impossible Contradictions are both Definable and Belieuable Or it followes 2. that our imagined Representatiue break 's vp and leaues all points in Controuersy as Wholly vndecided as they were before And this which implies an endles Hostility would I think be the Result of that Council And vpon that Account appear à ridiculons Representatiue Or. 3. This followes That some one Part or other in the Representatiue must lay down Arms and acknowledge one Church of One Denomination absolutly infallible in whose Sentence all are to rest VVithout this Acquiescency in one Orthodox and Infallible Church Errours in Faith goe on as S. Austin Speak's what we Assert we see hitherto in à remedilesse condition This truth S. Austin Lib. de symb ad Catecâ—um C. 6. Saw well where He speak's profoundly to my present purpose Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta Ecclesia vna c. She and she only is the holy the one Church the Catholick Church which fights against all Heresies She may fight but cannot be foiled And Might I here Digress à little I could Demonstrate That neuer Heresy yet of any Fame in the world appeared since Christs time but it was Crushed censured and condemned by one only Oracle the Roman Catholick Church to whose Sentence the very best of Christians dutifully Submitted relying on our Sauiours secure Promise Hell gates cannot preuail against that Oracle 19. A. 3. Obiection Scripture alone though all Churches were fallible is sufficient to teach infallible Faith necessary to Saluation Answ Of all Obiections proposable this is least worth For had Scripture that sufficiency it may I hope be yet Enquired VVhether the Church also which cannot clash with Scripture has the like Prerogatiue of infallibility Scripture was infallible when the Apostles preached and yet their Preaching was as infallible as The words they wrote But here is not my greatest Exception I say Scripture and all the Verities in it goe to wrack if the Church be fabllible For grant this we haue no infallible Certainty of the Scriptures Canon of it's substantial Purity or Immunity from corruption of it's true Scripture with out the Churches infallible Testimony loseth force Sense in à hundred controuerted passages VVe cannot belieue that Christ is God or That his Ascent into Heauen was real and not à vain Vision We Cannot belieue what Sacraments are nor know the number of them without the Church Therefore vnless this Principle stand vnshaken It is immediatly more certain that the Church manifested by Her Marks is Gods own Oracle Than That Scripture setting Church Authority aside is Gods word we can belieue nothing For who see 's not but that very Book would soon haue been out of credit had not God by special Assistance preserued as well it 's Doctrin pure in Mens hearts as He preserued the words in Velume or parchment And this by the means of à watchful liuing Oracle his infallible Church 20. Again and this Reason conuinceth Were Scripture iudged sufficient to teach Saluifical Faith compleatly independently of the Church Or were the Church when that Iudgement is held not only errable but actually erroneous How can any hauing The Assertion is proued these two iudgements Scripture Infallibly â—eaches Faith compleatly The Church because erroneous fail's in this Duty Account himself à Heathen or Publican as our Lord Saith though he absolutely refuse to hear the Church His refusal Certainly is prudent and defensible vpon this ground That Scripture doth all learns him enough Therefore none can oblige him to hear the Church which may mislead and Propound false Doctrins For no man in his wits will listen to à Fallible Oracle whilst he has another at hand that teaches all Truths infallibly 21. If you reply Such an one is at least obliged to hear the Church in Fundamentals but not in others The Intelligent Person Asks whether Protestants who lay that obligation A Reply answered vpon him of belieuing fundamentals only own that Assertion sâ— infallible that to belieue the Distinction is an Article of their Faith If they say it is à fundamental Article and that he is obliged to belieue so Protestants doe not only maintain one infallible fundamental Point peculiar to themselues disowned by the Roman Catholick Church for She certainly reiect's the Distinction The Sectary Câ—nuicted of Errour but moreouer now become infallible Oracles in à Matter of greatest Importance which cannot pass because they are Professedly fallible in all they teach Therefore may truth haue place the Dictinction giuen between fundamentals is both Vnfundamental and fallible Doctrin And so without More we are freed from all Obligation of belieuing the Church for that Distinction failing to be à fundamental truth The Church is absolutly fallible in fundamental Doctrin Well then may we not hear Her at all without any Note of being looked on as Heathens and Publicans 22. Some perhaps great Patrons of Christian Liberty and freedom of mind in matters of Faith may obiect 4. The Church cannot exercise Her Authority ouer mens Iudgements or oblige any to an internal Assent Her power being limited and to thus much only as to order and regulate the Exteriour A Reflection made vpon Christian Libertins for this end that Vnity and peace May be preserued without
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
read and ponder Scripture but if you moue à further Question concerning the Sense of what he reads he returns you his own fancy as the best light he has and makes that his Iudge This and no other is the Protestants Principle and the chief if not the only support of all Heresy in the world 17. I Argue 2. And hold it à Demonstration To make Religion à Scepticism eternally debatable without hope of attaining truth at last is wholly as ridiculous as if two men should goe to law meerly to wrangle hopeles of euer hauing their cause determined But this Protestant Principle VVe read Pray and ponder makes Religion à meer Scepticism without hope of euer knowing it or hauing truth finally decided Semper discentes they Another Conuincing Argument are alwaies learning but neuer well taught Ergo it is more than ridiculous 18. To proue the Minor let vs first suppose that either we Catholicks or Protestants teach and profess true Religion both certainly do not for we hold Contradictions Suppose 2. This falsity which our Aduersaries will haue supposed Viz. That the Roman Catholick Church after all Her reading and perusing Scripture is as fallible in all She teaches as Protestants confessedly are in what they deliuer after their reading Both teach as they doe contrary Doctrin Yea and fallible Doctrin yet both tell you they teach true Doctrin Say I beseech you what man in his wits To teach Contrary Doctrin and true Doctrin can belieue Either vpon their bare Assertions chiefly if we Suppose them of equal Authority when he find's the Result of their reading and perusing Scripture to end in nothing but in open Contradictions and sees plainly that the opposit Doctrin of the One Church so much abates the Credit of the other teaching contrary that in real truth both become Contemptible And hence I Said that which we call Christian Religion would iustly deserue Scorn if no Church teach it infallibly But is impossible here is not all To discouer more the gross errour of Sectaries in this particular 19. We are yet to Demand vpon whom this iarring Doctrin of the two dissenting Churches now supposed Fallible is to be laid Or whence it proceeds Can it come from Gods special A Doctrin taught fallibly Assistance think ye It is impossible Because God teaches no contradictions Nay if we consider it as contradictory no Spirit of truth can teach it Therefore we must part the Doctrins and Ascribe to each Church its own particular Opinion And then were that possible Examin which is true 20. But here lies the Misery I say boldly There neither is nor can be any appearance of certain reuealed truth in either Proceed's not from God Church not only because all Principles fail whereby to discern à certain Christian truth from Errour but most vpon this ground That we must now remoue the fallible taught Doctrins of both these Churches from Gods Infallible Verity and his Special assistance also and make them lean vpon mans weak and shallow vnderstanding We haue no other Principle to rest on if once infallible Assistance be excluded But it is manifest mans shallow But relies vpon mans weak Vnderstanding capacity communicat's no Certainty to Any concerning the high Mysteries of Faith remoued from their Center The first infallible Verity Therefore all we can learn from such Teachers is no more but doubtful Doctrin at most or if it reach to an Opinion meanly probable there is all Yet you haue often No ground less then infallible Supports true Religion heard and it is à Truth that no Principle less then one which is infallible Can vphold our Christian Doctrin Wherefore an vtter ruin of true Religion ineuitably followes vpon this Ground As Duine Doctrin infallibly taught begets infallible Faith So if taught doubtfully it begets only à doubtful Assent which is no Faith at all Now were these Doctrins respectiuely to each Church probable as I think neither would be if the Supposition of their fallibillty stand's we are only brought to the old Scepticism again and may dispute of Religion as we doe of Probabilities in Schools and so if men please They may as often change Religion as they change Opinions or apparel 21. Some perhaps will reply Protestants can certainly Say more for themselues then only to tell you They read Scripture and compare the Passages of it together by the light of their own weak reasons Could so much indeed make them accomplished Sectaries can pretend to no other Principle Doctors able to lay forth Gods eternal truths it would seem strange mighty bare and dissatisfactory to Reason Answ Here is all you haue from them For they neither do nor can pretend to more Wherefore I challenge them again and again to Say plainly what other Principle can be relyed on not wholly as doubtful and as much controuerted as their very Religion is when they either teach or interpret Scripture contrary to But to their own Comparing Scripture the Roman Catholick Church Obserue their Procedure If à contest arises betwixt them and condemned Hereticks The Arians for example All ends in à meer throwing Texts at one another And the sense must be iust so as each Party conceiues And do they not follow the same strain in euery Controuersy with Catholicks One Instance will giue you sufficient light and may well serue for all 22. They Protestants I mean read those words of our Sauiour This is my Body So do Catholicks also They compare Text with Text and Sense all as they please Catholicks as wise and learned compare also yet hold contrary Doctrin and discouer no little fraud in these new mens Deductions and Criticisms Say now plainly Who is He that acts the Sectaries seek to quarrel but to End nothing Sceptick's part Who is He that would endlesly quarrel about the Sense of Gods word Is it the Catholick No certainly He is willing to haue the cause vltimately decided He Petitions to haue these endles strifes remitted to the censure of one Supreme Iudge to à Church which manifesteth it self by euident glorious Miracles neuer yet censured by any Christians but known Hereticks and which finally has taught the world euer since Christ left it Dare Sectaries do thus much Dare they appeal to any Orthodox Church by whose iust Sentence these debates may haue an End No. They recoyle and without listening to any Iudge but Them selues would stil continue these Debates Therefore they are the Sceptists And to proue this giue me leaue to propose one Question to the Protestant He is the man we now treat A Conuincing Proof of our Assertion with Has he any Church so free from Censure of so long Continuance so glorious in Miracles as the Roman Catholick is Has He any Council as generally receiued the whole world ouer as either the Lateran or Florentine which euer interpreted Christs words or Sensed them as he doth Most euidently no. Therefore
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
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