Because the Church stand's for us there No Authority Allegeable contrary to the Church can be comparable to it can be no Competition Unles They render our Churches Testimony of no Force by substituting a greater in its place For their sense which is impossible Alas They want Principles to go about such a work And Therfore must Reduce all they talk against us to Fancy only 12. What I would say here may perhaps be more clearly Expressed Thus. If Sectaries have plain Scripture for Fundamentals we have it also and take along with it Those Fathers They Admit of If in Iudgement against Iudgement Spirit against Spirit other Matters now in Controversy They rely on their private judgement when they interpret Scripture our judgement That 's opposit is to say no more as good as Theirs If they plead by the Spirit of Truth working in them we might set our Spirit against Theirs And Ask whether's better Thus far we stand most evidently upon equal Terms with them Now be pleased to observe what I say They have not one plain text of Scripture nor one plain Testimony of any Council or Ancient Father wherby they can so much as Probably offer to Prove That Protestants have Nothing for Their sense of Scripture but Fancy the sense of Scripture owned by Catholicks is Erroneous in points debated between us And Beside the judgement of innumerable Fathers We have also The Authority of a whole learned Church that Approves our sense They have neither Church nor Scripture nor Councils nor Fathers for Theirs Let therfore the world Judge How far they are from convincing our sense of Scripture to be erroneous by any known or received Principle unles their Fancy enter in and pass for a Proof which we utterly Reject You will say If in all controverted matters we make so much of Church Why Church Authority is to be highly esteemed Authority There is no Disputing Against us For the Church will ever stand for its own Doctrin I answer And if we Value not of it so Highly But Admit of our Sectaries Glosses upon Their bare Word We are worse then mad when 'T is evident They cannot prove that sense to be erroneous by a stronger Principle Then our Church Authority is that denies the Errour The Church Therfore fortified with most solid proofs drawn from Scripture Councils Fathers and Tradition most justly stand's for itâ—s own Interpretation And hence I say Whatever Sectaries can allege against it will show it self an impertinency Though Cavils may be raised There is no Rational Disputing against it You have the Reason hereof already Because what ever Sectaries can lay hold on like a Principle or That wherby They may Attempt to prove the Catholick Interpretations fals will Appear more then feeble to stand against The long standing Authority of this one Holy and Catholick Church But of this subject more afterward in the following Discours 13. And thus much of our Protestants strange unsetled Religion And Vndeniable Apostasy both from Church and Scripture We shall se in the next Discours How They recede from Reason also In passing be pleased to take these few Considerations along with you 14. A Religion destitute of all Appearance of any Ancient A Recapitulation of the enormities of Protestant Religion Church to side and symbolize with As Protestants most evidently are Their Recours to the third of fourth first Ages is Ignotum per ignotius and no less and Vnproved then a Supposed whimsy A Religion which hath not one syllable of Scripture for it as 't is evident men of this Profession have not And because they ever glory in Scripture-proof I am forced to tell them They cannot produce one text for Protestancy without Their fallible Glosses if I wrong their cause let them speak out and shame me I 'll suffer the Affront yet fear it not But Remember I call for plain Scripture A Religion which never yet had one General Council to Confirm it no Vniversal Tradition to Warrant it not one Professour before Luther to Own it A Religion which holds the Belief of all Christians to have been Fals for a thousand years together And the Prelates misled by Errour who taught Christians for so vast a time A Religion whose Professours take upon them to Reform others Before They find Their own pretended Reformation arriv'd to any Shadow of Perfection who espy errors in a Church never Discovered Erroneous By Thousands more Ancient and Learned then They. A Religion which hath the very look of Haeresy turn it which way you will which opposeth all men And is opposed by the Rest of Christians which is setled on no other Ground But the bare Vnproved Word of those Vncommissioned Men that Teach it which Changes every year and hath no seeming Principle for a Ground of Constancy not one Motive to make it Rationally credible Such a Religion I say Dishonors God Injures Iesus Christ seduceth poor Souls and as unworthily as weakly stands out against that Ancient Roman Catholick Church which is every way Blamles unless faulty in This that it made Protestants Their Progenitors And the Rest of the world Christians If I here overlash in Asserting too much let our Adversaries come closely to any one Particular and vouchsafe fairly and rationally to make my Errour known THE THIRD DISCOVRS OF The Vnreasonable Proceding of Protestants in some chief Handled Points of Controversy Be pleased to observe what I shall Note Hereafter You shall ever find our Sectaries either sculking in Generalities or supposing what is to be proved or wording it by Scripture misinterpreted or finally making Controversies endles without Appealing to any other Iudge but Themselves THE FIRST CHAPTER Protestants are Vnreasonable whilst They seemingly hold a Catholick Church Distinct from the Roman neither known nor Designable by any 1. THis is an Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church And was Sectaries are required to point at a Catholick Church before Luther so three dayes before Luther deserted the Roman Faith My humble sute is That our New Men will pleas by a plain Designation I ask not for a Definition of the Church to point me out the True Church which then was or now is Holy and Catholick Protestants as I here suppose were not then visible in the world There were 'T is true Arians Pelagians Abyssins Graecians And perhaps some Remainder of Donatists with other Haereticks whether more or fewer Known Haereticks constituted not the Catholick Church yet the Article of our Creed was then true it import's not to our present Question Notwithstanding it is Evident That some Christians then living unanimously Professed Their Belief in a Holy Catholick Church My demand therfore is whether That Believed Article was then True or Fals If fals for want of a true Catholick Church Speak out plainly And say that Christians Believed a Church which then Really was not in Being If True The then Holy Catholick
Church in Truth And promised to be with the Church He Founded to the End of the World Withal that no Orthodox Church Ever opposed this just Possession c. It therfore lyes on our Adversaries to Disprove These Scriptures And to Weaken those Reasons by sound Principles or at least to Offer at an Answer which I Think will be Difficil to Do by Any Proof That 's weakly Probable 13. In the Interim you se the Strain of Sectaries Writing The Strain of Sectaries writing Controversies Controversies It is Ever to be Cavilling at our Tradition at our Possession and Prescription And Thus they run on as if their Cause were not at all Concerned Though it should be otherwise For do not Protestants Protestants pretend to a Possession of Truth as wel pretend to a Possession of Truth as Those They call blind Papists Yes And will They not say that the Truth they Lay claim to is either a Belief Common to all Hereticks or the Particular Doctrins of the English Church Yes For they 'l have no Mixture of Popery with it Well Now we Vrge them to produce a Conveyance From Him alone But can produce no Conveyance from him that could invest them in it who could invest them in the Possession of Either the One or other Doctrin Here You 'l have them Silent For not so much as a Syllable of Scripture nor one clear Sentence of a Father least of All Any Ancient Tradition Ever Favoured such Extravagancies However you must have patience And Hear Sectaries Loud in Their Complaints Against our Tradition and Ancient Possession And 'T is no wonder For 'T is easier to Cavil at Truth Then to speak sense For Falshood 14. A second Objection It is Plain in this Case viz. Of Prescription or Possession The full Right depend's not upon meer Occupancy But a Title must be pleaded to Shew that the Possession is Bonae fidei so that the Question Comes from The Possession to the Goodnes of the Title Answ By This Word Right or Title I understand a just and meet Reason Allegeable For What 's meant in this place by Right and Title that wherunto a man layes Claim And wherof He had Possession for long a Time As if One should Ask an Ancient Gentleman by what Right He Hold's His lands And How long He hath Had Them He Answers They were setled on Him by His Ancestours And here is His Title Both they And He have quietly Possessed Them without Cavils Cavils Against known Right Proofles for a thousand years c. Suppose now A wrangling Lawer should Tell the Gentleman Sir whatever becomes of your long Possession I Question your Right or Title And therfore say your Possession is not Bonae fidei But a meer Occupancy Would not This busy Fellow think ye if He said no more be put to His Proof when the Gentleman shewes His Right and justly plead's his long Possession Yes most Assuredly Here is Our very Case It is more The Right and Churches Title certain that the Roman Catholick Church was Once most lawfully invested in the possession of Truth by the Gracious Goodnes of Him that founded it Then ever Any was lawfully setled in Right of His lands For so much â—he whole World and Sectaries also Acknowledge as undoubted And Here is The Churches First Right or Title It is Again most Evident That Innumerable of unspotted Fame of Great Learning Sanctity and Vertue Have not only Avouched This Blessing to be once Conferred on the Church But Moreover have professed Themselves to be The Heirs and Professors of it Heirs of this Ancient Right And so Far the Professors of Those Primitive Verities That They â—onveyed them Age after Age to posterity I say No more yet but only what they Professed Now Starts up a Minister And Tell 's the Church just as the Lawer It 's Tacitly supposed by our Adversary an Occupancy but not Proved Doth the Gentleman She hath no Right nor Title But a meer Occupancy That 's no Possession The Church proves this Right first to have been Conserted by one that could give it Then She shewes it to have Remained with Her in Every Age By sure Witnesses of Vertue and Integrity Must not therfore this Minister Think you that Contrast's with such Witnesses And Encounters such an Army of old Tryed Souldiers be put to His Proof and Fight lustily by Evidence And if possible with Stronger Proofs Is All manfully Don Pray you Judge when He wholy supposeth what Should be proved And is pleased to Miscal our Ancient undoubted Right our just Title and Vnquestioned Possession by a new Coyned word of Occupancy Let him Keep the Occupancy to Himself and Apply it to His Protestant Religion That Hath neither Right to plead by nor Title nor any Ancient Possession 15. A Third Objection If we plead Possession by immemorial Tradition from Ancestours many things are to be Contested and this is one That no Antecedent Law hath determin'd Contrary to what we challenge by vertue of Possession Very Good When you Sir Shew us this Antecedent Law Contrary to what Our Adversary is to Show an Antecedent Law contrary to our Possession we Challenge by vertue of our Possession wee 'l yeild But you are to make this Evident And Consequently the Proof Lies on you which will be a hard Task For we Know There is no such Law against us 16. A fourth Objection Christs Law hath Determin'd Matters of Difference between us one way or other For Example Whether the present Church be Infallible or no. If the Law has Determined Against us Possession And Prescription signify Nothing If for us The Question must be wholy Removed from the Plea of Possession And be tryed on This Issue whether Christ by his Law hath determined on The Legislators Determination your side or Ours I Answer The Legislator hath most plainly Determined for the Infallibility of that Church which He founded And though you slight those Sacred Texts Super hanc Petram Pasce Oves Eâ—o Vobiscum or what Els you pleas They are yet Vigorous Proofs Against your meer Cavils Therfore Because you Offer to be Tryed upon this Issue Whether Christ We like our Adversaries Offer hath Determined for you or us we Accept of the Challenge And are ready to Dispute by Scripture only Produce then your Texts as plain and significant for the Fallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Once Confessedly True As these now Hinted at and many more Cited Above are for Her Infallibility This don you may Vapour as much as you Pleas And Offer to be tryed by Law c. But we know your Want you have not after All this Talk a Syllable of Scripture Sectaries Have no Scripture Against the Churches Infallibility Against our Churches Infallibility Now to the other Horn of the Dilemma where you Say if Christs Law has Determined on our side the Question must be removed from
St. Austin only doubted of one particular punishment it here but only calls such a particular pain into Question as is expiatory of lesser faults because as I told you He held These lesser transgressions usually taken away by sufferances endured in this life Conclude therfore unles this Inference be Good St. Austin doubted whether some faults were punished in Purgatory The Testimony shewed forceles against us Ergo He thought none were Expiated there which is not probable The alleged Testimony is of no force against us yet proves that you read not St. Austin too well Now if you say my Gloss upon this Authority is not certain I answer No more will yours be when you have Interpreted all you can Therfore neither of us yet come to a certain Principle And consequently you must produce a far clearer Authority before you Ask again whether any man in his wits can think that St. Austin spake this of a matter of Faith Supposing all sure for your Interpretation which to me And I think to others also that know Latin and sense will not appear probable It is not my Task to quote A parallel of clear and doubtful passages here at large those most clear Testimonies of St. Austin for our Catholick Verity yet I 'll give you one And wish you to parallel that with all your dubious places lib. 2. de Genesi contra Manichaeos cap 20. fine Those books are of undoubted Authority Qui fortè agrum suum non coluerit c. He that Cultivates not his Sectaries ever suppose meer dubious Testimonies to have more force then most clear ones and the judgement of a whole Church Field but suffers it to be overgrown with thorns hath a Curs on him in all He doth in this life Et post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem Purgatiâ—nis vel poenaâ— aeternam And after this life shall either have a Purgatory or suffer pain for ever Thus the Doctor And every man in his wits it 's your own phrase cannot but think he spake of a matter of Faith when his Doctrin agrees with the Belief of a whole Church See more lib. 21. de Civit. c. 16. Where He speaks of a Purging torment after Death as also in Psal 37. But enough of this point 15. You say 3. Where Any of the Fathers build any Doctrin upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture we have no further reason to believe that Doctrin then we have to Two Propositions more unproved believe that it is the meaning of those places So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of Scriptures which They and we both rely on And you give this reason For since the Fathers pretend to no greater Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrin then such places do afford it is the greatest reason that the argument to perswade us be not the testimony of the Father but the Evidence of the place it self Answ If here be not a piece of most Confused Doctrin confused Learning I never read any Observe well your own propositions as they lye in order First the Fathers are supposed to build a Doctrin upon the sense of doubtful Scripture and then you say you have no further reason to believe that Doctrin then you have to believe that it is the meaning of those places Very Good But I ask by what light can you better come to the true meaning of a doubtful place of Scripture then the Fathers Did If the meaning was How Sectaries may wrong both Scripture and Fathers doubtful to them it is as doubtful to you And if that sense which you draw out of a doubtful place be contrary to the Fathers you wrong both Them and the Text Them because you Oppose their judgement upon a meer uncertainty The Text becaus you will make it speak your sense which it doth not certainly for it is doubtful to you Perhaps you 'l say When the sense is doubtful Neither you nor the Fathers can tell what to make of it and Therfore without further enquiry it will be best to let it alone and remain in its obscurity May this Doctrin pass you need not to believe a great part of Scripture for it is very obscure They cannot contradict the Fathers explicating a doubtful place 2. You are bound in Conscience never to contradict the Fathers interpreting a doubtful passage For and it is very good reason if you will have the Fathers silent in such a case you are to hold your Peace and to say nothing against them Your second Proposition In this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers and fixed upon the sense of Scripture which they and we both rely on Seems not to be too full of sense For most assuredly when the Fathers explicate a dubious passage Their judgement tend's to declare the hidden sense of it Why therfore will No sure fixing on a doubtful sense you take their judgement off from such aâ—sense and put yours in room of it Or to what purpose do you talk here of Fixing upon the sense when a place is dubious and neither Church nor Fathers must be believed What is your Fixing good for when you suppose the thing you Fix on to be doubtful and your felves Fallible If you say you must come to a certainty of the sense by Tradition or some other way know that the Church and Fathers had better reason to be acquainted with such lights then any Sectary can have In a word A doubtful place remaining still doubtful or dubioufly explicated can never beget a certain belief in you or any Yet we say when the Church of Christ and Fathers also agree in an Explication When the Church and Fathers interpret all doubt ceaseth the doubt ceaseth and the delivered sense is most certain In your reason For since They c. you leap from the sense of a Doubtful passage to the Evidence of the place it self which seems not pertinent For what hath Evidence to do here when your Discours is only of a doubtful sense When a place is evident we se that as well as you And have with it the sentiment of a whole Church and Consent of Fathers also 16. You say 4. After some Talk of two Reverend Primates which I much heed not That St. Ambrose and others prayed for the Blessed in Heaven Ergo Orizons Old Objections renewed to no purpose for the Dead prove not a Purgatory I wonder you weary mens Eares again with such old worn-out Objections You or your Brethren have been told many and many a time that no Father no Church The Church prayes not for the Saints in Heaven to be released from temporal pain or to have sins remitted Greek or Latin ever prayed that the Saints in Heaven may be freed from any temporal pain or for the Remission of sins yet not only the Fathers
That 's not enough Sectaries are to Prove it Beares that Sense here An Instance That the Word EST in our Saviours Proposition hath determinatly that Sense and no Other You know Scripture saith Hic est filius meus dilectus This is my beloved son c. Now no Man can Inferr Becaus EST sometimes is Rendred Signifies That Here it looses its Proper sense And only Avail's as much as if you Said Christ only Signifies or is not otherwise the Son of his Father Then a material Picture Hang'd on a Wall is a Sign or Figure of the Prototypon This cannot be admitted of Vnles I say a Stronger Principle which is Impossible Force us to Approve of such an Heretical sense And thus We Discours in our Present Matter 3. Note 3. All the Principles which can be Thought on to Force Catholicks from the Received Sense of Christs Own Words or to Favour our Adversaries Cause must be Reduced to one of these Heads To No known Principle upholds the Doctrin of Sectaries Plain speaking Scripture To Vniversal Tradition To the Catholick sense of Christs Orthodox Church in former Ages or Finally to the General Consent of Fathers If none of these Principles Vphold Protestants Doctrin it Fall's of it self And wholy Relies on Fancy Thus much supposed 4. Here is my Proposition and an Inference also A Proposition against Sectaries Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one of these now Named Principles VVithdraw Catholicks from the Plain Received Sense of Christs VVords They cannot Prove that EST in our Saviours Affirmation Imports only as much as if you said it Signifies Therfore the Doctrin which Denies the real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is wholy Vnwarrantable and Built on Fancy Only 5. The Proofs of my Assertion are as Vndeniably The Proofs of it are no less clear Then the Proposition it self Evident as the very Assertion it self For it is Manifest No Scripture plainly Teaches I say no More now That the Verb EST in Christs Proposition Beares only this sense it Signifies And it is as Clear no Vniversal Tradition Approves of this new Fancied Sense What then Remains But that our Adversaries take Recours to some Ancient Orthodox Church or To the General Consent of Fathers I say therfore If they A Fair offer made to Sectaries can Name any Vniversal Church Nay any particular Church Reputed Orthodox the whole world Over That Interpreted these Words as They do or Clearly Denyed Christs true Body and Blood To be under the Formes of Bread and Wine after Consecration or Believed that Natural bread only hath the Name of Christs Body Though it be Really no more But a Sign only a Figure only a Resemblance only of his Body If I say Protestants you shall se will never Answer Directly to what is here proposed any one of these things can be proved They 'l Come of Gloriously And Gain Thousands to their Opinion But I know all is in a high Measure Impossible I say a Sign only a Figure only For We Catholicks both speak with the Fathers and Truely Believe The Eucharist to be a Sacrament And consequently a Sign of Invisible Grace Yea and a Figure also a Memorial of Christ Himself and his Sacred Passion But this is not the Controversy between us The sole Question therfore is Whether it be so purely a Sign or Figure that What They are to Answer To. the Thing Signified is not in the Sign And the Verity in the Figure That is Whether Christs Sacred Body and Blood be not Truely and Substantially within the outward Sign and really Present There This VVe Affirm and Sectaries Deny Though never Orthodox Church Denyed it with Them 6. To clear this Point And Add If Possible more Weight to our Assertion We Have an Ample Holy and Learned Catholick Roman Church whose sole Authority set Scripture aside is the Greatest on Earth The sole Authority of our Roman Church is Sufficient to Convince Sectaries of Errour Which confessedly hath believed and taught this Doctrin of the Real Presence for at least a Thousand Years I say Ever since Christianity began And can any one prudently Perswade Himself That so Chois and Learned a Society That yet Speak's in Christs ovvn Language And Literally believes his words as They are in the Gospel Hath for so long a time lived in a Cheat and taught Millions of Soules a most Damnable Errour Admit of this Vast Improbability We have yet a Demonstration No Other Orthodox Society Ever opposed our Catholick Doctrin against Sectaries And 't is No Orthodox Church can be named that ever Opposed Found fault or Blamed the Belief of the Roman Church Concerning this Mystery Therfore the Doctrin of this Learned Society is undoubtedly Certain upon a double Account that Christ Taught it And no Vniversal Church ever Condemned it 7. In the last Place we are to Say a Word of the other The last Principle which is the consent of Fathers Principle Which is the Vnanimous consent not of a small Number but of Many most Ancient Learned and Holy Fathers These can well Declare what Scripture Teaches of This Mystery And what Christs Orthodox Church ever Believed If All Readers Have not the Originals at hand They may see them in the Authors Cited above I shall only Hint at a few For to Transcribe All or Half of them And Quote the Places Exactly Would Needlesly lengthen a Digression which I Intended to make short In passing I 'll only say thus much If Sectaries with all the Skill Fathers express for Catholick Doctrin They have can Interpret These few Testimonies Which I shall briefly Glance at They may with the same Ease Yea And far less labour Explicate the Words of the Council of Trent and make that to speak Protestancy Or to Deny the Real Presence 8. Some Fathers therfore Dogmatically Teach What we take into our mouths is not that which nature These Fathers are Faithfully cited Though to avoid Tediousnes in a short Digression I thought it best not to give the Reader more Trouble then is necessary by quoting Exactly the places made But what the Blessing hath Consecrated And that by Consecration the very Nature of bread is changed Thou hast learned that of bread is made the Body of Christ and the wine and water is put into the Chalice But by the consecration of the Heavenly Word it is made Blood The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Sacred Invocation of the Adored Trinity were simple bread and wine But the Invocation being once don the Bread indeed is made the Flesh of Christ and the VVine his Blood The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made Flesh Christ by his own Will once changed water into wine and is He not worthy to be Believed that He changed Wine into Blood Mark a substantial
Verities For example All acknowledge Gods Divine Providence over the world and Therfore have strong Principles to prove the Truth We Christians say That Christ our Lord And His Apostles taught most certain Heavenly Doctrin Principles cannot be wanting to prove this our Christian Verity VVe say Iudaism and Mahometism are Fals Sects The Assertion can be made Good by sure and undoubted Proofs The only Question now under Dispute is whether we Catholicks or Sectaries profess and Teach the Ancient Orthodox Doctrin established by Christ and his Apostles And without all Controversy certain Principles cannot fail in this particular wherby the difference between us may be decided Or if they Do fail which is not possible every one may not only adhere without reproof to any Religion or none as Fancy pleaseth But moreover may most justly blame Almighty God And this is hideously impious who command's us on the one side to embrace true Religion yet on the Other Leaves us in such Fearful darknes That none after a diligent search can find out by sure Principles vvhat or vvhere that Religion is which He will have us to believe to make profession of to live and dye in And this would be highly contrary to his infinit Goodnes Thus much premised 6. I say first The Sectary whether He takes in hand to establish his own Opinions or to impugn any Doctrin of our Catholick Faith shall never come to an Intellectual light that hath a likelyhood of a sure Principle The Reason is most evident in Catholick grounds I say no more yet Because Truth cannot be contrary to Truth If therfore Catholick Religion be true what ever the Sectary sayes against it when he either Plead's for his own or oppugn's our Doctrin must of necessity be so remote from sure Principles That his whole Talk ultimatly Resolved will appear in its own likenes a meer cheat and end in nothing but a fallacy For it is not Possible to force Truth out of Falshood or to make that Probable which is Essentially improbable 7. I say 2. It cannot but be most manifest to every prudent disinteressed Iudgement That Sectaries have nothing like sound received Principles to rely on whether They oppugn our Catholick Doctrin or Defend their own Opinions To clear this Assertion from Cavils you shall se what we propose Be pleased only to take two or three sheets of paper much more is not needful And permit a learned Catholick briefly to set down in the first Pages of them the Proofs he hath for his Catholick Doctrin in one particular Controversy now agitated this short way of Arguing will do the deed Then let the Protestant write all he can say for his contrary Proposition in the other Pages And if you do not se a strange unequal Parallel of Proofs And no Proofs laid together call me what you will I 'll bear a just rebuke yet fear not any I say pitch upon One Controversy now in Dispute For Example that one long debated we cannot now insist upon all may be thought of Viz. VVhether Recours had to the Saints in Heaven by the Prayers of the living be erroneous or true Doctrin Next permit the Question to be truely stated and then Hear what the Catholick sayes for Himself He tell 's you first the Roman Catholick Church and the Greek Church also whether Orthodox or Schismatical teach as He believes 2. He produceth Scriptures to prove his Doctrin 3. He alleges Fathers both Greek and Latin quoted by every Polemical writer on this subject Bellarmin furnisheth you most plentifully lib. 1. de Sanct. Beati cap. 19. The wit of man cannot wrest them to a sense contrary to our Catholick Position 4. You will have His Reasons and that one most concluding Good men laudably pray for us here on earth Ergo much more the Saints in Heaven because in a better state can do that Charity When the Catholick hath ended his Proofs grounded on these and the like undeniable Principles Cast your thoughts a little on the Sectaries Contrary proofs And mark well his Principles Hath He any Church reputed Orthodox either now or six hundred years agon That expresly and positively defended his Opinion and condemned our Doctrin No most evidently not any Hath he so much as one syllable of Scripture that plainly and positively Denyes our Catholick position and speak's for his Not a word is found in the whole Bible to that purpose much against it Hath he Fathers so numerous and clear for his Novelty as we produce for this one Truth Saints can both hear and help us Not one Father is express against us or plain for his contrary Opinion Parallel therfore a Church and no Church Scripture and no Scripture Fathers express for us and not one against us And judge you whether it be not evident to every disinteressed judgement that Protestants want sound Principles to rely on in this Controversy And as you se a Defect of Principles here so you will find it in all other Disputes between us Now if they say They value not much of our Church Authority I answer They speak without Principles For the sole judgement of our Church had we no more will be thought in any just Tribunal a stronger proof for our Doctrin then their meer slighting of it can be without a likelyhood of proof If They say again They can either Deny or explicate the Fathers we produce I Answer They are still out of Principles For their Denial is weightles unles They ground it upon a surer Principle then that Authority is which they Deny Observe well We have innumerable Fathers Greek and Latin express for the Invocation of Saints Say therfore What will it Avail the Sectary barely to reject these Authorities because they are the words of men and not of God Vnles He Give you the plain word of God or the Authority of an Orthodox Church in place of them wheron his Denial hath sure footing If this be not don He comes to nothing like a Principle consequently the Fathers Authority most agreable to the Churches Doctrin is a clear Demonstration against him If He Pretend to allege Fathers contrary to ours I Answer He hath not one express or plainly contrary However falsly suppose He had one or two The contest would then be whether one that stands as it were alone opposit to the Churches Doctrin or many Fathers that side with the Church deserve more credit Here I am sure He will stand without footing on any certain Principle If He tell you Thirdly The Primitive Church prayed not to Saints They are his own empty words We prove the contrary by the express Testimonies of most ancient Fathers and the Tradition of our Church whilst He remains speechles and without a Principle to ground his Assertion on If He Object fourthly His Reasons chiefly two viz. Prayers to Saints lessens our Honor to Christ. And we cannot say how our prayers come to the Saints Hearing c. I Answer Here is
If the Churches Interpretation were as fallible as the Arians Christians might follow either as they please were as fallible as the Arians Christians might indifferently Adhere to Either yea and changeably now take one then the other as they please A greater Probability can ballance nothing in this or the like particulars as I shall largely prove hereafter In the mean while by what is now said we may learn first Though Scripture in this and other Mysteries hath its Darknes yet by the good Providence of Almighty God we are provided of a Sure Interpreter which is absolutely Necessary For if Every one interpret according to fancy Haeresy is easily Drawn out of Gods Word And if none interpret Faithfully the Scripture still lyes hid in Obscurity which makes it for that part a Useles Book to Christians The necssity of an infallible Interpreter Learn farther That None can ever know exactly by Human Industry or his Sole pondering the Bible let him be another Salomon for Wisdom what God hath Revealed in these difficil Mysteries of our Faith without an Infallible Interpreter To prove my Assertion I 'll give you one Instance 3. Suppose that two or three most learned Heathen Philosopher well versed in Languages and all Human Literature had this Book of Scripture put into their Hands and were perswaded by the extrinsecal An instance of Philosoohers reading the Bible Authority of all Christians that God here speak's his Eternal Verities Withall That if they read the Book and by their Sole reading without Recours to any Interpreter possess the True sense of it They have True Saving Faith Well They read it and with as much Humility as any Protestant can do yet If They ask of none but Their own Iudgement errour followes Ask of none But their own judgement what it means in the more difficil Passages Tell me I beseech you And here I appeal to the moderate Iudgement of every Christian whether Catholick Arian or Protestant What Faith or Religion would these Philosophers produce out of Sole Scripture Solely Read and pondered by them My Thought is 'T is no more but a Thought That the Result of their Reading would end in Coyning a Religion different from all Others now in Christendom I am very confident They would never pitch upon Protestancy no nor Their doubts would be Endles upon any Sect now extant Alas they would Doubt and Stagger at every hard passage in Scripture yea and by the very Instinct of Nature if they own'd Scripture for Gods Book would humbly Supplicate Those who gave them the Book to lay open the Mysteries therin and Assure them of its meaning in a hundred Places yet none can do this good office for them But One only Society of Christians that layes claim to Infallibility and proves it Demonstratively if Faith be in the World 4. Be it how you will thus much I conclude Our Protestants are in the very same Case without an infallible Interpreter as the Philosophers are with Sectaries are in the very same case without an Infallible Interpreter no Interpreter These make Scripture speak what They think it speaks right or wrong And Protestants do the like whilst They give their sentiment on Mysteries above their Reach without an Infallible Teacher Pray you Reflect Had Christ Iesus and his Apostles never Taught any thing by Word of Mouth But only thrown the Book of Scripture amongst Christians Strange Confusions Had Christ and his Apostles given to Christians a Bible without an Interpreter when They left the World and commanded them to make that use of it which every Private Iudgement thought best what a Religion think ye should we have had at this day in Christianity any or none or a thousand different ones as good as none God only knows I do not Yet will say This is out very present Condition if an infallible Interpreter of Scripture be Rejected We may wrangle to the Dissentions would have followed without hope of union Worlds end but agree in nothing Dispute but conclude nothing we may raise Difficulties one against another But allay none And thus the contest must run on without Redres or Remedy All Appellation here to Antiquity to Councils Fathers Appellation to Antiquity remedies nothing being fallible with Protestants and Tradition help 's nothing Becaus they are Fallible And were they otherwise we vary as highly about the Sentiments of Fathers in every debated point of Controversy as we do about Scripture it self 5. We se thirdly How utterly impossible it is for a Protestant to draw from the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture the True Sense and meaning of Gods Word in any controverted point of Religion The Reason is Scripture never speak's plainly and expresly the Protestants Sense in these debated Controversies observe it in All and you 'll find it so What do they therfore to help themselves They first Reject an Infallible Interpreter and next as the Arians do superadd their own Fallible glosses to make Sectaries make Scripture to speak what They would have it say not what God speak's Scripture speak not what it Truly says But what They would have it say And thus they think Scripture cleared and Their Work don Take here one Instance for many Catholicks and Protestants have been at Variance a hundred years and more about these Sacred Words Matt. 26. This is my Body The different Senses drawn from them are Contradictory And therfore cannot be True This is my Body Really saith the Catholick and here is my internal Faith No saith the Protestant This is my Body figuratively or a Sign of my Body And this is my Belief Arians and Protestants vitiate Scripture after the same manner Mark I beseech Just as the Arian saith I and my Father are one and superadds his Gloss of one in Affection so the Protestant here vitiates the Text by his Gloss and adds to Scripture what God never spoke a Trope a Figure a Sign and I know not what And after This Injury don to the Words He Believes not for Gods Express Word But for his own far-fetcht and dear bought Interpretations which are no more Scripture then if he should tell me That An Example That text of St. Matthew cap. 3. verse 17. This is my beloved Son were to be forcibly stript of its Verity and misinterpreted Thus This is only a Sign or Figure of my Beloved Son No more doth Scripture through the whole Gospel warrant in the least an Improperty of speech in the one Text now cited then in the other I little Regard The Protestant dscourses and glosses contrary to this Mystery of Faith let us have plain Scripture much les their Inferences which are all Human and Fallible O but to say that Christ Body is Really Present under the Species of Bread yea and in a thousand places at Once is an Vnintelligible Mystery Why more Unintelligible then a Trinity of Persons in one Essence
a lawful Syllogism wherby They prove That Their Reason hath ever the good luck the singular Priviledge to fall right on the True sense whilst No Princiciple to prove that Protestants reason hitt's right Others as learned as They swerve from it If here They talk of the Vnction teaching Truth of the Spirit c. They will be urged again for a Principle to prove That these Favors singularly belong to Them and not to Others who Dissent from them But we will wave this Argument And only note how in all those Disputes which our Protestants hold either with Catholicks or Sectaries take for an Instance the Arians the True sense of Scripture is so far of from being a The sense of Scripture when Two Sectaries dispute is Ever the thing in Question received Principle by both these Litigious Parties That it is ever the Thing in Question and must be proved by another own'd and admitted Principle if the Discours stand upon solid ground 3. One example will give you more Light Mr. Poole Assaults an Arian a far weaker Adversary then a 'T is proved by an Instance Catholick with a Scriptural Proof for that High Mystery of our Faith the Sacred Trinity and argues thus Scripture saith Iohn 1. c. 5. 7. There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father Word and Holy Ghost and these three are one But the Sense of this Scripture saith Mr. Poole is That God is one in Essenceâ— and Three Distinct Persons The Father Vnproduced the Son Produced and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Both. Ergo we must admit a Trinity Observe well The Arian Admit's the first Proposition or the Words of Scripture And here is the only Principle agreed on by these two Disputants But utterly denyes the second Viz. The Sense drawn out of these Words And tell 's The Arian admit's of the words of Scripture but denies Mr. Pooles sense his Adversary that this Sense is the very Thing in question but no received Principle And therfore must be proved not supposed against him Proved I say and by Sole Scripture which yet cannot be done Though we turn to all the Texts in the Bible Most justly therfore may the Arian tell Mr. Poole If his Faith fall upon such a Determinate Sense now given He Believes it either Becaus His private Judgement molds Scripture to that Meaning or Becaus He takes it upon the Authority of a Church which he professedly Disowns and will not Believe 4. In reference to what is here said note first That as the True sense of Scripture is supposed and not proved against an Arian by force of Scripture in this particular Mystery so much more it is ever supposed and not proved when Protestants dispute against Catholicks The reason is Their private Judgement Protestants first frame to themselves a Sense of Scripture and then triumph first makes what sense they please which is no received Principle and afterward They vapor like Conquerours as if sole Scripture did the deed and defeated us Upon the great Assurance I have of This my Assertion I chalenge Mr. Poole or any Protestant They have not one Text of Scripture against the Roman Catholick Faith without the mixture of Their private Iudgements to produce one Text against the Roman Catholick Faith which without the Mixture of Their private Judgements or unadmitted Glosses speak's so much as Probably against it The more plausible place they insist on is That of St. Iohn cap. 6. Vnles you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. For communion under both kinds which nevertheles must have twenty Glosses and as many self Iudgements upon it before it can put on a likelyhood of a proof against us 5. Note 2. That whilst the Sense of Scripture lyes under dispute and is not agreed on by the two Parties Why Protestants loose labour when They argue by Scripture at Difference For example a Catholick and Protestant It is but Labour lost in the Protestant to Assault his Adversary with Texts of Scripture For the Catholick Answers Olim possideo prior possideo I have ever believed the sense of Gods Word to be such as you know we Catholicks own And can you my Antagonist What the Catholick answer's perswade your self to drive me out of the Possession of my Ancient Belief by your Sole private Judgement or Those new Glosses you father on Scripture If so A worthy Gentleman who by right of his Ancestors for a thousand years and upward now quietly possesseth his lands May be turn'd out of House and Harbor upon the private Judgement of some New upstart Fellow That Tell 's him He verily thinks the Ancient Writings for his Lands are not wel Understood Therfore he will first do him the favor to explicate them according to his private Opinion though contrary to the Sense hitherto received which done he will drive him out a doors and make him a Beggar This is our very Case 6. Contrarywise when the Sense of Scripture is How we may argue from Scripture agreed on we may Argue as Schoolmen do and draw from it Theological Conclusions which though often Various amongst Divines yet the Principle admitted I mean the Sense of Scripture remain's unquestioned and is maintain'd without Contradiction Without Such an agreed on sense which either Scripture as it often doth Deliver's plainly enough or The common consent of Learned men makes Highly probable or The Church of Christ declares certain 'T is to no more purpose to Dispute out of Scripture then to speak Arabick to an Illiterate Peasant Yet the loose Behavior of our Protestants is such that it lead's them without the guidance of these Lights first to Fancy The Fancy of Sectaries a Sense of their own and then draw strange Conclusions from it So Mr. Poole After he had by his own Interpretation perverted that Text of St. Paul The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth might wel say The Church is not proved Infallible Thus much is noted if the word Reason signify a formal Discours 7. Perhaps Protestants may reply For in Truth it Another Acception of the word Reason refuted is the hardest thing in the world where to have them in their Answers That Reason here imports not any Discours at all But an immediate clear Light Transfused into their Mind when they read Scripture like a Beam shot from the Sun wherby their Eyes as perspicuously discern the most Abstruse Sense in it as men do the Sun by its Light or the first known Principles of nature by Their own Indisputable Evidences Is this Reply think you rational that draws not so much as a Dram of Reason after it For if their new Faith hath set new Eyes in their head It hath not surely pluck't out their Neighbours Eyes who yet I hope may see what is discernable by All. None then ever questioned the Suns-shining at Noon-day or Writ Commentaries on the first
Infallible Teacher to learn us now infallibly what that Written Word speaks in a hundred As great necessity now to learn us what Scripture speak's as what Christ tought controverted Points as then was necessary to declare the Substance of Christs Doctrin which he delivered by Word of mouth I say the substance for without all doubt the Apostles and the 70. said explicitely much more in thir Preaching then meerly what Christ had implicitely and in fewer words commanded them to Preach yet They neither did nor could swerve in any Doctrinal Point Therfore in the publishing his Doctrin They had the Assistance of the Holy Ghost before his Ascension Though it was then more amply confirmed and promised anew not only to the Apostles then living But also to their Successors for ever 6. And this is what our Saviour Dogmatically Gods Spirit with his Church for ever Teaches Iohn 14. 16. of a Comforter the Holy Ghost who shall abide with you for ever which words implying a continual aboad cannot buâ— be understood in an Absolute sense Yes say They He shall be with them for ever But how Mark the gloss in regard of Consolation and Grace A meer Guess Not only for Consolation and Grace The only question is whether it hitt's right or no For who tell 's you Sr That this and no other is the Absolute sense of Christs Words Why may They not as well import the Assistance of Infallibility as that of Consolation and Grace Prove your Gloss and by Scripture This we urge for We Catholicks say without drawing further Proof from either Councils or Fathers which you hold Fallible That Christs following words Iohn 16. 13. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will teach you all Truth taken in their obvious sense warrants this Infallible Assistance for ever Can your Fallible Spirit assure me of the contrary You say Yes For these last Words are Restrained to the Apostles only Here is another Gloss or Guess as unlucky as the former For who Restrains here Christ or You If you do it you may as well restrain the Consolation of Grace to all the Apostles Successors as Infallible Assistance 7. We prove both the One and the Other Blessing granted to the Church by our Saviours own Words Matt. 28. 20. I am with you always to the end of the world and moreover Affirm that the Consolâ—tion of Grace granted the Church whose duty is to Teach us Truth Benefit's little in order to that Consolation of grace nothing in a whole Church without Infallibility End unles it be accompanied with the further Priviledge of infallibility For what comfort hath Any whether Learned or Illiterate to Hear that the Pastors of Christs Church have mâ—â—h interiour Consolation and Grace if this sorrowful Thought afflict his hart All and every one of thâ—se Pastors notwithstanding the plenty of their Grace may cheat him intâ— damnable Error and teach There is neither God Heaven nor Hell 8. I might further show How utterly inconsistent this supposed and yet Vnexplicated Consolation of Grace The Consolation of Grace and want of Divine Assistance uncompossible in the whole Church is with the Spirit of a whole Church which may Deceive us But the thing need 's no Proof for it is evident That God who hath promised to direct us by his Pastors cannot comfort them so plentifully with Celestial Inspirations and Permit all to delude and cosen us with Pernicious Errors Will he give them grace Think ye to Talk only and not to teach his Verities certainly To live holily for his grace serves for some end and Leave them to a Possibility of Corrupting his Spouse his own Sanctified God Courts not his Church with comfort and permitt's it to betray his Truths Church with fals Doctrin This in a word is to tell God That he court 's the watchmen of his Church with Heavenly Consolation who nevertheles may Betray his Cause and give up his Citty to the Devil when they please For here in They are left to their own wills and Fancies God you know is Truth and He loves Truth Truth is that which he first established in his Church And it Answers to that first Operation of Christian which is Divine Faith the ground of all Sanctity To tell me therfore That He comforts a whole Church by A Paradox of Sectaries Grace and yet leaves it so tottering upon Vncertainties That none can with absolute Assurance say He either teaches or hear's Truth delivered in any Article of Christian Faith is worse then a meer Chimaera And makes our Bountifull Lord not only a very Niggard of his Graces But also gives him a most high Affront The Grace therforâ— of Consolation The comfort of Grace supposeth the favour of Infallibility which he allowes his Church as a Church ever implyes or supposeth that Arcb-favour of Infallible Assistance Rob it of this Priviledge and other Graces avail little 9. And here by the way I must needs propose one question to our Protestants It is whether God Supposing his Promises already made can A question proposed whether the Church can withstand an loose all grace according to their Principles permit that the whole Church Vnassisted by his infallible Spirit loose withstand and reject what ever Grace he gives or hath given it If they say Yes It is Possible Then I Infer God can permit that the Whole Church may turn Traitour and become Impious For a Church which withstands looseth or rejects all Grace is traiterous and impious If they say no it is against his Goodnes to permit such a Universal Impiety They must acknowledge That he cannot but preserve a Church for ever whether consisting of Elect or no we dispute not in his Grace and favour Truth as necessary to the Church as Grace and this infallibly Ergo I say He cannot buth Infallibly also supposing his Promises Preserve it in Truth by the special Assistance of his own Unerring Spirit Truth being as all know as necessary to the Church as Grace is And thus we se in notorious great Sinners who although they have a thousand Incitements of Grace to amend their lives yea better themselves by it in some particulars yet as long as Divine Truth necessary to Christians is wanting Their state is Deplorable To conclude then Here is my Dilemma Either it is possible That the whole Church That is All the Teachers and Hearers in it may abandâ—n all Gods Revealed Verities and neither Teach nor Hear one Word of his Truth or 't is impossible If the first be granted 'T is not only possible that the whole Church may revolt from God and Truth But may loose all Grace likewise Grant this and say next what will become of our Protestants Elect people who Becaus Predestinated to Eternal life cannot but have Grace Observe well A Paradox of Sectaries the Paradox They cannot Loose grace yet 't is possible never to hear a Word of
Truth For all their Ministers are fallible What kind of Elect are these who have Certainty of Grace but no certainty of Truth with it Now if on the other side they hold it impossible That the whole Church may desert Gods Truths They grant what we ask And must say it hath the infallible Assistance we plead for The Reason hereof I have amply delivered in the former Discours Chap. 3. Becaus al the Human Science Wit or Learning in Nature alone can no more Secure a Church God preserves his Church aâ— Sound in Truth as Sanctified by Grace from Error Then give it Grace God therfore doth and will ever graciously prevent it with both these Blessings And as Infallibly keep it Sound in Truth as Holy and Sanctified CHAP. VII More of this Subject 1. BY what is said in this short Digression you se how pittifully our new men mangle the Text now Cited I am with you Always to the End of the World Hear their Gloss Yes say They. This Promise was made to the Apostles and their Successors But in a different degree For it was of continual and infallible Assistance to the Apostles but to their Successors of continual and fitting assistance but not infallible The like is repeated afterward Protestants trivial Distinction of Fitting and infallible Assistance when They ask What we say to this Marry Sr I say it 's nothing to the Purpose For you neither declare what this fitting continual assistance granted these Successors as distinct from the other allowed the Apostles is nor can you declare these different Degrees And though you did so contrary to the They still run on in Generals Churches sense you only vent your own feeble and fallible Sentiments without Proof which I neither ought nor can in Prudence Believe To be plain Therfore be pleased to Answer Hath God Revealed to you what this fitting and continual Assistance granted the Apostles Successors is No. Doth any Ancient Council or Unanimous consent of Fathers Mince These Words and Dogmatize here as you do or only mention a Presence of the Spirit of consolation and Grace excluding infallible Assistance No. All is contrary as I could demonstrate were it here my task to prove Truth against you but this is done by others as 't is to force you to prove what your Fancy only vents against it And mark how Fancy goe's to work Christ saith I am with you always to the end of the World That is saith your Fancy He is present by his Spirit by a fitting Assistance But not by an Assistance Infallible This gloss Not by infallible Assistance is your own For neither Gods Word nor Vniversal Church nor General Council nor the Consent of Fathers nor Antiquity ever uttered any Thing like it Grant therfore it be Vnreasonable as you say to put your Party to prove a Negative Viz. That any of the Fathers denyed this place to extend to infallibility I am sure it is most Reasonable to force you to a Proof of your own Affirmative For you doctrinally Teach That Christ in this place Allows no certain Infallibility to his Church This because positively asserted is positively to be made good by a more strenuous Proof then Fancy only You say again Those of your Party only delivered what they Conceived to be the Meaning of this and other Places of Fathers which do no more then prove the Perpetuity of the Church What They conceived weak fallible Men Pray Sectaries Conceipts instead of Proofs what am I the better for their Conceipts Must I change my Ancient Faith for the Rowling and never agreeing Fancies of a few Ministers Why may not an Arian or Pelagian if sole conceiving can do it as well gain me to his party as a Protestant to His who Thinks that the Church is Fallible To that of the Fathers I Answer Their indubitable owning a Church Perpetual Evidently could we say no more supposeth a Church constantly True and Holy And the Constant Truth of it implyes infallible Assistance as is already proved 2. Protestants may yet reply They deliver what An Objection they conceive to be the Sense of Christs Words I am with you always c. Catholicks can do no more and Mark well As the words do not explicitly exclude Infallible Assistance from the Church always so neither do They explicitly include it For Christ saith not explicitly I will be always with you to the End of the World by my Infallible Assistance This then the case stands They Restrain Christs Promise and we see to Extend it too far They we say come to short of the Sense by cutting of Infallible Assistance We Catholicks They say go beyond the Bounds and add more to the Text than Christ Spoke Both of us therfore are Glossers and why is not Their Gloss as Orthodox as Ours Here is a better Objection then any hitherto proposed The Solution of it Ends all Controversies And the Solution might easily end all Controversies would Sectaries pleas to wave a few Self-conceipts and prudently Acquiesce to Reason whilst Truth plead's againsts their Errors 3. First then though I press not much this Point Sectaries have no Reason to prefer their Interpretations 't is evident That we Catholicks are the Elder Brothers as Numerous at least as They and to speak modestly as Learned Why therfore when both They and We interpret Scripture and stand as it were equally ballanced becaus 't is yet supposed uncertain who guesseth better why is not I say Our Interpretation could we prove no more as good as Theirs contrary to us If They prefer Their Gloss before Ours something of Weight beside meer Fancy must turn the Scales and Ballance more for them then us We alwayes ask for this greater Poyse in controverted To these of Catholicks matters and can get no answer 4. Secondly I must necessarily here Note an unworthy An unworthy proceeding of Sectaries proceeding of Sectaries with us when we Produce Scripture Fathers or Councils for Catholick Doctrin Their humor and 't is a a strange one run's on thus First They begin with their Glosses and labor to pervert that Sense which the Catholick owns And if after much Trifling they can Disguise this Sense or Twine it of â—â—om the Catholick Meaning They hold the Work done and cry Victory Mark in our present matter Their Frigid way of Arguing and it is alike in all other Controversies That Text say They The Holy Ghost will teach you all Truth may be Restrained to the Apostles only That other The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith may have the Sense They allow of and no more This Promise of our Saviour I will be with you always c. May exclude Infallibility And when They bring the Close of a Point debated to their own Self-seeming it may be They think all safe Wheras 't is most evident that nothing is yet so much as probably concluded For as They say The Sense
recurr to an Invisible Society of such men now as well exploded by later Protestants as Catholicks 7. A fifth Objection flow's from the pen of a Late Mr. Stillingfleet Writer after this manner Cannot you conceive that there should be a Number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility If not saith he I 'll help your Vnderstanding a little Suppose And it 's only a Supposition That all the members of the Roman Church should be destroyed in one Age do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches sound at least in the Belief of Fundamentals without Infallibility I have answered already No. And given my Reason Becaus a Church A Church separated from Divine Assistance cannot persist stable divorced from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost is pulled from the Center of Truth which supports it and consequently the Doctrin of it must needs reel and totter now as is supposed to rely on no firmer a Hold then on mans unsteedy fallible Reason or on a Testimony meerly Humane and therfore Uncertain Neither have we without this Assistance more Security Without Infallible Assistance no security of fundamentals of true Belief in Matters called Fundamental then others As is clear in condemned Arians who no sooner left the Church directed by this Spirit of Truth But Errours followed them in points most Fundamental And yet like black Ghosts do and will haunt them without Repentance to the Worlds End 8. Before we end this matter I have one Question to propose It is Whether If all the Ancient Fathers A Question proposed to Sectaries that ever lived Had plainly interpreted Scriptures as the Roman Catholick Church now interpret's them contrary to Protestants They would then Disavow Their own Glosses And submit to the undeniable Authority of so many worthy Fathers Might Reason or Religion set one unlucky Adversary aside called Prejudice make the Answer Sectaries would say Yes And do so were The unanimous consent of Fathers against them Grant thus much And say boldly The Authority of The whole Antecedent The Authority of a whole Church more weighty then that of Fathers and this present Roman Catholick Church is in true prudence of greater Force to withdraw Sectaries from their new invented Glosses contrary to it Then if all the Fathers Together Had plainly interpreted Scripture as the Church interpret's Why Nothing on earth can Parallel this Churches Authority much les make it Inferiour to The Fathers only part of the Church the universal consent of Fathers The Reason is These Fathers were only a part of it particular men and Singly considered Fallible But a whole Church Embraceth a greater number and cannot be misled into Errour Nay I say Though we Impiously suppose Were the Church supposed Fallible the Authority of it is as great as the Fathers That this whole Church might swerve from Truth yet the Testimony of it is as great as that of the Fathers who as Protestants say may all err and swerve more easily This Reason is Reinforced if we reflect on one undeniable Truth which is In all controversies now between us Sectaries can pretend no more But thus much only That the sense of some few Fathers only They never pretended all whilst they interpret Scripture is though often obscure more against the Churches interpretation then for it Here is the most they can say with any Conscience Though we grant not so much when the whole Doctrin of a Father is well examined However Gratis Admit of the Supposition at present And se what follows A clear Testimony Though Fallible hath more weight then another that 's Obscure and Fallible Thus much only The Sense of such and such Fathers is doubtful and Sectaries say Fallible The Churches Sense is clear That is you know what it Teaches and Though falsly supposed fallible is yet far more firm then the other Testimony That 's confessedly both obscure and Fallible 9. This Discours convinceth that Sectaries cannot If Sectaries say the more clear Church Doctrin is the more manifest is its Errour They speak without Principles and suppose what is to be proved impugn the Churches sense given of Scripture by any thing that hath the look of a probable Principle For the Church Defend's it self upon two undeniable Grounds The first Positive And 'T is The Churches own Authority nothing can be greater The other Negative Viz. Never any of known credit neither Fathers generally nor Oecumenical Councils much less Scripture Probably clearly contradicted that sense which the Roman Catholick Church Gives of Scripture And here by the way You may se to what an Exigency our new None of undoubted credit Ever clearly contradicted the Churches sense of Scripture men are Driven for want of Principles They say The Roman Catholick Church is Fallible The Fathers are fallible All condemned Haereticks are fallible They themselves are fallible Thus much supposed Tell me I beseech you by what probable Principle can They so much as seemingly show That either They interpret Scripture better then we or That Any of us all ever yet arrived to the True sense of it in controverted If all are Fallible by what Principle can Sectaries prove their Interpretation to be the best matters Which yet is absolutely necessary For we can have no true Faith without the true sense of Scripture You know if the blind lead the blind There is no safe conduct And if the Fallible man Guides the Fallible both may mistake Their way and err grosly You will have no Answer returned to this Difficulty But Sectaries Fancy and Fancy only Or shew that Any had the true sense of Scripture 10. Some may Reply Protestants have the words of Scripture as clear as the Holy Ghost was pleased to Write them in Fundamentals As also the consent of Fathers at least for those Fundamentals They wave other By-Passages of Scripture and care not much A Reply of Sectaries whether their Interpretations be right or wrong I Answer first To say nothing of many Others They They cannot wave all Difficulties cannot wave one Difficulty concerning the Real presence of Christ in the Sacred Eucharist which is either a Fundamental Doctrin or none is Both Scripture and Fathers are in this particular most expresly against them as is proved Hereafter 11. But let this pass I Answer 2. We have as good Scripture as Sectaries can lay claim to in every Point which they call Fundamental And with it the In Fundamentals we are at least equal and in controverted matter far superiour consent of Fathers also In other controverted matters we own the same Scripture they own And moreover have the sense of it Declared by this long standing Church wherin we infinitly surpass them Speak therfore of matters out of controversy or wherin all Agree we are at least equal with them And for others in controversy
Fallible men may speak more boldly and Say Our Church is Fallible and hath brought in both this new mentioned and many other Innovations Therfore I deeply Charge their Consciences The Consciences of Sectaries are pressâ—d to prove what They teach of Errours in the Church as They will Answer it at the day of Iudgement not to Trifle in a most serious matter But without Ambiguity plainly to touch the Difficulty And to make known to the whole World what that owned Principle is wheron this Their Proposition stand's The whole Church is Fallible and hath introduced This Novelty of Christs Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament I speak Not by Empty words but certain Principles boldly And dare say It is a Flat Heresy And therfore Sectaries have nothing like a Principle Morally certain wherby the strength of the contrary Verity mantained by Scripture Church and Fathers can be meanly Quarrelled with much les solidly Reproved unles the too simple talk of a Few Novellists be able to Evert and Overturn what God hath Revealed And a whole ample Church Defends upon Revelation 10. Perhaps it will be said first The Fathers that Defend the Real presence were fallible and might Err. what Sectaries may plead but 'T is more then highly improbable I answer Our Protestants who Deny it are Fallible also and may Err more By what undoubted Principle Therfore can They Convince that Their fallible rejecting the Fathers Hath weight enough to make Null the Testimony of so many Blessed Saints against Their Doctrin We call here for Principles and are not content with Empty words They may Reply 2. They can Explicate both Scripture and Fathers contrary to the Churches Sense And so ridd themselves of that Burden I answer This Riddance is none Unles when they have explicated They prove by a more sure Principle Then the Express Words of these Fathers are That Their Glosses hit right and that the Fathers were Deceived which shall never be so much as Probably Convinced If They lastly talk of Citing Fathers for their Heresy I answer They have not one As will be amply Proved hereafter In the mean while let them know it will be the safest Cours to talk no more of Changes ad Novelties introduced into our Church without proof and Principles to uphold Their ill Supposed and wors Proved Calumnies But enough of this Digression We return now to other Objections 11. Some again Tell us The corruptions of our Church came in in time of greatest ignorance when little notice was Still Empty Talk without proofs or Principles taken and few Records were Preserved of them Here is more Talk without Principles For where Read They of so great Ignorance in the Church that Disinabled all Writers to Register such vast Changes Or where find they Records of those lost and Vnpreserved Records This is only Proofles talk if They have Records let them be produced if they have none let them Sectaries Guesses rejected Hereafter Wave such blind Guesses whilst Proofs are Expected It would anger our Protestants if I should tell them without Proof or unquestioned Records that the Beard of Their Religion is Insensibly Grown gray since their new Faith came in Or that Tares were cast into Their Church whilst They Slept c. Yet They it seems Are licensed to run on with such poor Guesses And no body must Check Them 12. Next they Argue We cannot show when the Were these Things unkown it follows not that other of greater monent are unknown also Necessity of Communicating Infants and the Rebaptizing of Hereticks or That Doctrin of Souls not seing God before the Day of Iudgement First entred the Church Yet These were Errours And their Beginning is unknown Here I answer briefly The Communicating Infants was only Tolerated for a time But never was held a necessary Doctrin of the Church Much less were those Two other These Examples touch not the Difficulty Points condemned by the Church ever Owned as Her Doctrin Such Examples therfore no Church-Doctrin are to no Purpose in this place 13. Lastly they Tell us Scotus thought Transubstantiation to be of no elder Date then the Council of Lateran And Bishop Fisher saith the Doctrin of Purgatory was not much heard of in the Primitive Church I would willingly se in Scotus his own works the Distin and Quest Where He Asserts what these men Say Some Protestants cite him in 4. Distin 11. q. 3. where He only saith in different Editions that Transubstantiation was more explicitly Defined in the Lateran Council which is far from making it no older a Doctrin Then that Councils Definition is But Admit Scotus said so and Bishop Fisher unquoted wors then they pretend The Church of Christ Teaches no such Thing Yet from this Oracle of Truth we must Learn and not from particular Doctors who may err what Church Doctrin is And for this Reason I told you above of much foul Play in Protestants Who Becaus they want Antiquity take no little Pains to run up and down our Authors and if by chance a Word be found less warily spoken They trifle with it and presently make that Popish Doctrin It is an Errour Catholick Doctrin is not one Mans singular Opinion Catholick Doctrin is no Mans singular Opinion But the Vniversal received Doctrin of the Church And thus much our Adversaries must assert for Themselves Otherwise when one of great Renown amongst them Tell 's Protestants Plainly It is but labour in vain to talk of union with One Another Vnles They ioyn again to that moral Body from which they once Separated that is to those who are in union with the Sea Apostolick The whole English Church must here Subscribe and say it is Protestant Doctrin Will they Do so The Voice therfore of One is not the voice of All nor one mans Opinion more mens Opinion Much less the Sentiment of a whole Church 14. It is but time lost to follow these Men whilst Blind Guesses no Proof of Novelties brought into the Church They Blindly run on Guessing at the Rise and Origin of our Supposed Errours and Tell us All our Corruptions came not in on a sudden They were first practised freely and then urged as Necessary Persons of great esteem first held them and Others soon followed their Example If one would take the Pains and trace it He might find the Head of these Corruptions at last c. Pittiful slight Talk unworthy a Scholler And vented at random against the Primitive Church would even Blemish that as much as any Other yea And Protestancy more I wave such stuff Because nothing like a proof follows it 15. My last Proposition is Though Protestants should convince Though Errours were falsly supposed to have entred the Church yet Protestants cannot Prove that They have set Faith right again on its old Foundations which is impossible That the Roman Catholick Church hath Swerved from the Primitive Doctrin yet They cannot
of Schism and Heresy THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS THE CHVRCHES EVIDENCE OF THE IMPROBABILITY OF PROTESTANT RELIGION THE FIRST CHAPTER Christs Church is Proved to be no Other But the Roman Catholick Sectaries are Convinced 1. WE have often made a just Exception against Sectaries in the fore-going Discourses A just Exception against Sectaries mare fully laid forth And you Shall have it here Again in plain Language Protestants as They Prove not their own Religion of Protestancy so They never Impugn the Roman Catholick Faith by Rational Arguments at last reducible to Vndoubted Principles Catholicks Contrarywise Make good Their Churches Doctrin by undeniable Principles And by manifest Proofs Evidence the Nullity of Protestants Faith Though both these Assertions are already Demonstrated in the precedent Treatise Yet Becaus of the Weightines of the Matter it will be necessary to Epitomize some Points largely Declared above And bring much to a Clearer view and a more Compendious Form 2. To do this we may Suppose If True Religion God established Religion with intention to have it known not to hide it from us be in the World the wise Providence of God hath made it so Manifest to Reason by force of Rational Motives That All may know it For certainly God never established Religion amongst Christians with Intention to Hide it from Them or to put it out of their Sight if men will follow Reason Proofs therfore for it can no more Fail Then Religion it self Vnles Proofs therfore for it cannot fail an Infinite Goodnes which is impossible obliges us Vnder pain of Damnation to Embrace a Religion which no man after a diligent Search made by all the reason He hath can find out 3. Vpon this Principle let me tell our Protestants Wordy Cavils end no Controversy That They and We are not in so important a matter to mispend our time or to wrangle it out with Words No. Proofs must enter if They Hold their Religion True and ours Fals And so They must also if We say the Contrary Again Neither of us can here proceed as Schoolmen Do when They Oppugn One an Other Solid proofs must sway here and not weak Conjectures and Defend their Different Opinions upon weak and Doubtful Grounds For if the Proofs for Christs Religion be not stronger then Schoolmens often are for meer Vncertain Opinions We may as well and without Offence Reject a weak Proved Religion as we do a weak proved Opinion The Arguments therfore for Religion wheron Saluation Depend's Are to Stand firm upon Vndeniable Principles Or This follows That though God hath most clearly evidenced Religion yet proofs are wanting to make it known And this whilst He will have it Known And manifest to All. Thus much Supposed 4. We will First briefly Touch on a few Arguments for the Roman Catholick Faith which are amply laid forth upon several occasions in this Treatise I cannot A brief Repetition of some few Arguments Repeat All in a short Compendium yet you Shall have Enough to silence Sectaries And Remember VVe speak now of the Antecedent Evidence which clearly shews us Christs True Church and makes it indubitably Credible For no Religion As I noted above is Ex Terminis without convincing Proofs either Evidently Credible True or Fals. 5. I Say then First A Church or Religion which Manifesteth it Self and Proves the Doctrin it Professeth by the same Signs Notes and Characters of Truth wherby the The Roman Catholick Church is Evidenced as The Apostolical or Primitive Church was Apostolical and Primitive Church was Marked and Evidenced is Vndoubtedly True Or if this Proof be not valid we may easily Deny Truth to that Apostolical and Primitive Church Now the only Church in the VVorld thus Marked and Evidenced is no Other but the Roman Catholick Throughout all Ages This Principle is undeniable Deny these Marks and Signs to the Roman Catholick Church you Deny what is Evident Grant them And you Admit of Popery Se Disc 1. c. 9. 10. 6. 2. A Church or Religion which in every Age after Miracles Christs own Marks Evidence the Roman Catholick Church Christ Hath had a most clear Assured and Vndubitable Evidence of Truth which is the Glory of Miracles Christs own Marks and cognisances makes known the Absolute Power of God Cooperating with it And therfore cannot but be True Vnles we Think that his power Alone Divorced as it were from Goodnes Did set his Hand and Seal to meer Forged Signs and wrought these Wonders to Deceive the World But the Roman Catholick Church And She only Clearly Demonstrat's Vnparallelled Miracles not in One But in every Age As is without Controversy Proved by undoubted Records They are undeniable which Truth I engage to make Good if any Doubt of it Therfore either This Church or None is Christs True Church I call Miracles rhe most Forceable and Perswasive Arguments of Truth that can be Proposed All other And above all other Proofs most Convincing Proofs Though clear and Convincing to Disinteressed Iudgements being lyable to Cavils For cite Scripture against Sectaries wilful Misinterpretations Abuse it Produce Fathers and Councils They are either Rejected Other Proofs more lyable to Cavils by these men as Fallible or Drawn to a Sinister Sense as Fancy will have it Tell Them of the Sanctity of our Church They Answer Much of it may be Hypocrisy Insist upon that great Work of Conversions some reply Policy and Humane Industry had a strong hand in Them But when we Come to the Proof of Proofs And plead our Cause by Known and most Evidenced Miracles all Mouths are stopped Envy it self is Silenced And cannot speak a Probable word against us Vnles None can require that All and Every one of this Church work Miracles Perhaps some require and most unreasonably That every One within this Moral body should work Miracles which is meerly to cavil For in the Primitive times All had no such Priviledge It is Therfore sufficient That there be some Chois and Selected Persons Vnited in Faith with this Church to whom God Communicat's the Grace and Do These Wonders Se more of this Subject Disc 1. c. 10. n. 15. 16. 17. 7. 3. A Church which hath Converted whole Kingdoms and Nations from Infidelity to Christ And Drawn Innumerable Admirable Conversions wrought by the Roman Catholick Church as well prove it Orthodox as the Primitive Church Souls from a Tepid life to Pennance and Austerity From the Contents of the World to a Contempt of it From Self-love to a Perfect Self-Abnegation Must either be deservedly named the True Church of Christ Or the Apostolical Church Proved not its Truth by such Admirable and Miraculous Conversions The Church of Rome only Hath by the Assistance of God Don these Wonders Therfore it is the True Church or there was never any true upon Earth Deny these Conversions made by our Catholick Society you Deny what is most Evident Grant Them You
Ancient Orthodox Church of the Jewes undeniably Profess and believe this Doctrin none can gainsay the Proposition The consent of act Churches a strong Principle The Minor is as certain for no Authority under Heaven plain Scripture excepted can be greater then the Vnanimous Consent of all Curches No contrary judgement is able to struggle with so much strength Therfore put the case first you will The supposition hold's not de facto for no Fathers teach so have what I would say better Evidenced upon a supposition That more then one of the ancient Fathers should expresly Deny a Purgatory whilst all Churches teach the contrary Suppose secondly that God should command me to believe the One or Other And that which prudence evidently Tell 's me is the most What we are obliged to upon the supposition Credible I am obliged if I proceed rationally to Adhere to the Church because it is evidently the stronger Proof and to deny the Fathers Authority Therfore I am bound much more to yeild my Assent now when all Churches Affirm the Doctrin and not one Father Denies it And our very Adversaries must say as much as I prove For do not they own the Holy Book of Scripture to be Gods Word how consequently Sect 〈…〉 es must grant what is now asserted they proced I Dispute not because all Christian Churches in the world do so If therfore that Authority be warrant enough for a Bible it is as weighty for the Doctrin we stand for And this was my Conclusion Perhaps you will say Very An Objection many among the Schismatical Churches Deny a Purgatory Contra. And very many also Deny the Canon of Scripture you Admit of Doth this make the Bible of less esteem among you Know therfore We speak Here of Church Authority and not of Schismaticks receding from a Church weaken not the Churches Doctrin Schismatical Parties receding from those Respective Churches wherof they were once members Know also that the self-Opinion of such Partisans is not to be compared with the Sentiment of a whole Church against them You may Reply Again We are now forced to make use of Schismatical Churches to Defend our Doctrin of Purgatory Answer No such matter We need not their Help but say Salutem ex inimicis nostris when Adversaries agree with us in a Truth it is an Advantage to our cause witnesses upon this account are multiplyed Et vox populi vox Dei if The number of withnesses for a Truth gives some Advantage All teach as we do it is certain we profess no Erroneous Doctrin At least the Argument Ad hominem Against Sectaries hath place who value so much of the Greeks and other Heterodox Christians We care not for more Besides the Greek Church when it was most Orthodox prayed for the Dead in a state of sufferance as is already proved 3. Weigh now well the Reasons Pro and Con. Reasons pro and con are weighed All the Churches in the world Defend a Purgatory that is a place wherin souls are temporally punished No Church reputed Orthodox ever denyed it I say more No Schismatical Church under the Notion of a Church contradicted that Doctrin Therfore our professed Faith is undoubtedly certain upon this very ground or if it be not one may call the primary Articles of our Faith into Question And The Parallel All and none A clear Conviction The second Principle thus you have the first Parallel All Churches stand for our Affirmative No Church Defend's the contrary Negative of Sectaries A most Evident Conviction A powerful Proof against this Heresy 4. The second Principle is S. Austins known Doctrin De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 4. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Consiliis c. What the whole universal Church hold's and was not first instituted by Councils What all believe is Apostolical Tradition but ever in use and retained Recte Creditur is rightly believed to be no other but an Apostolical Tradition But it is most certain that the whole Vniversal Church prayed for souls departed with intention to free them from a temporal Punishment The Greeks the Latins and the Ancient Hebrews Prayed so as is already proved And this had no first Rise from any Decree No Sectary can say when the Church first began to pray for the Dead suffering terment of Councils therfore it is an Apostolical Tradition which Truth Alatius further demonstrat's upon several Occasions Ponder therfore things impartially And ask now what Tradition have Sectaries for their Negative The Dead are not Assisted by Prayer They have none they are here put to silence for neither the Tradition of the whole Church nor of any part of it reputed Orthodox ever favoured Their Opinion or delivered what they teach Make then the Comparison All Tradition is for our Catholick Verity The Parallel and Nothing like Tradition for the contrary Heresy All and nothing make a strange Parallel And so it is at present 5. The third Principle Many Ancient and learned Fathers so interpret those known passages of Holy Scripture interprrted by Fathers a third Principle Scripture usually alleged for a proof of Purgatory that Scripture it self Speak's what the Church Teacheth Not one Father gives such a sense to Scripture as may Ground a positive or absolute Denial of Purgatory I cannot insist upon all Take for an instance that one passage of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. He shall so yet be saved as by fire And know that besides those learned Notes of Bellarmin upon the Text Lib. 1. De Purg. Cap. 5. and the Bellarmin Fathers there quoted most significantly expressing the Catholick sense Leo Alatius produceth others and Page Leo Alatius 311. Cites Manuel Caleca a more Modern Author Lib. 4. Contra Graecos who Saith the place cannot be understood of Hell fire for the Apostle speak's of a fire wherby souls are saved which is not the fire of Hell but a Purging Manuel Caleca his reason fire and by this They are to pass to happines And so much the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Per which insinuates a Passing strongly signifies Thus Caleca who hath much more to our Purpose It is true some Authors think the Apostle speak's of the fire of Tribulation Others though less probably of the last burning of the No Fathers makes Scripture to Deny a Purgatory world but no Father makes the Text or any other of Scripture positively exclusive of Purgatory for This is no Consequence We are to pass through Tribulation and the fire also at the judgement Day Ergo there is no penalty to be endured in a third place Here you have an other Parallel Most learned Fathers interpret The Paralled Scripture Conformably to the Churches Doctrin not one positively favours the Contrary Opinion of Sectaries Iudge you therfore and cast as it were into a ballance the express Sentiment of Many against
None and see where the greatest weight lyes 6. The fourth Principle is the Express Doctrin of The fourth Principle Fathers Themselves as well Greek as Latin whether it be grounded on Scripture on Tradition or both matters not at present Here we only Appeal to the Their Positive Doctrin To transcribe all they have said on this subject would be a long work Bellarmin novv cited cap. 10. hath many Leo Alatius adds other Greek Authors favour the Church Doctrin Greek Authors as well Orthodox as of Schismatical from his 57. page There you have Gennadius the Patriarch St. Epiphanius express to our purpose S. Chrysostom Hom. 69. ad populum and S. Damascen both approving and praysing S. Chrysostoms Doctrin Eustratiâ—s Priest of Constantinople Michaël Glycas a Schismatick Eugenicus Nomophilax adversus Synodum Florentinam Meletius Alexandrinus Epistolâ ad Chios who saith Expresly it is an Apostolical Tradition and grounded also in Scripture To Hold that the Dead have great Assistance by the good works of the Living But let us return to the more known Authority of Fathers S. Denis or some other Grave Author Eccles Hierarch cap 7. parte 3. saith that Dionysius S. Cyril of Hiâ—r S. Chrysostom the venerable Prelate prayes over the Dead to the End that all his sinn's committed through humain frailty may be forgiven him Say I beseech you what signifies this remission of sin's obtainable by the Prayers of the Prelate S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 5. We make Prayers and offer up the dreadful Sacrifice on the Altar for the Dead believing it to be a mighty Help for their souls What can be more plain Popery S. Chrysostom Hom. 21. in Acta Alatius quotes the words in his own language which begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. God saith He hath layd open to us many wayes to salvation Oblations Oblations and Prayers for the Dead Prayers and Alms for the Dead are not things vainly don in their behalf No They were instituted by the Holy Ghost who will 's that we endeavour to help one an other Be most assured the Dead have much profit by our Orizons The Saint hath more to this purpose in his 41. Hom. upon the first of the Corr. Theodoret cited by Alatius page 71. lib. 5. Histor cap. 36. Tell 's us that Theodosius the younger lay prostrate at the Reliques of S. Chrysostom praing for the Souls of his deceased Parents Arcadius and Eudoxiâ— that God would grant them pardon for their Offenses c. Alatius besides These cites Theophylact S. Cyril of Alexandria Metaphrastes and other Greek Authors You have the Latin Fathers Largely quoted by Bellarmin supra cap. 10. And their words are so plain for our Doctrin The Latin Fathers accord also Specially S. Austins that none without violence can draw them to any other sense then what the Church Teaches Most surely you will now expect that Sectaries Answer us with like measure And give in lieu of these Testimonies briefly hinted at others as clear and significant for their Opinion And this They are obliged to when besides the alleged Authorities we have an Ample ancient and learned Church that speaks in the language of the Fathers and Teaches the very Doctrin They Deliver But all is Contrary 7. I 'll tell you a great Truth and 't is worth a serious reflection Sectaries have not so much as one Ancient Father Greek or Latin not one Ancient Writer Sectaries want of Authors reputed Orthodox not one Council new or old not one word of Scripture that either Positively and Expresly Denies a Purgatory or Prayers for the Dead or the relief we now plead for afforded them in a place of Punishment What not one No. Parallel The Parallel therfore many with None and you will se what foundations Our Adversaries Novelties Stand on I say Expresly and Positively being well acquainted with Sectaries Proceding as well in this as in other Controversies Sectaries way of Arguing Here They will first be upon you with their Negative way of Arguing We read no such word as Purgatory in the Ancient Fathers 2. You may have a Company of blind inferences drawn from Scripture and Fathers before the sense of either be Agreed They make Deductions from Scripture before the sense of Scripture is known on 3. As far as Conjectures can reach they will set Glosses enough upon the best Testimonies allegeable out of Scripture or Fathers c. But mark it all this while you have Nothing Express nothing Positive and significant against us And Do they think that a meer Negative Argument hath force enough to overthrow a Doctrin Positively Professed by a whole Church and so many Learned Fathers Can they perswade Themselves that Their Inferences Forced from Scripture or Fathers are of any validity whilst the very sense of both lye under Dispute Take for an instance An Instance that of S. Iohn Apocal. 14. Blessed are the Dead that Dye in our Lord Amodo from hence forth they rest from Their labours The Question is what Amodo relates to whether to the day of every mans Death or to the last Judgement Day whether the Scripture speak's there of perfect Souls only or of others what is meant by that word labours For if it signify the sufferances and persecutions of this present life the Text Proves nothing for our Adversaries Notwithstanding all these Doubts undecided Their Inference goes on And 't is that S. Iohn here Excludes all sufferance in Purgatory Alas such Deductions are too weak to Oppose Weak Deductions an Express owned Doctrin all over the world as is now proved Yet you have no better from these men Nothing Express nothing openly significant Against us 8. I touched in the last place on Sectaries Glosses and interpretations forced on such Testimonies as are usually cited for our Catholick Faith And here How differently Catholicks and Sectaries proceed I will briefly Discover not only their Cheat but moreover shew you how differently we and They proceed as well in this present Controversy as in all other Disputes between us Observe well The Truth is thus When we Produce Scripture Councils or Fathers against their Novelties They make their own Interpretation to be the last and surest Ground wheron The Sectary makes the last ground of his Opinion to be his own Explication The Catholick hath his Religion proved before He Explicates Their maintained Opinion ultimatly relies Contrarywise the Catholick never interpret's Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries but He ground his Gloss on a surer Principle then his sole Explication reaches to I will explicate my self more clearly by one Instance Besides the Authority of our Church and all other Societies called Christian we allege for example St. Denis his Testimony St. Chrysostoms or any other to prove that Prayer for the Dead Avail's much for their comfort and remission of sins that is for the lessening of the pain due to sin
Testimonies of Fathers are as clear for our Catholick Doctrin as the words of the Council of Trent A Parallel of Proofs for and against the Doctrin of the Real Presence The way of Sectaries is chiefly to loos Themselves in proposing difficulties against us without casting a serious thought on sure Principles that solve them They find the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament uneasy to sense but reflect not that They believe two or three other Mysteries fully as hard if not more difficile for Example a Trinity the Incarnation and Original sin It is most Evident what Ever Principle whether it be Scripture Church Authority or consent of Fathers that moves to believe these Verities that very Principle is as pressing forceable and urging yea and often more express for the Belief of our Sacrament wherat they boggle What the Sectary is obliged to prove if He except against our grounds in this Controversy We admit of Christs plain Words according to their most obvious sense we find them so understood by a number of the most venerable ancient Fathers as we understand them and moreover have a Learned Church that speak's as both Scripture and Fathers speak Can Sectaries now exact of us that we leave these strong Principles and rely on their word because They will have us do so It is impossible unles They give us in lieu of the se as plain Scripture as plain Testimonies of Fathers and produce the warrant of some other Church more ancient and Orthodox then ours is that once Patronized their Novelty If they say They can explicate our Scripture and ancient Fathers I have Answered above Their explication is worth nothing unles it be grounded on more express Testimonies that favour their Novelty then our contrary authorities are for Catholick Doctrin If again they reply As we must explicate their Authorities brought against us so They can explicate ours alleged against them I Answer if a stop be made here neither they no◠we yet come to the last Principles But here will be the final Decision of all We appeal to the clear Words of Scripture They have Evidently non so express We appeal to the most manifest Testimonies of Fathers delivered i◠this Controversy The Council of Trent speaks not more clearly They Oppos◠a few dark Sentences help't on with their Glosses contrary to the Fathers sense a◠is largely proved Lastly we appeal to the Judgement of our Ancient and fa. extended Church Herein they are forced to yeild for they have no Church comparable to it that Defends their Novelty The Churches Evidence Why God permits Heresy to be in the World A FEW NOTES UPON MR. POOLES APPENDIX AGAINST CAPTAIN EVERARD 1. I Say a few for I must be brief finding very little to stay me in the Appendix which is not directly solved in the foregoing Treatis And therfore wonder not it I often remit the Reader to the former Discourses as occasion requires it being impossible to reply to an Adversary upon this subject of Infallibility without touching on what is sayd already where the Direct Answer is given to His objections I would not indeed have writ thus much against Mr. Poole but only to hinder a little vanity in the man for if no notice had bin taken of his Appendix He might perhaps have thought too well of his work and judged it so learned a piece that none would Dare to meddle with it To gain what time is possible I pass by all His jeers his harsher language and Calumnies cast on Catholick c. Those Personal exceptions also uniustly made against the Converted Captain and some vulgar Difficulties solved a hundred times shall give me no work at present who will only fall and closely upon that which Mr. Poole its likely may think most material and to the purpose And because the best strength He hath lies in the beginning of the Appendix I 'le examin that most and make his errours manifest by sound proofs and Principles Briefly 2. The occasion of Mr. Everards Conversion was a Discours held with a Catholick Gentleman Who Asked me saith the Captain whether I was so certainly infallibly assured of the Truth of the Christian Religion that it was not possible for me or those that taught me Christianity to be mistaken therin and He gave me this reason for his question that otherwise as to me Christianity could be no more then probably true And we could not condemn the Iew or Turk or Pagan since they were as well perswaded of their several wayes as we could be of ours upon a fallible certainty And for ought we knew not having any infallible certainty for our Christianity some of them might be in the right and we in the wrong way sor it is possible you may be mistaken Thus Mr. Poole Appendix page 8. who slight's the Discours as silly weak and ungrounded 3. I say Contrary The Discours is strong rational and most convincing The ground of my Assertion further declared Disc 1. c. 1. 2. is thus A Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on cannot but be fallibly taught by all Teachers now within the bounds of Christianity is by force of its Proposition and merit of the Doctrin precisely considered most certainly fallible and may be fals But such a taught Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on and merit also of the Doctrin or force of its Proposition is fallible and may be fals is not the certain Doctrin of Christ which cannot by the vertue of any Principle it hath or merit of the Doctrin and force of its proposition be either fallible or fals Ergo such a taught Doctrin is not Christs certain Doctrin which neither is nor can be fallible or fals Now further A Doctrin which is not Christs certain Doctrin because remo 〈…〉 from certain Principles can be no other but the Doctrin of mans errable judgement or Fancy And consequently gives as little Assurance to him that teaches it fallibly or those that hear it as that of the Jewes gives to them Observe my reason equally Convincing in both cases Therfore we say the Doctrin of a Jew gives If you say the Doctrin of a Jew is not only fallible but fals also you suppose what is to be proved against him no Assurance to Him that Teaches and those who hear it because it is removed from all infallible Principles and relies only on his errable judgement or Fancy that teaches it but the Fallible Doctrin of these Sectaries now mentioned is also removed from all Infallible Principles for no man amongst them can deliver Doctrin infallibly Therfore it relies only on an errable judgement or fancy that teaches it and by good consequence is none of Christs infallible Doctrin But if it be none of Christs Doctrin it gives no more Assurance to them that Hear it than the Doctrin af a Jew gives to any of his Sect Ergo. Here briefly is my
these later Definitions are proved Authentick Can you Imagin what They would be at Would These men would have They know not what they have an Authentick Attestation to prove what the Church hath Defined ever since the Apostles Time is the Ancient Apostolical Doctrin The Church Tell 's Them it is so but That 's not enough Would they have a Register Distinct from the Churches Declaration containing the Summ of all Apostolical Doctrin Yes sure this They seek for if their Demand of having the Apostles Declarations shewed them carry Sense with it For example we must shew them by some written Record more Ancient then all the Definitions of the Church are That the Apostles held a Purgatory Transubstantiation a Sacrifice c. Or at least Prove these Doctrins to be grounded on â—ndoubted Received Tradition I have answered Suppose the Roman Catholick They are clearly confuted Church And here we speak of no other For I hope Sectaries will not urge us to shew Them writings Received from Ancient Haereticks should Produce a Record containing a Summary of Apostolical Doctrin Our Adversaries might more justly except against that as an old unproved Legend then They are now able Rationally to except against the Churches Definitions Because such an Imagined Record must either be Approved by as great an Authority as the Churches is to gain it Credit or by a Greater There cannot be a greater in this present State of Things then the Churches own Authority But Sectaries Reject this Authority when the Churck Defines Therfore they would much more easily Reject that supposed written Instrument though it told them exactly what She now Defines is Apostolical Doctrin As much Therfore The Church can do as much without the Imagined Hand-writing as with it as the Church can be supposed to do by the Help of such an Imagined Writing it can do without it For if it have Authority to Legitimate as it were such a Writing it s own Authority is as worthy of Credit when it Defines without the Writing You se Therfore how Unreasonably these men require a Codicil containing the old Apostolical Doctrin which ought Forsooth to be Exhibited and shewed them Before they can be perswaded that the Church fairhfully Proposeth or Defines a Doctrin to be Apostolical 9. Now if They be convinced that to Require such a Manuscript from us is as Vnreasonable as if we should Press them to produce one for Their late Novelties And therfore urge the Church to prove her Defined Doctrin by undoubted Tradition I answer The Church doth So whilst They God knows Allege nothing like Tradition for so much as one of their New Articles A Fallacy of Sectaries about Tradition And here because we have a fit Occasion I 'll Discover in a Word the Fallacy of Sectaries in this matter of Tradition I say in a Word For 't is not my Task now to Handle that Question largely Thus it is Sectaries ever suppose when the Church Defines a Doctrin upon the Tradition of former Ages it is obliged to shew them the very Doctrin in express Terms Antecedently to the Definitions owned and writ down in the Volumes of some one or more Learned Fathers Whence it is They Argue How Sectaries argue No man heard of a Purgatory before St. Austins Time and He only hints at it slightly nor of Transubstantiation before the Lateran Council c. Therfore those Doctrins are Novelties lately introduced I Answer Were all this True The Argument is an unconcluding Negative and run's By uncluding Negatives limping thus Antiquity or the Ancient Fathers have not Expressed every Defined Doctrin of the Church in the like Explicit Terms as the Church useth Therfore such Doctrins were not really Received by the Church Observe well From the want of an Expression suitable to Sectaries Fancy They Infer The Fathers expres Things sometimes one way and the Church another the Doctrin was never Taught by Antiquity Alas the Fathers had their Expressions one way and the Church after mature Deliberation another often more significant Yet Both Aymed at the same Verity though differently set forth in Words as is clear in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation called by the Fathers a Real Change of Bread into Christs Body By the Lateran Council as you here se otherwise I say yet Farther Had the Fathers not at all so much as Hinted at a Doctrin Defined by the Church the Argument is yet Purely Negative and worth nothing Sectaries Discours highly improbable But is here all No. Their Discours upon another Account is highly Improbable To prove what I say Do no more but only Imagin That Three or Four of the most Ancient and Learned Fathers Had in express Terms Owned and Registred in Their Writings the Lateran Councils Definition concerning Transubstantiation as received Orthodox and Catholick Doctrin just as that Council Defines it would Sectaries then have owned it as Ancient and Orthodox upon those The Definition of a General Council gives Security Fathers Testimony If they say Yes They are Evidently convinced For the sole Authority of a most Ample Learned Council is in true Prudence a Firmer Principle and a better Proof to Rely on If we enquire after known and received Orthodox Doctrin ever held in the Church Then the very best Assurance That one or more Fathers can give Vs of it For who see 's not But that the very Definitions of the Nicene of the Council of Ephesus or Chalcedon c. Are more weighty to beget in us a Belief That what Those Councils Defined to be received Truths were so indeed Then if twenty other Fathers had Antecedently writ them in their Councils Representing a whole Church know more then particular Fathers learned Volumes The Reason is Because General Councils Representing a whole Church Spread all the World over cannot but know more Exactly what Tradition and the Received Doctrin of Christianity is Then Private Men can be Supposed to know who lived in several Parts of the World And bad no Obligation to Register intierly the Churches Doctrin in every Particular Thus much is said if the Church at any time Defines upon Tradition only Foâ— 'T is most certain that beside Tradition it Relyes on Scripture also and Hitherto never wanted the Authority of most Worthy Fathers that undubitably Taught as it Defined Though not always perhaps in such Express and significant Words If Sectaries Reject both Church and Fathers when they have not a word of Scripture for them 10. Now on the other side If Sectaries will neither Allow of the Fathers Doctrin Susiposing it were Express for our Catholick Verities as most evidently 't is in twenty Controversies nor of the Churches Definitions Already Declared in Eighteen General Councils We are out of the Reach of all Principles And must leave them to their unsteedy Fancies or wilful Obstinacy And pitty Their Deplorable Condition They are more to be pittied then Disputed against
argumentaremur They are his words page 3. The man would Discours foolishly that should conclude the Greek Church Held no place of Purgatory Because Marcus Ephesius Barlaam Monachus Nilus Thessalonicensis Iosephus Bryennius And other Schismaticks have Falsly related matters so which way of Arguing is as weak as if one should say That that whole Church is now infected The Errours of some are not to be imputed to a whole Church with Arianism Macedonianism Eutychianism or Nestorianism Because some among them Profess these Heresies Alas The Errours of some that receded from that Church as Nicetas Bizantius cited page 4. well observes cannot in Iustice be imputed to their whole Church which ever defended a place of Purgatory And therfore He Tell 's the Chief of the Armenians of his unhandsom Plea when Bizantius adversus Principem Armeniorum He pretended that the Church left the Schismatical Opinion of some few No such matter saith Nicetas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the contrary is true 't is you the far less number that deserted us Page the 12. Alatius cites Manuel Caleca lib. 4. adversus Graecos who doth not only Admit of a place of Purgatory for Souls not perfectly Cleansed but moreover Deliver's Three Truths established by Manuel Caleca these three particular Truths according to the Sentiment of that Church The first It is not Necessary to pray for those who now enjoy Beatitude For although saith He we offer Sacrifice for the Saints it is not don that they may Obtain mercy Having it already But it is offered up for this End that by Honoring Saints we may make them through the mercy of God to be Mediatours for us The second Verity is The Church never Prayes for the Damned The last There is therfore a third place of Punishment called Purgatory where souls not perfectly Cleansed must by the just judgement of God suffer for less Offences and so pass into glory This learned Author has much more to this Purpose But it is impossible to touch on all 9. Let us return to Alatius that in every page refutes your Doctrin Page 74. He Tell 's us that the The whole Greek Church taught by Apostolical Tradition prayed for Souls in Purgatory whole Greek Church taught by Apostolical Tradition ever prayed for the departed who were neither cast in to Hell nor are Glorious in Heaven And He proves this even by the Confession of innumerable that are of the Schism Here he gives us the judgement of Gabriel Severus Philadelphiensis in the book He writ against the Latins of Purgatory where He showes how far the Greek Church agrees with the Latin and wherin it Differs We Agree saith He that souls piously departed this life receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 benefit and relaxation Those of the Schism Confess it in those places they are and this by the Alms-deeds and good prayers of others as Dionyfius Areopagita teachers And besides Dyonisius Severus Alleges also the Testimonies of S. Athanasius S. Chrysostom Basil and Theophilact for this great Verity that such souls departed have help comfort and relaxation by the Sacrifice of the Mass by Alms and pious Prayer of the Living Thus a Grecian Schismatick speak's And it is not He Alone that produceth these Fathers for a proof of Purgatory but other Greek Authors also even those of the Schism as Alatius Demonstrat's in several places The Interpretation of the Greek and Latin Church make the sense of Fathers clear for Purgatory And most surely so unanimous a Consent of many whith whom the Latins agree also cannot but make the sense of these Fathers indubitable For our Catholick Verity 10. Now Sir if other Adversaries say as you Do that the Greeks indeed Prayed for the Dead but without any respect of Delivering souls out of Purgatory or a place of torment Turn once more to Alatius page 87. where He gives you not only one or two witnesses But as He speak's Vniversam ipsam Graeciam The Testimony of the whole Greek Church palam aperte openly A clear refutation of our Adversaries Avowing these torments of Purgatory And to this Purpose He quotes their Rituals their Office of the Dead and other Prayers In the Office you have this Orison 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. O Christ give rest with thy Saints to the soul of thy servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where grief sadnes The Greek Rituals and office of the Dead significant for Purgatory and Mourning may cease give them a life of perpetual happines c. Another Prayer is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Lord Himself Give rest to your Servant N in a place of refreshment from whence grief misery and deep sighing may pass This is also repeated in their Paracletica From Teares and bitter Crying out Deliver O Saviour thy servants Again they beg they may be freed from all punishment from a Prison of Sufferance and soon be setled in a place of joy where the just inhabit with perfect forgivenes of all their transgressions Yet more Alatius page 93. Saith This is the Doctrin of S. Dionysius of the great S. Basil Precatione 3. in Pentecosten where He prayes that these souls Some Fathers quoted by Alatius may not only be quit of Torments and sufferances but moreover be placed in the Tabernacles of the Iust and enjoy happines for ever Finally page 95. He quotes S. Cyril of Hierusalem Catech. Mystag 5. who doth not only acknowledge Assistance afforded the Dead by our Prayers for such an Assertion is easily misinterpreted But besides Affirms They receive remission and relaxation of their punishment The like Severus Philadelphiensis though a Schismatick Confesseth That the Greek Priests The Confession of a Schismatick pray every Saturday that these departed Souls may find God Merciful gain remission of their sins and be freed from the punishment which torments them 11. I am forced to wave a world of other Testimonies most pertinently produced by this learned Author for our Catholick Verity Page 56. He showes that as well the Ancient as Modern Greeks acknowledge Prayer for the Dead an Apostolical Tradition the continued practise of praying for the Dead to have come from the Apostles And in confirmation of it cites Gennadius the Patriarch S. Chrysostom Hom. 69. ad populum expresly Approving the Doctrin who also saith much help is afforded the Dead by Prayer This is again confirmed pag. 63. by the Ancient Testimony of S. Dionysius sive quis alius Ecclesiast Hier. c. 3. by Holy Ephrems last will and Testament and others Page 93. and 94. He proves more amply 〈…〉 at these Prayers were made for a Delivery of souls 〈…〉 om pain from Grief Mourning Affliction and Torment as is now declared Page 104. He showes the sufferance The pain of Purgatory is really great not slight or Imaginary of these Departed in Purgatory not to ◠a slight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some
Freed us from a Spiritual Death and brought us to a Spiritual Life And do not Sectaries Hold that the very Material Hearing of the Word of God is a fit Means to Beget Faith both Spiritual and Supernatural in the Hearers Soul The Difficulty therfore Proposed comes to nothing but Fancy Finally if we speak of the Disposition requisite to Receive the Effect of this Sacrament you may call it if you please the Mode Way or Manner necessary to a due Receiving What Disposition is necessary All Catholicks Profess that not only Faith at least Habitual but Charity Also per se loquendo Are Prerequired as necessary Dispositions to the Effect therof Because it is Sacramentum Vivorum the Sacrament of Those who now Live by Faith Hope and Charity CHAP. VII How differently VVe and Sectaries proceed in this Controversy VVhat they are to Prove 1. SOme other Slight Objections yet remain Drawn from Fathers Misinterpreted and the weak Reason Other Objections briefly touched on of Sectaries It is not worth the while to Bring all to Light Again They are Solved and Vndeniably Solved by our Catholick Writers A few shall here suffise Some Fathers seem to say That this Sacrament is a Sign a Figure an Image a Type of Christs The Fathers say no where that the Sacrament is a Sign or Figure only of Christ Body Very true But not one say's it is a Sign Only a Figure Only a Memorial Only c. Now know It is one Thing to call it a Sign and an Other a Sign Only Exclusive of Christs Real Presence As it is One Thing to say Faith Justifies And Faith only Justifies excluding Charity Read therfore Those words of St. Austin Lib. contra Adimantum cap. 12. Till your Eyes be Weary Non dubitavit dicere c. Our Lord Doubted not to say This is my Body Cum daret signum Corporis sui When He gave a Sign of his Body All you S. Austin affirm's it not can Force out of Them is this Obvious and Genuine Sense Our Lord When He gave His Disciples the Consecrated Species Accidents or Forms of Bread which were a Sign and Figure of his Body There contained Doubted not to Say That that which He then gave them under those Species was Really His Body If Sectaries can Inforce more out of the Words let them do it without Fancy And prove their Gloss by a Clearer Principle then St. Austins Words are 2. Again When some Fathers Say There is not What the Fathers mean when They say it is not altogether the same Body Planè idem corpus The same Body Altogether in the Eucharist which was Fastned to the Cross But after a Manner the Same To which Sense St. Austin Commenting in Psalmum 98. Introduceth our Saviour speaking thus Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. You are not to eat this Body you se Grosly He Means as the Capharnaits Understood And to Drink that Blood which my Enemies will Poure Out I have The Fathers endeavour to remove from us all gross Conceptions of this Mystery The two states of a Body Natural and Spiritual change not the substance of the Body We say usually when one is changed by Age or Sicknes he is not the same men Commended to you a Sacrament which Spiritually Understood will Give you Life c. When I say The Fathers Express Themselves by such Terms And Did so As well to Remove from us all Thick and Carnal Conceptions of this sublime Mystery as to Beget in us so far as we can reach to a Right understanding of the Spiritual Manner of Christ Existing in the Sacrament We must Distinguish with the Apostle 1. Cor. 15. Two States of a Body Natural and Spiritual Whose Dotes and Qualities Though Different Change not the Body Substantially Distinguish I say Thus And then Speak boldly with the Fathers It is not Altogether the same Body But after a Manner For so we Speak in a Vsual Language When we se one Notably Altered from Himself by Age or Sicknes And say He is not the Same He was But quite an Other Man Yet the Difference Here is not so Great as between a Glorified Body in Heaven and a Mortal Body on Earth or Betwixt Christ Body Situally Extended with its just Dimensions And not at all Extended The Fathers Therfore By placing all the Variety on the Mode or Manner of Existing Deny not Christs real Being in this Sacrament But as Learnedly as Literally Express the very Mystery The Fathers Learnedly and Literally Express the Mystery as it ought to be Expressed And We Stand to Their plain Words without Violence offered to the Obvious Sense by any Superaddition of Far-fetcht Glosses Yet Say it is Substantially the same Body 3. And here by the way if you will Parallel a little the Procedure of Sectaries with ours And Ours with Theirs As well in this as in Other Controversies You may see How Faintly Fancy plead's against Reason and Heresy Opposeth Truth Observe it What Catholicks stand to the plain obvious sense of their words and Scripture also ever They Allege out of Gods Word for their Errour VVe Stand to the Plain Obvious and Literal Sense of the Text And yet Deny Their Heresy Drawn from it Which therfore must of Necessity be an Additional Gloss of Fancy Foâ— Example Doth Scripture say Do this in Remembrance of me We admit of the Open Sense of the Words without further Commentaries or Glosses Doth it say The Flesh Profit 's Nothing We say so too But must learn by other Principles what Flesh Signifies in that Place Doth it say That Examples Hereof All the Ancient Hebrewes eat of the same Bread Drank of the same water We without Wresting the Text say so too Dot it say that God Inhabits not Temples made by Hands So say We And Give this Reason Because Gods Divinity infinitly Immense Circumscribed in no Particular Place as if he wanted Lodging is Every Where Doth it say that Christ Risen from the Dead was not Therfore in the Sepulchre We Answer the Illation is good in those Circumstances whilst Those virtuous Women Sought the Living Among the Dead Do the No Fathers make the Sacrament a Sign a Figure on 〈…〉 â—luding Christs presence Fathers say that the Holy Sacrament of the Altar is a Sign a Figure a Type of Christ even There Present We Acquiesce and speak also as They Do But withall Add That no Father makes it a Sign a Figure a Memorial Only as if the Reality of his Body were Excluded from the Outward Species of Bread and VVine Thus we Proceed with all Candor 4. Now let us cast a few Thoughts upon our Sectaries Sectaries contrarywise proceed with Catholicks and violently force both Scripture and Fathers Examples Hereof Dealing with us Catholicks And Se how Fancy only Vphold's every Thing they Assert We Allege our Saviours own Words This is my Body which
is Given for you They Answer No. It was not his Body but a Sign Only of His Body Given for us Observe well This Interpretation of a Sign Only is a Gloss of Fancy For neither the Word Sign is in Scripture Nor a Sign Only is any Ancient Father We Cite Again that Unanswerable Text of St. Luke This is the Chalice the new Testament in my Blood which Chalice is shed for you And mark the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Case and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Different Case What Answer our Sectaries Marry Beza Tell 's us St. Luke Here either spak a Solacism or a Marginal Note Cre'pt by chance into the Text Here is His best Solution And who Tell 's Mr. Beza so But his own Fancy We Produce moreover Those Testimonies of Ancient Fathers Briefly Hinted at Above And say no Wit of Man can solve Them Chiefly That Authority of St. Cyril Of VVine changed into Blood as water was Once changed into VVine They Answer The Change was only Moral of Wine Deputed to a Holy Use which is Against the very Nature of the Instance And consequently a Strong Thought of Fancy We say No Universal Tradition No Ancient Church ever Opposed the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church concerning this Mystery Herein our Ad 〈…〉 rsaries are Silenced And cannot Design the Orthodox Church that opposed our Doctrin as both We and the whole world beside now oppose their Novelty Parallel therfore the Proceedings of Sectaries Against us A Parallel between their Proceeding and ours Sectaries mangle and pervert most clear Authorities with ours Against them And you will find them to stand upon Quicksand without Principles The very Straits They are put to Demonstrat this Evidently whilst as you have seen They Mangle Pervert Misconstrue and Gloss Every clear Authority cited against Them And We on the other side candidly Admit both of Scripture and Fathers Quoted by Them without Any other Gloss but what the very Text and Context of the Testimonies Allow of 5. And Hence it is that you Always have our Adversaries Sectaries bold in asserting but weak at their Proofs bold in Asserting But Cold Vnmanly and Weak at their Proofs Besides what is now said the true Reason is No Proof can touch much less Vainquish a Verity that Stands firm upon undeniable Principles Plain Scripture the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers undeniable What our Catholick Proofs are Tradition the Authority of a Holy and Vniversal Church and this Negative No Church ever blamed our Doctrin are Strong Supports for the Faith we Profess And can our Sectaries who are as Scriptureles as Fatherles as Fatherles as Churchles and Finally Destitute of All other Principles Think to Dant us with a few Gleancings Gathered Sectaries cannot deny Them now out of This now out of that Ancient Writter when They Evidently se with their Eyes the whole Torrent of Antiquity contrary to Them Can they Perswade Themselves that Because one Theodoret For example Of Theodorets Authority Saith the Mystical Signs after the Sanctification Recede not from Their Nature but Remain in their first Substance Figure and Form are Seen and Touched as Before which words are literally True if we Speak as We Admit of his Words this Author Doth of the visible Accidents of Bread and Wine Can we I say Think that this one Authority Though it were a Hundred times more Difficil Hath Weight enough to turn the Scales Force Enough to Drive us from the Faith which Scripture Church and Fathers most manifestly Deliver It is impossible The obscurer places of Scripture and Fathers are to be Interpreted by the clearer All know when Divines Explicate Scripture or Fathers They Interpret the obscurer Passage by the Clearer And never make the Darker Place to give Light to the more Evident Observe Now. Theodoret saith the Mystical Signs Recede not from their Nature But Remain as before I say so too The only Difficulty is what he Meanes by the Word Signs and Sectaries Glosses without Proof Theodoret cannot be supposed to contradict other most Learned Fathers He is to be Explicated were he obscure by the sense of other Fathers Nature Sectaries Tell us The Sense is Bread and wine Recede not from Their True Substance First This is their Gloss without Proof For the Visible Signs of bread and wine are not the Invisible Substance of Bread and Wine 2. Theodoret in all law of Arguing when His plain Words Force not on us this sense of Sectaries ought to be Catholickly Interpreted And Had we no other Reason but this That it cannot be Reason To make so Learned a Father Though once he stray'd a little to Clash with all Antiquity it were Enough At most His Words are Doubtful And upon that Account capable of Explication is it not Therfore more Just to Explicate Them by the Clear and Vndeniable Doctrin of a Whole Church And other Fathers then to Draw these Fathers from their Open and Manifest Sense to His if it be supposed Obscure as in Truth well Pondered it is not Let Reason Judge Here. 6. By what is said Already We may well pitty the desperate Condition of Sectaries who Pertinaciously Defend an Heresy without so much as a colour of Sectaries want Principles Scripture Church or the General Consent of Fathers For these Principles and none can Parallel them Most evidently Fail our Adversaries Urge them Again and Again to speak more Pertinently to their Cause then is Don hitherto You get nothing but the Old Story told over again And it will never be Better for I se too Plainly Their Humor It is God knows Sectaries Tristing and wherin it Appear's To spend or rather to Mispend their whole Life and Labour in Trifles They Think to Cavil at the Proofs of our Doctrin Establisheth Theirs As if it were sufficient to make their Novelty good Because they can Talk against our Ancient Faith Just as if One to Prove Himself an Honest Man might do it Pithily by calling his Neighbour a Knave 7. I must yet Add one Significant Word more And 'T is very Necessary to lay forth our Adversaries Weaknes as well in This as in All other Controversies Observe Solid Proofs for a Doctrin stand firm and unshaken against all Opponents it VVhen Proofs of a Doctrin Stand on solid Grounds and Principles the Objections Against it are like Fathers cast Against the Wind forceles And return upon the Opponents to their Confusion wherof I think you Have Already seen Enough in this Present Controversy But contrarywise When the Proofs are Meagre Barren and Void of Strength They are ever so with Sectaries The Very Opposite Principles for Truth Dash All Discountenance All and Evidently Shew those Arguments to be Feeble And Truely would our Did Sectaries Proceed Candidly They would se Themselves Convinced Adversaries once Deal Ingeniously Candor would