make their sense good in the passages alleged when we now stand to Scripture only I answer 2. such dark inferences drawn from comparing Texts together not grounded on the very words euer imply à mixture of humane discourse which therefore is fallible and may be false Whence it followes that Sectaries can belieue none of these senses by Diuine Faith because the last Motiue or formal obiect of their Assent is à fallible reasoning only and this may erre And here you may learn how necessary an infallible Interpreter of Scripture is without which we are cast vpon meer vncertainties and vnauoidable improbabilities 6. The Sectary may yet answer To the comparing of Texts together He add's the sentiment of some Fathers for his sense I say of some for t' is euident He hath not all much lesse the Vniuersal consent or Tradition of the Church in euery age If this be the reply I may well oppose it in Mr Stilling own words pag. 216. Think not to fob vs off with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time c. But what will you say if he has not one clear Testimony of à Not on◠ancient Father Clear for protestancy The reason is giuen Father for him I boldly assert it and vrge him to produce but one The reason is What-euer Testimony of à Father is alleged for his sense will be at most if 't come thither so notably ambiguous that weighed with all circumstances it may well haue à Catholick meaning That sense therefore must stand good without contest when it answers to the iudgement of à whole learned Church and the Sectary hath nothing to draw it to his particular opinion neither vniuersal Church nor vniuersal Tradition but only à few ambiguous words capable of interpretation and his own fancy to boot Nay I say more He hath not so much as any little appearance of ambiguous words for his sense Pray you tell me and let Protestants shame me if they can where has he any hint of à Fathers doubtful words for his minc'd fitting assistance only allowed the Church Positiuely excluding infallible assistance For iustification by Faith only For two sacraments only For à signe only of Christs presence in the Eucharist yet these senses he vend's as the genuin meaning of the Holy Ghost without proof or probability therefore fancy only plaies here And thus you see the first part of my Assertion demonstratiuely proued viz. That Protestants haue not so much as à weak probable assurance of that which is the very life and essence of Scripture I mean of the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost Yet you know Tertullians iudgement Tertullian saith Lib. de Praescript cap. 17. Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus quantum corruptus Stylus A fals sense depraues Scripture as much as if the words were corrupted Thus much premised and so fully proued that sectaries cannot return à probable answer I 'le add one consideration more to confirm what is said A Discourse between à Heathen and à Christian 7. Imagin that à well disposed Gentil Philosopher half perswaded of the truth of Christian Religion addresses himself to the most knowing Protestant or Arian and not to dissemble the force of the Argument to some learned Catholick also He find's them strangely deuided about their Canon of Scripture about their Translations and which is to our purpose now at high difference concerning the meaning also The Arian tell 's him he hath the How men called Christians differ about scripture true sense so doth the Donatist the Protestant and Catholick likewise The wise man is not so foolish as to belieue any of them vpon their bare word although Stentor-like they cry this and no other is Diuine Doctrin Therefore he concludes if reason may haue place This way of finding what he would know without the help of some other Principle distinct from Scripture and the fallible Assertion of particular men opposite to one an other is so highly dissatisfactory and wholly insufficient that it cannot settle him in the truth of Christianity Nay he may wel argue further If I yet no Christian cannot so much as know these very books to bee Diuine because you say they are so when we Gentils and Iewes in part hold them only humane If I though I own them as Diuine can learn from none of you what they say for I find you all at high contradictions about the sense How will you induce me by this your Bible only to become Christian Or how can you when you dispute with one an other so much as propose à probable Argument out of Scripture in behalf of your different Tenets For The Heathens Discourse none of you yet know by Scripture only the true meening of it You first suppose à sense and then argue wheras you should clear the sense and proue it or your Argument fall's to nothing For example The Protestant find's in Scripture that the Holy Eucharist is called Bread supposing Bread to signify natural bread or at most bread deputed to à holy vse the Catholick denies this supposition and sense also Hee reads again in S. Iames c. 4. T 〈…〉 is one Law-giuer and iudge who can destroy and free Ergo saith the P 〈…〉 stant there is no other visible iudge in the Church to end Co 〈…〉 ersies As odd an inference as if one should conclude because it is said in Scripture Bee not yee called Masters for your Master is one Christ no other ought to be called Master and therefore this sense and supposition in also denied And thus it must needs fall out whilst the Sectary has not one express word of Scripture for his nouelties wheras saith the Gentil the Texts seem clear enough for Catholick Doctrin taken in an obuious sense yet not so clear but that à peeuish Glosser may peruert all by his wilful fancy 8. Yet the Gentil Argues You Christians say there is true Religon amongst you and that God the Author of it hath allowed The Heathens Argument Clearly proposed against sectaries means abundantly sufficient to knowit Means I say whereby not only Gentils Turks and Iewes but Arians and other Hereticks also may be reclaimed from their errours Thus much you must grant or say that Christ hath left an vnbelieuing world vnder an impossibility of being conuerted And if this be true that is if meanes be wanting to know the verities of Christian Religion The Gentil may blamlesly remain as he is and so may the Turk Iew and Heretick also Now saith our Heathen 'T is euident Scripture alone without further light is no meet means to reclaim any of them for the Gentil slights your whole Scripture and can that by it self draw him off his contempt Again The Bonzij in that vast Kindom of China pretend to an other Bible writ long since by their supposed great Prophet called Confusius and the book
indubitable Principles appliable to the Belieuers reason If therefore à Want be found of such proofs and doubts arise whether Christ's Doctrin be taught or no None can by doubtful or ambiguous Proofs of true Religion easy and Conuincing Principles only absolutly say This is Christs Doctrin and Consequently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightines of the matter that is they are clear conuincing and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting Thus much supposed 2. I say first who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox when the matter is of Controuersy and cannot The sectaries proofs as dark as his Doctrin bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle then the particular assertion is which should be proued argues improbably The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so that is he neuer goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is which should be proued therefore he Argues improbably 3. To proue the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies Take à veiw of all our Protestant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask what Protestant dare appear and venture to proue That Faith only iustifies The like I say of his other negatiue Articles Of no real Presence of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass c. I absolutly affirm He cannot make one of these Articles good by any vndoubted Principle or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer than that dark article is which should be proued One reason is These Doctrins opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also are not euidently known as truths by the light of One reason of our Assertion nature or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years agone and Consequently no vniuersal tradition is for them The only difficulty is whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers generally patronize such Doctrins And to fauour Sectaries all that 's possible we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible but withall assure them it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book and the impossibility will be thus manifested As long as these men cannot proue their new Doctrin to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted but vpon less sure grounds or less assured tradition so long their doctrin is naught and stands vnprincipled But this is so as we shall see presently And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick The difference beween the proofs of Catholiks and Protestants and Protestant The first proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine the Church assures him of both but the Sectary euer fall's short in this and cannot giue you so strong à proof for his particular Doctrin as he doth for the very letter of his book which he supposes teaches that Doctrin 4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth and take one particular Controuersy we cannot insist on all and ask the Protestant How he proues that the real presence of Christs sacred body as Catholicks assert is not expressed in the literal sense of those words This is my body His negatiue assertion most euidently is not there in plain terms We therefore vrge him to make it good by à proof that 's clear or more conuincing than his own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is And is he not obliged think yee to produce à strong proof indeed when he hath so many powerful Aduersaries to contrast with 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers vsually cited by Authors opposite to him 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church for both Churches mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day 4. The express Doctrin of general Councils which define our Doctrin positiuely and The grounds of our Catholick Tenets condemn the figuratiue presence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery related by authors of most indubitable credit These are no slight grounds of our Doctrin Let vs see by what strong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them or which is immediatly to my purpose proues his new negatiue Position Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist Not one word in the whole Bible is like it much contrary Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him No. What euer sense he drawes from thence seemingly to his purpose will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle as his own improbable position is and therefore most vnfit to perswade it Has he as vniuersal Tradition or the vnanimous consent of Fathers for his negatiue or for that sense he would force out of Scripture as he and we haue for the letter of the Text now cited Nothing at all And to show you how iustly I propose this question call to mind what Mr The Sectary answers not to any Stilling exact's of his Aduersary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should saith he once see you proue the infallibility of your Church the Popes supremacy Inuocation of Saints c. by as vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is whereby we receiue the Scriptures I would extoll you for the only person that euer did any thing considerable on your side Thus he speakes after this precaution giuen Think not to fob vs off with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catholik with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times Your own words Mr Stilling shall here condemn you The Question is whether your Negatiue Christ is not really present in the Eucharist as Catholiks affirm be Orthodox Doctrin We exact as rigid à proof from you as you demand of vs but fob vs not off with your own talk Tradition you haue none nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers but giue vs the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time as What we iustly require of Sectaries clear for your negatiue as you demand of vs for the articles now mentioned Or if this be too much giue vs but only the indubitable sentiment of any Church reputed Orthodox four or fiue hundred years past for this your sense and assertion and I will applaud you as à most singular person But this you shall doe when you haue turned all faith out of the world that is neuer I say therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three
more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery may Sectaries glosses haue place all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue In à word the plain truth is thus 9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty That is they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning I say therefore If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers when euery one makes that sense of scripture orthodox which he conceiues to be so Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth The Pelagian his The Monothelite his The Protestant his All these different senses admitted destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man What that owned Principle is whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read I assert boldly they are all alike Guesses and meer fancies guide A iust parallel between Arians and Protestants them and nothing els The Arians sense is not clear no more is the Protestants The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense no more hath the Protestant The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers no more has the Protestant The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense no more hath the Protestant Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primitiue Church The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel I say it once more they are all alike there is no difference between them The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians 10. Hence I say 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions and he is as farr from Principles when he opposes Catholick Doctrin You haue the reason giuen already No proof less sure than the true sense of Scripture taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly orthodox No proof less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin But it is euident Protestants want such proofs when they either plead for their own opinions or impugn Catholik Protestants Condemned by their own writings Doctrin And to make good what I say I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation for example No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox confessedly denied Transubstantiation Inuocation of saints the Sacrifice of the Altar c Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpreted by that Orthodox Church or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin decried these In what manner Sectaries handle controuersies Catholick Tenets as we Sectaries do now Has euer Protestant I say gone thus plainly to work No God knowes I 'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it What then is their strain of writing All à long à meer cheat They either argue negatiuely We find not forsooth Such Doctrins in antiquity which is false and though true t' is to no purpose Or they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers gloss and sense them as they please and then cry victory Thus Mr Stilâ—ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently I say No such matâ—er An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by â—ou is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon or to assert abâ—lutely This is Christs Doctrin without an ancient Orthodox Church which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that â—nse you would draw from à Father And mark well what I say â—or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it In the mean â—me who is there so far from reason that can perswade himselfe â—t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches because à Sectary offer 's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of When all know or should know that no priuate mans opinion no doubtful Text much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is which as I said euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed 11. But before I press this point further and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies when the Scriptures sense the like is of the Fathers is debated I must needs entertain you à little because it much auail's to my present purpose with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catholick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist or we may boldly say no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church I say only à few for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors my chief What is chiefly intended in Citing the Fathers ayme being thus much at present to make this truth manifest That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments so long they do no more but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle whereof we shall afterward treat at large Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue Contains most Catholick Doctrin 12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman â— our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book called to hâ— remembtance The Rule of Faith wherein one passage of Theoderâ— is much vrged and thought vnanswerable After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise Disc 4. C. 7. n. â— wherevnto He replied modestly Surely Theoderet saies morâ— who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread â— changed at all or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick becomes What Sectaries would force from this authority forcelesse and this the little book presseth most Sr said I. It seem's very strange that your late book bring 's again to light such stale obiections long since answered by one to say nothing of many others of our own Nation the learned Brereley Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first and Brereley afterward We turned to Theoderet Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie
of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer now alleged Therefore if we be in errour the wit of man cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles And here I vrge Mr Silling to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and significant that is Scripture as clear Fathers as clear Tradition as clear the Iudgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted for the opinion he hold's as we now allege in the defense of our Catholick verity Belieue it if he suppose as he certainly doth the Church to haue erred so grosly for à thousand years The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subiect when they meant no such thing He ought to fasten vpon sound Principles indeed before we yeild and must not think to ouerthrow What sectaries are obliged to our Doctrin or foile vs with à few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff which comes no neerer to Principles than improbability to Euidence Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities If à man saith he P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be false which sense iudges to be true he means which weak reason vpon the discouery of sense iudges true for our outward senses make no iudgement What assurance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrin A word to our Aduersaries strange demand Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christs resurrection if their sight might be deceiued about its proper obiect c I am astonished to read this and answer briefly Christ's Resurrection the like I say of Miracles was most vndoubted vpon the discouery which sense and reason made in the presence of such obiects because no contrary Principle so much as weakly stood against that euidence and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was obiected to sense then I now doubt of writing these lines But all is contrary in the present Mystery For here the vnanswerable words of Scripture the Authority of my Church the Clear Testimonies of Fathers the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to belieue the Diuine Reuelation which is either certainly known vpon these grounds or we boldly say no Christian verity was euer yet known vpon any sure Principle What if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling may roundly grant that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real presence for many ages and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been besotted them selues but moreouer haue basely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of belieuing that to be Christs body which really is not Howeuer he will honour the Fathers so far as to afford them the fauour of his glosses Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrin Mr Stilling is obliged to name some Churh reputed Orthodox 3. or 4. hundred years past for then there was à true Church in the world which held his opinion or as expresly denyed the real Presence as our Church both then and now mantains it and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy for I am sure there was neuer any such Church on earth Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery Fathers He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin and make all belieue that we Catholicks hold not yet the real presence Obserue the same language in all That wich in seen is not bread though it seem's so to the tast But the body of Christ Our sense may be deceiued Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed â— made the flesh of Christ and the wine his blood c. Thus the Fathers deliuer their sense and it is the Churches language also If therefore Mr Stilling can so gloss these words of the Fathers as to make them speak Protestancy or not to deliuer our Catholick Doctrin I should not wonder if in the next book set forth he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence If he did so I am sure his attempt would proue as vnsuccesful in the one case â— in the other 11. Well But permit him to interpret the Fathers and to fall foule as he is wont to do vpon our supposed Church errours what is the vtmost that followes Thus much only Meer talk without Principles For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know that his glosses which striue to dead the very obuious sense of the Fathers plain words implie not altogether as little satisfaction as little assurance as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it If so and so it is most euidently as his Doctrin before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians so his interpretations goe no higher but are euery whit as improbable 12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling that vnless his explanation Sectaries glosses vnprincipled worth Nothing of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distiâ—ct from and extrinsick to his glosses they are worth nothing For what auail's it me to read his glosses when no receiued Principle vp hold's them but fancy Reflect à little I read in Scripture This is my body My Church tell 's me the literal sense is true The Fathers as you haue heard and the Tradition of two Churcheâ— confirm this sense Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiect's my Churches authority then begins to strain the Fathers Testimonies with his glosses Stay Sr say I. I except against your glosses and iustly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coynâ— If true they stand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at Proue this and I 'le reuerence your glosses but if you fail and fail you must your Doctrin and glosses are both alike Counterfeit and thoughts of fancy only 13. Hee may reply When Protestants cite the Fathers against the Real presence For example That of S. Austin or Theoderet mentioned aboue we Catholicks explicate them and now which seem's foul play we except against his Glosses For If we interpret An Obiection why may not Hee doe so also A word only in passing conformable to what is noted aboue If to decide this one Controuersy of Christ's Real Presence recourse be had to the Fathers and the two aduerse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations the Dispute will neuer be ended Because priuate glosses leaue the two Dissenters as much at iarrs as they were before God therefore as I haue often said affords an easier means to know his reuealed Truths Now my Answer to the obiection is The Catholick then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation when it sham fully out-faces the
the Vulgar let him read Gretser now Cited Bib. Max. sect 19. C. 4. and Serrarius C. 19. quest 143. And thus much of à digression CHAP. IX Proofs demonstrating that Protestants haue not so much certainty of Scripture as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting A word of Mr Stillingfleets weak discourse with à Heathen 1. LEt vs if you please suppose that wee and Sectaries had now in our hands the very Autograph's of the whole Bible as it was once writ by the Prophets and Apostles or if you would rather Imagin the book drop't down from Heauen pure and euery way incorrupt I say the Sectary has not probable assurance of Scripture much less such à certainty as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting The ground of my Assertion is this vndeniable Principle owned as well by Protestants as Catholicks Viz Scripture solely considered according to the exteriour letter vnless the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost be had is no Scripture to the Reader For example Because the Arian read's that sacred truth My Father is greater then I and stand's meerly vpon the bare sound of words without the sense intended by the Holy Ghost Hee hath no true Scripture Whence it is that S. Austin serm 70. Temp. hold 's Hereticks most vnhappy because they take the words without the sense haue à body without Words without the true sense no Scripture à Soul the bark without the sap the shell without à kernel c. S. Hierom also in cap. 1. ad Gal. v. 11. speak's to this purpose Ne putemus c. Let vs not think that the Gospel lyes in the words of Scripture but in the sense of those words we read not in the out-syde but in the pith and marrow of it There is no need of quoting more Fathers The Principle is agreed on by all and most indubitable 2. Hence I argue Nothing is more essential to scripture than the sense deliuered by the Holy Ghost but the Protestant where he is most concerned has not so much assurance of the sense intended by the Holy Ghost as excludes à Possibility of reasonable doubting and I proue it He is most concerned when he opposes our Catholick Doctrin and stand's vp in defense of his own opinions but in neither has he such an indubitable assurance of the Scriptures sense as excludes à possibility of reasonable doubting and this I say is euident For he cannot haue so much assurance if as weighty yea à far more weighty authority contradict's his sense But it is clear that not only the present Roman Church but other particular Churches in former ages reputed Orthodox contradict that sense the Protestant drawes from Scripture But Sectaries haue no Certainty of the sense when he opposeth Catholick Doctrin or defends his own singular opinions Therefore he has not so much certainty of the Scriptures sense as excludes the possibility of reasonable doubting Now that the sole iudgement of our present Catholick Church to dispute the thing no higher is as great vpon all accounts as the iudgement of Protestants seem's vndeniable And that the Testimony of our Church weakens the assurance of that sense of Scripture which Protestants lay claim to is most euident as wee see in school opinions when contrary to one an other for no man whether Philosopher or Diuine can prudently hold his opinion so certain as excludes à Possibility of doubting when as many wholly as learned yea more learned and numerous after à full knowledge had of it and long Study also deny that certainty Thus much I say is euident Now if the Protestant tells ' vs the Authority of his party weakens as much that sense wee make of Scripture as the contrary iudgement of our Church lessens his I answer The reply here is to no purpose For all I proue at present is that he want's this certainty whether we haue it or not is an other quaestion and clearly decided for the Catholik cause in the other Treatise Disc 2. c. 9. per totum Again were all granted the obiection would haue Thus much which is most fals only followes that neither of vs know assuredly the sense of Scripture which touches not the difficulty now in controuersy 3. My 2. Argument is so demonstratiue that if the Protestant A 2 Argument most Conuincing will please to solue it I 'le neuer trouble him more with difficulties To propose it clearly know only thus much That when the sectary read's Scripture and would haue it to his purpose He either ouer reaches the Text or fall's short of its meaning For example To those words of S. Math. This is my body he adds this as good sense This is à signe or figure only of my body Mark well We both read the same words but Catholicks deny that to be Scripture not because we deny the words but his sense we say is no scripture To that of our Sauiour I am with you alwaies to the end of the world He adds I am with you alwaies by à fitting but no infallible assistance We say this is no Scripture To that of S. Iames. A man is iustified by works and not by Faith only He adds he is iustified not before God but before men we still deny this to be Scripture And thus sectaries proceed with vs in all other controuerted Texts of Holy writ Whence I argue These Additions of à sign only of à fitting Assistance of iustification before men c are either the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost or Sectaries fancy but most euidently they are not the sense intended by the Holy Ghost for this must either be gathered out of Sectaries glosses and additions not scripture so many express words of Holy writ which is prodigiously false or must arise from the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance whereby Protestants as people Illuminated aboue all others giue vs the true meaning of Scripture and this besides the Paradox when à whole learned Church contradict's the assertion is most destructiue of the Protestants own Principle For they say the Holy Ghost interpret's by none enlightens none teaches none to deliuer the true sense of Scripture but such as do it infallibly which Truth is most vndoubted They say again when they giue the sense of Scripture or interpret God's word they do it so fallibly that it may be false or if they interpret infallibly and cannot err Eo ipso they are so farr infallible which they vtterly deny See Disc 2. c. 9. n. 8. what then remains but that the sense of Scripture proposed to vs by such fallible Teachers is only the thought of their own fancy 5. Some may reply Protestants after long perusing Scripture and comparing seueral Texts together iudge the sense of these and No more are their deductions other controuerted places by à lawful deduction to be as they declare I answer first They shall neuer come to so much as à probable deduction and I earnestly press them to
The iudgement of Credibility not attained by examining the Mysteries of Faith he come to this setled iudgement All I read not euidently true ex terminis is yet indubitably so Now this iudgement is not first got by examining the particular verities which Scripture or the Church teaches No. There is à farr easier way whereby reason after à further discourse concludes that either God hath cheated the world by the Miracles the sanctity The blood shedding of Martyrs and all those conuersions wrought by the Church or we must grant That what the Church teaches is true And this general iudgement arising immediatly from à due Ponderation of the motiues of Faith which is Science disposeth an vnderstanding to belieue this great Truth God speaks his eternal verities by that Church be it yet where you will which Christ Iesus founded And in this sense we say à general Notion or knowledge of the Church manifested by supernatural signes is vsually necessary to the belief of euery particular Doctrin deliuered by it and consequently particular Doctrins can be no first mark or sign of this Oracle Thus much is here briefly hinted at to solue the obiection Hereafter the whole Analysis shall be most particularly discussed in its due place 4. A. 2. inference True Religion is first found by its marks The true Church is known before we can know the books of scripture and cognisances before the pure and incorrupt books of Scripture can be owned as Diuine We come therefore to à knowledge of these incorrupt books by the help of that Christian Society where true Religion is taught and cannot first know where true Religion is by the books of scripture only I say First know For without all doubt when incorrupt Scripture together with the sense is once admitted vpon the authority of Christs Church we argue and forceably as the Fathers anciently did against Sectaries by Scripture But all such arguments presuppose the Books proued Diuine and sacred The reason of the inference is These Books only contain à simple narration of our Christian verities which both Iewes and Gentils slight therefore though we cry neuer so loud Scripture is Diuine and written by the Holy Ghost we effect nothing with these Aliens from Christ vnless we first conuince the truth by proofs distinct from Scripture it self And as little is No disputing by Scripture only without the Canon and sense be agreed on done if Christians of à different belief dispute by Scripture when neither the Canon nor the sense is agreed on For example Marcion produceth his Bible The Arian his and his sense A third à Scripture without S. Iames Epistle or that to the Hebrewes Our Sectaries Crowd in with their book whilst others as learned reiect their Canon and much more that sense they force from it in à hundred passages What is to be done in this Confusion Must wee admit of Marcions Bible or submit to our Sectaries Canon and new sense also No certainly it Cannot be expected Perhaps they will say we are to dispute the question and rigidly examin who hath the true Canon and sense of Scripture They or wee This ends the difference Very good But say on I beseech you And first giue vs à sure Principle à doubtful one in so weighty à matter help 's little which may bear vp the controuersy and at last end it for vnless this principle be agreed on the result of our dispute will be nothing but à fruitles wrangling O the Fathers and Antiquity well pondered cannot but decide the debate I answer may we iudge by the effect the assertion is most vntrue The ancient Fathers peruerted by sectaries end not Controuersies For haue not we and Sectaries now read and pondered the Fathers and Antiquity for one whole age what can be alleged on both sides as well for the Canon as the sense hath been said and after all are we not still as much at variance as farr off from ending the controuersy as when we began it Say Now but vpon à solid Principle who is in fault The Sectary thinks wee vnderstand not the Fathers and we are sure he abuseth them with farr fetch 't glosses He saith their words are clear for his sence and we profess the Contrary Hitherto we come to nothing like à Principle The Controuersy therefore driuen on no further but to the sectaries bare Yea and our No hangs yet in the ayre wholly vndecided The reason is Though the Fathers words be neuer so plain for our Catholick verities yet after the Sectary hath laid his glosses vpon them they are most vnworthily made by him as doubtful and à matter of as great contest as the very sense of Scripture is which both of vs would haue cleared by the Fathers testimony That is There is as much adoe may Sectaries glosses haue place to vnderstand what à Father teaches concerning the sense of scripture as to vnderstand Scripture it self before we haue recourse to the Fathers To recurre therefore to their interpretation in Controuerted matters whilst Sectaries as much darken that by their glosses as they obscure the Scripture we dispute about is The matter in Dispute no meet Principle to end it euidently à most vnfit way to end any Controuersy vnless that which is the very matter of Dispute between vs can be supposed à meet and sufficient means to end it which is impossible Now if the sectary blames vs because we reiect that sense he drawes from either Scripture or the Fathers and he also reiect ours what haue we but wrangling Both parties hitherto only word it and stand chafing at one an other without Principles God therefore hath prouided vs à surer and easier way to end debates about Religion whereof more in the sequele Chapters CHAP. XI The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by His proofs whether He defend's Protestancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin are vnreducible to Principles and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion Meer glosses support all He saith which is euidenced by à brief handling one Controuersy touching the B. Sacrament Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries cleared His Doctrin is most Catholick 1. NOte first If God as I said aboue once established true Religion among Christians He made it so discernable from all false sects that it may be found out by prudent reason Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertull. lib. 1. de Testimonio animae It s more known then any other learning For to say on the one side That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the world which shall not perish and on the other to assert it cannot be proued or found out is first to cast à blemish on Prouidence and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it because none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reason or rational arguments Note 2. The Doctrin of Christ which essentially constitutes true Religion stand's most firm vpon
Fathers nay you haue not so much for this Negatiue Doctrin which vpon that account proue nothing because they are as dark for your sence as the Doctrin is which you would proue by them 5. For example You may allege some passages out of S. Austin chiefly that contra Adimant C. 12. Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gaue à sign of his body The obuious sense whereof without torturing the Text is thus Our Lord gaue vnto his Disciples the Consecrated species and accidents of bread which were à sign of his Body there contained and doubted not to say that what he gaue them vnder those accidents was really his body Let now any one probably inferr that his S. Austin's words fauour not Sectaries sacred body was not then present vnder the accidents of bread because S. Austin saith those accidents were à sign of his body not absent for à sign or figure implies not the absence of the thing signified by it Well but grant contrary to truth all you can wish The words at most are ambiguous and therefore no fit Principle to ground an article of faith as is now noted You may next allege that known Testimony in Theodorets Dialogues The Mystical signes after the sanctification recede not from their nature but remain in their first substance figure and form are seen and touched as before I answer Theoderet plainly speaks of the Mystical signes More of Theoderet afterward which are seen and touched not of the inward substance of bread and wine which are no immediate obiect of our senses those signes recede not from their nature but remain in their form and figure as before and t' is Catholick Doctrin whereof more presently But grant the vtmost The words are only dubious and therefore insufficient to assure vs of an article of Faith when contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the present Church I assert yet more Though any Father should say That the substance and nature of bread and wine cease not to bee there is nothing yet concluded against vs for by these words substance or nature the outward Massinesse or Corpulency of bread and wine may be well vnderstood which as Theoderet saies remain The reason is In ordinary Speech we often giue to qualities which flow from the essence or nature of à thing the very name of the thing it self Thus we say an excessiue heat is fire à Massy heauiness is lead or à stone wheras heat and heauiness in common philosophy are only natural qualities or properties distinct from each substance respectiuely Such locutions were they found are at most dubious but we stand in no need of any far-fetch't glosses 6. Lastly Tertullians speech lib. 4. contra Marcio cap. 39. ex Cap. 21. Lucae contain's no difficulty Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his body Tertullians sense most plain and easy saying this is my Body That is à figure of my body Obserue the words Made the same his body and all is clear What did he make so I answer That bread which in the old Testament was à figure of his body according to the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius Let vs put wood into his bread that is à Cross into his body he makes now in the new law most truely and really his body Whoeuer read's Tertullian will find this to bee the genuine sense of his whole Discourse in the place cited where first he ieer's Marcion Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis Crucifigeretur Then saies Marcion vnderstand's not that bread in the old Testament was à figure of Christ's body as the Prophet Ierimie speak's Conijciamus lignum in panem eius scilicet They are Tertullian's own words Crucem in Corpus eius That is à Cross into his body See Pamelius his learned notes vpon this passage chiefly n. 662. and. 667. and you will easily free Tertullian from all ambiguity in Speech There are yet other Authorities much weaker produced by Sectaries but these now quoted seem sufficient for my chief aime whereof more presently In the interim I expect from these men à clamorous reply 7. They will certainly tell vs the sense and explication now giuen to these Fathers are no more but meer vnproued guesses or A reply of sectaries answered thoughts of our fancy I might first answer This sense immediatly flowes from the plain words which we admit according to the rigid grammatical signification of euery particular sentence But let vs waue this and ask whether the contrary sense of sectaries be any more but meerly their vnproued glosses or thoughts of fancy I say they are so and consequently as dark and wholly obscure as that Negatiue Proposition is which should be proued by them They storm and say the sense is clear for them I stifly deny it and assert the conttary They perhaps will vrge me to proue my sense I vrge them to proue theirs which cannot be done by the Fathers own words without à surer Principle For you see the words occasion the quarrel but that which is the cause of our dissentions can neuer end them or bring vs to any acquiescency without à further Principle And thus we stand Andabatarum more winking and fighting The one saies Yea The other No. without fruit or further progress and are yet farr from ending difficulties 8. Now here is that which I would haue all to reflect on for it is of mighty importance viz. That controuersies between the A reflection necessary for all that write Controuersies Catholick and à sectary cannot but be an endles work if both endeauour to decide them by Principles and vary as much about the sense of those Principles which are supposed to end the Dispute as we do about the very matter in question This is euer so whilst the sectary reiect's an infallible Church or her vniuersal Tradition Obserue well The matter now in question is Whether Christ be really present in the blessed Sacrament We allege his own Sacred words The Sectary saies we mistake the sense and consequently will not haue the difficulty decided that way To know the Truth both of vs examin all the other passages in Scripture relating to the Mystery both read the originals and the different versions both compare Text and text together nothing is yet ended Still we stand at variance about the sense which should decide matters between vs. Next we read the Holy Fathers for our Sectaries like not Tradition they produce their How Disputes are made endless Testimonies we interpret We produce ours They also interpret Obserue well I say Are we not as much at variance about the sense of these Fathers which are supposed à Principle to end our debates as about the very meaning of Gods word And doth not the matter in question still remain vndecided Most euidently yes Therefore vnless some other means be afforded whereby we may come
into blood as if one should now deny the Real and substantial change of that water into wine Consequently they renounce both the parity and open sense of the words And which is euer to be noted wilfully do so when they haue nothing like à sure Principle distinct from their gloss to ground their denial on Contrariwise the Catholick in this debate denies no express sense of any Fathers Testimony but only makes Inquiry into the Signification of words which are confessedly dubious Take here one instance Gelasius saith The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be First I make no account of this Gelasius Author of the book De duobus naturis Christi Contra Eutich He was not that holy Pope so called but rather Gelasins Cizicenus as Bellarmine notes de Scriptoribus Eccl Howeuer these two particles substance and nature may ex placito indifferently signify either the inward substance or outward Massinesse of bread and wine for natural qualities which flow from an Essence haue or often sustain as was noted aboue the name of that Essence they come from Now the Catholick renounceth no obuious sense but only contends that Nature and substance may signify as is most Of Gelasius How much his authority is worth vsual the outward corpulent forms of bread and wine which cease not to be And he giues this signification to these two words because Scripture Church and the Fathers wheron his Doctrin irrefragably depends forceth him to it And he doth well when it cannot be proued by any probable Principle that Gelasius relates to the inward substance of bread and wine Thus much may be said if that authority were worth any thing Read I beseech you Brereley In his Lyturgy of the Masse cited aboue pag 259. you shall find there this Authority most exactly examined and that in very truth this Gelasius who euer he was speaking against the Eutichians as Theoderet did vndeniably defends our Catholick Doctrin of the Real presence and Transubstantiation also Open the book and read you will be satisfyed I cannot dwell longer on these long since defeated Obiections 18. There is yet an other Reply Sectaries may say we suppose all this while Scripture and Fathers clear for our Catholick Doctrin The Supposition is denied because they quote t' is true not many but some Fathers and Scripture also to countenance their new opinion By the way here is occasion again to reflect on what is often noted viz. We quote Scripture and Fathers and they explicate all They cite also and we do the like and if nothing but à Return of explications thus pass from one to the other we are as much iarring as we were before without hope of ending Controuersies this way Now my Answer to the first part of the Obiection is We Catholicks suppose nothing but only The answer to an other reply take the very words of Scripture and Fathers in à literal sense and say their expressions are exactly conformable to the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church which was neuer censured by any Orthodox society of Christians Vpon these Principles therefore Scripture Church and Fathers we stand immoueable To that which followes I Answer Sectaries haue not one syllable of Scripture in fauour of their Nouelty and to omit à rehearsal of those triuial Arguments drawn from certain passages where they conceiue the Sacrament is called bread the fruit of the vine c. I conuince my Assertion by the positiue ground abready established which none shall ouerthrow If this be the true sense of Scripture when An Argument which Sectaries Cannot solue it speaks of the Blessed Sacrament Christ who is aboue in heauen is not really present on the Altar but in his sign only Or that the bread after Consecration is really what it was before natural bread only deputed to à holy vse If this I say be the true sense of Gods word Christs Orthodox Church expresly deliuered it to Christians as the true meaning of the Holy Ghost some few ages before Luthers Reuolt for then their was an Orthodox Church on earth But no Orthodox Church then taught so or sensed Scripture as Sectaries do now Therefore vnless that Church was ignorant and knew not the meaning of Scripture or Malicious and concealed it from Christians our Sectaries sense is not Scripture To confirm this Reason All know that the Roman Catholick Church then as well as now absolutly renounced the sense which Sectaries force out of Scripture and for that cause was not say they Orthodox in this particular Doctrin but no other Church confessedly Orthodox taught it at that time Therefore it was not thought the Scriptures true meaning All I would say is briefly laid forth thus 19. The true Church of Christs euer deliuers the true sense of Scripture at least in weighty and fundamental Matters so much Protestants grant But No true Church deliuered this their sense three or four ages before Luthers reuolt Ergo it was not the true meaning of the Holy Ghost but à whimsy lately inuented This Argument I hold demonstratiue You will perhaps ask What is that these men can pretend to hauing neither Scripture nor Orthodox Church to rely on I 'le tell you in à word They allege How Sectaries endeauour te solue it first two or three weak and ambiguous Sentences of Fathers which the Catholick admit's not in the sense of Nouellists yet according to the clear plain and obuious signification of words as is now declared and He prudently giues this signification to ambiguous words because the Doctrin he owns stand's firm vpon other indubitable Principles Scripture Church and Fathers The Sectary euidently wants such Principles and therefore vapors as well as he can with à few most weak and vnconcluding Authorities The next thing relyed on is much worse and purely nothing but fancy He reads Scripture and those euident Testimonies of Fathers as manifest for our Church Doctrin as it is clear that the Church teaches it and these forsooth he endeauours to obscure by à number of his own improbable glosses without the least shadow of any distinct Principle which giues so much as à Colour to his fancied interpretations You shall see this truth most manifestly proued in the ensuing Chapter CHAP. XIII Mr Stillingfleet grosly abuseth the Fathers that assert the Real Presence His vnprincipled glosses are not only dubious and therefore worth nothing but moreouer highly improbable 1. THough I am very loath to spend time on trifles and as vnwilling to catch flies as Mr Stilling is to kill them T' is his own phrase yet I must do so in some measure or permit à number of foule improbabilities to pass vnexamined which are laid forth in à pretended Rational account of Protestancy I shall only entertain you with à few of the Grosser sort wauing many of lesser moment and I doe thus much to defend à Christian Verity which my very Soul Adores For I am well assured If our
true signification in this place giuen 22. Ab omni specie mala abstinete vos The sense is Abstain not only from inward malice but and here mark the opposition from all Shew or semblance of euil And when S. Cyril saith Orat 4. Mystag vnder the Type or species of bread is giuen the body of our Lord he euidently distinguisheth the Form or shape of bread from its substance And so S. Cyprian doth in the words alleged Corporalis Substantiae retinens Speciem retaining the exteriour shape or form of à Corporeal substance and mote plainly thus The bread being changed not in its outward Form and semblance but in it's inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 8. Mr Stilling again page 570. in his Answer to S. Cyprian This common bread is changed into flesh and blood saith we Protestants do not deny à Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which ye Papists assert Pray you Sr tell me what is the Terminus à quo and the Terminus ad quem of this your mysterious change You acknowledg some thing Protestants cannot say what is changed into Christ's body changed into the flesh and blood of Christ Is the substance of bread the terminus à quo or that which is changed into the flesh No t' is too plain Popery Is bread made à Sacrament or à Sign of Christ's body changed into the flesh of Christs Euidently no for neither the Sacrament nor that which you call à Sign of Christ's body is changed into flesh Note well the Emphasis of your own words of something changed into the flesh of Christ and say on Gods name what it is You may reply you speak only of à Mystical and Sacramental change That 's not to the purpose now the Emphasis of your words point at something created or increated changed into the flesh and blood of Christ tell vs plainly what that is or in good earnest your expression fal's too short of any intelligible sense 9. In case you run on trifling with your Mystical and Sacramental change only made vpon the accidents or substance of bread the Author now cited positiuely asserts more viz. Panis non effigie sed naturâ mutatus The bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed not in Outward form and appearance but in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh where 't is plain your extrinsecal sacramental change passing only vpon the accidents of bread or on the substance S Cyprian reiects the Protestants extrinsecâ—l Change which you say remains is excluded and à Real Conuersion of the inward substance of bread is positiuely asserted by S. Cyprian You Answer Some great Criticks haue assured you that the place is corrupted and that the ancient Manuscripts read otherwise Non effigie nec naturâ mutatus neither changed in outward form nor substance You see to what desperate shifts these men are driuen T is wonderful they cite not some great Criticks for à Contrary lection of Christs words Hoc non est corpâ— meum This is not my body Well I say first if those nameless and vnknown Criticks err and the Author speak sense as we now read without the Critiscism Non effigie sed naturâ mutatus not changed in outward form but in its nature Transubstantiation is asserted and your contrary Doctrin is condemned I say 2. This Criticism is improbable and not only turn 's the words out of sense into pure Nonsense but moreouer implies an impossibility I 'le shew you how The Criticism will haue vs read thus Panâ— iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie nec naturâ mutatâ— Omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward substance is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh Obserue well This bread remaining bread in outward shew and inward A Criticism exploded substance is made the flesh of the Son of God An vtter impossibility For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and substance be made flesh factus est caro than Lots wife remaining what She was flesh and blood in outward form and inward substance be made à pillar of salt The Omnipotent power of God cannot change one substance remaining what it is into an other T' is true Luther said Christs body was really present with bread but neuer thought of making bread remaining bread to be that other substance of Christs body 10. Mr Stillingfleet tell 's vs more P. 572. that Substance and nature with the Fathers and we confess it are not alwayes taken properly but sometimes more largely for Accidents Why therefore may not these words Sed natura mutatus in S. Cyprians Context bear that improper sense I Answer and ask first Why may they not also be taken properly When they clearly deliuer à Doctrin conformable to à whole learned Church and your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to stand on but fancy Had you any ancient Orthodox Church vniuersal Tradition or the plain consent of Fathers for what you assert you might speak more boldly and I would then say S. Cyprians words are false but without such helps to torture à Text as you do to turn good sense into nonsense and this without proof or Principle is more then intolerable Now here reflect à little on what hath been often noted You say the words are improper and render your sense I say they are proper and significantly speak what the Church teaches Pray Answer By what Principle shall you and I come to à decision of this one difficulty Hitherto if nothing be added we haue no more but our two contrary iarring opinions And are not Controuersies may this strain hold made an endles work To add more I Answer 2. If this Author speak sense Not changed in its outward form but in nature Your gloss is Nonsense Obserue well He speakes of The reason why we reiect it bread held in à Priests hand and saith first This bread is not changed in its outward form or Accidents Then he put 's his Aduersatiue Sed. but it is changed in nature and substance If therefore Nature here signifies as you would haue it the outward form or accidents of bread you must read the words thus Bread is not changed in its nature and Substance yet it is changed in nature and substance which is non-sense I proue it Nature and substance with you import the exteriour form or Accidents of bread bread is not changed in this exteriour nature and substance saith the Author yet you say it is changed in this very nature and substance Yet more S. Cyprian asserts à change in one thing not in an other I ask what is changed and what is not changed If the exteriour Accidents of bread as contra distinguished from the Sectaries cannot say what
Ponderation of my Replies is so far to iudge between vs. But here is not all I must Say more Though I am as fallible in excepting against His glosses as he is in making them yet my Faith depend's not vpon my Exceptions but vpon the Doctrin of my Church The express words of Scripture and Fathers These oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue as I doe But all that Mr Stilling hath for his Faith is only the vncertainty of his own No man builds faith vpon his own Glosses coniectures ancient Church he has none nor express Scripture nor one Clear sentence of any Ancient Father And will hee Dare to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to belieue his Glosses or the opinion he would mantain by them vpon no other Ground but his weak Coniectures I appeal to his own Conscience for an Answer Well Be it how you will thus much is euident and T' is the only thing I aime at in this whole Discourse if Scripture and Fathers be interpreted in high matters of Faith by two Aduersaries of different Religions when no surer Principle is at hand to rely on but the fallible Glosses of the One and à contrary fallible combating with those Glosses in the Other they may both as the world goes now sit long at the sport before one Controuersy Other mean◠to end Controuersies then meer Glosses be ended Therefore God as I said aboue has Prouided vs of an easier way to end these weighty difficulties or we may All turn Scepticks Some may say The old mode of the World was to dispute by Scripture and Fathers dare we reiect this way of arguing as insufficient Answ No truely It is an excellent way amongst Christians though insignificant to Heathens when the Aduerse Parties can Clear the sense of Scripture and Fathers vpon certain Principles But if the very sense of Scripture and Fathers be called into Question As now à daies it is by Sectaries We must of necessity haue Recourse to an other more Clear easy and indubitable means of ending all Debates euer in vse among the Holy Fathers Whereof more afterward In the Interim the ensuing Chapter may giue you entertainment CHAP. XIV It is further proued that neither Scripture alone nor any other Principle distinct from an Vnerring Church can with certainty decide Controuersies in Matters of Religion or Regulate Christian Faith 1. THis Assertion not slightly proued in the other Treatise Disc 2. C. 4. I hold so certain That the wit of man shall not rationally contradict it And to giue yet more light to what is there said Be pleased to exclude or mentally only to cast aside All thought of an vnerring Church of her infallible Tradition al so of the Definitions of General Councils For all these which Sectaries hold fallible are Essential to an vnerring Church If any such thing be in the world whereof we shall Treat afterward Next look about you And consider well what remain's to end Controuersies withall or to regulate Diuine Faith You haue VVhat Principles Sectaries Can Pretend to distinct from an Infallible Church first Scripture which à Pagan wholly and à Iew partly reiects Yet with such Aliens from Christ à Christian can argue rationally yea and clearly conuince them as I shall proue in the second Discourse After Scripture you haue the sublime Mysteries of Faith the Fathers Doctrin laid forth in their Volumes and the History of the Church Here are all the Principles imaginable left Sectaries besides their priuate Spirit which can be no more à sound Principle to them than the contrary Spirit is to Their Aduersaries 2. Let vs now See how weakly the Sectary endeauours to end any Controuersy by these Principles without an infallible Church And be pleased euer to attend to the Aduersary he Treat's with If he attempt's to do good on à Heathen by Scripture or bring 's in the Reasonableness of Christian Religion The Heathen and Iew also laugh at his Folly And wish him to proue his Book to be Diuine If he proues that by the Vniuersal Tradition of all Called Christians the Heathen perhaps will not yet quarrel with him as I may hereafter about the Fallibility or Infallibility of Tradition but desires him to goe among the Chineses and lay his Bible down by That book which their supposed Prophet Confusius wrote full of excellent Moral Precepts Thus much done the Contest Begin's The Sectary saith his Bible is Authorized by à great Prophet called Christ A learned Bonzius Answer 's and his is also Authorized by à great Prophet called Confusius The Sectary saith all Christians own his book vpon à neuer interrupted The Protestants Contest with ◠Heathen Concerning the Bible Tradition to be indited by the Spirit of Truth The Bonzius replies All China of à mighty vast Extent age after age hath the like perpetuated Tradition for his Bible What followes but that These two Aduersaries peruse their Bibles The Bonzius read's ours and Reasonably ask's whether the Sectary can infallibly proue such strange Mysteries as are registred there for example à Trinity the Incarnation of the Diuine word to be Truths Reuealed by Almighty God The Sectary answers All the infallible certainty he hath of these particular Verities lastly Relies only vpon Scripture it selfe For what euer Principle can be imagined distinct from that written word whether Church or Tradition is Fallible and may deceiue If so saith the Heathen your Bible gain's no Credit with me Because you proue the Mysteries contained there by that which causes my doubt or is the matter in Question for you say all I read is of Diuine inspiration because your Bible relates them and therefore make that à proof of your Doctrin which is the Matter in question or causes my doubt O saith the Sectary read on with Humility and you will find that the very Maiesty of the style the Energy of the words will quit you of doubting And to ease you of too much pains know we Protestants hold That the Belief of à very few chief Articles or simple Truths as that Iesus is the Christ The Diuine Word is incarnated c is faith enough to gain Heauen Contra The Heathen except's against the Protestants plea. Replies the Heathen I see no other Maiesty in the Style of your Bible than in mine and other pious books The exteriour Syntax or ioyning of words together is common to all such Writings But aboue all I wonder why you talk to me of no man knowes what splendor shining in the bare Letter when you say that shines not to Pagans but only to those who haue the Spirit of God and are the Elect amongst you Now to what you Add of à few chief Articles necessary to be belieued and no more I answer first Your Scripture saith no such Thing nor tell 's me or you which Articles are necessary which not and if it did so you are only where you were before in darkness
it If no Councils nor Tradition support it It has no Principled Doctrin If no Principled Doctrin No Moral certainty If no Moral certainty for meer groundles Glosses cannot giue Any against all the Powerful Motiues of our Church there is no Probability in it If no Probability The whole Reformation must be reduced to fancy only There we found it And there leaue it 11. Now if any except against our casting off Protestancy from the meanest degree of Probability induced to Iudge otherwise vpon this ground That many learned men defend it I haue Answered aboue Meer Probability is insufficient to support Christian Truths Here I both answer and Ask. 2. where were the many learned Defenders of this new Faith when one Luther stood vp alone against the whole Christian world And first broached his Protestancy If at that time there was no Authority nor reason for the Nouelty Process of time hath gained it neither Look then into its Rise or First beginning you 'l find it vnsound at the bottom yea vtterly improbable vpon this certain Principle That the Singular Doctrin of one disgusted Rebel against à whole Church and Thousands more pious and learned then Himselfe can merit no Belief but deserues what it has to be Anathematized 12. We must yet insist à little vpon this Point And lay forth the Vanity of our Aduersaries pretence to Probability which done you shall see controuersies are ended Sectaries May say Protestancy improbable If their own Authority makes not Protestancy Morally certain it cannot but raise it to à high degree of Probability We deny this And shall presently Ask why their Authority more aduanceth this Religion to Probability than the meer Authority of Arians bring 's Arianism to Probability At present we do not only oppose the voice and vote of the Roman Catholick Church against this Plea But the Authority also of Graecians Abyssins and all other called Christians who with one vnanimous Consent decry Protestancy as improbable Compare therefore votes with votes Authority with Authority There is no Parallel For for one that defend's it you haue hundreds yea Thousands that Contradict the Nouelty Thus much is indisputably Euident if we precisely Consider Authority as it were in Abstracto or oppose the Votes of dissenting Parties against it But here is not all We must goe further And distinguish well between à bare Authority and a rational grounded Authority For this is an vndeniable Truth Reasonable Principles euer precede or are presupposed when Religion is pleaded for To the consequent Authority of those whether many or few that Teach or Profess it Hence all say If the first conuerted Iewes to Christianity Had not had most weighty Inducements proposed to reason before they deserted Iudaism and belieued in Christ The change had been most imprudent Nay all had been obliged as is proued in the 4. Chapter To hold on in that Profession still without Alteration So necessary it is to haue rational grounds laid firm in the Foundation of Religion before the Professors allow it either Moral certainty or so much as Probability Thus much premised 13. We draw Sectaries from all Self-Voting or further pleading by their own Authority And force them in this Contest if Sectaries drawn off their own Selfe voting Protestancy be defensible not to say but to proue by Principles distinct from their own bare votes These two Propositions 1. That God who is Truth it self And once laid his Truths the foundation of the Roman Catholick Church permitted that faithful Oracle to become Traiterous to teach Idolatry to tell the world loud Lies for à thousand yeares together And that all this happened when there was no other Orthodox Church on earth to vnbeguile Those poor deluded Christians The second Proposition to be proued is That these Millions of souls learned and vnlearned who firmly belieued this Church And dyed happily in it were All mad All Idolaters All besotted and seduced What the Sectary is to Prou◠by Fooleries And which is à Paradox aboue Expression That à knot of late vnknown Nouellists pretending to Reformation dare now attempt to teach men more learned than Themselues To make these supposed mad wise The Idolatrous Orthodox the besotted Reasonable The Seduced right in Faith again And that this was and is yet done vpon à meer proofles Supposition that we are mad and besotted which stand's on no Principles And for that reason is contradicted by the vast number of most knowing Catholicks And the whole Multitude of Christians Besides 14. When these two Propositions are made probable vpon good Principles Wee shall listen to our Sectaries Authority But if they fumble herein Only talk and proue nothing Wee reiect their vngrounded Authority And say The more votes they multiply without Proofs the less weight they haue You shall yet see how weightles Their Authority is might we here insist longer vpon one Matter of fact which ends all Controuersies In à word All know the great Controuersy between Protestants and Catholicks comes to this Whether they or we teach The difficulty proposed between Catholicks and Protestants Apostolical Doctrin Whether they or we lay forth the genuine sense of holy Scripture Neither Party saw or heard the Apostles Preach Neither pretend's now to Enthusiasms or priuate Reuelations concerning that Doctrin The whole cause therefore is to be tried and decided by Witnesses of foregoing Ages such Testimonies and Tradition must clear this Matter of fact A pretence to Scripture only without precedent lawful Pastors without Doctors without Witnesses teaching that sense and Doctrin which the one or other Party stand's for is here both vseles and impertinent If then The Protestant makes his Doctrin Apostolical His sense of Scripture Orthodox The Catholick replies Be pleased to giue in your last Euidence produce your Witnesses your Pastors And Doctors Four Ages since That taught as you teach And sensed Scripture as you sense it My Church add's the Catholick euidently demonstrates à continued succession of Her Pastors that taught as I belieue as shall be proued hereafter And shewes as clearly à Succesion of the same Doctrin and Faith with these Pastors Her Antiquity is vndoubted and her pleading Possession in preseruing the true Sense of Scripture and Apostolical Doctrin is as great as any King on earth can shew for the Possession of the Crown he weares Now saith the Catholick Wee examin your pedegree of Pastors and Doctors And after some few Ascents by à The first plead by Principles the others not Retrogradation come at last to the year 1517. There we find and most euidently à Luther or Caluin To be the first men in the world that professed Protestanism that interpreted Scripture as you interpret or owned your Religion With these late Runagates you must stop No man on earth can aduance or bring your Genealogy further Therefore to speak in the words of the Ancient Optatus Meliuitan Lib. 2. Contra Parmen At that time you were sons
And because it is here impossible to descend to all particular controuersies we will fall vpon one only much debated one serues for all Viz whether Transubstantiation or no Transubstantiation be Orthodox Doctrin The truth yet lies in darkness there is no Self-Euidence either in the Affirmatiue or Negatiue T' is yet no more but doubtful or à meer Perhaps whether the Protestants or we Speak Truth Gods reuelation which only can giue certainty is Where the difficulty lies yet obscure to vs both and as little euidenceth it Self as the Verity we enquire after By what means then can we raise our selues aboue this state of Doubting to so great à degree of certainty as to Say without fear Transubstantiation is Orthodox Doctrin And the contrary is not so 10. The Catholick to waue in this place other proofs recur's to his Church And saith this Publick euidenced Oracle as well raises him to à State of certainty for his Tenet as the euidenced Primitiue Church rais'd the first belieuing Christians from their doubts to Security For the like full euidence alwayes lead's to How the Catholick Peoceed's a like certainty of Belief The Protestant hauing reiected our present euidenced Church hopes well and will needs find flawes and falsity too in Her Doctrin not by confronting Her Euidence or denoting an other Church As ample as ancient as miraculous as She is which held his Doctrin for this though it should be pleaded if we come to à clear Decision is vnpleadable because the Protestant has no such Oracle What 's done therefore I 'll tell you and you may iustly wonder He shaks of this clear Principle of an euidenced Church and pretend's though there is no such matter to launch into the vast Ocean of Scripture Councils volumes of Fathers ancient Records and thinks The Sectary takes à Contrary way to carry on his cause this way Here He pick 's vp one dark Sentence of à Father and triumph's with that There on another Here vpon the least hint giuen he Snarles at one piece of Popery there at another Here he guesses and there he misses In à word the man is busily idle doth much and iust nothing run's on but is out of his way utterly lost without the guidance of God's euidenced Oracle which only can draw him out of the Labyrinth And if you Ask why he is out I Answer his Errour lies here that both in this and all other Controuersies he makes his false Suppositions to pass for proofs against euidence 11. You shall see what I here Assert Made Good To proue no Transubstantiation the Se ary read's Scripture Fathers Antiquity or what els you will Be it so He read's but not alone For the learned Catholick bear's him companie and read's also Mark now The One after his reading glosses so doth the other The One compares Passage with Passage so doth the other The One discourses So doth the other But when all is done and here lies the mischief the Protestant imposes one sense vpon the perused Testimonies and the Catholick another Which leaues him in State of doubting quite contrary This dayly Experience teaches viz. That we differ not so much about the words we read as about the sense of Scripture and Fathers Therefore this also is Euident That the Protestant aduances not his Doctrin if yet he get so high aboue the degree of guessing only whilst he pleads by his glossed Scripture and Fathers For as long as the Catholick wholly as learned and conscientious as He is and an ample Church besides opposes his far-fetch'd Sense out of the Fathers He cannot without Impudency and making à false Supposition to pass for his Proof cry it vp as certain Now further As the sense he drawes from Scripture and the Fathers is no more but at most doubtful I say improbable so his Assertion concerning no Transubstantiation or what euer els he holds contrary to the Roman Catholick faith is wholly as much wauering or purely doubtful But that which is only doubtful and no more is too weak What euer is doubtful grounds not Faith either to ground any Christian Tenet vpon or to Contrast with the Roman Catholick Church whose Doctrin is indisputably made euidently credible Therefore unless à weake Vncertainty can reuerse Euident Credibility the Sectaries Plea against the Church is not only improbable but highly improbable 12. To conclude this Point Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma It is possible to Denote and point at another Church which without dispute taught Protestant Doctrin and opposed ours as Ancient as large and euery way as Euidenced to sense and reason as the Roman Catholick Church is Or it is not possible If possible controuersies are strangely ended for proue A Dilemma me once such à Church I say plainly There is no such thing as true Faith in the world worthy defense Why Because if the Supposition hold's two different Churches euidenced à like equally as ancient as efficacious in Doctrin and glorious in Miracles clash with one another Say and Vnsay approue and condemn The one condemn's Protestancy The other Popery One will haue Transubstantiation belieued The other not which is as wholly destructiue of Christian Faith as if Scripture it self should plainly Speak Contradictions 13. On the other side If the Sectary can neither name nor point at à Chutch euery way as euidenced as the Roman Catholick No euidenced Protestant Church no pleading for Protestancy which expresly propugned Protestancy and opposed Popery He shall neuer utter probable word against any one Article of our Catholick Faith For throw an euidenced Protestant Church out of the world All that is allegable in behalfe of its Doctrin or against vs will either End in à slight discharge of à few scattered vnweighed Sentences of holy Fathers no sooner read than Answered or as we dayly Experience in gross Mistakes and bold Calumnies laid on our Doctrin And can these think ye extinguish the visible Lustre of our Chureh can these lessen the euident Credibility of Her Doctrin or bring so known and owned an Oracle into open disgrace or publick Disreputation It is impossible The most vigorous Abbettors of Protestancy may not only blush to Assert it but will be bafled did we once liue to see the happy day when our iust cause might be proposed and heard in à Publick Dispute before Learned and impartial Iudges A VVord of Mr Thorndiks Mistakes discouered in His Book of Forbearance 14. Though I Honour Mr Thorndick and hold him much more wise Learned and moderate then some late voluminous Writers haue been yet because Truth will out I must not dissemble but Speak truth And therefore Say in à word His whole attempt against the Roman Catholick Church is weake And the feebleness of it Cannot but appear to euery Reader that penetrat's the force of the Principles already established My wish indeed was to haue Vnderstood his meaning better in some particular passages For
She euer holdâ— Idem Epist. ad Corne. She is à pure Virgin in Faith and cannot be deceiued or seduced nor ouercome with any Violence being vpheld by Her Virginal integrity Fulgent Epist ad Probum Cap. 5. Her Faâ—â— is inuincible euen to the Powers of Hell Euseb Caesar Praepar E 〈…〉 g. â—ib 1. C. 3. If any fear to be deceiued by the obscurity of à Question let him Consult that Church concerning it which the Scripture Demonstrat's without any ambiguity S. Austin lib. Contra Crescon C. 33. What think ye Is not the Churches Immunity from Errour clearly established No say Sectaries For though we cannot confront these Passages of Scripture and Fathers with others as significant for our Plea of Fallibility Yet we do and must deny Their plain Sense We do and must say The Roman Church has been adulterated otherwise we are Schismatic'ks We must Sectaries deny all or must own themselues Schismatiks say that though once pure She lost what she had receiued And therefore is now no Virgin but à Harlot VVe must Say Her Faith is Vincible That it is not safe to consult Her in dubious Matters for She can return no better Answer than what is fallible and may be false Thus Sectaries 12. Hence it followes first That our great supposed Representatiue made vp of Protestants Catholicks and all other called Christians stand 's without redress in an open Rebellion in à publick Hostility with it Self And consequently taken in its whole Latitude is not Christ's Church Because the Church of Christ is essentially founded in Vnity This supposed Representatiue torn as you see in pieces with intestine Diuisions is not one And therefore most desolate For Omne regnum diuisum in se desolabitur And here by the way I take leaue to tell Sectaries T' is but Folly to talk as They doe of à Catholick Church wider than the Roman Or of à lawful Representatiue possibly to be conuened in Vnity out of the Body of all named Christians For as such à Church considered Two Mistakes of Sestaries in the largest Extent which stands diuided in Faith is not Orthodox So such an assembled Council made vp of so many iarring Belieuers considered vnder that notion of Hostility and Rebellion can be no legitimate Council The reason is Christ neuer owned à Church professing more Faiths than one nor lawful Councils consisting of other Members than Orthodox Christians You will then say Hereticks are not to What Hereticks haue to doe in Councils â—e admitted into Councils lawfully called I Answer they are admitted but how Freely to dispute not to Teach to propose difficulties but not to Regulate Faith to acquiese in the Churches Definitions but not to define remaining Hereticks 13. You see 2. That à Church fallible in Her Definitions concerning Faith vainly attempt's to reclaim Infidels and Hereticks from their Errours Wherefore the Nicene Fathers Condemnation of Arius might haue been iustly excepted against and pleaded reuersable vpon this ground That what they defined because fallible might be as far from Truth as the very Errours they Censured and defined against Nay I say more If that Council was then fallible it lies yet at the mercy not only of Arians but of all Christians at this day to admit or reiect the Nicene Censure or rather if Prudence haue place to suspend Strange sequels if the Church be fallible their Iudgements and say no man knowes what to belieue Into such darkness vpon such Hazard and indifferency Christians are cast if God's Church or that Council could err One instance may giue you some light 14. Imagin à Heathen at that time when Arianism seemed prosperous and carried much vogue in the East well inclined to embrace Christian Religion VVithall Suppose the man firmly setled in this Iudgement That Catholick Religion much resembling Arianism was so fallible that both the one and other might be false Say I beseech you How indifferent would this Iudgement haue made the Heathen to either Religion Nay would it not had interest swayed neuer so little haue drawn him more to Arianism Yes most assuredly For thus he might haue discoursed and prudently VVhat they call Catholick Religion How the Heathâ—n discourses and Arianism are much alike both fallible both may be false My Interest now when Arianism flourishes carries me thither T' is true I meet there with fallible Doctrin which may be false God knowes how things are but the mischief is I can find no better amongst Catholicks nor in any other Society of Christians Now if all I can learn be no better but fallible and perhaps false Doctrin too I may as well learn that from the Arians as from Catholicks or rather ought to suspect all Christian Religion of Errour because none of that Profession And Concludes against à fallible Religion can assure me infallibly what God has Said But such Doctors saith the Heathen who may as easily teach me to iniure an Infinit Verity and ascribe that to God he neuer reuealed as lead me to acquiesce in his reuealed truths were any such truths in being deserue no Credit Therefore I neither can nor will belieue any thing 15. Before we make à further Step to one or two Propositions which decide this Controuersy à few difficulties are to be cleared against the precedent Discourse One is Hostility ceases in the ample Council now mentioned would all which is easy Agree in one Truth That Christs Church is infallible in Fundamentals only or fundamentals simply necessary to Saluation Answ This is to say If that were done which neuer was nor can be done à Reunion followes Alas it is not yet agreed on by all nor euer will be vnless some quit their Errours One obiection answered which and where Christs true Church is It is not yet nor can be agreed on How many or few these fundamentals are For though Catholicks and Protestants Vnite in à belief of the Trinity and call that à Fundamental Article The Arians stand out and Hostility ceases not but encreases by the Sectaries Means oppose both The means then here thought of is so far from establishing Vnion that it increases Diuision And so it will euer fall out whilst à Church of one Denomination is not acknowledged infallible in euery Doctrin She teaches and obliges Christians to belieue vnder pain of Damnation Se more hereof aboue Chap. 5. n. 5. 16. A. 2. Obiection Dissentions in Councils witness those at Basil and Florence or the Access of Hereticks cannot lessen their Power or Anull their Definitions Therefore our Plea taken from the Hostility in à most ample Council Euinces nothing Answ I grant the Antecedent and say Though Heretiques and dissenting Christians meet together yea Though some too busily aduance opinions dissonant to truth and Orthodox Doctrin Yet God's gracious and watchful Prouidence which drawes good out of Euil And often conuert's War into Peace will with all Assurance effect that such Ã
least When difficulties arise Exception I say therefore to proue what I sayd aboue If Church and Councils can err notoriously There is no means left on earth either to discouer the Errours or to amend them 7. The Assertion will be proued by sifting this one Point to the Bottom And Much light will be had if we leaue Generalities One Point Examined wherin Sectaries alwaies lurk and descend to particulars Or lay forth the nature of some imaginable Errours Call then These if any be horrid and intolerable 8. To teach there is no God no Christ no Redeemer no Saluation I Ask whether the Councils in Gods Church can err thus grosly The Nature of horrid Errours or are so secured by Diuine Assistance as not to Define such vast Absurdities If it be Answered They are so far at least preserued infallible I clearly Infer No man can exclude à total infallibility from Councils If it be Answered Possibly they may err in this Damnable manner I infer Again Ergo Possibly Councils Church and all Christians may vtterly desert Christ become Atheists Turks Iewes Diuels or what els you will that naught is Can this also be granted 9. One may reply it is indeed possible yet will neuer be Câ—ntra Who hinders the Mischief I beseech you if the Supposition may stand The Roman Catholick Church Say Sectaries is already Idolatrous and long since was Antichristian when some English Protestants made the Pope Antichrist The Church accused of intolerable Errours Why then may not Atheism Iudaism and Turcism infect likewise the Whole Moral Body of Christians and Destroy both Church and Councils Grant this Possible there can be no more talk of after-Councils correcting the former erroneous For the Church is now Destroyed Christ our Lord must please to appear again or send some great Prophet to establish à new Church more firm than the other was now ruined or we are lest desolate vtterly Churchles 10. I am verily perswaded our Aduersaries will think twice on 't before they once grant these horrid Consequences and therefore must needs make the Supposed Euident intolerable errours not altogether so abominable but less or of à lower rank yet euident and intolerable Remember that And what may these A question proposed to Sectaries be think ye I would fain know whether any such foul Doctrins have been euer taught de facto or because Councils are Supposed fallible whether they yet remain in à State of possibility and only may be Taught If it be Said they are not actual but only possible Or may be intolerable hereafter And Sectaries vpon that Account abandon the Roman Catholick Church Their Sin is now actual and more horrid than such Concerning these Supposed Errours Actual or Possible Errours are Because They desert à Church vpon supposed faults which only may be yet neuer were hitherto Now if for à meer Possibility of falsities neuer yet actually Discouered nor known The Roman Church is to be quitted Protestants ought to forsake Their own Religion For they are all liable to Errour Yea And may well hang vp the most Innocent man in the world vpon this score That he may be à thiefe Though as yet he neuer Stole any thing 11. The Errours therefore if we Discourse rationally hitherto pretended against vs are not in à meer State of Possibility None Condemned for Errours which Possibly may be But Actual Euident and intolerable We inquire after them And still proceed vpon this wretched Supposition that both Church and Council are fallible or haue erred When Enuy has done its Vtmost you only can get à List of these or the like Supposed Falshoods Praying to Saints The Real Presence Worshiping of Images Transubstantiation or some thing of this nature which Catholicks maintain Now truely it is more than extrauagant and I know not with what Conscience Sectaries do it to Decry these as Euident and intolerable Errours whilst à whole learned Church defends them as Truths 12. What Saith Mr Hooker Is the mind so forced that after à full Proposal it cannot chuse but inwardly Assent to All as euident Errours Toyes Trifles Millions as we now Sectaries in consequencies sayd own them as Apostolical Verities 2. If Euident and intolerable they strike at such Verities as Sectaries call the fundamentals of Faith And consequently the Roman Church which maintains them has been Vnorthodox in fundamentals for à thousand years and more Will this be granted Grant or deny here is an vnanswerable Dilemma They are fundamental Errours in our Sectaries sense destructive of Diuine Faith or not If not but only smaller matters Protestants Oblige themselues to forbear and to expect the Churches Good pleasure vntil some other Council meet 's and Reuerses what 's Amiss Their Clamours therefore against the Churches Doctrin now are vnauthorised and most illegal by their own Principles Nor haue they Power as is confessed to Reform themselues in lesser matters but only in things of à higher Concern Euident and intolerable 13. Now if they be of this nature and consequently fundamental A clear Inference against Sectaries Absurdities against Faith It followes that there was no Church right in fundamentals the whole world ouer for ten Ages before Luther Not the Roman if the Supposition hold's Nor any other Society of Christians for all those name whom you will were more deeply plunged into fundamental Errours 3. And T' is the chiefest thing I aime at If Church and Councils be owned fallible can err or haue erred Our Aduersaries Supposition of Errours Euident and intolerable is purely chimerical And therefore I said iust now None can know them as such and consequently no Power on earth can amend them I proue the Assertion 14. First they cannot be known as euident or manifest Intolerable Errours cannot be proued against the Church without Principles as clear as the Errours are Supposed to be which therefore must be so indisputable That the mind inwardly Assent's to them as Mr Hooker Saith A weaker light as Probability or à miscalled Moral Certainty beget's Euidence in none Now here we Vrge our Aduersaries to bring to Light but one or more clear Principles whereby it may manifestly appear that Transubstantiation or any other Catholick Doctrin is so manifest à Falshood That the mind conquered By any thing like à Principle and conuicted with the Euidence cannot chuse but decry it as intolerable Whither will these men run for Principles To Scripture it 's euidently abused by the one or other Party but who is in fault You will say That 's yet disputable therefore fâ—r of from Euidence Church and Councils supposed errable and erroneous cannot tell you nor giue in euidence against him or them that abuse Scripture Whither next To the Fathers All are fallible and their Sense â—n controuerted matters is made so intricate when you hear Them glossed by the Protestant and vnglossed by the Catholick that you would Swear they speak
antecedent Assent to this Proposition That what soeuer those Dort-men taught is true Doctrin before you own it as true Ascertain vs of thus much And you solue your own difficulty If this Instance please not make vse of another Your Ministers in England pretend to teach true Doctrin though not infallibly Say only vpon what antecedent Proposition the Truth of their Doctrin is assented to by all before it be belieued as true and we shall without labour Answer in behalf of our infallible Doctrin 16. In à word thus Catholicks plead This generall Proposition is to be assented to as both true and infallible Viz. All And clearly solued are obliged to Hear and Belieue the Pastors of God's Church when Lawsully Commissioned to teach in God's name and as the Orthodox Church teaches Here is the Thesis or the vniuersal receiued Proposition But these Pastors and Doctors when assembled in Council are still Pastors of the Church and lawfully commissioned to teach in God's name both true and infallible Doctrin Therefore they are to be heard and belieued in all and euery Definition proceeding from that Assembly lawfully conuened Here you haue the Hypothâ—sis as indubitably certain as the Thesis 17. A second Obiection you meet with in his Page 509. Another Obiection retorted and Solued What infallible Testimony haue you he means Catholicks for this that Councils are Infallible It is not enough for you to say That the Testimonies of Scripture you produce are an Infallible Testimony for it For that were to make the Scripture the sole Iudge of this great Controuersy which you deny to be the sole Iudge of any I first retort the Argument and Ask. What Testimony haue you Sectaries I do not say Infallible But so much as seemingly probable taken from Scripture whereby Councils the greatest Representatiues in God's Church are made fallible Not one can be alleged 18. Now my Answer briefly is Scripture once admitted for God's word which our Aduersaries will not reflect on manifestly The Catholick Principles for Infallibility conuinceth the Churches infallibility To those express and significant Passages of holy Writ known to euery one The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth you haue them already We add the iudgement of Fathers cited aboue The guide of Controuersies C. 3. P. 147. Produces more Besides Gods Church which we hold an Infallible Oracle interpret's Scripture to this sense and here are our aboundantly full Principles for Her Infallibility Come you Sr now closely to the point confront vs if you can with as many Passages of Scripture as many Testimonies of Fathers Or and this we alwayes vrge with the Authority of any Orthodox Church which fauours your contrary Tenet of Fallibility The Strife is ended But hereof there is no fear at all And thus you se how Scripture is the Iudge Sectaries haue none for their Tenet when once admitted as Diuine and faithfully interpreted not otherwise 19. A. 3. Obiection Page 509. The Decree or Definition of à Council receiues Infallibility from the Council before the A third weak obiection retorted Pope confirm's it or not If not The whole infallibility resides in the Pope and this some Say is not de Fide vniuersali If it arise from the Council before the Pope confirm's it for that act of confirmation followes the Definition the Council is infallible antecedently to the Popes Confirmation I first retort the Argument An Act of Parlament or à law made for all receiues its force from the Conuened Members before his Maiesty Confirm's it or not If not The whole Power of making such à Law resides in His Maiesty which some will say is not so If it arise ftom the Parlament before His Maiesty Confirm's it and that Confirmation followes the Act The Parlament is impowr'd to make such Lawes before His Royal. Assent Confirm's them Here is the very same Form of arguing though in à different matter and you se the weaknes of it 20. The true Answer to the Obiection is as followes Euery Doctrin definable may be considered two wayes first as it Proceed's from God the most supreme Verity and vnder that Notion it is both true and infallible in it self before the pope and Council Define it And note they can Define no other Doctrin And solued on earth but what God ratifies in Heauen 2. It may be considered as the Doctrin of the Representatiue Church infallibly Assisted to teach Diuine truths And vnder that Notion it is called Church Doctrin proceeding from the Head and Members of one mystical Body The Head therefore Separated or solely taken Defines not in Councils The Members diuided from the Head define not But one and the same Definition proceed's ioyntly from both Head and members vnited together The Instance already hinted at giues light enough If any reply The Definition when the Council proposed it was both true and infallible Doctrin I distinguish the Proposition It might be then Certain Euery Doctrin true in it selfe is not therefore Church Doctrin and infallible Doctrin in it self that 's true but as yet it is neither known or owned as such or called Church Doctrin It was then the whole Councils or Churches true and infallible Doctrin I deny it This is founded vpon both Pope and Council infallibly assisted as is now supposed and already proued 21. I find no more in Mr Stillingfleet worth any notice That which followes in his Page 510. ouerthrowes all councils Other Obiections waued as impertinent or proues nothing What certainty haue you Saith he that this or that Council proceeded lawfully That the Bishops were lawful Bishops That the Pope who confirm's them was à lawful Pope That some By-ends or Interest swayed not many That all conditions were exactly performed c. I Answer first and Ask. What certainty haue you of any illegal Bishops of vnlawful Popes of Interest Swaying all Here because you accuse we put you to the Proof I Answer 2. That Certainty which you or any has of no By ends in the four first general Councils of their lawful Bishops of no interest swayng c. The same we haue of all the approued Councils in Gods Church To insist further vpon such saint Obiections is only to lose time or might one retaliate in Mr Stillingfleets own language meerly to kill flies to run after them and make sport with them And thus much of the Churches Infallibility I mean the Roman Apostolical Catholick Church to whose Censure and infallible Iudgement I do most willingly submit my Selfe and euery particular in this Treatise THE THIRD DISCOVRSSE OF The Resolution of Faith THe subiect here hinted at is as all Shollers know very Speculatiue Terms according to my little Skill in the English Tongue often Fail to express what is necessary Wonder not therefore if now and then you meet with that which may seem Obscure to à Vulgar Reader My Endeauour Shall be to giue the Discourse so much Light as
which only induce to belieue So the Primitiue Christians belieued vpon Christ's A Mistake in the Obiection infallible Testimony and built not their Faith vpon the exteriour Motiues Euident to Sense which meerly considered as Motiues only made his Testimony highly credible to Reason Viz. One Instance which none can boggle at That it was Diuine and infallible For example Some saw Others heard of our sauiours great Miracles of his admirable Sanctity And then discoursed The Man that doth these wonders cannot but be one sent from God It is true he preaches both new and difficult Doctrin to our eares But if he be sent from God we are obliged to Belieue him vpon his word And vpon that Word Their Faith relyed 9. Apply this Instance to the Church you haue all I would Say The Church is euidenced by Miracles Sanctity of life in Millions by Conuersions and the like signal Motiues Here are the Inducements which proue Her Gods Oracle and Clears all the Doctrin highly credible aboue what euer all other Societies called Christians haue Taught Yet our Faith is not built vpon these Motiues considered as Inducements but vpon Her infallible Testimony The Instance now giuen Concerning the most Primitiue Belieuers is so clear That our Aduersaries shall neuer weaken the force of it or shew the least Disparity 10. And thus you se all Mr Stillingfleets talk P. 113 Comes to nothing I desire Saith he to know whether an infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church can be grounded on those Motiues of Credibility Answ And I desire to know whether an A Question answered and retorted Infallible Assent to the Apostles Preaching was grounded on those Motiues which the Primitiue Christians saw or heard of before they belieued what you say I 'll say Briefly Many learned Diuines hold the Motiues of Credibility Metaphysically connexed with Gods diuine Testimony speaking by the Church and if that opinion be true the Motiues ground an Infallible Shewed also impertinent Assent but that 's Euidence and no Faith And therefore most impertinent to your following Inference If say you we affirm the Motiues ground an Infallible Assent there can be no imaginable necessity to make the Testimony of our Church infallible in order to Diuine faith For we Catholicks you hope will not deny but that there are at least equal Motiues of Credibility to proue the Diuine Authority of the Scriptures as the infallibility of our Church And if so why may not an Infallible assent be giuen to the Scriptures vpon those Motiues of Credibility as well as to our Churches infallibility Answ A strange kind of Argument 11. First Sir you know or should know Catholicks hold with S. Austin That no certainty can be had of Scripture without Church Authority How then do you say You hope we will not deny c No Motiues as is proued aboue and in the other Treatise also immediatly make Scripture Credible independently of the Churches Tradition No Miracles were euer heard of No Motiues make Scripture euidently credible which proued the book of Ruth admitted by you more Canonical Scripture than that of Iudith which you reiect Did any Martyr euer yet dye in defence of Salomons Canticle that 's Scripture say you and refuse to dye for the Book of Wsdom cast out of your Canon Or was euer any soul sooner conuerted by reading the One than the other These Miracles Sr these Martyrdoms these Conuersions immediatly illustrate the Church and proue not à Part only but Her whole Doctrin to be Independently of Church Authority most Euidently Credible and worthy of belief whilst you se your Signs of Diuinity and no man knowes what imagined motiues in behalf of Scripture as little Euidence the Books you admit as those you reiect That is neither indeed haue any Self-Euidence in them abstracting from Church Authority Your Euidence therefore is à strong fancy and nothing els 12. But admit one had Euident Motiues for the whole Canon or bare letter of Scripture you haue not any so much as probable for the Sense chiefly in Controuerted matters which properly is God's Reuelation without the Churches infallible Interpretation Speak Sr your Conscience plainly What can it auaile you or me to know that the Book we read is God's No Motiues for the Scriptures Sense word Seing innumerable false Religions by peruerse Misinterpretations are drawn from thence if that other Principle Deus â—â— dixit God or Truth it self speaks This and this particular Sense lies in darkness concealed from vs. This Principle then God speak's this Sense being the very vltimate Resoluent and last foundation of Christian Faith must when that Sense is Obscure borrow light from no dark mistaken fallible or doubtful Orade But the bare letter of Scripture is dark and grosly mistaken by Heretiques mans priuate Iudgement is fallible our comparing the Scriptures Passages together is meerly Coniectural and dubious Therefore if the certitude of Faith must rely vpon VVithout the Churches Infallible interpretation what God has spoken I mean the infallible Sense of his sacred word The Oracle which interpret's can be no other but an Infallible Church And here I both Petition and vrge Sectaries to assign any other Surer Ground where vpon Faith can be built seing all confess we are obliged to belieue that Infallible sense chiefly in matters they call Fundamental This Argument alone could we say no more forceth euery rational man to own à Church absolutely infallible in Her exposition of Scripture 13. From whence also it followes first that Mr Stillingfleet much mistakes Himself when he Saith Both sides I hope agree Our Aduersary mistaken that there are sufficient Motiues of Credibility as to the belief of Scriptures I answer There is not one firm Motiue for the true reuealed Sense and this only is Scripture if we exclude Tradition and the infallible Interpretation of Gods Church Bring to light but one and I am satisfyed 14. It followes 2. That that half Tradition owned by Sectaries in order to the conueyance and deliuery of the Books of Scripture leaues them wholly Scriptureles and as Faithles The halfe Tradition for the barc letter as if they had no Bible For it neither grounds faith immediatly because it is not God's Reuelation but the fallible Consent of men Nor can it induce as à Motiue to belieue any one particular Article of Christian Religion without further certitude had from the same Churches infallible Tradition and interpretation Not sufficient concerning that most weighty Point of the Scriptures meaning Reiect therefore this infallible Interpreter All of vs iust like Arians Macedonians Donatists desperatly rely vpon the worst Guides Imaginable our own fallacious and vngouernable fancies and will needs learn of such giddy Teachers the pure interpretation of God's Word These we make our Oracles in lieu of Christs Church and in doing so may easily ascribe to God à Doctrin he disdain's to own and
Infallible then those first Masters of Christianity were Wherefore Mr Stillingfleet is constrained whether he will or no if he giues in any thing like Euidence to make vse of these good mute things the Motiues of Credibility which he scornfully call's Coleworts too often serued vp or shall neuer proue that God once said The Diuine word is made flesh Which is to Say He must first euidence à Church before he Proues those words Diuine 40. It may be replyed His Euidence for the whole Book of Scripture and euery particular sentence in it is taken from the fallible Tradition of all called Christians and others also no Christians I Say fallible For he owns none Diuine or Infallible Tallible Tradition no sufficient Euidence Contra. 1. The Scripture was acknowledged Diuine before men agreed so vniuersally that it was Diuine Tradition therefore which is rather an Effect of our Christian Beliefe concerning Scripture then à proof of it presupposes some other more clear foregoing Euidence whereby the Book was anciently owned as Diuine This we enquire after and very reasonably because the Chineses haue à vniuersal Tradition for their Bible and the Turks for their Alcoran one also general yet such à humane fallible and weak Tradition proues not those Books to be Diuine Contra. 2. And here is an An Argument ad hominem Argument ad Hominem If Mr Stillingfleet belieues the Testimonies of Scripture Infallible vpon fallible Tradition which may be false he makes his Conclusion concerning the belief of euery Passage in Holy Writ far more sure then the Premises are which lead in the Conclusion And this Doctrin he reiect's aboue as improbable Contra. 3. He has neither vniuersal Sectaries haue no vniuersal fallible tradition for their Seripture Tradition for the Protestants Canon of Scripture disowned by more then half of the Christian world much lesse for its true Sense wherein dissenting Christians so much vary that none of them all can Say vpon humane or fallible Tradition what the true meaning of the Holy Ghost is and consequently this very Tradition as also Mr Stillingfleets double Resolution of Faith into the Books of Scripture and into the Doctrin or Sense come iust to nothing 41. Page 158. He Argues the whole Church consist's of men subiect to errour That is All the Parts are liable to mistake Ergo the whole Church cannot possibly be infallible A faslacious Obiection Solued in and of it selfe Answ Lay open these couered Terms In and Of it selfe The Argument loses force I Say therefore Men meerly considered as nature has made them fallible in order to belieue Supernaturally haue In and Of themselues no immunity from errour yet taken vnder another Notion as they constitute à Church they are infallible That is There was is and will euer be à Church Teaching and à Church Taught Infallible So that all shall neuer err in Faith You may easily reioyn This or that man these or those Multitudes may wilfully abandon Christ's Doctrin Too true God knows And if so They are no more members of the Church but Heretiques or Infidels Again If you run Some may err All the Church cannot ouer the rest of Christians remaining Orthodox whether Pastors or People and Say these may also fall from Faith I Answer Some may All cannot because God has promised euer to preserue à Church in Being I mean faithful Teachers and faithful Belieuers to the end of the world And must not Sectaries acknowledge thus much who hold à Church infallible in Fundamentals which vpon that account cannot wholly err 42. Mr Stillingfleet Answer 's Though the Authority of the whole Church be not Diuine yet she cannot err in Fundamentals because she is tyed to the vse of means Say Good Sir who tyes Her to this infa 〈…〉 ble vse of Mean's if the whole Moral Body and euery Member of it be fallible Grant that God by his special Assistance ties Her fast She is for that reason infallible and must Vse the means Take from Her diuine Assistance and Say She is only guided by the erring Conceptions of fallible men She may easily swerue from the Means and reuolt from Christ And thus the fallacy is cleared You The fallacy discouerid Sr Suppose the Infallibility must be taken from the right vse of means whercas the contrary is true Viz. Therefore Sâ—e rightly vses the means because She is antecedently preserued infallible by Diuine Assistance You suppose again that all the Parts of this They rightly vse the Means because antecedently made Infallible Assisted Church are fallible And we Say no For as long as they continue members of it So long as the Pastors lawfully commissioned teach in Christ's name and the faithful belieue their infallible Doctrin There will be euer such à Church on earth So long they are all infallible If any fall from Faith whether few or many These eo ipso cease to be Members of this Mystical Body yet the Church fail's not for the failing of some infer's not à possible Failure in all The want of this Distinction caused your errour 43. And thus hauing remoued such weak difficulties out of the way thought great ones in that 5th chapter which to an Difficulties remoued we proceed to the Resolution an vnwary Reader may seem to Obstruct the Catholick Resolution of Faith We will in the following Discourse first Premise some Principles much auailing to conceiue the easiest Resolution and next declare where the chiefest difficulty lies which Mr Stillingf has not done and finally endeauour to solue it without the least danger of any vicious Circle Afterward we shall proue that Protestants haue no Faith at all to resolue CHAP. VII Necessary Principles premised to the Resolution of Faith God can Speak in à Language proper to Himselfe His external language is twofold VVhen God speaks not immediatly He must be heard by his Oracle VVhat the exact Resolution of Faith implyes 1. THe first Principle God who is an Infinite verity and speak's not to stones can by à Diuine Language proper to himselfe so make his interiour mind and sincere God's proper language meaning known to rational creatures that all vpon hearing His voyce may without hesitation indubitably Say Thus God Iudges this be Speak's which granted All are obliged both readily and firmly to yeild assent to so great à Maiesty for his own Authority Known to all The reason hereof is clear If God can speak to Mortals and for this end that he be vnderstood there arises an obligation in euery one to belieue him without fear or doubt Or in case it be impossible after all humane industry vsed to learn what he speak's none can absolutely belieue him 2. A. 2. Principle Then and not otherwise this external Language is certainly known to come from God when it is spoken in his name and so fairely appear's by its own Signatures Lustre and Wonders to proceed from him That all must confess
as the Apostolical Church was made glorious withall Therefore Reason cannot but acknowledge that this Oracle euer since these first blessed Men preached is the only Marked and Manifested Church in the world Deny the Euidence we Propugn it s own Sensibility and Visibility Obuious to all that haue Eyes to see or Eares to hear is our Proof And because it stand's vpon clear Principles both Sensible and Visible we do here Challenge all the Heathens all the Iewes and all the Sectaries in the world to bring to light any thing The Euidence because Sensible iâ— vndeniable like it in behalf of that they call Religion But there is no fear hereof For such an Attempt would be desperate yea vtterly impossible 6. Now if on the other side the Euidence here pleaded be granted the Church Wee haue our Intent For this Principle If granted we haue our Intent stand's firm Where God preserues the same Euidence of Credibility VVhere He set's before all the legible Characters the Publick Signatures of his own Power and wisdom There Reason cannot but acquiesce By such lights and no other it must be guided and take direction to find out Truth Vpon these Grounds 7. I Say lastly True Religion is easily discouered by Obuious By what Reason true Religion is found reason And in this sense Reason Regulat's Faith but. know withall That that Mans Reason only is reasonable in this weighty matter which has for its Obiect the Signal Marks of an Infinite Power and Wisdom now hinted at and Argues by them Whoeuer therefore makes choise of Religion and is not induced to belieue by these publick Indications which Heauen True and misled Reason distinguished manifest's err's grosly is seduced and Iudges falsly And thus we distinguish between false and true Reason The misled discoursing Man makes his own formal Act Reason whilst he pitches on à Doctrin and auouches that reasonable before he knowes by any rational Motiue whether God be Author of it or no. So Sectaries proceed in euery thing they belieue as Protestants Contrarywise One that 's guided by right and prudent Reason See's before He belieues Scio cui credidi that weighty Obiectiue Euidence whereby Millions haue been gained to Christ Hence I Say As that Man only belieues with Diuine Faith who Assent's vnto what God has Reuealed So He only followes Whâ—t bose are that follow reason in points of Faith true reason who is induced to belieue vpon God's own Euidence laid forth to Reason For I hold this Principle indubitable The Author of Religion giues it also à rational Euidence of Credibility Whoeuer followes not that Light run's astray and cannot belieue 8. By all hitherto noted wee may yet more clearly Discouer what is meant by this word Reason in our present Controuersy Briefly it imports as is already said an Intellectual light grounded By all sayd we better vnderstand what is meant by Reason vpon the Euidence of Supernatural Motiues which God from the beginning of Christianity hath manifested to euery rational Vnderstanding and by it induced the wisest of the world to become Orthodox Christians 9. A second Inference By this easy obuious Rule of Reason grounded vpon rational Motiues All Controuersies relating to Religion are clearly ended For find me out the forementioned Euidence of Credibility Those signal Marks I mean of an Infinite Power and Wisdom We haue with them the manifested Oracle whereby God Speaks to the world Now whoeuer refuses to hear God's own Language spoken by such an Controuâ—rsies ended by reason Oracle is of necessity thrown into à State of perplexity For thus if reason regulates he must Discourse Shall I deny this Euidence of Miracles of Conuersions of Vniuersallity to the Roman Catholick Church I deny that which the whole world How Reason discourses in this matter of Religion owns and is visible to Sense Shall I grant all and Say its forceless or infufficient to induce to belieue that Oracle I Destroy the rational Euidence of Christianity yea of the Apostles Themselues And cannot belieue either Prophet or Apostle were such Messengers sent now from Heauen to teach me For no particular Prophet no Apostle euer shewed the like full Euidence of Credibility as this one Oracle has manifested to the world for fixteen Ages 10. A. 3. Inference Sectaries neuer yet took nor can Sectaries follow no probable way of ending Controuersies take the easy right and Reasonable way of writing much less of Ending Controuersies This one Principle proues the Assertion As the Truth of Christian Doctrin stand's firm when an Euidenced Church teaches it So by the Nullity of an Euidenced Church you may in this present State easily gather the vncertainty and falshood of any Doctrin taught Contrary to that Oracle But most euidently Sectaries haue no Euidenced Church which euer taught their Doctrin or opposed ours Therefore they are impossibilitated to write much more to The Reason why they cannot follow any short easy or rational way of ending Controuersies by an Euidenced Oracle which yet as St Austin cited aboue against the Donatists saith is in the first place to be found out This found by her Marks and Signatures And Digito demonstrari potest Adds the Holy Doctor its pointed out with your Finger all further Contest ceases or might we speak in Cardinal de Riclelieu's own words lately quoted Seems little profitable because The true Church cannot but Ascertain all of true Doctrin 11. Hence you haue à 4th Inference Sectaries who in all their quarrelling Polemicks Still insist vpon particular Controuersies The Real presence Transubstantiation The worshiping of Images c. And dare not so much as offer to haue their Protestancy Sectaries make known the weaknes of their own cause tryed by the Iudgement of any Euidenced Orthodox Church Publish to the world the weaknes of their vndefensible Cause and plainly giue ouer to plead by Reason 12. I 'll tell you à Story for the substance very true concerning à Discourse between à Pert Nouellist and à Catholick The first would needs debate the Controuersy of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Catholick though Sectaries manting an Euidenced Church not very learned yet of à good Iudgement willing to see some effect of the Conference prudently demanded vpon what Grounds the Dispute was to be held on and finally ended The other replied vpon Scripture But said the Catholick what shall be done If you and I agree not about the Sense of Scripture Nouellist We are if things be so to Appeal to the Fathers Catho But what if we vary as much about the Sense of Fathers as about Scripture Nouellist Wee are then to recurr to the Primitiue Church and examin what Doctrin are driuen off all grounds of Arguing She deliuered relating to our Question in those purer times Catho O Sr Wee are yet in Darkness farr off from the last sound Principle For how shall you and I
was The same Christian Church as before the Reformation Hauing lost nothing that made it so And if you Obiect The Church in How our Aduersaries Shuffle England before Luther was certainly Popish now its Protestant Ergo it is not the same Church They Answer and vow it to be the very same though it ceased to hold Popery 20. Much might be said against these meer Empty words I 'll here only entertain you with two Reflections vpon the whole Paralogism First it makes the worst of Heresies defensible For might not Arius haue pleaded in like manner My Church They make the worst of Heresies defensible is where it was besore The very same Christian Society though changed into Arianism as the ancient Religion in England now is into Protestanism So also the Pelagians The Macedonians and all other Heretiques could haue Argued excepting perhaps à few Donatists who confined the whole Church to their little Part in Affrick Again As the Thing is reformed it passes with Protestants for à Part of the Catholick Church Therefore as reformed it s supposed à Piece of Reasonable Religion Sectaries And their Reformation vnreasonable pretend not to an vnreasonable Reformation And i' ft be So before the Professors of it talk of the Truth of this Reformation They are obliged to make it Credible by such Miracles Signes and wonders as an Infinite Power and VVisdom and no other Proposes to Reason But all is contrary They begin Becauss strip't of all rational Motiues and bring in à Reformation so naked and strip't of rational Motiues that none can Say God himselfe declares it reasonable by any Signature which may bee esteemed an effect of his Power and Wisdom Or in à word Supernatural 21. And here in passing You haue the true Reason why Sectaries in their Polemicks keep close to the Procedure of all condemned Hereticks The Arians for Example neuer Sectaries follow the strain of Condemned Hereticks went about to giue Reason the least Satisfaction in behalfe of their Rupture made with the Church but leauing that Rational way pleaded by Scripture So do Protestants Before they had Shown any thing like à rational Euidence of Credibility to countenance that shameful Diuorce They voted it Iust So do Protestants Wauing the Ancient Sense of Scripture receiued by the Church they glossed it after their fashion So do Protestants Tradition that strong Tenure whereby the Church hold's Her best Inheritance or Deriues Christ's Doctrin down from Age No Motiues Proposed to Reason to Age The Arians slighted And so do Protestants But All this while though we earnestly wish to hear of Motiues proposed to Reason whereby this Reformation may be made Credible we are turnd off with meer Talk And neuer yet heard or shall hear os more Euidence for That than the worst of Arians can allege for Arianism Wherefore I conclude Protestancy is an vnreasonable Nouelty and consequently no Religion for meerly to Say à Religion is true and from God before it be made Credible by Supernatural Signes Vphold's Arianism Donatism Quakerism and the greatest fooleries in the world CHAP. XVI Obiections solued Sectaries pretending not to Se the Churches Euidence are either blind or wilfully shut their Eyes The Assertion clearly proued A Parallel of the Primitiue and the present Churches Euidence How far Reason may be sayd to Regulate Faith 1. AGainst our pleading Euidence of Credibility for Catholick Religion manifested by the Lustre of supernatural Motiues One may first Obiect Euery Mans priuate Why the Euidence of Credibility is most Conuincing Reason is to Iudge whether this Euidence Conuinces or no And consequently the last Iudgement belong's to the Tribunal of priuate Reason I haue Answered The Euidence vpon two rational Principles is so great that it cannot but conuince First because the Author of it is no other but God who certainly was no Impostor when he set before Reason the light of most glorious Supernatural Signes And by virtue of Two Reasons them hath induced both Iewes and Gentils to belieue in Christ 2. Because That which the most Wise and Learned of the Christian world haue Iudged Euidently reasonable May vpon so great Authority be supposed Reasonable But All those Vast Multitudes Conuerted to true Christian Religion haue Iudged the Euidence of Credibility manifest in the Church both rational and conuincing Therefore it is so 2. Hence it followes 1. That the true Iudgement concerning The Iudgement long Since giuen now is not reuersable this Euidence was long since giuen antecedently to the weak Censure of this or that particular man who now would Cauil at it 2. That all Exceptions made against it are euidently vnreasonable vpon this ground That those Thousands and Thousands most Wise and Learned who owned the Euidence And haue been induced by it to belieue must if Misled be No other Inducements excogitable accounted not only temerarious but also Mad besotted and grosly Seduced by Fooleries This cannot be Granted Perhaps you 'le Say Those Wise and Learned belieued vpon other Inducements Distinct from our Churches Motiues Answ Not one can be Assigned distinct from these if wee speak of Motiues Proposed to Reason as is proued already 3. A. 2. Obiection Sectaries for all this Pretend not to se the Churches Euidence I Answer it is not for want of Light but for want of Ey-sight That is bebause they will be blind Thousands As is now Said as Wise and Learned as they haue Sectaries want not light but Eye-sight seen the Light and followed it Why then do They stumble in Darkness when the same Euidence is Set before their Eyes I haue no other Answer but what Truth it Selfe Deliuers Ioan. 1. The Son of God The Light of the world came amongst vs Et mundus eunt non cognouit The world would not know him Both Iewes and Gentils wilfully shut their Eyes to the Signal Marks of his sacred Preaching And so do Sectaries at this day to the Churches Euidence 4. Some may Reply What we now Say is only to Preach and not to Proue For how can wee Euince that Sectaries Shut their Eyes to any Light of Euidence Answ They wilfully Shut their Eyes Enough is proued Already Howeuer to come closer to the Matter and to leaue them without all excuse I 'll Add one word more which shall be Conuincing 5. Pray you Imagin That some of our Sectaries had liued in those happy Dayes when the Holy Euangelists set forth the Life of our blessed Sauiour And the Apostles preached his Sacred Doctrin to the first Conuerted Christians Would not An Argument drawn from the primitiue Euidence They think ye haue as readily belieued what euer Doctrin those Blessed men then wrote and Preach't As the other vast Multitudes who came flocking in belieued Yes Certainly Their Obstinacy though great would not haue surpassed that of Iewes and Gentils These yeilded after they heard such Oracles speak And so I think Sectaries
in the new Nothing of à few iarring Protestants which all other Christians in the world decry as false and improbable Can you think that à foul-mouthed Fryar as euer liued and à Nunn sacrilegiously coupled together layd the first foundation of this excellent and reasonable Christian Religion Speak out and tell vs what you iudge or hereafter leaue of to vent such improbable Paradoxes I speak of à Religion now extant in the world or known 4. hundred years agone to preuent your wonted subterfuge of running vp to the Primitiue Church à most vnreasonable plea when you cannot say probably what that Church taught but only by the Tradition of the present which you most causlesly and vnworthily reiect But hereof wee haue said enough in the other Treatise Perhaps you 'l reply You defend that Church which hold's Doctrin agreable to Scripture I marry Sir but where shall we find it out Amongst you They own on vn known Church Protestants think yee when you know not probably the sense of scripture in one only controuerted Text much less so fully as excludes à possibility of doubting nor shall you euer know whilst you own à sense Contrary to the Roman Catholick Church as is already proued CHAP. X. The first and easiest way to find out true Religion is not by Scripture only though all Christians had moral certainty of the right Canon and sense also which is to say the meer owning Christs Doctrin is insufficient to proue it to all sort of People 1. THe Assertion may seem strange had we not an euident proof at hand and t' is thus The Iewes Turks and Pagans although all Christians now and euer agreed in some chief verities concerning Christian Religion as that Iesus is our Redeemer reiect the Doctrin as fals and foolish 1. Cor. 1. u. 23. We preach Christ Crucified à scandal to the Iewes and à foolery to the Gentils Whereby you may well learn how enormously Mr Stillingfleet erred aboue when he told vs that the meer excellency and reasonableness of Christian Religion carries with it its own proof Our Assertion is contrary and grounded vpon this The proof of our Assertion opposite to Mr. stillingfleet Principle The Mysteries of Christian Doctrin considered in themselues transcend all humane Capacity and as the Apostle saith scandalize weak reason Therefore the Mysteries meerly laid forth to à Iew or Gentile are no conuiction because they are aboue the reason of the very best Belieuers Now if you say they ought first to be belieued by faith without any preuious inducement This is the worst of fooleries for none of the Primitiue Christians so much as belieued Christ or admitted Apostolical Doctrin without rendring first some satisfactory reason distinct from their faith why they reiected the ancient Sinagogue and assented to that then new preach't learning Some preuious light therefore distinct from these abstruse Mysteries which God laies before the eye of humane reason induceth all whether Iewes or Gentils to the true belief of Christianity and Consequently the meer supposed verity of the Doctrin only dark in it self is no absolute mark or first self euident Principle The rerity of Christ's Doctrin no selfe Euidence whereby we are immediatly moued to belieue such high secrets Pray you tell me should any one goe amongst some vnciuilised People who either haue heard nothing or very little of Christ and only relate the story of his sacred Birth in à poor stable of his obscure life from the 12 th year of his age till he began to preach c. Would such Barbarians think yee assent to these strange things either by the force of humane reason or Diuine Faith without further proof or motiue to make all good No certainly Yet all is true and very true yea and most reasonable but the verity alone is insufficient to perswade any that 't is true 2. From this short discourse whereof more in the second part these vndeniable inferences follow 1. That Sectaries assert they know not what when they make the true Preaching of the Gospel and right vse of Sacraments to be marks of the true Church For the true Church be it where you will hath euer its marks antecedently supposed to the true preaching of the word which marks first manifest that mystical body at least in à general way as I shall presently declare and thus known by à natural euidence she proposeth the Mysteries we belieue Here The Church is known by her marks before we belieue is the reason à priori of my Assertion That which is the first obiect of our Faith cannot be the first obiect of our knowledge the Mysteries of our belief layd forth by the preaching of Gods word are the first obiects of Faith for these we belieue and as belieued they are obscure therefore they cannot be the first obiects of knowledge if we speak strictly of knowledge or marks preuiously inducing reason to belieue Whence it is that reason hath its euidence or prudent inducements laid forth vpon other extrinsical Principles before we belieue Belief therefore whether you take it for the obiect assented to or the act wee assent by being as I said obscure can be no mark to it self or to the true Church we belieue in for à mark is euer more known than that obiect is whereof it is à mark or which is pointed at 3. Some perhaps will say The Church is vsually defined An Assembly of those who profess the true Doctrin of Christ therefore An Obiection true Doctrin most essential to the Church must necessarily be known before we know the total essence of the Church Ergo true Doctrin or the preaching of the word is à mark whereby we first find out the Church and consequently the Church marked with euident clear motiues is no inducement to belieue true Doctrin The Argument is an euident fallacy First because the Illiterate and simple Christians belieue in the Church and haue faith sufficient to saluation though they neuer arriue to an explicit Briefly solued belief of euery particular Doctrin taught by it 2. They either explicitly belieue all these particular Doctrins by Faith and this is impossible because all of them were neuer proposed explicitly or know them ex terminis to be Diuine Truths by humane reason when they are proposed and this is most vntrue For who can say that this truth Christ is God and consubstantial with his Father is à verity more known ex terminis by humane reason than the contrary errour of the Arians is You see therefore the obiection is forceles For as one who reades Aristotle or Plato knowes what is said or the substance of the Doctrin by the sense of their words yet remains ignorant whether it be true or fals without further reasoning and inspection so à Gentil that reads our Christian Doctrin in the bible may know much of its sense or what is said yet he must both discourse and reason well before
strain as is already declared Hence I say this part of the Dialogue is so inuincible à proof against Protestants in behalf The Centurist's Censure Theoderet of the real Presence that it cannot be answered and therefore the Centurist's with other Hereticks quoted by Brereley pag. 111. and pag. 258. hauing charged S. Chrisostome with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation censure Theoderet vpon the same score as one that speak's dangerously in the matter These men it seem's saw no great force in the later part of the Dialogue which our modern Protestants so much vrge and followes thus 16. When Eranistes had asserted that the Symbols by the inuocation of the Priest are changed and made other things and from that change inferred that our Lords body after his Ascension was conuerted into the Diuine substance The Orthodox Answer 's Thou art caught in the netts thou hast wouen Theodoret's Assertion For the Mystical symbols after Sanctification go not away from their nature For they remain in their former essence and figure and form and â—â—y be seen and touched aâ— before But yet they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made and belieued and adored to be those things as they are belieued Thus the Latin interpreter render's Theoderet's words you shall haue presently an other Lection though truely to read them as you see here after due reflection made vpon the precedent part of the Dialogue is so fully enough to ascertain euery one of this learned Father's meaning that I wonder any iudicious Man can scruple at it The genuin sense is Thou Eranistes maintain's that the visible circumscribed body of our His whole sense declared Sauiour was after his Ascension swallowed as it were vp or totally changed into his Godhead To illustrate this thy Doctrin thou takest à proof from the Mystical signes or Symbols of the blessed Sacrament and not only from the inward substance of bread which thou acknowledgest changed I tell thee thou art caught in thy own net the parity fail's there for the Mystical signes remain to sense as before in the same exteriour form and substance they are seen felt c. Darest thou Eranistes say Christ's sacred body retain's yet the same exteriour form it had on earth Has it yet in Heauen the same dimensions as these symbols haue after Consecration Is it visible or extended Answer as thou pleasest Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma for thee Either thou maintains't that A dilemma Chris'ts glorious body is now visible and extended as the Symbols of the Sacrament are Or contrariwise not sensible not seen not extended Grant the first Thou denies't thy own Doctrin and must assert that his whole glorious body is not conuerted into the Godhead Grant the second or say it has not the same exteriour form the same visibility and extension Thy instance and proofs taken from the Symbols of the Sacrament are Eo ipso made null and forcelesse for these signes keep the same form as before they are perceptible to sense extended c. and thus thou art both caught and conuinced 17. By what is now said you find Theoderet's discourse most solid against the Heretick who would needs infer grounding himselfe vpon the change made in the Sacrament that Christ's whole humane nature was conuerted into the Diuinity Thus much saith Theoderet is euidently false for these Symbols remain in their exteriour form vnaltered but Chris'ts humane body with thee remain's not so for all in it the very exteriour is changed into the Godhead Therefore thy proof taken from the symbols Theoderet only speak's of the Species or accidents remaining of the Sacrament not changed at all is void of strength faint and weightlesse Now that Theoderet speak's only of the outward symbols of the Sacrament is manifest First by what is noted already where he saith we are partakers of the true body and blood of Christ 2. By his answer to the Heretick where he openly professeth that though these symbols are seen and handled as before yet to the vnderstanding and Faith they contain the things we truely belieue That is Christ's real body and blood And thus much He proues in the following words where he asserts that they are to be adored no otherwise than Christ's immortal body is now adored sitting at the right hand of His Father for in both places as you may read in the text the same word of Diuine honour is referred to Christ in the Sacrament and now glorious in heauen 18. You must here haue à word of the other Lection already hinted at which clear's all and takes away the least shadow of à difficulty The most eminent and learned Cardinal Perron propound's it and proues it also absolutely the best by six stronge Arguments Liu. 2. De L'Eucharistie Chap. 12. P. 539. First Theodorets Text dubious saith he There is certainly in Theoderet's Greek Text à dubious form of speaking perhaps vsed on set purpose because of some Auditors present not yet initiated or first instructed in these Mysteries The Original words are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is The symbols remain in their former essence and figure and form and may be seen c. But read them thus saith the Cardinal by à Transposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is For they remain and iâ— the form and in the figure of the first substance and all difficulty How the Cardinal read's ceases For by this construction Theoderet only sayes the accidents or species of bread and wine remain intimating nothing at all of any inward substance of bread remaining nay his whole context supposes the inward substances changed into Christs body 19. If this Construction be admitted so that the Genitiue case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be as it is à Genitiue and the other two follow in form of Latin ablatiues you haue this Connatural sense Manent in priâ—â—â— essentiae formâ figurâ The Symbols remain in the form and figure of their first essence which preiudices nothing the real Transmutation of bread into Christ's body but much confirm's it But such à Construction add's the learned Cardinal or Transposition of words is not only possible but very frequent in the Greek Language whereof he giues examples and one out of Theoderet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is The body of our Lord of the nature In lieu of saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est The body of the nature of our Lord. 20. The Cardinal maintain's the construction now giuen both as the more elegant and most agreable to Theoderet's whole context for many sound reasons Here is one taken from the Authors very next words But they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made and belieued and adored How Adored As they are truely belieued That is as containing the true body and The reason why he read's so blood of Christ For were this not really so Christ could not be adored For as
so high as to giue fall satisfaction herein though he is pleased to plead euidence drawn from sense and reason against the B. Sacrament as if forsooth the full portion of both were like à legacy Mr stillingfleet argues Improbably bequeathed him and à few Sectaries whilst so many Fathers so many Schoolmen soo many profound Doctors of our renowned Church must haue no small share allowed in either but are as you see censured like men sensless and vnreasonable 2. Say I beseech you Who can perswade himself that those three worthy eminent Cardinals Bellarmin Perron and Richelieu all haue writ on this subiect and are famous the whole world ouer for their great wisdom and learning who dare I say without à measureless audacity cast these could we vrge no more into the Catalogue of dull sensles and vnreasonable men None would haue ventured on such à vast improbability but one who either knowes not or cares not what he saies Now add to these the consent and acknowledgment of the whole Orthodox world you may iustly say it is much harder or there is more violence offered to mans vnderstanding in conceiuing that God who is essential Verity and therefore inclined to preserue the Church he founded in truth should permit all those millions of Christians who haue belieued the Real presence to be so long deceiued in their Faith than to submit vpon so great authority to the very mystery we belieue Reason more rack'd by denying then belieuing the Mistery For by submitting to the mystery we proceed rationally and prudently iudge that an infinite power can do more than our weak capacities reach vnto but if we say his Goodnes hath permitted the Church to be seduced by à gross errour age after age or that so many Christians haue been cheated into à false belief of so high à Mystery we force our vnderstandings more we clash with an euident Principle and must assert that God has no care of his Church or of mans saluation The blame therefore if we be in errour would at last redound to God as I shall amply proue in the next Discourse 3. Thus much noted Let vs look à little into the strength of Mr Stillingf weak argument which must run thus What I see seem's or is bread to the Eye and tast yet t' is not bread but Christs sacred body therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense One distinction ouerthrowes this lame discourse I answer in à word What I see seems or is the inward substance of bread I deny it What I see seems yea really is the outward accidents or species of bread I grant that Therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense I deny the consequence The Argument purely fallacious supposeth Our Aduersaries fallacy solued the immediate obiect of our sense to be the inward substance of bread which yet as euery Puny knowes is not so in common Philosophy for the immediate obiect of the Eye is colour or light and so much remain's after consecration as well as other accidents doe but these sensible obiects are in known Philosophy distinct from the inward substance of bread which is not immediatly visible tangible or tastable Mr Stilling therefore gain's little by this dreaming way of arguing Now à word to his plea of Reason 4. He may say Reason tell 's me there is bread still after consecration Why so surely the answer must be because sense vpon the discouery of its immediate obiects colour quantity c. induceth reason to conclude there is bread vnder these accidents I answer Reason thus far would well conclude were it not that à stronger Principle enters here which ouerawes as it were weak reason and bids it yeild Pray you tell me Did not sense and reason also assure Christs Disciples Matth 14. before S. Peter was seen walking on the water that that liquid substance could not bear vp à weighty body without sinking yes most assuredly yet they saw him walk and reason following the guidance of their eyes checked that other natural discourse and acknowledged à Miracle And thus weak reason must yeild in the present Mystery when à Stronge Principles where vpon our Faith relies stronger Principle interuen's and forceth it to submit Thanks be to God Habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem 1. Petr. 2. we haue yet à stronger Principle to vp hold our cause than weak discourse is The spirit of eternal truth The express words of Christ which the wit of man shall neuer draw to any other sense but what we Catholicks own 2. The constant professed Doctrin of the two Churches Greek and Latin yea and I say more of all other called Christians as is now declared 3. Might we here introduce the known Testimonies of most ancient Fathers They are so numerous and so fully significant that would à Catholick study to set down the truth of this Doctrin he cannot do it in clearer language 5. Good God saith S. Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerd Cap. 4. What à wonderful miracle is this how great is Gods loue towards mankind Behold who sitreth aboue with his Father in one and the same moment of time is touched by the hands of vs all and giueth himself to such as are desirous to receiue and imbrace him Theophilact c. 4. in 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation The ancient Fathers speak in our behalfe although to vs it seem's bread Because we are weak and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appears but in the essence and substance it is not bread Again Christ said not this is à figure but this is my body for by an ineffable operation bread is changed c. Indeed it appears Bread but it is really flesh Yet more How often do the Fathers S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Chrisostome and others exhort vs not to come vnto the Eucharist as vnto simple bread and wine for say they it is the body and blood of Christ according to our Lords affirmation Although sense suggest the Contrary yet let faith confirm thee Iudge not of the thing by thy tast c. Again know this and with full certitude belieue that the bread seen is not bread though it seems so to the tast but the body of Christ and that wine seen is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the blood of Christ Though saith S. Chrisostome what we see seem's to our sense and thinking to be bread Let Gods saying This is my body Master our sense and reason Let vs doe this in all things especially in the Mysteries not regarding alone the things which lie before vs but holding fast to his words For by his words we cannot be-cousened our senses may be deceiued his words cannot be vntrue our sense is often time beguiled c. Thus these Fathers known to euery one to omit in numerable others speak and belieue thus the Church of Christ speaks and belieues also
and both as you see stand opposite to Mr Stilling weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason 6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome In. 1. Cor hom 24. Other Authorities Chrisostom Pachasius Damascan who saith The kingly body in heauen is set before vs on earth We touch it and do not only touch it but eate it This body the barbarous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling Thou add's the Saint See'st him not now in the manger but on the Altar not held in à womans arms but by à Priest present c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg he explain's himself further Truly this table supplies the place of the manger for here also is our Lords body laid Paschasius à latin author who liued about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence à nd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. Sanguine Dm'i that the Centurist's Cent. 9. C. 4. Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen Pag 288. and other Sectaries charge him with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christs body No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. whose discours on this subiect though long is most significant As bread saith he naturally meat and wine and water by drink are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drink 's So this bread proposed the wine and water also by the inuocation and comming of the Holy Ghost are in à miraculous manner conuerted into Christs body and blood neither are they two but one and the same Our Lord himself hath said This is not à sign of my body but my body This is not à sign of my blood but my blood Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. reiects the Doctrin and call's this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. Iohn Damascen slight and fabulous sodo other Sectaries with him also 7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr clear noted First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who liued with our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn seem's to me vnanswerable Epist ad Smirnen not far from the beginning They saith he that is certain Sacramentarians admit not Eucharists and oblations because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins and his Father graciously raised from the dead So Theoderet 12. ages since Tom. 4. Dialogo 3. reads And Iaac Vossius who followes the Florentine Copy differs little or rather nothing at all None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear 8. The second authority as pregnant is taken out of S. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for Christians vsually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant Apology Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour by the word of God was made flesh and haed for our saluation flesh and blood so also after the same manner we are taught that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with thanksgiuing of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ which was Incarnate And for proof hereof he allegeth Christs own words This is my body This is my blood Thus S. Iustin speak's who liued not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin I know some Sectaries Cauil at the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by transmutation The sectaries Cauil answered and think Iustin held the Eucharist to be food for the body but his sense is clear for he saith only That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation is made after consecration the very body of Christ and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus Pag 368. translates Iustins S. Iustin's true sense words out of the Greek thus Sumimus autem hunc panem hunc potum non vt Communem sed eo modo quo edocti sumus Iesum Christum seruatorem nostrum habuisse pro salute nostra carnem sanguinem sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro sanguis aluntur post benedictionem ipsius esse carnem sanguinem Domini That is in plain English The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incarnate Sauiour Conformable hereunto Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenaeus aduersus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. Iustins words Sic per verbum precationis gratiarum actionis sacratam ab ipso alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes sanguinem Illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse didicimus The Interpreter also I follow significantly renders the same sense Alimoniam vnde c. The food from whence from which or where with we are nourished this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate Iesus Well but admit that Iustine call's the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies How some Fathers call the Eucharist Nourishment to the body he makes it not therefore Corporal food but Spiritual which nourishes them to à ioyful resurrection or to immortality and thus the other Fathers chiefly S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus finem speakes Quomodo saith he rursus dicunt c How do these Hereticks plead again that our flesh shall come to corruption and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord where with it is nourished Again Sic corpora nostra c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are not corruptible hauing hope of à ioyful resurrection But enough of these authorities Whoeuer desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his 2. book of the Holy Eucharist Out of what is said already I argue 9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also haue most impiously betrayed Christs cause in deliuering false Doctrin contrary to sense and reason or worthily defended à Christian verity Grant this second we haue our intent But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief and impiously erred in their expressions Ponder first what à frontles impudence accompanies the reply Next make this true inference It is impossible that such à supposed vniuersal errour should euer be rased out of A Conuincing Argument the minds of men by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à receiued Principle For what proofs or vndoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture our Tradition the sentiment of the Church and the iudgement
clear words of à Father and when the Glosser has no vndubitable Principle distinct from his gloss wheron to settle his Doctrin as he has not in our present Controuersy Obserue well The Fathers say What wee see is not bread but Christs very body The Sectary interpret's That wee see is not common bread indeed but Christs body Figuratiuely or Sacramentally The Fathers say it is not figuratiuely only but really his body So Theophilact Answered and the reason giuen and S. Iohn Damascen cited aboue Had the Sectary who interpret's thus an vndoubted Reuelation for his Gloss deliuered by any Oracle of Truth Scripture Traditions or Orthodox Church there would be good reason to giue him hearing But when we euidently see that the best and only proof of his Doctrin is no more but the very gloss he makes without Further Principles we iustly except against him and hold such glosses improbable 14. Now all is contrary with the Catholick who neuer interpret's any Authority but when t' is dubious and if it be so it neither help 's the Sectary nor hurts the Catholick and therefore ought In reason to be cast aside as either impertinent or as weak and forcelesse in all disputes of Controuersies The fundamental Christ's Doctrin not proued by glosses or any ambiguous Testimony Reason already hinted at is The true Doctrin of Christ is not proued by Glosses or any doubtful Testimony but stand's most firm vpon known and indubitable Principles or if in order to Christians it want's such supports it cannot pass for Christ's Doctrin An ambiguous Testimony therefore which seemingly opposes this true Doctrin Certainly Principled is most impertinently alleged against any Tenet of our known and owned Catholick Faith 15. Vpon this one sole ground now clearly laid forth I confidently Affirm all Controuersies in Religion might be easily ended would Sectaries please to lay Preiudice aside and follow manifest reason I 'le shew you how Write down first the two contrary Tenents of Catholicks and Protestants Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist Christ is not really and substantially present Next examin well the Principles wheron these Contrary Doctrins rely or are supposed to rely The Catholick vrgeth first Christ's plain words 2. The Authority of his Church and saith his Churches Doctrin is the very same that Christ words literally taken express 3. He ponder's the clear Testimonies of The Catholick Principles Fathers and discourses thus When I find the most significant expressions of Fathers consonant to our Sauiour's plain words and to the owned Doctrin of my Church I must assuredly rest on these as indubitable grounds or Confess that There neither is or was euer any Principle for the soundest Article of Christian Faith Examin next the Sectaries Principles Has He any words in Scripture as clear as mine or to this sense This is not my body b◠à Sign only of it Euidently No. Has he any Church esteemed Orthodox by the Christian world which without Controuersy taught this Doctrin of à sign only three or 4. ages since Name Sectaries haue none such such à Church He will speak's to the purpose Has he Fathers so numerous so express and clear for his Signe and figure only as the few Testimonies now alleged are in behalf of Catholick Doctrin If he haue let him please to produce them I 'le doe no more but lay my Testimonies by them and if after the perusal or à iust Parallel made of both All the world iudges not those I quote to be most conuincing may the literal sense stand and his both dark and ambiguous I will vndergoe any Censure You haue heard how loud and express the Testimonies briefly hinted at and innumerable more are for our Catholick Verity I challenge Mr Stilling to Confront them with others as openly significant for his opinion I verily think he will neuer goe about to doe what is desired but fob vs off with killing flies and no man knowes what 16. In the interim I Argue I am either obliged to renounce An Argument drawn from our Catholick Principles the obuious sence of these Authorities which I see euidently Consonant to the words of Scripture and to the Doctrin of my Church or by force of these Proofs am still to belieue as I doe Grant this second I stand on secure ground But if I am obliged to renounce the obuious sense of Christs words my Church Doctrin and the expressions of these Fathers c. Our Aduersaries are bound if à spark of Charity liues in their Hearts to plead by stronger Principles which may settle me in an absolute Renuntiation of my Doctrin and withdraw me from the supposed errour I liue in Is not this iustice and Charity think ye And is not the Compliance most easy For if their Doctrin be Christ's Doctrin and mine not Theirs stand's as I now told you vpon clear and indubitable Principles And Principles of that nature are easily laid forth to euery ordinary vnderstanding Now I subsume But it is euident the Sectary hath no such conuincing Principles which can oblige me to renounce the plain literal sense of Christs words and the Fathers already cited And this I proue What euer Principle obliges me to renounce or to deny the plain literal sense of such words must giue assurance that those expressions literally Why none can remoue me from our Catholick Tenet vnderstood are dangerous and apt to induce Christans into gross errour for if literally taken they do no mischief or be not apt to induce into dangerous errour why should I Deny their obuious sense because Ptotestants will haue me do so But there is no Principle so much as meanly probable whereby these expressions are proued false or inductiue into dangerous Errour for were this really so some Church or Author of Credit would long sincé haue noted their ouer much vehemency in sayng more then was true concerning this Mystery which none euer yet did Therefore I may still and without Reproof hold where I am and adhere to their literal Doctrin which my Church teaches 17. Some may teply Sectaries vrge vs not so crudely to reiect the Fathers Testimonies as only to moderate or rectify their sense by the help of our Modern mens glosses which is à blamles proceeding for we do so with Gelafius and other Authors when they seemingly make against our Doctrin and Protestants do no more Answ Protestants do more for their interpretations euer imply à peremptory and absolute denial of that very literal sense which the Father words express For example S. Cyril saith Catech. Mystag 4. He that changed water into wine by his sole will hath also A reply of sectaries answered changed wine into blood The expression inuolues à parity and implies thus much That as water was really changed into wine at Cana in Galilee so wine was really and substantially changed into Christs blood Sectaries as peremptorily deny this real and substantial change of wine
is here changed wat not interiour substance be changed this interiour substance of bread as distinguished from accidents is not changed and if which is true this interiour substance be changed the form and accidents of bread are not changed Take which you please and talk no more of your Accidental Sacramental change made after consecration For I ask again what is thus Sacramentally changed Are the outward Accidents only changed or made à Sacrament Grant this and it followes you haue but à very lean Lords supper consisting only of à few Accidents after your wordy Consecration which reaches not to the inward substance of bread Consequently this inward substance is not so much as Sacramentally changed For the Author saith one thing is here changed and not an other Imagin therefore He speak's of your extrinsick Sacramental change you will neuer force sense out of his words whilst he laies à change on one thing and excludes it from an other For if he saies the inward substance of bread is Sacramentally changed he denies that to the outward accidents and if he say these Accidents are Sacramentally changed he denies that Sacramental change to the inward substance of bread Let then nature and Substance signify either the accidents or substance of bread as you please let vs also falsly suppose the Author speaks of your Sacramental change only you can neuer make sense of his words One thing is changed but not a◠other By all now said you see Sir how slight your obiection A briefe Answer to à weak obiection is when you Argue Either nature and substance in the Fathers are alwaies taken properly or some times not so but improperly for accidents if alwaies properly we haue three Fathers say you against Transubstantiation If sometimes improperly Nature in this place though we read Non effigie sed natura mutatus may well signify not substance but the outward form or accidents of bread I haue now Answered though Nature or Substance may sometimes haue that signification yet here it cannot because of the euident opposition betwixt that and Accidents and the ineuitable nonsense which followes if nature in this place signifies Accidents But what à loss of time is it to follow these vast improbabilities I must make shorter work with the ensuing Authorities 11. The. 2. Testimony cited P. 572. is that of S. Gregory Nyss Tom. 3. Orati Catech C. 37. and stand's thus in Mr Stilling With good reason do we belieue that the bread being sanctified by Gods word is changed into the body of the word S. Gregory Nyssene abused of God Again The nature of the things we see being changed Or Transelemented into him c. And Mr Stilling Assert's those expressions are vtterly insignificant for Transubstantiation for saith he We Protestants deny not à change in the elements after Consecration but say it is Sacramental and you Papists say it is à Substantial change Answ And we follow the Energy of the plain grammatical sense Bread is changed into the body of the word of God Bread is Transelemented You insist only on an extrinsecal and Sacramental change which you admit in the water of Baptism cast vpon an Infant yet you dare not say that water is Transelemented or changed into an other Substance This to your Confusion S. Gregory assert's in our present Mystery and you say it still remain's to be proued that the substance of bread is changed What trifles are these I proue it by the very words thus Bread is à substance the Saint tell 's you into what it is changed into the very body of the word of God Ergo he saith one substance is changed into an other Here is the proof You yet goe on The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently vsed by the Fathers and S. Gregory himself for an Accidental change when T' is not capable of any other sense So S. Gregory speaking of the shining of Moses face saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instances impertinently applyed à Change into that which was more glorious Again affirming the soules of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be changed into that which is more Diuine by the Doctrin of Christ he can surely intend no other but an Accidental change Answer Had I no more against Mr Stilling but the manifest trifling I here See in à serious matter that alone might most iustly displease Pray Sir reflect Doth S. Gregory by these Instances of Moses face changed into Glory or by the Souls of men changed into that which is Diuine so much as seemingly fauour the meer extrinsecal change which you ascribe to the Sacrament Euidently No. For these changes were Real and intrinsecal in their respectiue Subiects And proued impertinent Glory was really in Moses face as light is now in the sun This fained Sacramental change in the Sacrament is only Moral and extrinsecal Therefore such instances are to no purpose For can you make this probable inference Moses face was intrinsecally changed as the ayr is when it receiues light ergo we haue the like intrinsecal Physical change in the Sacrament when by your Consecration bread is made an outward Sign only of Christ's body Doth that bread really shine like the face of Moses Or will any say when à Counter is set for à Crown as bread with you stand's for Christ's body that it is intrinsecally changed as Moses face was 12. In à word the whole cheat is plain You lay hold of the word Accidental which is ambiguous and may either signify à Real intrinsecal change made in Subiects as is now declared and this with you has no place in the Sacrament or meerly an extrinsecal accidental Denomination whereby bread is made à Sign or Sacrament And this you own which God knowes has no similitude with the Real changes where of S. Gregory speaks Could you make à right Parity you should say That as Moses face was really changed by à glorious light and à Soule by Regeneration so bread after consecration made in trinsecally more glorious is really changed either in its accidents or substance or both But this you cannot pretend to O but it is made à Sacrament and now is what it was not before And you Sr are made à Bachelour of Diuinity and are not as you were before is your face your substance or Accidents so really changed in you that they appear intrinsecally more glorious to men and Angels Well but perhaps the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be accommodated to à meer extrinsecal Accidental A reply answered change as when one of à common Citizen is made à Magistrate Answ Whether so or no it imports little for in the instances now alleged and in this Testimony of S. Gregory such à signification has no place where the Terminus à quo and ad que◠Bread is changed into Christs body are Real not only Moral intrinsecal not extrinsecal Yet one word more I wonder extremly with what face you
can cite Snares as if he fauored your late inuented Accidental mutation for you say he affirms these expressions of Fathers are more accommodated to that Sr. I haue read this learned Author in the place you quote 3. part Disp 50. sect 3. and perused also his 4 th Section where he Snares abused treat's largely of the Conuersion of bread into Christs body and expresly mantain's à Real action necessary in this Conuersion and calls the change Real and Substantial and it must be called so when the Terminus à quo and ad quem are as they are in this Mystery Real and Substantial T' is true he cites Diuines who say the Adduction of Christs body vnder the formes of bread is sufficient to verify à Real change Bread ceasing to be because of Christs body present without à new action or production terminated vpon that body and it is à probable opinion in Schools but as remote from your Accidental extrinsecal mutation as Heauen is from earth and to as Little purpose as an other wise question is when you Ask whether those who are changed by Regeneration A quaestion answered may be said to be Transubstantiated by it Friuolous Sr. when the Terminus ad quem in conuersions is substance it beares properly the denomination of Transubstantiation or Transelementation when it s meerly an Accident or quality as in Regeneration the denomination followes the nature of the quality produced and is rightly called an intrinsecal accidental change but not Transubstantiation Had you reflected on what is here said your pretty Criticism where you torture à poor Greek word and learnedly examin whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Gregory comes from the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might well haue been spared I giue you your Choise take whether you will your cause lies where it was nothing at all aduanced But really I am weary of this sport which is more irksome to me then to kill the flies you so often talk of Howeuer I must haue patience and briefly say à word to one or two authorities more pitifully abused by you 13. That known passage of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Catech The Testimony of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 4. occurr's next in your 573. page The words are He Christ our Lord changed water into wine at cana in Galilee by his sole will and is he not worthy to be belieued that he changed wine into blood For if inuited to à marriage he wrought then that stupendious Miracle viz of changing water into wine shall we not Confess that much more he has giuen his body and blood to the Sons of the Spouse wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let vs take with all certainty the body and blood of Christ And he giues this reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For vnder the Type or Species of bread his body is giuen thee and vnder the type or species of wine his blood is giuen thee that by taking this body and blood of Christ thou mayst be made partaker of his body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so we shall be Christophori Carrying Christ when we receiue his body and blood into our members Soon after he saith Do not therefore consider this as meer bread and meer wine for it is the body and blood All along most clear and significant of Câ—rist according to his own words for although sense suggest that it is bread and wine yet let faith Confirm thee and do not iudge of the thing by thy tast but hold this most certain by thy Faith that the body and blood of our Lord are giuen thee so that there arise no doubt at all in thee Again towards the end of this 4. Catechesis he repeat's and most energetically the verity he would haue vs learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Knowing and holding it most certain that the bread which is seen by vs is not bread but the body of Christ and the wine which is seen by vs although it seem to the sense of our tast to be wine The Church Speak's not in clearer terms yet is it not wine but the blood of Christ Thus this ancient Father and worthy Bishop speaks so significantly that the witt of man shall neuer force on him any other sense but that which the Roman Catholick Church taught in the Council of Trent and teaches to this day 14. Now listen à little to Mr Stilling glosses and say in Conscience whether they haue so much as à seeming probability Mr stilling glosses improbable First he tells vs it is euident and it was for his purpose to cry Euidence at the begining that Cyrills design here is to perswade the Catechumens from whom the Mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed that the bread and wine were not meer common Elements but designed for à higher vse to â—xhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Is this Sr your Euidence Is it euident that Cyril here intended to instruct the Catechumens only We read that the Saint was à laborious Preacher and complyed with that Charitable duty euery Sunday and day in Lent Surely all who heard him were not Catechumens and why may not these instructions contain part of that Doctrin he publickly deliuered to his Auditors All you can proue is that his first Catechesis was to the lately Baptized but that this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only is not probable Turn to the Edition of S. Cyril Paris print 1609. You will find after the Dedicatory Epistle vnder this Title De scriptis Cyrill That in his last fiue Mystagogical institutions he gaue solid food and explicated the Diuine Mysteries of our Faith of Baptism Chrism the Eucharist and that great Sacrifice of the Mass which Certainly belong to Christians of riper knowledge than Catechumens were Again I' ft be euident that S Cyrill is made to mâ—sse of his ayme the Saint in this Catechesis concealed the Mysterious presence of Christ in the Sacrament He missed extreamly of his intent for no Catholick can speak now with greater clearity of the Mystery or more fully express the Churches sense then S. Cyril did aboue thirteen ages since Yet one word Say I beseech you what need was there then of concealing this Mysterious presence i' ft be no more but as you say à piece of bread deputed to à holy vse or à meer sign of Christs body present Such à Mystery requires no secrecy at all Catechumens might as well haue heard of it without torturing their vnderstandings as now they hear of the Sacrament of Baptism Lastly is it euident that S. Cyril aimed at nothing but to show that bread and wine were not meer common Elements but things designed for à higher vse or as you say to Exhibiâ— the body of Christ to Belieuers T is improbable First because you add that to the Text which
vpon no surer grounds then meer doubtful And vncertain Glosses are added to Scripture and the Fathers which An assertion clearly laid forth seem contrary to his Doctrin most euidently stand's vnprincipl'd proceed's weakly and proues nothing But the Protestant makes his weak and doubtful Glosses charged on such Authorities as are produced for our Catholick Tenets the sole Support the only Proof of his contrary Doctrin Therefore He proceeds vnreasonably and proues nothing You shall see this euidenced in the present Matter now briefly hinted at of the Infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church Mr Stilling Asserts She is fallible I ask how He proues the Assertion What By express Scripture vniuersal Tradition the vnanimous Consent of Fathers the Definitions of any ancient Church or Council These are excellent Principles Could He settle How Sectaries proceed to weaken it his opinion vpon all or vpon any one of them we haue done and must yeild But he proceed's strangely and I must needs tell you How The man hopes to weaken our proofs drawn from the Fathers in behalfe of the Churches infallibility And thereby to establish his Position She is fallible I demand how can our Proofs be weakned His Answer must be for he has no other I will so tamper with these your alleged Texts that at last I 'le make them proue nothing for your Churches Infallibility And consequently I may hold my Contrary Position of her Fallibility very well established The inference is worth nothing but let it pass I Ask. 3. What is it he will tamper withall or how can he make null those manifest Texts which clearly lye open to euery eye east on the Fathers And euince as we shall see hereafter that the Church is infallible Mr Stillinfleets strain through his whole book For Facta loquuntur return's the best Answer My Guesses saith he And Glosses laid on the Fathers when seemingly contrary to Protestant Doctrin Shall make them speak another language no way fauouring the Churches infallibility 2. Here we come to the point And demand in the last place Whether these Glosses are so clearly their Own Selfe-Euidence that by their very light they lay à Truth before an vnderstanding Their Gloâ—ses no selfe Euidence not to be contradicted For example Whether S. Cyprian in the Passage now cited gaue only as Mr Stilling saith à tast of his old office of à Rhetorician And spake not dogmatically Is this I say an vndeniable Truth Most euidently no. For stretch it to the furthest it can be no more but à most doubtful and vncertain Gloss I say t' is highly improbable Now be pleased to reflect The Assertion concerning the Churches fallibility is no Self-euidenced Truth nor clear Ex terminis no more is our contrary Doctrin of the Churches infallibility To giue it Therefore proof and weight these Glosses are cast vpon the Fathers who seemingly at least fauour infallibility But these very Glosses which should do that seruice are as vneuident as vncertain And doubtful as the very Doctrin is They should enlighten and lend proof too Ergo they aduance not at all the Doctrin concerning the Churches fallibility For proofs which are as vncertain as the very Doctrin is which should be proued can neuer raise that to à greater measure of certainty than it had before such proofs were thought of Please to mark what I say The Doctrin of the Churches fallibility here supposed by Sectaries is vncertain and for that reason lies in it's Vneuidence vntil solid Proofs clear it or expel both the vneuidence and vncertainty But these Glosses when they appear are as vneuident and vncertain as the Doctrin is Therefore they cannot raise the Doctrin to any higher degree of certainty than to meer vneuidence and vncertainty I would haue this noted For it is à ground whereby I shal show hereafter Protestancy to be à most improbable Religion And Therefore will deliuer it once more in these plainer Terms If the Sectary has no surer Principle whereon to found his yet vneuidenced opinion of the Churches fallibility then Doubtful Glosses laid on Scripture The force of our Argument more significantly expressed and Fathers as euidently he has not And These Glosses which should proue that Doctrin be as deuoid of strength as remote from Principles as vncertain or doubtful as that very yet vneuidenced Doctrin is It followes clearly That both the Doctrin and the Glosses fall to nothing but only subsist by fancy which is à real Truth From all now said I inferr that whoeuer interpret's must haue his Doctrin firmly grounded vpon certain Principles distinct from his own interpretations as the Catholick euer hath or nothing is proued 3. Mr Stilling may reply His intention whilst he interpret's these Fathers is not to proue immediatly his own Opinion of the Churches fallibility but only to show our alleged Testimonies come not home or want force to proue Her infallible Now to shew our proofs forceles in order to what we hold is not to make good his contrary Assertion For these two things are very different Our Aduersaries reply refuted To make null our proofs And to establish his own Doctrin Answ I grant they are different But neither is nor can be done Not the first Because these Glosses are no Sâ—lf-euident prouing That the Fathers sense is rightly hit on And Principles distinct from these Glosses whereby it may be shown what Doctrin the Fathers deliuered in this particular Mr Stilling hath not any so much as meanly probable To the second I Answer If He offer 's not to proue his Tenet of the Churches fallibility by the little strength these glosses haue I auouch it boldly All further Probations fail him and for that reason he is either forced to make vse of such poor stuff to proue withall or must sit down silent And grant his Tenet cannot be proued He may perhaps tell vs our Church has erred de facto Ergo it is fallible And here is his Principle I Answer it s no Principle to me but an Heresy And as Asserted by him 't is as much yea more doubtful than all his glosses are laid together He may reply 3. His Glosses may at least be thought probable I vtterly deny that And here is my ground Solely considered they euidence not their own probability But need further proof and probable Principles to rely on But such proofs are wanting to found Probability vpon Therefore these glosses are supposed only not proued probable Had Mr Stilling plain Scripture any Orthodox Church or Fathers clear for the Doctrin maintained by him He might well talk of the strength Of his Glosses but to make Glosses probable The Sectaries Glosses not so much as Probable when no probable ground supports the Doctrin for Whose sake he Glosses is not only lost labour but share 's much of Non-sense Again Were these Glosses probable which I shall neuer grant our Answers to them are at least as probable And what gain 's
any firm Belief or to ground so much Moral certainty of à Christian Truth as excludes à possibility of doubting 10. You will Ask what then is there which may raise these two Aduersaries from that low degree of meer Opining to à higher degree of certainty I shall fully Answer the Question in the next Discourse Here I say in à word No Principle can do this But one only which the Sectary want's And the Catholick has to rely on which is the Tradition the Voice and open declared Iudgement of Christs Catholick Church here on earth This faithful Oracle raises vs from the supposed State of our guessing Probably to the highest degree of not only Moral but also of Infallible certainty Though now we press not that against our Aduersaries The Sectary Therefore who disdain's to learn of this Oracle what Christian Truths are shall neuer come to his Moral certainty though the Supposition already made of Authorities equal stood in vigour Iudge then I beseech you How desperate his Cause is now How remote from all such certainty De facto whether he impugn's our Doctrin or plead's for his own opinions when he hath nothing to rely on but only à few dark and dubious Passages of some ancient Fathers 11. I say dubious Passages for in Truth if so much they are no more And Therefore though we haue hitherto supposed Authorities euenly laid on both sides To Show that nothing What the Sectary can Plead help 's the Sectary out of his labyrinth yet now I must tell the Story as t' is All he has in this world to plead comes only to à few misinterpreted Authorities And with such poor Gleanings Churchless man as He is he thinks to Out-braue à whole Church To decry Tradition to vnsense the Fathers to rob vs of our right And finally to throw vs out of the Possession of those ancient Christian Truths which both we and our Ancestors haue professed age after age without Alteration What think ye Haue à few rack't and tortured Sentences Add to them as many Cauils as many Criticisms as you please force enough to do such wonders Can these gleanings misinterpreted as you haue seen better inform vs of the ancient Primitiue Truths than the General voice or vniuersal consent of à whole Church now in being It is improbable Grant therefore which I do On what Principle the Catholick Stand's not That we know not too well the sense of one Theoderet or of à Tertullian c. The Catholick cleares his Doctrin And drawes it from surer Principles viz. From the voice and open declared Iudgement of his Church And most deseruedly look's on the Sectaries attempt as highly improbable who will needs know what Doctrin we are to hold now or was anciently held amongst Christians by à Fathers Testimony when the very sense is supposed doubtful And lies in obscurity That is He will know more than can be known He will force light out of darkness And deriâ—â— the moral certainty of his Doctrin from meer doubtful Principles which is impossible And thus these men proceed in all other Controuersies though Conscious that à whole ample Church decries their Doctrin as false And the open abuse of Fathers also O saith the Sectary I little regard what the Church decries Ansâ— And much less do I regard what you cry against it When the whole strength of your Clamours vltimatly resolued comes to no more but to fancied Glosses laid vpon ambiguous Authorities What in God's name would you be at What can you pretend The Church opposed to Sectaries Clamours or intend Shall clamours Think ye and your few clouded Testimonies force me to leaue my ancient Faith when I euidently know That the Church I liue in call's louder on me and more rationally command's me to Belieue as I doe This audible known voice of Christ's Church dull's your clamours infinitly Outweigh's your Glosses your guesses And the doubtful Sentiment of any priuate Father 12. The Sectary may reply I haue now supposed without Proof the Fathers abused by him whereas if the Supposition hold's it s only doubtful whether it be so or no. Answ Thus much is only supposed doubtful That neither of vs can learn by words precisely obscure what Doctrin to embrace or what to reiect Before à surer Oracle speak's and decide the Controuersy Catholicks say this Oracle is the Church The Protestant who has no Church to recurr to stand's trifling with his obscure Passages hoping at last to make something of nothing to hammer out of dark sentences the Clear Moral certainty of his new Doctrin Though contrary to the whole Church And thus He abuseth both Fathers and reason also Because as I said iust now A doubtful Principle yeilds not so much certainty If He say 3. His quoted Authorities are sufficiently clear to ground the Moral certainty of his Doctrin against the Church it is à desperate improbable Speech For Moral certainty which should pass as an vncontradicted truth most euidently loseth that force when à whole Church manifestly contradict's it But hereof enough is Said in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 6. n. 3. 13. You will ask perhaps What is to be done if we meet with à Father so clear and express against Church-Doctrin that he cannot possibly be brought to à Catholick sense I Answer A doubt proposed and solued Suppose thus much which I think was neuer yet heard of in any Contest betwixt the Protestant and Catholick I 'le absolutly deny the Authority and adhere to Church-Doctrin For as the whole body is greater than à part so the iudgement of à whole Church is the stronger Principle here and ought in reason to regulate and bear sway before the sentiment of any priuate man who by weaknes or inaduertancy may slip aside into Errour I say through weaknes or incogitancy for if he obstinately oppose the Church He is no Father in that But an Heretick 14. Whoeuer reflects well on what is noted already will see I hope How neer we are to an End of disputes with Protestants if the Contest arise from the Authority of Fathers Here is the Ground of what I am to Say All the Authorities which can What Authorities can be quoted be quoted in Points now Controuerted are either plain or esteemed plain for Catholick Doctrin both by the learned of our Church and Sectaries also As is amply proued aboue Or Contrariwise are at most supposed doubtful I Assert it boldly the Sectary has not one plain Testimony for him in this debated Matter of Transubstantiation And if one or two were granted plain that 's nothing to contrast with à whole Church and innumerable other Fathers 15. Hence I Discourse In case Authorities be Clear for Catholick Doctrin the Sectary opposes vs improbably if he seek to establish his Nouelties vpon à Principle which plainly teaches what we teach And quite ruin's his contrary Opinions If the Authority be doubtful I haue said enough already
As he thinks many à Flaw many à Mistake much iumbling much disorder in the Narration of his Circumstances Reflect well good Reader Doe you not see here à strange Confusion When after the vtmost done by these two Aduersaries You haue two quite different Doctrins raised from the same Authorities of Scripture and Fathers And that after the recourse of both to History You haue two as different Stories told you as Yea and No. In like manner after Their long discourses You haue two contradictory Conclusions drawn out And laid before your eyes to read Vpon what Principle if no more be Said can the yet perplexed Reader come to so much certainty of our Christian Truths as is necessary to Saluation By what means shall He know whether of these Two relates the truer Story Glosses or discourses better O He must peruse Ecclesiastical History Scripture also And the Volumes of Fathers And then iudge Pitiful More than half the world want's means to doe this And He who is able to comply with that laborious Task must at last trust to his own Iudgement Howeuer giue me one who will conform Himselfe to what he Reads and not draw all to à preiudicated Iudgement That man will find out Catholick Religion 4. Be it how you will The Catholick has à better And far more easy Principle to rely on in so weighty à Matter whereof The Catholicks Principle far more easy and plain we shall Treat largely in the next Discourse The Sectary has no other Ground to set footing on But his own priuate Fancy And here is the true Reason why he loues à life to stand dallying with you vpon Authority and History Goe no further He is sure to haue some Reply at hand For it is easy to trifle à long time whilst you only giue him this Authority And that Parcel of History to quarrel with The one as we haue seen He wrest's to what Sense he pleases On the other He can put so fair à Varnish by concealing some Circumstances and iumbling others together That the eyes of à vulgar Reader are easily dazled In the mean time He warily waues And is well content to doe so The last sound Principles which only can end Controuersies Wherefore Methinks one cannot fit the Sectaries Humour better than to attaque him with Authorities And next leaue the Glossing them to his fancy To recurr to Antiquity And permit him to put an other face on the whole Story Thanks be to God the Catholick Writers of our own Nation to say nothing of others who handle Matters most profoundly And in real truth haue already brought these debates to à Period giue no such Aduantage to Sectaries But relying What Sectaries would be at on sound Principles as learnedly reiect these Glosses as our new men wilfully make them without Principles Yet this is Truth As nouellists can do no more But Gloss without Principles So as I said now They are well enough content if the Catholick will doe something like them And only interpret or discourse vpon Authorities And this I call the less or not the last plain way of Ending debates Goe no further they think Themselues safe For example Read S. Austin in the place now cited I would not belieue the Gospel c. Ponder His whole Context attend to his learned Discourse Mark well how He both disputes and proues That he would not belieue the Gospel as Gods Diuine Word but vpon This solid ground That the Authority of the Church then when he wrote moued him to belieue so Descend yet to other particulars taken from his most Connexed way of Arguing Allege all plainly against the Sectary which hath been done and most landably again and again by Catholick Authors Yet after all you see Mr Stillingfleet begins new Quarrels as fiercely as if nothing had been said And if one should vnrauel what he hath wouen in his three pages would not â—e think ye to prolong these vnfortunate Strifes possibly find something to except against you And must not you to vnbeguile the Reader once more reply And except against all his new Exceptions How long may controuersies not yet brought to the last plain Principles run on without ending A shorter way Therefore must be thought of And thus it is 5. Take only that Positiue Doctrin which the Protestant plainly makes his own dogmatical Assertion when he either Adds his The clearest way of ending controuersies new Gloss to an obscure Authority or cast's one clear for Catholick Religion into darknes If you will haue Scripture Quote that Passage of the Apostle The Church is the Pillar and ground of Faith This is my body or what els you like best If Fathers Cite S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Iustin Martyr or any other quoted aboue in defense of the Real Conuersion of bread into Christs Sacred Body This done First consider well what Church speak's most Conformably to the obuious Sense of these Authorities 2. Distinguish exactly between the Sectaries Gloss which contain's his Doctrin And the plain words of that Authority which he Interpret's Withall Ponder how little these two look like one another How little their Gloss. This is à Sign of my Body hath to doe with our Sauiours clear Expression This is my body 3. Stay not too long vpon the Energy of à Testimony Though plain in your behalf nor weigh ouer much the Circumstances wherein it was spoken For though both be well done yet This fitt's the Sectaries Humour Who waits for such By-Matters And in his Answers as I haue often obserued To shift off what mainly vrgeth will giue you work enough with his Suppositions his May-bâ—â—s And endles Windingâ— What is then to be done when he supposes his coniectures or Glosses to be true Doctrin This way I am sure is very solid 6. Propose with all moderation These following Questions Haue you Sir any Orthodox Church euer since Christianity began The Sectary is vrged I am sure you haue no express Scripture which without dispute as plainly deliuered the Doctrin contained in your Gloss as you now plainly Teach it Haue you any Orthodox Council which without Exception as Clearly defined it as you now Assert it Haue you any Tradition which by à continued Succession Age after age conueyed vnto you the Tenets you pretend to find in some few Fathers And now publish to the world as Christian Truths If you ground your Glosses or Doctrin on such excellent Principles we Catholicks are certainly in Errour And ought to conform to your reformed Gospel But if you fail and fail you must to doe thus much if you only giue vs empty Glosses without further Proofs we look on them as slight things cast off by the Orthodox world as both vnprincipled and vnpatronized Therefore Scriptureless as they are Churchless as they are they fall of Themselues to nothing And bring vtter ruin to your new Machin of Protestancy 7. I doe you no wrong when I draw you off
Set once more pen paper and proue vs guilty of damnable Errour and you 'l damn so many that very few of your Protestants will be left in à state of Saluation I 'le make the Assertion good hereafter In the interim you Tell vs Wee palpably beg the Question whilst we suppose the whole Church is on our side and against you which is à notorious falshood Sr words are but wind I shall by the Grace of God Euidence this Truth so notoriously in the next Discourse that you if reason may haue place must confess Catholicks are the only Orthodox Church And Consequently grant that Controuersies are ended between vs. THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith HEre wee come to handle à main Matter in Controuersies And first Euidence the true Church by Her Marks and Glorious Miracles The Roman Catholick Church is proued the only Orthodox Society of Christians and Rule of Faith also VVee Euince Her absolute Infallibility and shew by Reason That if She hath taught but one false Doctrin and obliged Christians to belieue it there is now no true Faith in the world CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 1. THE first Principle God whose eternal designe is to bring man to true Faith in this short pilgrimage and after to endles Happines afford's means to acquire both And hath as Principles presupposed well laid open the means whereby true Faith may be attained As made our final End known 2. The second Principle Those want the means leading to the last happy End who are Aliens from the true Church of Christ or Separated from that Catholick Society The Assertion is so plainly deliuered not only by most Ancient Fathers But by the more learned Sectaries also That it is needless to produce many Testimonies S. Cyprian Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae Saith Quisquis ab Ecclesia separatus est c. Who euer is separated from the Church is ioyned to an Adulteress And diuorced from all the Promisses of the Church He comes not to the reward which Christ has promised who leaues the Church of Christ He is an Alien Prophane an Enemy and cannot haue God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother S. Austin lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13. Speaks fully this sense Citing those last words of Cyprian And Lib. 4. de Baptis C. 17. Saith Out of the Church there is no Saluation Yet more Epist 152. Whoeuer is or shall be separated from The Fathers Testimonies preduced this Catholick Church although he thinks himself to liue most laudably For this one wickednes alone that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ shall haue no life Sed ira Dei manet super eum But the wrath of God remains vpon him S. Fulgentius Lib. de fide ad Petrum C. 39. Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it That an Heretick or Schismatick baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and Holy Ghost if he be not in Vnion with the Catholick Church Although he giues neuer so great Alms And shed his blood for Christ yet he cannot be saued I waue other excellent Authorities known to euery one versed in the Fathers And need not to take more pains when Protestants themselues own the Doctrin The Ark was à type of the Church saith Perkins in Symb. Colum with me 785. extra quam omnes interibant out of which Ark All dyed and all are damned who are out of the Church Again In Caput 9. ad Sectaries Consent Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church are not members of the Catholick Church Humfred Ad Ration 3. Campiani We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible Church of God Finally Caluin the Master of Sectaries Lib. 4. Institu C. 1. 4. makes it absolutly necessary to be in vnion with Christs visible Church 3. The ground of this Truth is so solidly laid down in Scripture that none can contradict it For here the Church is called the Kingdom the Body the Inheritance of Christ purchased at à dear The Ground of our Catholick Truth rare the effusion of his sacred blood A Citty built vpon à Mountain The House the Temple of God the Hierusalem the Pillar and firmament of Faith c. Whereby it appears That whoeuer is out of this Kingdom out of this Citty out of this house and Temple of God whoeuer is not à member of this Mystical body or shares not in this purchased Inheritance or in à word out of the true Church be it where you will I yet define nothing is in à damnable condition A sad thought for all Sectaries because it is certain that Christ has not composed his Church of such Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the true Church and of such as oppose it Vnity and Diuision in Vnity and Diuision in Faith haue no place in the true Church points of Faith ase inconsistent in the same Orthodox Church and destroy the essential forme of it which is one Faith Now if our Aduersaries talk of à vnity in Fundamentals they are not only euidently conuinced of Errour in the other Treatise But vpon this very Account become Separaters from the Church and without Principles Assert that which neither Church nor Scripture teaches Who euer hold's not the Catholick faith entire shall Perish eternally saith S. Athanasius in his Creed but an entire Belief excludes all distinction between fundamentals and others as is manifest I little value some Protestants Glosses made vpon this Text for Glosses with me are weightles when they stand vnprincipled 4. The 3. Principle What the true Church of Christ teaches concerning the sense of Scripture That 's the sense intended by the Holy Ghost and Consequently most true The reason is Truth cannot be contrary to truth The Church and Scripture neuer Clash But alwaies speak one and the same verity This Sectaries must grant who define the Church to be an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God Therefore it cannot deceiue or teach an Errour contrary to that pure word Or if it doth so it ceaseth eo ipso to be God's Oracle And the true Church of Christ 5. If these men still go on trifling with their wonted distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals And allow à Perfect vnity of Doctrin between the Church and Scripture in The Distinction between Fundamentals and others friuolous things absolutly necessary to Saluation but not in others This is to define and not to define to build and destroy to teach and cheat in one breath For à definition which makes known the nature of à Thing must stand in its open sense without restraint and exactly agree to the thing defined Mark now Christs true Church is the Thing defined and the Definition charged with endless restrictiue Terms is drawn to Non-sense fot it tells vs the Church
must become Papists or wee turn Arians and Protestants Or finally be forced to deny plain Scripture A most conuincing Argument 9. The difficulty therefore is not and Sectaries seldom touchit whether Scripture be true were the sense known or out of Controuersy but what that true sense is which lies in obscurity and cannot be known without à certain Interpreter Here is the only Question debated between vs and Sectaries One may The only difficulty concerning Scripture Reply It is no good obiection to say learned men differ about the sense of Scripture Ergo it is not sufficiently plain because à great wit may wrest the plainest words God euer spake to à sinister sense Contra. 1. But who knowes when two learned Parties contest in this Matter which of them is the sinister Wrester Contra 2. When à whole Society of men as the Arians were and Protestants are now Tamper with à Text which touches an essential point of Faith And dissent from others as learned as Themselues about the meaning The sense cannot be supposed more clear for the one than the other without an other Rule certain and Definitiue Pray you say Is the sense of those words My Father is greater than I indisputably clear for the Arian Or the sense of Christs words This is my Body without controuersy clear for the Protestants Doctrin concerning the Sacrament when à whole learned Church opposeth both Euidently No. Therefore Sectaries must acknowledge an Obscurity in Scripture our Nouellists must grant that Scripture is not only obscure in these two places But more That à Iudge is necessary to ascertain all of its true meaning as well in these as in à hundred other Passages Again if Scripture want this clarity it cannot be its own Self-euidence much less conuince an obdurate Aduersary Nay I say though it were clear and the sense thereof agreed on by all called Christians yet both Iewes and Gentils scorn the Diuinity of the book And say if 't be of Diuine inspiration That must be proued by à certain Rule extrinsecal to Scripture Therefore it is not immediatly credible by it self or for it self Lastly were Scripture plain in it self yet And this vtterly ruin's Sectaries The certain Doctrin of it can neuer be applyed indubitably to any vnderstanding For our Nouellists say because all Teachers of Christian Doctrin are fallible none can make an infallible Application of it to any or teaeh that Doctrin infallibly which is in it self infallible See more hereof in the other Treatise Disc 1. C. 2. and C. 4. N. S. CHAP. II. The Rule of Faith assigned The Properties of à Rule VVhat is meant by the Church Ancient Fathers Assert that the Church is easily found out Her marks more clear than Her Essential Doctrin 1. THe true Church of Christ in this present State manifestly demonstrable by signal Marks and Motiues is the only plain certain Self-euident Rule of Faith apt to conuince the most obdurate Vnbelieuer It is immediatly credible and the Doctrin of it certainly applyed to à Seeker after truth These Assertions stand firm vpon 3. Principles 2. 1. Christ Iesus has prouided Christians of à clear and easy Rule otherwise All are left in darknes and know not what or how to belieue 3. 2. Nothing assigned by Sectaries Bee it Scripture solely or what els Imaginable Carries so much as à weak probability of being à Rule so plain easy and satisfactory as the true Church is 4. 3. All the properties of à Rule exactly agree to the Church of Christ and to Her only 1. The Rule of Faith is plain Christs Church is the Rule of Faith so is Church Doctrin and much more plain than Scripture I mean we easily vnderstand what the Church teaches though the Doctrin in it self be difficult 2. A Rule is its own Self-euidence so the Church is taken with the Marks and Motiues whereby She is demonstrated 3. A Rule is apt to conuince the most obstinate Aduersaries Christs Church has euidently don so witness the innumerable Conuersions wrought by Her vpon Iewes Gentils and most obdurate Hereticks 4. A Rule must be certain and certainly applyed to Belieuers what Christs true Church teaches is so for She is Gods own Oracle as shall be proued hereafter and teaches her Children infallibly The Truth of these particulars will be more fully laid forth in the sequele of this Discourse In the mean while two things are to be cleared The first what we vnderstand by the Church of Christ 2. How and by what means She may be known Thus much done we shall easily find out those Christians who are Members of this happy Society or essentially constitute that visible moral Body called the Holy Catholick Church What is meant by the Church 5. Concerning the first We speak plainly and vnderstand by the Church à visible Society of true Belieuers vnited in one profession of Christian Faith and the communication of Sacraments vnder the Conduct and Gouerment of Christ's lawful Commissioned Pastors I say no more yet hoping no Sectary can iustly quarrel with the Notion of à Church expressed in such general Terms And therefore waue at present that other worn-out controuersy agitated by Protestants viz. Whether the Predestinate only make vp the true Church or great Sinners also may be included That is not at all to our purpose now when we only seek after à Society of Christians vnited in the true Faith of Jesus Christ who owne à due submission to lawful Commissioned Pastors whether those who teach or are taught be Saints or sinners concerns them t' is true but not our present Question Of such Belieuers there cannot be two or more Churches but one only And to auoid all confusion or the mingling of different Questions together we here moue no doubt concerning the Head The meaning of the question proposed or chief Authority of this Church but immediattly Ask whether there is now and has euer been since Christs time à visible diffused Society of Christians who haue faithfully belieued the Orthodox Doctrin of Christ and vpon that Account well merit to be called the Professors of the true Catholick Church Of this Vniuersal spread Society our Sauiour spake most clearly or of none Hell gates Can not preuail against it The Spirit of Truth abides with it to the end of the world c. I think no Sectary will deny such à Church 6. The only difficulty now is to find out this Orthodox and large diffused Body of Christians vnited in one true Faith and the sincere Worship of God And nothing is more consonant to reason more express in Holy Writ or more clearly asserted by the ancient Fathers than that the true Church laies forth Her own euidence or clear Discernibility whereby She is distinguished from all Heretical Sects That is She lies manifestly open to all eyes and Cannot but bee most easily known She is à Ciâ—â—y built vpon à mountain The light of the world A
Fathers or of any man now liuing Again What if most of those ancient Writings be lost many certainly are we are at à Stand. But finally what if doubts arise concerning the sense of those few preserued copies yet extant can Sectaries Glosses or ours either determin what 's right Orthodox Doctrin by them No. Therefore By what means one may come to the primitiue Doctrin as I said aboue no man can come to à full exact and satisfactory knowledge of the Primitiue Truths but by the voice and Tradition of the present Church Reiect this voice of the present Church we are cast into darkness we may dispute long but end nothing Now because it lies not in my way to Treat of that excellent Rule of Tradition learnedly handled by others I 'le giue you three Conuincing reasons And proue my Assertion viz. That the Roman vniuersal Church once Orthodox neuer changed the Primitiue Doctrin To show this Two certain Principles are to be reflected on 6. First God had alwaies an Orthodox Church on earth founded by Christ which was and is pure without mixture at least of notorious damnable Errours and which neuer taught An Argument prouing the Roman Catholick Church stil pure in Doctrin Christians any shameful false Doctrin for had it done so in any Age it had then ceased Eo ipso to be Christ's pure Church The 2. Principle Protestants confess and t' is à certain truth that the Roman Catholick Church continued Orthodox without Notable errour for the first three or four Centuries 7. Hence I argue If this Church once pure abandoned Christ's Doctrin in after Ages or forged new Articles of faith contrary to the Primitiue verities that Change was Notorious shameful and damnable as we shall see presently But it is not possible that She euer made such à shameful Notorious change And here is my Reason Had She done so Christ in that Age when this supposed Alteration began would haue had no Orthodox Church on earth free from gross and culpable Errour and Consequently his own pure Church would wholly haue been abolished 8. You will Ask how I proue this I Answer most euidently Begin if you please from the third Age when the Roman Church was pure And descend to Luthers dayes you will find all the known Societies of men called Christians to haue been either Orthodox Belieuers Or grosly erring in Faith yea plain condemned Hereticks And so reckoned of by Protestants Such were the Arians Nestorians Pelagians Monothelits Donatists c. And all others nameable excepting Roman Catholicks But those gross erring men euidently taught not Christs pure One reason vrged Doctrin without notable Errour much less constituted either à Part or the whole Orthodox Church which Christ established in truth Therefore if the Roman Catholick Church went to wrack also if She erred notoriously with these known erring Societies the Orthodoxism and Purity of the whole Church ceased to be in the world And this is impossible 9. Here in à word is all I would say Christ had euer à Church Entierly pure on earth for he founded one pure which should alwaies continue in that integrity laid in Her very foundation But no errour was laid in the foundations of the Roman Catholick Church once Confessedly pure therefore no notorious Errour stained it in after Ages Or if any such errour fouled that once fair Spouse of Christ this Sequele is euident There was at that time no pure Church in Being vnless our Nouellists please and perhaps they may do so in time to make Arians Donatists and such à rabble of men more Orthodox Christians than their own Progenitors were and all the Roman Catholicks are now the whole world ouer 10. You see I insist vpon notorious Errours And do so on set Why wee insist vpon Notorious errours purpose to preuent à Reply of some newer Sectaries who say the Church of Rome hath indeed Her Errours But not fundamental or destructiue of Saluation And will you know the reason of this trifling Here it is If they say She was not Orthodox in fundamentals there was no true Church in being for à thousand years before Luther and this no Christian dare Assert And if they make her Orthodox in euery Article She taught both Heresy and Schism fall's shamefully vpon Protestants Who dare not grant they abandonned à Church Entierly pure and blamless when they left it Hence à middle way was wisely or rather most simply thought of Our Church forsooth must be what Protestants please partly true viz. in à few Fundamentals and partly false in other Matters of less concern which these men elected by God were to reform and tell exactly what was amiss or how far it hath erred c. And therefore name themselues the Reformed Church Well Let this whimsy pass largely refuted in the other Treatise and in passing take notice of à pitifull Church indeed which Christ had by these mens own Confession ten whole ages before Luther It was à meer deformed Monster made vp of Linzy wolzy stuff of tawny Colours of something and nothing in à word of Truth and Falshood But here is not all 11. I am to proue much more if Protestants Principles stand firm viz. That neither we nor they had any Orthodox Church in fundamentals before Luther and Consequently no true Church was in being for ten whole Ages Now most euidently Sectaries had nothing like à Church for they were not in the world And it is as euident if their Charge hold good against our Church it had bin much better neuer to haue appeared than to see it turned into so many vgly shapes into such an vnfashioned Monster as these new men make it In à word this ancient Catholick Society if Sectaries say right and Mark euer the Supposition erred notoriouslly in the very fundamentals of Faith and Faith totally ruined in Sectaries Principles neither belieued in Christ nor Creed and therefore there was no Orthodox Church before Luther nor yet is to this day If I euidence not this vpon the supposition now made neuer Credit me here after To doe it please to obserue that by à fundamental Errour in Faith I vnderstand à Doctrin which if falsly taught contrary to Christs verities is as damnable to those who teach it as the Arians errours are at this day damnable to Arians Hence I Argue 12. What euer Society of men forges new Articles of Faith contrary to the Primitiue Doctrin or tell 's the world à loud lye that God reuealed such things as he neuer reuealed but vtterly The Assertion manifestly proued disowns and yet execrat's And more ouer obliges all Christians after à sufficient proposal to belieue such falsities vpon Diuine Reuelation and this vnder pain of damnation doth open iniury to Gods Infinite verity Assert's that which Eternal Truth neuer taught And therefore sins damnably or err's in the fundamentals of Faith But Protestants say the Roman Catholick Church long before Luther did so
our Church hath erred but in one only Matter of Christian belief She is Traiterous disloyal to Christ and can be belieued in nothing To proue The Church is traiterous if false in one Article the Assertion Suppose an Embassadour sent to à forraign state with this deep Charge that he vtter nothing in his Princes name but so much only as he is commissioned to speak Suppose again the man declares some few truths to the state as his Lord commanded But withall forges twenty other vntruths on his own head and stifly affirm's his order is to deliuer all he saith in his Masters name Would not such à man think ye be à Traitour vpon à double account First because he exceed's the bounds of his Commission and deliuers that he had no order for But chiefly because he speaks vast falsities wholly Contrary to his iudgement who sent him 2. The Application in easy The first Teachers of the Gospel were legates sent from God to à great State the whole world For in omnem terram exâ—uit sonus eorum They taught euery where and well for some short time our Christian Verities as the Prince who sent them Commanded But their Successors the Pastors and Doctors of the Roman Catholick Church in after Ages had Say Sectaries the ill luck to miscarry to turn Traitours for besides à few fundamental Truths vpheld no man knowes how They did not only exceed their commission in deliuering Doctrin to all Nations which Christ their Master neuer allowed of but more ouer forged of their own heads twenty vntruths Purgatory Praying to Saints Transubslantiation c. And spake all in their Princes name Said also they had Commission from Christ to teach so This fact if the Charge be true is Treasonable they iniured Christ And consequently not Orthodox and his Verities and betrayed their trust But à Church so perfidious cannot be Orthodox Therefore if Sectaries do not Calumniate Christ had no Orthodox Church in the world before Luther which I intended to proue and Consequently Protestants are yet no true Church at all 3. I say moreouer If the Roman Catholick Church hath taught false Doctrin but in one onely Matter of Christian belief She can be belieued in nothing yea I may rationally suspect her false in all She teaches Iust so it is If the book of Scripture deliuer's one Doctrin false which Christians now belieue I cannot credit it in any thing The reason is One and the same Motiue of my belief duely and equally applied euer moues to an equal Assent or to None at all For example I belieue Christ dyed for vs because Gods word saies so Here is the Motiue of my Assent I belieue also that he ascended into Heauen because the same word of God speaks it here is the same Motiue Imagin now by à supposed impossibility that this latter Article A Church false in one Article merits no beliefe is Gods word but false I cannot belieue our Sauiours Death vpon the Motiue of God's word For if this word be false and once deceiue it may as easily be false and deceiue me twice And there is no possible means to quit me of my errour Because whoeuer endeauours to do that is of less Authority than God's word which is now supposed to deceiue me If therefore the First Verity can reueal an vntruth none can belieue either man or Angel speaking of the high Mysteries of our Faith and Consequently All must still remain in Errour 4. Apply this Discourse to the Roman Catholick Church which pretend's at least I say no more yet to be Gods Oracle and to speak in His name She speaking in his name assures me that Infants are to be Baptized I belieue Her vpon her word She also tells me there is à Purgatory but we must now suppose with Sectaries it is à great vntruth if so I cannot possibly belieue Her in the other Doctrin of Infant Baptism For if she deceiues me once She may well do it again and which is to be noted There is no means left vnder Heauen to vnbeguile me or to draw me out of my supposed Errour for who euer attempts to do that is of less Authority than my Church which is supposed to teach to err in Her teaching and stifly to maintain the Errour Scripture cannot help here vnless it be clear vpon an indubitable Principle that the sense of it and Doctrin of my Church can differ in points of Faith which must be proued and not Supposed If Fathers be alleaged Seemingly contrary to this known Doctrin my duty is to explicate them and rather to draw the Fathers to what the Church teaches than to renounce Her Authority and adhere to the dubious and yet vnknown Sense of any Father 5. Now here is à short consideration For Sectaries I said whoeuer supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to haue erred A Reflection for Sectaries must ioyntly own it so remediless an Euil that all the men on earth cannot help or remoue the supposed errour from this Church The reason is All the Proofs and Principles setting plain Scripture aside whereof there is no danger which may be thought pertinent to impeach Her of errour will fall infinitly short and proue less ponderous less substantial to perswade that She has erred than her sole Vote and own Authority whilst she anathematizes the falshood is to perswade the contrary Viz. That She neuer erred Hence Sectaries confessedly fallible men who Sectaries Attempt desperate and why may easily spoil all they goe about to mend aduenture desperatly to reform the Church when the very Principles they should reform by were there any such in being are incomparably of less weight strength and force than the Authority of this Church is which saith She cannot erre Howeuer She must be reformed and here is the wonder before they know whether She has erred or haue the least assurance of their own half accomplish't reformation Who then see 's not euery attempt made against our Church this way to bee as really it is à folly an vnaduiced Enterprise no less impossible than in the highest manner improbable Mark what à task lies on them 6. First they are to proue She has erred which was neuer yet done 2. To giue in Principles whereby they will reform 3. To VVhat they are to proue Shew themselues well setled in à perfect Reformation 4. To euince that all those innumerable learned men of our Church from the Fourth to the present Age haue been stupidly blind bereaued of iudgement and besotted with Errour 5. Wheras other Christians both more aged and most learned espyed none of these Errours They are to proue that God made choise of such vncommissioned men to perform à work so long neglected by the Orthodox world But of these particulars enough is said in the other Treatise 7. Hence two things follow First that Sectaries only lose time when by alleging à few dark Testimonies of the Fathers they offer to
Poterit de vniuersâ Numinis potentiâ dubitare He may as well doubt of all the power God hath They are plain truths rigorously and most seuerely examined testified by Eye-witnesses and now vpon Two certain Miracâ—es related Record c. I am forced to omit innumerable latter Miracles The work would be Immense to recount but halfe yet one most certain and no less famous then certain you haue here set down Another truly wonderful followes in the next Chapter Sense Experience Reason and all humane Faith goe to wrack if either be boggl'd at Those iudgements are peruerse Those hearts harder then stones that dare deny them Credit The Admirable cure wrought by Blessed S. Xauerius in the Famous Citty of Naples vpon à worthy Religious Person called F. Marcellus Mastrilli à Noble man by birth and by Profession of the Society of Iesus The Proof hinted at aboue reassumed 18. In the year 1634. The Vice Roy of Naples Count Monterey pleased to keep à Magnificent Solemnity at his own Palace in Honour of the euer Blessed Mother of God Amongst orher Altars richly adorned to set forth the Festiual day The care of one Altar was committed to F. Mastrilli who standing on the lower steps of à ladder and casually looking vp at one that took of Tapistrie nailed to à higher part of the wall met Marcellus wounded with à sad Accident Behold à Hammer of two pound weight fell directly vpon the Temples of his head struck him down left him senseless and grieuously wounded In this Peril First taken vp by the hands of others Hee was presently carried in à Couch to his own Colledge Doctors of Physick and Surgeons without delay called for searched the wound and found it Mortal Forth with à burning feauer following vpon the hurt so increased the danger in that noxius aire à great enemy to wounds and vnseasonable winter time That all left hopeless despaired of Marcellus His wound iudged Desperate and why Recouery Besides his mouth by the Contusion of Nerues was so closed vp that the poor Patient could take no sustenance To help That The Doctors necessitated to vse violence forced it open and thrust an Instrument down towards his stomach hoping thereby to clear the passage and fit it to receiue some nourishment But with little good success For the Cruel Remedy became an vnspeakable torment to the afflicted Patient Soon after followed strong Conuulsion fits plain Symtoms of death and besides à Dead Palsie which wholly took away the vse of his left arme 19. Whoeuer desires to see more of this desperate danger And how neer Marcellus was at deaths doore may please to read Daniel Bartoli in his second Part of Asia lib. 5. at this Tittle L'Imperio dc Toxongum Page with mee 441. and. 442. And also Michaël de Elizalde Eorma verae Religionis Qust 27. N. 478. P. 329. who liued at Naples and wrote this Miracle not long after it happened In this condition Marcellus continued many dayes despaired of by the very best and most expert Phisitians Wherefore the Conclusion was to implore the mercy of God Death expected in his behalfe to commend him as the manner is to the prayers of the Community and finally to administer Extrem vnction For his obstructed Mouth and brest full of Clottered blood hindred the taking the Holy Eucharist or last Viaticum The Doctors The Doctors gaue Marcellus ouer prudently aduiced to prepare him for death For they found him now past all hope of Recouery Nay all of them with one Consent absolutely Concluded Marcellus could not liue till the next morning 20. Now here begins the Miracle The 3 .d of Ianuary four houres within night The Fathers that watched with dying Mastrilli The Miracle begins obserued He did not only moue and turn Himselfe to the wall but heard him speak also which seemed to them à wonder For before Hee lay speechles not able to vtter à word much less to moue his weak body But what followes clear's all The motion came from à stronger hand And thus it was 21. S. Xauerius appeared in à pilgrims weed very Glorious With S. Xaueâ—ius Apparition to Marcellus And with à Smiling Countenance demanded whether He would rather dye at present Or according to his former desire bee sent Missioner into the Indies In passing please to know the virtuous man euer languished after that Mission Though hindred from it by Superiours because of his tender and weak Constitution 22. Marcellus Answered I am ready to doe whateuer God pleases Yet according to my former purpose may that be grateful to the Diuine will and granted by Superiours I am in heart prepared to dye à Martyr for Christ amongst those Indians Xauerius herevpon pronounced the form of à vow which the sick man as the words were spoken by the Saint repeated after Him By this vow He obliged himselfe to renounce Country Friends and whateuer is in the world to bee sent to the Indian Mission You haue the Form of the vow in Bartoli now cited Page 444. In the Marcellus his vow Reliques Applied to the wound next place à Relique of the Holy Cross and some others also which Marcellus had about his neck were applyed by the help of S. Xauerius to the wound in his head Still the Fathers present heard Marcellus speak for à long time together some thought them words of à distracted brain others iudged Otherwise After these and many other Circumstances related by the Authors already quoted Xauerius Spake to this Sense Marcellus bee of S. Xauerius Comfortable words good Courage you are now perfectly cured Your desire is granted you shall goe to the Indies and there dye à Martyr This said the Saint disappeared 23. Without delay at all Marcellus loock'd on as à dying man reuiued instantly sate vp in his bed called for his cloaths The Miracle moct Euident Yea saith Elizalde Exilit è lâ—cto leap't out of his bed And with à stronge Cheerful voice said I am well I am perfectly Cured And so it was indeed For the Mortal wound cause of His Malady quite Closed vp appeared no more And which is à wonder the hair of his head cut of by the Chirurgeons to facilitate the cure was restored as formerly So Elizalde testifies n. 480. Restituti Capilli ad Vulneris Curationem â—rasi His Paleness and weaknes went away Colour strength and agility returned in that very Instant What need I say More Marcellus à Moment before at Deaths door becomes sound healthful and perfectly well 24. Those who attended Him called together the Fathers of the house many in number to bee Eye-witnesses of the wonder All came with ioyful hearts and First prostrate on the ground with much deuotion gaue immortal thanks to God for the cure then Embraced Marcellus who took à little sustenance which he had wanted for à long time That done the Superiour commanded him forthwith to write down exactly euery particular hee
can probably oppose the receiued Doctrin of our Catholick Oracle or defend his own contrary to it whilst he is Churchless I mean so long as he giues in no Euidence The true reason why no Heretick can oppose the Church of an other Church distinct from the Roman Catholick as Ancient as vniuersal as She is as glorious in Miracles as She is as famous for Conuersions as She is as Vncensured as She is as commissioned to preach and teach the world as She is I say whils't no such qualified Church can be euidenced which contradicted our present Catholick Doctrin and maintained that of Sectaries so long the Protestant cannot defend his own opinions nor rationally oppose our Catholick Tenents For here as S. Austin anciently obserued disputing with the Donatists lies the main Business and it decides all Difficulties Vtrum vestra an nostra sit Ecclesia Dei Whether yours or ours be the Church of God Let then this one point worthy Debate be rigidly examined And 't is easily done may the euer acknowledged Marks and Signes of the true Church haue weight with Prudent reason We are all without more Dispute reunited in one Ancient Faith 24. And who can if his cause be good decline this modest Offer When t' is known that these publick Signs haue fix'd Sectaries Euer decline the Sentence of an Euidenced Church and established this publick Iudgement in all through the Christian world That à Church so vndeniably Ancient so Miraculous and drawing Souls to Her cannot but be Gods Sacred Oracle But Sectaries in all their Polemicks waue this worthy Question concerning an euidenced Church and vnworthily to the great Wearisomnes of euery Reader stand pitifully trifling with à few long since defeated and worn-out Controuersies I say trifling For is it not more then slight and friuolous now to flurt at the worshiping of Images now to pelt the Pope now to quote à half sensed Sentence against Purgatory now to misrelate And trifle time away à Story now if à wickednes lie in à Corner to rifle that Now to talk as if men were mad of the Roman Churches Idolatry Here to iibe at our Ceremonies there to attaint the Spotles Reputation of Christs Spouse Say for Gods sake to what purpose is this when the Knowledge of that Vnum necessarium which cannot but be known viz. Here is Gods euidenced Oracle so clearly ends all Debates so iustly determin's what 's true and what 's false in these and the like particulars that none can vnlesse led on with à Spirit of Contradiction withstand the iust Sentence of this One euidenced Oracle 25. If the Sectary reply notwithstanding the Churches Euidence many things She teaches appear doubtful to him I haue Answered Disc 1. C. 18. Proofs only doubtful yea though Probable also which is not want pith to gainsay an Euidence What the most ancient Christians owned owned by the publick Wisdom of the Christian world But the greatest Part of the Christian world Alwayes owned these Truths First That God has and euer had à Church Visible on earth 2. That his Church may be known by Her Marks Signes and Motiues and that the most meet Signes to Distinguish Her by are answerable to those manifested in Christ our Lord. 3. That rhe Roman Catholick Church only Euidently shewes these Signs and by Virtue of them demonstrat's Her self to be Gods own Oracle Here you haue my Principles already laid forth And à Petition with them to Protestants to infringe or weaken but One of them vpon Scripture-Proof vpon the irrefragable Testimony of Fathers or by Virtue of any Principle which may appear probable to the vniuersal Sense or rational Consent of such as haue been owned Orthodox since Christ liued on earth But to do this is vtterly impossible 26. Descend now if you please to particular Controuersies you shall euer find that nothing but the twilight of weak Reason meer Doubtfulness I mean support's Protestant Religion It is doubtful say these Aduersaries whether Purgatory be or Doubts and Cauils are the only Support of Protestancy no. It is doubtful whether Praying to Saints be Orthodox Doctrin The Popes Supremacy ouer the whole Church is Doubtful and Questionable Very Good let these Propositions pass yet as doubtful Perhaps Purgatory is not Perhaps it is Perhaps inuocation of Saints is Orthodox Doctrin Perhaps no For neither the one nor other considered in Themselves is à Truth Euident Ex terminis or so much as Morally certain Now here is the iust Trial. The Protestant positiuely denyes Purgatory I positiuely Assert it Both Propositions are hitherto supposed doubtful Therefore He who maintains truth is obliged to raise his Proposition from that low State of à poor Perhaps or doubting to à higher Degree of certainty The Catholick speaks plainly and Argues thus Gods euidenced Oracle which beares the Marks the Ensigns of Christ Iesus and taught the world from the Beginning obliges all as well to belieue à Purgatory as à Trinity of Persons I cannot therefore Saith he without à Forfeiture of all Reason and striuing against the Publick wisdom of the Christian world Own this à faithful Oracle in the Proposal of the one Mystery and hold it Perfidious or Traiterous in the other Here is the Catholicks Euidence Now Mark well The proofs of the Protestants Proposition There is no Purgatory are euer as remote The Assertion declared and proued from Certainty as miserably dubious as his very Assertion is I say no Proof goes aboue the Strength of one poor deficient and weak Perhaps If he allege Fathers Contrary to Purgatory or any other Catholick Tenet His own reason yet in à cloud tell 's him Perhaps He hitt's on the true Sense Perhaps not If he plead by Scripture he neuer get's aboue the degree of doubting If he take recourse to History or any other Principle what euer He shal find himself at the end of his labour where he was at the Beginning as doubtful in his Proofs as in his Assertion And why He hath no euidenced Church to rely on But more of this hereafter See also Disc 1. C. 11. CHAP. XIII Other Inferences drawn from the precedent Doctrin Atheists and Heretick Argue alike The Motiues of Credibility lead to à total Belief of what euer the true Church Proposeth A word of Mr Thorndicks Mistakes concerning the Church 1. THe first Inference All that 's pleadable in Behalf of Protestancy or any particular Tenet thereof is not only doubtful but highly improbable vpon These two Principles First that à Church euidenced by the very same Marks and Motiues which Christ our Lord Shewed to the world reiect's the Two Principles Nouelty And no Authority on earth can Contest with an Oracle so clearly Manifest The other Principle No Society of Christians signalized with the like Motiues as the Roman Catholick Church Demonstrat's euer maintained so much as one Tenet of the Protestants Doctrin Here the ingenuous Reader is desired to reflect
Church of Christ and consequently both the Romanists and English wanting fundamentals are People essentially Churchless Now vpon the Supposition of lesser corruptions only not fundamental you haue à dreadful Inference against Protestants And as true as dreadful Viz. That their first Separation from the Roman Catholick Church was damnably Sinful though She were here falsly supposed to haue erred in smaller matters This I A third Inference Say followes not only because the Ancient Fathers expresly teach No Reformation can be of such Importance as to counteruaile the danger of Diuisions And that all things should be rather tolerated than to consent to Schism in the Church But vpon this other account also that the Reuolt of Protestants from our Ancient Church hath laid such à visible disgrace vpon à noble Kingdom That none but the powerful hand of God with the wisdom of our Gracious Souereign and the States concurrence Touching vpon the doleful Diuisions in England can take it of The Nation we see with our eyes is strangely diuided hideously discomposed Religion is of the hinges and men generally are so transported into Extrauagancies that none can say what the Religion is which England Professes at this day There are so many Sects so many Diuisions so many Tub-Preachers so many woemen-Gospellers so many Quakers so many Fanaticks so many Leuiathan-Monsters that you may read and see without turning to the Bible à Babylonian Confusion amongst them Would Popery Sr. think ye you are as I vnderstand moderate and learned had that continued laid England vnder such à publick Disgrace as this Rabble of men and Fanaticks haue done Let the world iudge 19. Now if you Ask from whence came this fearful Disorder which to my sorrow makes our Country ridiculous to forrain Nations I answer The first Rent the first Rupture the first Schism of Protestants from the Catholick Church occasioned all Here is the Source and Sole Origen of these vnfortunate The Origen of all these lamentable Diuisions Reuolutions Wherefore this Argument proposed by à Fanatick against Protestants is vnanswerably conuincing Ad hominem I say ad hominem not that I approue Fanaticism As ye Protestants without recourse to any other iudge but your Selues vpon your own Authority quitted the Roman Catholick Church and thought your Fact reasonable So we Fanaticks without recourse to any but our own tender Consciences knowing you began à Reformation not yet compleat leaue Protestancy And hold our fact as reasonable as yours And thus others by your first Example The Fanaticks Argument against Protestants may reform Religion to the worlds end Yet all of vs may these men Say make but one true Church For if Mr. Thorndicke Page 9. Answer 's pertinently to that demand Where his Church was before Luther There it was saith he where it is The same Church reformed which was depraued afore If this Answer I say be good Pray you why should Fanaticks Nay why ought the Arians and worst of Heretickes be excluded from being of one and the same Catholick Church For the Church seems to Sectaries an ample field and embraceth all called Christians though differently reformed The only difficulty then is to find out him or se Those who among so many dissenting Reformers the whole world ouer haue happily made the best choise in All seclanes will reform and none can do it mending Religion The Protestant you see reform's the Catholick the Puritan the Protestant and the Quaquer will reform all at once vntil some new Sectary peep out that bring 's in à better Fashion And is it possible shall all these vnreformed People reform one another This difficulty cannot be solued in Protestant principles 20. I say in à word It is impossible to reform any erring Society of Christians but by the Rule Doctrin and Authority of The Church which reform's other erring Socoeties must not need any reformation some one Church which must be owned so pure that She cannot be reformed in what She teaches The reason is clear For à fallible and deformed Church can no more help to reform another like wise fallible or unreformed than the blind lead the blind Hence methinks Mr. Thorndick who hold's Protestancy as fallible and as much out of order as Popery Speak's little to the purpose Page 11. where he saith There is no Power in this Church and Kingdom he mean's England to reform it self in matter of Religion but only by that Form and to that Form which may appear to haue been held by the whole Primitiue Church before the Corruption came in which we pretend to reform I cannot but smile at this word Appear Pray you Sr Say to whom must it Appear What To you or me or to any priuate fallible man You talk as if forsooth the Primitiue Doctrin were so apparently Manifest to People that euery one by opening Books and reading Autiquity may with à wet singer clearly discouer the true and Orthodox Form of Religion Wheras the contrary is euident For haue not we and Protestants to omit others now for à whole Age perused Councils and Fathers and after all do we not see with our eyes that what seem's Orthodox Doctrin to one Party seem's not so to the other It appears manifestly to me that the Primitiue Fathers so openly maintained an vnbloody Sacrifice vpon the Altar that the wit of man cannot without violence wrest them to à contrary sense doth the Truth appear so to Protestants It appeared to S. Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. Dissentions arises after the perusal of the primitiue writings and to me also That Heresy and Schism take their Origen from this That the fraternity of Christians answerably to Gods command Obey not one Priest and one Iudge who is Christs Vice-gerent in the Militant Church on earth Will Sectaries read and vnderstand this as I doe It seemed clear to S. Hierome cited aboue That one out of the Roman Catholick Church wherof Pope Damasus was then Head really belonged not to Christ but to Antichrist and Therefore ought to be esteemed an Alien from the house of God à Person vnclean and prophane Will the Protestant after his reading these words own the Doctrin pure and Orthodox No he dares not 21. What then is the Result though we read these and à hundred other Passages in the ancient Records so Plain for Popery Experience tell 's vs nothing els ensues but an endles contest about their Sense and crossing one an other with contrary glosses This is all that can appear to Mr Thorndick Wherefore Vnless The plainest Authorities Conuince not Sectaries Recourse be had to better Principles then to meer Appearances Disputes may goe on till Dooms day without Satisfaction or fruit to any Be it how you will My hearty wish is that Mr Thorndick who hitherto Stayes in Generallities would please fully to set down that whole Plat-form of Religion which he conceiues exact and suitable to the Primitiue Church Were this
done which will neuer be I am confident His Extract or what is required of Mr Thorndick Draught would appear so imperfect and mishapen à Business in the iudgement of Catholicks and Protestants also That as the one Party cannot but look on it with disdain so the other would reiect it as vnworthy Acceptance 22. Besides would it not seem à new wonder to Strangers abroad Yea and as ridiculous as wonderful were rhey told that after so much labour spent about reforming Religion in England we haue yet at present à thoughtful Gentleman there that 's very busy in Setting forth the last and best Edition of Protestancy Reformed which perhaps may proue worse than any other gon before Naught it must needs be for this Reason That the means he would reform by has no Proportion with the designed End For by A New◠Reformer of Religion in these old dayes of the world the light of à few dead Manuscripts written 14. or 15. Ages Since He offer 's now to amend all the Churches in the world though the very sense of these Writings which must be the Rule of his Reformation is neither well known to Himselfe nor yet agreed on by those dissenting Churches he would reform What think ye Were this sense yet to be learned the want whereof causes endles Errours among Sectaries would not common Prudence rather take it from à liuing Oracle which has taught the world time out of mind than from à late Nouellist that Professes himself fallible and Therefore may most easily Misinterpret would appear ridiculous to all the best Records This liuing Oracle at least promises infallibility Which Shall be proued presently And therefore is à Surer Principle to rely on Then The Fathers Sentences long Since Written whilst Sectaries make Their sense and true meaning à Matter of Contest 23. Yet one word more and I end Mr Thorndick will Reform the present Roman Church Corrupted by the Primitiue supposed pure for the first 4. or 5. Ages I must needs demand first whether that Primitiue Church the Rule of his Reformation Questions proposed to our Aduersary was infallible and pure in those pretended fundamentals only necessary to Saluation though not in other Doctrins of lesser Moment Or. 2. Whether She because fallible as much needed Reformation in smaller Matters not called fundamental as this present Church is supposed to need Or. 3. Whether She was so entirely pure in euery doctrin little and great that She could not be brought to more Purity or be better Reformed Grant the first viz. That the Primitiue Church was vnerrable and pure in fundamentals only not in others The present Roman Church is as good as She was For our Aduersary own 's Her à true Church wherein Saluation may be had and thus far She needs no reforming Grant 2. that both these Churches because fallible might erre and perhaps haue erred in lesser Matters not named fundamental The Primitiue can be no Rule of Reformation to the present Church because that Primitiue is alike err 〈…〉 alike reformable And for ought men know as much out of the way of truth in Non-fundamentals as the present Church is Therefore I said aboue if the blind cannot lead the blind à Church wanting Reformation cannot reform another sick of the same malady 24. If finally it be Said the Primitiue Church was so infallible so pure euery way both in great and little Matters that She could not be more reformed in the first 5. Centuries for example We haue à Church once entirely pure And then vrge our Herein Satisfaction is most required Aduersary not barely to say it But to proue vpon indubitable Principles Scriptures Fathers or the General Consent of Christians that She continued not wholly as pure in the sixt seuenth or eight Age and so downward to our dayes as She was before To shew à Deficiency in this Church once confessedly true in after Ages will be more than an Herculian labour when it is demonstratiuely euidenced aboue That nothing but à Church equally as Ancient as Vniuersal and glorious in Miracles as the Roman is can probably impeach Her of the least Corruption Mr Thorndicks Mistake is that he makes as Sectaries vsually do à false Supposition his Proof He supposes A supposition made à Proof our Church corrupted in Doctrin and then will amend it according to his fancy by the Primitiue whereas he knowes or ought to know that we Catholicks deny His Supposition and say both are vnerrable and withall Assert that no Authority on earth can better inform vs of the Primitiue Doctrin than the present Roman Church which hath successiuely handed it to vs Age after Age. Howeuer to take away all ambiguity and further Dispute in this Matter you haue next three following Chapters which I hope will giue Satisfaction to the rational Reader More shall be added hereafter CHAP. XIV VVhether there be à Church of one Denomination infallible not only in Matters miscalled Fundamental but in all and euery Doctrin She Proposes and Obliges Christians to belieue as Faith 1. AS the Answer to the Question aym's at à clear and easy way of ending Controuersies Concerning Religion So the following Discourse tend's to settle one great truth in the minds of euery one viz. That both the Ancient and present Roman Catholick Church is not only infallible But that the what we intend to proue Aduersaries of Her infallibility destroy the very Essence of Christian Religion And deseruedly merit vpon that Account The name of Schismaticks and Heretiques also 2. To make good what 's now Asserted à few Postulata or Principles must be premised One is That Church which Promises and proues Herselfe infallible in Doctrin doth not only Vpon these following Principles facilitate but giues also absolute Security to Faith For such à Church Participat's most and comes neerest to that first Diuine Apostolical Spirit which confessedly was infallible 3. A. ◠Principle Whereas nothing hath or ought to haue à stronger Influence ouer the minds of men than Religion So nothing can discountenance it more than à stedfast Perswasion of its Fallibility and Consequently of it 's easily being False This Perswasion Cut's of all Christian Assurance and driues men to so cold an Indifference of embracing this or that Religion That it much import's not which to take to any or none 4. A. 3. Principle The means or influence whereby Christ preserues his Church infallible needs not to be explicated by any Supernatural quality personally inhering in the Teaching Representatiue or intrinsecally eleuating the conuened Prelates to à State of Infallibility for t' is enough that the safe Conduct of Almighty God who is alwaies vigilant and Assists by his exteriour Protection so secures the Church from errour that She neither What the Churches Infallibility requires can be misled when She teaches nor mislead others Yet I deny not but that an interiour Motion of Grace may be yea and often
few Sectaries Though when they haue it it becomes The Author of Moral certainly wholly vseles to end Controuersies Obserue my reason If these men Dispute with à Iew will they say that Christian Religion taken in what latitude you please is not absolutely infallible but only à little More morally certain than Iudaism Or if they Argue against vs can they be so shameless as to allow Moral certainty to Protestancy and deny it to Catholick Religion They must do so and here is the reason Moral certainty is neuer appliable to two Parts of à Contradiction The One must It is vseles to Sectaries in all Disputes of necessity be made morally Improbable so if all iudge in this Instant that Constantinople is à Citty in being the Contrary iâ— Morally improbable if therefore Sectaries hold Protestancy Morally certain and the Roman Catholick Doctrin not This becomes in their Opinion Morally improbable Dare they say so much with any Countenance If they doe our Dispute begins à fresh we come to the Trial of their Assertion and will show when it pleases them to hear that their high challenge to Moral certainty is far from being probable At least this is Evident That whilst we most rationally except against it it s only an vnproued Supposition and ends no Controuersies 14. To discouer yet more the Vnweightines of this weak An Instance certitude in Matters of Faith Imagin if you please First it is in this present State an impossible Supposition yet giues light to what I would say that the Church had not Proposed at all the abstâ—use Mystery of the Sacred Trinity As it is already significantly Defined Suppose again that twenty learned men but fallible after à perusal of Scripture had endeauored to bring Themselues and others to belieue it viz. The Father of himself Prouing Moral Certainty insufficient Eternal and vnbegotten the Son Coequal and Eternal begotten The holy â—hâ—st Eternal also and proceeding from Father and Son All three Consubstantial one in Essence in Power in Wisdom in Omnipotency only distinguished by their Relatiue Oppositions I say notwithstanding This their Assent would only haue been à weak Opinion not morally certain and though hundreds more had Sided with these Twenty vpon the like Ground none could haue belieued the Trinity with Diuine Faith The reason is Because whilst men meerly fallible and as fallible Propose an incomprehensible Mystery far aboue the reach of humane vnderstanding The Proposal relying vpon à deceiuable Or an vnassisted Power cannot bring Faith to it's own Obiect Gods infallible veracity The Resolution of this supposed Faith clear's all For Ask why They belieue the Trinity It is Answered they verily think and perswade Themselues that the Mystery lies couched in Holy Writ But Ask again whether that Thought or Perswasion be not fallible they Answer affirmitiuely Ergo Say I their Faith which cannot goe beyond the strength of that weak Proposition is also fallible and consequently not Diuine 15. Here you see first the absolute Necessity of an infallible Proponent in Points of Faith which Sectaries haue not And therefore can belieue nothing Diuinely And truly Catholicks would be in as bad à Condition yea really no Catholicks An Infallible proponent necessary could the Church only guess at these high Mysteries could She propose them vpon à humane errable Authority only Or in à word Define Fallibly You see 2. Vpon what ground the â—aith of à Catholick is infallible For being demanded why He belieues this or any other Mystery his Answer is God reueal's them Questioned again who giues him so much Assurance A satisfactory Reply is at hand He belieues so because an Assisted Church which cannot Err Proposes all Her Mysteries infallibly Take away Diuine Assistance She is errable and may deceiue euery one She teaches 16. One may here demand whether the Protestants Belief of the Trinity or of any other high Mystery growes vp to so much Certainty with them as is Moral Answ 1. It import's little whether it do or no So long as their Faith is meerly fallible I Answer 2. If we Speak rigorously Their Belief is not Sectaries haue no faith morally certain morally certain Here is my reason Their own Diuining in so abstruse à Matter cannot raise the Assent so high And if they would borrow as it were Certainty from the Catholick Church and Apply that to Themselues They know well this Oracle Ownes no other Certainty in the Belief of reuealed Truths but what is infallible and cannot be False 17. By what is said already we easily Solue à common Obiection Moral certainty seems often equiualent yea wholly as Satisfactory An Obiection to reason as that is we call Physical For one that neuer saw Constantinople can no more Question the Being of such à Citty than doubt of the sun's shining at Noon day Answ All is most true but nothing to the purpose For that certainty Therefore equalizes physical because Originally grounded vpon à sensible visible Euidence it is taken from innumerable Witnesses Moral Certainty grounded on Sensible Euidence giues not Faith any Assurance who haue seen the place This makes the common Report indubitable and conueyes vnto vs à certainty as firm as if we saw Constantinople with our Eyes But the Mysteries of Faith lie as is now noted in à higher Region and are neither proposed nor conueyed to vs by the help of any visible or sensible Euidence And were they in some low degree morally certain vpon humane Reports that would neither match nor be so strong as natural Euidence is Wherefore God interposes his own Assistance and raises the Proposition of these Mysteries and our Belief of them to à yet higher Degree of certitude far aboue either Moral or Physical For whether we consider them as Truths reuealed by an infinit Verity or proposed by the Church Diuinely Assisâ—ed They stand firm vpon infallible Principles And thus we haue their Truth indubitably conueyed And the Conueyance you se admits of nothing but Infallibility I say the Truth For without doubt there is à strong visible and sensible Euidence in the Marks and Motiues which Denote Christs Church and make Her Doctrin in the highest manner indubitably Credible But hereof you shall hear more partly in the Obiections But most amply in the third Discourse 18. To end this point concerning Moral Certainty I Ask Moral Certainty in Faith à most frigid Plea And why and for Answer appeal to the Iudgement of euery rational man what cold comfort would it haue been to the Primitiue Christians had the Nicene Fathers after à resolute Definition issued forth whereby the Consubstantiallity of the Diuine Word was Asserred and à Peremptory Anathema Pronounced against all that belieued it not Declared themselues and Sense in this frigid manner It is so indeed Defined But we only mean thus much That the Doctrin is morally certain and may be false Would not Arius think ye haue slighted
we will first begin with these last words If the Errour be not Euident or intolerable all are obliged to submit to the Council vntil some publick declaration c. Hence I Argue But there neither is nor euer was any Euidence of Errour produced against one of our Catholick Councils the Lateran Florentine or Tridentine for example there neither is nor euer was any Legal Declaration more against these than against the First most ancient and purest Councils in Gods Church Therefore Sectaries by their own Principle are obliged to Submit to the Lateran Florentine and Tridentine as well as to others That there has not been any Publick Legal Declaration made against them is manifest And here is my proof 32. The clamours and Calumnies of Arians Cast vpon the The Assertion proued Nicene Council were no Legal Declaration against That but most Vncanonical Ergo the clamours and calumnies of Protestants cast vpon the now named Representatiues are fully as Illegal and Vncanonical yea and more forceles if more can be to Declare Clamours no Proofs them Inualid And besides clamours we neuer yet had nor shall haue hereafter any Thing from Sectaries The true Reason is Go groundedly to work There is not one Imaginable Principle whereby the Nicene can be proued à more lawful Council then the great Council of Lateran was so much decryed by Nouellists And if 't were Possible as it is not to Ouerthrow the One by any solid proof the Other Eo ipso loses all Credit and Authority 33. Hence These and the like calumnies vented by Sectaries The Arians and Protestants Clamour and Calumniate alike iâ— Corners The Lateran and Tridentine were vnlawful Councils 〈…〉 ed by the Pope they had not freedom Their Votes ought to be 〈…〉 ted Surreptitious The Conuened were not men of vnquestionable Integrity Some few by fair Pretences brought ouer the greater number wanting Iudgement to side with their Designs c. Such corner-Calumnies I say and I read them in our Aduersaries As easily â—â—attered out by Arians against the Nicene Fathers can neuer pass for legal Declarations against Catholick Councils whilst euery Proposition want's proof and euery word its due Weight That iâ— what euer can be said to this Sense stand's Vnprincipled Therefore vnless all must be iust so as Sectaries will haue it Vnless fals Suppositions become conuincing Arguments and à pure begging the Question proue it Or be able to decide our Differences We haue Right to cry as loud They. Audiatur altera Pars. A Iudge is to decide all and not Clamours Let Catholicks be heard also And when they are heard and return their Answers before à lawful Iudge to euery particular these Calumnies will vanish or rather appear like Themselues Forged and far-fetch't Improbabilities Exclude à Iudge and à iust Sentence Sectaries are where they would be in the old Labyrinth of Quarrelling without Principles or giuing any hope of ending One Question in Controuersy 34. Now to implead our Councils of Errours and to pretend Sectaries neuer legally assembled Euidence for it is more than à desperate Attempt vnless as I say the Corner-votes of à few iarring dispersed Sectaries neuer legally Assembled haue Power to create à new kind of Euidence vnknown to the world Please to reflect à little It must Forsooth be Euident That the Doctrin of Transubstantiation or Praying to Saints are Errours whilst à whole vnited learned Church Opposes these vain Pretences and Defend's the Articles as Catholick Create à new Kind of Euidence Verities It was neuer yet heard that Sectaries Scattered here an there had Authority to impose such foule disgraceful Names of Euident Errours or Errours morally Certain vpon Doctrins so vniuersally receiued when as I say The most learned Body of Christians that euer was Vnuotes all they blow into the eares of others as meer Impertinences Euidence Good Reader and Moral certainty lose force and neuer yet stood in the Sight or presence of so strong an Opposition I will yet say more Though we abstract from Church Authority we Catholicks are able to maintain our Doctrin against Sectaries vpon Tradition the Authority of Fathers ancient Records c. But still we require A last Iudge to giue Sentence whether they or we abuse the Principles we plead by For certainly the one or other Party doth so But this Nouellists euer Decline and Sectaries decline both Iudge and final Sentence will haue vs to Dispute without either Iudge or indubitable Principles and so make as is now said all Controuersies endles which indeed is the only Thing they ayme at and I haue vndertaken to proue against them 35. Mr Stillingfleet P. 539. speak's so fully to my purpose that more cannot be desired from an Aduersary He Demands how it can be known when Errours in Councils or the Church are manifest or intolerable and when not And Answers thus We appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Concurrent Sense of the primitiue Church the common reason of mankind the consent of wise and learned men Supposing Scripture to be the Rule of Faith And à little after Our Aduersaries Doctrin If you Ask further Who shall be Iudge what à necessary Reason or Demonstration is His Lordship tell 's you plainly enough from Hooker It is such as being Proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it Here you haue the Gentlemans last Principles And euery one when applyed to our present Matter is as much Controuerted between Catholicks and Protestants as the very Question now in Dispute Obserue well 36. The Question is whether the Lateran Florentine and Tridentiue Councils haue erred in their Definitions the like may be moued of all others Protestants say they haue erred Catholicks Lead's still â—n to dispute but to make no end of Controuersies Deny it Both Parties Appeal to Scripture interpreted by the Sense of the Primitiue Church So far as that Oracle learns vs. And if any Passage be found there seemingly fauorable to Sectaries Catholicks after the Contest of one whole Age haue been more ready to clear all Doubts To take of any thing like Imagined Errours Than Protestants were euer yet able to lay such foul Aspertions vpon either Church or Councils What then is to be done Must we eternally Dispute concerning that Sense and end nothing Must we Commence new Quarrels Sectaries who began the quarrel about Matters so often debated Must the old Actum agere come ouer and ouer again Sectaries like that Sport well but no Progress is made this way As yet we only skirmish in the dark Wherefore recourse at last is to be had to à lawful Iulge to some known Oracle or other in whose final Sentence all are to acquiese If any lawful Iudge or owned Oracle Primitiue or latter Condemn our Councils of Errour and we licence Sectaries Like well â—â— hear themselues talk without Principles to name either Prouided they make not
principio In the beginning What is that Word saith another which was with God or how was it with God Was it One real thing Essential to him or meerly à breath à Word terminated vpon creatures without which nothing was made All know though the Arians had à Church to teach yet with that sure Rule of faith they mangled and misvsed this very passage of the Gospel Therefore difficulties much more would molest these Philosophers hauing no Oracle to interpret And as many would arise concerning other Scriptures relating to the sacred Trinity Original Sin and the like Mysteries 9. Now here is my reflection and I think euery Intelligent An application made to Sectaries person will speak as I doe Iust so much as these Philosophers haue to gloss with and descant vpon So much Sectaries may challenge but no more if we seuer Scripture from the Churches Interpretation Both haue à Body without life words without sense difficulties proposable concerning their reading but none to Answer them 10. The only difference between them is That the Philosophers yet ignorant of Church and Tradition haue no Schoole to go to Sectaries haue both yet run as it were from Schoole with half à Lesson with one part and t' is The difference between them and the Philophers much the obscurer part of Diuine Learning only the bare Texts I mean of holy Scripture shutting out the Churches infallible Sense And what haue you in lieu of this light which hath hitherto illuminated Millions of Christians The weak and errable Sentiments of a few disvnited Sectaries And is this all we can rely on Do we belieue the Trinity the Incarnation and other high Mysteries so obscurely expressed in Gods word that innumerable haue mistaken the true Sense because à Luther à Caluin or their followers expound Whether Luthers followers or an Ancient Church is to teach it Or is our Belief grounded vpon that Churches Interpretation which has euer taught the world The One or Other must haue influence vpon Faith if we will belieue But most manifestly the first men only of yesterday and fallible are not our Doctors Therefore the Church is the only Oracle which Ascertains vs of the Scriptures Sense of its Truth and infallible Doctrin also 11. Two things necessarily follow from this Discourse The one That Protestants Shew themselues strangely vngrateful because Sectaries manifestly vngrateful And why they slight an Oracle which has taught them all they know concerning the Primary Articles of Christian Faith for in real truth the Churches Authority in Her expounding Scripture vpholds that true Assent they yeild to the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity So much is granted Or not Grant it I Ask. Why disdain they to hear this Church in other matters If you deny Their Submission to this and the like Mysteries wholly relies vpon their own fallible dissatisfactory thoughts and glosses Here Some perhaps will retire to the Primitiue Churches interpretation and ground their Assent vpon Her Doctrin Nothing is got this way For the most Primitiue Recourse to the Primitiue Church friuolous exposition of Scripture was no more infallible than what the latter Church or Councils haue Defined But enough is said aboue of this Chasing all Controuersies vp to the Primitiue Ages 12. The second Inference is If God has not made Religion à matter of eternal Debate If all are obliged to belieue by diuine Faith the very truths yea the same infallible truths which God has reuealed and no other of à lower or slighter Rank If he has reuealed them for this end that all may be Ascertain'd A second Inference of their intrinsecal Worth That is of being both Diuine and infallible If the whole Christian world remain's not at this day in Errour or is not cast vpon vncertainties what to belieue If both the truth and infallibility of all reuealed Doctrin stand's and subsist's firmly ioyned together in God the first Verity impossible to be separated there And if Finally as T' is there true and infallible all are obliged to learn it Nothing can be more manifest then that diuine Prouidence has established and impowred Some Oracle to teach and propose that very reuealed Doctrin vnder its own Nature and Nâ—tion as it is both true and infallible 13. Thus much Supposed and proued All further Questions The Oracle teaching truth cannot be questioned concerning the Oracle ceases For it neither is nor can be another but the Roman Catholick Church which has charge to interpret Scripture faithfully to rescue Gods truths from the lewd misusage of Hereticks Clear therefore once that Sacred Book from abuse Learn what this one certain Oracle teaches our Faith is sound Catholick and Apostolical But if Scripture by reason of its Obscurity deceiues any or the Church could deuiate from the sincere interpretation of Gods truths there registred The Very life of true Religion is lost Faith vanishes into errour 14. Who euer seriously Consider's what is already said in this and the precedent chapter will find Mr Stillingfleets scattered Mr Stillingfleets Obiections weightles Obiections against the Infallibility of Church and Councils vtterly void of strength Some worthy person of our Nation who he is I know not in his Guide of Controuersies Disc 3. has so broken and vanquished the little force they haue that I may well supersede all further labour herein There is not one Obiection proposed but T' is either first euidently retorted vpon Mr Stillingfleet Or 2. Implies à pure begging of the Question Or 3. Impugn's all Councils Or 4. Appears so slight at the very first view that it deserues no Answer What can be more slight then to tell vs as he doth P. 508. That we He Speak's not truth are absolutely auerse from free Councils because we condemn all other Bishops but those of our Church without suffering them to plead for themselues in any Indifferent Council It is hard to say what the Gentleman mean's by free and indifferent Councils for he fetters all with so many Conditions that neuer any was yet found in the Church so qualified as he would haue it Read him through his 1. and 2. Chapter as also P. 557. You will se what I assert Manifest It is true we condemn A Calumny for à Proof all heteredox Bishops and doth not Mr Stillingsleet recriminate and condemn ours But to say we suffer none to plead for Themselues in à free Council is à flat Calumny vnless that only be free which some bodies fancy makes free and no other A word now to one or two Obiections 15. If you saith Mr Stillingsleet require an Assent to the Decrees of Councils as infallible There must be an antecedent Assent to this Proposition That whatsoeuer Councils decree is infallible I first retort the Argument If you require an Assent to your Definitions in the Dort-Meeting Or hold That the conuened there deliuered true Doctrin There must be an The first Argument retorted
infallibly the Infallible Testimony of the Apostles Preaching with à Diuine Infallible Assent Most certainly they Did. Yet the Infallibility of that Testimony was not known if we speak strictly of Knowledge but by Motiues of Credibility which were no Obiect of their Faith vnless you make faith to be Science The Argument retorted but Inducements only to belieue Ergo this very Primitiue Faith was vnreasonable because it was an infallible Assent built vpon probable grounds beyond all Proportion or degree of that Euidence whereby those pious men were moued to belieue Hence You Se though the Motiues which illustrate the Church were in themselues fallible and not Metaphysically conexed with the Diuine Testimony yet Faith grounded on that Testimony cannot but be certain and infallible and consequently must Transcend or goe beyond all the degrees of Certitude appearing in the prerequired Motiues Mr Stillingfleet reply's This is to require Infallibility in the Conclusion where the Premises are only probable Answ He err's not knowing the nature of Faith which Discourses not like to Science For example Make this Sillogism Whateuer God reueal's is True but God reueal's the Incarnation of the Diuine VVord Ergo that is true The difficulty only is in the Minor But God reueal's which cannot be proued by another belieued Article of Faith wholly as obscure to vs as the Incarnation is I say proued by Reason because the same difficulty will be as much moued again Concerning the Proof of that second belieued Article as concerning the first of the Incarnation and so in Infinitum And Shew'd Proofles Therefore all rational Proofs auailing to beget Faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were in another Region more clear yet less certain than the reuealed Mystery is we assent to by Faith 4. Now to our Purpose We hold this an Article of Faith The Church is God's infallible Oracle And therefore Say antecedently Rational Proofs for the Churches infallibility to Faith it cannot be proued by Arguments as obscure or of the same Infallible certainty with Faith For then Faith would be superfluous or rather we should belieue by à firm and infallible Assent before we do belieue vpon the Motiue of Gods infallible Reuelation which is impossible Hence it is that when we goe about Haue not the certainty of Faith 〈◊〉 the Infallibility of the Church independently of Scripture Yea and also independently of all belieuâ—d Church Doctrin We must necessarily Euince this rationallâ— by reflex Arguments and Motiues extrinsecal to what we Belieue which are not of the same certainty with Supernatural Faith it self Now these Arguments what these Motiues Proue founded vpon the Motiues of Credibility can goe no further stretch them to the vtmost But only to proue this great verity That what euer we belieue either of Scripture or of the Church is most euidently Credible aboue all things proposable to the contrary And this great light the learned at least haue before they yeild an infallible Assent vpon Diuine Reuelation to the very Doctrin of the Church or Scripture either 5. I Say 2. Mr Stillingfleet and all Sectaries whilst They Belieue with an Infallible Assent the most fundamental Articles in Sectaries goe beyond that Euidence whereby they are induced to belieue Scripture goe beyond all Proportion of that Euidence whereby they are induced to Belieue And consequently must Solve their own â—eak Argument yet strong Ad hominem against them If I Euince not this Truth blame me boldly And obserue my Proof 6. The Sectary belieues that Verity which S. Iohn expresses in this short Sentence The word was made Flesh That is he belieues the Incarnation of the Son of God with an Assent so infallible that it cannot only be false but that he would not disbelieue it vpon any reason Proposable Though an Angel should preach Contrary But neither this Act of Faith nor its Formal Obiect the Diuine Reuelation are ex terminis euidently true Quoad â—s yet must be proued â—uidently Credible to reason or Faith becomes vnreasonable and rash For Qui cito credit leuis est corde Now further None can proue this by another Act or Article of Faith no more its own Self-euidence than the belieued Incarnation The Assertion Proued is All therefore which can be done is to make it euidently Credible by Motiues extrinsecal to Belief by vniuersal Tradition and the Consent of innumerable learned men who haue both conueyed vnto vs the Words as Diuine Scripture and the genuine Sense of them also But this very humane Tradition this exteriour Consent of all or what other Motiues can be Imagined preuious to Faith because fallible may deceiue Yet by the help of such fallible Motiues Mr Stillingfleets Our Aduersary Clearly Conuinced Faith if it rest's vpon the Diuine Reuelation is raised higher and stand's firmer vpon that Ground than the Euidence of his Motiues can induce to Therefore he makes the conclusion surer than the Premises And goes beyond all Proportion and degree of fallible Euidence preambulatory to his certain Belief What I Assert is manifest For by Faith he The Conuiction Manifest Sayes the Incarnation is so infallibly true that it cannot be false Yet all the Motiues which induce him to belieue Say Possibly it may be false or exclude not à Possibility of falshood And if this be not to Transcend all Proportion of his acquired Euidence nothing is to goe beyond it 7. The Argument will be yet more clear if proposed after this manner Mr Stillingfleet infallibly belieues the truth of that Scripture now Quoted I Ask by what means can he know That this very belieued Truth is à Diuine Verity or Scripture The Answer may be That 's known vpon Tradition or the publique Authority of all not only Christians but others also who haue conueyed the Book to vs. Very Another most Conuincing Proof good But this Publick Authority this Conueyance or what euer Tradition you will is either of equal infallible certainty with the Belieued Truth of Scripture Or less and much weaker If less and weaker Mr Stillingfleets Faith goes beyond all propotion and degrees of his preuious acquired Euidence Not to be answered And it be of equal infallible Certaintly That is If he belieues as infallibly the Conueyance of those Words For or Vpon Gods Diuine Testimony as he belieues the Doctrin there contained to be à Diuine Truth He makes one Article of Faith the Proof of another and euidently incurrs the Circle obiected to Catholicks as shall appear afterward When we examin his 170. Page and refute his Errour concerning the Moral Certainty of Faith 8. Now to the Obiection It is not possible That the Assent in matters of Faith rise higher or stand firmer than the Assent to the Testimony is vpon which those things are belieued Answer Very true But know Sr we Assent to matters of Faith vpon Gods Diuine Testimony and not for the Motiues