Belief of particular Mysteries But this is no hindrance to Catholick Faith in the most How the unlearned believe all that is revealed unlearned man in the World For such an one Believes Explicitely as much as he knows is Proposed And is not only in Praeparatione animi ready to embrace more when more is Proposed But even now in every Act of Faith He Elicit's as I noted above Implicitly and Virtually Submits to All That God hath explicitly Revealed That Distinction therfore which some of our New men here Introduce Viz. A Distinction of Sectaries unnecessary Of Things Necessary to Salvation respectively to such as are of weaker Capacities and of Things Necessary to be owned in order to Salvation by Christian Societies as Bonds of Ecclesiastical Communion is to no Purpose unles we Speak of a less or more Explicit Belief which may be Various according to a Dark or Clearer Proposition The Reason is Becaus All that God Reveals and neither more nor less is One and the same Respectively to All to the Learned to the Unlearned to weak and Strong Capacities Yea And to the whole Church also and this All Acknowedge in every Act of Faith They have Though perhaps it be less extended to particular Articles But know as is The worth of Faith not in the Extension but in Submission now noted That the true Worth of Faith Consists not so much in the Extensive Reach of it to more Material Objects As in an Intensive and Equal Submission to Gods Veracity in the things He Speaks which now I yeild to by the explicit Faith I have And am ready to do more when a Clearer Proposition and Gods Command Require it Whence you se Though a How far the Faith of the unlearned is extended Rustick hath less of the Explicit Belief Then a Learned Clerk Yet He want's not therfore One Grain of Supernatural Faith that Saves all Christians For His Faith is Virtually as far Extended as any Doctors And his Infused Habit Every whit as Good If any one cavil at the Distinction of Explicit and Implicit Faith He may Correct his Errour by this one Example Give me One that hath read over Holy Scripture and Descend's by Explicit Faith to every Verity in it He Believes well Another far from That Extensive knowledge knows some Verities Revealed There and Believes them nevertheless He Owns All and every Iota in the Book for Gods Sacred Word Tell Saving Faith as well found in an implicit as in an Explicit Belief me I Beseech you Hath not this more Ignorant Man with his less Explicit Assent As true Saving Faith as the Other Yes most Assuredly And in the Sense now Declared as Far Extended This is our very Case Could we Therfore once Agree about the Proponent of Faith most Difficulties were ended These few Considerations Premised 4. My first Assertion is The Distinction usually made Protestants Distinction of Points more or less Fundamental is fals by Protestants of Points more or less Fundamental in order to Christians is not only Vnreasonable but also very Fals if we consider the Articles of Faith subsisting as it were or Essentially Depending upon Gods Eternal Revealing Verity For as They are Here All stand firm alike And equally sure upon this Verity If therfore I Answer All Faith stand's firm upon Divine Revelation with my Faith to what this Motive firmly requires And as undoubtedly Believe as God Speak's I must Assent to all with equal Assurance nor can I Believe some and Disbelieve others when all are Proposed alike No nor make Less or more Degrees of Certitude in my Faith From whence I Infer That no man by any Means or Search whatever can find out what Articles are Fundamental what not Because There is no Means possible to find that which There is Nothing of the less or more certitude when God Speak's is not to be Found But Fundamentals and not Fundamentals are not to be found And I prove the Minor Every Revealed Article is Asserted by an Infinit Verity But an Infinit Verity Deliver's all it Speak's with one and the same Infinit Certainty where no Degrees of more or less Certitude can have Place Ergo All Articles All revealed Truths therfore are equally certain of Faith have one and the same like Infinit Assurance as They are Spoken by an Infinit Verity Consequently one is as Ponderous as another And Equally Fundamental if We which is only to be Regarded do Respect the Motive Again If some Articles be Fundamental and others not it is either Becaus the Fundamentals Rely on a Greater Verity and the Non Fundamentals on a Less which is utterly Fals for the same Infinit Truth Speak's them all Or Becaus though He delivers all yet His Pleasure is That we Esteem of some more Fundamental Then others And this is Impossible Viz. That an Infinit Verity takes as it were the pains to Speak to us and for our Eternal Saluation And yet doth not Oblige us to Believe Him in what He saith with the whole It dishonours God not to Believe All He speaks equally forces of our Soul It is as I have shewed Highly against the Dignity of God To engage his Eternal Truth in Speaking to us And yet have Those He speak's to Talk as if it Matter'd not whether He be Heard or no. 5. You may Reply Some Things Revealed to us seem light in regard of the Material Object For who can Own it as Fundamental an Article of Faith to Believe that St. Paul left his cloak at Troas as to Believe the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son also I Answer God as we We cannot believe the greater Matter and Disbelieve the lesser without Forfeiture of Faith now Suppose Speak's both these Verities Therfore both are Equally True And if equally True I cannot Believe the one upon the Motive of Gods Veracity and Disbelieve The other when Propounded without a Forfeiture of all Faith The Disparity therfore which Ariseth here From the Matter Revealed Imports nothing to the present Question 6. You may say Again The Necessity of Things which ly in Gods great Design and are Absolutely to be Believed must be taken from the Reference They have to our last End which is Eternal Saluation Answ I say so too But General Talk This is only general Talk and comes not Home to the Question For the Question rightly stated Drives at Particulars and Ask's how many of those Precisely have Reference to this last End or are Necessary to Salvation Respectively to All after a Sufficient Proposition No Article Revealed can be Disbelieved Catholicks Say the Belief of all is so far Necessary That not one of All those revealed Articles can be Disbelieved Protestants make their Exceptions Yet hitherto Sectaries cannot say what Articles are to be excluded as unnecessary to Salvation never Dared to give in a Catalogue of what They except
with so poor a Belief which if it be Resolved Proves No Faith at all And therfore it is Impossible Becaus when I say by a General Proposition I am bound to Believe firmly All that God Speak's I cannot but Believe also every Particular comprised under that General at least implicitly as is Already both Declared and Proved 10. My second Proposition is Although contrary to Sectaries though we Admit of the Distinction between Fundamentals and others cannot make their Doctrin Good Truth we gratis Permit Protestants to Distinguish between Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental yet They are so unprovided of all means to make good the Distinction or to Sever the Fundamentals from the Other That They shall never Speak so much as one Word probably on this Subject 11. Some fraudulently shuffling all of with Generalities Think They say much when nothing is touched on to the Purpose and Define First What ever Appear's to me upon sufficient Enquiry to be Revealed by God Mr. Stilling fleets shuffling I am bound to Believe it by Virtue of Gods Veracity First Why am I bound to Believe twenty Verities in Scripture when the Belief of them hath as you Say no Reference to Eternal Saluation Why should God oblige me to Believe that now which will do me no good Hereafter Yet farther You Talk of Enquiry Tell He send 's us to enquire and sayes not of whom me of whom must we Enquire of our own Fancies These lead us as we se in the Quakers to a Thousand Fooleries Of an Vnerring Church You own none to Enquire of Of Scripture This Occasion 's Errour upon Errour And as Appear's by the Endles Dissentions of Haereticks may as well lead us to Deny Fundamentals as rightly to acknowledge them They define Pope-like Secondly All things not equally appearing to all Persons to be revealed by God the same measure of necessity cannot be extended to all Persons The All have not alike the same Explicit Faith Assertion only show's what is Evident That all Persons cannot have alike the same Explicit Faith But 't is far of from Proving That all Gods Verities when propounded have not Relation to Belief and Saluation Also Yet this is the true State of the Question concerning Fundamentals as Appears by These men who put a Difference between some Revealed Points and Others True Faith believes all Implicitly Those upon the General Account of Divine Revelation are Necessary These of lesser Reckoning stand at a great distance from absolute Necessity We say all are Necessary when Proposed yea and all are Implicitly Believed in every True Act of Supernatural Faith 3. They say An universal Assent to the Will of God and Vniversal Obedience to it are absolutely and indispensably Necessary to all Persons Perfect Obedience is resolved into particular Compliances with Gods will to whom Gods Word is Revealed The Assertion though most true run's on in Terms too Vniversal And must if it speak of an Efficacious Obedience be Resolved into particular Compliances with Gods Will Otherwise it Destroyes it self For no Man can say I now Purpose to yeild Obedience to Gods Will And in Sensu Composito of this Volition Resist his Will in any particular Otherwise it destroyes it self Therfore if it be his Will as most certain it is That I Hear Him and Obey Him in every Particular He Speak's my Purpose also of Compliance with his Will cannot but joyntly Embrace and Extend it self to those Particulars either Implicitly which is don in every due Submission to God Or more Explicitly when I Hear his Will Propounded in such and such particular Matters 12. I have already given the Reason hereof Becaus No Generality in Objects The Object therfore of Faith includes so many Particulars there is no Generality in Objects The total Object Therfore of my Faith as condistinguished from my Act of Believing includes à parte rei nothing els But so many Particulars as God hath Revealed In like manner the Object of my Obedience implies a Submission to so many Particular Commands He Therfore who saith by a General Act I Believe all that God And a datiful Obedience extend's to so many Commands Speak's I Obey him in all He Command's Fasten's upon nothing à parte rei But on Particular Revealed Verities and Particular Intimated Commands nor can He by a General Act more Believe All and exclude Some then exclude All and believe Some For want of well Pondering this Truth our Protestants whilst they own an Vniversal Belief of Scripture necessary to He that Believe's Scripture in General Believe's every Particular Saluation shall fumble as long as they live in Their Specifying Particular Fundamentals Becaus the Vniversal owning of Scripture owns likewise all Particulars in it Exclude Particulars And you make Null the Vniversal Proposition 13. Others Lay this charge on us to Believe All that God Reveal's in Scripture and there we shall surely meet with the Fundamentals of Faith Answ Though we Gratis admit That all Necessary Points are contained in Scripture yet it is too great a Task Yea and impossible also for every Simple Man to read the Book over But Suppose this be don He may not only fall into twenty Errours concerning Scripture But also most easily judge that to be Fundamental which is not and that not to be Fundamental which is And if He do so He hath neither Doctor nor Prompter at hand to Vnbeguile him CHAP. V. An Answer to one Reply More of this Subject 1. HEre briefly I Answer to a trivial Objection of our Adversaries who esteem us Catholicks Though we own an Infallible Church as far of from An Objection grounded on a mistake knowing the Fundamentals of it or giving in a Distinct Catalogue of them as They are after their Reading Scripture The Objection grounded on a Mistake is Forceles For with one Unanimous and equal Submission We Believe all That the Church The Church can Declare it self farther when doubts occurr Scripture cannot Proposeth which when Doubts occurr is Ready Able and Sufficient to Declare it self Scripture can not do so As is Manifest by the endles Dissentions of Protestants in this very Question of Fundamentals Now He That believes All that the Church Propofeth as Points of Faith Admits likewise of every Particular and with the same Certitude Though Perhaps He clearly Distinguishes not between Matters of Faith and Others But this Distinguishing when exactly don only Perfect's Explicit Faith And therfore as it Gives no Addition of more Faith absolutely Necessary to Salvation so the Want of it Deprives us not of any thing necessary to that End of Happines The Reason hereof is clear out of the Precedent Discours For He who by an Universal Assent Admits of all that the Church Teaches as Faith cannot but Implicitly Believe This Particular if it he of Faith One may doubt whether the Church proposeth such a matter as Faith and yet believe it
ergo I must relinquish Christianity if an Angel preach against it The reason is The lesser light yeilds to the greater probability submits to certainty and my fallible though highly probable Assent cannot but yeild to the infallible Assertion of an Angel if he speak contrary to it These few considerations premised we must insist more largely on this subject and demonstrate that there are living and infallible Teachers of Religion in some one Society of Christians or other which is directly opposite to Mr. Poole who holds That no men are so highly priviledged by Almighty God as to have subjective infallibility or to teach infallibly though perhaps they may deliver truth as it were by chance but not infallibly as Teachers I say as Teachers for by what I can learn by Mr. Poole and other Protestants They think all done when they tell us That the objective Doctrin delivered in Scripture is infallible which yet they cannot know without an infallible Teacher and therfore in saying this they speak only fallibly but admit they know so much they are never the better for it unles they joyntly own some Oracle some certain Master who by Divine assistance interpret's Scripture without errour and as exactly convey's into our harts Gods written revealed Verities when any doubt ariseth as if the Apostles taught us These Teachers are they can we find them out that circumscribe our ranging Fancies and put a limit to our swerving Thoughts while we often read and seldom understand those great secrets which God hath layd up in the book of Sctipture without them as we see by too sad experience our weak reason and strong Fancies pervert all and produce monsters of haeresies out of Scripture it self wherof more hereafter THE FIRST DISCOVRS OF INFALLIBLE TEACHERS AND THE MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY THE FIRST CHAPTER There Are infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion 1. BEfore I prove the Assertion I would gladly learn of our Adversaries who make all men fallible whether for these thousand years the world ever had in it any Christians who heard the infallible Doctrin of Christ truly taught and infallibly believed it If they disown such infallible Believers they must joyntly deny all infallible Faith and consequently say That though God hath revealed in Scripture innumerable Verities yes and for this end to beget infallible Faith in our harts yet no man can lay hold on them nor yeild to them by any other assent but what is fallible and may be false Methinks therfore Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible assent of Faith an infallible Verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us For to say God speak's infallibly to me and that I either will not or cannot infallibly believe him is in a word to tell him that his certain Truths may ly close where they are in the book of Scripture they may rest there without being layd up or lodged in my hart as infallible owned and believed Truths Most contrary are those golden words of the Apostle 1. Thess 2. v. 12. to this wild Doctrin Therfore we thank God without intermission because when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us ye received it not as the word of men but as it truly is the word of God who effectually works in you that believe Observe well He who receives the delivered Word of God as it is truly Gods Word and not mans He that hath in his hart the infallible Word of God and by the cooperation of Grace yeilds an assent to it as to the infallible word of God cannot but believe what God speak's and as he speak's but God speak's infallibly Therfore he believes infallibly or if he reach not so high but faulters with an assent that is fallible he Believes not God nor his Word as it truly is Gods Word who never did nor can speak any thing fallibly Now if on the other side our Adversaries grant that Christians heard the infallible Doctrin of Christ and believed it infallibly They also must admit of a Subjective infallibility at least in such Believers And this truth Scripture clearly points at in these and the like undeniable places obvious to all I know who I believe and am certain Let the house of Israël certainly know Although we or Angel from heaven c. Faith is a conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a strong argument of Belief that is infallible supposeth infallible Teachers what appears not c. But these I wave because known to every one Let us now proceed to the Teachers of Christian Religion and prove our Assertion 2. To go on clearly I would know whether there have not alwayes been now are and ever will be among These true and infallible Believers some Pastors Doctors or Teachers who Authorised by Christ are by Duty both to instruct Christians in case they swerve from Truth and also to reduce Aliens from Christ to a true Belief of his sacred Doctrin Certainly Mr. Poole will own such Pastors in the world if not what are Ministers for in England Or why doth He assume to himself this Office of teaching whilst He endeavours to reclaim a seduced Captain from his Apostacy as he call's it And is it possible What After such an The harsh Doctrin of Sectaries acknowledgement shall we hear this unheard harsh and most Haeretical Assertion That all these Pastors who are to unbeguile soules may be beguiled Themselves or teach false Doctrin And that not so much as one amongst them all is so Highly priviledged as to instruct with certainty If all are fallible and none Teaches certainly the Blind lead's the blind the Scholler is as good as his Master at least none can in prudence learn of any if this perswasion live in him He that Teaches me may as well erre as I who am to Learn If an unskilful Traveller enquire the way to an unknown place of one knowing it no better then he that asks He travel's on with no security and This is our very case Amongst so many By-ways so many mazes of Sects and Schisms as now swarm in the world and like cobwebs intricate thousands of souls in their journey we are posting on as fast as Time can drive us to a place yet unknown a long Eternity The directing thread that safely drawes us out of these Labirinths is Sure Firm and infallible Faith we ask to learn this of our new Doctors and not one can certainly say Such is the way This infallibly is the Faith that winds us out of errour and most assuredly lead s to Heaven or if any say so much he speaks only Fallibly 3. And here is the summary of Protestants comfortles Protestants doctrine comfortles Doctrin They have Pastors that talk but Teach nothing certainly They have Infallible Verities lock'd up in Scripture but none can open that Book or convey them with Assurance into mens harts They hear God speak but none
is fallible Therfore the Belief founded on it is no better but Moral and fallible Mark well your own Argument 'T is thus 9. The Motives of Credibility for Christian Faith Because only known by Moral Certainty cannot ground a certain Belief of any Churches Infallibility Ergo I say The very Existency of God and his Revelation Because only known by a Moral Certainty cannot ground a firm Belief in God or any Christian Verity unles you say that These Motives for Christian Faith far surpasse in Certainty all the certain knowledge we can have of Gods Existency I know not what these men can answer My thought is They must make Faith a meer Opinion and allow it nothing of Certainty or Supernatural infallibility Though they seemingly speak otherwise as if Moral Certainty might be a sufficient Foundation for the most firm assent Would to God they would declare themselves intelligibly And say plainly whether this firm Assent here mentioned be only of the like Nature with probable firm Opinions taught in Schools Or contrarywise if this firm Assent be Faith whether it doth not Supereminently surpas the Certainty of All other obscure intellectual Operations which Christians now have on Earth This should be explicated but is not 10. Now to the Reply Though an exact Answer An Answer to the Reply cannot be well returned without entring upon an other question the Resolution of Faith which here lyes out of the way and Admit's not in this Place of a full and diligent Examination I say first No obscure intellectual Operation which preced's Divine Faith or is independent of it can arise to those Degrees of Certainty which this Supernatural Act requires Admit then that the Existency of God which is true can be Demonstrated by natural Reason Admit also that those strong Motives for Christian Religion Antecedently known by Humane Discours demonstratively convince the Verity of it yet because Faith as I now sayd Relyes upon a Superiour infallible Principle Gods own unerrable Veracity it far surmont's both these Certainties and much more would it go beyond them were they known as Moral Truths only Why A natural Discours wherby these Vetities are known is Science But no science gives the last or least Degree of intrinsick No Science gives the least Degree of certitude to Faith Certitude to Faith and Therfore Divines say Gods Supream Verity which ever supports Belief upholds it not as known by natural Reason For if it did Faith would be at last resolved into one natural Principle thus I believe God to be the Highest Verity imaginable not Because he saith so But because I know this great Truth Scientifically where you se the last Analysis rest's on an extrinsecal Principle of knowledge with which Faith as Faith meddles not 11. Thus much therfore is clear Although the Motives of Credibility manifest as they do most undoubtedly that God speak's to Christians yet when we bring an Act of Faith by a true Analysis to its Home and Center we find it ever Resting on Gods Veracity only as the last Stay and most certain Motive Notwithstanding Motives to Faith absolutly necessarly the Praeambulatory Motives avail infinitly to Faith Because they indubitably point out that Society of Christians wherin Gods Verities are certainly taught and make this Discernable from all other Haeretical Conventicles In a word They shew Christian Religion to be either evidently Credible or as some later Divines will have it evidently True in Attestante And if this be so the formal Object of Christian Faith is known as it were Scientifically either before or when we Actually Believe which seems grounded on those words of the Apostle Scio cui credidi certus sum I know and then believe certainly 12. At present I wave this Doctrin and say secondly It is one thing to know Scientifically and another Difference betwixt a Certain Belief and a Scientificall knowledge to Believe certainly Both intervene in the matter now handled Faith Prerequires a Science and Moreover essentially includes Certainty Thus it is While one of Prudence ponders those strong and pressing Motives which as Light doth the Sun gloriously evidence true Christian Religion such are Miracles the long continued Consent of Nations Sanctity of life Efficacy in Doctrin the blood sheding of Martyrs c. He knowes What and how these Motives convince that God cannot permit the world to be cheated into errour by them He knowes that his goodnes cannot proclaim as it were and publish to Christians a Religion manifested by such evident convincing Marks and Signs of Truth and afterward Signify a meer nothing It cannot be that God speak's in so powerful a Language and deceives us For who can perswade himself That all the Miracles done by Christ and his Blessed Apostles the eminent Sanctity They showed and admirable Conversion wrought by them open to mens eyes and senses were permitted like Charms to Delude the world Yet this followes if either no Religion answered to these great visible wonders or if such palpable convincing Signs could make a false Religion as Speciously Credible as Gods true Religion is Therfore Rich. de S. Victor lib. 1. de Trin. c. 2. with just Reason Exclaims Si error est quem credidimus à te decepti sumus If it be Errour we Believe it is you O God who have deceived us and He gives this Reason Iis enim signis c. For by such forcible Signs the Doctrin we believe is confirmed which could not proceed from any but from you alone Observe now well Two Judgements may ensue upon the Consideration of these exteriour Iudgements upon these Signs Signs which manifest Christianity The one after this manner God certainly Delivered his Eternal Truths by the Preaching of Christ and his Blessed Apostles who had no other Exteriour Testimony for their Doctrin but Miracles Sanctity Conversions of Nations c. I now see saith this prudent Man as evidently the like Miracles the like Conversions with great Sanctity c. in the Roman Catholick Church If therfore it was Evident that God spoke to the first Christians by the wonderful works of Christ it is as Evident that he Speaks now to me by the Still continued Miracles of this Church This Discours or Judgement wherby he affirms There are These wonders Faith and Science Tend differently God speak's by his Church is not Faith but Science Because it Relyes on Motives which Reason knows evidently enough Now further When He is thus disposed and prepared to Believe by so firm an Evidence The other Judgement of Elicite Faith followes which tend's not into the Evidence of those Motives for if it did so under that Notion it would not be Faith For Faith as Faith totally Relyes on Gods Sole Revelation and for this as the only Formal Object a Christian Believes what ever mystery is Revealed after a due Proposal as is already Declared 13. Some will say The Elicite Act of Faith Scientifically
my Name and Catholick my Surname that indeed names me but this declares what I am And in both these we Catholicks Glory CHAP. XI Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of These declared Motives 1. WE have seen already both the Weaknes and Two Churches very different Strength the Obscurity and Glory of two different Churches Protestant and Catholick The first pittifully Naked The other richly Adorned with such Noble Marks of Truth as force Reason to give a final Sentence and say If Religion be in the world it must be found amongst those Christians who demonstrate it Credible with most urgent and convincing Motives But this Catholick Religion only doe's and not Protestancy For Protestants I Assert it boldly have not so much as one Rational Motive much les the complexum of all now related that works upon Prudence and Antecedently to their new Faith makes them Believe as they do If They have any such my earnest petition is to hear of Them or se them clearly layd forth to the Reason of other men or if They fail in this as of necessity they must let them Speak the plain Truth Viz. That all They Write and Preach is lost labor whilst they go about to draw Rational men to a Religion for which there is no Reason And 2. Here I answer to the trivial Talk of Protestants pretending to follow Reason in all they Believe and once more Assert They have nothing like a shadow Protestants have no shadow of Reason for their new Religion of Reason previous to their Faith either for their new Religion in General or any particular Tenent in it To prove my Assertion We must distinguish between the prudent Inducements that draw one to Believe and the Elicit Act of Faith it self These Inducement Precede Faith and are properly the Object of Discours Faith solely relyes on Gods Revealed Testimony without the mixture of Reason for its Motive The Previous motives well pondered bring with them an Obligation of Believing and not Faith it self For no man saith I am obliged to believe Because I believe But therfore I believe Because antecedently to my Faith I find my self obliged upon Prudent Reasons to believe as I do Thus much supposed 3. Make a search into all the Motives imaginable that may Prudently induce a Seeker after Truth to embrace Protestant Religion you shall find nothing proposed to Reason That hath the Appearance of Reason in it For example Ask first in General upon what Motive Extrinsecal to their Faith do these men own Protestancy as the only true and pure Religion Why dare they so boldly prefer it before the Faith of the long standing Catholick Church yea or before that of their homebred Sectaries of Quakers and Independents Silence will prove the best Answer They can Shew no Motive at all Perhaps we may hear them say They reject the Ancient Church because of its Errors and Novelties If so They first lamentably beg the question and Suppose that which is yet to be Proved 2. They answer not to the Difficulty For grant which is utterly false that the Church hath erred we ask not here for Arguments to Refute those Errors But inquire after Rational and perswasive Motives wherby Truth is proved to stand on the Protestant side A poor A poor Comfort to learn that my Religion is not good unles Sectaries prove theirs to be better Comfort God know's it is for me To hear from a Protestant that my Religion is not Right unles upon weighty Reasons He convince me that his is better For say I If the old Religion be naught This new one may be worse and more erroneous Sectaries are therfore oblig'd to bring in palpable Evidences wherby their Religion is positively demonstrated Credible and only the best which shall never be done 4. If yet to answer the Difficulty They take post Recourse to Scripture clear's not the difficulty to Scripture for Proof of their Religion They are out of the way and at the Conclusion before they put the Premises For in this place we make no inquiry after their formal act of Faith nor the immediate Object therof we know well their Answer But only Protestants have no Motives to believe contrary to the Church Or contrary to the Quakers Ask for the Rational Motive perceptible by all that preced's Faith and Prudently obligeth them to believe contrary both to the Ancient Church and their own honest Quakers And this if the Reply be pertinent must be evidenced Before they talk of a new Faith grounded on Scripture Had the Primitive Christians when they left of Judaism and Beleived Christ been Ask't Why they received Christs Doctrin and preferred that before their old Religion They would have answered The blind se the lame walk the dead arise c. We behold strange Wonders with our eyes which powerfully work upon Reason and cannot but proceed from God When therfore our Protestants deserted the Ancient Church and taught a new Faith contrary to it certainly some visible Apparent wonder A new Religion must have Signs of Truih and weighty Inducements some perswasive Sign of Truth should have ushered it in and sounded the Trumpet before these new Preachers All convinced by Reason should have cry'd out Here is Antiquity here is Vnity in Doctrin here we se the Pedigree of our Ancient Church Shew'd forth Now and not before our Eyes behold most glorious and undoubted Miracles God certainly speak's by these new men c. But when we look about us and find nothing to countenance this unknown Faith which like a Stranger came amongst us when we hear a Novelty preached without either Sign Motive or Inducement to make it Credible When we se a new Religion brought Words only given in by uncommissioned men upon their bare parole and unproved Fancies only what can we think But that both Arians and Pelagians yea and all condemned Haereticks have evidenced as strongly their old Errors by a verbal venting of them as Protestants do now their new Gospel For beside Words you have nothing to warrant it 5. Perhaps they will say They are a part of Christianity Old Motives no more for Protestants then for Arians and Therfore the old Motives belong to them I answer No more then to Arians or Pelagians who went as well under the name of Christians as Protestants do O But their Religion now professed is the Faith of the Primitive Church I dare swear it the Arians and our modern Quakers will yet A claim to the Primitive Faith no received Principle say as boldly They believe exactly the very Doctrin which pure Scripture Teaches But there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vast distance between saying and proving what is said by a Rational satisfactory and received Principle I say therfore their bare Assertion of holding the Primitive Faith which we utterly deny is so far from being either a probable or convincing Principle for
how useles a Book These impious Glosses are laid forth only to show Sectaries how Scripture may be abused sole Scripture is with These men to end their Differences yea and what monsters are produced out of it by those that pretend most to Gods written Word And what is the reason think ye That these Sole-Scripturists These Arians These Protestants These Anabaptists c. are so various so opposite in their Tenents begot as they think out of the true written Word From whence the abuse proceeds of God Is it for want of wit learning or languages They thus Differ No. Is it for the want of Study and conferring one place of Scripture Clear as they think with others Obscure No Both Arians and Protestants have done this long ago Is it that all these Sectaries go against their Conscience or wilfully draw Gods Word to a pervers sense He never spake let the Innocent cast the first stone at the Guilty Truly I suspect it in Some yet cannot judge that All are Conscious of so hideous an Impiety 6. The true Reason therfore is These Sectaries The true reason is given after the Rejecting of Gods infallible Church the Oracle of Truth will by no more then half an Ey of Human Reason dive into the deep Secrets of Gods Eternal Wisdom Obscurely revealed in Scripture and herein they neither shew Judgement nor Learning With this pur-blind Eye of weak Reason They go to work They steer on their cours they judge They Determin They Define They Pronounce their fallible Sentiments on these High Mysteries which never the lesse Reason alone is uncapable to comprehend or Master Hence Why Sectaries vary as they do They vary as they do Hence it is they weary themselves out with opposite frivolous Interpretations of Gods Word which is but one whilst they are so divided in their Tenents Hence it is That almost every year we have a new Religion broach'd in England Such a jumbling we must expect such endles Dissentions amongst them And t is a just Judgement of God for their Pride who truely are no more but poor Schollers yet Disdain to learn of a good Master that 's willing to teach them all Truth 7. I call it a Iumbling for from Scripture by Reason of its les clear speaking arise these Dissentions and though it be quoted a Thousand times says no Endles Confusion about the sense of Scripture more now Then it did sixteen hundred years agon And therfore cannot end them They next fall upon a doubtful conferring one Passage of the Bible with another Several Versions and Languages are examined much Adoe they make And all is to know what God speaks in such Texts but without fruit For their Differences are as High as ever And neither Party gaines or looses the Victory Since Scripture alone nor the Comparing of Texts together is able to draw either side from their Preconceived Opinion After the Conferring of places They are hard at it with Fallible Explications when behold express Scripture is cast away by these two Combatants And now either the One must learn of the Other what God speaks in Scripture by a human fallible Explication which is no Scripture or nothing is concluded Arians and Protestants equally uncertain Who is then to be held the Master Interpreter the Arian or Protestant Neither And they have both Reason for it For neither ought to yeild in their own Principles The quarrel Therfore goes on and is endles If after Their fallible Explications of Scripture they proceed to Inferences This followes That followes c. All is plain Sophistry for Vpon what unsteedy Foundations Haresy stands Scripture Vitiated with a fals Explication can never Support a true Illation And upon such unsteedy Foundations all Haeresy stand's Scripture not understood is the Ground doubtful Collations of places fallible Explications fals Illations are the Superstructure They have no more And thus you se how useles a Book Why Scripture is useles in the hands of an Haeretick A question propose and answered of Scripture is in the hands of an Haeretick who neither can tell me so much as Truely much les Infallibly what God speak's in These High controverted Points of our Christian Faith 8. But you 'l ask how then happens it that Mr. Poole and Protestants hit right in yeilding an Assent to some Catholick Verities for Example to a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence and Contrary to Arianism Protestants acknowledge a Trinity by Oversight Profess the Son to be consubstantial with his Eternal Father in one Divine Nature I answer They light upon these Verities by an Oversight or as I may say meerly by Chance By Oversight For believe it had Luter thought well On 't He might with more ease have denyed These High Mysteries of our Faith then the Real change of bread in the Holy Eucharist By Chance For as by chance They Stole Or by Chance a Bible from the old Catholick Church so casually They took from her Here and There as it pleased Fancy somewhat of her Ancient Tradition also And upon This ground of Tradition or the infallible Doctrin of the Catholick Church They Believe as Vnawares engaged in a Belief They labour in vain to find Scripture for it well as they can These Sublime mysteries Being thus unawares engaged in a Belief They weary their Heads and wear out their Bible to find expres Scripture for it which cannot be found Becaus forsooth they will Believe nothing upon Tradition or the Churches infallible Doctrin I say Expres Scripture cannot be found that Assert's Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence or the Word to be Consubstantial with his Eternal Father Therfore if they Believe these Verities They must Ground their Faith not upon sole Scripture But on Scripture explicated by that never erring Oracle of Truth the Catholick Church Or on the Word of God not written which we call Tradition You se Sectaries must own the Churches Interpretation or become Arians therfore how our Protestants though in Actu signato they seemingly Reject Tradition and the Churches Interpretation upon Scripture yet in Actu exercito They own both and must necessarily do so or become plain Arians Yet here they are pinch'd again For if they Believe these Mysteries upon Tradition or on Scripture interpreted by the Church They are neither Papists In doing so They are neither Papists nor Protestants nor Protestants No Papists for Papists hold Tradition and the Churches Interpretation infallible No Protestants For They profess to Believe no more then God hath expressed in his written Word Though now they must leave that Hold and believe upon the Catholick Motive or renounce the Faith of these Articles 9. If Mr. Poole pretend expres Scripture for these High Verities of Christian Faith The surest way will be to produce it without Remitting me to other Authors or Adding his fallible Glosses to Gods Word For every Arian knows
describing the number also and given good Scripture for both which cannot be don 2. That Faith only Iustifies 3. That after he hath better pondered the Text of St. Peter 2. 3. 16. He prove by Scripture the Plainess of it in all necessary Points to Salvation A fourth proof concerning the Canon and Certainty of Scripture would choak Mr. Poole But I 'll not give him so undigestible a pill may He pleas to satisfy the three former Demands by Scripture only without Glosses and ungrounded Inferences drawn from what he thinks to be Gods Word But is not 6. Some perhaps may ask why all this time whilst we have Discoursed of Scripture of its Certainty of its Sense and Regulating Faith c. None of Mr. Pooles Arguments against us are taken notice of Hath he none or do I Dissemble them I answer The man hath nothing like an Objection To prove Scripture to be the Word of God He Relyes on the Confession and Testimony of Catholicks This Mr. Poole hath nothing like Arguments we have Refuted above To prove it uncorrupt in the Essentials of Faith He Tell 's us that by looking into the Nature and quality of those Various Lections which are pleaded as Evidences of Corruption we shall quickly find them to be in Matters of les Moment It seem's They are little Becaus Mr. Poole without Proof will have them so I could shew him great ones in the Protestant Bible But let them pas And be pleased to note how poorly he shifts of the Difficulty That Presses The Difficulty is concerning the best Originals which Protestants have hitherto met with none of them I believe ever yet saw the Autograph or Hand-writing of either an Euangelist or Apostle These Originals I say cannot be proved Uncorrupt if that Church which had them in Custody for a thousand years brought in a Deluge of Errors into the Christian World Finally to prove that a Protestant hath a Sufficient Assurance of Understanding the Sense of Scripture in things Necessary to Saluation He allegeth Gods Promise Iohn 7. If any man will do his will he shall know of the Doctrin whether it be of God But Protestants do Gods will thus much must be added or the Proof stands on one Leg and Papist Do not Gods will Ergo Those have Assurance of the true Sense of Scripture and These have not Here is the doughty Argument and that which follows is as weightles Protestants saith He have the Assurance of Reason Papists have no more and if that will not do They have the Assurance of the Spirit which God promiseth Luk 11. Here is work enough for another Chapter Yet in passing I cannot but reflect on a mistaken quotation Mr. Poole misquotes Sixtus Senensis in Mr. Poole page 230. where he cites Sixtus Senensis And both err's in the Annotation and Doctrin of Sixtus concerning the Clarity of Scripture Sixtus Therfore libre 6. Annotat. 152. not 151. as Mr. Poole Quotes § Quod autem Answering an Objection of St. Chrysostom plainly Afferts that when Scripture is said to be clear 't is not to be referred to the Whole Bible but to a Part of it only wherfore saith He St. Chrysostom divides Scripture into two Classes The One contains the hidden and abstruse Mysteries of Gods deep Wisdom And this part is not clear at all thus much Mr. Poole conceil's Altera sectio The other Section or Part of it compriseth the First and chiefest Principles of all things to be Believed and Chief Precepts of living And so much is clear Observe well The first and Chiefest Principles of things to be Believed infer no Clarity in every Particular revealed Mystery For He that believes this one Principle of Faith That the Church is Holy and the Pillar of Truth Hath a First great Principle and may learn by it all Truth If you please to se how Mr. Poole abuseth Sixtus read him in the page now cited It were most easy to Take him tripping in other Citations But that is not my task at present This only came in by Chance CHAP. V. The Reason of private men and their private Spirit cannot interpret Scripture 1. MR. Poole told us above That Protestants have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture Happy They if they were the only Reasonable men in the World But why are not Papists as Reasonable Why should the Pelagians the Arians or Honest Quakers be left out of the list of Rational men Or if These would Monopolize the Assurance of Reason to Themselves for their Sence of Scripture Why are They not to be Credited upon their Parole as well as Protestants For their proof is to say They have it crede quod habes habes and so will an Arian or Quaker say too Admit Were Reason allowed of to sentence the Sense of Scripture we must know whose reason hitt's right therfore which is fals that Reason be allowed of as Judge or an Iustrument to sentence the Sense of Scripture where it speaks obscurely We are nothing Advanced nor one whit the Wiser unles we know whose Reason it is that hitt's right on the Sense Now all of them most evidently do not so unles we impiously say that God hath revealed Contradictions in Scripture Becaus these mens Reason draws contradictory Senses out of Scripture and in All do not Interpret Scripture truely High Points of Faith also Say then good Mr. Poole whose Reason must yeild and to whom Must an Arians submit to yours or yours to an Arian Whose Reason must yeild and to whom whilst we vary about the sense Must mine bend to yours or yours to Mine Or may we all hold on to the day of Doom as Devided in Faith as we are in Iudgements concerning the Sense of Scripture Allow once of these Endles and Eternal jarrs in Religion here on Earth which this one Principle of Following private Reason establisheth and you may seek for another Heaven then Christ hath promised to the Children of Peace Hereafter That is for none at all God forgive these late Tumultuous Spirits the True cause of our wofull Dissentions But let us go on And 2. Pray you tell me when Protestants say They have the Assurance of Reason for the Sense of Scripture in controverted Points of Faith E. G. The Trinity what signifies this word Reason with them Doth it import a Formal Discours much of that nature as Schoolmen use when they establish their Tenents in Divinity Sectaries are to say what this word Reason signifies If so the Principle of this Discours must be admitted of and own'd by the two Advers parties when by Reason only They plead for the True sense of Scripture And the Conclusion of the Discours must If a formal Discours two Advers parties must agree on a Principle be drawn from Premises founded on This received Principle Thus much supposed I might here ask first Upon what known and admitted Principle Do our Protestants ground
you fallible Teachers say but what God hath said in Scripture concerning the fallibility of a whole Christian Church This we wish to hear of before we credit your Talk or Believe for your saying It hath erred de facto CHAP. VIII The new Mode of Sectaries misinterpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion 1. HEre we give you a fourth Reflection consequent to the former Discours which follows upon our Sectaries misinterpretation of Scripture 'T is worth the Readers knowledge and if I mistake not totally Ruin's Protestant Religion Thus it is The whole Machin of Protestancy as Protestancy stands Protestancy stands topling on negatives topling upon supposed Objective Negatives built up by Fancy only without so much as one positive proof of Scripture to support it If I evidence not this Truth and consequently do not convince That our Sectaries have no Faith Deny me credit Hereafter 2. Observe well No sooner do these Sectaries perswade Themselves That they can Abate the force of our Scripture-proofs for Catholick Doctrin But They How They proceed farther an Negatives presently lay hold on the quite contrary Doctrin And make that an Article of their new Faith They say we prove not a Church infallible Therfore the contrary Position The Church is fallible is with them a certain Truth They say we prove not a third place of Purgatory Therfore the Belief of no Mark Thâ—se Inferences Purgatory is an Article of Protestants Faith We prove not Christs Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist Therfore the Belief of his Not-presence constitutes part of Protestants Doctrin We prove not the Popes Supremacy Ergo They Believe the Contrary c. To show their Nullity of Faith shall we here condescend to what They say And contrary both to Conscience and manifest Truth suppose with them the Proofs for our Doctrins to be proofles Be it so supposed at present Pray you say next What are They able to infer upon such a fals Concession Marry thus much If we prove no Purgatory There is surely no such Place If we prove not the Church Infallible it is certainly Fallible and so of the rest I answer This These Sequels are deeply Nonsense Sequele is Non-sense and a pure Non sequitur We prove not Ergo The contrary Doctrin is true For how many Things are there both Actual and Possible which men prove not and yet are so A young student in Mathematicks cannot perhaps prove that the Sun is greater then a Sieve Is it therfore consequent That that luminous body is not Greater The Proof is naught And here is all that follows One thing then it is in our present Case To say our Proofs Proofs may fall short and yet not fall upon falsities for Catholick Doctrin fall short or are forceles And a quite Other to say they fall upon falsities Ergo no absolute Denial of these Catholick Verities is deducible from our not proving them Yet upon this fals supposed negative foundation We prove not All Protestant Religion stands tottering as it doth 3. Be pleased to hear more of this Stuff Let us also falsly suppose as our Sectaries will have it that These may be objective Truths and Verities No Church is infallible There is no Purgatory c. Doth it follow think ye That they can believe These Negatives Every Truth is not a material Object of Faith with Divine and stedfast Faith upon the Concession That they are now supposed Truths No. It is a lame Consequence and a wors Non sequitur Then the other Observe my Reason No Objective Verity Although supposed True in it self can be believed by A lame Consequence Divine Faith Vnles God hath positively Revealed it or is at least clearly Deducible from Scripture So Sectaries Assert and upon this ground That Divine Faith besides Truths revealed by God are Objects of Faith a Material Object Believable requires also and this essentially the weight of a Formal Object which is Gods Veracity to reveal that which is believed by Faith Seclude this Veracity from the Motive and Formal object of our Assent Though we yeild to a thousand Verities not one of them can be believed by Faith 4. Now I Assume But the fallibility of Christs whole Church The not being of Purgatory The not Existency That there is no Purgatory no Real Presence c. is no where Reveal'd by God of Christ Body in the Sacred Eucharist and so of the rest Are no where positively revealed by God no nor clearly deduced from any Text in Scripture Ergo Although these were Truths in themselves yet they are not revealed Truths or Truths spoken by Almighty God Therfore they are insufficient to found Divine Faith The Major is granted by Protestants The Minor viz That these supposed Truths were Ergo Cannot be Articles of Protestant Faith never spoken by Almighty God in Scripture is so undeniably evident That here I am forced to chalenge Sectaries to produce so much as one Text wherin God hath Positively said There is no Purgatory No real Presence c. This they cannot do by so much as by a probable Deduction from Scripture much les by plain Scripture it self The Conclusion An Evident Conclusion against Sectaries therfore follows evidently They Believe not what God hath Revealed and consequently want Faith in the Articles they Assent to as Protestants Nay I say more They cannot Assent to These Articles as evident Truths For no received Principle either in Nature or Grace can evidence so much as the supposed objective Verity of These Doctrins Shall I yet add a word and say That no Proof grounded upon weighty moral Reason can evidence these negative Assertions to be Truths morally known Therfore though hitherto we have supposed them to pass for Verities yet in real earnest They are unproved and no other But the weak Thoughts of our Adversaries strong Fancy Now here If I mistake not You se Ruin enough of Protestant Religion And the Ruin of Protestant Religion as Protestancy which stand's upon a Fancied Opinion only and not upon what God hath Revealed in his Sacred Word No nor can probably be made known by any received Principle 5. To conclude this point I Argue thus These Negative Articles No purgatory No Church infallible c. Are either essential Pieces of Protestant Religion or not If not There is no such thing as Protestant Religion in the world For the Reformed part of it is wholy An unanswerable Dilemma made up of such Negatives No Purgatory No Transubstantiation No unbloody Sacrifice No Praying to Saints No Church infallible c. Cast then these and the like away Protestancy dwingles to nothing Now if on the other side They hold these as Articles of Protestancy And say They ought to be believed by Divine Faith They are obliged to shew which is utterly impossible that God hath Positively revealed them in Scripture Therfore I say Though we Admit of such Negatives as Objective
I answer Admit of this most fals Supposition These Doctrins were not Taught Sectaries found Faith on a Negative No Faith at all can be founded on this Negative Before which will never be They Prove their contrary Doctrin Positively Revealed by Almighty God in Scripture For this Principle stands irrefragably Sure No Revelation No Faith Although the Object Assented to be True All the pains Therfore These men take to reduce Their Reformed Gospel to the Model of the Primitive Church is upon several Respects meer labor lost But upon this Account Chiefly it They cannot shew one of Their Negatives Revealed to any Ancient Orthodox Church faulters most That They cannot show one Negative believed by them to be a Revealed Truth to any Christian Society in the world It is pittiful to hear how they fumble in this Discours We Ask how they prove that the Primitive Church held no Unbloody Sacrifice put this for one example it serves for all Some Answer They find no such thing as a Sacrifice registred in those Ancient Writings Mark the Proof They find it not Ergo it is not to be found Catholicks as The Inferences of Sectaries unconcluding clear Sighted as others find that Doctrin expresly Asserted But becaus Protestants are pleased to Deny all They must and upon their Own word be Thought the Men of more Credit Well But Suppose the Doctrin was not Registred in those Ancient Records Is this Consequence good It was not writ Ergo it was not Taught No certainly Vnles They show all Taught Doctrin was then Writ or Registred But let us falsly Suppose that the Doctrin was neither Writ nor Taught Doth it follow that the Contrary of no Sacrifice now believed by Protestants was a Truth Revealed to that Church or taught by it No. Therfore they are here driven again upon the old Negative And thus it is That Church said nothing of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Which is Hideously Vntrue Ergo Protestants can now Believe no Sacrifice which is Hideously fals and as unlucky a Sequele as This That Church said not whether the Moon be a watery Body full of Rocks Ergo Protestants can Believe the contrary with Divine Faith You will Say we Trifle now For that Church was Perfect in Faith and either held a Sacrific 〈…〉 Denyed it I answer in Real Truth it Plainly and undeniably Held a Sacrifice yet must withal Affirm Though we Falsly suppose And this fals Supposition must be vigilantly regarded that it only Negatively abstracted from such Doctrin yet Protestants are far of from Proving it held Positively the Contrary That is no Sacrifice which yet is Necessary to be Proved if They believe no Sacrifice with Divine Faith 11. They may yet Reply They are Able at least to Produce some Ancient Fathers Clearly Enough Asserting no Unbloody Sacrifice Therfore they prove this Negative and so they can do Others I utterly Deny that clearly Enough and say They have not one Ancient Fathe 〈…〉 nor Council nor any Approved Authority No Ancient Father against an Vnbloody Sacrifice that positively Denyes a Sacrifice All unanimously Taught the contrary as Luther himself confesseth Much less have They Any that makes this their Doctrin a Truth Revealed by Almighty God or ever taught by any Vniversal Church Were therfore these supposed Authorities of Sectaries which are none and Reasons also for no Sacrifice more Numerous and Strong then what the World hath Heard of hitherto They cannot in Conscience suppose them Proofs weighty enough to Beat down the contrary Asserted And Vndeniable Doctrin not only of Fathers But of a Whole Church They cannot Suppose Them powerful enough to Build up such a new Negative of Protestant Religion especially whilst They see before their eyes the Torrent of Antiquity against them and our Answers returned to every Trivial Objection they make O But they can Solve all we Object And we must Take their Word Becaus They say so We also tell them We Solve what they Object and yet are not Believed Do you not se here most pittiful Doings and Controversies made Endles by this Proceeding when each Party saith what it pleaseth and Gain 's no Credit from the Other A Judge my good Friends and an Infallible Judge is here Necessary to Decide Matters between us But thus far evident Reason judgeth And Tell 's you Though you could Solve all we say for the Affirmative of a Sacrifice you are to Seek for a Positive Proof of your Vnproved yet Believed Negative There is no Sacrifice And the like I say of your other Negatives CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to Interpret Scripture Truely One Passage More of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers is Quoted 1. WE come now to Solve more fully the Objection Proposed Chap. 7. n. 2. It was to this Sense A Protestant Delivers what he Conceives to be the Meaning of Scripture So the Catholick doth also and can do no more Both of Them therfore are Glossers The difficulty proposed again Concerning the Interpretation of Scripture the only Difficulty is to know who Glosses better Here is the state of the Question 2. To go on Groundedly We may with our Adversaries leave Suppose That God hath not put a Bible into the Hands of Christians to cause Eternal Debates concerning the Doctrin delivered in it And if this be a Truth We may secondly Suppose God desirous of Vnity in Faith gave us not Scripture to cause eternal Debates That his Wise Providence so earnestly desirous of Unity in Faith amongst Christians hath Afforded some Means wherby we may rightly Attain to the True Sense of his Sacred Word For no man can imagin that Gods Intention is That we only Read without Arriving to the Sense of what we Read or which is wors that we fall into Error by our Reading Providence hath afforded means wherby we may understand Scripture This therfore Providence hath Prevented by one Means or other if carelesly we do not reject it We may thirdly Suppose That God regularly speaking Reveal's to no Private man the deep Sense of Scripture when He Reads and perhaps understands it not By private Illustrations new Enthusiasm's or the Ministery of Angels Therfore Private Illustrations no usual means some other way is Appointed by Providence to come to the True Sense of what He Reads The Reason is True Religion requires a True Interpreter of the Book which founds Religion Otherwise God would have only carelesly as it were Thrown Scripture amongst Christians And bid them Guess as well as they can at the Sense of it They having no other means to know his Meaning These Things Premised 3. I say first The Holy Book of Scripture neither doth Scripture cannot interpret its self nor can so Interpret it self as to bring Men Dissgnting in Faith to an Accord or Acquiescency in High Points of Controversy The Assertion is Evident For could the Book clearly interpret its own Meaning Catholicks Arians Protestants
nor can say That the Belief of such and such Articles are to be excluded as Vnnecessary to Saluation 7. Nay I Affirm more It is Impossible for Them by their own Principles to Exclude any To prove my Assertion Observe First They can no more say by a true general Proposition This whole Bible I have now Sectaries cannot by their Principles distinguish between Fundamentals and others in my Hands is Gods own Word and exclude the least Verity in it from being Gods true Word Then They can say by a true general Proposition All men are by nature Mortal and exclude any particular Man from being Mortal For as the Mortality of every particular man makes so far forth This Proposition True That if One be by nature Immortal it is Fals so the Truth of every particular Article in Scripture Verifies so far the other Proposition To believe Scripture in a general way that implyes the Covenant of Grace is necessary to Saluation That if one Article be not Gods true Word the General Proposition is Fals also Now I Assume But Protestants say to Believe Scripture to be the true Word of God at least in a General way which implyes the Covenant of Grace and Faith in Christ is Indispensably necessary to Saluation Therfore They must also Say To believe every particular Article contained in Scripture as being truely Gods Word is in like manner Indispensably Necessary to Salvation Becaus this General Belief carries as well in The Reason it an Owning of every particular Truth in Scripture as the General Assertion of All mortal Ascrib's Mortality to every particular man The Reason is clear For as Scripture is not made up of Generalities But Essentially Scripture Cansist's of particular Verities is constituted of the particular Verities contained Therin so if my Faith truely and intierly Own Scripture for Gods Word it is Extended to no Generality in the Object For there is none But to particular Verities Though the Mode or Tendency of the Act be Faith must be of Particulars nos always perfectly Explicit 8. If you Say The Argument Here proposed seem's Fallacious Becaus it Proves at most That every little Matter in Scripture may be an Object of Faith But no way Inferr's the Belief of them Necessary to Saluation For 't is very different To Affirm Such a Thing I may Believe And another to own the Belief of The Belief of Every particular in Scripture relates to Eternal Happines it Necessary to Saluation if this I say be the Reply my Answer is That as well the Belief of every particular Verity in Scripture hath the same Relation to mans Eternal Happines as the general Belief of owning Scripture for Gods Word hath not only Becaus the Particular is included in the General But chiefly on this other Account That being a Supernatural Elicit Act of Faith it can aym at no other End But mans Supernatural Happines For under this Notion of Supernaturality it Leaves as it were the Limits of Nature and raiseth a Soul to Eternal Bliss Where you se That Both the Means and End Vnivocally Agree in being Supernatural and are alike suitable To one another Permit me to Evidence this Truth further and Ask Whether the Denial or Disbelief of the least Truth The Disbelief of the least matter in Scripture makes one an Haeretick That God Speaks in Scripture once Owned for his Word and Sufficiently Propounded makes not a Man an Haeretick Yes most assuredly For by Denying That to be True which He knows God Saith is True He pertinaciously Opposeth himself to an Infinit Veracity Ergo The True Act of Faith contrary That which makes one a Faithful Believer hath reference to Saluation to this Infidelity of Necessity makes him a Faithful Believer But that which necessarily makes him a Faithful Believer hath not only Reference to his last End But is also necessary to Saluation for as Infidelity looseth Heaven so True Faith is Necessary to gain it Therfore the Belief of every little Article is not of little But in this Sense of as main Consequence as the Greatest The Belief of Every little matter in the sense now explicated is not Little And here by The way you may well Reflect upon the Desperate Talk of some Later Men who Tell us That All things contained in Scripture are not so Necessary in order to our End some being at so great a Remove from this End That the only Reason of Believing them is Becaus they are Contained in Scripture A most unworthy saying Mr. Stilling fleet 's Doctrin refuted which makes God to have Spoken a Thousand idle Words in Scripture For there They stand uselesly in the Book without Benefit without Subserviency or Relation to any further good But only to be looked on You may Read them and pass by them as Things wholy Vnnecessary to our Final End A strange Conceipt They frame of Scripture that make it up as Ill Apothecaries do sometimes Physick of Vnnecessary Ingredients 9. You may Reply Some Catholicks seem to The sense of Divines Concerning Matters Necessary per se and secundarily Necessary Divide the Object of Faith into that which is Per se By it Self Necessary And By Accident or Secondarily Necessary Ergo They Acknowledge Fundamental and not Fundamental Doctrins in the Sense of the Question now Proposed I Deny the Consequence For They only hold some Verities to be so Principally Necessary to the Essence of Christian Faith That if They had not been Revealed at All or Now were unknown Christian Religion would absolutly Perish But it is not so in Others For example Had God never Revealed any thing Touching Christ our Lord the Sacred Mystery of the Incarnation or a Trinity c. The very Essence Why called Primacy Objects of Faith of our Religion would not have been And therfore These are called Primary Objects Ratione materiae Becaus if we have no knowledge or Faith in Christ we have no Christian Religion Contrarywise Had the Holy Ghost not at all Inspired the Hagiographers to write much of the Historical part in Scripture which is writ or never Told us that Abraham had two Sons yet we might have Known Christ and perfectly Believed in Him Such Something 's in regard of the Matter are not necessary Though being writ become Necessary Verities then Becaus of the Matter are not Per se so Necessary However Being now writ They are True Objects of Faith Becaus God Speak's Them It is Therfore one thing to say These lesser matters if not writ at all had not been necessary to constitute Religion And another thing to say Now when They are writ and spoken by Almighty God They do not integrate the total Object of Faith But They least matter in Scripture is an Object of Faith may be looked on as Parergons or as Things void of all Reference to our Eternal Happines It is I say Impossible to own them
implicitly if it be of Faith Though He yet know's not so much yea and may sometimes rationally Doubt whether the Church Proposeth it or no as a Matter of Faith So Schoolmen of different Judgements often Dispute whether such and such Points are de Fide And becaus They are contrary in their Positions either These or Those Contendents light where it will err Materially yet I say The Erring Party who Admits of All that the Church Proposes as Faith to be de Fide Believes Implicitly upon his Universal Assent to All The very A man may believe Implicitly what by Error he denyes Explicitly Matter which He by Error Explicitly Denyes yea and hath as True Faith as the Other That Hitt's on Truth Neither is there so much as a seeming Contradiction between These two Judgements of True Implicit Faith and an Untrue Material Explicit Error For the one is No Contradiction between true implicit Faith and untrue material Explicit Error so far from Opposing the other That the Erroneous Judgement in Actu exercito yeilds to Truth and resolved into all the strength it Hath saith no more but This by a Conditional Tendency If what I Affirm be not contrary to the Churches Doctrin And hence it is that Catholicks God be ever Blessed do not only easily lay down their material Errors when the The Reason Church Declares against them But most usually also in Their learned Volumes submit All They write to Learned Catholicks submit to the Churches Censure Sectaries submit to nothing but Fancy the Judgement of the Church which Implyes a tacite Retractation or an unsaying of whatever shall be Censured or Sentenced to be Amiss O would our Protestants Acknowledge such a Living Judge of Controversies They might make excellent good Vse of Their Bible But to snatch that Pure Book from Catholicks as they have Don And afterward to Debase it to Prostitute it to every Wild Fancy That shall pleas to meddle with it is plainly to Abjure and Renounce all Possibility of either knowing what Fundamentals are Or of ever Arriving to better Settlement in Faith then now we se which indeed is none at all Therfore though they Protest a Thousand times That they Believe every Thing in Scripture with the like Implicit Faith as we do the Church it Avail's nothing whilst every Private man makes that Book to speak what he would have it That is what his Fancy Pleases 2. Others finally have Recours to the Apostles Creed and say All things there as They Relate to The Belief of the Apostles Creed not Sufficient for Salvation Scripture and no more are Fundamental Points of Faith First Admit of the Assertion without any likelyhood of Proof Protestants have little to glory in For There is not so much as One Article of their Religion as Protestancy Observe it well contained in the Apostles Nothing of Protestancy in the Apostles Creed Creed Therfore nothing of their Religian as Protestancy can be Accounted Fundamentally Necessary to Salvation 2. One may Admit of All those Express Words in the Creed I Believe in Iesus Christ His only Son and be an Haeretick For the Arians grant this and yet are Haereticks Becaus They Deny the High Godhead of Christ and Consubstantiality likewise with his Father which are not evidently deduced out of those Words And Here I would gladly know of Protestants when either Arian Let it please Sectaries to answer this Question plainly or any Sectary That doth not only Abstract from Christs supream Divinity But Positively also Abjures it yet in some manner frigidly own 's Christ for the only Son of his Father whether I fay such an One may be Reckoned of as a True Believer in Fundamentals 3. Though the Creed Compriseth much in that One Article I believe the Holy Catholick Church And therfore some Ancient Fathers most Deservedly Magnify the Protestants cannot plainly point at the Church which the Creed Call's Catholick compleatnes of it as an Excellent Summary of Christian Faith yet Protestants for their lives cannot say what or where this Catholick Church is And it is very hard to oblige me to the Belief of a Church which is neither known nor can be Pointed out Now were it known a great Difficulty yet remain's to be Examined Viz. Whether God will ever Preserve this Church Infallible in the Delivery of Fundamental Doctrin or supposing His present Decree Whether He can so leave it to a Possibility of Erring in Fundamentals That Christians may absolutely loos all Faith both of Christ and Creed If This Second be Sectaries are pressed whether They grant or Deny a Church infallible in Fundamentals Granted We have no Assurance after all Christs Promises to the contrary But that Christianity may totally Perish before the Worlds End If they Say God will ever Preserve a Church Infallible in Fundamentals They must joyntly Acknowledge a Continued Vnextinguished Society of Christians wherof some are Pastors and Teach Infallibly these Fundamentals and some Sectaries must solve their own Difficulties Hear them also Infallibly I would have these plainly Marked out And withall have Sectaries know That All their Difficulties Proposed against an Infallible Church must be solved by them if they grant such Infallible Teachers of Fundamentals as is largely Baptism and the Eucharist not in the Creed Proved Above 4. To Omit that the Creed Delivers no Explicit Doctrin concerning Baptism and the Eucharist Though the Belief of these are also Necessary to Salvation Thus much I observe That Catholicks Catholicks Admit of the Creed without Glosses without Glosses and Interpretations own the candid and plain Obvious Expressions of the Creed in All and Every particular Article of it Therfore They are at least if not more as good Believers of the Creeds Fundamentals as Sectaries And if which we Deny They Err by Ignorance in lesser Matters as Protestants May and Do Err in Greater They must yet grant that the Belief of Fundamentals is Faith enough to save both Parties This Supposed 3. I must Needs have a word with my long forgotten Friend Mr. Poole and Ask why He Deem's it such A word with Mr. Poole a Strict piece of Justice to chafe as He Doth at a converted Captain upon the Account of his changing Religion as if he were a Lost and Perished Soul An Instrument forsooth He will Prove Append. p. 2. if not of Gods Mercy to reduce him to the Truth from which he is revolted At least of Gods Iustice And a Witnes on Gods Behalf to leave him without Excuse What needed I say so much Ado about Nothing For both the Captain and all Catholicks whilst they Believe the Creed Relating to Scripture are very secure and Confessedly right in Fundamentals Which being Supposed It is more then Impertinent in the Protestant to Keep such a Coyl about lesser Matters Protestants keep a Coyl to no Purpose about matters not Essential or to Reduce the main
They name not the guilty Persons that Extend the Vnion of the Church beyond its Foundations Are they Catholicks who Believe all that God Reveal's and is declared by the Church to be Revealed Or Sectaries That have neither Church nor Scripture for any Article of their Protestancy 3. If they Hold themselves to be the Preservers of the Churches Vnity They must prove it by strong Principles And first shew Positively by Scripture That they have just so much as is Necessary and sufficient to Saluation Before Sectaries who have neither Church nor Scripture for one word of Protestancy Most unreasonably pretend to be the Preservers of the Churches Vnity they make us Guilty of any Breach of the Churches Vnity This will be a hard Task For if they say We Break the Churches Vnity in believing a Sacrifice a Purgatory c. They are obliged to prove and by plain Scripture That either their contrary Negatives are to be Believed or That neither our Positives nor their Negatives merit an Act of Faith which is Impossible For What Scripture saith we are neither to Believe a Sacrifice nor the Contrary 5. In the next place they come to Solve the Enigma to explicate the main Subject of the present Dispute And 't is to Tell us what those Things are Their own saying is the only Proof which ought to be Owned by all Christian Societies as Necessary to Saluation on which the Being of the Catholick Church Depend's Happy were they could they Unridle the Mystery Protestants cannot Shew what things are Necessary And say what Things are thus Necessary But our Author still run's on in Generals and Determin's nothing Be pleased to hear his Resolution 6. Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Saluation by Christian Societies But such things which by the Iudgement of all those Societies are Antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church No man I think knows to what that word Antecedently relates nor can this Author make sense of it One may Guess what he would be at He will Perhaps Say When all Christian They fall upon impossibilities Societies stand firmly united in one Iudgement concerning the Being and the Essentials of a Church then we are right in These Essentials Answ But this was never yet seen nor will be seen as is more largely declared Chap. 2. n. 1. whither I remit the Reader for further Satisfaction He Adds two Things more One is There cannot be any Reason given why any Thing els should be judged Necessary to the Churches Communion He means Who is to Iudge him that sayes He Dissents not in Necessary Articles of Faith But what all those Churches who do not manifestly Dissent from the Catholick Church of the first Ages are agreed in as Necessary to be Believed by all My God! What Confusion Have we here Where is the Protestant that can Assure us without Protestants cannot shew what the Primitive Church believed Dispute what the Catholick Church of the first Ages positively Believed and positively Rejected Could this one Point be clear'd without Endles Debate A better Vnion might be Hoped for But herein both We and Sectaries Dissent as is Proved above Therfore by No Appealing to the primitive Church without the Tradition of the present Church their Appealing to the Ancient Church whilst They Abstract from the Tradition of a present Catholick Church They go about to Prove Ignotum per ignotius And convince nothing 7. They Add a second Consideration which may be reflected on Ad perpetuam rei memoriam And 't is to Memorable Doctrin this Sense After Their Telling us That in Case of great Divisions in the Christian World any National Church may Reform it self as is Supposed England Men uncertain in all They say take on to Teach wherin Faith is abused Hath don and Declare its Sense of those Abuses in Articles of Religion yea and Require of Men a Subscription against those Abuses c. They go on We are to consider that there is a great Difference between the Owning some Propositions in order to Peace and the Believing of them as Necessary to Salvation Now Mark what Followes No Orthodox Church Ever excepted against our Church Doctrin The Church of Rome Imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believed A most unproved Assertion which Articles are excepted against by other Churches name the Orthodox Church that ever excepted against them it cannot be don But the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith Mark the Doctrin But such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self and in other things she requires Subscription to Protestant Religion reduc'd to Inferiour Truths them Not as ARTICLES of Faith but as inferiour Truths which she expects Submission to in order to Her peace and tranquillity And thus much the late Primate of Ireland expresseth to be the Sense of the Church of England as to her thirtynine Articles 8. Be it known to all men by These Presents That the Church of England so far as it maintains these The English Church consisting of Negatives is no Church Negatiue Protestant Articles of No Sacrifice No Real Presence No Purgatory is here confessedly owned to have no Articles of Faith Revealed by Almighty God And therfore so far 'T is neither any Christian or Catholick Church Because these Negatives the very marrow of Protestancy are now Degraded And Thrown down from their Ancient Height of Articles to the low Rank of a few Humble and inferiour Truths 9. But let us go on Who Assures you Sir of Inferiour Truths are none of Gods Truths Their being Truths at all God you say that Reveal's nothing but most Supream Truths Own 's none of Them No Orthodox Church no Ancient Council no Vnanimous Consent of Fathers no nor your own Synods in England Though without Proof They Suppose them to be Truths ever yet Defined them as you Two yong Popes do Doctor Bramhal and your Self to be Truths of an Inferiour Rank and Order Be it how you will I am sure the Declaration before these Articles says they are Articles of Religion These Authors clash with the 39. Articles and contain the true Doctrin of the Church of England Agreable to Gods Word If so Gods Word is Agreable to these Articles and Proves them Again Some of your own Coat and perhaps as Learned as you Call them Articles of Faith Certainly they These Negatives of the 39. Articles are neither Articles of Faith nor Inferiour Truths are none of our Faith Ergo they are yours or no Bodies Vpon whom then shall we Rely for the last Definition I 'll tell you Both the Assertions of their being either Articles of Faith or Inferiour Truths stand tottering without Proof or Principle upon the sole Fancy of those who say so 10. 3. If these Dull Negatives be only Voted for
Peace among you without Reference to your Faith your Church is Essentially Hypocritical which may Believe The English Church is essentially Hypocritical one Thing And must Profess an Other I now say no more having Told you enough to this Sense in another place Though all the Protestants in England do not only Dissent in Iudgement from the owning of These Protestants may curse These Negative Articles and yet besound in Faith Negatives Though they are plain Papists in Hart yea and Interiourly curse and Anathematize all your new Articles if the exteriour Demeanour be fairly good All is Fine They may be still looked on as Blessed Children of your new Negative Church The sequel is undeniable For They may Believe all that Scripture saith And this is Faith enough to Saluation And yet Anathematize your Negatives not at all contained in Scripture And wholy unnecessary to Saluation 11. Yet farther You Protestants Endlesly Talk A hard Question proposed to Sectaries of Reforming us Papists by Scripture Speak once plainly and Tell us How can you go about such a work as to reclaim us by Scripture To a Belief of your Negatives when you have not one Syllable of Gods Word for Them For if you have Scripture They are Superiour Truths Revealed by God and consequently Articles of Faith If you have no Scripture why Preach you fals Doctrin why Teach you that you can draw Vs from our old Faith to your New Negative Religion by plain Scripture No Protestant shall Answer to It cannot be Answered this short Demand 4. You cheat the World when you Offer to Resolve Protestants Faith which is no more Resolvable into Divine Revelation then Arianism Protestants resolving Faith a meer Cheat. is Because you must now confess that God never spake Word of Protestancy as Protestancy in the whole Bible Let therfore the world Iudge whether it be not a pure Cheat to give a Title of the Protestants way of Resolving Faith and then leave that which the Title Promises To talk of Resolving a Faith in Communi which stand's in no need of your Resolution 12. To see this more Evidenced And to end with these meer Nothings of Sectaries Our now Author Tell 's us That the English Church makes no Articles of Faith But such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages yes And are Acknowledged by Rome Protestant Church no more a Church then an Arian c. it self If this be so it is no more an English then a Church of Arians of Pelagians And of all condemned Haereticks For this man would say That a Faith common to All called Christians without Believing more is the English Faith and Sufficient to acquire Heaven Mark the Proposition And ask first what is now become of the The Arian and English Faith agree in Doctrin common to all Christians Protestants way of Resolving Protestants Faith Next and most justly call it a meer Fancy A new coyned Haeresy contrary to the whole Christian World For neither Scripture nor Councils nor Fathers nor any particular Orthodox or Haeretical Church much less the consent of the whole Christian World Owned the Belief of that Abstract Doctrin wherin all Haereticks Agree to be sufficient to Salvation A new coyned Haeresy contrary to All. The whole Christian World never yet said to Believe in Christ Abstracting from His Godhead and Two Natures is Sufficient Catholicks hold the Belief of a Sacrifice and Transubstantiation c. Necessary to Salvation And all condemned Haereticks as Arians Monothelits No Haereticks much less Catholicks Ever yet defended what our Sectaries here vent upon Fancy only and Others as firmly Adhere to their Particular Haeresies as to the Abstract Doctrin of all Christians Otherwise they had been wors then mad to have Abandoned an Ancient Church for a few supposed Inferiour Truths which neither can Vncatholick any if the common Doctrin of all Christians be enough nor make Them in Reaelity wors or better Christians And here by the way you se the Hideous sin of Sectaries who meerly for a Company of Inferiour Truths if yet They were Truths have shamefully Deserted The true Mother Church that made Their Progenitours The sin of Sectaries who have troubled â— the world for a company of supposed Inferiour Truths to be Christians I say If They were Truths For I utterly Deny the Fals Supposition And therfore press our Adversaries to speak to the Cause That is to come to Proofs and Principles wherby it may Appear That These Negative Doctrins No Sacrifice no Praying for the Dead c. Merit so much as the very name of Inferiour Truths These Negatives cannot be proved even by Their wonted weak way of Arguing Negatively We Read not of a Sacrifice or praying for the Dead For there is no man that Reads Antiquity But he Find's these Doctrins positively Asserted 13. From what is now said These Sequels undeniably follow First that Protestants cannot Resolve Protestants Faith but Fancy The Reason their Faith But into Fancy only For if they make the common Doctrin of all Christians only to be Their sufficient Faith for Saluation and Resolve that into its Principles both Fancy and Haeresy lye at the very Bottom of the Resolution And if they Go about to Resolve Their Negative Articles The whole Analysis the Regress the Reduction of Them will come at last to no other Principle But to the sole Fancy of Sectaries who call them Articles of Faith or Inferiour Truths It followes 2. If the English Church makes The English Church contradicts the whole Christian World no Articles of Faith But such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages Excluding others It doth not only Contradict the whole Christian World whose particular Communities owned the Belief of more Doctrin necessary But hath neither And Therfore hath no Faith at all Faith of those Abstract Articles now Believed nor any Faith at all Sufficient to Saluation as is largely proved in the 2. Chap. If Finally to Assoil These Difficulties Sectaries will Restrain that Ample Term of the whole Christian World to their imagined Catholick Church in the Ayr They are to specify the Particular Societies of this vast Church And when that 's Don They will find no Abstract Doctrin common to There never had been Haeresy in the world might Faith common to all be sufficient to Saluation all Christians Admitted of By any Sufficient to gain Heaven For were this true There had never been Haereticks or Schismaticks in the World whilst Christ only Though his Divinity be denyed is owned in a general Way Wherof more in the 3. Chap. 14. Here I 'll only propose one Question to our Adversaries When they positively Teach That that which our Saviour gave his Apostles in his last Supper and Priests now consecrate Dayly was and is no more But a Sign a Figure only of Christs Body My Question
I say is Whether Their Positive owning of a Sign or Figure only Be an Article of their Faith or no more But One of their Inferiour supposed Truths If this later They never Had nor can have any determinate A Dilemma that cannot be answered Faith of this Sacred Mystery which yet God hath most certainly Revealed unto us in Holy Scripture And consequently They believe nothing of the Blessed Sacrament by Divine Faith For Inferiour Truths are no Articles Inferiour Truths are not Articles of Faith of Belief with Them Contrarywise if They say the Belief of a Sign or Figure only is one of their Articles of Faith And the Thing Believed an Object of Faith They must certainly eat their own Words and confess That the English Church makes new Articles of Faith And such as never Had the Approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it Self For the whole Christian World of all Ages never Believed so Some perhaps will Answer They Believe in General Christs own Words Some Sectaries believe they know not what to be true Though They know not well what he meant when he said This is my Body Answer If they know not what he spoke why do They charge Idolatry on us By the force of their Inferiour supposed Their inconsequences Truths for Adoring Christ in the Sacrament I am sure Arius of old was an Haeretick For Denying the High Godhead of our Saviour upon the Vncertainty of his supposed Superiour Truths And Sectaries are now in a wors They are in a wors Condition Then Arians Case whilst they contradict all Orthodox Churches in the Belief of this Sacrament And make us Idolaters Meerly upon the Vncertainty of their imagined Inferiour Truths 15. Another Proposition is Thus. Nothing ought to be imposed as a necessarij Article of Faith to be believed by all but what may be evidently propounded to all Persons as a Thing which God did require the explicite belief of Observe the Vnexplicated words Evidently Propounded to all Persons Who must propound these Articles of Faith Must God Angels or mens private Fancies Do it No. The Oracle of Truth Christs own Christ Church Can only propose Faith unto us Church find it where you can is both to Propose Faith to us and to Decide all Difficulties when they Arise among us as is Already Proved Submit to This and all Controversies are Ended Here is also another loos Proposition Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of Another Proposition too General and insignificant all Ages Sr say you plainly where this Catholick Church was in all Ages and tell us exactly How many Articles it Held Necessary and sufficient to Salvation And we shall Drive you out of your Generalities which Prove just nothing To a more open and Plain They run on in General 's Doctrin wherof you are as much afraid as the Divel of Holy water We know not what you mean by the Catholick Church 16. Well But the next Assertion will clear all It is sufficient Evidence that was not looked on as a necessary Article of Faith which was not admitted into the Ancient Creeds Pray you prove This sufficient Evidence by a clear Principle Vpon what Ground doth the The Belief of the Creed not Sufficient c. Assertion stand Distinct from your own Fancy The Baptizing of Infants The Admitting of so many Books for the exact Canon of Scripture The Belief all ought to have of the Holy Eucharist Are not Explicitly set down in Necessary Particulars not Expresses in the Creed the Ancient Creeds Therfore we must have Recours to the Catholick Church both for the Faith of these And many other Articles But we have said enough of this Subject 17. You go on Nothing ought to be judged a necessary Article of Faith but what was universally believed by the Catholick Church to be delivered as such by Christ and his Apostles Sr Before this Proposition be cleared you These Authors say not what is meant by These dark Terms Believed by the Catholick Church are to Declare what you Mean by those Terms Believed by the Catholick Church For if Rightly Suppose There was never any True Church But the Roman Catholick only continued Age after Age And upon This Supposition Reply which is easy to your Assertion and the Ten following Points You 'l say I mistake your Meaning concerning the very Notion of that Church which your Fancy makes Catholick And if I licence you to Enlarge The Catholick Church as far as you Pleas or To comprise in it All who have had the Name of Christians Though otherwise known Haereticks your Proposition to us is de Subjecto non supponente of a Subject not Supposable And the annexed Points are highly Impertinent They are to specify what and where This Catholick Church is Name Therfore Exactly The Catholick Church upon grounded Principles and all is don 18. After the ending these Negatives They inquire what we ought Positively to Believe as Necessary to Saluation And remit us without any further Proof but their own saying to the Articles of the Ancient A question proposed Creeds This is largely refuted already Next they propose a question Whether any thing which was not Necessary to Saluation may by any Means whatsoever afterwards become Necessary so that the not Believing it Whether The Church Can Define any Thing anew necessary to Salvation so that the not believing of it becomes Damnable becomes Damnable The Question If I mistake not Drives at This To shew that the Church can make no new Definitions of Faith Necessary to Saluation Because all Faith Necessary is Antecedently supposed as it were laid in The very Churches Foundation before it Defines Which Foundations were both Fully and Solidly laid when Christ and his Apostles Taught the World For the Earth was full of his Knowledge He taught his Disciples all things he had heard of his Father The Messias when he came would tell them all things c. Therfore a Church solidly Founded and before it Defines The reason of the Doubt full of Truth can make nothing so Necessary to Saluation by a new superadded Definition that the not Believing of it Becomes Damnable The grounds of Sectaries shewed Null though the Church made new Definitions 19. Before we Answer the Question it will be good to shew you the Nullity of our Adversaries Grounds and the Inconsequences of them Herein lyes the chief strength of all That 's said A Church must be a Church before it can Define and Consequently There must be a Vnion in Belief by which The Church is Constituted in Being Antecedently to its new Definitions Very Good All this in True but makes The Reason Nothing Against the Church though it Define anew I 'll prove it and Explicate my self by one Instance In a Kingdom
or Commonwealth There is always an Agreement or Settlement in some great Matters before it Proceed to make new Laws yet 'T is not Common-wealths though antecedently setled may make new Laws consequent to say That the Agreement ought to be so Explicit in all Things in all Points in all particular Matters that nothing afterward can be Decreed anew It is Therfore sufficient That these new Laws Arise from some first solid Principles of that Common-wealth Antecedently setled in Being And if this be so They oblige as Much as the former Conventions Did when it was first setled Though they were not at all mentioned at the first Founding of the Common-wealth 20. Answerably Hereunto One may say Christ founded a Church Assisted as is here Supposed by a Spirit of Truth the Holy Ghost and first setled it upon some fewer Principles from which All other after-Definitions might Proceed or be Derived The The Church assisted by the Holy Ghost Derives new Definitions from its first Setlement Church thus Assisted Defines anew upon the former Setlement just as the Commonwealth makes new Laws upon its first Agreement Such Definitions Therfore because they Proceed from an Infallible Oracle call them yet new or old as you pleas Are as certain and of as great necessity to be Believed As those new Laws are Obligatory and of necessity to be Obeyed Here is one Disparity which is not to the Purpose Viz. That the Commonwealths Laws proceed from Human Authority The Churches Definitions from Divine Assistance Those oblige under a temporal The parity holds exactly Punishment These under Eternal But the Parity exactly Hold's thus far Those Laws were implicitly and virtually contained in the first grounded setlement of the Commonwealth These of the Church in the first setlement of Christianity Those may be called New These may be also called so Those become Necessary to be Obeyed These become Necessary New Laws are to be obeyed and new Definitions if any were are to be believed to be Believed Now further As no man Doubt's But That the Church may make new Laws in order to Obedience so none can but most Vnreasonably Doubt of its Power in Setting forth new Definitions It is very True Here may be much of a Quaestio de Nomine Whether They are to be called Old or New Because of their different Respects Relating to the first setled Vpon different respects these Definitions may be called either new or old Foundations of Christian Doctrin from whence They Proceed They may take a Denomination and be called Old Because Radicated in Those old certain Principles But if we consider them as more Ample Express and significant Declarations of Gods Eternal Truths They may without Offence or Clashing in the least with Church-Doctrin be called New Definitions Thus much is Briefly said to show how groundles our Adversaries Grounds are 21. But we will not leave the Difficulty Thus. To Answer therfore with more satisfaction Be pleased to note It is one Thing to own a Church perfectly Founded Two things to be noted and fully Instructed in all things Necessary to Salvation And an Other to suppose that all know explicitly what That Perfect founded Doctrin is which God will have to be believed as Necessary to Salvation This later Requires a clear Proposition made by some Oracle of Truth of the necessary Doctrin As is evident in Scripture it self For though I own all that Scripture saith to be True in the Sense intended by the Holy Ghost yet I must learn by a sure Teacher what it saith in a hundred difficil Passages 22. Now to Question Whether any thing which was not Necssary to Saluation may Afterwards become so Necessary that the not Believing it is Damnable c. I Answer The Question answered Nothing is now Necessary to Saluation After the Churches Definition which was not Necessary Before yea and Believed by the Apostles Themselves The ground of my Assertion is Because the Apostles immediatly Illuminated The Apostles the first and best knowing Masters of Divine Mysteries by Christ our Lord were made Partakers of His Divine Mysteries They had Primitias Spiritus the First Fruits of the Spirit Believed as we believe Taught as we Teach and never Delivered Doctrin contrary to the Church in After-Ages Hence Divines commonly Hold That the Church properly speaking The Church makes no new Articles of Faith but only declares more explicitly what was Anciently of Faith makes no new Articles of Faith But only Declares more Significantly and Expresly what Those well Instructed Masters of the Church Christs own Disciples Both Believed and upon several Occasions Taught others And here one Grand Cheat is to be taken Notice of Sectaries Think that All those Christian Truths which the Apostles Believed Explicitly are now Explicitly enough upon Record in Holy Writ It is an Errour Our Saviour as St. Iohn Testifies All that the Apostles believ'd is not explicitly in Scripture Cap. 21. v. 25. Did many Things which if writen in particular the whole World would not contain Might not then the Apostles also Believe many Things As a Sacrifice of Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory c. yea and Teach those Verities Though they were not so plainly Delivered in Holy Writ yet expresly enough But that Haereticks might Cavil at them 23. Here then is my Resolution which is most Catholick The Resolution Doctrin Christ our Lord Established a Church that is to Tell us Truth to the end of Ages This Oracle which Relies not on Gods written Word only But on the Vnwritten also undoubted Tradition answerable to Necessary Ocsions of new Haereticks rising up Or of Schism made in Christian Societies c. Often Proposeth more The Church useth clearer Terms in her Definitions Explicitly what the Primive Faith was And the Apostles Believed Not that it makes new Articles if we speak rigourously But proposeth the old ones again in more Clear and Significant Terms And how can Sectaries blame this Procedure when They without the Warrant of Gods Word written or unwritten Propose and Declare as They think the Ancient Sense of Scripture it self to their Hearers in a Hundred Passages Sectaries without Gods Word written or unwritten make new Definitions For example Christ said This is my Body They by A new Proposition Define This is a Sign of my Body Will they licence Themselves to Propose what they please out of Gods Word Already writ and Storm at a whole Church if it do so or Further Declare what was not Writ yet ever Believed Though perhaps not by all so explicitly as 'T is after the Churches clearer Definition The Church in this Proceeds upon a certain Principle indubitable Tradition Sectaries Have neither Tradition nor Scripture For what they Propose anew You se therfore whoever Pertinaciously Whoever Denies the Churches Definitions Denies the old believed Articles Denies the Definitions of the Church Denies not only the new Declared But the
11. One word now to a Tedious Harange of Ieers 'T is a mile long at least and Wearies one out before He run's it half Over After our Adversary had Answer to our Adversaries Ieers of Milstones Talked of Milstones hung about our Necks of the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation c. He Tell 's us When the Apostles were sent to Preach all that Christ Commanded This must be Vnderstood that the Church had Power to Teach more if She pleased Alas the Apostles were only Tutors to the Church in its Minority But the great Divine Mysteries of the Seven Sacraments Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass were not fit to be Declared till the Church was at Age VVhat not one VVord of Necessary Points all this while Nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christs Vicar on Earth c Thus our young Tully Tattles To Retort his Argument I might here load him with the lesser Milstones of his Inferiour Negative Truths For these hang about his Submissive Neck if He be a Child of the Church of England And are as numerous as our contrary Positives But he will say they weigh little Because They are light Negatives Be it so Were the Apostles Think Ye so Tongue-tyed so Sparing of their Words as not once to Hint at one of these Inferiour Truths What not a Syllable The Apostles strangely sparing of Protestants Doctrin Through the whole Bible of two Sacraments only of no Purgatory of no Sacrifice Nor of a Sort of New Men that were to Peep out sixteen Ages after and Reform the World O were They alive Again how would Sectaries storm at their Silence And utter Forgetfulnes of These New Nothings which yet are the very best Essentials of Protestancy or it hath no Essence Thus men might Talk But Ad Rem 12. This whole wordy Argument is just like Protestant Religion purely Negative And brought to its best Sense Draws apace towards Non-sense Thus Christ and his Apostles Declared not to the VVorld These Doctrins of the Popes Supremacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass of Purgatory c. Therfore they are no Foundations of Faith I first Deny the Antecedent How will Scripture Speak's more expresly of the Popes Supremacy then of a Trinity you prove it Marry Thus. Scripture saith nothing of them I Deny that also It speaks more Expresly of the Popes Supremacy And of a Sacrifice Then of a Trinity of Persons in One Divine Essence or of Infant Baptism But let us Gratis suppose it do not so Here lyes the Strength of your Objection which is Improbably Negative Scripture saith not that the Apostles The Objection Improbably Negative Believed and Taught a Sacrifice the Popes Supremacy c. Ergo They neither Believed nor Taught them Observe well your Negative From the not Registring of all in Scripture that the Apostles knew Believed and Taught you infer They knew no More or at least Believed and Taught no More Which is as Vnlucky a Sequel as this You Sir have not Writ Down in your Rational Account of Protestancy All that your Learned Head hath in it All you Believe and Teach Others Therfore you Know Nothing Believe Nothing Teach Nothing But what is Expressed in that Book In a Word I have Answered The Successors of the Apostles Teach what is Apostolical Doctrin above n. 22. The Church of Christ that is The Heirs and Successors of the Apostles with whom the Mysteries of Faith were Deposited Teach us what Apostolical Doctrin is and This Positive Approved by Scripture And all Antiquity hath more Weight in it Then twenty of your weak Negative Discourses 13. But we must not Part thus I said just now Your Objection Against us is an Improbable Negative And I Appeal to your own Conscience whether it be not so For can You or any Prudent Man Imagin that all the exact Words or Express Doctrin Delivered by It is improbable to say all that the Apostles taught is registred in Scripture the Apostles in their laborious Sermons when They Preached to Iewes and Gentils are Recorded in Holy Scripture No. I may well say in St. Iohns Sense speaking of our Saviours Works the whole World or whole Volumes would not contain them Therfore All They taught cannot be Supposed to be either lost or Shut up in Scripture Take here your own Instance of St. Paul it Vndoes you He Blessed Man Act. 20. 20. 21. Kept nothing back that was profitable to them But shewed them and taught them publickly from House to House Testifying to the Iewes and Gentils Penance towards God and Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ You upon this Testimony too simply Demand What not one Word all this while of the Necessary Points nothing of the Church of Rome nor Christ Vicar on Earth I might Ask you Nothing all this whole of Infant Baptism of the Eternal Consubstantiality of the Son with God His Father Good Sir Reflect whilst the Apostle spak of Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ He might well have Declared both these now named and many other Particular Christian Verities I do not say He did so at that Present But This I 'll Defend Against you Because Scripture only relates in a General Way what St. Paul Preached A weak Inference of This Adversary You can neither Probably nor Positively Infer That he omitted to speak of These and other Necessary Doctrins I say in a General Way For Do you think that St. Luke Recounts in Particular all the Doctrinal Points that the Apostle Delivered when he went Preaching From House to House Or can You Perswade your Self that All the Hagiographers put together have Recounted all the Doctrinal Matters not one omitted That Christ our Lord ever Spoke and the Apostles Taught upon several Occasions Pray you ask your Conscience whether you can Iudge this Probable If It does not follow that what Scripture relates not is not to be Believed not The Argument Scripture Relates not those particular Doctrins wherat you Cavil which is yet untrue Ergo They were neither Believed nor Taught is not only a Negative But an improbable Negative 14. To conclude Let me Friendly ask you whether this your Positive Assertion The Apostles never Believed nor taught a Sacrifice or the Popes Supremacy Be an Article of your new Faith or only one of your Inferiour Truths If you Affirm the first You are Obliged to produce Positive Scripture for it And then it will be a A Dilemma that cannot be Answered Superiour Truth Revealed by God Though perhaps in your Principles not Necessary to Saluation Grant thus much And you too Clearly own Revealed Articles over and above Those which the whole Christian World and Rome it Self Believes Now if it be only an Inferiour Truth And not in Gods written Word With what Sectaries offer to reclaim us by Scripture and have not one Text to that purpose Conscience or Countenance can you Protestants who Always Pretend to Reclaim us from our
clearly We may first Suppose Two necessary Suppositions That as God hath Certainly Revealed the Truth of this Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Scripture so He hath also Taught us What we are Truely to Believe concerning it We Suppose 2. That his real Intention was and is That we stand to his Word and Believe Him as he Speak's Vnles we can Learn by some clear and Vndoubted Principle That he spak Reservedly or That his words bear another Sense then what they plainly Signify Vpon these Suppositions I Argue When God Reveals a Truth in Holy A clear Argument Proposed against Sectaries Scripture which concerns the General Belief of all And really Intends to Teach Christians what They are to Believe of that Revealed Truth He cannot Deliver more significantly clearly and expresly that Doctrin which He would not have Christians to Believe Then He Doth the Doctrin which He Would have them to Believe For if He did so whilst We cannot Learn by any known Principle That He speak's otherwise then He Thinks He would not only Equivocate and Deal reservedly with us in a Weighty matter of Faith And this as Ill beseem's his Goodnes as to Speak an Vntruth God in a weighty Matter of Faith cannot deliver more clearly that Doctrin which He would not have Christians to Believe Then he Doth the other which He would have them to believe If God cannot make a fals Religion more credible to Reason by outward Motives Then his true Religion is He cannot deliver an errour not to be Believed in more plain and significant words then he useth when he speaks a Truth to be believed by All. But more if we Rely on Scripture only He would Induce the whole world to Believe a Falsity Now I Subsume But it is most Evident if Sectaries Say right That God in speaking of this Mystery Delivers that Doctrin more clearly And significantly Which He would not have Christians to Believe Then He doth the other which He would Have them to Believe And there is no Imaginable Principle wherby we can learn that he Spake otherwise then He Thought or his plain Words Signify Therfore he speak's not only Equivocally and Reservedly in a weighty matter of Faith which is Alwayes to be Reflected on But He Induceth also the whole Christian World if Scripture guide us to Believe a Falsity by His too plain Speaking 5. Before I prove the Minor And give you this Clearer Language of Almighty God For what He will not Have us to Believe c. Be pleased to call to mind one Truth Explicated more largely Disc 1. cap. 8. For it is the Ground of my Present Discours Vpon that Principle therfore I say now Again As God cannot if True Faith be in the world make a Fals Religion more Prudently Credible to Reason by the force of rational Motives Then His True Religion is Evidenced and made Credible For if he did so He would oblige Reason to Embrace a Falsity and Desert Truth So also when He Delivers a Doctrin Concerning Christian Faith And in the most serious Circumstances imaginable He cannot Deliver an Errour in more Emphatical and Plainer words Then He speak's a Truth which yet You Shall se is Don if Sectaries be Believed The Parity Holds Exactly For As those more Perswasive Motives Antecedent to Belief wherby we are as it were summoned The parity hold's exactly to settle our Faith right Would If They Countenanced a Fals Religion Prudently Induce Rational men to embrace that and Leave the Discountenanced true Religion so This very clearer Language of God Wheron our Faith immediately Relies Would Also if it be more Express and Significant For Errour then Truth Force All to Embrace the Errour and Abandon Truth Becaus the Errour is most significantly Expressed in Holy Writ And the Truth not at All And This is Don when there is no excogitable Grounded Principle to Fancy or the bare words of Sectaries cannot work out of a Christians Hart the open sense of Christs words How Christ speak's and what Catholicks Believe Draw us of the supposed Errour if we be Beguiled or to work this supposed Falsity out of our Harts But the meer Fancy And the bare Word of a few Sectaries who say we are Deceived 6. Now to prove the Minor And Demonstrate that God delivers more Fully and significantly the Doctrin Which He would not have Christian◠to Believe then he doth the other Ponder these two things First what Eternal Truth Speak's in this Matter And we Catholicks Believe 2. What Sectaries say He speak's And They Believe These are Christs words This is my Body This is my Body Which is Given for you This is my Blood of the new Testament that shall be Shed for many Take heed say Sectaries Read warily These words Sectaries must say That Christs vvords taken in their plain literal sense are fals Taken in Their Plain literal and most Obvious sense are Fals and Therfore Express not the Doctrin we are to Believe Again Christ Speak's Thus. This is the Chalice of the new Testament in my blood which Chalice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is or shall be Shed for you Vnles you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed No such Matter say Sectaries This is not the Doctrin we are to Believe For these words Vnderstood in Their Plain Obvious sense are Fals. That Chalice Shed For us vvas not his blood But vvine of the grape We eat not the flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood But only eat Bakers Bread and Drink Natural wine Sectaries make the contrary Proposition to Christs words True His flesh is not really meat nor His blood Drink Observe I pray you Sectaries so Abhor The plain and Proper Sense of Christs own Words that they make the contradictory Proposition to Him Absolutely True in Every Particular And his Fals Therfore they must at least confess that he Speak's too clearly and expresly that Doctrin which They say we ought not to Believe Otherwise Why do They not Admit of his Words in Their open and most candid Signification 7. Shall we next Consider what Sectaries Believe of this Mystery and withall Learn whether Christ Delivers as plainly Their Doctrin in Scripture As ours Sectaries Faith of this Mystery Hear Their Profession of Faith We Believe Say They That that which Christ gave to his Disciples vvas Natural Bread Deputed to a Holy Vse And no More We Believe it to be a Sign Only a Figure Only a Seal a Token a Type Only of Christs Body That is We Believe it to be His Body by Resemblance Symbolically Tropically Metonymically and Significantly Which is to Say it Hath the Scripture no vvhere call's that vvhich Christ gave his Disciples Natural Bread or a Sign only of his Body name of Christs Body But Really is no such
to us to be grounded on Scripture In this Sectaries always fail The new mode of Sectaries interpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion Here is the sequel of Sectaries We Catholicks Prove not what we assert therfore they make the contrary Doctrin an Article of their new Faith Faith cannot rely on such Negatives Of the means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture The Holy Ghost only speaking by the Oracle of the Church Interpret's Scripture infallibly in those matters which concern the general belief of all Protestants who profess themselves to be fallible in what ever they teach are no Instruments assumed by the Holy Ghost to teach and interpret infallibly Gods Word No Sectary can judge the Church but the Church is to judge all Sectaries THE THIRD DISCOVRS Of the unreasonable proceeding of Protestants in some Chief matters of Controversy PRotestants who seemingly hold a Catholick Church before Luther larger then the Roman Catholick Church and cannot design it Proceed unreasonably and must falsify that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church Before Luther there were no Christians in the world for a thousand years at least but Roman Catholicks and known Hereticks neither those Catholicks alone as Protestants say nor the known Hereticks nor both together constituted the true Catholick Church therfore there was no true Catholick Church on earth for so vast a time No abstract Doctrin common to all who are named Christians is sufficient to constitute Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet is confuted and his Doctrin shewed improbable Faith in Christ only as a Redeemer is insufficient to Saluation A more explicite Faith of other particulars is proved Necessary If Catholicks and Sectaries are right in the fundamentals of Faith all the pretended Reformation of Protestants comes to a slight work about Non Essentials which may have made Things wors then before It is not the less or more weight of things revealed that makes Faith less or more valued of but the Submission we yeild to Gods Veracity which is one and of equal Authority in what ever he Reveal's Though a Distinction were granted between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Yet Protestants cannot so much as probably sever the Fundamentals from the others by any known Principle If there be no Catholick Church owned at least infallible in Fundamentals all Faith both of Christ and Creed may perish before the world end 's And if there be such an Infallible Church in Fundamentals Sectaries ought to design it and say to whom that Spirit is granted in what subject it resides c. A Protestant who so far Denies Christs true Church That he cannot say where it is and endeavour's to reform others before he have certainty of his own half well made Reformation cannot probably go about to withdraw a prudent Catholick from his Religion Some Propositions of Mr. Stillingfleet are examined His Discours of Fundamentals destroy's Protestant Religion He Speaks of the Being of a Church and saith not precisely how much Doctrin constitutes that Being He cannot name any Orthodox Church that ever Excepted against the Articles believed by the Church of Rome He makes the Negative Articles of the English Church not to be Articles of Faith but only inferiour Truths held only in order to peace and tranquillity His Church therfore is essentially Hypocritical which may believe one thing and must profess an other Though Protestants were very Papists in hart yea and Anathematized all These Negative Articles They may be looked on as Blessed Children of this new Negative Church if their Exteriour be fairly Protestant-like He makes his Church no more an English Church then a Church of Arians and of all condemned Hereticks He saith the English Church makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian world and of Rome it self The Assertion is Evidently Vntrue For no Orthodox Church no Heretical Society no Consent â—f the whole Christian World Ever taught That a Doctrin wherin all Christians agree is sufficient to Saluation When Sectaries Say Christs gave to his Disciples a Sign only of his Body This very Doctrin is either an Article of Their Faith or one of their Inferiour Truths If the first They believe that which never had the approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it self If the second be granted They have no Divine Faith at all of the Blessed Sacrament The Nullity of our Adversaries ground 's is declared though the Church made new Articles of Faith If we speak rigourously The Church makes no new Articles but only declares more Explicitly what was anciently believed The Fathers call the Church a rich Treasury wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is securely preserved The Analogy of Faith is explicated There was a Platform of Christian Religion before Scripture was Writ and the Apostles separated Themselves and Preach't to several Nations Sectaries who seemingly acquiesce in the Judgement of one or two Ancient Fathers most inconsequently reject the Authority of a Learned General Council that is of greater weight and Estimation If the Churches Definitions are therfore to be thought fallible because men declare them and all men are lyars much more are our Sectaries Novelties and Glosses on Scripture to be valued of as Fallible upon the same ground These fallible men tell me my Churches Doctrin is fallible suppose falsly it were so it is altogether as good as this very fallible Proposition is that sayes 'T is Fallible and if which is true it be infallible it is much better No man that holds His Religion fallible can probably endeavour to convert an other though the contrary Religion Professed by this other be acknowledged to be no more but fallible Much less can he persecute Him for not yeilding Assent to a fallible Religion All the Storms of persecution raised against Catholicks are not upon any account of want of Faith but for this sole cause that we will not believe one thing and force our Consciences to Profess an other Which is to say we are persecuted becaus we will not be Hypocrits The Vnreasonablenes of Protestants Schism laid forth from the VIII Chap. of the third Discours to the XV. THe Separation of Protestants from the Roman Catholick Church is as plain and manifest a sinful Schism as ever was Decryed Rebellion in a Kingdom or any Violation of a Countries Right The formal Schism of Sectaries is evident but the Causal charged on Catholicks is no more but an unproved Calumny Proofs brought to received Principles fail Sectaries whilst they make the Roman Church to be the cause of their Formal Schism The supposed errours charged on the Roman Catholick Church by Sectaries are not like the first Principles in nature Evident ex terminis and therfore must be proved by a Discours grounded on certain Principles We Licence Sectaries in their Discours against us to make use of all Imaginable sound Principles Scripture Fathers Tradition or what They pleas and only exclude
Faith precisely rest's alwaies on Gods Revelation as the last and ultimate Motive without the mixture of any other See Disc 1. c. 5. n. 5. 6. as also Chap. 6. Now if you desire to know more concerning the certainty of him that Proposeth the Object of Faith darkly revealed in Holy Scripture read the 4. Chap. of the first Discours 10. By what is said hitherto you se Good Mr. Poole that true Christian Religion must either signify the Objective Infallibility of Gods Revelation or the Assent of Faith wherby we Captivate our understanding and submit to an Infallible Veracity both the one and other goe farr beyond the mean measure of meer Probabilities or the highest moral certainty Therfore your Instances of Iamaica and a Calf are here useles and insignificant I say True Christian Religion or to speak in your words The Truth of Christianity For if by the essential Truth of Christianity you will understand the prudent Motives or Inducements that precede Faith and shew us where True Christianity is professed and call these the Essentials of Christian Religion know first you have none of them as is proved Disc 1. C. 8. 9. and 10. Know secondly that these Motives previously pondered before we believe though most requisit to belief are not the Essentials of Faith whether you take Faith obiectively For the matter believed or subiectively for the Act of Belief But objects of Science as you may read in Chapters now Quoted For Faith which essentially constitutes Religion follows in every good Christian after the Consideration of these Motives and sub Notione fidei or as Divine Faith ultimately relies not on them 11. Vpon these Grounds all comes to nothing that you have P. 10. and 11. where you say If besides the Infallibility of the Thing there be required Certitudo subjecti the Infallibility of the person you will bring this fox out of his hole by a notable Dilemma A word only in passing Pray you Sir what 's here understood by the Infallibility of the Thing You either mean Gods certain Revelation and this certainly most infallibly is not to be called a Thing but ought to be spoken of with greater Reverence or you mean and your context bears no other sense the material Objects of our Christian belief now these solely considered can no more properly be called fallible or infallible then probable and improbable No man saith that a stone which he sees in the high way is either fallible or infallible probable or improbable The Reason is Because these Terms certain fallible infallible probable improbable c. note ever the tendency of vital Acts proceeding from an intellectual power And therfore most improperly belong to objects neither vital nor intellectual Thus much only by the Bye Now to your foxing it and fearful Dilemma Either say you a subjective certainty or infallibility of Belief mark your own words of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians or it is not If it be not necessary then Papists too vainly boast of it and must Confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians and infallibility necessary only for the Pope and Councel if a subjective infallibility be necessary for particular Christians then every Papist in England hath a Pope in his belly c. Here is the substance of your Dilemma and it is a strange piece of confused Stuff Observe well You begin with the Subjective infallibility of the Belief of the Truth of Christianity and then run further then to Iamaica to talk of that which you call the probable evidence of it Good Sir the evidence of credibility belonging to true Christianity is totally distinct from the infallible belief of it That if we make a right Analysis precedes Faith Faith followes and is far more certain then the judgement is all have of the Evidence of Credibility See Disc 1. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. Briefly I say first The belief of true Christianity is subjectively infallible in every faithful Christian who therfore may have as sound Faith as the Pope himself or any that sitt's in Councel The Reason already given and further declared Disc 1. c. 1. is thus God an infinite Verity speaks to us for this end that we believe him He speaks infallibly Faithful Christians believe both what He speaks and answerably to their power as He speaks Ergo they believe infallibly Again A fallible Belief cannot be ultimately resolved into an infallible Revelation none therfore that holds himself obliged to Believe an infinit Verity owned as infallible can proceed doubtfully upon that Motive for he knowes An infinit Verity speak's not doubtfully or opinatively I say secondly Infallible Faith of the Truth of Christianity is miscalled if you style it probable Evidence it is not probable but certain because it relies on an infinit Verity It is not Evident but obscure because Argumentum non apparentium Thus much is undoubtedly true if we speak of the Assent of Divine Faith Now if when you talk of particular Papists haveing a Pope in their belly you grosly Imagin that every one can Define or Declare infallibly Christian Doctrin in order to the whole Church as the Pope and Councel Doe you fight with shadowes no Papist hold's such fooleries And by this you se the last strength of your weak Dilemma brought to nothing 12. You are also as unlucky in your next Assault where you Chalenge the whole Club of Jesuits to Answer solidly By the Grace of God you shall have an Answer that will make you silent hereafter Thus you go on Were the Popish opinion of the Churches infallibility true in it self certitudine Objecti so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the infallibility of Scripture true in it self and certitudine Objecti as the must desperate Papists Grant For they say the Scripture is Divine true and certain in it self but not quoad nos therfore hitherto there is no difference It is not worth the while to insist here upon a Catacresis or abuse of words or to say how incompossible these two termes combined together are in the Papist Opinion and certainty of the Object For Catholicks in Matters of Faith content not themselves with a bare opinion where there is certitudo Objecti or Gods certain Revelation duely proposed that exacts from them no Opinion but a sure Assent of Faith And so we say that the infallibility of the Church is a matter believed by us because God hath revealed it consequently it s no Opinion But Sir this is not what I ayme at We will hear you say all And come to the strength of the Difficulty If say you it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist that He hath such probable evidence of this Doctrin of the Churches infallibility why should it not be as sufficient a fundation for a Protestant that He hath such nay infinitly more probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Since the evidence of the later is granted by the Papists
vapour with a few broken fragments I 'll espyed in these Modern Authors and worse applyed without attending to their whole drift antecedent and consequent and think to defeat an Ancient Church with such trivial Doings is so slight a way of schirmishing that it deserves no counterblow but pitty and compassion That incomparable Author of the Protestants Apology learn's them anohter way of arguing whilst he doth not only shew the endles clashing of Sectaries amongst themselves but moreover solidly proves our Catholik Doctrin positively and this by the most satisfactory and undeniable Principles that a lover of Truth can wish for Thus these new men should defend their cause and it is no fault of ours that they trifle it out and do no better We charge enough upon them and could they well acquit themselves they would certainly go more closely to work and answer directly We say and will prove it That that Doctrin which they believe as Protestants contrary to the Roman Catholik Faith is evidently no part of any Christian belief but a meer Opinion grounded on fancy only We say and will prove it that this new Religion of Protestancy hath all the marks and characters of heresy following it which can be thought on not one is wanting for if Arius of old who quited the ancient Roman Church and banded against it was upon that account both schismatick and heretick our Sectaries are in eâdem nave and have done so their cause and case in other matters is the very same 2. As Arius stood all alone at his first rise opposite to the rest of Christians and was opposed by all so were they also both opposite and opposed by all 3. As he began without commission to broach his Novelties against the ancient Faith so are they as wholy uncōmissioned to preach Theirs And here we give them matter enough to work on and conjure them to produce their commission 4. As Arius supported by secular power vented what ever he pleased without curb or any superiour law to check him and therfore fell into desperate Extravagancies so are our new men lawles also and submit to none but their own fancy and self-judgement Finally as Arius without warrant of the Church interpreted Scripture as his own weak reason taught him just so do our Sectaries here only is the difference That he had a plausible sound of Scripture-words for his heresy Protestants have neither sound nor syllable nor sense through the whole Bible for one article of Protestancy as Protestancy This I shall make good hereafter Here is charge enough drawn up against them but by what satisfactory known and received Principles which force reason to acquiesce and we make a search after these they can acquit themselves or rationally answer is a heavy difficulty I 'll tell you in a word and remember it they shall never answer by any thing that hath the look of a rational proof or a received Principle No Their own sole proofles word wheron the whole machin of Protestancy is built upholds what ever they teach They have no more They say 't is true they left the ancient Roman Church because it left it self but yet stick close to the Primitive Doctrin Observe it They are here both Accusers of us and Iudges in their own cause Their proofles word doth all without reducing it to any known or certain owned Principle Not one Council not one Canon no ancient Tradition no consent of Fathers can they produce wherby particular men are lycensed to rise up against an Ancient Mother Church and condemn it of false Doctrin They will tell you that they stood all alone when Luther rose up yet taught forsooth the true Gospel of Iesus Christ and we must believe them Here is the last Propositio quiescens They say so To what we charge against their uncommissioned Authority to preach as they did you have the like uncommissioned answer The Lord sent them abroad and the Truth they taught secures them But of these weak wordy replyes I have said to much in this short Digression Let us now retourn to Mr. Poole And I must say all he hath vented in his Nullity or Appendix against us comes to no more but to a most weak assault of a feeble Adversary for this man who endeavorus to prove that both Church and Councils and what else you can mention are fallible can never assume to himself or tye to any Community he joyns with the Spirit of Infallibility For if the infallibility of the Church of Rome must down down say I also with the infallibility of the Protestant Church of the Grecian Church and of all other societies of Christians With some of these Mr. Poole is listed and therfore I cannot but hold him and his Adherents men of no more then of a fallible Religion Hence I argue Suppose which is utterly false that the Church or all Churches all Councils all Fathers are fallible and that Christian Religion as it is taught by these is likewise fallible Admit also that I were to embrace one of these many fallible Religions which I shall never do will not prudence dictate if I have no other certainty then these meer uncertainties to rely on that it is better to hold where I am and stick to my ancient Religion glorious with innumerable Martyrs Doctors Confessors c. then to give up my Faith to Mr. Pooles post-nate fallible Religion and false discours How therfore can this man so much as once endeavour to draw me or any of my more ancient and universal Religion though supposed fallible to another new one which lyes sick of the same disease totters and reel's as much as mine if not more and in a word is fallible Of two evils the lesse is to be chosen It is an evil without doubt to have no Religion certain yet if I were to choose one of two uncertain Religions and could by no certain Teacher learn which of them is worse being both naught I would either pitch where I list and as my fancy lead's me or rather choose none at all knowing wel that a ruin of all Faith followes the renouncing of certainty in Religion But of this more hereafter In the interim I would know of Mr. Poole whether this strange and unheard of Proposition Christian Religion as it is taught and delivered by all Pastors Doctors c. is fallible be subjectively in him that speak's it an infallible Assertion or fallible If the first we have an English Pope I mean Mr. Poole who without either Scripture Church or Council can speak infallibly in matters of Faith If that formal Proposition be fallible it fall's of it self without further proof to nothing and renders this sense I. M. P. say by a fallible Assertion that Christian Religion is fallible which feeble Assertion and the weaker it is the worse it is for him cannot at all startle me or any who upon the Authority of thousands more learned than he to say no more hold one
misse in his teaching as hit right on the Infallible Doctrin of Christ The Minor is granted by Mr. Poole For all Churches whether Roman or English Arian or Grecian are lyable to errour want special Assistance in their Teaching and ought positively to renounce all Societies of infallible Christian Teachers Therfore the conclusion undeniably followes which is That none can with certainty Teach the Infallible Doctrin of Christ And from hence also followes an utter ruin of Christian Religion yea and of Scripture too as I shall hereafter Demonstrate For if all Pastors all Doctors all Teachers of Christian Religion may erre in the Delivery of their Doctrin all Learners of it may likewise erre in Hearing it and if so we have no certainty That God is now Adored in Spirit and Truth by either Teacher or Hearer 9. The ultimate reason why a Total ruin of Christian The utter ruin of Christian Religion followes the fallible Teaching of it in a whole Church What all Euangelical Preachers lakoured for Religion accompanieth the fallible Teaching of it is thus proved None can teach Christian Faith that doth not Propose or make Almighty God to be the Author of it And therfore our Saviour Iohn 7. 16. told the Iewes That his Doctrin was not his but his Fathers that sent him Yea The Prophets also and all other Evangelical Preachers chiefly laboured in this to perswade their Hearers that God was the Author of that Doctrin they taught Now say I None can Propose or make God the Author of Christian Faith that doth not own it as a Doctrin asserted by his Eternal Veracity infallibly revealing Truth for this is the Formal Object of Christian Faith But He that only Teaches fallible Doctrin which may be false deserts this Formal Object and can neither own God for the Author of it nor his infallible revealing Verity Ergo he must own a fallible Authority to uphold this Doctrin which is utterly Destructive of Christian Faith The reason will be yet more evidenced if you propose it after this manner A Doctrine which by force of all the Principles it hath is meerly fallible and The last ground of this Doctrin no more may be salse But Christian Doctrin as it is Taught by all Pastors and Ministers of the Word c. is thus fallible Ergo it may be false But God never sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to Teach a Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to Teach a Doctrin or Religion that is fallible I prove it He sent none to Teach any other Doctrin but that which is founded and intrinsecally relies on his Eternal infallible Verity revealing Truth But such a Doctrin can neither be false nor fallible Therfore this taught Doctrin is certain and infallible For to grant that God sent Pastors to teach a Doctrin which relies on his infallible Revelation is to say He assist's them to teach it infallibly CHAP. III. Other proofs for Teachers and a Church Infallible 1. I Argue again thus Supposing the promises of Christ made in Scripture Gods Goodnes cannot oblige the whole moral Body of Christians to believe a falsity or to contradict his certain revealed Verities But if all Pastors and Doctors may erre in their Instruction whilst they teach Christian Doctrin God would God cannot oblige us to believe a falsity as indifferently oblige us to believe a falsity and contradict his certain Verities as to hear truth when by chance it is taught which is contrary to his Goodnes The first Proposition is evident and confessedly true For our Adversaries say it is repugnant to all conceptions of Gods Goodnes to require of men under pain of Damnation to Believe something as infallibly true which is really false The other also is as clear For if all Pastors all Doctors who have the charge of souls may because fallible as well Teach false Doctrin as true as easily erre as Deliver Christs pure Verities Christians are by virtue of Gods Command already intimated bound both to hear and obey them Matth. 18. 17. If he will not hear the Church that is as S. Chrysostome expounds the Prelates and chief Pastors of it let him be to thee as a Heathen c. Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Guides your Leaders and Commanders and be subject to them For they watch as being to render account of your souls Again vers 7. The Apostle command's us to imitate the Faith of these Pastors and Teachers From these and other innumerable places of Scripture known to all I argue What is possible may be reduced to Act but it is possible That all Pastors and Teachers may erre and Deliver false Doctrin to the Christian world and in case they do so I am upon these plain expres Ordinances of God obliged to Believe them Therfore I must Believe them although they Teach false Doctrin And if so God obligeth me to Believe a Falsity or which is a real Verity I am forced to grant this undeniable Truth that his All-seeing providence doth now and ever will Preserve a Church whose Pastors and Teachers are infallible in the Delivery of Christian Doctrin Without this certain established Infallibility in some one or other Society of Believers Christianity is no more but a meer tottering reeling and uncertain Religion yet I must listen to it whether Those who teach it stand or fall that is whether they erre or not teach an imposture or Truth 2. To confirm this proof I ask whether God after he had delivered his own certain Verities infallibly and made also by his Divine Assistance Those first Masters of the Gospel his Blessed Apostles infallible in their Delivery of these Verities whether then I say in the ensuing ages he divorced himself from his A question proposed to Sectaries Church and withdrew all Special Assistance from it or yet continued that gracious favour to some Pastors and Doctors of a Christian society If he continued that care and providence for the Direction of some Pastors in Truth Those because so guided are still infallible in their Teaching Contrary wise if he abandoned that charge and deprived all Pastors for the Future of infallible Assistance This woful consequence followes That Christian Religion once strongly supported by Gods unerring Spirit ever since the Apostles Preaching hath lost that Hold and now stands tottering on no more steedy ground then what the weak mutable and erring Sentiments of men can afford it Now how unmeet these are for so great a charge Salomon Sap. 9. 15. sayes enough Cogitationes mortalium timidae incertae providentiae nostrae The cogitations of mortal men are fearful and our Providence vncertain yet so it is and here mark the hideous crime of Protestants who first Divorce Christ from his Church and violently pull Religion How Sectaries transgresse from its center which is Gods infallible directing Spirit and then make all the taught Doctrin of
from our Protestants Principles where you se enough I say it once more of their great sin and Haeresy CHAP. IV. Replyes to these Arguments are answered 1. ONe perhaps may be God surely will never permit all the Pastors of Christianity to erre and deceive the world at least this is no Consequence They may erre Ergo they do and will actually erre for many things may be which never will be I answer and many things actually happen Answer to Objections which were never suspected would be and why may not this diffused Errour be one of them who knows the contrary In Protestants principles we have the greatest Presumption imaginable for this actual errour of all For they say That ample and ancient Church of Rome and all condemned Haereticks with it erred set then these aside it is impossible to design plainly such Christian Teachers as never de facto erred 2. The very possibility yes and facility also of All falling into Errour makes the actuality of it fearfully doubtful now men had been mad to loose both Lives and Goods to dye ignominiously on Gibbets for any doubtful and uncertain Doctrin The Apostle put other thoughts in the primitive Martyrs hearts other words in their mouths Scio cui credidi certus sum I know who I believe and am certain No Hearers therfore can certainly rely on any doubtful and uncertain Religion 2. The second reply Admit that all Christian Pastors Second Reply teach erroneous Doctrin yet no great mischief followes for Those who hear them are either conscious of the Falsity And if so they are not to believe their Teachers or They erre invincibly which is a blameles Errour and Therfore cannot in justice be held an Offence The first part of the Reply supposes some instructed Christians wiser then all their Teachers together which is an Impertinency never heard of The second touches not the difficulty for here we blame not such as may perhaps invincibly erre But say That the blame goes higher and is unworthily cast on God who obliges Christians to believe the Pastors of a Catholick Church and yet gives them such disabled ones that all of them may erre universally and teach Doctrin contrary to his revealed Truths Here lyes the mystery of iniquity upheld Protestants Mystery of iniquity by Protestants and the uglines of it appears in this wrethched Assertion God will have me to believe a Catholick Church yet this whole Catholick Church that is all the They cast blame upon God Pastors all the Councils all the Fathers Doctors and Prelates of this Church may teach me such false Doctrin as God never intended I should learn They may if fallible teach us that Christ is not God that Heaven is not a place of Eternal Happines nor Hell an abode of Eternal torments Such Haeresies have been spread by Those who went under the name of Christians and why may not I beseech you all Christian Pastors abuse the world as much if Gods gracious ordinance concerning the Churches infallibility faill us 3. A third reply It is one Thing to teach Truth Teaching Truth infallibly and another to teach it infallibly Put therfore the case That Almighty God foresaw from Eternity that though all Pastors of the Church potentiâ antecedente antecedently might erre yet some at least ex suppositione consequenti or consequently would not erre but teach Christian Verities faithfully Suppose I say only thus much We have sufficient Assurance of Truth actually taught in the world without that Previous infallible Assistance we plead for which seems here useles for if either man or Angel Delivers a Verity it matters nothing whether it arise from a Fallible or infallible cause Our Faith therfore hath strength enough if it rely on Truth actually Taught though the Teacher wants infallibility I answer If God foresaw that all the Pastors of his Church would not erre or teach false Doctrin This Verity is either revealed to Christians as a Divine Truth or no if not we make that revealed which is not revealed and consequently can ground no Assurance on it if it be revealed and known to us this very Revelation viz All the Pastors of the Church shall not erre is an undoubted Principle which assented to by true Faith is our Security Because such a Faith supposeth the contrary Actual errour of all essentially excluded by virtue of Gods Revelation For it is impossible that God tell us this Truth All the Pastors of my Church shall not erre in any age and yet in sensu composito of this Revelation permit them to erre universally Observe in one Instance the security we have by force of such a Revelation 4. Suppose that God had revealed to Isaac that his Father Abraham would not sacrifice him and withall that Isaac firmly believed that Verity He had been as indubitably secured from dying at that time as if Abrahams hands had been tyed in chains or wholy made impotent to give a fatal blow Now mark the Application As Gods Eternal Prevision of Abrahams not taking Isaacs life away Antecedently supposed the cause therof actually also foreseen antecedently I say in a foregoing signe os nature so likewise it is in our present case when from Eternity he knew that all the Pastors of his Church would not actually err and revealed this Truth in time His All-seing wisdom Previously pro priori signo rationis foresaw also the total cause of their actual not Erring which cause as I have already proved was not the power of mans weak variable and mistaking Reason But the most certain Principle of Gods special and Divine Assistance When therfore God as the Objection supposeth revealed that Verity All shall not err he did not only by virtue of his Revelation impossibilitate the contrary universal errour bur warranted more that all of them because prevented by special Assistance could not erre And this is what Scripture Energitically tells us of Hell gates not prevailing against the Church of Christs Being with the Church to te end of the world wherof more hereafter In the interim you see that Christian Christian Faith relies on Truth taught by an Infallible Oracle Faith doth not only rely on a meer contingent or hap hazard Delivery of Truth but on Truth taught by an Assisted and infallible Oracle which All must assert or grant that although Christ himself by a supposed Impossibility had been fallible in No certitude of Truth had Christ and his Apostles taught it Fallibly his Preaching or the Apostles likewise fallible in Their writting Scripture and only because lyable to errour had delivered Gods Verities contingently by chance Christian Religion might yet have stood as firme and unshaken as now it is which is a horrid and an unheard of Haeresy 5. A fourth reply We cannot prove by good reason if we set aside some ambiguous Passages of Scripture which only seemingly say the contrary that the immediate Proponent of true certain Christian Faith Catholiks
impudent he must say No. All therfore he can reply is That the Ministers of his Church after a perusal of Scripture find these Verities contained there and Propose all to him as things Certainly revealed Therfore he believes them Here we come to the trial of Protestants Faith and mark well How unavoydably They are forced to grant That when a pretended Revelation Sectaries must own an Infallible Proponent is not manifest for them But lyes if at all very darkly in Scripture it must be brought to light and made more clear by some Teacher Some one or other if it have influence into Faith must Apply it and Propose it to a Hearer as Gods certain Word Without this Application made by a certain Teacher no Christian can but most temerariously admit of the Revelation as Divine and Certain 10. Demand therfore in the last place Whether all the Ministers in England are able to propound certainly and infallibly the above mentioned Doctrins darkly at least and indeed not all contained in Scripture as Gods revealed Truths to any The answer must be Negative They cannot for if they propose them infallibly Ministers are infallible Ergo say I none can Believe these Doctrins for Gods certain Revelation Because the Proposal of them absolutely necessary to apply the Revelation is defective weak dubious and uncertain The Faith therfore which followes upon so unsteedy a Teaching cannot but be answerably rowling That is in one word no Faith at all And Protestants have no better 11. Some perhaps may say Though Protestants have no great Certainty of the Doctrins above specified because they are neither expresly in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher yet their Faith in Fundamentals universally held by all Christians stand's sure enough and is infallible Such Truths shall never fail and so far the Pastors of the Church may it is likely be held infallible 12. Hereafter we shall treat more largely of Fundamental points and Therfore at present will wave what is not pertinent to answer this Reply And pertinent Why Doctrine of Protesta as Protestants is uncertain it is to say first That not one Doctrin peculiar to Protestants as Protestants because neither expresly found in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher can certainly be believed upon Divine Revelation That these Sectaries teach not their own Protestant Tenents infallibly is granted That Scripture doth not in express Terms without intolerable glossing deliver one of them shall be made after a few pages most evident And thus if this last Reply be to any purpose it brings Ruin to that part of Doctrin which is called Protestancy I say secondly There is scarce one Article of Christs Sacred Doctrin so clearly expressed in Scripture which may not would men take the liberty as Sectaries do by wilful Glosses to alienate it from the Churches sense be perverted Arians have taught them this mode of Glossing and they exactly follow it Separate therfore the words Doubful words of Scripture separated from the sense of an Infallible Interpreter ground not Faith of Scripture from the Sense of an infallible Interpreter we can Believe nothing we have no more but a body without a Soul guesses without certainty And upon such uncertainties the whole Faith of Protestants doth and must rely which is deplorable And here ask them when They appeal as They ever doe to Scripture What they mean by Scripture which needs Interpretation even in Points most Fundamental Must we admit of their Interpretation Why so more then of others as learned as They Why not as well on the present Churches Interpretation This is as good to say no more as their fallible Guesses are But of this Subject hereafter I say thirdly Never The Church in all her Doctrine equally infallible any Catholick Church hitherto held it self infallible in a few Fundamental Doctrins and not in others Therfore Protestants are more insolently bold whilst they attempt to make this Distinction then ever any Church yet was What That meer fallible Men shall be my Doctors and ex tripode define So far the Church holds infallible Doctrin But no further T' would be well nigh eight Degrees of madnes in me to believe them Admit once of this A new Haeretick may step out and defend as stoutly yea and upon as solid grounds that Scripture it self it not infallible but only in a few Fundamental Matters yet unknown to the world If you say this sounds too harshly and cannot be granted Parallel I beseech you your own wild Assertion with it The Church is Christ's Schole and se whether that runs much smoother Thus it is Christ hath erected a School which is his Church where Christians are to learn his Sacred Doctrin But when they come to it They find more then the half of its Doctrin doubtful fallible unsound uncertain Alas Aristotle's or Plato's School can cfford us Topicks and uncertainties enough I hope Christs School can learn us better Fourthly Were the Church falsly supposed Fallible in the delivery of some Doctrin lesse Fundamental it would be much safer to believe it then Protestants who may err in all they say And then most when being void of proofs They stand trifling with a Distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Herein as in all other things they are most fallible and must I think ye credit men that can say nothing certainly 13. Fifthly and I end Admit once of a Church with this half infallibility in fundamentals our Sectaries who so furiously oppugn that whole infallibility which we ascribe to the Roman Church must Answer their own Arguments against us For here we question them as they do us Where or in what Rational Queries made to Protestants Subject is that partial infallibility lodged What Pastors designable are endewed with it How shall we make our Addresses to them in doubts and difficulties if none know where or who they are What kind of infallibility is this By whose assured Testimony can we learn what is de fide funaamentali what not What if these Pastors be devided amongst themselves in their Decisions of fundameetals whose judgement is finally to be stood too c. These and the like Questions most easily answer'd by Catholicks when They give an account of their Belief as I shall shew in the Resolution of Faith press so strongly upon Protestants that not one of them shall ever have a satisfactory Answer Perhaps to Protestants pretence to a private Spirit solve them some will recurre to the private Spirit and say This tell 's them all Truth in these doubts Contra. Ask only here Whether this Spirit makes them or their Pastors infallible or can direct others to find out such infallible Pastors If they reply Those are such as Teach Gods Word purely the Answer is impertinent for we ask whether it Assists any to Teach Gods pure Word infallibly And who they are It may be others will say that Christ never had since the Apostles
time any infallible Church on earth even in fundamentals All therfore we have now to Direct us is only the book of Scripture without other Proponent and every mans private Reason Contra. It is Evident That Scripture makes no man infallible both Arians and Others read it and yet grosly err in Points most Essential Deny therfore a Church unerrable in Essentials and say boldly that as Arians have already erred in some Fundamentals so others might before this day have wholy erred and outed both Christ and Creed with every Article of Christian Religion For weak Reason alone is insufficient to Preserve Christianity in its Purity as I have shewed above wherof also more hereafter CHAP. V. A word with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty 1. HEre we come to examin the other part of the Objection proposed above n. 5. And thus Mr. Stilling fleet some later men Discours concerning the certainty of Christian Religion They say first and most truely That the ultimate Motive wheron Faith relyes is Gods infallible Testimony with all That none can question the fallibility of this Revealed Testimony when it is Sufficiently proposed and made known to us The only Question therfore is How it comes to be made known or discovered in order to those things Protestants Doctrine about Moral Certainty which are immediatly Revealed They say secondly Moral certainty may be a sufficient foundation For the most firm assent if the matter to be believed be the infallible Truth of a Doctrin upon sutable Evidence Though we have now but Moral Certainty of that Evidence The Assent may yet be firm to such a Doctrin as infallible They say thirdly Moral Certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Physical supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures as in Mathematical and Physical as to Theirs Here briefly is their Doctrin Some further Explications of it will perhaps more opportunely have place while we make our Exception against it And 2. My first Exception is These Authors do not sufficiently explain what they would have here understood by Moral certainty wherin there is a great Latitude One Degree of it excludes all Rational doubt Degrees of Moral Certainty And thus we say He who never saw Constantinople may yet upon the indubitable Testimony of so many witnesses who have seen it affirm without fear There is or hath been such a Citty in the world An other Degree of this Certitude reaches not so high As we se in School Opinions Some Philosophers Tell you it is Morally certain That sublunary Bodies as Fire and water are composed of Matter and Form That Accidents are really distinct from Substance and Motion yet now there are some that deny it and hold as they think a contrary Philosophy more Morally certain Therfore when we come to apply this Moral certainty to Disputable matters we do seldom or never agree about it I doubt not but These very men we now treat with will say what They judge God knowes that That part of Protestant Religion wherin it differ's from all Christians is upon Moral Certainty True yet the Rest of the world opposes them and Avouches it hath not so much as one Degree of Probability for it That therfore which is here meant by Moral certitude must if these Authors speak to the purpose be a Certainty wherof no man can Rationally doubt Thus much supposed 3. I say first and by this Assertion you may discover the grand Cheat of these Novellists Christian A grand Cheat of Navellists discover'd Religion as it is fancied and variously Professed by innumerable who go under that name and Notion hath so little of this Great Moral Certainty for it That it is an Haeresy to Allow it a mean Probability Why Arians Pelagians Eutychians Donatists Socinians And all other condemned Haereticks called Themselves Christians and professed some part of Christian Religion truely But had They I beseech you a great Moral Certainty For the other part of their Errours and Haeresies falsly vented by them as Christs Doctrin You wil say No. But they had it for the Fundamentals of Christian Religion wherof no man ever doubted and thus much they Defend upon that Certitude Admit of this as True though I hope Prorestants grant That Arians do deny Fundamental Doctrin What is it to the Purpose to tell us All condemned Haereticks and Protestants These men wave the main Question with them have Moral certainty for one Part of Christian Religion wherof None ever doubted And to give us nothing of this High Certitude for the other Part which is in Controversy and Specifically belongs to Protestants Had these men therfore come home to the Dfficulty They would not have here mispent time in Proving what needs no Proof viz. That the General Doctrin owned by all Christians as is a Belief in one God or of Christ a Redeemer c. Hath at least Moral certainty for it But They should have shewed That Arianism as Arianism or which had been to the Purpose That Protestancy as Protestancy stands so firmly built on High Moral Certainty That None can prudently doubt of Protestants under the general name of Christians perswade Nothing for Protestancy it Now this They fraudulently wave And only put us of with a general word of the Certainty of Christian Religion as if Protestancy hid under that Specious name had safety and Sanctuary enough or as if it were all one to say The part of Christian Faith universally agreed on is certain Ergo Protestancy as Protestancy goes along with it upon equal Certitude Alas This is that which only requires proof and is the thing we Absolutly deny 4. Again And here is my second Exception These Authors cannot apply their Moral certainty to the Faith of any Religion that beares the name of Christian At least it is neither appliable to Catholicks nor Protestants For proof hereof Note first That moral Two Reflections made on Moral Certainty Certainty taken in what Height you please is an Act of the Judicative Power in man subjectively setled in his Mind who hath it And ever falles on a Determinate Object for in Objects à parte rei there is neither Probability nor moral Certainty Every Thing imaginable being either in it self Real and Stable or not independent of any Moral Assertion As is clear For should one say now It is morally certain that there is such a Citty as Rome in the World Rome is or is not independent of what is asserted morally Certain Note secondly Though the greatest Moral certainty Moral Certainty may be False usually excludes a rational doubt in order to what is asserted certain yet in rigour it may be false And Therfore ever implyes some weak Degree of Fear of anxiety and suspicion to the contrary Had any one said a few dayes before the Burning of London little then foreseeing that sad Disaster that That Noble Citty would not in so strange a
knowes not the Object wheron it Relyes and therfore cannot be Certain Answer It is a Catechresis or an Abuse in Speech to say That either Faith or any other intellectual operation knowes its Object The understanding informed by these vital Acts knowes if we speak properly Yet if we go on in that vulgar Language significant enough Faith can no more Scientifically prove or know its Object then Science as Science can believe its Object I say Faith as Faith no more Scientifically knowes or proves its Object then Science as Science Believes what it knowes This proves That certainly Believes whilst it Resteth immediatly upon Gods Revelation which is most amply proved by the Preambulatory Motives now touched on Neither can Faith Scientifically know or prove its Object without loosing an Essential Predicate which is Obscurity All therfore who destroy not the very Nature of Faith must allow it the greatest Certainty under heaven Faith both obscure and certain and withall grant as the Apostle doth that it is Argumentum non apparentium of a dark and obscure Tendency 14. You will reply again The Mode then and Tendency of Faith unto its Object is here supposed Obscure and that Previous judgement of Credibility after all possible weighing of those Motives which do manifest the Credibility of this Truth God speaks by the Church is no more but Morally certain Ergo the Belief of that Truth stands still wavering upon Vncertainties I answer If these Motives have an infallible Connexion with Divine Revelation That is If they clearly convince that God cannot but de facto speak to Christians after so many Signs and wonders The Iudgement Previous to Faith is Metaphysically certain However give it a lesser Certainty we must yet say with the Prophet Testimonia tua credibilia The Motives bring Reason to an invariable State of Believing facta sunt nimis These motives well considered bring Reason to an invariable State of Believing in so much That none can Disbelieve without Sin and Madnes Again we must say That Judgement which throughly penetrat's them Evacuat's both Doubt and Fear to the Contrary and far exceed's all Degrees of Probability which gives Reason the Freedom to Alter an Opinion when Stronger Proofs come against it But no Real Proof whatever is capable to Overthrow No real proof can weaken this Iudgement the Certainty of this Judgement though Fallacies may puzzle it Call it then as you please Moral or Metaphysical Evidence it hath proved its own Strength for never Any without it since Christianity began either rightly believed in Christ or Church 15. This Judgement therfore which like an Interiour voyce supposing the Exteriour Proposition of the Church summon's us to hear or like a Light that discover's Gods own Language delivered by Revelation makes the Language once dark clear enough to us Now being thus manifested we lay hold on it and yeild Assent to the Revelation for it self and not for the antecedent Motives And because this Revelation is without Dispute more infallible then any Truth in Nature it cannot but Answerably as I said above impart and contribute a Stronger Certainty to Faith then the most evident Principles do to any Science Vpon this strong Fortresse then Christian Religion stands firm which undoubtedly implyes a greater Certainty then only Moral And I think our Adversaries will say so too Sectaries own a Faith more then morally certain who though They take the Canon of Scripture upon Moral Certainty yet they Believe the particular Revealed Mysteries contained in that Book with a far surer Assent then what is only moral Moral Certainty therfore necessarily help 's to Faith though Faith Instances how moral certainty help 's to Faith ultimately Relyes not on it Thus you know the will loves Good either Real or Apparent yet need 's not to love the cognition which represents goodnes For that is only conditio applicans a condition applying the Object to the Power but no Cause of Love I may also adhere to a Doctrin in St. Austin for St. Austins Authority upon the Moral certain Word of one who tells me This great Doctor saith so Why therfore may I not induced by far Stronger Motives to believe this Truth God speaks by his Church Adhere only to his Revelation without touching on the Motives which serve well as Conditions to Apply that Object to the Power yet want the Strength of a formal Object to support Faith But more of this Subject in another Treatise where we shall show that the Certainty of Faith at least unevident in respect of the material Object is not so much a Speculative as a Prudent submissive and Practical Certainty CHAP. VI. Faith only morally certain is no Faith Protestants have no Moral certainty of Protestant Religion 1. LEt us here suppose contrary to Truth that all Religion brought to a just Trial comes to no more but to a High Moral certainty which Though it implyes no absolute Impossibility of being False yet is so strong That none considering the great Evidence we have for Christianity can without madnes Practically doubt or hold it otherwise then it is most Morally certain Put the case then That we arrive to this Degree of Certitude only you will ask why is not such a Faith stedfast enough and very sufficient to Saluation Thus far if I mistake not some Neoteriks make Faith certain and strip it of all further infallibility I answer A Faith only Morally certain is no Faith and prove my Assertion That wheron all Moral Certainty imaginable Essentially depend's is fallible and may Deceive us That That wheron Faith relyes is infallible That wheron Moral Certainty depend's is fallible wheron true Faith Essentially depends which is Divine Revelation is infallible and cannot Deceive Ergo what ever ground 's a Moral certainty only which may deceive is as unproportionate to uphold true Faith as Revelation owned as Divine is unfit to ground a fallible Opinion As long therfore as the Object of pure Moral Certainty becomes not Gods Revelation which can never be so long Faith cannot rely on it Or if it do rest here it Mistakes its Object and call's tbat Revelation which is none The ultimate Reason of this Discours stands Two sure Principles firm upon these two Principles 1. All moral Certainty may be False 2. Gods Revelation Because it is Infallible as God Essentially excludes that weaker Degree of Certitude and cannot be false which is to say in plainer Terms God neither doth nor can speak any thing only morally certain 2. That all Moral certainty may be false is evident For invent the strongest imaginable as This is distinguished from Physical or Metaphysical Certainty and say what you will within that compas Viz. Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in Being Or That when one in a large Citty sitt's imprisoned at noon-day and hears no body yet saith Most surely all the Inhabitants of this place are neither dead nor asleep
Such an Assertion though most Morally certain is capable of Falsity For God may have destroyed all those men or given them over to a strange unheard of drowsines That 's no impossibility if it were so Why Because the Assertion only stands upon these Negatives or some like Foundations Never yet was seen such an Effect as this Secundary Causes never yet concurred to so Universal a Sleep or Mortality Here is the best Assurance which can be had and yet it may be false Contrarywise Suppose that God Reveal's to the Imprisoned party this What God Reveales is always most Certain Truth duely proposed All the men of this Citty are not dead His Belief resting on this Revelation is so Certain that no power in Heaven can falsify it Where you see a vast Disparity in order to Infallibility between Faith and Moral certainty The one Difference between Faith and Moral Certainty because of its weak motive may be fals the other strongly upheld by Revelation cannot be falsified Perhaps you will say At least we know not that God speaks to us but only upon Moral certainty Of this more presently Here the Reply is not to the purpose For all we convince now is That Faith if any be in the World must finally Rest on Gods infallible Revelation and consequently That no Motive of Moral certainty hath Strength enough to support it Now by what means it comes at last to be setled in this Center of Gods infallible Veracity is another question Thus it must Rest or as our Adversaries confes loose the Essence of infallible Faith 3. Briefly We shall now make good the other Assertion in the Title and show Though Moral certainty were as it is not a prop strong enough to Protestants Religion hath not Moral Certainty support Christian Religion yet Protestants have no Degree of it for their Pretended Religion I prove this Truth By Protestancy we must either understand those Prudential Motives which induce men to Believe the Specifical and particular Doctrins of Protestants such are Miracles Antiquity great Conversions c. Or rather the very Tenents and Doctrins actually believed by them For example That all Pastors may err in delivering Christian Doctrin That there are two Sacraments only or what else you will If we speak of Motives this Religion is so naked that it cannot shew you so much as one as is largely Demonstrated in the 8. 9. and 10. ensuing Chapters whether to avoyd an unnecessary Repetition the Reader is remitted Waving therfore at present a further Proof hereof I Argue thus against the Moral certainty Protestants Doctrin without Rational inducements of their Doctrin A Doctrin broached without Previous rational Inducements whose very Professors were and are no more but Fallible and which at its first Rise or Appearance in the World seemed a meer Paradox to the far greater part of Christians and yet throughly examined is held still by this far greater number most knowing and learned false and improbable cannot be a Doctrin morally certain Protestancy is thus consestedly fallible and both at its A Conuincing Argument Rise was and is Still Opposed not only by the vast number of Catholicks But by all other Haereticks also as fals and improbable Ergo it is not a Doctrin Morally Certain That a Doctrin so meanly thought of and universally Decryed cannot be thus Certain is proved out of the very Notion of Moral certainty which though not absolutely infallible yet when the Grounds and Motives of it are perfectly known it passeth for an uncontradicted Truth and free 's men from Doubt destructive of such a degree of Certainty Thus we say morally Rome and Constantinople are now Citties in being All the inhabitants of China are not dead These And the like Assertions passe for current Moral Truths without Opposition without Contradiction If therfore Protestant Religion The reason of the Argement were in such a measure Morally certain That vast Multitude of Christians wherof innumerable are Pious Conscientious and Learned could never hold it as they do false and improbable No Verity Morally certain ever mett A Verity Morally Certain was never so long and universally opposed as Protestancy is with such a strong Contradiction If ye say This Opposition ariseth out of Malice ye speak not probably and more justly draw on your selves the like Censure for beginning so strange a Religion If you say again These Learned Men penetrate not too well the Depth of this new Doctrin you talk at random Their Knowledge is not inferiour to Yours what you se they se and perhaps more Charge not therfore Ignorance on them wherof your selves are more likely guilty 4. Yet some Replyes may be here expected One is Protestants have moral Assurance of their Bible Because all say it is Gods Word Ergo they have Assurance Moral Assurance of the Bible is no Assurance of True Religion of their Religion also The Antecedent is bad and the Consequence worse Arians Pelagians and all Haereticks are as morally assured of their Bible as any Protestant Have they I pray you as great Certainty of those pestilent Haeresies proved as they think out of the Bible You say no Because they Interpret amis and you do not Learnedly answered But who makes your Interpretation better then Theirs They have that Book and spend their private Judgement on it you have no more Unles therfore your Book or Judgement be better then Theirs You are Altogether as uncertain of your particular Doctrins as They of Theirs The Reason is Because Protestant Glosses no more Scripture then the Glosses of Arians you have not one Sole Expres Text of Scripture for Protestancy You may add your own Glosses and make it speak Protestancy But these Glosses are no more Scripture nor more morally certain then Those of Arians Pelagians c. Therfore a moral Assurance of the Bible which is easily abused gives no man moral certainty of sound Doctrin But of this subject hereafter 5. A second Objection As what is Fals may be by errour judged Morally certain so often what is True may not be held Morally certain Therfore though Protestancy want's that High Moral certainty now required yet it may be True I answer But if it want Moral certainty it hath it not which is all we prove at present Again Though it may be true which is impossible so also it may be fals Now Protestants I hope do not believe a meer Possibility Sectaries can not believe the actual Truth of Protestancy only nor the May be of Truth for many Things are not which may be but they Believe more the Actual supposed Truth of Protestancy And this they cannot do without Moral Certainty of that which they hold Actually true 6. A third Objection and 'T is more to the purpose Our Argument now proposed proves too much and Therfore proves nothing For its best Force lyes in this one Assertion viz. That a Doctrin or Religion which is
Opposed by the greatest part of Christians as False and Paradoxal cannot be Morally certain If this Principle hold good it if followes That much and very much too of the Roman Catholick Doctrin want's also moral Certainty Because a very great number of Christians oppugne it as fals Some deny the Popes Supremacy Others the Real Presence Others Purgatory Others Praging for the Dead c. And Protestants after their long study deny all These at once Therfore such Doctrins cannot be Morally certain 7. I answer first This Objection without doubt Proves too much and impugn's a Certain Truth of Christianity For tell me when the whole world as St. Hierom saith growning under Arianism saw that Haeresy far and neer diffused Did that Opposition weaken the Moral certainty which Orthodox Christians had then of a Trinity of Persons in one Essence And we only speak now of Moral Evidence Antecedent Ancient Motives never loose their Force to Faith If so the Motives morally evident for the Belief of that Mystery ceased or at least lost their Ancient Vigor which is fals And one great Realon is Because that true Doctrin of a Trinity had no first Rise nor appeared like a new Paradox in Catholick Doctrin had no first Rise like Protestancy the world as Protestancy did peeping out like an unknown Stranger when Luther and Calvin first broach'd it No That Catholick Doctrin was universally believed by all faithful Christians before Arians were born The Motives therfore which made it evidently Credible before Arius continued firm notwithstanding His Opposition and still induced Christians to Believe as They had done formerly Which Reason also holds good to our present purpose And doth not only give an immense Disparity between the Moral evident Certainty of Catholick Religion And what ever Certainty Haeresy can Pretend to But also Demonstratively makes both Protestancy and all Haeresy improbable And this Truth I shall evidence having first cleared the Fallacy which intricates the Reply now in hand CHAP. VII How Sectaries err in the search made after Religion Of their weak and Improbable Opposition The Objection is more fully answered 1. OVr Sectaries and all Haereticks err grosly in a main Principle which breed's nothing but Confusion to themselves and Others Thus it is Haereticks errour in their search of True Religion Some for Scripture only In their search after True Religion They run on But how Extra viam in a wrong and mistaken way Some will find it out by the Book of Holy Scripture which few exactly read and none can understand by his private judgement These err not knowing Scripture And may as St. Austin notes Epist 40. ad Deo gratias end their Lives before they end Difficulties this Others fly to the primitive Church Doctrin way Others fly to the Doctrin of the Primitive Church and loose Themselves For what private man can now by his meer reading Morally ascertain me or any of the indubitable universal Sense of that Doctrin Wheras all which the Church held then was not writ Of what was writ part is lost and much of what remains is as experience Teacheth Others are for Reason only lyable to Cavils and Misinterpretations Others and it is a Socinian jogg Decide all by weak Humane Reason as if forsooth Wit alone were able to Fathom Gods Incomprehensible Secrets Others finally without Ohers stay on the difficil Mysteries of Faith further Inspection stand poering on the material Objects or Mysteries of Faith and after many a mispent Houre ask at last of a very unskilful Master their own weak Reason what it Judgeth of these Mysteries All labour loft If Reason as it often fall's out find's them difficil It Cast's them away as meer Improbabilities Thus the Arian reject's a Trinity The Pelagian Original Sin The Protestant Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist Because they run into Dark matters whick only puzzle Reason and wave those further Considerations which clear all And make Faith if not evidently certain in Attestante at least evidently credible 2. I say therfore The most easy way to find out true Religion or the first unquestionable Evidence The way to find out True Religion is easy and evident which points it out lyes open and is obvious to All Before we either examin particular Mysteries of Faith or enter upon Proofs Drawn from Scripture Councils or Fathers It is true from these Grounds we have irrefragable Arguments against all Sectaries But can They think that the wise Providence of God hath put as it were Religion so far out of sight or set it at so great a Distance from us That none can come to the knowledge of it Before Scripture Fathers and those large Volumes of Councils are exactly examined whic few read and fewer understand No certainly True Religion evidenceth it self and is True Religion evidenceth it self most Discernable from errour by an other clear and conspicuous Light which none can but se unles he wilfully shut his eyes Antecedently to the Perusal of Scripture Fathers c. This Light or Evidence we may rightly call Gods own perswasive Language wherby he Speaks to Reason before we Elicit Faith and rationally convinceth all of this general Truth One Society of Christians There is wherin my Eternal Truths are Taught this I make manifest by evident Signes by the Light of clear and undeniable Motives wherof none can but most unreasonably doubt So it is saith Origen Hom. 30. in Matth. Ecclesia plena est fulgore ab Oriente usque ad Occidentem The Church like a Resplendent Sun casteth out Lustre from East to West and They are blind who see not so clear a Brightnes Thus much premised 3. I Answer to the Objection above and say Sectaries groundles impugning Catholick Doctrin Though thousands more then Sectaries impugne part of the Roman Catholick Doctrin yet as long as God demonstratively Evidenceth the absolute Credibility of that Church which teaches it By such rational prudent and pressing Motives as have gained Millions of Soules to Believe our Adversaries in banding against Church Doctrin only bewray Malice Ignorance or Both And do no more but cast dirt at a Sun which providence maugre Their weak Attempts will have to Shine whilst Christianity lasteth So Urgent therfore so Illustrious are these Motives as I shal presently declare for the total Belief of what the Roman Catholick Church teaches That they do not only suppresse and silence such weak Opponents But also make Protestancy and all other Sects improbable and incredible The reason hereof most amply laid forth in the three next following Chapters stand's sure on these two undeniable Principles First That Church which Christ Iesus founded and Christ manifest to All and so is his Church his Blessed Intention was to gain the whole World to it is so Eminently Glorious so Clearly Marked with unboubted Signs and most Legible Characters of Truth That the Simplest Man if he follow Reason may find
openly Significant and Expressive for the Real Presence then for a Trinity Doth the Difficulty of the Sacrament rationally retard their Belief The Trinity is yet a more difficil Mystery to Reason O but the Trinity was ever Believed by the True Church So say I was The other Mystery also But speak Reason now And say what Church was it which ever believed the Trinity The Roman Catholick Church surely For Arius and others impugned that Mystery Now Protestants say this Roman Catholick Church erred in believing Christs Real Presence and if so They are most unreasonable in relying on it for the Belief of a Trinity For if it erred in the Belief of one Mystery it may as well have erred in the other They may say the best and most Ancient Fathers held a Trinity Very true And as evidently They believed Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist But what will you say if I infringe the Authority of these learned Father in this matter I can do it though not in Real Truth most easily being assisted by the Principles of Protestants who tell us that the whole Roman Church That is All the Fathers and Doctors of it erred for a thousand years together in believing the Catholick If the Church had erred the Fathers may more likely have erred Doctrin of the Blessed Sacrament Wherupon I inferre Those Ancient Fathers who both learnedly defended and piously believed a Mysterious Trinity may more likely have erred in doing so then that a whole Church for so vast a Time hath patronised erroneous Doctrin and falsly believed the Real Presence Most undoubtedly The wisdom and Authority of this long standingh Catholick Church is in true Prudence of greater sway and value then the sole Authority of those far fewer Ancient Fathers can be though most Venerable and worthy all Respect that writ of the Sectaries who slight a whole learned Church may more rationally slight the Ancient Fathers Sacred Trinity Those men therfore who have the Boldnes to slight so great a Church cannot wtih so much as a colour of Reason Reverence more highly those Ancient Fathers But enough of this Subject Let us now go on to a further consideration of these prudent Motives and se more particularly what Religion gives us the best Evidence of Them CHAP. VIII A few Reflections made upon these Motives of credibility No Religion hath Motives founding moral certainty but One only which is the Roman Catholick Religion 1. NOte first If God as we now suppose guides All Christians prrfesse not Christs true Doctrin us by his Providence and hath established true Religion in the world it is as certain that all who profes Christianity for example Arians and Pelagians believe not intierly Christs true Doctrin as that some blessed by so singular a Favour both rightly believe and profes it It is again most certain That How God lead's us to the knowledge of true Religion if this wise Providence draws us not to the knouwledge of true Religion by Euthusias'ms private Illustration or the ministery of Angels it leads us on by extrinsecal Motives suitable to Reason by rational Inducements or discernable Evidence And these we call known Signs Cognisances of Truth evident Marks clear Characters or plain speaking Language which plead as it were in Gods behalf and as clearly shew us where true Religion is as These visible Creatures manifest a Deity or as that Star which brought the Sages to Bethlem pointed out the Saviour of the world None can Deny These plain Inducements of Faith But such as deny those first and most clear Manifestations of Truth which Christ our Lord and his Blessed Apostles evidenced when by Their admirable Miracles strange Conversions Sanctity of life c. They withdrew beguiled Soules from Error and wrought Faith in Them Before one Word of Scripture was registred 2. Note 2. And it is the Reflection of a learned Author As no man enters on a Dispute with others God as it were Disputes against Falshood with rational Arguments but be hopes to get the better so God when he proposeth true Religion to Christians engageth as it were in a Dispute with the Devil and all those Sectaries who oppose it And therfore cannot hope But is sure to conquer and convince his Adversaries otherwise it were folly to begin a Dispute which would not end to his Honor. Now if he convince he doth it And silences all Opponents of Truth by the Force and Efficacy of such powerful Arguments laid out to Reason as are able to silence all Opponents For strong rational Inducements perswasively work on Reason And clear mans Intellectual power from all Mistrust and Doubt 3. Note 3. It is impossible after the Establishment of true Faith amongst Christians That God either will or can permit a false Religion to be more Speciously evident to Reason by Force of rational Motives then his true Religion is For were this possible He would oblige Reason A false Religion cannot be more Speciously evident to reason then Gods true Religion is by rational Inducements to embrace a fals Religion which is highly repugnant to his Goodnes And upon this ground I say more It is impossible That a false Religion equalize the true One in the Evidence of rational Motives For if the evidences for Falshood be equal with those other of Truth God would stand guilty of arguing less efficaciously in behalf of his own Verities We Nor can equalize it in the Evidence of Credibility must then conclude That Gods true Religion ever most eminently surpasseth falshood in the grace and lustre of those Motives which evidence it to Reason And from hence it followes That no man can in Iustice appropriate those rational Inducements which draw reason to Rational Motives belong not to all called Christians find out true Religion to all who go under the name of Christians For amongst these whether Arians or others you have false Religions but the Marks Motives and Cognisances of Truth cannot belong to a false Religion unles God propose error as Speciously evident to Reason as his own Revealed Truth which is now proved impossible 4. These few Reflections premised Let us look about Two Religions in Competition us and cast a serious Thoughr on two Religions only which as it seem's stand justling with one another yea and will needs come into Competition for Truth The one is the Ancient and long Continued Roman Catholick Religion The other is that late Novelty of Protestanism Let reason I say go here impartially to work let it make a diligent enquiry after the Rational Motives which as it were plead in behalf of these two different Religions Both are not Both cannot be True both have not the like Evidence true and Therfore both cannot be evidenced by the like Marks ande Cognisances of Truth the One must yeild to the Other What do I say yeild The first appears like a glorious Sun Procedens crescens
Doctrin as Protestancy As They ought to have done in the first place after so glorious a Title 2. To prove what is said have patience to hear some few parergons There are say They in the question of resolving Faith these three questions to be resolved First Why I believe those things to be true which are contained in the Book called Scripture 2. Why I believe the Doctrin contained in that Book to be Divine 3. Why I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine Revelation Mark here a Shufling and remember once more the Title The Protestants way of resolving Faith Is it so Is it the Protestants way Yes Surely then the Questions here proposed and the Answers returned are most Pertinent to help on Protestants in their resolving Faith That is to make Protestancy These Authors wave what they should Explicate evidently credible by clear and rational Motives You will say They are so And I say They are no more to that purpose of Protestants resolving Faith or giving of prudent Motives for Protestancy then if such a Religion had never been in the world I prove my Assertion The Arian will say I believe Arians believe Scripture as much as Protestants those Things to be True which are contained in Scripture I believe the Doctrin in that Book to be Divine I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine Revelation and this I do upon as good Grounds as you Protestants if not on better For if you admit of these Verities upon the greatest Evidence which things of that Nature are capable of So do I too But say I beseech you what more Advantage have you upon this Concession for your particular Religion then I have for mine For let these Books be True let them contain Divine Doctrin let us believe the Revelation in them to be Sacred yet both you and I are to seek which of us hath the better Religion and this cannot be decided by owing three Truths wherof no Christian ever doubted Why therfore do you when it is your particular Task to resolve Protestants Faith never meddle with the Question But wast time in proving that which when it is proved help 's you no more then all other Christians who are contrary to you in Belief Will you se this clearly 3. I freely grant that those things in Scripture are True They are Divine the Books themselves are of Divine Revelation But next ask What is this to Protestant Religion Or how is the Resolution of Protestants Faith advanced upon the owning These Verities Nothing at all And the Reason is for rhough all Christians acknowledge in general Scripture to be most Divine yet they are at endles Disputes concerning the Doctrin of it Now no Man I hope To have Scripture in our hands gives no Assurance of true Faith will say Because he hath this Book in his hands or owns it as Gods Word that therfore He rightly Believes the particular necessary Doctrin in it For were this true known Haeretiks would be as sound in Faith as any To conclude then The Roman Catholick enquires not here after any general Proof of Scripture He proved that before Protestants were born But he urges for Motives What Catholicks require of Protestants and rational Inducements wherby Protestancy as Protestancy is evidenced to have any ressemblance with the Primitive Doctrin of Christ and his blessed Apostles Known Marks and Cognisances of Truth must manifest this particular Doctrin And not a general talk of the Divinity of Scripture which every Arian and Haeretick would own were there no such thing as a Protestant in Being 4. They hold on in this proofles strain and tell us how Moral certainty is Assurance enough that Christian Religion is infallibly true Be it so it is nothing to the purpose For we enquire not in this place after the moral Evidence of Christian Religion in General which as it professed by condemned Haereticks Protestancy unevidenced hath none But we ask for the moral Certainty wherby Protestancy is evidenced This is not so much as spoken of though the Title of resolving Protestants Faith requires a direct Answer to this Difficulty They say again There can be no greater then moral Certainty for the main Foundations of all Religion and the chiefest is the Existency and Being of God The Assertion is falss as I could demonstrate were it now pertinent to handle that question But Let it pass Give us I beseech you as much Moral certainty of Protestant Religion as All acknowledge for the Existency of a Deity and we are satisfied But of this we hear not a word We have Talk enough of the Moral certainty of Christian They Answer not to the difficulty Religion which Answers not to the Title of resolving Protestants Faith 5. They say thirdly Suppose God gives the must infallible Evidence of any Religion some who are bound to believe that Religion can have no more then Moral certainty of it Transeat totum at present What makes it for Protestancy We here ask Why Protestants believe as they do Why They adhere to their new Faith and preferr that Before all other Religions Rational Motives Can be produced or not We hitherto hear of none And therfore suspect yea know very well there are none for it 6. They say fourthly Moral certainty yeilds us sufficient Protestants altogether in Generalls Assurance that Christian Religion is infallibly true What Religion is infallibly true upon moral certainty Is it Arianism or Pelagianism No. Is it the Roman Catholick Religion No. Is it Protestancy Yes Then produce Rational Motives which may ground a moral certainty more of this Religion then of any other Sect and we acquiesce But this you cannot do 7. They say fifthly Where there is evident credibility in And prove nothing for their Religion the matter propounded there doth arise upon Men an obligation to believe Very good To believe what Give us this evident Credibility of Protestancy and something is said to the purpose Hereof yet we have no news nor are like to have and consequently Protestants cannot be obliged to Believe as they do After some other Parergons 8. They say sixthly The last Resolution of Faith is not into the infallibility of the instrument of conveyance but into the infallibility of that Doctrin which is therby conveyed to us Shall we eternally have these Empty words and no Substance You talk here of an infallibility of Doctrin and we would have the Riddle expounded Is it the Roman Catholick Doctrin Or yours Or Arianism What for Gods sake avail's it to hear a noise of infallible Doctrin and not to know who rightly professeth it Your Doctrin therfore of Protestancy is to be Evidenced this is all we look for 9. They say seventhly If the Doctrin of Christ be true and Divine then all the promises made were accomplished Now that was one of the greatest that his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all Truth Very
true But what is this for Protestant Doctrin We ask still by what Signs and Marks of Truth do these new Men prove their particular Faith to be Apostolical Here only lyes the Difficulty never touched on by them Admit therfore at present that they have in their hands the infallible Records of Gods Word they are far of yet from proving their particular Doctrin of Protestancy to be Scripture or the infallible Word of God This is the sole controverted Question between us 10. They finally end Thus much may suffise in general concerning the Protestant way of resolving Faith Very little it seems serves their turn who hitherto never Loct labour to talk of Christian Religion in General medled with that Resolution But have lost their labour by a talking in General of Christian Religion which no more concern's Protestancy then it doth the worst of Haereticks And after this manner They hold on in another Chapter entituled The sense of Fathers in this Controversy Where Iustin Martyr Irenaeus and Clemens Fathers cited to no purpose of Alexandria are cited but to what purpose God only knows Are they quoted to evidence any thing like Protestancy No. The whole-Discours of these Learned Fathers look's another way and never medles with this Novelty Read them as they are either in These Authors with all the Advantages of their Glosses on them or rather in the Originals as I have don exactly you will find them so great Strangers to this new Haeresy That they never thought of it To transcribe again their whole Discours would prove tedious read Iustins words in these Authors Part. 1. Chap. 9. page 264. and add to them the reflection made page 265. What part say they is there now of our Resolution of Faith which is not here in that is in Iustins Testimony asserted I answer Nothing at all as will appear by your own Questions and Answers wholy irrelative to Protestancy Thus then you go on If you ask why you believe there were such men in the Iustin makes nothing for Protestants world as these Prophets wherof Iustin speaks Answer The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it Be is so what is this to Protestancy Can any one probably inferr Because He believes there were such men in the world as Prophet Apostles or Euangelists Therfore he hath the true Doctrin of Weak inferences these Prophets No. For both Arians and Pelagians yeild Assent to that general Truth and so do Catholicks also are all These right in Faith upon that Account precisely Toyes No more then are Protestants 3. If you ask say you why you Believe them to be true Prophets Answ The excellency of their Doctrin joyned with the fulfilling of Prophecies and working Miracles abundantly prove it Prove what for Gods sake No more but this that those Prophets taught excellent Doctrin and wrought Miracles Doth it therfore follow that Protestants Arians and other Haereticks teach such Doctrin or work Miracles No. Herein lyes the Difficulty not so much as glanced at or touched on And thus Nor Clemens Alex. they run on to no purpose for many pages with Testimonies drawn out of Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus which no more relate to Protestancy then those first Words of Genesis do In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth Nay more Clemens cited But Confutes them by these Authors page 273. expresly confutes our Sectaries whilst he requires two things necessary to attain to the true knowledge of true Faith in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Enquiry and Discovery of it The Enquiry is an impulse of the mind say these men for finding Truth out by Signs which are proper to it Discovery is the End and Rest of this Enquiry which lyes in the comprehension of the things which is properly knowledge A most true and admirable Expression Clemens according to these Authors proceds thus Now the Signs by which Truth is Discovered are either Precedent Concomitant or Subsequent The precedent Signs wherby we discover Christ to be the Son of God are the Prophecies declaring his coming The Concomitant were the Testimonies concerning his Birth The subsequent Signs are those Miracles which were published and manifestly shewed to the World after his Ascension c. Most true and Divine Doctrin which is entirely for the Roman Catholick Religion and against Protestants Why We enquire after the precedent Signs wherby their new Religion is discovered We ask for subsequent Signs which were publickly known to the world soon after the broaching of their new Faith and yet cannot hear of any shewed by these new men in confirmation of their Faith Finally we urge for Miracles and other Prudential Motives Evidencing Protestant Religion in the ensuing Chapter but find none Read it and give an impartial judgement CHAP. X. Protestants have no rational Motives wherby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as probable 1. TO prove the Assertion we here friendly demand Whether when Scripture Fathers and the best Authority of former ages Assert That the Marks and Cognisances of Gods revealed Truth are as follow Antiquity A Lawful mission Vnity Efficacy of Doctrin Vniversality Miracles Succession of Bishops Sanctity yes and the very name of Catholik c. My demand I say is whether our new Men will own these old Signs as lawful and approved Manifestations of Truth or disown them If this later They are Compelled to shew them unfit or forceles Arguments for the evidencing of Truth and consequently are obliged to produce others more clear and perswasive for their supposed true Religion which is impossible On the other side if they shall please to own them as lawful Cognisances of Truth My Task is to prove That they have neither the complexum of all these Motives together nor so much as one of them in particular for Protestancy 2. Antiquity granted to Popery for at least a Protestants want Antiquity thousand years and upward Protestants have not Those two Brethren of Iniquity Luther and Calvin first brought this Religion forth as is evident by all known History Before their dayes no man can shew me so much as one Town Village or Houshold of Protestants 3. Lawful Mission most justly and without dispute A lawful Mission is wanting challeng'd by Catholick Doctors These two wretched men had not no more have their followers Enquire after it you will find them all unsent Preachers contrary to the Apostles Doctrin Rom. 10 How shall They preach unles they be sent They never had licence to talk as they did But by their own Will and unknown Spirit which as well authorized Iames Nayler to be Christ as them to be lawful and Apostolical Preachers Say I beseech you when the blessed Apostles first taught the Doctrin of Christ Iesus and by their preaching turn'd Idolatry out of the World Did They only word it Christ and his Apostles were sent and shewed their Mission
Truths in Themselves yet so long as they are not proved to be positive revealed Truths or Spoken by Almighty God Protestancy stands like a Starveling void and empty of all revealed Truths Protestancy as so hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by God And consequently as it is this New Religion hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by him who upholds all Christian Verities I mean Gods certain Revelation 6. To se this Assertion more clearly Evidenced Hear a little what our Sectaries Answer Some tell us They know right well there is no Purgatory Becaus God hath not revealed it in Scripture There is no real Presence for the same Reason and so they Argue for the rest of their Negatives To this and whatever els can be proposed we have answered Though These Suppositions are very Fals yet Admit of them as True Viz. Thaâ— a Purgatory or Real Presence are not mentioned in Scripture All that follows from hence is That God hath been as it were Silent and omitted to speak of such Objects That Protestants inferences Still proved improbable is as we now falsly suppose He hath neither said there is a Purgatory nor Denyed it Now this Negative God hath said nothing of such a matter as it cannot Ground a positive Belief of a Purgatory so it cannot Ground a positive Belief of the Contrary or No Purgatory Whilst What both Catholicks and Protestants are obliged to prove therfore the Catholick Believes a Purgatory He is obliged to show that God hath Positively Revealed it And if the Protestant Believe no Purgatory He is also Obliged to show that God hath spoken Positively this Objective Truth There is no such place To say then God hath made no mention at all of a Purgatory in Sçripture and to infer from Thence a Belief of no Purgatory is in plain Language to Say I may Actually Believe that by Divine Faith which God never Spake The most therfore That can be Deduced from this Negative were it True God hath Omitted to Reveal a Purgatory is That no man yet knows nor can know upon Revelation whether there be such a Place or no. But to draw from it an Absolute Faith of no Purgatory is and I can term it no better then the last of Nonsense For how many Things are there known to God Which He hath omitted to Reveal Can I Therfore upon that Non-Revelation Rush on them with my Faith and Believe them for his not Speaking at all Yet thus Sectaries Proceed They have Protestants Believe Negatives becaus God hath not Reveal'd them good store of Negatives But not revealed Negatives And They will Believe them Becaus God hath not Revealed them Here briefly is my Discours if it Faulter or seem Faulty to our Adversaries my humble Petition is That they will Vouchsafe to unbeguil ' me and Friendly shew me where the Fallacy lyes If this Discourse be faulty my wish is to hear of the fallacy 7. Some perhaps will say We have Fought all this while with Shadows And supposed These Negatives No Purgatory No Transubstantiation c. To be Objects of Protestants Faith But we err not knowing Their Doctrin For They are only Held Inferiour Truths One Reply refuted Approved by the English Church to mantain Vnion amongst Protestants And not owned as Articles of Faith Thus Two later Men whom you may se largely Refuted Discours 3. c. 6. n. 7. All I 'll say at present is Because Sectaries seldom Agree in Doctrin it is impossible to Confute them all at Once To my Sectaries agree not in Doctrin purpose then There have been Certainly And are yet Protestants I think These the more Numerous That Hold the now named Negatives Articles of Protestants Some own these Negatives Articles of Faith Faith And Against such our Proofs have Force Others that Deny the Doctrin And exclude them from being Articles are in a worse Condition Because upon the Supposition They are Forced to grant That Protestancy hath no Articles of Faith Protestancy as Protestancy contain's not so much as One Article of Divine Faith in it For the whole Reformed part of it is made up of pure Negatives Consequently if Any should utterly Abjure that Religion He would not Abjure one Truth Revealed by Almighty God Se more of this subject in the place now cited And Both are Confuted know That our Adversaries will have Much to do To come of Hansomly whether They Grant These Negatives To be Articles of their Faith or Disown them as Articles This is fairly spoken without Clamours And Mr. Stillingfleet in his Preface to the Reader Believe it Some who tell us They have not Leisure Enough to kill flyes may sweat at it take whether part They please before the Difficulty be solved 8. They may Reply secondly And Endeavor to A second Reply of Sectaries worth Nothing Prove at least one of their Negatives Thus. There is no Purgatory Becaus God hath Revealed in Scripture two Places only Heaven and Hell which seem's Exclusive of a third Place I answer That word Only is neither Scripture nor Revelation Cast therfore that Particle away and Propose the Argument as we ought to do And it falls to nothing Thus it is God hath Revealed two Places and these Eternal it is most True Ergo he hath Revealed the not Being of a Purgatory is Fals and a meer Non-sequitur 9. They may Reply thirdly Catholicks Believe A Third at bad many things upon as pure Negatives for Example A Trinity of Three Distinct Persons in one Divine Essence and no Quaternity or no more Persons then Three yet this Negative is not Revealed in Scripture To Help on this worthles Argument I Grant more That not so much as a Trinity of Distinct Persons is plainly Revealed in Scripture Doth it Therfore Catholicks believe not upon Negative grounds follow that Catholicks Believe that Mystery and Deny a Quaternity upon Negative Grounds No such matter They Believe a Trinity and no Quaternity upon the solid Positive Grounds of their Church Interpreting Scripture upon a Universal Perpetuated Tradition And the Infallible Word of God not Written Protestants are destitute of such Proofs in the Articles they Hold. For They neither have an Infallible Church nor Tradition Nor Written nor Vnwritten Word to Rely on Therfore They Believe upon Fancy oâ—â—y 10. To End This Matter I will here Briefly Becaus An Objection answered conceiâ—â—ing Novelties introduced i 〈…〉 the Church it is Consequent Answer to an old Trivial Objection made by Sectaries against our Present Roman Church which They Accuse of Novelties introduced since the First Primitive Ages And weakly as They are wont Argue after this manner Your Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Praying to Saints of an Vnbloody Sacrifice c. Were not Taught for Three or Four Ages after Christ Therfore say They We may now well hold the Contrary And Believe no Transubstantiation no Sacrifice c.
recurr to an Invisible Society of such men now as well exploded by later Protestants as Catholicks 7. A fifth Objection flow's from the pen of a Late Mr. Stillingfleet Writer after this manner Cannot you conceive that there should be a Number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility If not saith he I 'll help your Vnderstanding a little Suppose And it 's only a Supposition That all the members of the Roman Church should be destroyed in one Age do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches sound at least in the Belief of Fundamentals without Infallibility I have answered already No. And given my Reason Becaus a Church A Church separated from Divine Assistance cannot persist stable divorced from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost is pulled from the Center of Truth which supports it and consequently the Doctrin of it must needs reel and totter now as is supposed to rely on no firmer a Hold then on mans unsteedy fallible Reason or on a Testimony meerly Humane and therfore Uncertain Neither have we without this Assistance more Security Without Infallible Assistance no security of fundamentals of true Belief in Matters called Fundamental then others As is clear in condemned Arians who no sooner left the Church directed by this Spirit of Truth But Errours followed them in points most Fundamental And yet like black Ghosts do and will haunt them without Repentance to the Worlds End 8. Before we end this matter I have one Question to propose It is Whether If all the Ancient Fathers A Question proposed to Sectaries that ever lived Had plainly interpreted Scriptures as the Roman Catholick Church now interpret's them contrary to Protestants They would then Disavow Their own Glosses And submit to the undeniable Authority of so many worthy Fathers Might Reason or Religion set one unlucky Adversary aside called Prejudice make the Answer Sectaries would say Yes And do so were The unanimous consent of Fathers against them Grant thus much And say boldly The Authority of The whole Antecedent The Authority of a whole Church more weighty then that of Fathers and this present Roman Catholick Church is in true prudence of greater Force to withdraw Sectaries from their new invented Glosses contrary to it Then if all the Fathers Together Had plainly interpreted Scripture as the Church interpret's Why Nothing on earth can Parallel this Churches Authority much les make it Inferiour to The Fathers only part of the Church the universal consent of Fathers The Reason is These Fathers were only a part of it particular men and Singly considered Fallible But a whole Church Embraceth a greater number and cannot be misled into Errour Nay I say Though we Impiously suppose Were the Church supposed Fallible the Authority of it is as great as the Fathers That this whole Church might swerve from Truth yet the Testimony of it is as great as that of the Fathers who as Protestants say may all err and swerve more easily This Reason is Reinforced if we reflect on one undeniable Truth which is In all controversies now between us Sectaries can pretend no more But thus much only That the sense of some few Fathers only They never pretended all whilst they interpret Scripture is though often obscure more against the Churches interpretation then for it Here is the most they can say with any Conscience Though we grant not so much when the whole Doctrin of a Father is well examined However Gratis Admit of the Supposition at present And se what follows A clear Testimony Though Fallible hath more weight then another that 's Obscure and Fallible Thus much only The Sense of such and such Fathers is doubtful and Sectaries say Fallible The Churches Sense is clear That is you know what it Teaches and Though falsly supposed fallible is yet far more firm then the other Testimony That 's confessedly both obscure and Fallible 9. This Discours convinceth that Sectaries cannot If Sectaries say the more clear Church Doctrin is the more manifest is its Errour They speak without Principles and suppose what is to be proved impugn the Churches sense given of Scripture by any thing that hath the look of a probable Principle For the Church Defend's it self upon two undeniable Grounds The first Positive And 'T is The Churches own Authority nothing can be greater The other Negative Viz. Never any of known credit neither Fathers generally nor Oecumenical Councils much less Scripture Probably clearly contradicted that sense which the Roman Catholick Church Gives of Scripture And here by the way You may se to what an Exigency our new None of undoubted credit Ever clearly contradicted the Churches sense of Scripture men are Driven for want of Principles They say The Roman Catholick Church is Fallible The Fathers are fallible All condemned Haereticks are fallible They themselves are fallible Thus much supposed Tell me I beseech you by what probable Principle can They so much as seemingly show That either They interpret Scripture better then we or That Any of us all ever yet arrived to the True sense of it in controverted If all are Fallible by what Principle can Sectaries prove their Interpretation to be the best matters Which yet is absolutely necessary For we can have no true Faith without the true sense of Scripture You know if the blind lead the blind There is no safe conduct And if the Fallible man Guides the Fallible both may mistake Their way and err grosly You will have no Answer returned to this Difficulty But Sectaries Fancy and Fancy only Or shew that Any had the true sense of Scripture 10. Some may Reply Protestants have the words of Scripture as clear as the Holy Ghost was pleased to Write them in Fundamentals As also the consent of Fathers at least for those Fundamentals They wave other By-Passages of Scripture and care not much A Reply of Sectaries whether their Interpretations be right or wrong I Answer first To say nothing of many Others They They cannot wave all Difficulties cannot wave one Difficulty concerning the Real presence of Christ in the Sacred Eucharist which is either a Fundamental Doctrin or none is Both Scripture and Fathers are in this particular most expresly against them as is proved Hereafter 11. But let this pass I Answer 2. We have as good Scripture as Sectaries can lay claim to in every Point which they call Fundamental And with it the In Fundamentals we are at least equal and in controverted matter far superiour consent of Fathers also In other controverted matters we own the same Scripture they own And moreover have the sense of it Declared by this long standing Church wherin we infinitly surpass them Speak therfore of matters out of controversy or wherin all Agree we are at least equal with them And for others in controversy
Church which Verified the Belief of that Article can be plainly and without fumbling Designed Say then on Gods name what Christians had we who constituted the Holy Catholick Church Nor Papists according to Protestants nor the later Graecians in Those Dayes Papists you say were all in a Deluge of Errour which made Luther to leave them Our later Graecians held and hold still a True Mass Sacrifice the Real Presence Praying to Saints Prayers for the Dead c. They therfore contrary to our Sectaries were neither the Holy nor Vniversal Church None say Sectaries but gross erring men were in the world before Luther Much les were Arians Abyssins Pelagians Monotbelits or all of them together Now besides such erring men There were no other in the World If Therfore the Vniversal Church be Essentially made up of Particular Churches as truely it is For there is no Vniversale à parte rei And all Particular Churches Nameable in those dayes grosly Erred it follows evidently That then no Holy Catholick Church could be Believed Since Those times Our Protestants came in Protestants only are not the Holy Vniversal Church And will They if That Article of our Creed was Fals in the last Age verify it now and stile Themselves the only Vniversal Church I am Confident They will not Donatize so far or dare to do so The Question Therfore Proposed deserves an exact Answer Viz. Where or amongst what Christians shall we find the The Question proposed deserves a clear Answer Holy Vniversal Church Then free from notable Errour 2. Can our Novellists Rationally say That All those who rightly Believed in Christ constituted the Holy Vniversal Church If so The Reply is too general An abstract belief in Christ insufficient to constitute true Catholick Faith and we ask again Who Those were and urge to have the Particular Communities Specified That Catholickly Believed in Christ We demand moreover what they mean by that Belief in Christ Was it enough to Confes Him to be the True Messus Our Redeemer our Master or to acknowledge his Death his Resurrection without Believing more of his Doctrin Surely More is required and necessary to Saluation no. For first God never spake those other Excellent Verities registred in Scripture whether Dogmatical or relating to manners in vain But to good Purpose And with Intention That They should besides that abstracted Faith in Christ both be harken'd to and Believed after a Sufficient Proposal Again Were the later Graecians who firmly Believed in Christ and held never the les Almost all the Tenents of the Roman Catholick Church Catholick Believers also If so Papists can in no Iustice be excluded from that Communion Perhaps you will say you do not exclude them No. Why then have you hanged them upon Gibbets meerly for being Papists If you Answer you do so upon the Account of their Particular Errors then hang up a number of your own Ministers who confessedly have more Errors among them Or if petty Differences in Points of Faith may be pardoned in the One why are they so severely punished in the Other But ad rem 3. Say plainly And Answer Categorically without Arians and Pelagians believed in Christ Shuffling Were Arians Pelagians Nestorians Monothelits Parts and Members of the Holy Catholick Church For they believed in Christ and owned him for their Redeemer Master and Doctor yea and admitted of Scripture also If you Affirm it Then there never were nor can be Haeresies in the Christian Yet were cast out of the Church as Hareticks world whilst Christ is acknowledged in this General Way and consequently the Ancient Councils Dealt most unjustly with these men in casting them out of the Churches Communion And proclaiming them Haereticks Beside observe I pray you what a pretty Church is here made up of men irreconciliable in their Disputes Is this think ye that Holy Vniversal A Church compounded of hideous dissenting Members is not Christs Church and Vnited Society of Christians which Christ Iesus cimented together in one Faith who do nothing but clash one with another And will he own this for his Spouse when he comes to Iudge the World Yet farther No Doctrin proper to Particular Sectaries as Arianism is to Arians Pelagianism to Pelagians Protestanism to Protestants can Becaus bound up within the narrow compass of these Communities deserve No Doctrine peculiar to Sectaries can be Catholick the Name or Notion of either Holy Vniversal or Catholick Doctrin Prescind therfore from these particular Doctrins or lay them aside which as Protestants must say did not Vnchurch them my Demand is and it shall never be Answered wherin Consists the Protestants cannot answer the Question Remainder of that Doctrin which implyes the pure Essentials of Christian Religion joyns men together in one Faith and makes them true members of the Holy and Vniversal Church 4. Will You hear as I think the best Answer of some newer Protestants They may say Who ever Believes in Christ and Scripture and ioyns in that Belief which was Vniversally owned by the whole Christian World before Luther is right in Faith and a Member of the Holy Vniversal Church Though perhaps He Believes with his tainted Church some Errours A most wretched The first Answer refuted and unproved Assertion For who ever yet maintain'd That a Society of Christians owning some Doctrin True as all have don and more perhaps Fals is a part of the True Holy Catholick Church We say Bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu A Faith Therfore Truely good is Intierly good Any Falsity Spoil's it And then most when 'T is vitiated with notable Errours Tell me if Scripture A Church vitiated with gross errours is no more a Church Then the Bible notably corrupted is Gods word were Corrupted in some Points of Consequence would you own the whole Bible for Gods Word No certainly How then can we own That for Christs True Church which is corrupted with Fals Doctrin You will say We must take the Good without the Bad And Believe as much as is necessary to the Essential Being of a Church And that makes us Catholicks Though we ioyntly Believe some errors with it Answer This is wors then before And more confused stuff Who are those WE that can chuse thus None can separate Truth from falshood if I live in an Erring Church Or Tell me if I live in an Erring Church where Fals Doctrin is Secretly mingled with Truth what I am to chuse or what is Good or Bad If a poor simple man Deceived by his Pastor fall into an Errour There are others ready to unbeguile him But Because He who endeavours to unbeguile me may then most err himself here are none to do this Service Becaus none can certainly Iudge of the right or wrong Will you say That Scripture is to decide in such Doubts Pray you Tell me if by a supposed Impossibility Scripture
no Truth in that Article of Our Creed I Believe the Holy Catholick Church To Evidence further what I now Asserâ— Do no more But Forget as it were or cast out of your mind all Thought of Roman Catholicks from Luther upward to the fourth Age. Then Look About you And Consider Exclude the Roman Catholick Church Haereticks only remain well the Remainder of other Christians For that Vast Interval of Time You will find none but Professed Haereticks Schismaticks or Both as Arians Nestorians Pelagians and such a like Rabble of men Again Forget these as much as if They had never Been And only Think of the Roman Catholick Church Diffused the whole World over continued Age after Age Will you not have a Holy and Vniversal Church Presented Exclude Haereticks you yet have a glorious Church to your Thoughts Yea most assuredly And a Glorious Church too It is therfore Evident That the Roman Catholick Society was not only Necessary to make Vp the Church But was Moreover the Sole and only Essential Church of Christ as I have already Proved CHAP. III. The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is Vnreasonable if Faith in Christ Only Suffice for Saluation A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary 1. I Must Needs have a Word more with our Adversaries upon this Subject and Note That if a General Belief in Christs Sacred Person Office and Dignity be Saving Faith enough for a Christian which some endeavour to Prove by that Text of St. Iohn 20. 31. And these Things are written That ye might Believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God And that believing ye might have life in his Name If such a General Faith I say makes us all as well Catholicks as Christians without more Our Protestants need not to storm at us as They do for want of True Faith For we Catholicks Agree and Believe in Christ God and Man as firmly as They do And in this one Article only may we credit them All Necessary Essentials of Christian Faith are included It is true Catholicks say a more Explicit Faith is required as I shall presently Declare But Protestants who do not May rest Protestants slight work about things not Essentials contented And withall confess That the great Coyle They have kept in Reforming Catholick Doctrin comes to no more But to a slight Pidling about Non-Essentials which for ought is yet known Hath done more hurt then good And made Things wors then They May have don more hurt then Good were Before 2. To Drive the Difficulty home I Ask seriously Whether any one Article Peculiar to this Religion as If Protestants hold their particular Doctrin necessary to Salvation other Hareticks will pretend the like Protestancy That is beside the General Belief in Christ and owning Scripture c. Be necessary to Saluation If yes Then will Arians Pelagians Donatists and other Sectaries say also what they hold Particular is also Necessary And Therfore Doctrin Above or Beyond the Belief in Christ or not Vniversal is of like Necessity If Protestants answer No or Assert that nothing Particularly held by them because not Vniversal Catholick Doctrin implyes this And if not two strange Sâ—quâ—ls undeniably follow Necessity But a Belief in Christ only Two rhings follow The One is as I have now Noted That without Fruit at all They have made a shamfull stir with their Schism in Blustering all this while about non-Essentials and petty Differences which may be Believed or Not without Danger of loosing Saluation 2. It follows That as Protestants here Acknowledge a Church so Vniversal wherin all may be Saved that Believe in Christ in like manner Any one and upon as good Reason May make it Wider and allow Saluation A large Church must be allowed of by Protestants to all whether Iews or Turks that Believe in God only without Explicit Faith in Christ Vnus Deus Vna Fides Therfore in Place of Christs Church we may have a Gods Church more large and ample erected in the world 3. You will say Scripture is most Evident for a Belief in Christ Might a Defender of the now large Imagined Church which affords Salvation to all that Believe in God Answer He would tell you That the Explicit Belief in God implyes some kind of Implicite Belief in Christ And that is enough which He is ready to Make good when you have proved your Abstract Faith in Christs Sacred Person to be Sufficient to Salvation A better Answer is Scripture most Certainly Obligeth us to Believe in Christ Explicitly But doth it leave of there and not joyntly oblige us to More necessary to Salvation then Belief in Christ only Believe other Articles also Explicitly when they are plain in Scripture And sufficiently proposed Such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist c. Can we therfore after we Own these Truths Delivered in Gods Word hope for Salvation without an explicit Belief of them If so St. Iohn c. 6. 53. saith not True Vnles ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you Surely we cannot do this like Christians Unles we believe it The Belief of Sacraments necessary If no The Belief of these Sacraments constitute the Essentials of Saving Faith and so doth also the Belief of much Moral Doctrin set down in Scripture Read what St. Paul Writes Cor. 1. 6. 9. concerning the Vnrighteous Idolaters and Fornicators c. And tell me if you Own Gods Word whether the Apostle doth And of other Moral Doctrin not Disinherit all Vnbelievers of his Doctrin Therfore something more is Necessary for Christians united in one Faith to Assent to Then only to Believe in Christ 4. The true Fundamental Ground of my Assertion is This. What ever God Speaks in Scripture who never spake Idle word whether the Matter may seem to our weak Capacities little or great is after a Sufficient Proposal of the same Weight and Authority To Believe rherfore in Christs is a Fundamental Article and in one Sence Known to every One most Fundamental But to Reject or Abstract from His other Verities Revealed in Scripture or to make les Reckoning of them Becaus they Appear little to us is to Affront God And Tell him That we will Believe him so far as we pleas But no farther Wheras on the contrary side he Assures us That his Word is equally engaged in all He Saith And All Truths in Scripture are of equal Authority that his Eternal Truths whether little or great are not to be Valued of by what is spoken But by the certain Authority of him that Speak's them Hence Divins Assert and most Truely That no man can Believe so much as one Article of Christian Faith upon the Motive of Gods Revealed Testimony unles He readily Embrace All other alike as equally Proposed upon the same Authority For where we have the Same Motive we must yeild the Same
Assent and with like The Center of Faith Reverence Upon this Motive of Gods Revealing Word True Christian Faith Relies Mille Clypei pendent ex eâ omnis armatura fortium Here they meet together Concentred as it were in This One Vndeceived and Vndeceiving Verity Do I therfore Believe Christ to be We Believe all â—like upon Gods Word the True Messias Becaus God saith it I must also Believe Baptism the Eucharist and other Revealed Truths when after a sufficient Proposal I know That the same God Speak's Them For if his Word Prevail with me to Credit him in the one It is as Powerful and pressing to force as I may say Faith from me in the Other A further Reason is Because a Another Reason right Act of Faith setled on this Motive is a Virtual and Implicit Belief not of one Article But of all other which the Motive Own 's or Vphold's You se therfore none can truly Believe in Christ who Denies the least Verity Sufficiently proposed that God Reveals For as the True Belief of one Article implyes a Belief of All so Believe all â—â— none at â—â—ll the Denial of One implyes a Denial of all Other And thus Christian Faith consists in INDIVISIBILI And is either Wholy had or Wholy lost which is the True Cause why Protestants have no Faith And must Iumble as They do Why Protestants have no Faith and stagger in their Doctrin concerning fundamental's in Their Doctrin concerning the Essentials of it And finally have never yet discover'd nor shall hereafter if we seclude the Roman Any Thing like a Catholick Church before Luther 5. For These Reasons now alleged Perhaps Some will say That After a Belief in Christ and a General owning of Scripture we must Descend to more Particulars A Reply to little purpose And explicitely Assent to all that Express Scripture plainly Delivers And we will Adhere to the very Words without Dispute If we do so We Admit of all That God clearly Reveal's and Take it upon his Authority without Interpretation Answer Here is a fair Promise of Nothing For Who can tell when Scripture speaks plainly who can Assure us without Dispute when Scripture speak s plainly Both Catholicks and Protestants Dissent in this very Principle Those say it Speak's plainly for the Real Presence of Christs Sacred Body in the Eucharist For Remission of Sins by a Priest The matter still in Dispute For Iustification by Good Works For Extream-Vnction For the Infallibility of the Church c. These Deny all And do what we can to hinder them will upon their own Fancies Force into Gods Word certain violent Glosses which God never Spake You se Therfore That when we Descend to the Particular Expressions of Scripture Concerning the Particular Doctrins of it we are at a stand and cannot go forward For Sectaries will have no Judge on Earth to Appeal to in These Doubts If they say the Ancient A Iudge necessary to determine c. Church shall Judge We are as I told you as Far from Home as Before And as much Differ about the Sentiments of that Church as we do about the Sense of Scripture And thus it ever fall's out Otherwise Controversies are Endles Either we must Drive Controversies Between us to Endles Quarrels or yeild to what our Protestants say or Finally Commiserate their sad Condition Becaus they will not Acquiesce in a Judge upon Earth that as well Ascertain's us of the Meaning as it doth of the very Books of Scripture Without this Judge we may contract to the Worlds End and never be Wiser 6. You se this plainly in that Instance Proposed above out of St. Hierom. For according to plain Scripture if one strike us on the right cheek we must Turn to him the other also We are to Abstain from eating of Blood and Things strangled We are not to have two Coats nor carry Money with us c. None can Deny But that God Speaks These Verities Although they seem light to us Buthow to understand them is to be learned from some Infallible Interpreter of Scripture which Scripture obscure when Seemingly Clear in Words Protestants Reject when all know that very often where Scripture seem's Clear in Words There it is more deep in Sense and most Obscure CHAP. IV. The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants concerning Fundamentals in Faith are Proved Vnreasonable 1. WE need not here to Discuss too largely This Point of Fundamentals most Learnedly examined by Catholick Writers For if we Reflect well on what is Proved in the precedent Chapter There is enough said to Silence All Adversaries and to satisfy every Rational Mans doubts in This Question 2. We Catholicks Speak plainly and Assert Although an Explicit Belief in God as a Rewarder of Good and a Punisher of Evil yea as some Divines hold of The Catholick Doctrin Christ also After the Promulgation of the Gospel Be Primary Fundamental Points of Faith Becaus Necessitate medij Every one is obliged to Believe Them Explicitly Yet withall we say That the Least Article Revealed by Almighty God when it is Sufficiently Proposed grows to be so far Fundamental That none can Deny or Doubt of it without Damnable Sin And in this Sense there is no Distinction between Points Fundamental and not Fundamental The reason hereof Already given Relies upon this Certain Principle What ever God Reveal's is equally to be believ'd What God Speak's whether the Material Object be little or great After the Charge laid on us to Believe is to be Admitted of with equal Certitude and Reverence For it is not The less or more Weight of Things Revealed That distinguishes Submission to Gods Veracity gives true value to Faith our Faith or makes it less or more Valuable But that which set's the true Price upon it is the Submission we yeild by it to Gods Veracity Now because this Veracity is one and equally the same in what ever is Revealed By consequence we Say That Faith upon the Account of that Submission is equally Good Solid and Valuable This I Note in Opposition to Sectaries Faith not to be measured by the Diversity of Things revealed Who For ought I can yet learn Measure their Faith not so much By the Excellency of the FORMAL OBJECT as by the different Nature of Things Revealed Which Becaus considered in themselves They often vary in worth Protestants Think that the Degrees of their Faith may answerably be less or more various according as the Object requires It is an Errour The Reason For as it is certain That when God Speak's to us The Highest Truth imaginable Speak's so it is as certain That He is to be Heard by us with Highest Respect and Reverence whether the Matter be great or Small 3. What is here said supposeth a Sufficient Proposition of Revealed Verities which without doubt are not equally Clear to all Capacities if we Descend to the Explicit
Harts And Tell us They have Done what is possible to Convert us to Drive us from Superstition Sectaries cannot say to what they would convert us And Draw us to the Purity of Their New Gospel They only give Words without Substance For to What would they Convert us Will They have us Believe the General Received Doctrin of all Christians We were Converted to this before Protestants Appeared in the World Do they desire to Convert us to a Belief of their New Negatives These are at most uncertain Inferiour Truths no way Essential to Christian Religion Put Our positive Doctrin weighed with Sectaries Negatives the case by a supposed Impossibility that our Contrary Positives were only Inferiour Truths like Protestants Negatives They might notwithstanding most justly hang in the Ballance with Them and would certainly outweigh Them Because a more Ample and Vniversal Church own 's Them All therfore They can Drive at when They Pretend to convert us is That We carry They only careser the exteriour form of Protestancy about Vs The Exteriour form of Protestancy in our Demeanour Though we still remain Catholicks in Hart They care not That is as I said now They would Convert us to be plain Hypocrits 19. From this and the precedent Discours it follows A Fallible Religion cannot defend it self That whosoever Embraceth a Fallible Religion which may be Fals can neither Defend his own nor impugn another upon any grounded Principle much less can He Persecute his Adversary to Death or Imprisonment Though He Nor the Professors of it persecute others mantain's a contrary Religion in like manner Fallible The Reason hereof is Clear Because The Defense of a Religion That 's Fallible And the opposition made against another Answerably weak and Fallible cannot go beyond the Strength The Reason is Evident of that last Ground wheron the Defense or Impugnation ultimatly resolved have their Footing But if the Religion be Fallible and uncertain The last Ground wheron the whole Machin either of Proof or Opposition stand's must needs be A Distastful opinative Conjecture Which without Certitude or Satisfaction is as A Defender of a Fallible Religion cannot preserve himself from Scorn unfit and forceles to Convince another of a contrary Belief as to preserve it self from the Scorn and Contempt of him though he profess no more but a Faith that 's Fallible Put the Case That a Pelagian and a Protestant are hard at a hot Dispute The Question proposed is Whether of these two Religions we suppose them both Fallible is the better With what Proof or Principle can this Fallible Protestant Assault his Fallible Adversary when He knows he cannot go one Step further then to what is purely Fallible If he interpret Scripture that 's Fallible if he Quote Fathers both They and He are Fallible if He cite Councils the Definitions with him are Fallible if He cry up his own Religion as having the Vpperhand in Probability He only throws his single vote into the Vrâ— which when 't is examined comes to no more But his Own Sic videtur or Self Fallible He can neither convince his Adversary nor persecute him but most unjustly Conceipt And Hence it follows That as He cannot Prove his Religion against his Adversary so He cannot but must unjustly Persecute him if he Refuse to Embrace that which cannot be Proved But most certainly his Proofs go not beyond the Bounds of Vncertainty and Therfore cannot oblige his Adversary to Believe him And Thus these two Combatants may wink and fight to the day of Iudgement without ending one Controversy or falling on any Thing like a certain Principle 20. I 'll say here a strange Word And think it very True Would A Learned Atheist write a large Volume An Atheist might say as much against God as against the Existency of God or A Learned Iew against Iesus Christ They might prove as much by a Roving fallible Talk Grounded on no Principles against These great Verities of Christian Faith as ever Protestant hath yet Proved against the Roman Catholick Church Protestants can say against the Roman Catholick Church For Their new Mode of writing is a long loos wearisom Discours without Reducing either Proof for their own Religion or Opposition made against Catholick Doctrin to Any Thing like a received Principle Mark this in all particular Controversies you will find meer uncertain Conjectures to be the last ground wheron either Their Proofs or Arguments Against us stand most unsetled Yet it should be Otherwise For whoever will venture to impugn a Religion That 's Held by the greatest part of Christians Infallible must strike Home and Reach to sound Principles Before He Touch it much less break it a Pieces Sectaries may say They are able at least to Defend Christian Religion in General owned Their Defense of Christian Religion in in general is to no purpose by all the World For the rest of Protestancy it may go whether you will Nec seritur nec metitur They are not solicitous My God are we come to this Pass now What must all the Disturbance of Sectaries their Schism and Rebellion made Against a Church their Glosses on Scripture And the whole Machin of Protestancy End thus in a Non Probatur it cannot be proved Is that only now asserted Defensible to wit the common Doctrin of all Christians That precisely taken is no mans Religion And Needs no Defense 21. Some other Objections yet remain But are all Solved upon the Principles now established One is If every Doctrin Defined by the Church be Fundamental the Church layes its own Foundations Contra There was Fundamental Faith in the Church before Scripture was writ Did Scripture Therfore lay New Foundations of Scripture Declared anew the Antecedent believed Doctrin of the Church Faith Because it Declared anew that Antecedent owned Doctrin Thus we Say the Church Declares the Ancient objective Faith of foregoing Christians ever implicitly at least Believed And not otherwise A second Objection less to the Purpose The Teaching Church either Believes in that Instant Sht Defines a thing Necessary to Saluation or doth not If She doth It was Necessary before the Definition newly made If not She Defines something Necessary to Saluation which was not before Necessary To answer the Objection I might ask whether St. Iohn when he writ this Proposition The Word is made Flesh Believed that Article of Christian Faith before he writ it or no If yes it was of Necessity to be Believed before If not He delivered something Necessary to Saluation which was not so before In one short Word Here is the solution to No Real Difficulty The Church at least Implicitly Believed before what The Church Believ's Implicitly before She Defines but more Explicitly after for her own Definition it Defines yet may and doth more Explicitly Believe the same Mystery in that very Instant She Defines Because God Speak's that Truth more clearly
unproved Fancy 12. Yet more And this is to Show you the strange Grant what Sectaries would have Nothing is Proved weaknes of our Adversaries whole Discours Let us suppose this falsity of a true Catholick Church in Luthers Days much wider Then the Roman withal that the Roman was only a corrupted Part of that more Ample Church Believe it These men are yet far enough from Proving their Intent For Admit upon the Supposition That the Church of Rome Draws the bounds of Catholick Communion within Her self and Confin's all Truth within Her own Community This is only Her own particular Opinion which Draws no more Confines no more Then Protestants do now For do Protestants pretend as much to have Christs verities taught by Them as Catholicks Do not They Prosess that the Doctrin of Christ is more Purely and less Erroneously taught in England at this Day Then in any other Society of Christians That Dissent's from Them Yes Here then is as much Drawing of Truth to Themselves and this Drawing consequently implyes a great Division from that Fancied And consequently They Divide Themselves from their Catholick Church Catholick Church Which I am sure Never Taught that the Gospel of Christ is Preached most purely and without Errour amongst a few English Protestants Meer Opinions Therfore of particular Churches as long as the General Doctrin of all Christians Stand's unshaken Cannot in these mens Principles Vnchurch any Christian Society or if They can both They I mean our Protestants And all other Sectaries are Vnchurched Becaus all of them Believe more then the General Essentials of Faith Exact of any Christian 13. It may be Answered Though they believe more Yea And particularly hold That Christs Doctrin is more purely Taught and believed in England Then in other places Yet this is not a Necessary Condition of Communion with them No I hope it is a To have Communion with Protestants is without Doubt necessary to Believe something of pure Protestancy Necessary condition of Communion with Protestants Though Vnnecessary for Communion with that other Fancied Vniversal Church and the General Doctrin Therof The Reason is No man can be more a Protestant unles He Believe All particular owned Articles of that Religion as Pure and Orthodox Then a good Papist and not Believe what that Church particularly Teacheth 14. Now Becaus we are got thus far into a Matter wherin I Hold our Adversaries much Overseen I would A Question proposed not to be Answered by Sectaries gladly have a clear Answer to this one Question Viz. Whether after a due Proposal it be absolutely Necessary to Saluation to Communicate with Protestants That is Firmly to Believe any one Article of our Protestants Reformed Faith as it is Protestancy For example Two Sacraments only no Real Presence no Sacrifice or what els you will If they Answer Yes Then I Infer The Belief of that Doctrin Vniversal and If Doctrin Common â—â— all be not sufficient something of Protestancy must be owned necessary Common to all Christians is not Enough to Saluation For now They require more Viz a Belief of some Doctrin peculiar to Protestancy as it is reformed Contrarywise if they Grant nothing within the Bounds of pure Protestancy to be a Doctrin of such absolute Necessity to Saluation it follows Evidently Though a Protestant after a perfect knowledge had of his Religion as Reformed doth both Abjure and Anathematize that particular If Nothing of Protestancy be accounted of as Necessary one may abjure all that Religion and yet be a Faithful Believer Doctrin And Believ's only with a General Faith Common to Arians and all other Hereticks He may yet be saved Becaus the Belief of no one Article within the Compass of Protestancy Avail's him one whit to Saluation If so Tell me I beseech you what a Religion have we Here Shall we say That the Authors and Professors of Protestancy have made a shameful Bustle to bring in a Novelty which must be called the true Reformed Religion And now Hear theâ— Teach That is Teaches nothing Necessary to Saluation Grant thus much and Throw Protestancy A shameful Schism about Protestancy that Teaches nothing necessary to Saluation out of the World Men may be saved without it 15. Some Perhaps will Reply Protestants at least judge That amongst the many Religions which now swarm in the World Their reformed Novelty is one of the best and the Securest way to Heaven Alas We We Ask not what Protestants Iudge but demand for a Proof of that Iudgement enquire not what They Meer fallible Men Judge Every Heretick speak's favorably in his own Cause But we go further and Ask into what Vndoubted Principle that Judgement is finally Resolved or Whether These men withall the Judgement and Learning They have are able Solidly and Rationally to Prove that Their particular Articles of Protestancy rest firmly and Rely upon the Object of all Faith Which is Gods certain and If Protestants can resolve the Belief of their particular Articles into Divine Revelation it will be Necessary to Saluation Divine Revelation If this can be Don the particular Tenents of Protestancy are as Certain and consequently the Belief of Them as Necessary to Saluation As is the belief of that General Doctrin which all Christians Own The Reason is clear Becaus the Testimony the Authority of the same God and the same Eternal Verity as now we must Suppose Warrant 's as well the One as the Other Again If They say And They must say it God hath not revealed in the whole Bible one Article of Protestancy and therfore the Belief of not one reformed Article is Necessary to Saluation It follows That this Religion Thus Separated If not Protestancy is no part of Christian Religion from the true center of Divine Faith Gods infallible Revelation is no Christian Religion at all But stands tottering on Fancy and fancy only which is a great Verity 16. Occasionally I here Answer to a Trivial Objection of others that much Extol the Clemency of Protestants who like Papists do not Excommunicate all that believe not as They Believe Good Reason say I For why should they Excommunicate any for not Believing a Religion which is built on Fancy Could they judge in Conscience or Assure us That what they hold as Sectaries were Revealed by The want of Zeal in Sectaries for Protestancy God Necessary to Saluation or worth Believing They should so far stand for Gods Cause and set so great a Value on it as to Induce all even by spiritual Menaces it is a Sweeter way Then to Deprive Men of their Lives and Fortunes to embrace Their Novelties But Alas The real Guilt of Schism which lyes like lead at their Harts makes them most frigid in Advancing a Religion laid hold on by meer chance and a most unfortunate Casuality Almighty God soften these concealed Harts by sorrowful Repentance and Forgive all Sectaries Their double great sin both
The Sectary interpret's These and the like passages as his own Fancy suggesteth And if this Fancy hit not right He is undon for He hath no surer Principle to rely on either in this or any other Controversy but His own self conceipted Gloss The Reason is He hath no infallible All sure Principles fail Sectaries Church no clear Scripture no undoubted consent of Fathers no Vniversal Tradition distinct from his Gloss that can so much as make it probable Therfore his own unproved interpretation Doth all it is his last Principle and Strongest Hold He never goes Higher nor can advance one step further I am so confident of this Assertion that I challenge our Adversary to come to a just trial in this one Controversy A fair Offer And if He can Answer to our Authorities now quoted upon the Assurance of plain Scripture undoubted Tradition or the plain Consent of Fathers I 'll cry Peccavi and Ask forgivenes of my rashnes Thus they proceed 9. On the Other side when the Catholick interprets Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries against his Faith He never makes his interpretation to be the The last Proof of a Catholick is not his Interpretation greatest light or surest Proof of His Doctrin but most prudently Answers I am bound to interpret your less clear Authority brought Against me becaus I am Assured Aliunde by the strongest Principles Imaginable whether my Gloss hit right or no that my Faith is most certain Christs Church tell 's me so Fathers Confirm it None ever Opposed it but known Hereticks Here saith the Catholick are my last He hath assured Principles to rely on Principles Upon these I rest And can you my Adversary Imagin that I being so well grounded Ought to leave my certain Principles for a Dark sentence or your unproved Conjectures It is impossible You will se this more clearly by one Example The An Instance Catholick Believes a Purgatory The Sectary saith His belief is against Scripture Wisdom 3. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them No such matter Answers the Catholick for if the word Righteous point at such as are perfectly just and need no Purgatory your proof is proofles or if the word Torments particularly signifies as it doth a racking or torturing forced on Malefactors to confess the Truth before a Judge the Text is wide enough from your purpose For no such punishment shall touch the just departed Now mark The Catholicks just Demand saith the Catholick Will you Sir have me to part from clear and certain Principles wheron my Faith relies for a Scripture whilst the very sense of that Scripture is at least doubtful and obscure and therfore may be well explicated without violence no way Contrary to the Doctrin of my Church It would be a sin and a great one against prudence to yeild upon so slight a ground I should make saith He an ill bargain should I as it were exchange the sure Principles A woful Exchange of sure Principles for uncertain Glosses of my Faith for your uncertain Glosses and you have no more Though you read the Text now cited till your eyes be weary 10. Upon the Occasion now offered give me leave to Tell you one great Truth Viz. All of us must Vnavoidibly either firmly Adhere to the Doctrin of our Catholick A great Verity worthy of Reflection Church in these points of Controversy Or may Sectaries Glosses sway with us we shall be sure to Assent to that which is not only an Heresy but according to Ordinary Prudence and clear Principles a thousand times more improbable and Difficil Observe it in our present Controversy Sectaries hold it no improbability to say That the Souls of good men do not enjoy compleat Happines till the Day of Judgement Any thing may pass but Popery yet this very Assertion if we respect Authority The Improbable proceeding of Sectaries and reason also abstracting from Faith is less probable then our Church Doctrin is Those quoted Scriptures prove Nothing to this purpose as we shall show presently for to find mercy at that great Day inferr's not that all Souls must stay out of Heaven till the second Coming of Christ to judgement Note the like strain in other Controversies They will have me to Deny the Infallibility of my Church and will give me in Place of it their own fallible word which I am sure cannot Stand in Competition with the sole Humane Authority of my Church They will have us to deny the Popes Supremacy And what Do they inforce on us in lieu of that Nothing but Their own jarring heads that agree in Nothing And these must Teach and Govern us in place of a Pope They will have me to Disbelieve my Scripture interpreted by the Church and to believe their Interpretations who are both Churchles and Scriptureles Mark well and judge you whether that which Sectaries They would drive us upon greater Improbabilities would Drive us upon be not in a high measure more improbable and difficile then what we now believe and it must needs be so for as I told you the only support of their whole Religion as Protestancy is neither Scripture nor the Consent of Fathers but their own Glosses forced on both without further warrant Follow them closely through all Controversies you will find I speak Truth Contrarywise The Catholicks Security when He interpret's when the Catholick Interpret's He hath ever at hand a certain Principle distinct from his Interpretation which is his security For saith He I must either Interpret an Authority when it is Dubious or desert those Convincing Principles wheron my Faith is grounded which are without Controversy most certain But to do so is madnes and a notorious sin against Prudence Thus much by way of a Notandum Our Adversaries Objections 11. We come now to Combate a little with our Adversaries Objections but the Quarrel will not be long For besides what is refuted Already and some other Parergons not much as I think to the Purpose the remainder may be easily dispatched 12. He saith first Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what They declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation Mark the word Declare and se Sir what a law you lay on A hard Rule given the Fathers the Fathers they must tell their Readers when they write My Masters so much you are to believe on the account of Divine Revelation and so much not or if They fail in this Declaration they may as you seem to say afterwards speak only their own fancies and Imaginations Contra. St. Austins writes of Purgatory and holds it as we shall se presently But Declares not Explicitly that the Doctrin is of Divine Revelation nor Explicitly that it is his own fancy If therfore He Declares neither Explicitly upon what Principle The Argument is
Force them to Acknowledge what I say to be most True when they can allâ—ge nothing probably for their Novelty against our Plain Scripture Against the Ancient Doctrin of a Vniversal Learned Church And the Authority of so many Fathers now Cited 8. We might yet entertain you with One or Two Difficult â— drawn from the weak Reason of Sectaries solved Difficulties more Drawn from Reason Wherat our Adversaries Measuring Gods Power by their own Wit or Fancy Stumble not a Little One is A Body cannot be in two Places at Once Just so the Peasant Thinks the sun cannot be bigger then a Broad Sieve Because never learning Mathematiks He Measures All by his silly Imagination And so the Sectary Doth Here Because He is no Scholler in Christs School But ad Rem Who Tell 's Him that a Body cannot be in two Places at once Hath God Revealed this in Scripture Nitâ—her Faith nor Philosophy against th being of a Body in two places No But Philosophy Teaches it What Philosophy Aristotles No For the Received Doctrin of his School is That a Body to say nothing of a Soule That is in two places Head and Feet at Once Individually Considered by it Self is no more Actually It s own Local Presence or Place Then the Organ of the Eye is of it Self its own Actual Vision Or Fire A Body is not by it self it s own local presence An other Argument of Sectaries ungrounded by it self Actually Heat This is common Philosophy if That of Sectaries be Better let them Vouchsafe to Learn us Otherwise Not by Saying it is Better But by some Clear and Vndeniable Principle 9. An other Argument is Drawn from the Great Indignities wherunto Christs Sacred Body is lyable if it be in the Holy Sacrament As That a Mouse or Wors Creature may Eat it Vp c. Here we may Justly Exclame with St. Austin upon another Occasion lib. 22. de Civit. c. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis Omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas c. Se with what Slight Arguments Mans weak Wit Opposeth Gods Omnipotency Speak therfore Truth Is it not a greater The pretended Indignities of Sectaries shewed â—rivolous Indignity that Christ Permitt's a Sinner to Receive him with a filthy conscience Then That He lics in the Stomach of a Rat or Mouse Say yet Had a worm Suk't his Precious Blood when it was shed on the Ground in his Passion or a Spider bit his Sacred flesh in the Crib of Bethlem Would that Indignity think ye Have Forced men from a Belief of his Real true Body These are childish Arguments not worth the Answering And here you have almost an End of a Digression which I Think cannot be well Answered 10. I Exceed not in saying It cannot be Answered Some points Briefly touched on wherunto Sectaries are desired to Answer And therfore Tell our Adversaries if it shall please them to Reply They are first to Prove and by certain Principle that Christs Sacred Words now Alleged for our Catholick Verity are Misunderstood by us And ought to have Their Determinate sense of a Sign Figure Metonymy and no Other What we here Require is most Reasonable For if my Faith fall upon Their sense They are obliged to Prove it Revealed by Almighty God Otherwise Vpon sound Principles Contrary to all Reason They 'l Vrge me to Believe what an infinit Verity never Spak 2. They are to Prove And by a clear Principle also That in such an Age after Christ There was an Orthodox Church that Believed their Doctrin of a Sign Figure Metonymy Only c. And Publikly Opposed ours of Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist To do this More is required then to cite a few broken Sentences of Fathers half Abused and wholy Maimed Sentences of Fathers Proofles weighed out of Their Circumstances All which put together Come not neer to a Probable much less to a Certain Principle That 's able to Evert the undeniable clear Catholick Doctrin of other Fathers And the Authority of our whole learned Church with Them 3. They are not only to Interpret the Fathers now Alleged For Fancy without Proof may pervert the clearest Words God ever Spak But when Their Interpretation When Sectaries Interpret the Fathers They are obliged to prove their Interpretation is made They must Shew it grounded upon a contrary Received Principle as Strong as the Express Words of those Fathers are 4. They are to Show That Christ our Lord when He uttered those sacred words to His Disciples This is my Body And then foresaw the universal supposed Errour of Believing his Real Presence in the Eucharist would follow in all Orthodox Churches And from no other Cause but His own Express and significant Speaking They are I say Obliged to Prove And by an undeniable Principle that He shut up in the clearest Proposition He ever uttered that Dark sense which They draw from it And that He did so to Deceive the World Sectaries grant Christians to have been universally Deceived What Sectaries Grant in their Belief of the Real Presence And that the supposed Errour Arose from Christs plain words is Evident For the whole Catholick Church that Believes this Mystery doth so Because Truth it self said plainly vvithout Reserve This is my Body Finally That Christ our Lord would speak as He did is Manifest by the Gospel And that He then foresaw the Supposed Vniversal Errour would be also Believed by force of His words in the greatest part of Christendom is most Vndubitable Because of the perfect Knowledge He had of Future Things 5. May it please Sectaries to Proceed candidly They are to cast a serious Reflection on pass't Ages and Ponder well who those were that Patronized Their Doctrin and Opposed ours They are to compare and justly to Ballance their Obscure Scripture vvith our clear Texts The vveak Testimonies of Their misconstrued Fathers with our contrary now Quoted Authorities Their Novelty with our Ancient Believed Faith The sentiment of their little late Congregation concerning this Mystery with the Judgement and Belief of our long standing Roman Church c. And if when All is Don They can come to a sound Principle Wherby it may Appear to every Rational man That their Scripture Fathers and Church Authority Outweigh as it were Ours Or have more force to establish their Novelty then what is now Alleged to make our Catholick Doctrin most stably sure We will begin to Think They may more laudably write Controversies Hereafter But if contrarywise you find Them Gravelled at every Difficulty now Proposed and hear nothing distinctly Replyed to upon undoubted Principles or Further confuted then a loos wandring Discours will carry on a Weak Cause I 'll once more crave Their Pardon and Plainly Say Our Arguments and Reasons cannot be Ansvvered CHAP. VIII The Conclusion The Churches Evidence 1. WE have seen Enough in the Precedent Discourses That True Religion is not as Sectaries make Protestancy
Ground and I would se it Answered 4. Some perhaps will say the Doctrin of these Sectaries relies on Gods Word and that alone is a sure and infallible Principle I answer if we speak of Sectaries particular Doctrin as reformed They have not one Article clearly no nor so much as probably grounded on Gods express word for Scripture saith no where that Faith only justifies that all Churches are fallible that there is no Purgatory no Sacrifice of the Altar c. Ergo these Doctrins want certain Principles Now if they Reply Though these particular Doctrins are not express in Scripture yet the general Truths of Christianity are And They rely on these not careing for more I Answer Though these Verities as revealed be infallible in themselves yea and infallible also to the Catholick that admit's of them as infallible for the certain Testimony of his Church yet no man no Church no Oracle of Truth ever hitherto assured the Protestant infallibly that they are infallible for all these with him are fallible therfore They are removed from the nature of being certain Principles in order to his Faith and Doctrin also unles He say that the Objective infallibility of Scripture is evident ex terminis to the very eyes that read the book which is proved improbable Disc 1. c. 12. n. 4. Wherof more presently I Answer 2. If the Objective infallibility of these great Verities be a certain Principle to the Protestant it either Derives into his understanding that teaches them a Subjective infallbility in order to his Doctrin or leaves him as He was before lyable to mistake and errour if the first be granted He is Subjectively infallible when He teaches and this He will not hear of Grant the second viz. That He is lyable to mistake and errour in his teaching He may well miss of the objective Truth because He only saith fallibly what God speaks infallibly and consequently his Doctrin ultimatly resolved saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare what God speaks and it may be not for my Declaration is fallible and may be fals Therfore you Christians who hear me can believe nothing infallibly becaus my very Teaching is doubtful And it is against the nature of a doubt to convey certainty into any understanding Se Disc 1. c. 4. n. 7. 8. Now if you Ask why it is doubtful though he speak truth as it were by Chance I answer the Reason is Because he hath no Pâ—iâ—ciple which determinates his teaching to say that Infallibly which God speak's infallibly The External Principle of Scripture makes him no more Infallible than the worst of Hereticks who read it And all other Principles He works by are lyable to errour And here briefly you se the difference between the Truth of an Act and its Certitude The first only sayes in contingent matters a conformity with the Object The other a necessary Determination to Truth by Principles not liable to errour And Sectaries alwaies want these Principles whilst They teach a Doctrin fallibly If here they take recourse to moral certainty only and think that sufficient turn to the fift Chapter of the first Discours and you will se them evidently confuted It is lost labour to repeat again what is sayd in that place 5. These grounds supposed you shall se how Mr. Pooles Exceptions against them comes to nothing Let us saith He P. 9. n. 2. examin a little the strength of this pretty Proposition viz. That if we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity Iewes Turks and Pagans are as well perswaded of their wayes as we Christians of ours What a mad Assertion saith He is this that nothing is credible but what is infallibly certain and that there is no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities c. To this I answer in a word you shall have the Reason hereafter Nothing in true Christianity is credible but what both may and must be believed by most certain faith in other moral matters things are morally credible though we arrive not to certainty but Faith hath its exceptions Mr. Poole goes on I am not infallibly certain that there is such a place as Iamaica for it is possible that all Geographers may mistake and Travellers may lye Therfore I am as uncertain that there is a sea passage to China by the North c. I am not certain if I find a Calf in a field but that it may as some time it was drop't from the Clouds but will any sober man think that it came not from a cow He hath other instances to this purpose And the man if I mistake not would here liken the cettainty of that Truth we have of Christianity to the certainty we have of Iamaica and a calf coming from a Cow and the Doctrin of Judaism He would have so improbable as if one should say the Calf was dropt from the Clouds In a word if He dispute with a Jew He will hear that his whole Discours is Petitio principij and that his Instances of Iamaica and a calf are nothing to the purpose because he supposeth what should be proved viz. That the Doctrin of a Iew is so improbable to that Sect as this Antagonist makes it And that the taught Doctrin of Sectaries is so highly Probable in order to them as is here supposed Alas the Iew wil utterly silence Mr. Poole with this convincing Reason What ever becomes of my Doctrin I tell you your Protestant taught Doctrin which may be fals is no better than mine because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible Revelation which cannot be fals That it cannot be thus resolved is evident because a Doctrin that is fallible and may be fals though true in it self as fallible and lyable to falsity cannot be as it were cast or laid on Gods infallible Veracity that essentially Disowns and rejects all Doctrin that 's fallible and may be fals Therfore as Fallible ultimately resolved it must be brought to its one home which is not Gods infallible Revelation but to meer fancy or some other uncertainty For example Put the case that an English Synode truely Defines Christ Iesus is God and man yet so that the Definition by vertue of all the Principles it hath or its own intrinsick merit is fallibly Delivered One reflects on this Definition and consider's the Truth of it which is a conformity with its object as also the Weaknes of it which is Fallibility for want of Principles that Determin it to Truth I Ask now why Do Sectaries believe Christ to be God and man by this Fallible Definition 'T is one of your Acts of Faith is it not You must Answer you Believe so because God hath said it in Scripture Very good But I Ask again Hath he said this Fallibly by a Revelation that 's capable of falsity No must evidently His Revelation is infinitly certain Ergo I say your Definition or Act of Faith Quâ fallibilis or as meerly fallible cannot
Themselves and the evidence of the former that is of the Churches infallibility not only denyed and Disputed down by Protestants but also questioned by their own Authors You End This Question I chalenge the whole Club of Iesuits solidly to Answer I Answer very catagorically without Clubbing it and say first The Catholick hath more then meer probable Evidence of the Doctrin of the Curches infallibility The Sectary by his own Principles hath not so much as probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Independent of the Church I say 2. Though the Sectary had probable evidence of the Scriptures infallibility yet it is a useles book in his hands 13. The first Assertion contain's two parts I prove the first The Catholick hath a Church evidenced by Vnparallel'd Miracles by conversions of whole Nations from Infidelity to our Christian Verities He hath a Church manifested by all those other Glorious Cognisances of Truth which the Apostolical Church shewed to the world not one is excepted as is proved Disc 1. c. 9. 10. If therfore that Apostolical Church was prudently believed to deliver infallible Doctrin and this before Scripture was writ by the inducements of those illustrious marks and Characters of Truth wherwith it was adorned our Roman Catholick Church that undeniably evidenceth the very like signs is proved upon that Reason to deliver also infallible Doctrin For where there are the same effects and signs of infallible Doctrin the Infallibility of it is as it were witnessed by them otherwise such Motives would be both inefficacious and useles whilst God shewes them for this end that all may give Assent to his infallible Verities taught by that Oracle where they evidently appear and I believe led on by the inducements yet must forsooth only believe uncertainties or fallible Doctrin that may be fals 14. The Doctrin therfore of the Roman Catholick Church is now as well made immediately Credible by vertue of these Motives as the Apostolical Church was before the writing of Scripture And These Motives in order to the Learned and those who prudently seek for Truth first and most immediatly Demonstrate the Church or Those persons that teach infallible Doctrin by whose Authority we learn what and where infallible Truth is professed That these marks and signs immediatly belong to the Persons that Teach infallibly and not to Scripture is undoubted Mark 16. 17. These signs shall follow in my name they shall cast out Divels c. Again not only the Doctor of the Gentils 2. Cor. 12. 12. call's the wonders He wrought Signa Apostolatus sui the marks of his Apostleship but a greater Doctor also Truth it self Iohn 10. 25. when the Jewes would not believe him remitted them to the evidence of his Miracles The works which I do in the name of my Father these give Testimony of me And vers 38. If you will not believe me believe the works Works therfore and wonders Annexed to the persons or Church that Teaches Forceably induce prudent men to believe the certain Doctrin Delivered by them who shew such wonders In a word here is all I would say No Religion is evidently true or fals ex Terminis upon the bare Affirmation of Him that sayes its true or fals Therfore it must have the Evidence of its Credibility manifested before Christians admit of the Doctrin But this Evidence is first manifested by such signs and Miracles as Christ and the Apostles personally shewed to the world and by vertue of them induced Aliens from Truth to believe it as Infallible Doctrin Therfore whatever Church shewes such Miracles the like signs and wonders as Christ and his Apostles manifested plead's as well for the Infallibility of its Doctrin witnessed by such Miracles as the Apostolical Church Did. But the Roman Catholick Church only and no other shewes these Miracles Efficacy of Doctrin Vniversality strange Conversions and other most Convincing Motives Therfore if the first Christians induced by such evidence firmly believed the Apostolical Doctrin to be infallible which was not ex terminis evidently infallible we may now upon the very like Inducements not for the inducements as the last Motive Believe as securely upon our Churches Authority the Doctrin taught by it to be infallible Deny this Evidence of our Motives and we force Sectaries to prove the Denial by as sure Principle as we Assert them Grant them and our Argument is concluding And here you have more them a meer probable Evidence of the Churches infallibility 15. An Other Argument for it besides those Scriptures cited Disc 2. C. 6. n. â— is not only probable but unanswerably Convincing hinted at Disc 1. C. 2. n. 9. Christ as is confessedly granted both by Catholicks and Sectaries sent Pastors up and down the world to teach Christian Doctrin But he never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be fals Ergo He sent them to teach his own infallible Doctrin and Infallibly I prove it He sent none to teach any other Doctrin then that which may be ultimately resolved into Gods infallible veracity revealing Truth But that which is ultimatly resolved into an infallible Veracity can neither be fals nor fallible Doctrin because God as I now said ownes no fallible Doctrin that may be fals Therfore this Resolution of an Act tending fallibly into Devine Revelation is rather Non-sense then Faith I infallible believe Christ to be God and Man because Gods infallible Revelation will have me to believe so For No Infallible Motive applyed to my vnderstanding as it is infallible can draw from me a fallible belief of a Doctrin that 's meerly fallible But All Sectaries whether Arians Donatists or Protestants Teach only fallible Doctrin and fallibly Ex parte Docentis Ergo they Teach not that Doctrin which Christ sent his Ministers to teach or that can be resolved into Gods infallible Veracity revealing Truth Yet most certainly some Christian Pastors by vertue of Christ Mission teach his infallible Doctrin Infallibly and these are the Pastors of the Roman Catholick Church who only lay claim to Infallibility and prove it also as the Apostles Did by the Antecedent Evidence of those Motives which the Church shewes and manifesteth to the world as is now Declared I chalenge Mr. Poole directly and Catagorically to Answer this my Reason without talking any more of Clubbs or running into Generalities and in as few clear words as I Deliver it 16. Now to prove the other part of my Assertion Viz. Sectaries by their own principles have not so much as a probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility without Church Authority Here is my principle The infallibility of Scripture which contains many Difficulties tell 's strange stories and seemingly often speak's contradictions is not by it self or own light so evidently Credible to the Eyes of a Reader as the infallibility of the Apostolical Church was evident by Miracles and Conversions to the Primitive Christians who believed it infallibly At least S. Austin judged it