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
Succession of Their Church of Their Bishops of Their Pastors by virtue of any Immemorial Tradition Let Sectaries must solve Their own Argument them also Vouchsafe to give in that Title wherby They lay claim to a Possession of Truth What ever is Allegeable for the One or Other whether it be Tradition Scripture or Fathers will suffer more Contradiction from innumerable Called Christians then the least Article if any were little of our Catholick Faith Therfore they must Solve their own Argument The Reason is If they plead Traditioin for a continued Succession of a Protestant Church ever since Christ the whole Christian World yea even Protestants themselves Oppose the Paradox If Their Plea for Pure Protestancy be Scripture They 'l meet with as many Adversaries Having not one Syllable for it in Gods Word If finally They make a Belief Common to all Christians to be Their Essential Faith None likes the Doctrin Both Friends and Enemies Catholicks and Haereticks stand against them Therfore I say once more They must solve Their own Objection The Argument is solved 6. Now you shall have my Answer And I say An Argument That Drawes all the Force it has from the Opposition of Enemies And They were all known Opposition of Hereticks no proof against it Haereticks that Opposed our Catholick Tradition Destroys not only Evident Truths but also Impugn's Christ and Christian Religion Atheists make Objections Against God Jewes Against Christ yea And the very Instance now allowed of supposeth some wilful Zelots contrary to the common received Tradition of so many Monarchs undoubted Succession You Christian Truths meet with Adversaries He that will side with such Opponents shall at last desert Christianity se Therfore How weak this way of Arguing is Believe it There is no one Christian Verity but hath its Adversaries Therfore the Man that will Side with such Opponents and Cavil also Because a Company of Dismembred and jarring Sectaries Do so must look how He striks lest he cut to deep and Wound those He would not hurt For at last He shall be forced to shake of the very name an Notion of a Christian I 'll say in a word what is more amply laid forth Disc 1. Chap. 7. n. 4. 5. We have an Ancient Church against these Scattered Companies of Novellists A Church united in Doctrin Against their Iarrs and Endles Dissentions A Glorious Church manifested by such Marks and Motives as made the world Christian And these plead against Their Vnevidenced Opinions Finally we have most certain Tradition against their uncertain Guesses Vpon such Proofs which cannot be shaken we stand Therfore unles our Adversaries beside the Multitude of Opponents bring rational Proofs against our Possession which Rest at last upon undeniable Principles We are safe and cannot be Danted Alas The meer Number of known Enemies without Evidence Clamours of known Enemies without a rational Trial. Proofles to warrant what is Pretended Seem's much like unjust Clamours in a Disordered Common-wealth Loud 'T is true but as Sensles as Loud when Reason ought to have place and plead the Cause by Proofs and Principles Therfore we Appeal to Principles may They bear Sway we are content if not We told you Above Though as many Hereticks rise up against us As there are Atheists opposite to God And Iewes to Christ We Regard them not if they come Vnarmed and only Fight by the Votes of their own Scattered and Devided Companies But enough is said of this Subject in the Discours now Cited 7. Here I 'll only Add one Consideration more And it is to Assure our Adversaries Though They run to pass't Ages that is the whole world Over and Gather all the Votes of Enemies either against the Possession or the Ancient Tradition of our Church They only give us a Number of jarring Suffrages which bound up together cannot Amount to a weak Probability A weak probability though granted cannot clear Sectaries from Schism However Let Truth suffer Suppose them weakly Probable is this enough think you to warrant Sectaries Foule Schism Is here Ground enough to Iustify an Evident Divorce made from an Ancient Church wherin Their Ancestours Lived peaceably time out of mind Age after Age without Trouble and Disturbance No. All is improbable For what ever is less then Evidence Grounded on sure Principles will shew it self to be as it is a Proofles Cavil Against so long prescription and immemorial Possession of our Ancient Faith 8. Some may yet Reply All that 's Said hitherto An Objection Shows only a Personal Succession of Popes Prelates Pastors and People in foregoing Ages But is far from Proving the main point in Controversy They mean a full and quiet Possession of Truth which we make so Hereditary to These Popes and Bishops Descending from St. Peter That it was never lost This They say is to be Proved I Answer We are yet obliged to prove nothing For the very Testimony the Vnanimous When the Church gives in Her Evidence Sectaries are to Disprove it Consent the Constant Tradition of our united and learned Church without more are most pregnant Arguments as well for the Possession of Apostolical Truth laid claim to as For the Personal Succession of our Catholick Pastors Therfore unles Sectaries can weaken this Plea by a Contrary Evidence more strong then our Churches Tradition is and then the Proving is incumbent on them we stand firm upon our Olim Possideo which cannot be shaken I say by a contrary Evidence Stronger then our Churches Testimony and Tradition Speak now it 's your time of Proving What have you to Alledge against This sole Want of Principles makes Sectaries Cavils improbable Consent and Tradition Is it Scripture Produce it And we are silenced if not Vouchsafe to Hold your Peace Hereafter Have you the Consent of Fathers or Ancient Councils to make your cause Good against our Pleading Tradition and the Ancient Possession of Truth with it No. Examen These learned Volums you 'l not find one clear sentence favoring your unjust Process Against a Church That made your Progenitors Christians What then Remains Sectaries own Votes as weightles as the Arians to Scare us with But your own-self Simple Votes and if these Cast as it were in A ballance Against our Ancient Possession can out weigh it and so Deprive us of our Right The Arians long since had Destroyed us all for Their Votes were as weighty as united as yours Yes and more numerous 9. Well Though we are not Obliged to prove A Few Proofs briefly hinted at though we are not obliged to prove what both Tradition and our Ancient Possession Convince I 'll yet Hint most briefly at a few Proofs in Behalf of our just Possession First it is an undeniable Verity that Christ founded a Catholick Church And 'T is as Evident Sectaries Confess it that He invested the Roman Catholick Church in an Ancient Possession of Truth 2. It is an undoubted Verity
the Plea of Possession and be tryed by the Law I Answer It 's a strange Piece of an Argument The Question ought not to be removed from the Plea of Possession And say it must not be removed Vnles you can Show by your Logick That when A Man hath two Good Proofs for a Verity He ought not to make use of both but is to Content Himself with the one only Thus it is We prove the Churches Infallibility by significant Scripture as a Possessor Bonae Fidei proves the Right to His Lands by his Ancient Writings And An Instance as He Add's to His Writings a just Possession So we plead Also Possession in our Case Why therfore should we throw Away this second proof taken from Possession unles An Evident Law Come Against it which we expect from you but Fear it not Sir you Possess a Benefice And can if need be show How you came by it whether it be a Writing or some Thing equivalent it Imports not You have beside the Possession of it Suppose now Any One would Endeavour to Disturbe you or Doubt of your supposed Right You would Plead both These Titles Would you not Answer This and your Objection is solved 17. A Fifth Objection page 628. Lyes I know not How wrap't up in twenty Obscurities It is much to This sense We must prove that there is no other way to Interpret the Law of Christ but by our Church Withall That the Church cannot come into a Possession of Any Thing but what was Originally Given Her by the Legislator Mark upon what Duties we are Sectaries put us on Duties which they cannot Comply with Put. We must prove And by the â—aw For Here is the last Trial with These men that our Church Interpret's faithfully whilst They sit Down speechles as it were in their own Cause And must not prove That their Church Interpret's better Moreover Note also by the way How the whole Question is The Question is removed from the Law to Interpretations now removed from the Law and comes to This Issue whether Our Interpretation or Theirs be more Conformable to Gods Word Most certainly Their Interpretation is worth little becaus confessedly fallible And Therfore Proceed's not from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost As is Amply Declared The proof lies on our Adversaries Disc 2. c. 9. n. 7. 8. 9. where we propose the Difficulty And Prove That One Only Oracle Christs own Spouse which is Assisted by the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture Infallibily Now if our Adversary Except's Against our Scriptures And Reasons there Alleged The Task of Proving will ly on Him For He must either Prove That our Proofs are Proofles or That His Far surpass them in worth And a clearer Evidence And He will find an Insuperable Difficulty in Both. All I say now is Though the Interpretation of our Church were Fallible it is as good as yours And if we respect its Age which gives some Preheminence it may be Accounted much better We have largely Answered to the other part of the Objection in the whole first Discours And Proved that the Church cannot Come into the Possession of Any Doctrin but what is Allowed of by the Legislator It 's otherwise A fallible Church may boldly Err. I am sure with your Church which becaus Fallible may Alter when and as often As Sectaries Pleas. To end Our Adversary Should have known that the Matter now Debated Depend's not Immediatly on the Churches Infallibility for Here is our Immediate Plea The Church was Once true And ever since its first Foundation Pleaded Constantly this quiet Possession of Truth Ergo unles that first ground be shaken And this Pleading Possession be Evidently Disproved it ought to be supposed true still And thus You se how the obligation of Proving lyes irremovably on our Adversaries 19. There yet Remain some other wordy Objections but I wave them becaus They are solved And in real Truth are meer Suppositions and no Proofs Sometimes They will Have Tradition to be Proved which is its Own manifest Proof Sometimes They tell us that a bare Possession in matters of Religion is a sensles Plea They suppose we have no more Somtimes that we are plainly the Imposers And They Not Aggressors And both are supposed I pass these and now hasten to one Objection more solved in a Third Proposition CHAP. XII An other Objection And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism 1. SOme may Argue further And say we have A simple Objection hitherto Supposed a Wrong Principle Viz. That our Errours are to be shewed us Evidently which is not so For it is Enough to make them known by strong Moral Proofs These sufficiently Convince us as Guiltly And Clear Them of the crime of Schism Neither can we have stronger Arguments Then moral in this Matter Becaus Principles of Faith are not Evident in Themselves All Discours Therfore built on Them must Fall short of Metaphysical Evidence Observe in Passing If our Protestants As They think Bring strong moral Arguments Against our Supposed Errours We give Them As Good as They Bring And clear our Cause by as strong good moral Solutions to those Arguments They say the one and we the other Who must be Believed Or Who must Judge here And if Again They hold themselves by Force of such moral Proofs Acquit of Schism which all Sectaries Pretend to we Charge it again on them By far more valid Arguments Who Iudges now Who is to be Believed Neither of us yet For Hitherto we only Talk without Principles Yet the Catholick hath his Principle in Readines A LONG ANCIENT POSSESSION now insisted on The Catholick Answer founded on a certain Principle which is eleven Points of the Law But By what good Law do our Protestants take this Right from him or Turn him out of Possession By what strong moral Proof grounded on an undubitable moral Principle can They convince us of Errours and clear Themselves of Schism I 'll Tell you and 't is a Truth They have neither We would Gladly Hear of Protestants Proofs against us reduced to sound Principles Proof nor Principle to rely on But their own Proofles word If I wrong them They can Right Themselselves and convince me by good Arguments in Form To what is Added of the Vnevidence of Faith I Answer Though the Principles Therof For example the Words of Scripture or the Definitions of Councils want Metaphysical Evidence in themselves Becaus only revealed Principles of Faith once admitted of may ground a certain Conclusion Truths Yet They are certain And once Admitted of as Certain can Ground a Discours which if well Deduced need 's no more to Faulter or Deviate from good Form then if we Argued out of Euclid's Principles Thus much per transennam Now to answer the Argumen Home Here is 2. My Third Proposition Protestants Cannot so much as Probably Acquit Themselves of Schism nor Probably impeach
Disciplina quâ fiunt Christiani Vbi enim apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum expositionum omnium traditionum Christianorum The sense of this whole sentence is this We are not therfore to appeal to Scriptures nor are our debates to be determined here wherin there is no victory or a very uncertain one For although there were no Collation or comparing of places together that might stay the two Advers parts yet the order of things requires this to be first proposed which is now only to be disputed viz. To whom the Faith appertains wherof the Scriptures are From whom and by whom when and by what Persons that Discipline is wherby they were made Christians For where there appeares the Truth of Discipline that is as Macereus and Pamelius interpret the Rule and of Christian Faith there you shall have the Truth of Scriptures the Interpretation of it likewise and of all Christian Tradition Observe well The whole context of these words saith first that debates can never be ended by Scripture only 2. That before we Dispute by Scripture we ought to know and by other Reasons who those are to whom Scripture belong's 3. That where the Discipline or Rule of Christian Faith is previously known by other grounds distinct from Scripture there you have the True Interpretation of Scripture and all Christian Tradition After a full ponderation of these words I leave any man to Judge that loves Truth whether that Doctrin be not here most remarkably expressed which is taught and mantained by the Roman Catholick Church 26. Mr. Poole from his 12. page to his 37. hath no work for me for his whole strain is to run on in cavils and finding fault with such Arguments of Catholicks as He forsooth judges inefficacious to prove the Churches Infallibility whereas God knows Had He had where withall to do it He should have gon a contrary way and proved positively by Scripture Fathers and Tradition the Churches Fallibility but Herein He is silent because in real Truth He hath nothing to say The ground of the Churches Infallibility which Mr. Poole never toucheth on is briefly hinted at above n. 15. and further laid forth Disc 1. c. 1. and 2. and I desire an express Answer to it Now and then He hath something against the Writings of the Ancient Fathers who with him are fallible because they speak of the Churches Infallibility and the good man never reflect's that he and his little book are far more fallible I wave such trifles 27. Page 37. He begins with his Distinctions of the Judge and rule of Faith and saith first The supream and truely Infallible Judge of all Controversies is God and Christ. Very Good but nothing is yet Done unles you fallible man can say in all the Differences between us what God and Christ speak what is judged for you and against us which is so far from being a Truth proved that in Every Controversy it is the very thing in Question and meerly supposed by you without either Proof or Principle You say again The External and political Judges to wit the Governours of the Church are subordinate to the supream Judge Answ Very true But what then Marry this followes that if they really contradict the supreme Judges sentence They must give their subjects leave to argue whether it be right in the sight of God Hold Sir a little If you rationally contradict them you must first prove your self wiser then these subordinate Judges are and Evidence their Errours by undoubted Principles which is impossible For either these Judges are Infallible or fallible if you grant the first you cannot rationally contradict them And if they be fallible How dare you a private fallible man speak contrary when your very Contradiction is no better then their opposite Assertion is I mean purely and poorly Fallible In a word without any certain Principle to rely on which you shall never have you too boldly take leave to oppose your Judges and make your self a Rebel by it You say 3. There is in Every particular Person a secret Judge which is called Reason or Conscience I must Ask once more what then Have not Arians Pelagians Quaquers and all other Sectaries reason as well as you What therfore this Instrument of reason can apprehend judge and work in you after your fashion it doth the like in these other after Their fashion Do you not therfore se how little you advance your cause by talking of your Reason which unles it be Evidenced by sure Principles to be better then that of your Adversaries proves just nothing And add what private Spirit you pleas to help your Reason out They will talk as much of their contrary Spirit to help theirs These two points are so largely declared and proved Disc 2. c. 5. that I believe your Answer to them will prove unreasonable 28. Page 40. You goe first very warily to work for no man knowes what you would say Then you are manly resolute in your Decisions We willingly acknowledge say you and reverently esteem the true and rightful Governors of the Church orderly assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whose decisions are to be highly valued c. Here is no man knowes what Pray you speak out and name more clearly the Church you reverently esteem of Tell us who these true and rightful Governors of it are and do not put us of with an old piece of a long since rejected Doctrin They are those who hold closely to the Truths of Scripture for we must know who these are Finally say when Councels are regularly assembled not according to your Fancy but which will be a long work for you let us have lawes prescribed wherby we may know by sure Principles more particularly without this general talk when Councels are orderly assembled or unorderly A word now to your resolute Definitions You say first this Judge of the Church is not infallible but subject to errour Answer And so are you Sir also fallible when you oppose your self to the Judgement of a Church whether it be your own English Church or the Roman Catholick If therfore the Judgement of both Churches were supposed fallible as the one is not your singular Judgement is no more but fallible also and what gain you by that Thus much only You Contradict the Church fallibly and the Church again Contradicts you fallibly and thus you may remain Contradicting one another to the Worlds End without the Decision of one Controversy unles you make it Evident by undoubted Principles that you are to judge the Church when you please and the Church is not to medle with you or your Iudgement You say 2. this judge of the Church being subject to higher Authority and tyed to a higher rule if its Decisions be Manifestly repugnant to that Superiour Rule they are not to be obeyed Answ You purely suppose what should be proved Viz. That the Decisions of the
of them certainly knows what he sayes They have Christs Promises of a Spirit of Truth ' abyding with some Christian Teachers find them where they can for ever to the end of the world but now They must say because all Pastors are fallible That Christ keep 's not his word if all may deceive and Teach both fallible and false Doctrin Finally they must own such Believers as S. Paul mentioneth Who receive the word of God as it Truly is the word of God but have not one Pastor or Doctor that dare show his face and say he Teaches this word infallibly Yet infallible Believers and infallible Teachers seem neer Correlatives the one if Faith come by Hearing staggers without the other and Infallible Hearers of Gods word suppose Infallible Teachers methinks when the Apostle saith Rom. 10. 14. None can hear without a Preacher he supposeth as well the Preacher instructing infallible as the Hearer infallibly instructed CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrin of Christ necessarily requires infallible Teachers 1. THe proof of my Assertion is more fully declared Chap. 4. n. 6. and relyes on this Principle Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly under that notion of fallibly taught Doctrin is not the Doctrin of Christ We are of God saith Scripture Iohn Epist 1. cap. 4. v. 6. He that knowes God hear's us he that is not of God heareth us not Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of errour Which is to say in other Terms He that hear's an infallible Teacher hath the Spirit of Truth and he that hear's not an infallible Teacher wants this Spirit of Truth Again Epist 2. v. 9. Every one that recedes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ hath not God c. But every one that Hears only a fallible Teacher easily recedes and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ Therfore he hath not God nor the Spirit of Truth in him 2. Upon these grounds I Argue further Christ Doctrin infallible in it self is either now taught infallibly by some Pastors lawfully sent or fallibly If the first we must own infallible Teachers of this infallible Doctrin If the second That is if Christs infallible Doctrin be taught only Fallibly ex parte Docentis it followes evidently first That though God speaks infallibly yet no man hath certainty of what he saith It followes secondly That such a fallible Teaching of Christs Doctrin may be cavilled at and disputed against For Doctrin taught Fallibly may be cavilled at and disputed against all Doctrin taught fallibly and which by force of its Proposal or merit of the Doctrin may deceive and be false is lyable to cavil and dispute Therfore this Doctrin may be also cavilled at and disputed against It followes thirdly That really Christs Doctrin perchance perverted by a fallible and false Delivery may not be Taught at all The reason is No other Doctrin is or can be taught but what is fallible and may be false but Christs Doctrin is nor fallible nor can be false Therfore that Doctrin which is only Taught fallibly as it is so delivered is none of Christs infallible Doctrin Consequently if any man would now utterly abjure all the taught Doctrin of the Christian world he might do it without being an Haeretick I prove it He who only abjures and Denies Fallible Doctrin which may be false neither abjures nor denies Christs Doctrin nor any Christian Verity which cannot be false But all Christian Doctrin that can be Taught Sectaries say is Fallible and may be False Therfore he who Denies such a fallible taught Doctrin denies not Christs Doctrin and cannot be upon that account an Haeretick You will say He who Denies all Christian taught Doctrin certainly Denies some of those Objective Verities which are revealed in Gods Word and therfore is an Haeretick Very true if he be sure That his Teacher delivers those Verities infallibly But our Protestants say Because all Teachers Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly implyes no Denial of Christs infallible Verities are fallible none can have that Assurance from them or any Therfore their Doctrin as it is taught fallibly may be cavilled at yes and denied also without the guilt of Haeresy The reason is Whoever only Denies the fallible Teaching of infallible Doctrin yet not known for such Denies not the Objective infallible Doctrin in it self but the Formal fallible Delivery of it and this he may boldly say is none of Christs Doctrin 3. The substance of what I would here expresse may No assurance can be had from men that Teach Christs Doctrin fallibly perhaps more plainly be reduced to Form thus A society of men who can do no more but only Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false can assure none that they Teach Christs infallible Doctrin which cannot be false But all societies of Christians can do no more but Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false for all Churches all Councils all Fathers all Papists all Protestants and Mr. Poole with them are as they say Fallible in their Feaching Therfore not one amongst them can assure any that he Teaches or Delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ I say That he Teaches for if we meet with a Simplician That tel's us He builds his Faith and Religion not upon any Preachers talk but on the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture I answer Unles Objective revealed Verities no sufficient ground of infallible Faith he first learn of some Infallible Oracle what Scripture exactly speak's in a hundred controverted places he shall never by his own poreing on a Bible either arrive to the depth of God true meaning or derive infallible Faith from those Objective revealed Verities The reply supposeth That all Truth couched in Scripture is as easily understood with the unclasping of a Bible as the sun is seen at noon-day If so Ministers hereafter may for the most of men shut their books stop their mouths and preach no more 4. Some yet perhaps will say One may preach the infallible Doctrin of Christ though himself be fallible in the Delivery of it which feem's manifest for every Catechist or Preacher though he delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ yet delivers it not infallibly why therfore may not Ministers in England teach as those do infallible Doctrin though ex parte subjecti docentis they Teach it fallibly I answer first Ministers in England have no Infallible Church to recurre to in case They erre for their whole Community is fallible The Catholick Preacher hath a sure Oracle to rely on an Infallible Church that unbeguil's him if he swerve from Truth which is a mighty Advantage and a great The Advantage of an infallible Church Disparity in the present question Now if you say Sectaries may as well rely on infallible Scripture for their Direction as we do on an Infallible Church I deny the Supposition and shall shew hereafter That not so much as one Article of Protestancy
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
say 'T is the Church ought to be certain and infallible It seems enough say some that this Faith be taught upon a rational Evidence which Evidence finally resolved comes to no more but to a Moral certainty These as I am informed ground themselves on this Principle That all the Assurance we can have of Christian Religion hath for its whole Foundation moral Certainty only and it seems a prop firm enough to support it More it cannot have 6. The Objection contains two parts To the first I answer If Divine Faith be in the world Reason Divine Faith must have an infallibie Teacher convinceth that the object of it be propounded by a Certain and infallible Teacher and then most when Points fundamental lye under Dispute and are in controversy Faith therfore requires two things essentially to omit other Necessaries an Object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object made by some Teacher to Christians which Doctrin the Apostle ratifies Rom. 10. 15. How shall they hear without a Preacher By virtue of this Proposition whether we call it Cause or an Essential Condition the Elicite Act of Faith followes in a Believer and intellectually layes as it were hold both on Gods Revelation and the Thing revealed Observe now well Gods Revelation none doubts it is certain and infallible Divine Faith which resteth on this Motive and proceeds from Grace is also certain and infallible The only Difficulty remaining concerns this Proponent of Faiths Object and it is whether He that Directs me and endeavours rightly to settle my Faith upon Gods infallible Revelation do his work with assurance fallibly or infallibly 7. I say first Gods infallible Revelation avail's nothing in order to Faith unles Christians by their Faith lay hold on the Certainty therof or own it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent The reason is Because God speaks infallibly to Christians for this End That his infallible Word may have influence into Faith and support in with Certainty If therefore this revealed Word be not Certainly Proposed as it is infallible if it be not duely applyed to a Believers understanding under its The object of Faith must be infallibly applyed own Notion of certainty that strength of infallibility lyes as it were dead without Operation and profits Belief no more then Food doth a Body into which it cannot enter The similitude is fit For as Food though apt to strengthen a Body is just as if it were not unles it be duely Applyed so Gods Certain Revelation though most Proportionate to strengthen a Soul in Faith yet in order to this Effect it looseth all Efficacy while a due Application of its infallibility is wanting 8. To illustrate more this necessary Truth I say secondly When a Revelation lyes darkly in Scripture as it often doth in High points of Controversy according to the measure or degrees of Certitude which the Proponent of Faith gives to the Revelation and saith God speaks thus An Assent answerably followes with like Certitude in the Hearer and not a stronger If therfore the Proponent only say Doubtfully I think God speak's as I preach but am not Certain Gods Revelation is received according as 't is propounded Doubtful also is the Assent given to this Preaching If he say What I teach is Probable The Assent can be no more but Probable If finally He truely say I teach Infallibly what is revealed the Assent Answers and is Infallible The reason is clear For as no Eye can see Colours in darknes before light makes them visible yea and according to the measure of light it see 's them so no Intellectual Eye can discover a dark Revelation before he borrow light from his Teacher and as The light is lesse or more so He see 's that object lesse or more perfectly A dubious and uncertain Proposal therfore made of a certain Revelation when it doth not Clearly manifest it self is like a glimmering light And neither doth nor can apply the Objective infallibility Therof with Assurance to mans intellectual Faculty which yet seek's after Certainty in matters of Belief This needs no proof For he who proposeth only Doubfully a Revelation which is Certain in it self both in actu signato and exercito saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare A timide proposal of Divine Revelation begets no more but a doubtfull Faith what God speak's and perhaps I do not For my Declaration only Doubfully guesses at the Certainty of the Revelation And it is against the nature of all Doubt to convey Certainty into any understanding As long therfote as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me For want of an undoubted Application made by an infallible Proponent it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith then fire at a great distance warm That is no more Then if it were not Certain in it self or not at all in Being Whence I conclude That a certain Revelation if obscure in Scripture requires a Certain Proposition Because It little avail's me to know this truth That if God speak's he speak's infallibly unles hîc nunc in these circumstance when he speak's to me for my Saluation I yeild my certain Assent to the infallibility of his Word which cannot be done unles I have Assurance from my Teacher that he speak's as I ought to believe infallibly Upon these undeniable Principles I say thirdly Our Sectaries can have no Divine Faith Sectaries can do no more but doubtfully guesse at what they Believe and consequently as Protestants never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith I prove the Assertion All Faith which hath no other Certitude then what is derived from Those who propound the object of it id est Gods Revelation uncertainly and doubtfully is no more but wavering Opinative and doubtful But the Faith of Protestants is evidently such Because no man or Society of men amongst them can without doubt and fear infallibly say God speak's as I preach and I infallibly preach as God speaks For if he averr thus much with Truth he Propound's the object of his Faith infallibly and therfore is so farre infallible If he do They cannot propose Faith infallibly not his preaching must be finally resolved into his own timid weak and wavering Opinion which weighed comes to no more but this Levity I hope well and think I preach what God hath infallibly Revealed yet am not certain because all I say for ought I know is fallible 9. If you will se this Truth farther Evidenced do no more but ask of any Protestant Why for example He believes that all the Churches on earth are fallible That Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist That Faith only justifies That there are two Sacraments and no more c. His first refuge perhaps will be to Scripture But demand again Whether Scripture in plain and Express Terms Delivers these supposed Doctrins If he be not more then
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
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
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
of Priesthood give me warrant for either show your letters Missive For if you cannot I may as prudently believe Arius old Haeresy as your new learning Truely Sr replyes Mr. Poole my Answer is The Lord I hope senr us I cannot say more 3. Here the Philosopher busies his thoughts and question 's Reason whether he may in prudence ground The Philosophers reflection his Belief in Christ upon a Mysterious and yet unevidenced Book which above thousand years together was never own'd by any true Professors of Christs Doctrin Whether he may do so upon the bare Word of these late men who without Mission began their Preaching only a hundred years agon Who have no unity want Miracles have made no Conversions nor are able to tell him what the Book saith in those difficil places that puzzle his understanding It is impossible saith he to Acquiesce without further Proofs drawn from Reason Tell me therfore good Mr. Poole seeing Scripture as you say contains strange Mysteries above my Reach and no few seeming Contradictions which standing in reason rather affright then invite me to accept of it can you give me Assurance by good Motives or Arguments Protestants cannot prove the Holy Scripture Not from Papists extrinsecal to the Book That it is Divine or writ by the holy Ghost and not by Chance of Ignorance or Illusion Answ I can First the Papists once owned this Book as Gods own hand Writing Phil. O never mention these men They are now as we suppose forgotten Surely you are able to evidence your Book which is the sole Ground of your Faith without Ayde or Arguments borrowed from Papists I 'll do it therfore saith Mr. Poole The Spirit of God bears witnes with my Spirit that this book is Divine and Gods Sacred Word I am yet an Infidel answer's the Philosopher Nor from the Spirit and know little of Gods Spirit much les of yours my search is only after Prudent Motives to which Reason ought to yeild and accept of this Book as Sacred and Divine Which Sr. you are oblig'd to produce and not wink and fight it out with me by an unknown Spirit which in Real Truth warrant 's as well a Jew to make good his Talmud or a Turk his Alcoran as you your Bible There is yet one Argument more saith Mr. Poole to prove the Divinity Nor from the Majesty of Stile of Scripture independent of Popish Tradition viz. The Majesty of the Stile the Sublimity of the Doctrin the Purity of the Matter c. These and the great Reverence all bear to Scripture seem powerful Inducements to admit of it as Gods Word Philosop They are strong Fancies of your own head and how void of all Reason I will evidently demonstrate Scripture not like the first Principles in Nature First no man can Assert that Scripture is the Primam Cognitum or per se Notum a Thing known Immediately by its own light as the first Principles of Nature are which yet this Majesty proves or nothing for if so I should se it yea and All without dispute would admit of one and the same Canon of Scripture 2. As much Majesty appear's in the Book of Wisdom or Ecclesiasticus which you Reject as in the Song of Salomon or Ecclesiastes Admitted by you 3. If contrary to our Supposition we might once call to mind that now forgotten Church of Popery There was no want you know it well either of exteriour Lustre Glory Majesty Conversions Miracles or of Preaching sublime Doctrin to set it forth Yet this Glory and Majesty you scornfully cast of as an Insufficient Proof for that Church and here without either Conscience or Reason you Adore a far lesser Exteriour Majesty and by it will Out-brave me with a Book the Truths wherof are yet as unmanifested to me by Arguments drawn from Reason as those very Writings are which you call Apocryphal 4. And here by the way observe your great Nor by the Purity of it which is the thing to be proved Simplicity in arguing You prove the Divinity of Scripture by the Purity and Majesty of it The first is in question For I who have perused Scripture and find no few seeming Contradictions in it must have my doubts cleared and that Purity evidenced by Proofs extrinsecal to Scripture before I believe it Pure Concerning the Majesty of the Stile Learn your Error Two things are to be distinguished in The Exteriour Connexion of words not the Divinity of Scripture Scripture The Exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words we read which solely considered is common to other pious Books writ by Holy men without Special Assistance of the Holy Ghost And here is all the visible Majesty that Scripture presents either to our eyes or Reason which therfore convinceth nothing What makes Scripture Divine The other is and herein consists the Vertue and Majesty of Scripture That God by his firm Decree and gracious Ordinance hath pleased to seal as it were This Book and own it as his Sacred Word Now this signature because External to the Letter or Syntax of Scripture is no Object of Sense nor your reason For you do not evidence it by Antecedent None proves the Bible by his Faith but his Faith by the Bible antecedently owned Sacred The Reverence shewed to Scripture no proof rational motives You may well say it is the Object of your Faith or Fancy But I hope you will not prove the Divinity of your Bible by your Faith but Evidence your Faith by your Bible Antecedently proved Divine to Reason by good Inducements Hence I Answer to that weak Argument drawn from the Respect and Reverence which all give to Scripture And say it carrieth not one grain of Weight with it For even Christians much more Infidels must first know upon Prudent Inducements That the Bible is Sacred before they Reverence it and not prove it Sacred Because they Reverence it For none proves this man to be a Prince or Prelate because he doth him Homage But therfore He complyes with that duty because he is Antecedently known or owned for a Person of such quality Here saith the Philosopher are a few Exceptions against your Religion and my Difficulties proposed To solve them 5. Believe it old Papists hitherto forgot must Catholicks prove their Religion shew themselves and be remembred again They and only they though we Imagin no Scripture written are able by an Oral and never interrupted Tradition to Assure a Heathen of Christ our Lord of the Miracles he wrought of the Apostles he called to Found a Church of the great Conversions they made They And the Scripture and they alone can warrant Authentick written Scripture and show who writ it and how it was handed down by continued Professers of their Faith Age after Age to this present day They and only they do still preserve Vnity in Doctrin Reclaim Infidels Shew their Credentials Produce their Credentials for what
justly Fear the second God say they permitted the Church to Err and he may say I as well have permitted it to Vitiat Scripture They say Errors Insensibly grew up in the Church And I say they might as Insensibly have crept into Scripture Be it how you will from this Old erring Church Our New men suppose They received pure sincere and uncorrupted Scripture just as the Holy Ghost writ it A meer Impossibility For never greater Chimaera was fancied then to couple a Fals Church and True Scripture together â—â— True Scripture and a Vniversal fals erring Church 8. Some perhaps may say The Arians Donatists and other Haereticks had and have still True Scripture though they erred in Doctrin I answer No God a mercy to them For if They have True Scripture They may thank an unerring Church that preserved it uncorrupt before Heresy began and after But grant me No assurance of true Scripture if all Erred universally once as our Protestants do that both Haereticks and Catholicks likewise universally erred in Doctrin most Fundamental no man can now have Assurance of True Scripture O but the Unanimous Voice of all Christians Affirming Scripture to be the Word of God and pure without corruption is a Weighty moral Proof for its Integrity I answer none at all For if no Society of Christians unerrable and sound in Doctrin had that book in Custody The old Papists might for ought Protestants know have either by Chance or Fraud changed words in Scripture For example Those words Matt. 26. This is my body from what they once were This is a sign of my body and the Cheat was to maintain their Doctrin of the Real Presence But you will ask how could this be done I have told you By Malice or Inadvertency But when could it be done I answer in that Could Sectaries say when Papists first became Idolaters They might be informed concerning these Corruptions very Age Year or Month when these Papists first began to be Idolaters and worship a piece of Bread for God Then it might well be don Name that age Exactly and you have all Our new men Answer This Idolatry was brought in amongst us But they knew not When it began with such Secrecy and Silence This Text of Scripture therfore I say might have been corrupted with like Secrecy Though no man knows when And here by the way observe a strange Paradox of our Protestants So notorious a known A Strange Paradox of Protestants Novelty as this supposed Idolatry is which might most justly have Struck Terror into all mens Harts Visibly entred a Church diffused the whole World over yet none neither Friend nor Foe saw it cryed out against it or Has left it upon Record And one single Particle of Scripture cannot be changed but all must know it How can these two Consist together You will say The Primitive Church was Pure and so preserved true Scripture How do our Protestants know so much if it was Fallible Thus much of an Argument ad hominem which I desire Mr. Poole to Answer not to mistake As he may do if he think my endeavor is to prove Scripture corrupted in any Substantial Point no! 'T were Blasphemy to say it The Argument therfore proceeds from the Protestants fals Supposition yet true with them that the Church is fallible and has erred Then I say None of them can have Assurance of their Bible or of True incorrupt Scripture CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher 1. HEre is my second Proposition And nothing can be more evident might he Evidence of a known Truth prevail with Wilful men Arians we see are against Protestants in the Essentials of Faith Protestants against Catholicks and They against Both. All of them Acknowledge Scripture to be Gods Word Sectaries deny the Plainess of Scripture yet every one in practise Denies the Perspecuity and Plainess of it For if plain Why stand they at Variance with one another about this Plainess Protestants Doctrin is plainly delivered in the 39. Articles The Arians Doctrin is plainly in Their Writings The Catholick Doctrin most plainly in every Catechism No Advers party Impugn's these Doctrins for want of a plain Expression but for want of Truth It is quite contrary in Scripture for He were a Devil that should mention the want of Truth in Gods Word yet you see most Learned men vary about this Clearnes seek for it and cannot find it Though I have partly given the Reason Hereof yet Becaus the matter requires it I shall now add a word more for a further Explication 2. All know that the Objective Verities writ in Holy Objective Verities and the belief of them different Scripture and the Belief of those Verities in a Christians Hart are to be distinguished By the first God speak's to us By the second we yeild Belief to his Word All know likewise That if my Belief be true Faith it must say Exactly and expres that in mente which God speak's in Scripture neither more nor les And this is Saving Faith not the Objective Verities not saving Faith Objective Verity as it lyes in Scripture For if that could save us it would be enough to put a Bible in ones Pocket And say here is the Faith that saves me Though I know not what is in it or Believe Amiss Thus much is clear without Dispute in an Orthodox and an Arian whilst they turn to that passage of Scripture and Read I and my Father are one Both of them have the same Objective Verity before their eyes But the One only hath the True Belief of it in his Hart. Observe now How darkly Scripture speak's in this one great Fundamental Article And how easily we may swerve from One Instance of Scriptures Obscurity this Revealed Truth without an Infallible Interpreter For the words precisely considered may either signify unity in Affection as appears Iohn 17. v. 21. 22. or a Consubstantial unity and in this Indifferency to several Sectaries gloss The Church Interpret's senses lyes their Obscurity To Clear all and make them speak a Full sense the Arian superadds his Gloss and draws out of the Text as also from that other Iohn 1. 5. 7. no more but a Vnity in Affection only which is Haeresy The Catholick Interpretation teacheth a Consubstantial Vnity or One-nes in Essence and 'T is true Faith yet is no more formal expres Scripture then that of the Arian For Consubstantiality is no where Formally read in Scripture However it is believed and ground 's our Faith whilst the Arians Gloss is rejected And why hath it this Preference think ye Why is it better then the Arians No other Reason can be rendred but a most True one Viz. That the Church doth not only fully Express the Objective Verity darkly couch'd in Scripture But also Delivers this Full and clearer sense Infallibly For I say If the Churches Interpretation
or the unchangeable Divine Word seemingly Changed when he took Flesh upon him and became an Infant These are Higher Mysteries and greater Difficulties If Human Reason might be judge and give a final Sentence But I 'll tell you once for all That man shall never be a Proficient in Christs School that will undertake to conquer High Mysteries no to be pried into by our weak discourses as I may say the great Difficulties of Faith by Examining the High Mysteries of it If he goe so to work he is cast into a Labyrinth and can find no Exit All therfore he is to do is to Learn and Examin whether God the Infallible Truth hath Revealed and taught us these Mysteries by any unerring Oracle Next How we are to submit in matters of Faith He is to Captivate his understanding And humbly Submit to him without further search who neither can be Deceived nor will Deceive us But enough of this Digression 6. We se thirdly Though Protestants Anathematize The whole Religion of Protestants is nothing els but addition to Scripture or subtraction from it all that Add to Gods Word or Take from it yet I 'll tell you Their whole Religion as Protestancy is either made up of no Scripture at all or is nothing els but a meer Addition of their own Glosses to Scripture or finally a wilful Subtraction from it To the Words now cited they add a sign a figure and God knows what more Is this Scripture When St. Iames 2. cap. 24. Dogmatically teaches that a man is Justified by Works and not by Faith only our New men tell us the Apostle speak's not of Justification before God but before Men. Is this Scripture When St. Paul Rom. 2. 6. plainly Affirm's That God will render to every one according to his Works Calvin and Beza Assure us He will do so indeed if there were any such But the Mischief is None can do a Good Work before God Is this Scripture No. These and such like Interpretations Our Adversaries do not own for Scripture yet They must own them as Tenents Essential to their Religion Ergo I say Meer Fallible Glosses which are no Scripture make up Protestant Religion as Protestancy And hence Doctrin of the 39 Articles as Protestancy not Scripture it is that their Doctrin delivered in the 39. Articles stand's there with all Clearnes that is you know what they say But when 't is Brought to the Test and is examined by Scripture you may seek long before ye find a word like it as 't is Protestancy 7. You see lastly That the Interpretations which Protestants give to those Texts of Scripture cited by How Sectaries abuse Scripture cited for Catholick Doctrin Catholicks for their Doctrin are meer Human Extra-scriptural and Anti-scriptural Glosses of their own Fancy We cite the Apostle 2. Thess 2. 15. For Tradition beside the Written Word For the Real Presence This is my Body Matt. 26. For Iustification by Good Works that of St. Iames 2. 14. For a Sacrifice to be continued to the Worlds End Malac. 1. 11. For Extream-Vnction Iames the 5. 14. For the Verity and Infallibility of the Church that of St. Paul 1. Timot. 3. 15. And what for Gods sake have we from our New Men to these plain Passages speaking Popery But a Return of meer Mock-fool Glosses Hatch't in their own Heads which have so little Shadow of Scripture in them That with force they drive the very life and sense out of Gods Word And They proceed so unluckily Sectaries make Scripture clear where 't is obscure and obscure where 't is clear That where Scripture is clear They make it obscure and where it is obscure They will seem to make it Clear by superaded glosses What can be more clear for our Catholick Doctrin of the Real Presence then those words of St. Luke 22. v. 19. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur This is my body which is given for you Yet with their Glosses they so Torture the Text That every Particle in it suffers Violence In so much that Iacobus Scripture tortured by Sectaries Gordonus observes in his first Tome of Controversies printed anno 1612. Controversia prima de Verbo Dei cap. 26. n. 11. pag. 121. No fewer then two hundred different Glosses have been added by Protestants to Obscure the plain sense of Christs own Words Some as this Author notes abuse and misinterpret the Pronoun Hoc Others the Verbe Est Others Corpus Others meum Others the Relative quod Others the Proposition pro Others the Pronoune Vobis Others finally the Verb Datur Yet after all this perverting and woful mangling of Gods Word we must Believe that our Protestants speak forsooth Scripture and nothing but clear Scripture On the contrary side we have seen more then enough in the Beginning of this Chapter how Vainly They cry up the Clarity of Scripture in Mysteries most difficil not fully expressed in Gods Word What man in his Wits can say That any Scripture through the whole Testament Speak's half so clearly of the Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son with his Eternal Father as the Text now quoted is for the Real Presence Yet those Scriptures must be Clear for that Christian Verity and this Obscure for the Real Presence 8. To conclude this point Methinks it highly imports when we deal with our Adversaries concerning How to proceed with Sectaries when They Explicate Scripture Their Explications of Scripture That we do not so much at least in the first place make it our Work Positively to Disprove them by other Texts and Authorities which our Writers usually do and laudably as to put them to the Proof of their wild Glosses which seem's most Reasonable For Asserenti incumbit probatio When therfore They go about to Obscure Scripture where it is plain with new Interpretations the world never heard of bid them not only Interpret but Prove Their Interpretations For example That the words of our Saviour now cited must be alienated from their genuin Sense and tortured as they are by Protestants Proceed thus with them put them to the Proof and you 'l soon see them at a Nonplus CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 1. MY first proposition Draw's Proof enough from the precedent Chapter For if Scripture be Obscure and speak not clearly all Verities revealed in the book it cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter But 't is more then evident that it speaks not clearly many Verities Concerning the Highest Mysteries of Religion Therfore it cannot Regulate Faith relating to These Mysteries without an Interpreter I prove the Minor Scripture which solely considered according to the Exterior Letter both may The bare letter of Scripture may and doth easily beget error and Doth as easily beget Error as Truth in the Intellectual Power of man Speak's
not clearly Whence it is that St. Austin Tom. 10. Serm. 70. de Tempore stiles Haereticks Infelices Unhappy Who only look on the Sound of words in Scripture which is saith he like a Body without a Soul But it is as clear That the bare Letter of Scripture without a sure Interpreter beget's Errors And therfore an Arian Becaus He Regulates his Belief by the meer Sound of that Text Iohn 14. My Father is greater then I Err's damnably And the like All other condemned Haereticks have done in their respective Errors drawn as they thought from Scripture Ergo it is evident that the Letter of Scripture speak's not Clearly in this one most High Mystery And therfore cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter Now further If this Interpreter A fallible Interpreter as useles as no Interpreter in points of Faith be fallible He is as Vseles to Christians for the Regulating of Faith as if he were no Interpreter For He may Deceive them And if we be deceived it much imports not whether the Error proceed from Obscure Scripture misunderstood or misinterpreted by an other An infallible Interpreter therfore is necessary in this Weighty matter that Assures us of what God hath spoken of such and such Particular Mysteries And here we Rest securely and have a most certain Rule which Sectaries want 2. Again I argue If Sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith it can Regulate without Glosses yea and without a Preacher too Why therfore do our Protestants charge that one Text above cited This is my body the like we may say of many others with so unnecessary a burden of their Interpretations Are Are Sectaries affraid that Christ spoke too plainly They affraid that Christ spoke too Plainly and therfore Add their Glosses to Obscure his Words None will own such an Impiety Then I say They are Added to Clear an Obscure Passage consequently They They gloss to make Scripture clear must acknowledge an Obscurity in this Scripture before their tampering with the Text and glossing it Well But when They have glossed all they can I ask what is it that Regulates their Faith in this particular Their glosses regulate their Faith not the words of Christ Do Christs Words as he spoke them or as They interpret Regulate here Not the first For 't is most evident that Christs own Words without the Protestant Glosses can never beget in any Understanding that determinate Belief which these men have of the Blessed Sacrament For the words of Christ say plainly This is my Body that is given for you Which pondered to the day of Judgement can never yeild this forced repugnant and far-fetch't Sense This is a Sign or a Figure of my Body Yet such is the Belief of Protestants drawn from this Sentence by their Interpretations Wherfore we must conclude that They Believe not for Christs Sole Words But for their Additional Glosses which is to say in plain English Their Overplus of Glosses Regulates Faith not Gods Express and most significant Word Some will say this Passage now cited must be interpreted as They will have it Becaus Scripture in other places seem's to favor their Interpretation I answer candidly Let them They cannot cite one Text out of Scripture in favour of their Glosses but produce so much as one plain Text out of the whole Bible for the Alienating of this Sentence from its proper Sense without Glosses which are no Scripture and I 'll proclaim them Conquerours Here is plain dealing but Remember well I call for Scripture only 3. I told you just now That as these Glosses are useles if sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith so are Preachers also yea and all the large Commentaries which Luther and Calvin have writ on Scripture Why Gods Word speak's clearly without a Preacher If Scripture be Clear ther 's no need of Teachers Away therfore with Preaching and Commentaries 'T is enough to thrust a Bible into mens Hands And bid them read it For there is True Doctrin and plain Doctrin but more is not required to Regulate Faith then The Reason Truth and Clarity Ergo Ministers may hereafter well spare their labor of Preaching and 't is better they did so Then to be in danger of perverting Gods true Word by their fallible Talking 4. To conclude this matter we have already amply proved That it is not the Bare Letter of Scripture which Regulates Faith Buth the exact and true Sense of it Ne putemus saith St. Hierom in cap. 1. ad Galat. v. 11. Let us not think that the Gospel lyes in the Words of Scripture but in their sense Non in superficie sed in medullâ not in the Out-side but in the inward Pith and Marrow of it non in sermonum foliis c. But no Protestant with so much as any colour of Reason can lay a more just claim to the true Sense of Scripture when He and the Church stand at Variance Protestants as uncertain of the true Sense of Scripture as Arians are Then an Arian a Pelagian or a Donatist can do when They draw Scripture to Their Sense All of them are alike guided by meer Guesses and first Read next Think then Iudge and lastly Believe Believe what What Their Private Iudgement Tell 's them and here is the last Rule of their Faith All of them guided by guesses Three parts of Protestant Religion wherof more in the next Chapter In the interim you may Resolve a Protestants Belief into these three broken Shreds or Fragments The first part is that wherin They hold with Catholicks And here they have the true Sense of Scripture interpreted yet no True Faith for want of Submission in other Points The other part is that wherin They agree with Ancient condemned Haereticks And herein They have neither the True sense of Scripture nor true Faith The last part is proper to Themselves as Protestant And here they have not so much as the Letter or a Word of Scripture for them much les any true Sense or Faith grounded on Scripture And 5. Upon this occasion I come to mind Mr. Poole The want of Mr. Pooles fourth Proposition of the Want of his fourth Proposition viz. That Scripture speak's plainly the particular Tenents of Protestant Religion as Protestanism And must Tell him He shall never find in the whole Bible so much as one Article of Protestant Religion as it stands in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin grounded on Scripture And Becaus The man may not perhaps like of too great a burden I 'll only urge him to Prove these three Protestant Assertions 1. That there are two Sacraments Three Protestant Assertions for Mr. Poole to Prove and no more But let him not think to turn me of as he doth the Captain with meer empty and insignificant Words Appendix page 34. Scripture is plain enough in describing the nature of two Sacraments He should have added And 't is plain in
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
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
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
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
to learn Divinity Ergo they make you a perfect Divine Sir the general Truths contained in Scripture because they teach us to believe the Church Tradition and other Apostolical Doctrins orally delivered are in this general way able to make us wise to Saluation but none can so much as probably draw from hence that all things in particular necessary to Saluation are explicitly set down in Scripture Every Catholick Writer that Explicates the Text shewes your Deductions to be weak and unconcluding That work therfore being don to my hand I end wishing you much Good and eternal happines FINIS Besides other faults noted in the beginning you have these In the Advertisment pag. 18. l. 22. Invocations R. Innovations p. 19. l. 16. of long standing Church our R. of our long standing Church p. 22. l. 5. were R. where in the Treatise p. 49. l. 7. Fallibility R. infallibility p. 158. l. 28. improperty R. impropriety p. 176. l. 18. Marck R. mark p. 239. l. 3. above R. about ERRATA CORRIGENDA Page 4. line 5. oft Read of page 6. last line retour R. return p. 11. l. 4. put R. but p. 17. l. 24. reach R. reaches p. 19. l. 10. as it R. as it is p. 22. l. 13. feaching R. teaching p. 22. l. 23. true R. true p. 24. l. 8. Insalibility R. Infallibility p. 22. Title Teachere R. Teacher p. 25. l 1. trough R. through p. 26. l. 1. foor R. for p. 27. l. 2. asserward R. afterward p. 30. Tit. futher R. further p. 39. l. 24. te R. the p. 40. Tit. Relyes R. Replyes p. 41. l. 16. in R. it p. 43. l. 11. assurance R. assurance p. 46. Title Relyes R. Replyes p. 47. l. 27. fundemeetals R. fundamentals p. 53. l. 14. dot R. doth p. 58. l. 2. vetities R. verities p. 69. l. 4. it if followes dele if p. 69. l. 9. praging R. praying p. 69. l. 23. Realon R. Reason p. 71. l. 17. whick R. which p. 74. l. 1. fo rit R. for it p. 77. l. 17. Father R. Fathers p. 77. l 30. standingh R. standing p. 81. Title dele certainty p. 90. l. 7. owing R. owning p. 93. Marg. loct R. lost p 94. l. 12. is R. it p. 94. l. 13. Prophet R. Prophets p. 103. Marg. sew R. few p. 113. Tit. Prave R. Prove p. 141. Marg. propose R. proposed p. 143. l. 6. pretend R. pretend's p. 144. l. rotterin R. tottering p. 149. l. 20. other R. others p. 158. Marg. te R. to p. 159. l. 2. Christ R. Christs p. 159. Marg. no Read not p. 175. l. 6. opposit opposite Read opposite p. 178. l. 5. stead R. instead p. 182. l. 22. were sent R. they were sent p 182. l. 27. casting of R. casting out p. 184. Marg. uncompossible R. incompossible p. 186. l. 5. buth R. but p. 189. l. 17. see R. seem p. 195. Marg an R. on p. 209. l. 28. interpred R. interpreted p 212. Marg. Siciety R. Society p. 215. l. 4. Propecying R. Prophecying p. 217. l. 24. if self R. it self p. 218. l. 5 yo R. you p. 222. l. 29. Objection R. Objection p. 228. l. 9. of R. or p. 256. Marg. cansists R. consists p. 256. l. 12. nos R. not p. 260. l. 7. ptosed R. proposed p. 261. Marg. datiful R. dutiful p. â—62 Marg doclare R. declare p. 269. l. 10 ' caslesly R. causlesly p. 275. l. 29. both we dele both p. 278. l. 13. reclaim R. convert p 295. l. 15. Chutch R. Church p. 302. Marg. uncluding R. unconcluding p. 311. Marg. care for R. care for p. 313. Marg. in in dele in p. 314. l. 16. sht R she p. 318. l. 32. ditt R. durt p. 329. l. 26. unevidentced R. unevidenced p. 330. l. 29. An R. and p. 342. l. 30 party R. parity p. 344. l. 5. An R. and p. 346. l. 10. these R. those p. 350. l. 10. Cutch R. Church p. 351. l. 13. for long a time R. for a long time p. 352. l. 26. onveyed R. conveyed p. 356. l. 1. infallibily R. infallibly p. 358. l. 15. Argumen R. Argument p. 359. Marg. Soy R. Say p. 362. l. 15. wales R. walles p. 363. l. 21. impiously dele pâ—â—ctam p. 363. Merg then then R. then p. 365. l. 31. licencence licence p. 372. l. 2. convinceth R. convince p. 375. Tit. Curch R. Church p. 375. l. 14. ad R. and p. 378. l 13. chis R. this p. 382. l. 29. overtrow R. overthrow p. 402. l. 18. that is R. it p. 405. Marg. mare R. more p. 406. Marg. smay R. sway p. 412. l. 14. confuthed R. confuted p. 417. l. 10. toughts R. thoughts p. 420. l. 7. ns R. us p. 424. l. 18. unworthly R. unworthy p. 425. l. 30. and is dele and p. 441. Marg. whac R. what p. 443. l. 4. teachers R. teaches p. 448. l. 18. Cathalick R. Catholick p. 449. l. 7. expreffing R. expissing p. 452. l. 11. ttial R. trial p. 453. l. 17. Cutches R. Churches p. 460. l. 20. Ground R. Grounds p 501. l. 6 worst R. wors p. 516. l. 15. Scripiture R. Scripture After Page 431. is Page 332. R. 432. There are without doubt many more faults in Orthography passed over to say nothing of points ill placed of Capiâ—â—l letters to often and comma's needlesly multiplyed What ever is found amiss impute it boldly to the Printer or to the Author and please to pardon both for the first knovwes not a word of English and the other has not the language perfectly
Verities For example All acknowledge Gods Divine Providence over the world and Therfore have strong Principles to prove the Truth We Christians say That Christ our Lord And His Apostles taught most certain Heavenly Doctrin Principles cannot be wanting to prove this our Christian Verity VVe say Iudaism and Mahometism are Fals Sects The Assertion can be made Good by sure and undoubted Proofs The only Question now under Dispute is whether we Catholicks or Sectaries profess and Teach the Ancient Orthodox Doctrin established by Christ and his Apostles And without all Controversy certain Principles cannot fail in this particular wherby the difference between us may be decided Or if they Do fail which is not possible every one may not only adhere without reproof to any Religion or none as Fancy pleaseth But moreover may most justly blame Almighty God And this is hideously impious who command's us on the one side to embrace true Religion yet on the Other Leaves us in such Fearful darknes That none after a diligent search can find out by sure Principles vvhat or vvhere that Religion is which He will have us to believe to make profession of to live and dye in And this would be highly contrary to his infinit Goodnes Thus much premised 6. I say first The Sectary whether He takes in hand to establish his own Opinions or to impugn any Doctrin of our Catholick Faith shall never come to an Intellectual light that hath a likelyhood of a sure Principle The Reason is most evident in Catholick grounds I say no more yet Because Truth cannot be contrary to Truth If therfore Catholick Religion be true what ever the Sectary sayes against it when he either Plead's for his own or oppugn's our Doctrin must of necessity be so remote from sure Principles That his whole Talk ultimatly Resolved will appear in its own likenes a meer cheat and end in nothing but a fallacy For it is not Possible to force Truth out of Falshood or to make that Probable which is Essentially improbable 7. I say 2. It cannot but be most manifest to every prudent disinteressed Iudgement That Sectaries have nothing like sound received Principles to rely on whether They oppugn our Catholick Doctrin or Defend their own Opinions To clear this Assertion from Cavils you shall se what we propose Be pleased only to take two or three sheets of paper much more is not needful And permit a learned Catholick briefly to set down in the first Pages of them the Proofs he hath for his Catholick Doctrin in one particular Controversy now agitated this short way of Arguing will do the deed Then let the Protestant write all he can say for his contrary Proposition in the other Pages And if you do not se a strange unequal Parallel of Proofs And no Proofs laid together call me what you will I 'll bear a just rebuke yet fear not any I say pitch upon One Controversy now in Dispute For Example that one long debated we cannot now insist upon all may be thought of Viz. VVhether Recours had to the Saints in Heaven by the Prayers of the living be erroneous or true Doctrin Next permit the Question to be truely stated and then Hear what the Catholick sayes for Himself He tell 's you first the Roman Catholick Church and the Greek Church also whether Orthodox or Schismatical teach as He believes 2. He produceth Scriptures to prove his Doctrin 3. He alleges Fathers both Greek and Latin quoted by every Polemical writer on this subject Bellarmin furnisheth you most plentifully lib. 1. de Sanct. Beati cap. 19. The wit of man cannot wrest them to a sense contrary to our Catholick Position 4. You will have His Reasons and that one most concluding Good men laudably pray for us here on earth Ergo much more the Saints in Heaven because in a better state can do that Charity When the Catholick hath ended his Proofs grounded on these and the like undeniable Principles Cast your thoughts a little on the Sectaries Contrary proofs And mark well his Principles Hath He any Church reputed Orthodox either now or six hundred years agon That expresly and positively defended his Opinion and condemned our Doctrin No most evidently not any Hath he so much as one syllable of Scripture that plainly and positively Denyes our Catholick position and speak's for his Not a word is found in the whole Bible to that purpose much against it Hath he Fathers so numerous and clear for his Novelty as we produce for this one Truth Saints can both hear and help us Not one Father is express against us or plain for his contrary Opinion Parallel therfore a Church and no Church Scripture and no Scripture Fathers express for us and not one against us And judge you whether it be not evident to every disinteressed judgement that Protestants want sound Principles to rely on in this Controversy And as you se a Defect of Principles here so you will find it in all other Disputes between us Now if they say They value not much of our Church Authority I answer They speak without Principles For the sole judgement of our Church had we no more will be thought in any just Tribunal a stronger proof for our Doctrin then their meer slighting of it can be without a likelyhood of proof If They say again They can either Deny or explicate the Fathers we produce I Answer They are still out of Principles For their Denial is weightles unles They ground it upon a surer Principle then that Authority is which they Deny Observe well We have innumerable Fathers Greek and Latin express for the Invocation of Saints Say therfore What will it Avail the Sectary barely to reject these Authorities because they are the words of men and not of God Vnles He Give you the plain word of God or the Authority of an Orthodox Church in place of them wheron his Denial hath sure footing If this be not don He comes to nothing like a Principle consequently the Fathers Authority most agreable to the Churches Doctrin is a clear Demonstration against him If He Pretend to allege Fathers contrary to ours I Answer He hath not one express or plainly contrary However falsly suppose He had one or two The contest would then be whether one that stands as it were alone opposit to the Churches Doctrin or many Fathers that side with the Church deserve more credit Here I am sure He will stand without footing on any certain Principle If He tell you Thirdly The Primitive Church prayed not to Saints They are his own empty words We prove the contrary by the express Testimonies of most ancient Fathers and the Tradition of our Church whilst He remains speechles and without a Principle to ground his Assertion on If He Object fourthly His Reasons chiefly two viz. Prayers to Saints lessens our Honor to Christ. And we cannot say how our prayers come to the Saints Hearing c. I Answer Here is
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
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
manner be consumed with fire He would have been thought to have uttered a Truth Morally certain yet the contrary doleful Effect proved it untrue And the like may happen now while we upon Moral Certainty Say Rome or Constantinople are Citties in Being These Grounds supposed 5. I say first Whoever when he Affirm's that Christian Religion is only Morally Certain and hath for the Object of his Affirmation that which Essentially Moral Certainty only destroy's the Being of Christian Religion constitutes Religion I mean true Divine and Supernatural Faith highly wrongs Christian Religion yea and destroyes the very Being and Essence of it I prove it The Certainty of Divine Faith is as farre above and distant from all the Degrees of Moral Certitude which may be false as Heaven is from Earth and more Therfore he who allowes no greater Certainty to true Faith then Moral which may be false destroyes both Certainty of Faith farre above Moral Certainty the Life and Essence of Christian Religion That the Certainty of Faith farre surpasseth all the Degrees of Moral Certitude is Demonstrable upon Principles granted as well by Orthodox Christians as by our Adversaries who say That true Faith dot not only affirm That what God Reveales is most Certain for thus much supposing a God we know by Science were there no Faith but by Faith we affirm without fear at all God speaks Thus and Thus. He reveales that the Divine Word took flesh That Christ dyed for us That there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence c. Such Truths we already own as Delivered by one who neither can nor will Deceive us 6. Hence I argue The Sole and Adequate Object of Divine and Supernatural Faith is Gods infinite Veracity which Actually speak's to us and is lyable to no errour Faith then if it be Divine Tend's unto no other Object neither is the now infused Habit of it though fortified with a thousand Illustrations inabled to Rest upon any other Motive in this present State What therfore this Infinite Veracity actually Reveal's that Faith layes hold on It cannot believe more or lesse Now I subsume But this Infinite Veracity when it is duely Proposed Transfuseth more Gods Veracity transfuseth more certainty into Faith then the Motives of Moral Certainty can do Certainty into the Elicite Act of Faith Then any Moral Certainty derived from inferiour Motives can have For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of Falsity and may deceive us Gods infallible Veracity cannot be False nor deceive if Faith Rest upon that Motive And if it Rest not there it is no Faith at all It is therfore absolutely impossible if God speak's and I Believe him as he Speak's That all the Power in Heaven can Falsify this Faith if it rest not on Gods Veracity is not Faith Act or Separate a most High infallibility from it Contrarywise There is no Moral Certainty but may by all the Principles it hath be false and fallible yea and often is so 7. From this undoubted Ground I inferre also Supernatural Faith more Certain then Metaphysical Science That Supernatural Faith is more Certain and infallible then all the Metaphysical Science which Nature can give us It is true Metaphysical Science hath more of the Evidence and therfore excludes all indeliberate Fear or Doubt to the contrary for no man can so much as indeliberately Doubt whether a whole Citty be greater then one House But for Absolute Certainty and Infallible Adhesion Faith yet surpasseth it The Reason The Energy of Faiths Motive is Because the Infinite Veracity of God which only supporteth Faith Majori vi with greater Force Energy and Necessity transfuseth into it a Supereminent Infallibility supereminent I say and above all the Certainty which Principles of nature can afford As therfore this Infinite Veracity surpasseth all Created certainty so Faith which relyes on it goes beyond all Natural and inferiour certainty Upon this Principle we see first How Divinely the Apostle spoke Licet nos c. Although we or Angel from Heaven preach contrary c. Let him be accursed And how wel St. Chrysostome delivered himself when He saith Hom. 12. pondering those words ad Hebr. 11. Fides est Argumentum c. That he held them more certain then the Things he saw with his Eyes These Truths and great Truths They are cannot subsist unles Faith be stronger in Certitude then all the Principles in Nature and consequently farre more strong then Moral Certainty is which may be false Now with such an Assent the Roman Catholick Church Believes Therfore a Faith only Morally certain Belong's not to it If Protestants Disown it They have no Faith no nor so much as a Belief Morally certain wherof more presently We see secondly How the very Essence of Christian Religion is destroyed if we make Faith no more but Morally certain which is what I intended to Prove 8. Perhaps These Authors will tell us When they Religion founded on Moral Certainty confuted Assert Christian Religion to be founded on Moral certainty Their Assertion fall's not immediatly upon the Assent of Divine Faith which is firm and certain But rather upon the Object of it Antecedently applyed to us Before we believe wherof we can have no greater Assurance then what is Moral And it is no wonder For say They There can be had no greater then Moral certainty of the main Foundations of all Religion which are the Being of God and the Soules Immortality To quarrel therfore with Moral certainty is Madnes when the Foundation of all Religion is capable of no more By the way if this be Madnes I se very little Wisdom in some who to oppugne the Churches infallibility proved as they suppose by motives of Credibility only morally certain Ring out nothing but Peales of Impossibilities and say it cannot be That the Assent to a matter Believed Rise higher or stand firmer then the Assent which is given to the Testimony wheron we Believe But the Infallibility of the Church is the thing Believed upon the Testimony of Motives at most but Morally certain Therfore we cannot Believe this with a stronger Degree of certainty then those Motives give us which afford at most but Moral certainty If this Discours be good I argue thus Ad hominem No greater certainty have Christians now Antecedently to their Actual Belief that God speaks to them by either Scripture or Church then that God is in Being But the very Being of God is only known by Moral certainty Ergo that he speaks to Christians cannot be known antecedently to Belief by any greater Certitude then what is Moral and may deceive them How then I beseech you comes the Elicite Act of Supernatural Faith unto such a Height of Certainty as not to Credit an Angel if he Preach against it Upon what Motive stands it so firm when no other Certainty supports it but only what is Moral and may be false The Medium
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
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
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
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
this Religion That it must be either further proved by Rational grounds or it is wholy Forceles and fall's to Nothing 6. They say again They have three evident Principles 3. Principles of Protestants answered to ground their new Faith on First What God speak's is true 2. Gods pure and uncorrupted Word is in their hands 3. They know what God speak's in this Word I answer the first Principle is certain The second more then doubtful The third on which all Relies and toucheth more upon their Faith then on any Rational Antecedent Motive evidencing it is demonstratively improbable For upon no Proof upon no received Principle By the light of no Rational Motive can these men so much as meanly show That They are better at knowing what God speak's in Scripture then a whole ample learned Church or then Their own Ancestors both knew of old and believed for a thousand years together These men long since deceased held and upon Scripture well understood as firmly the Real Presence of Christs Sacred Body in the Eucharist as a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence The first Protestants now Reject the Protestants Reject and Admit at pleasure other they Admit And why Upon what Conviction upon what Rational Motive do they take and leave assert and deny as they list Press this and other like particulars home instead of Reason or rational Proofs you shall have Their own reeling sentiments Sectaries self-seeming no proof given in for Answer And thus forsooth it is They read Scripture and verily it seem's to them It ought to be interpreted as they will have it I Ask a Reason for this new Seeming against the old received Sense And that very seeming which is in question you have prooflesly returned for an answer Observe well that I say here and you will find Protestancy reduced to Fancy only CHAP. XII Protestants for want of rational Motives cannot convert an Infidel to Christian Faith 1. IT hath often occurred to me If by a supposed They have no way to Convince a Heathen impossibility Schoolmen sometimes Argue so and profitably Popish Religion were utterly extinguished or the Proofs thereof quite rased out of all mens Memory yet that Protestants with all they can in justice lay claim to touching Religion should still stand in the world as now They do This Thought I say hath more then once seized on me Viz. How mean how poor how destitute and naked a Thing Protestancy would appear to be in the Eyes of either Iew or learned Heathen Philosopher For all it hath if yet it have so much is a borrowed Bible from others But no Miracles no undobted Marks of Truth no certain Tradition no Succession of Ancient Bishops no Pastors no Doctors In fine no Rational Motives if this Supposition stand can inable these new Owners of the Bible to say with Assurance This Book is Gods own Word and in This or this Sense God speaks by it 2. To clear the matter further Imagin That a learned Philosopher no Christian curious to learn A short Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Protestant what Christian Religion is as we now Suppose it only among Protestants and other Sectaries should for better satisfaction Address himself to so wise a man as Mr. Poole who I suppose will tell the Heathen That God is to be Adored in a certain Religion The Philosopher will Answer I doe so For my Religion is to follow Principles of nature to live a moral Life to submit to the Government I am under to do as I would be done by And here is All. O saith Mr. Poole Sr you have yet greater matters to look after you must believe in Christ if you will be saved Who was this Christ Demand's the Philosopher Poole He is God and Man born of a Virgin and one that manifested himself by a most Holy Life wrought many Miracles Dyed for us all Arose from Death to Life and afterward Ascended to Heaven Phil. A strange Story indeed But can you make the Story credible to my Reason Poole O Sr it is undoubted For this and much more is writ in a Holy Book we call Scripture And you are bound to believe it Phil. In a Book called Scripture Here is no Reason for I ask upon what Motive can you make All that is writ in this Book credible to me And here because I shall instantly press the point farther my Demand only is From Whom you received Scripture and how long since it came to your hands We had it saith Mr. Poole about a hundred When and from whom Sectaries had their Bible years agon partly from men that now are suppos'd forgot I think they were called Papists partly from other Haereticks as Arians Graecians of no great Credit for they are contrary to us Phil. And is it possible Dare you admit of this strange and Mysterious Bible upon no stronger proof then the Authority of Haereticks and such beguiled men Answ We do so For we have no better Testimony Phil. What Professors of Christianity had you in the world before your time That taught truely and purely the Doctrin of your Bible Poole For a thousand years at least we know not of any The best I can mention are the later Graecians and yet They highly dissent from us in points very fundamental as I read in Leo Alatius against Hottinger Arcudius and other Authors Phil. Tell me once more Had you no Professors No Pastors no Protestant Bishops of your Protestancy before these last hundred years no Protestant Bishops no Pastors no Doctors that handed unto you this Bible Poole None at all Phil. That is pittiful and makes me suspect your Religion However since these last hundred years have you made any known and notable Conversions upon Infidels by Preaching the Doctrin of your Bible or have you wrought undoubted Miracles in Confirmation of its Truth Answ We must Confess the want of great Conversions and of known Miracles also Phil. Satisfy me yet further in one doubt When you are at variance amongst your selves concerning the difficil passages of this Book which are many No cert Iudge to reconcile differences for I have read it who have you to Reconcile those differences in whose certain judgement do you finally Acquiesce Answ We acknowledge no infallible Teacher no certain Judge on Earth every man gives his private sentiment concerning those difficulties though not infallibly And 't is not in our power to do more Phil. Here can be no unity in Doctrin But No Commission to teach uncertain Doctrin say on I beseech you Tell me who sent you to teach these uncertain Sentiments of your Bible from whom had you Commission to preach such unsetled Doctrin You know that in Civil affaires if one uncommissioned assume to himself the Title of Legate or any Dignity in a Commonwealth he is either Traitor Tyrant or both You call your selves Legates sent from God you assume the Dignity
well to Distinguish between express Scripture and the superadditions of Mens Glosses fallible Explications Interpretations c. Now if When Sectaries interpret Scripture truely They borrow light from Church Doctrin in this particular Mystery of the Trinity Mr. Poole Interpret's Scripture truely it is not God knows His skill that doth it No. The Reason is Becaus be borrows the Truth from the Churches Interpretation of Scripture and so fights against an Arian with anothers Weapon Where by the way observe a strange proceeding of Protestants who when They dispute A strange proceeding of Protestants out of Scripture against an Arian They 'l have the Churches Interpretation good against him and His naught against them And when they Dispute by Scripture against Catholicks They will have the Churches Interpretation forceles against themselves and Their own wretched Glosses powerfully strong against the Church Were there ever such Doings in the world before these dayes 10. But we have not yet said all concerning Scripture Interpretations of Scripture Inferences out of Scripture c. Wherfore Becaus we are gone so far Pardon a further trouble of giving you a few more Notes on this Subject They will shew you if I mistake not upon what rottering Principles the Grand Cheat of Protestant Religion stand's for want of Infallible Teachers CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 1. WE have almost seen enough how Sectaries either through Malice Ignorance or both make Holy Scripture a Book that proves all Religions Like Wittingtons bells It ring 's out what Fancy will For in Scripture is Arianism if we believe the Arians Here is Protestanism if we believe Protestants Here is Quakerism if we believe Quakers Here is what you will and All Haereticks lay alike claim to Scripture and the sense of it what you will not And it must be so whilst These men have a Bible in their hands and Construe all as they pleas Gloss as they pleas Interpret as they pleas without Limit or Restraint It had been much better Methinks if such Sole-Scripturists had never read Scripture in these debated Points of Religion then after their reading to se it made a Book that only begets Dissentions so grosly wronged and abused it is Yet no Body is in fault Pure Scripture cryes the Arian pure Scripture saith the Protestant nothing but Scripture saith the Puritan And there is no Redress for these Evils All run on in their wilful misunderstanding Scripture not one of them will yeild to another nor which is worst of all and plain Perversnes Seek after a means which is yet offered them to come to a right understanding of it 2. Truely I have often wondred at our Protestants men as they say of a more Sober Temper then your Quakers and Puritans are How it is possible Protestants Plea for Sole Scripture after they know right well with innumerable Holy Fathers this Plea or pleading sole Scripture to be nothing els but an old Trick of all condemned Haereticks That they can lessen themselves so much had they no other motive to retard them as to tread the Footsteps of such unworthy Sectaries and patronize a Doctrin which cannot but breed Dissentions to the Worlds end This it is Sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith Sole Scripture speaks plainly in all things necessary to Their false Doctrin Saluation On these two Hinges chiefly Protestant Religion turns about and will do so until God at his good pleasure judge it time to turn it out of the World Two Cheats they are and great Ones as I shall Demonstrate 3. Mr. Poole to mend the matter having supposed Mr. Pool's three Positions that sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith withall That there is enough said in Scripture to end all Controversies were men humble and Studious c. Seem's in the 7. Chap. of his Nullity page 226. to ground Protestant Religion on these three Positions The first is That the Books of Scripture are and may be proved to be the Word of God 2. That in the Substantials of Faith those Books are uncorrupted 3. That the Sense of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary Points There is no Arian but will most easily admit of these three Propositions How then were they all True can they more establish Protestant Religion then Arianism For a Principle common to two Advers parties cannot considered meerly as a Principle agreed on by both more Advantage the cause of One then the Other If therfore an Arian Assent to these Propositions they ground no more Protestant Religion then they do Arianism Mr. Poole wants a fourth Proposition The Truth is Mr. Poole is highly wanting in a fourth Proposition which if proved would have done him more service then the other Three And it should have been to this Sense Seing Scripture speak's plainly all Doctrin necessary to Saluation Certainly it ought to teach Protestancy plainly I mean the particular Tenents of Protestants as these stand in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin For if these be necessary to Saluation Scripture hath delivered them plainly or if it have not done so We must Conclude They are not necessary to Saluation Thus much premised we will shew you in the ensuing Discours how slippery and fallacious Protestant Doctrin is as it Relates to Scripture and Interpretation of Scripture 4. The first proposition No infallible Church no No Infallible Church no certainty of true Scripture Assurance of True and uncorrupt Scripture To makes my Assertion good against Protestants I will only propose this plain Question From what men of Credit and Integrity had the first Protestants Their Bible It From whom had Protestants their Bible was not drop't down from Heaven into their Pulpits with Assurance of its Purity or Certainty that no Change was made in it contrary to Truth since the Apostles Times Were they Iewes Infidels Turks Arians or Graecian Haeretiks that gave them Scripture Too perfidious to be trusted in a matter of such Consequence Too unfaithsul either to preserve true Scripture by them till Luther quit his Cell or then to put into his hands a Bible Vncorrupt in every Point Were they Catholicks Let our Adversaries shame the Devil and speak Truth 'T was from them They had their Bible together with the Originals But these Papists These very Catholicks if we may credit Catholicks in Protestants Principles cannot be relyed on for Scripture Protestants had not only Corrupted the Writings of the Ancient Fathers But also through Malice or Ignorance Had grosly erred a thousand years together and Changed the Ancient Doctrin of the Primitive Church They had Secretly wrought into mens harts a fals Belief of the Chutches Infallibility of an unbloody Sacrifice of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and such like errors Admit of this Supposition who is there amongst Protestants that shall dare to look on his Bible with good Assurance of its If
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
Infallible Teacher to learn us now infallibly what that Written Word speaks in a hundred As great necessity now to learn us what Scripture speak's as what Christ tought controverted Points as then was necessary to declare the Substance of Christs Doctrin which he delivered by Word of mouth I say the substance for without all doubt the Apostles and the 70. said explicitely much more in thir Preaching then meerly what Christ had implicitely and in fewer words commanded them to Preach yet They neither did nor could swerve in any Doctrinal Point Therfore in the publishing his Doctrin They had the Assistance of the Holy Ghost before his Ascension Though it was then more amply confirmed and promised anew not only to the Apostles then living But also to their Successors for ever 6. And this is what our Saviour Dogmatically Gods Spirit with his Church for ever Teaches Iohn 14. 16. of a Comforter the Holy Ghost who shall abide with you for ever which words implying a continual aboad cannot buâ— be understood in an Absolute sense Yes say They He shall be with them for ever But how Mark the gloss in regard of Consolation and Grace A meer Guess Not only for Consolation and Grace The only question is whether it hitt's right or no For who tell 's you Sr That this and no other is the Absolute sense of Christs Words Why may They not as well import the Assistance of Infallibility as that of Consolation and Grace Prove your Gloss and by Scripture This we urge for We Catholicks say without drawing further Proof from either Councils or Fathers which you hold Fallible That Christs following words Iohn 16. 13. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will teach you all Truth taken in their obvious sense warrants this Infallible Assistance for ever Can your Fallible Spirit assure me of the contrary You say Yes For these last Words are Restrained to the Apostles only Here is another Gloss or Guess as unlucky as the former For who Restrains here Christ or You If you do it you may as well restrain the Consolation of Grace to all the Apostles Successors as Infallible Assistance 7. We prove both the One and the Other Blessing granted to the Church by our Saviours own Words Matt. 28. 20. I am with you always to the end of the world and moreover Affirm that the Consolâ—tion of Grace granted the Church whose duty is to Teach us Truth Benefit's little in order to that Consolation of grace nothing in a whole Church without Infallibility End unles it be accompanied with the further Priviledge of infallibility For what comfort hath Any whether Learned or Illiterate to Hear that the Pastors of Christs Church have mâ—â—h interiour Consolation and Grace if this sorrowful Thought afflict his hart All and every one of thâ—se Pastors notwithstanding the plenty of their Grace may cheat him intâ— damnable Error and teach There is neither God Heaven nor Hell 8. I might further show How utterly inconsistent this supposed and yet Vnexplicated Consolation of Grace The Consolation of Grace and want of Divine Assistance uncompossible in the whole Church is with the Spirit of a whole Church which may Deceive us But the thing need 's no Proof for it is evident That God who hath promised to direct us by his Pastors cannot comfort them so plentifully with Celestial Inspirations and Permit all to delude and cosen us with Pernicious Errors Will he give them grace Think ye to Talk only and not to teach his Verities certainly To live holily for his grace serves for some end and Leave them to a Possibility of Corrupting his Spouse his own Sanctified God Courts not his Church with comfort and permitt's it to betray his Truths Church with fals Doctrin This in a word is to tell God That he court 's the watchmen of his Church with Heavenly Consolation who nevertheles may Betray his Cause and give up his Citty to the Devil when they please For here in They are left to their own wills and Fancies God you know is Truth and He loves Truth Truth is that which he first established in his Church And it Answers to that first Operation of Christian which is Divine Faith the ground of all Sanctity To tell me therfore That He comforts a whole Church by A Paradox of Sectaries Grace and yet leaves it so tottering upon Vncertainties That none can with absolute Assurance say He either teaches or hear's Truth delivered in any Article of Christian Faith is worse then a meer Chimaera And makes our Bountifull Lord not only a very Niggard of his Graces But also gives him a most high Affront The Grace therforâ— of Consolation The comfort of Grace supposeth the favour of Infallibility which he allowes his Church as a Church ever implyes or supposeth that Arcb-favour of Infallible Assistance Rob it of this Priviledge and other Graces avail little 9. And here by the way I must needs propose one question to our Protestants It is whether God Supposing his Promises already made can A question proposed whether the Church can withstand an loose all grace according to their Principles permit that the whole Church Vnassisted by his infallible Spirit loose withstand and reject what ever Grace he gives or hath given it If they say Yes It is Possible Then I Infer God can permit that the Whole Church may turn Traitour and become Impious For a Church which withstands looseth or rejects all Grace is traiterous and impious If they say no it is against his Goodnes to permit such a Universal Impiety They must acknowledge That he cannot but preserve a Church for ever whether consisting of Elect or no we dispute not in his Grace and favour Truth as necessary to the Church as Grace and this infallibly Ergo I say He cannot buth Infallibly also supposing his Promises Preserve it in Truth by the special Assistance of his own Unerring Spirit Truth being as all know as necessary to the Church as Grace is And thus we se in notorious great Sinners who although they have a thousand Incitements of Grace to amend their lives yea better themselves by it in some particulars yet as long as Divine Truth necessary to Christians is wanting Their state is Deplorable To conclude then Here is my Dilemma Either it is possible That the whole Church That is All the Teachers and Hearers in it may abandâ—n all Gods Revealed Verities and neither Teach nor Hear one Word of his Truth or 't is impossible If the first be granted 'T is not only possible that the whole Church may revolt from God and Truth But may loose all Grace likewise Grant this and say next what will become of our Protestants Elect people who Becaus Predestinated to Eternal life cannot but have Grace Observe well A Paradox of Sectaries the Paradox They cannot Loose grace yet 't is possible never to hear a Word of
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.
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
and all Sectaries would as well Agree in one harmony of Doctrin By force of that clear Interpretation none of Them Denies The clear Sense of Scripture interpreted by Scripture it Self If all agreed in the Sense of Scripture There would be no dissenting as they now agree in owning Scripture to be Divine They accord not in the first therfore Scripture is not its own Interpreter Or if any yet without Proof strongly Assert so much Most Evidently in order to these Dissenting men it is as useles an Interpreter as if it were none at all For it Composeth no Differences Take here one Instance Sectaries to prove Scripture conspicuous and clear without an Interpreter quote these and the like Places Thy word is a Lantern to my feet A Lante◠shining in a dark place c. We answer Scriptures are truely a Light when that outward cover of Ambiguous Words wherin the Sense often lyes Enclosed is broken open by a Faithful Interpreter And withall we add 'T is vainly frivolous to make Them such shining Lamps as to silence all Preaching and Interpretation yet this follows if Sectaries Gloss right For it is ridiculous to interpret or teach that a Lantern shines which I se bright before my Eyes Observe well The Protestant makes Scripture clear without a Teacher The Catholick Interpretation absolutly necessary to Scripture saith Interpretation is Absolutely Necessary Scripture it self Delivers not in Formal Words either the One or Other Gloss Therfore it doth not ever Interpret it self Home or declare its own Meaning Nay it cannot do so For all Interpretation Properly taken is a New More Clear and Distinct Light Superadded to the Formal Words of Scripture But no Hagiographer says This Sacred Book makes any such new Addition of Glosses Therfore it cannot Interpret it self And this is what the Apostle 2. Petri 1. 20. Seem's to teach Scripture is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of its own Explication 4. I say 2. No Private man whether Catholick Arian Protestant or Other can upon his own Discours or Iudgement only so Interpret a Difficil Scripture with Certainty as to Assure any that God Speaks as He Interpret's The Reason is Every Private Judgement is Fallible and lyable to Error which Truth that of the Apostle Romans 3. Omnis homo mendax Teaches But a Iudgement A Iudgement lyable to Errour cannot give certainty of the Scriptures sense Fallible and lyable to errour can with no Certainty give me that Sense wich God Reveals in a Difficil Place of Scripture Therfore I cannot Trust to it nor assuredly Ground my Faith on such an Interpretation And thus much Protestants Acknowledge for They say Neither Church nor Ancient Fathers are to be Relyed on as Infallible in their Interpretation of Scripture Therfore much less can a Minister or Lay Man Assume to Himself the Infallible Spirit of Interpreting or Resolve what a whole Vniversal Church is to Believe Alas such a man want's Certitude in what He saith he want's a Perfect knowledge of both Scripture and Antiquity never perhaps exactly perused He want's a Constant Stability for what He Judgeth this Hour He may upon after Thoughts change the next For as He is Fallible so is he also Changeable in his Iudgement 5. Yet More What Private Man Dare when he See's the Learned of contrary Religion at debate Concerning the Sense of Scripture step in amongst Them and say My Masters you are to Believe me and Acquiesce to what I judge of the Sense c. 'T is I And not You That know Gods Meaning Would not such a Thing be cast out of all Company Yet This is our very Case when a new Vpstart Puft up with his own Sentiments Tell 's either Catholick or Protestant what the Sense of Scripture is in Controverted Points of Faith And Hence I say The Catholick cannot Assure a Protestant without a better Proof then His own Opinion That the Sectary Err's in his Interpretation nor can the Protestant upon his own Assertion Remove the Catholick from the Judgement He makes of the Scriptures Sense Both As private men Catholicks and Protestants are both Fallible of them are alike Fallible if no other Certain Principle be laid hold on Here then is the Difference The Catholick for his Interpretation of such Places prudently Relyes on a firmer Ground then his variable Judgement The Protestant hath nothing to uphold the Sense He Defends But his own wavering and unsteedy Thoughts which are as changeable as Were moral certainty sufficient why is it to be more granted the Sectary then the Catholick the Man is fallible Here is the best Support for his interpretation and Faith also If he tell you he hath moral assurance or Interpret's as the Primitive Church did I answered above He only thinks so But Proves nothing Let him show that the Primitive Church ever Interpred those words The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth as he now Interprets them If he say He Believes as his own Judgement Interpret's I grant this is too Pittifully True But what am I the better on that Account Can we Rely on a Protestants easy fallible and erroneous Judgement in so Weighty a matter At last surely he will hit On 't And say he Interprets as the Holy Ghost Suggesteth Happy man did He so But we shall find it otherwise Presently However becaus the Word is of comfort let him hear it on Gods name For it is the Resolution of our whole Question The Holy Ghost only interprets Scripture Certainly 6. I say therfore 3. No other But the Spirit of Truth the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture certainly Iohn 16. 23. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will Teach all Truth But one and a most necessary Truth is to have Scripture faithfully Interpreted Therfore this the holy Ghost Teaches if he Teach all Truth Again Iohn 14. 16. He is called a Paraclete or Comforter abyding with us for ever But he is not a permanent Comforter unles he Solace as well by his Spirit of Truth mentioned Iohn 17. 19. as with other Interiour Consolation To allege more Texts obvious to all is needles The Assertion delivered in These general Terms is undoubtedly True and Protestaents I think who endlesly talk of their Interiour Spirit will not Deny it The difficulty by whom the Spirit interpret's 7. The only Difficulty which will trouble Them is Seing this Al-teaching Spirit usually Interpret's not by Private Illustrations nor Assumes every Private man to be the Oracle wherby he speak's and interpret's Seing also He leaves Scripture still as Speechles in order to its own further Explication as it was 16. hundred years agon The Difficulty I say is to find out that Oracle And a Christian Society it must be for Angels are not Interpreters wherin He Presides as Master and by it interpret's Scripture Find this Speaking Oracle out and we have enough Hear it and we hear Truth To our purpose then 8. Doth this Spirit
Christ But held that he was Man only The Monothelits Believed That which all Christians agree in though true is not enough for saving Faith in Christ But denyed his two Natures his two Wills Humane and Divine The Apollinarians Believed in Christ and held that the Word assumed True Flesh But without a Created Soul Tell me now can you Abstract a Belief from these Erring Christians Common to all other That is safe sufficient and enough to constitute Saving and Catholich Faith Is it enough to say I do Believe in Christ without descending with my Faith to an explicit Belief of his Divinity also Hath one that saith I believe in Christ But I will abstract from a Belief of his two Natures from his having a Rational Soul from His Being God and Man And Becaus others have positively Disbelieved these Articles I will only Prescind from the Verity of them to prescind is les then expresly to deny them hath such an one I say Saving Faith enough to make him a Plain Haresy followâ— from these Sectaries Doctrin Member of the Holy Catholick Church No. For if so He needs not to believe at all the Divinity of Christ or his two Natures after Scripture is Red and Proposed unto him which obligeth him if He own it for Gods Word not to Abstract from the Belief of these Articles But positively to yeild an Assent to them with True Faith as most Fundamental Verities of Christian Religion You se Therfore how Impossible it is to draw one true Vniform Vniversal Doctrin From all erring Christians And to hold that on the one side sufficient for Catholick Faith And on the other to comply with that strict Obligation which express Scripture clearly proposed forceth us to Believe 4. This Point I insist on Becaus I know Protestants cannot so much as probably Name any Thing like a Holy united Catholick Church before Luther unles They first Answer as some of them seem to do by the Abstract Doctrin of all Christians now evidenced no Faith And say That particular Errors did Vncatholick none Or Secondly run to an invisible Church not at all Designable Or thirdly as They Protestants ought to acknowledg the Roman Catholick Church as True c. ought to do Acknowledge that the Roman Catholick Church was then and now is not only a Church But the Sole Holy and Catholick Church of Christ through the whole World With this Catholick Society I could show were it not amply don by others How all who Age after Age merited the Name of Catholicks have ioyned in Faith And all who parted from it Have been Branded with the ignominious Note of Or can find none Haereticks If I speak not Truth Name any Society of Christians before Luther That ever gained the None ever had the Name of Catholick but those of the Roman Faith Repute of Catholick But such only as were United in Faith with the Roman Church Name any one Society That Divorced it Self from this Church which Forthwith lost not that Ancient Title of Catholick Or was not upon That Separation Stiled Haeretical Schismatical or Both. If you say first the Roman Church wronged them I Ask. Quis te constituit judicem Who made you judge in this Case Name the injured Parties Were the Arians Pelagians Nestorians Donatists wronged when they left Communion with this Church The Gracians Waldenses c. No more wronged then Arians No. But the Waldenses the Albigenses the Hussits And most of all The later Graecians had Injury Don them And why so more Then Pelagians Is your bare Assertion Proof enough to Declare Those Guilty and These Innocent When you your selves as much condemn them as Catholicks Do For You utterly Disavow Their Doctrin Was ever General Council Convened That did more Patronize the Errour of these Waldenses Then those other of the Arians or That blamed the Roman Church for casting them out of Her Communion No. Why therfore do you Plead â—o much for a Bad cause when you have no more â—o Defend it Then your own Proofles Talk which Had you spent in an Apology For any Old Condemned Haeretick would have Help't as much That 's nothing at all as now you Advantage These later Men And Observe I Beseech you How weakly you Go to work You say the Hussits Waldenses Sectaries plead for condemned Hereticks without any Principle but their own Talk and Others were good Catholicks We deny it And Demonstrate their Vncatholick Doctrin To what Tribunal shall we Appeal for a just Sentence to your Saying I or to our No. To None And Thus you Proceed with us in all your Controversies We must either take your Word for your Assertion or Dispute without end upon nothing that hath the Appearance And make Controversies Endles of a received Principle 5. You Say Again The Later Graecians were Catholicks Before they Recanted their Errours in the Council of Florence How Prove you That By a glorious Empty Title A Defence of the Greek Church By Far fetch'd Vncertain Conjectures And meer Negative Arguments which are so slight That if all were put together in a Iust Ballance They would not weigh one Straw much â—es Out-weigh the Definition of a most Learned General Council against the Greeks Yet such Talk and Talk only lengthen's these new Books And makes them so Voluminous as They are And They Defend Doctrin denyed by the English Church by the way Note here a Pretty Humour The Greeks must be Defended in that Point of the Holy Ghosts Procession from the Father Only whilst the Church of England Anathematizeth the Doctrin Is not this Right think ye And well done by a Protestant 6. Well You shall se my plain Dealing with Graecians Hussits and Waldenses could not make the Catholick Church you I Licence you to take These Graecians Those Hussits Those Waldenses c. to make up a Church before Luther yet must Tell you They Do not the deed without more Company which cannot be found That These we have named make not the Church Catholick is Evident For first they were never Vniversal either in Time or Place Their late Beginnings and little Extent are known and upon Record 2. They were never United in one Doctrin But more at variance with One another Then you and Catholicks are This they only Agreed in to Oppose the Catholick Faith And if so much made them Protestants or good Catholicks You may call in Turks and Iewes to bear them Company 3. They were most contrary to Protestant Religion and not in Trifles only Why therfore have you recours to a People so Blasted Scattered and almost now Forgotten Alas Protestants Every way Churchles The Reason is clear Becaus without them you have nothing to make a Church of And yet with them you are Churchles I say therfore No Roman Catholick Church no Church No Roman Catholick Church no Church at all at all If no Church at all There was then
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
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
Controversy between us to a Trial of That which least Concern's us and cannot as they think be Decided by any Received Principle Viz. Whether They or we are better setled in non-Fundamentals which imports so little if our Protestants say true That the Knowing of them is scarce worth our Knowledge Becaus They are wholy Vnnecessary to Salvation and Make us neither more nor les Essential Members of Christs mystical Body The Catholick Church 4. From this Concession of our Adversaries I infer That no Protestant can probably go about to Draw any If the Belief of the Creed be Sufficient Protestants cannot draw Catholicks from their Religion Superfluities though granted hinder not Salvation Intelligent Catholick from his Religion First Becaus He is as Firm in the Belief of Fundamentals as Any Sectary whoever And that will save his Soul Now If they say we Want no Fundamentals but abound in Superfluities It is only said and not Proved However grant all though contrary to Truth These Redundancies Hinder not Salvation and may well be Listed amongst Non-Necessaries 2. No Catholick voluntarily Opposeth Himself to so much as to one Iota of Gods Word Sufficiently Proposed nor can He and Remain Catholick 3. He cannot Thwart his Judgement of Discerning or go Against his Conscience in Believing Catholick Religion For by Doing either He looseth Faith 4. As long as He is A Cordial and Sincere Believer of the Roman Catholick Faith He can have no Evident Demonstrations against it Or Tax this Church of Errour or if in Conscience He Do so eo ipso He cease's to be a Member of This Church And is no longer Orthodox 5. Yet I say More It is impossible for a Prudent A Prudent man cannot but se the great Evidence of Catholick Religion Man secluding Gross And most culpable Ignorance which makes him Imprudent to Shut his Eyes or not to Se Those clear Evidences Those visible Notes Those glorious Marks and Characters of Truth wherby the Church of Christ is made manifest to the View of All. The wise Providence of God will have this Discernibility or Perspicuity of it both Apparent and obvious To Ordinary Prudence Otherwise which is impious We might blame His Goodnes and Tell Almighty God You O Lord Assure us in Scripture of our Final Beatitude But you have with it left us in Darknes concerning the Way and Means to Find How one of Prudence may plead it out And to Attain this Happines What Avail's it to know the End And to be Invincibly Ignorant of the Means All who profess Christianity are not True Believers How shall we Discern the Haeretical Societies from Other Christ Answers Your Way By the Light and What Answer Satisfies Guidance of Those Marks of Truth which manifested me when I first Taught Christianity and yet Beautify my only Church is so Clear and Evident without Dispute Vt nec stulti errent per â—am That is hard For the most Ignorant To miss of it much more For the Prudent 6. No Conviction therfore No evident Demonstration can so forcibly Press upon a Catholick As to make him to Desert His Faith And if He stand not evidently Catholicks cannot unles Evidently convicted of Error which is impossible Desert Their Faith convicted of manifest Errour it were wors then Madnes in him yea and Damnable also to Change his Religion Let Sectaries therfore Stentor-like Cry out Till They grow Hoars again Mr. Poole all along smooth's his Discours with such Harsh Eloquence O ye blind Papists O ye Seduced Men when will ye open your Eyes c The Solid Catholick Answers Railing is no Reason Your Ancestors and mine were Papists Before You or Your Haeresy were in Being I believe my Creed as Their solid Answer to All Opponents well as you I Admit of every Word in Scripture as well as you I go no more against my Iudgement or Conscience nor perhaps so much as you Do. Wherin then am I faulty Nay I must yet Tell you More Though by a Supposed Impossibility The Church wherof I am a Member should err and I ioyntly be in Errour with it Yet as long as the Errour is unavoydable And invincible in me wherof my Conscience Reproves me not it is in your own Principles no matter of Damnation Becaus Ignorance excuses me Therfore as The Catholick Every way without blame I am every way without blame in my Belief so I cannot be reclaimed from it by you 7. But saith the Catholick Give me a Company of men who Admit of Christ and so far Deny His Church That He Evidently Convinces Sectaries of Their Errors and most unhappy forsaking the Ancient Church They cannot say where it is That will Reform Their Elder Brethren Before They have Certainty of Their own Half well made Reformation That think Themselves wiser then all the now Living And the Ancient deceased Defenders of the Roman Catholick Church That have causlesly Separated Themselves from an Ancient Church And Yet are not ioyned to Any Society of Christians which Beares the Resemblance of a Catholick Community Who never yet had so much as one General Council to Direct Them no Infallible Oracle to Teach them Protestancy described as it is No Motives No Miracles to Evidence their new Faith Who make every private Person a Church Every mans Reason Iudge of High Mysteries that transcend Reason Who Take and Leave what They list in Matters of Faith upon no other Warrant But their own wilful Choise Who seemingly own an Vniversal Church But yeild Obedience to None Who are Always seeking for Truth without Hope of finding it Always Teaching more Learned Then Themselves And yet to this day Know not what they Teach Who Too unluckily spend the few Days of Their Life in Scribling Controversies Though they se it is to no Purpose For besides a high Offence given to God All The Credit They gain in the Christian World Abroad And their Repute at home amongst intelligent Persons is no better Amounts to This Ignominy That unfortunatly They Patronize a late invented Haeresy which at last They must quit or quite Despair of Saluation Give me I say such a sort of Men They are not only battered and Bafled But Also by most Pressing Arguments Drawn both from Authority and Reason May be evidently convinced yea And if Gods Grace want not easily Reclaimed from Their Errors If Perversnes in some and Ignorance in others I mean the Ignorance of Pride Hinder not Their Conversion But to Withdraw a Knowing Catholick upon Rational Inducements From How They have gained some Prosylits his Religion is Impossible It is true They have Gained some Prosylits Vnnatural Children to Their Ancient Mother Church But how Alas Too indulgent to Flesh and Blood they were allured by Sensual not Rational Motives The Truth is Evident I say no more 8. To End this Chapter of Fundamentals Be Three things to be noted in this Question of Fundamentals Pleased
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
old Believed Articles And consequently is lyable to Damnation 24. You se moreover It is not only suitable to Reason But necessary also for the very Preservation of Christian Religion That the Church to whom the Mysteries Necessary For Christian Religion of our Faith were committed Though it makes no new Articles nor Supposeth any other Foundation then what was laid by Christ and his Apostles May yet as That the Church declare more explicitly Necessity requires Declare more Explicitly the Primitive Doctrin of Christianity For by what better Means can we possibly arrive to the Knowledge of Primitive Doctrine those Necessary Truths which the Apostles either Believed or Taught Then by their Heirs and Successors The Successors of the Apostles Teach in the place of Those deceased Masters I mean The vigilant Watchmen who were and Still are substituted in the Place of those First Infallible Deceased Masters They Blessed Men ran up and down the World from Country to Country from House to House Testifying the Faith of our Lord Iesus Christ yet neither committed all the Truths Delivered by them to Holy Writ nor supposed The Apostles writ not all They taught the Ignorant and Vulearned fit Instruments to Teach as They had Taught The Legacies Therfore of our Christian Truths were left in surer Hands I mean Chiefly in the Custody of the Successors of those first great Masters Whence it is That the Deposited Doctrin commended to Timothy Apostle commend's to Timothy more then once the Keeping of a Depositum of mighty Value which the Fathers and none more expresly then Vincentius Lirinensis call the Common Catholick Doctrin Or to speak Talentum Catholicum saith Vinc. Lir. in this worthy Authors words upon the Text 1. Tim. 6. 20. lib. contr prof Hae. Novit Biblioth Patrum Tom. 4. cap. 27. Talentum Catholicum Fidei The Catholick Talent of our Faith Aurum accepistis Add's Vincentius aurum redde Thou O Bishop Pastor and Doctor hast received Gold render as pure Gold again c. What things thou hath learned so Teach Adorn and Illustrate and mark Here a further Declaration of the Deposited A further Declaration of Deposited Doctrin allowed of Doctrin Allowed of ut cum dicas Novè non dicas Nova That when Thou proposest Things anew Thou Teach not new Things but the old Doctrin And hence it also is That the Church of Christ is stiled by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives a Rich Treasury The Church called by most Ancient Fathers Depositorium Dives wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is Kept And not only once Kept and then lost But as a Depositum ought to be it s Handed down from Age to Age from Church to Church Successively continued to the Worlds End If therfore you look for the Apostolical Depositum Leap not I Beseech you over the Heads of all those Christians who have been betwixt Us and the first 3. or The Apostolical Depositum is in the Churches hands 4. Ages As if it were to be found There and no where els But Demand of this present Church now in Being 'T is She that Knows better And Inform's us more exactly of Apostolical Doctrin Then all the lost Writings of the The present Church best inform's us of Apostolical Doctrin Ancient Church could have done or those that are hitherto preserv'd can do Because they are all lyable to endles Disputes and Consequently can absolutely Decide no controversy Now if any one Boggles at this Assertion as if we could not have sufficient Certitude of The most Ancient writings are lyable to Dispute what the Ancient Church Delivered by the Testimony or Tradition of the Present Church But further Requir's Express Records to be Produced of all that was ever Taught Let him correct his Errour and know That what is Carved in Brass or Writ in Velume cannot be more securely Kept then Apostolical Doctrin Deposited in the Hands and writ in the Apostolical Doctrin better preserved in the hands of Christs Pastors thenif't had been carved in Brass Harts of Christs faithful Pastors is now Preserved For what 's in Brass or Partchment Time may wear out and blemish But that which God hath committed to his Church and Chief Pastors therof who are to Teach Christians Age after Age shall never Perish never Pass or be put out of Remembrance And this Doctrin the Church Deliver's more Explicitly in her Definitions chiefly when she Declares Truth against Haereticks CHAP. VII More of this Subject Objections are Answered 1. TO go on with our Discours I would willingly Know when the Apostle Exhort's the Galatians cap. 1. vers 8. 9. Not to Believe an Angel Preaching contrary to what He had Preached and They had formerly Received As also the Thessalonians 2. c. 2. 14. to Hold the Traditions learned by Word or Epistle Whether All that the Apostles Orally taught was neither writ nor can be supposed lost we can Imagin that all the Apostles Orally Delivered was Either Expresly Registred in Scripture or the whole Substance of that Divine Doctrin of equal Certitude with Gods written Word is now Totally lost Neither is Probable The Essentials therfore of that Doctrin laid up sure in the rich Treasury of the The Essentials of it remain in the Churches Treasury Church still Remain with Christs own Faithfull Pastors And this is the Depositum mentioned in Scripture wherby the Church Assisted by the Holy Ghost Regulates Her self when She Defines Therfore great Divines Assert That the Church never Teaches or will Teach any new Verity that was unknown to the Apostles The Doctrin of Divines Se Greg. de Valentia De Fide Disp 1. Quaest 1. Puncto 6. § Illud vero And § Hinc quoque Suarez Disp 2. De Fide Sect. 6. n. 18. Tanner Disp 1. de Fide Quaest 1. Dub. 7. n. 211. 2. St. Paul Methinks confirm's this Doctrin Roman 12. 6. According to the Rule of Faith Wherupon our What is meant by the Analogy of Faith Sectaries Because the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Endlesly talk of the Analogy of Faith Let us bring Words to Sense and Sense to Principles What is This Analogy This Measure or Proportion of Faith Is that which every Mans private Fancy fall's upon to be Faith the Measure and Analogy of it God forbid If so Faith would be as Various as Fancy is Changeable in Haereticks We must therfore find out a better Analogy And if you say it is Scripture I Answer Before the writing of Scripture A perfect Rule of Faith before Scripture was writ There was a true and perfect Rule of Faith Otherwise These words of St. Paul Presupposing the Rule He mentions before he writ This Epistle are insignificant Again When He Tell 's the Thessalonians Epist 1. c. 1. of Their being a Pattern to all that Believed in Macedonia and Achaia Of the Word of our Lord sounded out by them Scripture
these later Definitions are proved Authentick Can you Imagin what They would be at Would These men would have They know not what they have an Authentick Attestation to prove what the Church hath Defined ever since the Apostles Time is the Ancient Apostolical Doctrin The Church Tell 's Them it is so but That 's not enough Would they have a Register Distinct from the Churches Declaration containing the Summ of all Apostolical Doctrin Yes sure this They seek for if their Demand of having the Apostles Declarations shewed them carry Sense with it For example we must shew them by some written Record more Ancient then all the Definitions of the Church are That the Apostles held a Purgatory Transubstantiation a Sacrifice c. Or at least Prove these Doctrins to be grounded on â—ndoubted Received Tradition I have answered Suppose the Roman Catholick They are clearly confuted Church And here we speak of no other For I hope Sectaries will not urge us to shew Them writings Received from Ancient Haereticks should Produce a Record containing a Summary of Apostolical Doctrin Our Adversaries might more justly except against that as an old unproved Legend then They are now able Rationally to except against the Churches Definitions Because such an Imagined Record must either be Approved by as great an Authority as the Churches is to gain it Credit or by a Greater There cannot be a greater in this present State of Things then the Churches own Authority But Sectaries Reject this Authority when the Churck Defines Therfore they would much more easily Reject that supposed written Instrument though it told them exactly what She now Defines is Apostolical Doctrin As much Therfore The Church can do as much without the Imagined Hand-writing as with it as the Church can be supposed to do by the Help of such an Imagined Writing it can do without it For if it have Authority to Legitimate as it were such a Writing it s own Authority is as worthy of Credit when it Defines without the Writing You se Therfore how Unreasonably these men require a Codicil containing the old Apostolical Doctrin which ought Forsooth to be Exhibited and shewed them Before they can be perswaded that the Church fairhfully Proposeth or Defines a Doctrin to be Apostolical 9. Now if They be convinced that to Require such a Manuscript from us is as Vnreasonable as if we should Press them to produce one for Their late Novelties And therfore urge the Church to prove her Defined Doctrin by undoubted Tradition I answer The Church doth So whilst They God knows Allege nothing like Tradition for so much as one of their New Articles A Fallacy of Sectaries about Tradition And here because we have a fit Occasion I 'll Discover in a Word the Fallacy of Sectaries in this matter of Tradition I say in a Word For 't is not my Task now to Handle that Question largely Thus it is Sectaries ever suppose when the Church Defines a Doctrin upon the Tradition of former Ages it is obliged to shew them the very Doctrin in express Terms Antecedently to the Definitions owned and writ down in the Volumes of some one or more Learned Fathers Whence it is They Argue How Sectaries argue No man heard of a Purgatory before St. Austins Time and He only hints at it slightly nor of Transubstantiation before the Lateran Council c. Therfore those Doctrins are Novelties lately introduced I Answer Were all this True The Argument is an unconcluding Negative and run's By uncluding Negatives limping thus Antiquity or the Ancient Fathers have not Expressed every Defined Doctrin of the Church in the like Explicit Terms as the Church useth Therfore such Doctrins were not really Received by the Church Observe well From the want of an Expression suitable to Sectaries Fancy They Infer The Fathers expres Things sometimes one way and the Church another the Doctrin was never Taught by Antiquity Alas the Fathers had their Expressions one way and the Church after mature Deliberation another often more significant Yet Both Aymed at the same Verity though differently set forth in Words as is clear in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation called by the Fathers a Real Change of Bread into Christs Body By the Lateran Council as you here se otherwise I say yet Farther Had the Fathers not at all so much as Hinted at a Doctrin Defined by the Church the Argument is yet Purely Negative and worth nothing Sectaries Discours highly improbable But is here all No. Their Discours upon another Account is highly Improbable To prove what I say Do no more but only Imagin That Three or Four of the most Ancient and Learned Fathers Had in express Terms Owned and Registred in Their Writings the Lateran Councils Definition concerning Transubstantiation as received Orthodox and Catholick Doctrin just as that Council Defines it would Sectaries then have owned it as Ancient and Orthodox upon those The Definition of a General Council gives Security Fathers Testimony If they say Yes They are Evidently convinced For the sole Authority of a most Ample Learned Council is in true Prudence a Firmer Principle and a better Proof to Rely on If we enquire after known and received Orthodox Doctrin ever held in the Church Then the very best Assurance That one or more Fathers can give Vs of it For who see 's not But that the very Definitions of the Nicene of the Council of Ephesus or Chalcedon c. Are more weighty to beget in us a Belief That what Those Councils Defined to be received Truths were so indeed Then if twenty other Fathers had Antecedently writ them in their Councils Representing a whole Church know more then particular Fathers learned Volumes The Reason is Because General Councils Representing a whole Church Spread all the World over cannot but know more Exactly what Tradition and the Received Doctrin of Christianity is Then Private Men can be Supposed to know who lived in several Parts of the World And bad no Obligation to Register intierly the Churches Doctrin in every Particular Thus much is said if the Church at any time Defines upon Tradition only Foâ— 'T is most certain that beside Tradition it Relyes on Scripture also and Hitherto never wanted the Authority of most Worthy Fathers that undubitably Taught as it Defined Though not always perhaps in such Express and significant Words If Sectaries Reject both Church and Fathers when they have not a word of Scripture for them 10. Now on the other side If Sectaries will neither Allow of the Fathers Doctrin Susiposing it were Express for our Catholick Verities as most evidently 't is in twenty Controversies nor of the Churches Definitions Already Declared in Eighteen General Councils We are out of the Reach of all Principles And must leave them to their unsteedy Fancies or wilful Obstinacy And pitty Their Deplorable Condition They are more to be pittied then Disputed against
Errors by pure Scripture Venture probably on such a VVork when you bave not so much as one VVord of Scripture that inables you to Advance a Proof against us Relying on these Grounds and firm Principles 15. We easily Solve another trivial Objection of Another objection solved of Scripture containing all Things Necessary Sectaries which is Scripture contains all Things Necessary to Saluation Therfore we need no new Definitions made by the Church I might say much less do we Stand in need of Protestants new Declarations forced on Scripture without a Church But y'le Answer in a Word Though Scripture contained all the Oral taught Apostolical Doctrin and what ever els is Necessary to Saluation which is Fals yet when we se with our Eyes that Sacred Book pittifully Abused by Haereticks not only Haereticks make Scripture useles in lesser Matters as They account of Them But in the very Highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith it must needs be a useles Book in Their Hands without an Infallible Interpreter And therfore cannot Decide Controversies nor Tell us what is Necessary to Saluation as I have largely proved Disc 2. Nay farther Some may justly Question It may be doubted whether an Angel could write a Book so plain of other High Mysteries which the vulgar would not misunderstand Whether if a very Angel writ a Book as full of other High Mysteries yet unknown to the World as the Bible now Contains And used his best Skill to Express Those Vertties in the most Clear and significant Language Imaginable Some I say may Doubt whether such a Written Book left only to the Private judgements of Those whole Multitudes who now read Scripture would not be misunderstood in a hundred Passages if no After Teacher Regulated the weak Readers of it in Their Difficulties or did not comply with the Duty of an Infallible Interpreter Therfore the Bible which is now Extant And contains the High Mysteries of our Faith often less clearly expressed much more need 's an Interpreter And perhaps the wise Providence of God would have it writ so on set Purpose that Christians should have Recours to a Living Oracle of Truth and Learn of it what They cannot Reach to by their own simple Reading You Church Doctrin is repeated again and Again None can be ignorant of it will say an Angel can write a Book as clear to all Capacities as the Churches Definitions are Very True What then That Book only once writ is left as we now Suppose to the Sentiments of private Ignorant Men as the Bible now is in Their Hands But God hath provided that the Churches Doctrin be not only once Delivered No. It is Laid forth anew it is implanted anew it is repeated and cast like good seed Again and Again into mens Harts and Memories by Faithful Pastors and Teachers who shall never fail the Church to the End of the World 16. A third objection The Churches Definitions Because Men declare them and all Men are Lyars cannot be Infallible and Therfore Ground no Faith Contra 1. Ergo Neither Sectaries Novelties Nor the General Doctrin A cleur Conviction of Sectaries owned by all Christians of one God and one Christ Becaus men Teach them And all are Lyars may yet be Fallible and Fals also Grant or Deny the Sequel you are Silenced Contra 2. If All are Fallible and consequently may be Lyars in what they Teach why Vent you my good Friends So many Negative Doctrins which may all be fals Truely if There be no Infallibility in the World you neither ought to Vapor as you do with your Inferiour Negatives not Blame our They Condemn Themselves whilst their Censure is Fallible Contrary Positives For in Doing so You condemn your own Iudgement and Advance no Proof against us Your Fallible Censure were our Church Fallible Goes not one Step above a tottering Fallibility And therfore is too faint to Oppose the Churches contrary Doctrin Though falfly Supposed Fallible Mark well I Our Churches Doctrin Though supposed fallible is as Good as Sectaries Confessed Fatliâ—â—e Doctrin must say it once more You Fallible men tell me That my Churches Doctrin is Fallible Admit of the Fals Supposition it is yet upon all Accounts as Good as yours or as This very fallible Affirmation is That says it's Fallible And if in real Truth it be Infallible it is much Better 17. One word more If Any People on Earth ought to stand for the Infallibility of a new Invented Religion The Abetters of Protestancy could they Proceed consequently should Do it Why They Deprive Men of their Estates cast them into Prison Bannish some Hang up Why Sectaries persecute Catholicks while Iewes are tolerated others And All this is Don Becaus poor Catholicks cannot in Conscience conform to a Religion that is Professedly Fallible and Vncertain Now if such Crueltly can be practized on Christians whilst Iewes And the worst of Haereticks are Tolerated to live quietly For a Thing that 's only Fallible and may as well be Fals as True we are The Reason is because we cannot believe a Religion That may be as likely Falsas True surely at an End of all good Discours grounded on Christian Principles What To Bannish us to Confiscate Mens Estates To Shed our Blood For a Religion That may be Fals when we Believe our Creed And Profess as much as these newer Sectaries make Essential to any Religion of Christians is to speak moderately an unheard of Severity Yet so it is They Do not Harrass us as they do Because we Believe in one God and one Christ or own a Doctrin common to all Christians For themselves Believe so much But Here is our supposed Mark well our supposed Crime Crime We cannot Assent to a Religion that may be Fals we cannot Subscribe to a Company of new Negative Nothings And Therfore we are lashed and Persecuted Nay and I 'll tell you a Wonder our Guilt goes not so High A wonder never enough to be admired For though we were in our very Harts Arians or As we are Catholicks yet if in the Exteriour we do as Sectaries do we are still lovely Children of the Church of England Learn Therfore this Truth it is Vndeniable All the Storms of Persecution Raised against us Are not upon any In real Truth we are persecuted because we will not be plain Hypocrits Account of want of True Faith But for this Sole Reason That we will not Believe one Thing and Force our Consciences to Profess an Other Which is to say We are Handled thus roughly Because we will not Dissemble with God and Man and become plain Hypocrits Herein only Lies our Trespas Iustus es Domine recta Iudicia tua Iudge you my God whether that no-offence Merit 's These Scourges 18. By what is now said You may easily Perceive That when Sectaries seemingly Bemoan our Blindnes God knows how much of The Grief lies at their
from the English Church And therfore Charge Schism on us know That Clodius accusat moechos You Led the Danse And first Schismatiz'd from a more Ancient Church then we have don You yet Though Formal Separatists were not the Schismaticks But Rome that Gave you Cause And just so we say We are indeed the Formal Separatists from you But your Errours gave us just Cause to Part from you And therfore the sin of Schism is on your side And thus These Two Dissenting Parties Their Dispute is Endles because Neither own 's a Lawful Iudge nor can come to certain Principlet may Dispute until They both are Breathles And stand gazing on One an Other without further Progress Vnles They bring Their Discours to Vndubitable Principles or have Recours to some Third Equal Iudge between them or Finally Grant which Evidently follows That without a Iudge or Certain Principles The worst of Haeresies may be Defended if every one may first Accuse his Adversary And then give sentence for himself For there is no Arian no Nestorian But Every one Thinks well of his Heresy and will pretend as Protestants do that his Arguments are not solved Thinks well of his Errours And will at least Pretend as our Protestants do that his Arguments for them Are not solved CHAP. XI Of a late VVriters Exceptions Against our Pleading Possession 1. IT is very True Did not I se the Strain of Sectaries Mr. Stillingfleet Arguing to be Every where like it self weak and deficient I should scarsly have thought that a man of parts could Have missed so enormously as one doth in this Controversy whilst He gives you hints of hitting the nail on the Head and saying much to the Purpose Thus it is 2. We Plead a lawful Succession from the Apostles times And a quiet Possession of Truth with it by vertue of an Immemorial Tradition Our Adversary Tell 's us The Obligation of Proving lyes upon us Of proving what for Gods sake Marry that which We are urged to prove what is by it self an Evident proof Immemorial Tradition most Evidently Proves in so much that we are now urged to prove that Proof which is alone its Own most clear Light and undeniable Evidence They Proceed here just as if One should bid me Prove that All Mankind Descended From Adam If Scripture were not undoubted Tradition would prove we all came from Adam Had we no other Argument to Convince the Truth but immemorial Tradition Because some forsooth may Imagin without proof that God in One Age or other though they cannot say when broke of this lineal Descent By creating a new sort of men from whom we come and not from Adam which is Sensles For the Very Tradition alone has more weight in it to convince the Affirmative We all came from Adam then A pure Imagination without proof to perswade the contrary Negative Take one Instance perhaps more pressing and significant A Kingdom or Commonwealth Proves the Succession of its Monarchs or Princes for so long a time by a Constant Tradition never called into Doubt or questioned by Any Suppose some Zelots should begin to Quarrel with the states of the Kingdom And Tell them Gentlemen you are all Mistaken Believe us In An Instance one Age or other though we know not when it happened The lineal Race of your supposed Kings Failed A Vsurper Got to the Throne by force fraud or both And it was He it's true we cannot name the man that brought in Novelties strange Opinions Dangerous Maxims contrary to your Ancient Lawes and Customes Imagin I say thus much would not these Novellists think ye after no Smal contempt be put to their Proof or be scornfully laughed at should they urge the Kingdom to Prove what is proved by certain Tradition This is our very case We prove We prove as clearly the lawful succession of Popes and Catholick Pastors as Any Kingdom the succession of their Monarchs the lawful succession of our Popes of our Prelates of our Pastors and People by Vndeniable Tradition from St. Peter to this present Age And we are now called on To prove that which the very strength and Efficacy of Tradition Proves by it self without more Adoe A most impertinent Demand For if He that Denies the lawful lineal succession of Monarchs in a Kingdom warranted by undubitable Tradition must if He stand to it be put to His Proof the Kingdom Proves enough by its immemorial Tradition Much more are these men forced to Prove in our Case if they Oppugn the Tradition of a whole Vniversal The Churches clear Evidence Church For the Church gives in Her last and clearest Evidence when she Pleads undeniable Tradition No man can require more 3. You May say First Beside Tradition wherby the lawful Descent of Monarchs is Proved There are also Records at hand to Confirm the Truth of the Tradition I Answer The Church hath as Good The Churches Records as Ample as any in a Kingdom Records wherby she manifesteth the lawful succession of Her Popes Prelates and Pastors as any Kingdom on Earth produceth for the lineal Descent of its Monarchs Therfore it is you that must show And by sound Principles as well these Records to be forged or Vnauthentick as Oral Tradition which is a Distinct Proof to be Fals and Fallible Both are above your Power Skill and Learning Be it otherwise the Proof Certainly lies on your side And 'T is all I Intend at present 4. You may Reply secondly The Instance of Records contrary to the Church cannot be produced Monarchs succeeding in a Kingdom Vpheld by Tradition is Forceles if Contrary Records be produced and Prove that a Vsurper Got in and interrupted the right line of Succession The like may have been in the Church when Her Popes and Prelates became Vsurpers and changed the Primitive Doctrin of it Mark a Supposition For a Proof and withall Observe How you cast the Obligation of Proving on your Self For The Obligation of Proving is incumbent in our Adversaries Now it 's your Task to Produce These supposed Records Contrary to the lawful Succession we Plead for Shew them therfore And Argue by them or if you fail in this as you must Fail The Tradition from our Ancestours stand s still in its Ancient vigour unshaken against meer unproved Cavils and Calumnies 5. You may Thirdly Reply That Instance of Monarchs lawful Succession in Their respective Kingdoms when warranted by undoubted Tradition seem's good and convincing because no Man Questions the Right no Man within the Kingdom Doubts of the Acknowledged Succession But all is contrary in our present Controversy For innumerable called Christians do not only Doubt But expresly Deny that Right and lawfulnes of Succession which we Attribute ro our Church to our Popes and Catholick Pastors Therfore because the party Fail's The instance is forceles First a Word Ad Hominem Let it Pleas our Adversaries to Declare plainly the
that Christ Christ Abandoned not the Church He Founded never abandoned the Church He founded For He told us Hell gates should not Prevail against it He gave Assurance of his being with us to the end of the world The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth c. If therfore Christ stood to his Word and once established the Roman Catholick Church in Truth it is Orthodox still and Preserved in Truth by His special Assistance 3. It is an Evident Verity that God whose Providence never Failed his Church could not permit this Ample and Ancient Moral Body of Catholicks to Cheat the world by its pleading a Possession of Truth if 't had none for a thousand years together when which is deeply to be Pondered there was not any A Truth well to be Pondered other sound Church on Earth for so vast a time to Teach Christians the Orthodox Faith of Iesus Christ 4. We have our quiet Possession Acknowledged by innumerable Votes of most learned Fathers 5. And 'T is a Greater Proof For nothing Scripture excepted can Parallel it The Testimony and warrant of this Ample Catholick Society carries with it our Evidence no less for an actual Prescription Then for the Right and Title of our long pleaded and enioyed Possession And who can suppose that all those Innumerable Professors of this learned Church by whom this Evidence was conveyed Age after Age were all besotted or deluded with Errour 6. And 'T is an Evident Demonstration No Ancient or modern Church reputed Orthodox by the Christian World ever so much as Quarrelled with the Roman Catholick Church or once No Orthodox Church Ever censured us for the want of a just Possession Questioned the Right of Her Possessing Ancient Truths delivered by Christ and his Apostles none Censured it none Condemned it upon any supposed want of a most just Possession but only Known and Professed Hereticks And to these our English Schismaticks Adhere An Inference grounded on these Proofs with these And no other They side If therfore The Foundations of our Church were once laid firm by Christ If He stand to his Promise Expressed in Scripture If his Assistance Fail not the Church Once Established by him If God could not 〈◊〉 this great Moral Body to Deceive Christians by Pleading a Possession of Truth when it had none And when there was no other Orthodox Church to deliver Christian Verities to the world If Finally The Authority of our Church And the Testimonies of most Ancient Fathers may speak in our Cause And this Convincing Proof also have place None Ever Gainsaid our Ancient Possession But know and condemned Hereticks We may well Hope to silence our Adversaries at present or if these Perswasive Reasons with many other Insisted on Hereafter Become insignificant to Their Obdurate Harts when They can not speak a Reasonable word Against our Evidences what shall we Do But Commiserate Their Condition You se How roundly I deal with Sectaries cannot Answer our Proofs Them And say They cannot speak a probable Word Against These Positive Proofs Though whilst we plead Possession it is their Task to Prove who are the Accusers And Charge Heresy on us 10. Observe therfore If they say our Saviour What They are to Prove once setled not the Roman Catholick Church in Truth They are to Prove it If they say He violated His Promise And preserved not the Church He founded in Perpetual Truth They are to prove it If They say We misunderstand the Scriptures now cited They are to Prove If They say our Catholick Church cheated the world for ten whole Ages together by pretending Possession of Apostolical Verities when it had none They are to Prove If they say our Church was once Sound in Faith but failed Afterward They are to Prove And withal Distinctly to point at some other Orthodox Christian Society that Succeeded in the place of the Roman Church now falsly Supposed Fallen into Errour And This will give Sectaries work enough Again If They Slight The Authority and Testimony of our Church Evidenced by most glorious Miracles And other Illustrious Marks of Truth They are to give in Lieu of that a more Valid Testimony a stronger Authority For Their Pretenses which is impossible If Finally They Talk of any Orthodox Church That plainly Censured or Condemned the Roman of Errour and Heresy And Herein we Vrge Them to speak to the Cause the Proof lies still on their side or if they Prove not Believe it our OLIM POSSIDEO is impregnable The Presciption and clear Evidence of a long quiet Possession are our wall of Defence not to be battered or Beaten down by Calumnies 11. Thus much premised You shall se in Brief How The Objections of our Adversary shewed forceles all comes to Nothing Wherwith This late Writer too weakly Oppugn's our Ancient Possession who After His Telling us Part 3. c. 5. Page 627. That the Proof lyes upon us He gives this Reason And let it be His first Objection 12. They who Challenge full and quiet Possession by vertue of immemorial Tradition and succession from Their Ancestours ought to produce the CONVEYANCE of that Tradition from him who alone could invest them in that Possession Mark these Mysterious Words Ought to produce the Conveyance of that Tradition from him c. What signifies This Had He said They ought to Produce a Conveyance warranting the Possession of Truth to be in their Church we would have sent Him back to the Proofs Already Alledged And Here only Insisted on our Tradition But to Demand for a Conveyance of our very The Efficacy and force of Tradition Tradition which is either by it self it s own most manifest and clear Conveyance or must be proved by another clearer Tradition And so in Infinitum Tend's Methinks a little towards Non-sense Truely I know not what the man would be at Would He Have us Think ye to Produce a Letter written by Christ Iesus for Conueyance Here must Signify Charta or No Charter or writ stronger then Tradition Instrumentum wherby it may Appear that the Tradition of our Church is Sound and Orthodox This would signify just Nothing Becaus Sectaries might more justly Cavil at such a writing And say it is Forged Then they can now Except against the greatest Testimony Imaginable of a whole Learned Church that must Give Credit to this Writing if 't have Any Therfore He who can Doubt of this Attestation of a The Reason far Extended Church May more Rationally Doubt of the Writing it self Though it were now actually laid before our Eyes to Read Se more of This Subject Above Chap. 7. n. 7. 8. Perhaps our Adversary will say we are to produce Scripture if not for The Conveyance of our Tradition at least for the Possession of Truth we pretend to I Answer This is now Don Our Proofs are Already given n. 9. 10. where I Tell you that Christ founded the Roman Catholick
so much as Probably shew That They have mended the Matter or set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations as it once stood pure It is therfore a most Discomfortable Reformation which only Tell 's us of our being Out of the high Rode of Truth Vnles the Reformers lead us and this with Assurance into the unerring way from whence we Strayed If This be not Don it follows upon the Supposition That both They and Their pretended Reformation most discomfortable We are yet pittifully Out and Therfore both of us must look after some third Guide to Reduce us 16. Now that Protestants are utterly unable to perswade any Rational man That they have exactly brought Christian Faith to its Ancient Purity is more then Evident Sectaries have nothing like a Principle wherby their Reformation is proved Probable It is one thing to say we have Erred and an Other to prove that they are Right For beside Their own bare Word which is worth little They have nothing like a Principle neither Scripture Councils nor Fathers to Ground a probable Discours Pertinent to that Purpose For None of These ever Knew what a Protestant was It is True They Pretend Though God knows to little Purpose That Scripture Councils and Fathers are against our Errours But it is one Thing slightly to tell us we have Erred and an Other solidly to Prove that They are Right and have broughr Christian Faith hitherto much Tainted to its Ancient Purity This last is the only Difficulty And I Conjure Them as They will give an Account of their Religion to Almighty God without Tergiversation or Far-fetch't Discourses Directly and Clearly to Solve it The Proposition to be Proved and Positively What They are obliged to prove is Thus. Protestants Becaus they will be Reformers are every way Right in Their Faith from which Faith Catholicks have Swerved Observe it You shall never have They can give no direct Answer to the Difficulty a direct Answer to chis Difficulty They may tell you Catholicks have Erred They follow Scripture Their Rule of Faith is what was Delivered in the first Primitive Ages and They know that better then Papists Do. They Hope all is well with Them c. And thus They I put you of with Empty Words But to Prove Solidly that Proposition is impossible Believe it Those Bonzies of Iapan had more Plausible Proofs to defend their Pagods and Impugn Christianity Then our Adversaries have to Evidence Protestancy to be the Primitive Faith and impugn the Now-standing Catholick Roman Religion CHAP. XIV A VVord to a Few Supposed and Vnproved Assertions VVherby Some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism 1. THeir first Proposition There is no Society of Mr. Stillingfleet Christians of any one Communion but may impose some things to be believed or practised which may be repugnant to The Assertion is Fals in Protestants Principles unles it be granted that their ample Catholick Church can destroy Christianity the general Foundations of Christian Society I Answer If the Assertion fall on That Imagined Vniversal Catholick Church more Ample then the Roman which must be a Society of Christians of one Communion it is Fals in Protestant Principles Vnles they say That this great Catholick Church can Impose Things to be Belieued or repugnant to the general Foundations of Christianity Again if it Relate to the Roman Catholick Church it is a meer unproved Fancy of their own For This Church as is largely shewed Defends its Infallibility by Proofs as Certain as the Common Grounds of Christianity are Be it how you will You have here our Adversaries Acknowledgement That their particular Church of Protestants may impose Things Contrary to the Grounds of Christianity Protestancy becaus Fallible may Impose Things repugnant to the Grounds of Christianity And this I easily Believe without further Proof 2. The 2. Proposition There being a Possibillity acknowledged that particular Churches may require Vnreasonable conditions of communion the Obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable But only so far as nothing is required Destructive to the ends of Christian Society The The Author of the proposition sure enough supposeth himself fit to judge what is Destructive No Protestant can avouch so much as probably wherin the Church hath imposed Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants Profess them selves Fallible in all They Teach Assertion if I mistake not Supposeth the Roman Catholick Church to be only a particular Church Deficient and lyable to Errours which is not yet so much as probably Proved and Therfore I say the Obligation to Communicate with it is Absolute and Indispensable But let us wave this at Present and contrary to Truth Imagin That this Church hath imposed Vnreasonable conditions Destructive of Christian communion c. We Ask Again and very seriously who are They that can Mend the matter in case it hath Don so Or who dare Avouch by the Force of any received Principle that Such and Such particular Conditions imposed on Christians are Vnreasonable Where are the Equitable and infallible Iudges appointed by Almighty God to Decide in so weighty a Matter Are they Protestants No. It is impossible Hear my Reason If the Church hath Erred by imposing such Vnreasonable Conditions Protestants who Profess themselves Fallible in All They say may Err More Yea And spoil all whilst They go about to set Things Straight However if They dare Venture on so difficile a Work And therfore may more likely spoil Then mend what they Conceive Amiss They are First obliged to Prove And this not by Talk But by undeniable Principles That just so Far our Church Err's so Far it requires Vnreasonable Conditions of Communion And next That They the Illuminated men of the World have don no more But exactly Cancelled the Errours of our Church leaving all untouched that is not Destructive to the ends of Christian Society For we must believe They are the skilful Masters that always hit Right Though confessedly Fallible You shall sooner draw pure Gold out of meer dross Then get any Thing like a Tolerable Proof from these men to countenance One of these Desperate Assertions Alas They only Word it without Proof As Arians and Nestorians Do. And here is All you Have from Them 3. The 3. Proposition Nothing can be more unreasonable The proposition supposeth what is to be proved then that the Society imposing such conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. I Answer And nothing can be more Vnreasonable then to make a Receding Party from an Rebell 's are not to be Iudges in Their own Cause Ancient Church a few Rebellious People against it Iudges in their own Cause The Arians judged thus for Themselves and so do Protestants All rebellion in Kingdoms and Commonwealths is Patronized if those who Revolt may Clear Themselves from Guilt upon their own Votes and saying Such conditions imposed
Ancient Orthodox Church of the Jewes undeniably Profess and believe this Doctrin none can gainsay the Proposition The consent of act Churches a strong Principle The Minor is as certain for no Authority under Heaven plain Scripture excepted can be greater then the Vnanimous Consent of all Curches No contrary judgement is able to struggle with so much strength Therfore put the case first you will The supposition hold's not de facto for no Fathers teach so have what I would say better Evidenced upon a supposition That more then one of the ancient Fathers should expresly Deny a Purgatory whilst all Churches teach the contrary Suppose secondly that God should command me to believe the One or Other And that which prudence evidently Tell 's me is the most What we are obliged to upon the supposition Credible I am obliged if I proceed rationally to Adhere to the Church because it is evidently the stronger Proof and to deny the Fathers Authority Therfore I am bound much more to yeild my Assent now when all Churches Affirm the Doctrin and not one Father Denies it And our very Adversaries must say as much as I prove For do not they own the Holy Book of Scripture to be Gods Word how consequently Sect 〈…〉 es must grant what is now asserted they proced I Dispute not because all Christian Churches in the world do so If therfore that Authority be warrant enough for a Bible it is as weighty for the Doctrin we stand for And this was my Conclusion Perhaps you will say Very An Objection many among the Schismatical Churches Deny a Purgatory Contra. And very many also Deny the Canon of Scripture you Admit of Doth this make the Bible of less esteem among you Know therfore We speak Here of Church Authority and not of Schismaticks receding from a Church weaken not the Churches Doctrin Schismatical Parties receding from those Respective Churches wherof they were once members Know also that the self-Opinion of such Partisans is not to be compared with the Sentiment of a whole Church against them You may Reply Again We are now forced to make use of Schismatical Churches to Defend our Doctrin of Purgatory Answer No such matter We need not their Help but say Salutem ex inimicis nostris when Adversaries agree with us in a Truth it is an Advantage to our cause witnesses upon this account are multiplyed Et vox populi vox Dei if The number of withnesses for a Truth gives some Advantage All teach as we do it is certain we profess no Erroneous Doctrin At least the Argument Ad hominem Against Sectaries hath place who value so much of the Greeks and other Heterodox Christians We care not for more Besides the Greek Church when it was most Orthodox prayed for the Dead in a state of sufferance as is already proved 3. Weigh now well the Reasons Pro and Con. Reasons pro and con are weighed All the Churches in the world Defend a Purgatory that is a place wherin souls are temporally punished No Church reputed Orthodox ever denyed it I say more No Schismatical Church under the Notion of a Church contradicted that Doctrin Therfore our professed Faith is undoubtedly certain upon this very ground or if it be not one may call the primary Articles of our Faith into Question And The Parallel All and none A clear Conviction The second Principle thus you have the first Parallel All Churches stand for our Affirmative No Church Defend's the contrary Negative of Sectaries A most Evident Conviction A powerful Proof against this Heresy 4. The second Principle is S. Austins known Doctrin De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 4. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Consiliis c. What the whole universal Church hold's and was not first instituted by Councils What all believe is Apostolical Tradition but ever in use and retained Recte Creditur is rightly believed to be no other but an Apostolical Tradition But it is most certain that the whole Vniversal Church prayed for souls departed with intention to free them from a temporal Punishment The Greeks the Latins and the Ancient Hebrews Prayed so as is already proved And this had no first Rise from any Decree No Sectary can say when the Church first began to pray for the Dead suffering terment of Councils therfore it is an Apostolical Tradition which Truth Alatius further demonstrat's upon several Occasions Ponder therfore things impartially And ask now what Tradition have Sectaries for their Negative The Dead are not Assisted by Prayer They have none they are here put to silence for neither the Tradition of the whole Church nor of any part of it reputed Orthodox ever favoured Their Opinion or delivered what they teach Make then the Comparison All Tradition is for our Catholick Verity The Parallel and Nothing like Tradition for the contrary Heresy All and nothing make a strange Parallel And so it is at present 5. The third Principle Many Ancient and learned Fathers so interpret those known passages of Holy Scripture interprrted by Fathers a third Principle Scripture usually alleged for a proof of Purgatory that Scripture it self Speak's what the Church Teacheth Not one Father gives such a sense to Scripture as may Ground a positive or absolute Denial of Purgatory I cannot insist upon all Take for an instance that one passage of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. He shall so yet be saved as by fire And know that besides those learned Notes of Bellarmin upon the Text Lib. 1. De Purg. Cap. 5. and the Bellarmin Fathers there quoted most significantly expressing the Catholick sense Leo Alatius produceth others and Page Leo Alatius 311. Cites Manuel Caleca a more Modern Author Lib. 4. Contra Graecos who Saith the place cannot be understood of Hell fire for the Apostle speak's of a fire wherby souls are saved which is not the fire of Hell but a Purging Manuel Caleca his reason fire and by this They are to pass to happines And so much the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Per which insinuates a Passing strongly signifies Thus Caleca who hath much more to our Purpose It is true some Authors think the Apostle speak's of the fire of Tribulation Others though less probably of the last burning of the No Fathers makes Scripture to Deny a Purgatory world but no Father makes the Text or any other of Scripture positively exclusive of Purgatory for This is no Consequence We are to pass through Tribulation and the fire also at the judgement Day Ergo there is no penalty to be endured in a third place Here you have an other Parallel Most learned Fathers interpret The Paralled Scripture Conformably to the Churches Doctrin not one positively favours the Contrary Opinion of Sectaries Iudge you therfore and cast as it were into a ballance the express Sentiment of Many against
None and see where the greatest weight lyes 6. The fourth Principle is the Express Doctrin of The fourth Principle Fathers Themselves as well Greek as Latin whether it be grounded on Scripture on Tradition or both matters not at present Here we only Appeal to the Their Positive Doctrin To transcribe all they have said on this subject would be a long work Bellarmin novv cited cap. 10. hath many Leo Alatius adds other Greek Authors favour the Church Doctrin Greek Authors as well Orthodox as of Schismatical from his 57. page There you have Gennadius the Patriarch St. Epiphanius express to our purpose S. Chrysostom Hom. 69. ad populum and S. Damascen both approving and praysing S. Chrysostoms Doctrin Eustratiâ—s Priest of Constantinople Michaël Glycas a Schismatick Eugenicus Nomophilax adversus Synodum Florentinam Meletius Alexandrinus Epistolâ ad Chios who saith Expresly it is an Apostolical Tradition and grounded also in Scripture To Hold that the Dead have great Assistance by the good works of the Living But let us return to the more known Authority of Fathers S. Denis or some other Grave Author Eccles Hierarch cap 7. parte 3. saith that Dionysius S. Cyril of Hiâ—r S. Chrysostom the venerable Prelate prayes over the Dead to the End that all his sinn's committed through humain frailty may be forgiven him Say I beseech you what signifies this remission of sin's obtainable by the Prayers of the Prelate S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 5. We make Prayers and offer up the dreadful Sacrifice on the Altar for the Dead believing it to be a mighty Help for their souls What can be more plain Popery S. Chrysostom Hom. 21. in Acta Alatius quotes the words in his own language which begin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. God saith He hath layd open to us many wayes to salvation Oblations Oblations and Prayers for the Dead Prayers and Alms for the Dead are not things vainly don in their behalf No They were instituted by the Holy Ghost who will 's that we endeavour to help one an other Be most assured the Dead have much profit by our Orizons The Saint hath more to this purpose in his 41. Hom. upon the first of the Corr. Theodoret cited by Alatius page 71. lib. 5. Histor cap. 36. Tell 's us that Theodosius the younger lay prostrate at the Reliques of S. Chrysostom praing for the Souls of his deceased Parents Arcadius and Eudoxiâ— that God would grant them pardon for their Offenses c. Alatius besides These cites Theophylact S. Cyril of Alexandria Metaphrastes and other Greek Authors You have the Latin Fathers Largely quoted by Bellarmin supra cap. 10. And their words are so plain for our Doctrin The Latin Fathers accord also Specially S. Austins that none without violence can draw them to any other sense then what the Church Teaches Most surely you will now expect that Sectaries Answer us with like measure And give in lieu of these Testimonies briefly hinted at others as clear and significant for their Opinion And this They are obliged to when besides the alleged Authorities we have an Ample ancient and learned Church that speaks in the language of the Fathers and Teaches the very Doctrin They Deliver But all is Contrary 7. I 'll tell you a great Truth and 't is worth a serious reflection Sectaries have not so much as one Ancient Father Greek or Latin not one Ancient Writer Sectaries want of Authors reputed Orthodox not one Council new or old not one word of Scripture that either Positively and Expresly Denies a Purgatory or Prayers for the Dead or the relief we now plead for afforded them in a place of Punishment What not one No. Parallel The Parallel therfore many with None and you will se what foundations Our Adversaries Novelties Stand on I say Expresly and Positively being well acquainted with Sectaries Proceding as well in this as in other Controversies Sectaries way of Arguing Here They will first be upon you with their Negative way of Arguing We read no such word as Purgatory in the Ancient Fathers 2. You may have a Company of blind inferences drawn from Scripture and Fathers before the sense of either be Agreed They make Deductions from Scripture before the sense of Scripture is known on 3. As far as Conjectures can reach they will set Glosses enough upon the best Testimonies allegeable out of Scripture or Fathers c. But mark it all this while you have Nothing Express nothing Positive and significant against us And Do they think that a meer Negative Argument hath force enough to overthrow a Doctrin Positively Professed by a whole Church and so many Learned Fathers Can they perswade Themselves that Their Inferences Forced from Scripture or Fathers are of any validity whilst the very sense of both lye under Dispute Take for an instance An Instance that of S. Iohn Apocal. 14. Blessed are the Dead that Dye in our Lord Amodo from hence forth they rest from Their labours The Question is what Amodo relates to whether to the day of every mans Death or to the last Judgement Day whether the Scripture speak's there of perfect Souls only or of others what is meant by that word labours For if it signify the sufferances and persecutions of this present life the Text Proves nothing for our Adversaries Notwithstanding all these Doubts undecided Their Inference goes on And 't is that S. Iohn here Excludes all sufferance in Purgatory Alas such Deductions are too weak to Oppose Weak Deductions an Express owned Doctrin all over the world as is now proved Yet you have no better from these men Nothing Express nothing openly significant Against us 8. I touched in the last place on Sectaries Glosses and interpretations forced on such Testimonies as are usually cited for our Catholick Faith And here How differently Catholicks and Sectaries proceed I will briefly Discover not only their Cheat but moreover shew you how differently we and They proceed as well in this present Controversy as in all other Disputes between us Observe well The Truth is thus When we Produce Scripture Councils or Fathers against their Novelties They make their own Interpretation to be the last and surest Ground wheron The Sectary makes the last ground of his Opinion to be his own Explication The Catholick hath his Religion proved before He Explicates Their maintained Opinion ultimatly relies Contrarywise the Catholick never interpret's Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries but He ground his Gloss on a surer Principle then his sole Explication reaches to I will explicate my self more clearly by one Instance Besides the Authority of our Church and all other Societies called Christian we allege for example St. Denis his Testimony St. Chrysostoms or any other to prove that Prayer for the Dead Avail's much for their comfort and remission of sins that is for the lessening of the pain due to sin
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
retorted can you Assert that he rather makes it a thought of his own fancy then an Article of Faith All you say is He declares it not to be of Divine Revelation And I Answer He Declares it not to be a thought of His own fancy If then you suppose it to be his Fancy because He declares it not to be of Divine Revelation I may as lawfully suppose it to be of Divine Revelation The Mistake because He declares it not to be his own fancy In a word your Principle is a Mistake For the Fathers in their Learned Volumes often speak of matters of Faith yet ever say not expresly it is so and they often also touch on Opinative Doctrin yet Cry not always out This is opinion only No but suppose both known by other Principles without their express Declaration You cite St. Austin in the next page Asserting in Several places That all things necessary to be believed are clearly revealed in Scripture I doubt much of that word clearly and of the several places too but this is not St. Austin saith expresly there are many things very difficil to be understood in Scripture de Fide oper c. 15. The doubt it of St. Austins Assertion not of Scripture it self A better Rule A second Objection what I aym at My Question is whether St. Austin declares himself plainly in those several places that His Assertion is of Divine Revelation If He do not according to your Rule it is a Thought of his Fancy only and therfore makes nothing for your purpose Well after All here is a better Rule When the Fathers Deliver a Doctrin Conformable to the Belief of the Vniversal Church you may rightly suppose it to be of Divine Revelation though They Expresly declare not so much in their writings 13. You say 2. That cannot be looked on as an Article of Faith to such persons who express Their Doubts Concerning the Truth of it But upon our enquiry into the Fathers we shall find say you the first Person who seemed to Assert that any Faithful souls passed through a fire of Purgation before the Day of Iudgement was St. Austin But He Delivers his Iudgement with so much fear and hesitancy that any one may se He was far from making it an Article of Faith To prove this hesitancy you quote two Places de Fide operibus c. 16. St. Austin was not the first that held Purgatory And Enchir. c. 69. I Answer first You have not made a Diligent enquiry into the Fathers if you think St. Austin was the first that held a fire of Purgation before the day of Iudgement The contrary is manifest by the Authorities cited above I say 2. This Learned He delivers no doubtful Doctrin of Purgatory Father Delivers no doubtful Judgement of Purgatory but plainly Asserts it I say 3. Your two Places prove not that He doubts of it And to make this clear you know the whole Drift of St. Austin both in this 16. Chapter and the precedent was only to deliver his opinion concerning the sense of the Apostles dark St. Austins Drift Explicated words 1. Cor. 3. And not to Define whether there be a Purgatory or no. This therfore being his main intent He first reject's the Opinion of others and Inclines much to the Affirmative Viz. That the place Proves Purgatory but not certainly Hereupon follows what you cite Sive ergo in hac vita tantum homines His words ista patiuntur c. Whether therfore men suffer these things in this life or such Judgements follow them after this life non abhorret quantum arbitror à ratione veritatis iste Intellectus hujus sententiae That is in plain English Such an understanding of this passage is no way He thinks such a punishment is proved by the Text. as I conceive contrary to the true meaning of S. Pauls words which is to say I think a punishment is proved by this Scripture either now or hereafter yet am not certain And therfore those next words follow Verumt amen etiamsi est alius qui mihi non occurrit Yet there may perhaps be another sense of them which now occurr's not to me To doubt of Purgatory and to doubt whether such a Scripture proves it are different c. Now Sir be pleased to reflect It is one thing to doubt of a Purgatory in it self and another to Doubt whether it can be well proved out of this place of Scripture St. Austins Quantum arbitror or hesitancy as is manifest by the words Iste Intellectus hujus Sententiae And Etiamsi sit alius c. makes only His Proof Doubtful without giving the least hint of any doubt relating to the Doctrin of Purgatory it self It often fall's out in Philosophy and Divinity that a Doctrin is certain yet some Arguments wherby it is proved are excepted against as proofles or less valid 14. To solve the other place Enchir c. 69. Note first A Principle of St. Austin to be noted a Principle of St. Austin who as we read Tom. 10. serm 41. de Sanctis thought that some lesser sins as too much love of the world and such like are so usually purged by Tribulation in this world Vt in futuro ille ignis Purgatorius aut non inveniat aut certè parum inveniat quod exurat That in the next life the fire of Purgatory will find either Nothing or very little to punish But saith the Saint Si nec in tribulatione c. If in our Tribulation we neither give God thanks nor redeem our sins by Good works Ipsi tamdiu in illo igne Purgatorio moras habebimus We shall stay in Purgatory till those lesser sins be consumed like Hay and stubble And by the way note here also what Judgement St. Austin had of Purgatory The Connexion of St. Austins words In the second place consider well the Connexion of St. Austins words in the precedent chap. 68. Quia urit eum rerum dolor c. Because the Grief he hath for the things he loved torments him And what follows cap. 69. Tale aliquid etiam fieri post hanc vitam incredibile non est It is not incredible that such alike punishment be after this life What is not incredible Thus much Solves the Difficulty That as some are punished in this life by a present Grief for their too much affection to worldly commodities so it is not incredible that some also suffer a torment in the future purging flames upon that account Et utrum ita sit quaeri potest And we may enquire saith He whether such a particular punishment be found in Purgatory Viz. That by how much more or less men loved these transitory Goods of the world Tanto tardius citiusque saluari So much sooner or later they come to Heaven Which last words plainly give us St. Austins meaning and prove that He doubted not of Purgatory for He supposeth
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
change Wherfore with all Certainty let us take this Body and Blood of Christ For his Body is given thee under the Form of Bread And his Blood is given thee under the Form of wine Although sense tell thee Otherwise yet let Faith confirm thee in this Truth You have the most of them in Bellarmin and the other Author named above That which appears Bread is not Bread Though it seem so to the Tast But it is the Body of Christ And that which appears wine is not wine as the tast Iudges it to be But the Blood of Christ The Consecrated Bread is not a figure only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Body of Christ But the very Deified Body of our Saviour The bread and wine are Supernaturally changed or Transmade into the Body and Blood of Christ Christ was Carried in his own Hands To the exteriour Sense it seem's to be Bread But know by the sense of your Vnderstanding That it is my Body not an Other But the same in substance which shall be Delivered to Death for you Other Fathers say The same body is on the Altar If Any Doubt of These Authorities I oblige my self to quotâ— the places exactly Now only omitted becaus they are vulgarly known vvhich is in Heaven The same Blood is in the Chalice which Issued out of our Saviours side He gaue us that very flesh vvherin he walked here to be eaten to Saluation It is the same flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our Sins which was on the Cross vvhich was Born of the Virgin This Body vve Receive and Eate vvith our mouths and have it Mingled with our Bodies 9. Thus the worthiest Fathers of our Christian Faith Speak And as I said just now Neither the Council of Trent nor Any Modern Catholick can speak more significantly in Behalf of the Doctrin We All Profess I Say also No Ancient Fathers ever Expressed The expressions of Fathers as significant for This Mystery as for a Trinity Themselves with Greater Energy when They treat of that High Mystery of our Faith The Sacred Trinity which Sectaries joyntly Believe with us Then These have Don in the present Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament I Appeal to our Adversaries own Consciences And ask whether They can Contradict me If they Do I must Tell them they cannot Think it or if They Seriously Judge so Their Judgement Becaus Contrary to the greatest Part of the Christian world is Weightles And finally resolved comes to no Sectaries may with greater Ease Deny Any Christian Verity then this Mystery They are at least obliged to Match us with equal Proofs The Catholick Principles Briefly Declared more but Fancy I have told them often in this Treatis That any Heterodox May with greater Ease and lesser Violence Offered either to Scripture or the most Primitive Fathers Turn off all that can be Said for the Proof of any Christian Verity Then They are able to Enervate the plain VVords of Christ and Fathers now alleged for this Mystery 10. Be it How you will Our Adversaries if They 'l yet Wilfully run on in an Heresy Are at least Obliged to stand on Equal Term's with us To give us Proof for Proof Weight for Weight Measure for Measure Here are our Principles We have Plain and Express Scripture for our Catholick Verity They have not a Word We Plead our Cause by a Constant and never Interrupted Tradition They have None We have a Renowned Ample and most Learned Catholick Church which both Believed and taught this Catholick Doctrin They have neither Orthodox Church nor Chappel that Taught or Talked seven hundred years agon of Their Tropes and Figures only We have the General Consent of Fathers They have only Patches and Fragments weighed out of their Circumstances for Their Condemned Opinion We have Miracles Clear and Vndeniable Miracles which confirm our Doctrin Sectaries want all these Proofs and Principles Both Ancient Fathers and Modern Doctors Recount Them who cannot be Supposed to have wilfully Damned Their Soules by Obliging Posterity to Believe Impostures upon Misinformation They have neither Miracle nor Sign But the Empty Sign of a Piece of Bread For their too long known And as long since Decryed Heresy Finally And here is a sad Thought for Sectaries If ever Heresy was in the A sad Thought fâ—r Sectaries World This of Theirs is or never any Deserved That Name At least All the Marks All the Signs All the Characters of Heresy follow it That can be Imagined It is a late Found out and a new Invented What Marks and Signs accompany This Heresy Opinion The Chief Author of it Berengarius no Saint I 'll promis you is Known The time When And the Place Where it Began The few Followers it then Had the Trouble it Caused among Orthodox Believers the Opposition made Against it The Trial The Examination the Sentence and Condemnation of it Are Known And All upon Record Almost every Catholick Author that Handles this Subject Assert's and Proves what I say by Vndeniable History Could our new Men Allege But half as Much Against our Catholick Could Sectaries Say but half as much against our Catholick Doctrin could They weaken it by one of These Proofs Doctrin Could They Point out The First Broachers of this Popery Could They name the Place the Time of its first Rise Or Tell us what Orthodox Church After a Severe Examination Condemned it They might take courage Speak Boldly And well Hope to Drive us of our Principles But when we find them Vnaccountable in These Particulars and see Evidently They cannot look one of these Difficulties in the face nor Hint Probably at the least Sign of any Novelty in our Doctrin When Again we Reflect How easy They might Cavil more justly Their Tenent is to Sense and Ours contrary very Difficil And therfore could not hiddenly Creep into the world without Clamours Against it When we seriously Consider That both the Latin and Greek Church though now at Variance in other Points yet well Agree But nothing is spoken probably in one Profession of Faith concerning this Mystery Finally When we know that the Greatest part of the Christian world Wherof many were and are no less Profoundly Learned then Eminent in Sanctity Hath notwithstanding the Opposition made by Sectaries believed as We Do to this Day and Dyed in Other Confirmations of our Catholick Verity that Belief We may Hope to Silence these Men Hereafter and Well Conclude That our Doctrin which Stand's sure on Christs plain VVords Which the strongest Pillars of the Ancient Church Vphold which the Roman Catholick Church yet Defends And no Orthodox Church ever Opposed Which Indubitable Miracles have Confirmed and none Denyed But Known and Professed Enemies of Truth We may I say rightly Conclude That our Faith is Anciently Catholick And therfore True And That the contrary Opinion of Sectaries is a meer Fancied Novelty And Therfore Fals and Heretical 11. We
Like a Dark Lanthorn But One of the most Morally Manifested and Evidenced Things in the World And Reason Teaches it should be so For if True Worth ever Shewes it self by Real True worth is Known by real Effects Signs and Knovvn Effects So Faith is Discovered by good Works Life by its Vital Operations The Existency of a Deity by the Emanations of Creatures None can Doubt But That God who Desires all to be Saved Hath Made That Religion wherin Saluation is Had Proofs cannot be wanting to manifest the Church wherin Saluation is to be had St. Austin confirm's this Doctrin most Known and Discernable by Outward Signs and Vndubitable Marks of Truth Therfore as we said above clear Proofs cannot be Wanting Wherby That is Manifested which God will haue Known Audistis ejus vocem manifestissimam They are Words of St. Austin de Vnit. Ecclesiae cap. 25. You have Heard the Most Manifest Voyce of God Not only by the Law Prophets and Psalms But by His Own Sacred Mouth Commendantis Ecclesiam suam futuram Commending his Future Church to us All. This Church you have Diffused Every where You see it like a Citty wherof He who Built it Saith A Citty upon a Mountain cannot be Hid. This is the Church which is not in one Part of the World as the Donatists were in the South And our Sectaries now are in These Northen Climates sed ubique est notissima But 't is Manifest every where And if you Ask by what Signs And shewes by what Marks Christs Church is Evidenced it is Known The Saint Answers lib. de Vtilit Cred. c. 17. Hoc factum est Divina Providentiâ This is Don by Providence By the Oracles and Fore telling of Prophets by the Humanity and Doctrin of Christ by the wearisome Travails of his Apostles by the Reproaches and Contumelies of Martyrs by their Gibbets Blood Shedding and Blessed Deaths By the Famous St. Austins Motives of Credibility Known Lives of Saints and Among These so Vniversal great Virtues By most Worthy Miracles Meetly and upon fit Occasion Shewed us Mark the Signs He Goes on Cum igitur tantum Auxilium c. When Therfore we se so great Ayde and Help Afforded by Almighty God so much Fruit and Encrease Dubitamus nos ejus Ecclesiae gremio They force Reason to profess the Faith of that Church which shewes them It is pride and impiety not to give Preeminence to such a Church before others St. Austin Defends not a Religion common to all Christians condere c. Shall we Doubt to Hide our Selves in the Lap of That Church Which from the Apostolical Sea Even to this Publick Confession of Mankind Hath got to such a Height of Authority by a Continual Succession of Bishops condemned Hereticks vainly snarling at it Partly also by the Iudgement of the People Partly by the Gravity and VVeight of Councils Partly by the Glory and Majesty of Miracles Cui nolle primas dare vel summae profecto impietatis est vel praecipitis arrogantiae And not to Give to this Church the Chiefest Preeminence is in Good Earnest either a Mighty Wickednes or a Stubborn and Headstrong Pride Ponder these Words well with the Following Also and Ask your Own Consciences what Church that was For Which St. Austin Pleaded so Strongly Did He Speak For All who Go under the Name of Christians No The Impugned Manichies were Such And so were also the Arians Pelagians and Others But These Because of Their Vnevidenced Religion utterly Destitute of Marks and Motives He Rejects as Schismaticks Much less the Then unknown Novelties of Protestants and Hereticks Did He Argue Think ye For our little late Risen Congregation of Protestants No God Knows They have less of this Evidence Then the very Arians Had And Besides were never Thought of in St. Austins Dayes 2. The Church Therfore For which our Profound The Saint plead's for no other then for the Ever Visible Holy and Catholick Roman Church Doctor Speak's and Plead's is an Other Society Known to the World before Heresy Began I Mean the Ever Visible Holy Continued and Catholick Roman Church wherinto Heresy justly condemned never Entred August Tract 18. in Ioannem And wherof the Prophets Spak more fignificantly then of Christ Himself Aug. in Psal 30. This Church And This Only Hath been Manifested Age after Age by Eminent Sanctity By Glorious Miracles Made Evidently Credible by undoubted Marks and Signs By the Bloodsheding of Martyrs By a never Interrupted Succession of Prelates Pastors and People from St. Peters Dayes to Ours And finally By most Learned and Approved Councils This and This Only is the Church Diffused the Whole World Over which Keeps perfect Vnity in Faith with one Supream Head And so Demonstratively Evidenceth its Antiquity That the Worst of Sectaries are silenced When They offer to Cavil at it 3. If you Ponder well These Vndeniable Truths You A Conclusion against Sectaries must needs Conclude Against Sectaries as Blessed St. Austin Once did Against the Manicheans Read him lib. de util creden cap. 14. VOS AUTEM TAM PAUCI ET TAM TURBULENTI ET TAM NOVI NEMINI DUBIUM EST QUIN NIHIL DIGNUM AUTHORITATE PRAEFERATIS There is no Doubt Saith the Saint But that You Sectaries so St. Austins pithy Expression justly agrees to Sectaries Thâ—y are few in number Fearfully Divided And of a new Faith St Austins words pondered with Reflection on Sectaries Innumerable witnesses against a few meanly Few who Evidence nothing Credible in your Religion You so Turbulent and Consused in your Opinions concerning Faith You so newly Strangers to the Christian World There is I say no Doubt But That You of so Small Authority can Allege Nothing worth the Hearing or Worthy of Credit when you Oppugn our Ancient Church or Defend Your Own so late invented Novelties Consider every Word Seriously VOS TAM PAUCI What You so Few You Who Se to Your Eternal Discomfort so Many Nations so many People so Many VVorthy Prelates so Many Glorious Martyrs so Many Penitent Sinners Believing Our Ancient Faith Dying in it and for it You who se so Many Miracles Confirm it so Many Conversions Wrought by it so Many Churches Erected so many Vniversities Founded so Many Prisons Sanctified so Many Dangers run Through so Many VVorks of Piety Don by the Professours of this Ancient Church All is Evident to Your Eyes and Senses VOS AVTEM TAM PAVCI And what can You so Inconsiderably Few not the Hundred part in Number who Have Don Nothing like these Zelous Christians Say for a Novelty or Probably Plead Against so Learned so Holy and so Diffused a Christian Society Moreover VOS TAM TVRBVLENTI You so Turbulent Se in This Ample Moral Catholick Body Innumerable Seculars Though of Different Nations of Different Tempers and Education Knit Together in One Ancient Belief You Se Innumerable Vnity stands against Division Profound Doctors All
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
Their own self-voting from the nature of a rational Proof and Principle When a Rebellion is manifest in a Kingdom the sole Authority of them who began it is insufficient to make it Justifiable And the Authority of Sectaries is as forceles to Justify their Evident Schism against the Church Whilst Evidence comes not against our Church it stand's most firm upon its ancient possessed right This long Possession proves our Church Orthodox Examples Hereof Mr. Stillingfleets Exceptions against our pleading Possession are proved to be weak forceles and meer ungrounded Suppositions Though the Obligation of proving Evidently lies on our Adversaries who are the Aggressors yet we prove not only a personal Succession of our Popes and Prelates in forgoing Ages but also manifest a Quiet Possession of Truth that descended with these continued Popes and Bishops from the dayes of S. Peter to this very Age. No just Exception can be made against our Tradition which is Evidently its one Proof for there cannot be a clearer Mr. Stillingfleet supposeth that our Right of pleading Truth is a meer Occupancy He is to prove this becaus he is the Accuser No Antecedent Law hath determined Contrary to what we Challenge by vertue of our Possession We have both the Law for us and ancient Possession besides And there is no Reason when we allege two Proofs Law and Possession that we Quite the one which is Possession as Mr. Stillingfleet pretend's we should do which is against all rational Discours of this subject It is improbable to say that Protestants first saw these supposed errours imputed to our Church when others as Quick-sighted more numerours and Learned then They saw them not for ten whole Ages before Luther It is a degree of madnes to suppose that all those worthy and Learned Professors of the Catholick Faith were either so stupidly blind as not to have seen such supposed errours or so wickedly Hypocritical as to have wincked at them after their plain Discovery It is a Paradox to say that our new men saw these too plain and visible errours when that great Catholick Church which Sectaries make more large then the Roman saw them not but permitted Rome to countenance these supposed errours without check or reprehension Of the Impossibility of errours entring the Church after the first 4. or 5. hundred years Though Sectaries should convince which is impossible the Roman Catholick Church to be guilty of errour yet they cannot show that they have set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations as it once stood pure All Principles fail them in this particular Fancy only and nothing like a rational Proof uphold's this charge of errour against our Church Mr Stillingfleets Assertions are refuted If the Roman Catholick Church has erred by imposing unreasonable conditions Sectaries who Profess themselves fallible in all they say may have erred more and spoil'd all they went about to mend Nothing can be more unreasonable then to make a few Rebellious people receding from an ancient Church first to accuse it and then to sit judges in their own cause and condemn it None can probably show that these late Reformers of Protestants who opposed all other Religions are untainted or purely Orthodox As no men before the Donatists made the Church so strait as they did so never Christians before these later Sectaries made it so wide as to hold in it all the Hereticks in the world Protestancy as Protestancy is no Christian Religion at all if the belief of that Doctrin which is common to all Christians be amply sufficient to Salvation Protestants may Anathematize all the Doctrin within the compass of their reformed Religion and yet be saved THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS Of the Churches Evidence and Improbability of Protestant Religion PRotestants as they make not good their own Doctrin by Proofs grounded on certain Principles so they never impugn the Roman Catholick Faith by rational Arguments Catholicks contrarywise prove their Churches Doctrin by undeniable Principles The Grounds of Catholick Religion are briefly laid forth As it is an evident Principle that all those Wife and Learned Doctors who taught Christians Popery for a thousand years were neither fools nor perversly blind So it is more evident that God suffered not those millions of Christians instructed by these Teachers to be grosly abused with fals Doctrin whilst there was no other Catholick Society in the world â—o unbeguile them All other Sectaries who deserted the Roman Catholick Church erred grosly and it is improbable to think that Protestants only among so many straying Teachers were the only priviledged people elected by God to mend had any thing been amiss in a old decayed Church without mixture of errour or marring more then they mended Protestancy is unevidenced and an improbable Religion that is no Religion but a fancied opinion No Doctrin fallibly taught as Protestancy is can be ultimately resolved into Gods infallible Revelation Scripture alone without an infallible Interpreter makes no man infallible A Doctrin which at its first rise was and is still opposed by all Christians excepting the Sectaries who broach it is as improbable as Arianism A Church essentially errable may loâ—s all Truth and consequently all grace and so become divorced from Christ. A Doctrin proved improbable by undoubted Principles cannot be made credible by rational Arguments unles Truth be contrary to Truth Of the slight way of Sectaries Arguing against Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet like his other Brethren in a Discours of Purgatory begins with Ieers with Mistakes and dissembling of Difficulties He states not the Question rightly between the Latin and Greeks The Dispute between the Latins and Greeks is clearly laid forth by Leo Alatius a Grecian What passed in the Council of Florence concerning This Dispute The Greeks most certainly both before and after the Council held a place of punishment for souls departed from which place they are freed by the Prayers of the Living They also hold that souls enioy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement The weaknes of our Adversaries cause is best seen by a Parallel of Proofs for Purgatory and against it The Catholick Principles for Purgatory S. Austins was not the first that held Purgatory Mr. Stillingfleet misunderstands two passages in S. Austin The Sectary when He Explicates Scripture or Fathers makes his own Gloss the surest ground of his Interpretation When the Catholick explicates a dubious passage He relies on a sure Principle distinct from his Interpretation Objections are Answered How the Supplications of the Church respect mercy and Forgivenes to be shewed the just at the Day of Judgement An Objection is proposed in behalf of Sectaries and solved in another Discours concerning the Blessed Sacrament The Grounds of our Catholick Doctrin for the Real Presence The contrary Opinion of Sectaries is proved to be meer Fancy Sectaries cannot by vertue of any one received Principle remove the Catholick from the plain and Obvious senfe of Christs most significant words The
under that Notion of Fallibility rest upon an infallible Veracity for this infallible Veracity hath neither measure nor Proportion with a fallible Assent nor can a fallible Assent have any measure or Proportion with an infallible Revelation Mark therfore well the Resolution of this whole Assent I believe Christ to be God and man by a fallible Act which may be fals because Gods infallible Revelation which can neither be fallible or fals Moves me to believe so And most justly call it no Faith at all for an infallible Revelation Moves none to believe fallibly therfore the tendency of this Act as it is Fallible Moves forward without a Divine Motive to rely on and hitt's not upon the Strength of Gods certain Revelation but leaves that and runn's no man knows whither or stands without any motive You se therfore that Gods Revelation which is infallible cannot support a fallible Assent and consequently the very best Acts of our Sectaries Belief are no Faith wherof more Disc 1. Chap. 5. and 6. I say the very best Acts. For you may distinguish two sorts of them in Sectaries The first tend to their own particular Novelties and these are both fals and Fallible The other Acts adhere to the general Truths of Christianity And all these though conformable to their objects are yet subjectively fallible and consequently have not the strength of any firm or supernatural Principle to uphold them as you may se in places now cited 6. But we have not yet don with Mr. Poole there are more exceptions against Him Mark his words If saith He we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity Ieâ—es and Turks are as well perswaded of their waies as we are of ours And then Ask's what a mad Assertion is this that makes no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities Now here his Instances follow of Iamaica and a Calf and I think He would say That the Truth of Christianity is probable and so highly Probable as that there is a Iamaica And that Iudaism is so improbable as that a Calfe found in a field should be thought to be dropt from the Clouds 7. In the first place we are to explicate more fully what M. Poole huddles up in these general Terms The Truth of Christianity Three Things therfore may be here reflected on which essentially constitute Christian Religion The first is the Object of it which is Gods infallible Revelation The second is the matter believed by vertue of this infallible Revelation The third is a firm act of Faith that tends into the Revelation and the matter Revealed upon that Devine motive Infallibly Proposed And this firm Assent of Faith intrinsecally Denominates all good Christians Faithfull Believers I say infallibly Proposed For if a Revelation lie as it sometime doth dark in Holy Scripture a Proponent is necessary that brings it to more light And as I noted Disc 1. C. 4. According to the measure or degres of certitude which the Proponent gives to an obscure Revelation An Assent in the Hearer followes and no stronger If He only say probably God speaks thus The assent can be no more but probable if with truth he say certainly it is certain These things supposed be pleased to reflect once more on Mr. Pooles words What a mad Assertion is This That nothing is Credible He means concerning the Truth of Christianity but what is infallibly certain and that there is no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities He would say it is madnes to judge so and Wisdom to make the Truth of Christianity highly Probable and Judaism improbable 8. Now I say Nothing that essentially Constitutes the truth of Christianity is less then certain Nothing in it can be so meanly thought of as to be called only probable And first if we speak of the Material Objects believed These Solely and Objectively considered may we use proper Terms are neither Probable nor improbable for there is no Probability in Objects every thing being what it is in its self independent of my Probable or Improbable Assertion No man when He see 's the sun so darkly through a Cloud that he cannot say whether it be the sun or no yet thinks it is Call's it a Probable sun the Probability is in his act that makes a judgement of it and not in the object Again if we speak of Gods Revelation that Assures these Material Objects to be as they are spoken That very Revelation because it proceeds from an Infinit intellectual power is properly not only infallible but infinitly more infallible then all the words of men and Angels are put together And here is no place for meer probability only though we think of the greatest Imaginable He therfore that Parifies the moral Certainty one hath of Jamaica with the more then Metaphysical certainty of Gods Revelation Doth not only hideoufly err but wrongs God and his eternal verity 3. If we speak of the internal Assent of Faith which Denominates us true Christian Believers and tend's into Gods infallible Revelation upon the perfection of its infallibility as also into the Material Object infallibly revealed This very Act goes far beyond the strongest probability and is more certain then that judgement is which men have of Iamaica The Reason is That which uphold's this act of Faith to say nothing here of other principles which stedfastly fix it on Truth is an infinite Verity an Infinit Objective Certitude Contrarywise that which upholds an Assent given to the Being of Iamaica is only moral Certitude and may be fals For the Act ultimately resolved comes to no more but this Men say so Those are living that have feen the place letters are conveyed thither c. But all these proofs though most morally certain equalize not the Infallibility of an Assent that relies on an Infinite verity that can neither deceive nor be deceived 9. Perhaps you will say Though this Veracity of God be infinitly infallible in it self yet one may rely on it with an Act only Morally certain and you require no more for Faith I grant the case is possible but withall say such an Act is no Faith as is largely proved Disc 1. c. 5. and 6. because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible veracity as the last Motive to rest on but into some other inferiour Motive extrinsick and Distinct from Gods Revelation Put the case that three or four Learned Heathen Philosophers of good repute Assure one of their sect upon their Credit and humane Authority They cannot but judge all things considered that God hath revealed the Incarnation of the Divine word in Holy Scripture Admit also that the Hearer because he esteems them knowing upright and sincere yeilds his assent to that Revelation meerly for their Authority The Formal Object or Motive of his Assent is not if the supposition stand Divine Revelation for this is only yet the Material Object Believed upon humane Authority consequently it cannot be an Act of Faith For Faith as
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